NJ residents have 90 days to turn in bumpstocks.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: AMPTAH


What if the police and soldiers in your country represent the most evil kind of government

You don't need a gun to kill someone. But, the only purpose of the gun is to kill someone.

You can always remove the police and soldiers if they turn out to be evil.

To get rid of the police, you only have to poison the donuts.

"Spock...I've found that evil usually triumphs --- unless good is very, very careful."

quote: Dr. Leonard McCoy - "The Omega Glory" - Original Star Trek TV Series

www.lifequoteslib.com...



quote starts at 7:58

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: MikeA

I must say, that is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard. The job of cops is to enforce laws, not to prevent crime. What that means is they show up AFTER the crime has already happened.

That's not the point.

The "availability" of guns, is the problem, and it is driven by market forces.

If you ban the gun, then the manufacture of these weapons will decline, and it becomes harder for criminals to get guns.

So, when the criminal gets into your home, he's armed with a knife instead, and does less damage. And you always have knives in your home to fight back, so it's an even battle.

LOL, yep, because what keeps me up at night is doing my best to make sure that if some asshole breaks into my home, I can battle him on a level playing field and not have any unfair advantage.

You really didn't think before you typed any of that did you?

a reply to: AMPTAH

Someone breaks into my home with a knife, and I'm supposed to give him a fair chance? Really?

I've been cut by a knife wielded by someone with evil intent...it bloody well hurts, and I'll do my damnedest to never experience that again. I'll give that knife wielding idiot every chance to leave alive while staring down the barrel of my double barreled shotgun. If he doesn't, there won't be a fight. He'll die.

Even battle. Did you even think about that before you typed it? Sorry, no. I'll have a gun at that knife fight. One that is just about the most intimidating one around. ...and on the trigger, me.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: MikeA

I must say, that is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard. The job of cops is to enforce laws, not to prevent crime. What that means is they show up AFTER the crime has already happened.

That's not the point.

The "availability" of guns, is the problem, and it is driven by market forces.

If you ban the gun, then the manufacture of these weapons will decline, and it becomes harder for criminals to get guns.

So, when the criminal gets into your home, he's armed with a knife instead, and does less damage. And you always have knives in your home to fight back, so it's an even battle.

When does banning anything make it less popular?
History actually disagrees with you there. Banning books makes them even more popular and people do anything to get them.
Banning a movie? Nope, makes it more popular an irresistible to see.

Human nature repeatedly demonstrates that making something off-limits or "taboo" makes it even more desirable to have/see/etc..

And I don't know about you, but frankly, if a criminal comes into my home, I sure as hell want to have the best advantage I can get to protect myself and family.

You can go toe-to-toe with a criminal that you "hope" follows the law and isn't armed with a gun. That is a risk assessment you (or your family) will need to live with if you are wrong.

Good luck with that.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AMPTAH

Someone breaks into my home with a knife, and I'm supposed to give him a fair chance? Really?

That's up to you.

Break into my home with a knife, I might choose to pour sulfuric acid over your head.

The point is, you don't need a gun.

And the crook that breaks in, doesn't know what challenge he'll face.

He might come in with a bullet proof vest, dressed like a cop, wearing a fake badge, but if I choose acid defense, all that preparation is useless for him.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

When does banning anything make it less popular?
History actually disagrees with you there.

Atomic bombs are banned, and I don't see many people acquiring them, and keeping them at home.

a reply to: AMPTAH

Yes, it is up to me. So why do you even care, to the point of banning guns?

Sulfuric acid... You're stretching just a tad bit there, I think. But whatever works for you...

Odds on him faking being a cop are slim to none, and you know it. Stretching, again. By himself, he'd have absolutely no reason to be inside my home...which is the only place he'd be where I'd shoot him.

Bullet proof vest? He might, I suppose...as unlikely as that is. That would be a reason to have multiple shots available. If the first shot to the body doesn't get him, the follow up will. Even with that vest, getting hit by a shotgun round is going to hurt him, allowing me more than enough time to follow up.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Krakatoa

When does banning anything make it less popular?
History actually disagrees with you there.

Atomic bombs are banned, and I don't see many people acquiring them, and keeping them at home.

I guess you are an advocate of feeding babies to the poor and starving too? See, I can play that extremist game too.

Can we stick to reality here, please.

SMH

ETA: Oh, and I'm sure child protection services would love to speak to you about keeping vats of sulfuric acid available at hand.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AMPTAH

Yes, it is up to me. So why do you even care, to the point of banning guns?

Because the guns only have one purpose, to kill.

And by banning them it becomes difficult for the criminals to get them.

So, I'm simply ridding my environment of the one killing tool that we don't need.

It's hard for the crook to bring "acid" with him to break in and rob my home, but the "gun" is easy to transport and hide.

On the other hand, it's easy for me to "store acid" at home, where I don't have to transport it about.

So, the defensive weapon is not mobile, and doesn't need to be mobile, like the offensive weapon.

Since I don't plan to go rob anyone, I don't need a mobile weapon that is easy to transport and hide.

I still have lots of weapons to choose from, whose sole purpose and effectiveness is defensive.

a reply to: AMPTAH Ya know, not to be smart or anything. But drug abuse is illegal, and look at a all the junkies running around. While some abuse legal drugs, more abuse the illegal drugs. Banning things would not affect the bad guys as much as it would affect the good guys.

a reply to: AMPTAH

A gun is an inanimate object. It has no purpose. That would be the user. Under certain circumstances, my guns would be used for the purpose of killing. I really, most fervently, hope that circumstance never occurs. Other wise, my guns are used to punch holes in paper, or knock down clay pigeons, and in the proper season, fill my freezer.

Aren't fishing poles used to kill?? Just to be silly.

Christie is no longer governor. a reply to: Hewhowaits

a reply to: soundguy

time.com...

www.msnbc.com...

I found these.
The first to NOT have broken a leg is kinda interesting.

In a fight of life or death, anyone that goes in desiring or expecting a "fair fight" is a fool.

Usually a dead fool.

originally posted by: TheTruthRocks
In a fight of life or death, anyone that goes in desiring or expecting a "fair fight" is a fool.

Usually a dead fool.

True dat.

And, the family is the one that suffers for the rest of their lives. And, may need to defend themselves from a lawsuit brought on by the criminal for assault by the dead home owner.

No thanks.
Not in my home.
I will use any advantage I can get to defeat the criminal, and protect me and my family first.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Krakatoa

When does banning anything make it less popular?
History actually disagrees with you there.

Atomic bombs are banned, and I don't see many people acquiring them, and keeping them at home.

Kim Jong un has one under his bed.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: AMPTAH

Someone breaks into my home with a knife, and I'm supposed to give him a fair chance? Really?

That's up to you.

Break into my home with a knife, I might choose to pour sulfuric acid over your head.

The point is, you don't need a gun.

And the crook that breaks in, doesn't know what challenge he'll face.

He might come in with a bullet proof vest, dressed like a cop, wearing a fake badge, but if I choose acid defense, all that preparation is useless for him.

Sulfuric acid? Really???

"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Erno86
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and a avid gun enthusiast...but I support the ban and sale of bump fire stocks to the public citizenry, because the use of such devices, make it to easy for some neophyte 'spray an pray' shooter to go out an kill people.

I don't own a gun. Never owned a gun. Don't want to own a gun. Don't want to live anywhere that I would feel the need to have to own a gun. The idea that I would be walking about "thinking" about when, if, and how, I would have to use that gun to shoot another human being is abhorrent to me. I don't want to participate in that "thought process" on any regular basis, while living on planet earth. I understand Police and Soldiers have to live with these types of thoughts, and I admire them for suffering under it, but it's not my profession to have to own or handle weapons, and I'd rather be thinking of other things.

So, if I'm going to vote, I'm going to vote for the type of environment where nobody feels the need to have these guns. That's because we all influence each other, and if all my neighbors have guns, that puts pressure on me to also have a gun. Otherwise, I'd be at a tremendous disadvantage, should me and my neighbors ever disagree on some issue, like my dog pooped on their lawn, etc..

The way I see it, the 2nd amendment doesn't give the citizens the right to have guns, it's about the right of the state to establish a militia and bear arms for the states protection. Only those people the state puts into the militia have the right to have these guns, along with the police. Even the police should have their guns removed, they should be walking about with night sticks.

Actually your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect. When they said "militia" they were not talking about an army of citizens. Rather they were talking about a class of citizen. Literally legal adults that were eligible to serve in a army. And that is still the secondary meaning of the word in today's dictionary.

Dictionary Link