salto;1859108 wrote:Any idea if they import as many AK's into America, as AR's are produced here? Many different Eastern bloc manufactures of the AK and it's been made forever.

Is it easier to get an AR or AK, or are they the same?

Both are readily available. In addition to former Commie-land counties, they are made in Israel and there are U.S. made AKs.

queencitybuckeye;1859109 wrote:Both are readily available. In addition to former Commie-land counties, they are made in Israel and there are U.S. made AKs.

Wow, didn't know that.

The shooter used an SKS and a 9mm handgun.

Devils Advocate;1859098 wrote:This is just another instance that proves the need for proper training to own a weapon like the ones used in this attack.
With proper training, the only possible out comes would be that it never would have happened in the first place or......






There would be at least a dozen dead republikans.

agreed ....

salto;1859103 wrote:It's designed to be fun to shoot. It's fun playing G.I Joe.

Challenge target shooting looks like a fun competition. Big market out there for these rifles, lots of custom parts available (see video below) Unfortunately many mentally disturbed fanatics also think they are fun to shoot, regardless of their looks.


If a civilian installs a bump stock, so they can now mimic fully automatic, does it become an assault rifle? Not saying that's what the shooter did, just wondering your opinion.


This weapon is not considered an assault rifle (to some) because it's not a fully automatic weapon.

[video=youtube;0B7tzaYgp5g][/video]

I've never experienced Bump Stock but from what I see is ... This does increase the ability to create fire power like a full auto. However a assault rifle is identified with full auto only but it also has the ability of single and burst selection. I don't know if the Bump stock can still keep the semi auto function. The true assault rifle has three selection fire range.

salto;1859108 wrote:Any idea if they import as many AK's into America, as AR's are produced here? Many different Eastern bloc manufactures of the AK and it's been made forever.

Is it easier to get an AR or AK, or are they the same?

same same

justincredible;1859130 wrote:The shooter used an SKS and a 9mm handgun.

Great blame the Russians....

salto;1858985 wrote:Yes. Although, I thought the M4 did not have full auto. It has semi and 3 round burst.

That said, even if a civilian version with only semi - is it still an assault weapon?

The m4s have been semi recently refit from 3 round burst to full auto. We will mess around with full auto st the range at times and it's fun but not real practical.

Belly35;1859087 wrote:assault rifle has the ability to be fully automatic (automatic weapon). Semi auto is the proper term one trigger pull one round fired.. Will the media ever get this correct...

salto;1859103 wrote: If a civilian installs a bump stock, so they can now mimic fully automatic, does it become an assault rifle?
This weapon is not considered an assault rifle (to some) because it's not a fully automatic weapon.

[video=youtube;0B7tzaYgp5g][/video]

Belly, your thoughts? Does the bump stock make it an assault weapon?

salto;1859147 wrote:Belly, your thoughts? Does the bump stock make it an assault weapon?

I've never experienced Bump Stock but from what I see is ... This does increase the ability to create fire power like a full auto. However a assault rifle is identified with full auto only but it also has the ability of single and burst selection. I don't know if the Bump stock can still keep the semi auto function. The true assault rifle has three selection fire range.
If the classification of assault rifle is based only on rapped fire of 60 plus rounds a minute them the Bump stock would make a standard citizen issued sem auto "Carry Weapon" a Assault Combat weapon.
My personal opinion is items like the Bump Stock should be taken off the market for standard civilian useage ...... Sem auto Carry Weapon . Those individual with level III issued licenses, items like bump stock can be purchased.

Truly Horrible. Crazy that the Assistant Majority Whip is still in critical. Thank God his police staff was there otherwise how many members of Congress die?? Seriously would have been a historically infamous massacre. If I were a member of Congress in this environment I would have a gun on me at all times.

I don't mean this to be a political statement but I find it utterly baffling that a loon living out of his car can buy a firearm.

Every state in the nation would not let this companies sell this loon certain investment securities - a constraint on his fundamental right of free expression - and such securities laws have done a pretty good job of ensuring incompetent people don't get defrauded (of course noteven close to perfect). This is not considered an unjust violation of the first amendment.

In the same way, can't we say we preserve the 2nd Amendment even if we find a way to do more to prevent gun sales to loons?

Maybe a self-regulatory, private, non-government body like FINRA among the gun dealers, distributors, owners, manufacturers etc.

I dunno. Just sucks. Crazy that you can't play a game of baseball in this country without the realistic prospect of getting shot.

And wholesale, the Democrats must tone down their rhetoric - period. They blamed Palin for Gabby Giffords getting shot (wrongly). As such they should demand a higher tandard from their own rhetoric.

Again, don't mean to make this political but sort of a topic with inherently political undercurrents.

Has it been determined the gun was purchased in Virginia, or did he bring it with him?

BoatShoes;1859170 wrote:And wholesale, the Democrats must tone down their rhetoric - period. They blamed Palin for Gabby Giffords getting shot (wrongly). As such they should demand a higher tandard from their own rhetoric.

Again, don't mean to make this political but sort of a topic with inherently political undercurrents.

Ironic you mention that ............. The New York Times trotted out that horseshit again ....

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/14/nyt-uses-gop-shooting-to-falsely-attack-sarah-palin-with-debunked-conspiracy-theory/

queencitybuckeye;1859172 wrote:Has it been determined the gun was purchased in Virginia, or did he bring it with him?

Don't have a link handy, but pretty sure I read yesterday that he purchased the rifle legally in Illinois, and had a permit for it.

fish82;1859176 wrote:Don't have a link handy, but pretty sure I read yesterday that he purchased the rifle legally in Illinois, and had a permit for it.

The other interesting thing is he had a series of arrests and other run-ins with the police...at what point does something like that lead to confiscation of any and all firearms? I know felons are not allowed to own a gun....but if you've have multiple petty/misdemeanor arrest you should probably have to surrender all firearms.

BoatShoes;1859170 wrote: In the same way, can't we say we preserve the 2nd Amendment even if we find a way to do more to prevent gun sales to loons?

Maybe a self-regulatory, private, non-government body like FINRA among the gun dealers, distributors, owners, manufacturers etc.

I'm pro-gun/pro-concealed carry, etc and even I think there's got to be some kind of compromise/middle ground for these organizations.

When I was a kid, I was an avid hunter/trapper and I was a member of the NTA (National Trappers Association). There would be bills that came up in states to ban foothold traps that had teeth and there would be outrage among the organization to stop these bills from passing. The mindset of many of these organizations is "we can't let them get their foot in the door....once we give them an inch, they'll take a mile" which is kind of bullshit, to me. There was no real need for traps with teeth.

I feel the NRA has the same mindset in a lot of ways. There has to be some kind of compromise.

BR1986FB;1859184 wrote: I feel the NRA has the same mindset in a lot of ways. There has to be some kind of compromise.

I think it's true, actually. Zero doubt in my mind the overarching goal is making guns illegal....but I don't necessarily buy slippery slope arguments in these cases.

BR1986FB;1859184 wrote:I'm pro-gun/pro-concealed carry, etc and even I think there's got to be some kind of compromise/middle ground for these organizations.

When I was a kid, I was an avid hunter/trapper and I was a member of the NTA (National Trappers Association). There would be bills that came up in states to ban foothold traps that had teeth and there would be outrage among the organization to stop these bills from passing. The mindset of many of these organizations is "we can't let them get their foot in the door....once we give them an inch, they'll take a mile" which is kind of bullshit, to me. There was no real need for traps with teeth.

I feel the NRA has the same mindset in a lot of ways. There has to be some kind of compromise.

Talk to any soccer mom and they will say why can't we just try x and see if it will work? And then if it doesn't work why can't we try y. They will freely admit that they know x and y probably won't stop gun violence and they want to keep tightening gun control as long as gun violence continues. That is the path to no gun ownership. It's not a slippery slope.

gut;1859185 wrote:I think it's true, actually. Zero doubt in my mind the overarching goal is making guns illegal....but I don't necessarily buy slippery slope arguments in these cases.

Oh, I have no doubt that there are groups out there with the dumbass "guns kill people" mindset that want them banned.

FatHobbit;1859187 wrote:That is the path to no gun ownership. It's not a slippery slope.

While I agree on the "path to no gun ownership", it is already a fairly highly regulated industry. There is certainly room for additional regulation and background/qualification checks without really threatening gun ownership.

Of course, the great comedy of all this is that 95% of these proposals do virtually nothing and impact almost no one despite all the hand waving and crying from both sides.

The problem is, if you took guns and abortions out of politics then these idiots would actually have to talk about policy. That's why it will never happen.

BR1986FB;1859188 wrote:Oh, I have no doubt that there are groups out there with the dumbass "guns kill people" mindset that want them banned.

...criminals and crazy people will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun to kill people and more gov't controls will have zero impact on them, just the law abiding citizens.

gut;1859191 wrote:While I agree on the "path to no gun ownership", it is already a fairly highly regulated industry. There is certainly room for additional regulation and background/qualification checks without really threatening gun ownership.

This was my line of thinking. I wasn't saying take away any type of gun but just try to make it more difficult for some of these whack jobs to get them. I sure. it wouldn't work 100%.

Often lost in the call for more laws when there's an incident is the lack of enforcement of existing laws. It's illegal to attempt to purchase a gun when you're disqualified, some 70-80,000 do so annually, yet the prosecutions for it number in the low hundreds.

gut;1859179 wrote:The other interesting thing is he had a series of arrests and other run-ins with the police...at what point does something like that lead to confiscation of any and all firearms? I know felons are not allowed to own a gun....but if you've have multiple petty/misdemeanor arrest you should probably have to surrender all firearms.

How would you enforce the surrender of all firearms from someone like this?

queencitybuckeye;1859196 wrote:Often lost in the call for more laws when there's an incident is the lack of enforcement of existing laws. It's illegal to attempt to purchase a gun when you're disqualified, some 70-80,000 do so annually, yet the number of prosecutions for it number in the low hundreds.

This would be a big step in the right direction. Lets start by actually enforcing the laws that are already on the books before we start creating new laws.