LeviF

Well evidently you don't, why would you expect anyone else to?

Why should we be taxed to death so that the leftist wet dream of a third world utopia can be indulged in?

FTFY. I don't typically wish ill on anyone but Burfict deserves it.

Yinzers are probably some of the most insufferable fans in the NFL, I'd say second only to Pats* fans.

That is...

FTFY Who the !@#$ is "you guys?" I've said it multiple times in this thread. Don't like the 2nd? Change it.

Wouldn't even matter if he did lose his license. He was willing to drive outside the bounds of his restricted license. He'd be willing to drive without one at all.

Fake news! Sad!

Well it certainly doesn't hurt

Eh. It's hard to say without seeing pictures of the crowd from his vantage point. Lots of gunshot wounds can be fatal if you can't effectively stop the bleeding. Like Tom said, definitely doable with a "spray and pray" sort of method. Trying to kill 59 specific people...tough. Trying to kill as many as you can in a mass of thousands and get 59 in nine minutes? Definitely not impossible.

EII is Booster & John Wawrow?

I'm not an expert or anything but I know a bit. For really good knowledge there are some gun forums out there that I'm sure have covered it in depth, now that we're getting some details on his equipment.

Minor quibble - automatic weapons are legal in a sense, on the federal level. They're expensive - almost prohibitively so - and you need a tax stamp that can take 2+ years to get. But private citizens can own them.

Fair enough. But what they did and didn't do is more important than what they may or may not have thought. They were very purposeful in their drafting of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights).

Oh no, you're right on those numbers. Though Tom is also right that effective rate of fire is much different than the rate that they're technically capable of firing. What I take issue with is that the founders had no idea that there would ever be rifles that could fire faster than one could shove powder and a ball down a muzzle. Such rifles already existed. And even if they didn't, I tend to think the founders were less short-sighted than that.

Again, a canard with no grounding in reality.

True enough. But notice that 1. The court has changed, and will change again soon and 2. Scalia did not even try to define "dangerous and unusual" weapons.

Lazy? Do you know how expensive guns and ammo are? That's a lot of work I have to do! Slob? Do you know how well guns work when you don't take meticulous care of them, being sure they're properly cleaned and stored? And hey, only 3,000 plus dead in Islamic extremist terrorist attacks in the US. But the same whiny leftists that want to take away basic rights to own firearms don't want sensible immigration policies. Sucks to suck.

Maybe I'm selfish, but entitled? Definitely. The 2nd Amendment entitles me to own firearms. Don't like it? Go get it changed. And that's fine, and we can debate the merits of legal automatic firearm ownership in the US vs. their actual use in committed crimes if you want. But if you're asking me what are good reasons to own one...well what are good reasons to do anything?

There are several good reasons, one of which is spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Other good reasons include: it's cool, it's fun, because I !@#$ing feel like it, because I have $25k burning a hole in my pocket, because I want to rent them to people at a range I own, etc.

Doesn't take a lot. Some gears, a crank, couple of screws, a few other things. Edited to say that this doesn't actually "convert" the firearm, it's still one pull -> one bullet. But it creates a way for the trigger to be pulled extremely rapidly.

Underrated post

That's exactly what the 2nd amendment protects. Don't like it? Go get it changed.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's abundantly clear that the 2nd amendment wasn't written to authorize a militia to arm its members. There's no reason for that since Congress has all the authority to raise an army and arm it. The Bill of Rights was constructed to spell out the people's rights, not the government's or an army's. https://archive.org/details/debatesandproce00peirgoog Yeah but twits like Schumer and Feinstein have another pile of bodies they can stand on, so they'll use it.

Wew solid timing Tom.