LeviF

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.

A suppressor likely would have melted at the rate of fire he was shooting at. What really would have made it more awful would have been something to hide the muzzle flash. But then that's not even the point. You still can't just walk into a gun store and swipe a card and get a suppressor. Easing the restrictions on them wouldn't allow that still. There are several practical reasons to have one. The USSC has said that personal defense is the primary driver behind the 2nd Amendment. The idea that the founders "had no idea how far firearms would come" is a canard and a bad one at that.

Gug this would have been better if it had been less believable for you to hate someone for being nice. Fergy still has you beat on the shitpost threads.

Why can't you have sensible immigration policies and attempt to root out the people who are already here?

It sounds like it in the video I've seen. I'm no expert but my guess is multiple converted rifles. Could be bump stock though. Now that I've thought about it more and watched again, I still think it's multiple guns but with cranks.

You know nothing about use of force. There are very good reasons for a cop to tell a "pinned" suspect that they'll shoot them (choice of words aside). And as always, remember kids: SJWs always lie.

His rambling is something of a fun curiosity in these parts.

Nobody ever accused Jerry Jones of being an all-around swell guy.

Boyst.5