Should these guns be severely restricted?

[Thain]

No, but perhaps boldfaced enlarged fonts, or posts written entirely in CAPSLOCK should be...

 

[nplant]

I think it is a trick question - no trolling in RMc's history. BUT, questions and posts regarding BIG buck shot IS in RMc's history.

So, I have to ask, RMc, what cool toys are you working with?

 

[Pigspitter]

You know, that has always been a question of mine. I've always wondered if it's just too much to add the 49th extra barrel to my Glock. But I guess I might as well before it gets banned.

 

[sacp81170a]

Knowing that only 10 pellets of 0000 buck will fit in a 12 ga. 3 1/2 inch shell, how many can you fire before your shoulder falls off? I think the problem would be self limiting in terms of expense and the "if it hurts worse on that end it hurts worse on this end" principle. Ouch. Let's not be giving the anti's any ideas, shall we?

 

[berettashotgun]

So..............
It doesn't really matter ---if----the weapon fires 51 or MORE projectiles per 3 seconds?
I say restrict the slow guns,those are worthless; I need some speed.
As far as the buckshot size a fellow member posted, about 6-8 years ago when Hevi shot was still under $7.00 lb, I made a sorting screen for the stuff.
I understood the shapes and pellets were NOT uniform when I bought, but dang, getting single pellets that weighed 70gr.!!!
I really gained respect for the guys at the marsh/swamp/waterhole shooting those .32 bullets at me from less than 200 yards. Duck/geese hunting has never been done since without safety glasses.
BTW, my H.D. shotgun load IS #4 hevishot turkey loads...followed by a few slugs.

 

[brighamr]

No, but perhaps boldfaced enlarged fonts, or posts written entirely in CAPSLOCK should be...

exactly

 

[cortez kid]

Why, there's no need for that kind of projectile dispensing unit for any usage by the peaceful populace. Is the TROLL gone yet? Hey just bought a "HEX" MN91/30. I do the happy dance now. Wait... I thought I heard the TROLL again
kid
PS The thread starter said UP to 50rnds in three secs.. What does that mean down to?. I can fire 15 rnds of 9 out of my Glock in under whatever some would seem reasonable. Not including a fast reload of another 15. Any restriction of any firearm is a restriction of my right under the Constitution. Nothing less

 

[Gunsby_Blazen]

I still think the only one capable of doing so is the Bionic Man and maybe Frankenstein from Death Race 2000. He had that robot hand that could shift really fast that doubled as a grenade, but thats illegal too just as any machine guns are.

 

[Tribal]

We should re-visit the special "Automatic Assault Transmissions" people have in those special designed cars that are capabile of going faster than the posted speed limit!

Don't tempt them.

That said, I can see where the concern is: in the eternal battle between armor and arms, arms are clearly dominant right now. That's what the school shootings have been: someone using surprise and a tool that allows power projection to wreak havoc. Instead of falling into the trap of seeking better armor (meaning that better arms have to be developed, restarting the cycle), the question is whether we can truly prevent this sort of thing through education and character. I think this latter approach is far more likely to succeed, even as it must be recognized that it's impossible to anticipate everything; boxcutters on airplanes weren't seen as much of a threat.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Unless you are talking about a shotgun, 1000rpm 9mm guns are already severely restricted. Apparently some yahoos in the gov't thought the 2nd amendment had something to do with "sporting" or some such nonsense.

 

[MinnMooney]

Of course not.

I'm sure most of you have seen the fire-power equivilent of a proficient semi-auto shooter or even a few revolver shooters. How about the Benelli guy shooting 9 or 10 of his self-thrown clays and hitting each one separately!! They could do way more harm than most could with a 50 shot/3 sec. 9mm rifle. When are people going to understand, it's the person behind the gun, car, knife, plane, bulldozer, baseball bat or tire iron that is going to do the damage. The item(s) mentioned above are only dumb tools.

 

[jackmead]

No, a gun like that would restrict me in about 4 minutes, but I'd still like to try one.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Yup I want one, but I do not think I can afford it.

 

[44AMP]

Simple answer "NO!!!!!"

No gun should be "restricted". Period. We have plenty of laws stateing quite clearly that it wrong and punishable to shoot people for fun or profit. We don't need anything else.

 

[.cheese.]

should it be restricted - how?

by law? No

It would be restricted no matter what by the price of ammunition though. Not much that can be done about that.

 

[Karl Hungus]

IMO I should be able to go down to the local gun shop and walk out with an RPG.

 

[Dksimon]

no, it shouldnt be restricted.

Maybe a little bit more information in the question next time so you dont sound so trollish

 

[MartinBrody]

Yes, but only if it has a barrel shroud, you know "the shoulder thing that goes up", only cops should have them.

 

[shc1]

How about banning “cough” severely restricting vehicles that go over the speed limit, no matter what it is… yuk yuk yuk

 

[mike6161]

don't feed the troll

 

[Hammer-52]

No to Restrictions

I don't think we should restrict, severely or otherwise, any firearms. We already have over 20,000 laws on the books related to firearms so why add any more?? Restricting people who are psychotic from owning firearms is another issue. Our founding fathers were concerned with ensuring the citizenry had access to adequate firepower to keep the "king" from taking away our liberties. Why should it matter 5 9mm in 3 seconds or 50?

 

[Huddog]

Absolutely not, since the 2nd means what it says.

 

[AZ_Rebel]

No... why would you even ask?

 

[BammaYankee]

Judging from all of RMc's previous posts I assume this one was in reference to shotguns.

 

[Gator]

This thread is still open?