http://www.guns.com/2013/03/28/a-co...-designing-a-pro-2nd-amendment-birthday-cake/ Maybe the Mais's should sue those other bakers for refusing to bake that cake, hmm?
Unless there is a law in CT classifying gun enthusiasts as a protected minority, the Mais wouldn't have a case. I do hope the baker doesn't lose any business over this, I would still patronize her shop if I had before.
Some things shouldn't be politicized, cake among them. Aren't they supposed to be a silly thing, for cheer and reverie? Ya might as well take the fun out of everything if you're going after cakes.
^ True. I guess I just don't see the point in making your battlefield a cake. Cake should be exempt from politics. Also, pie.
Nice looking cake if you ask me. Pretty sad and yet hilarious to see butthurt as a result of it, from the usual crowd that's afraid of even someone imitating a gun with their hand.
Did that sound smart in your brain? Well, knowing you, it probably did. The cake thing is a non-starter, as has already been addressed. That stock they've got which allows nearly full automatic fire is going to be used in a massacre someday unless its banned. It's inevitable - but then, the 1st AWB was predicated by the Hellfire trigger on the two Tek-9s that a guy used in a mass shooting in an office building. Answering 'why do the democratic legislators go after these weapons' which was asked and answered.
Look at all those scary-looking attachments that come with this instrument of [-]destruction[/-] decoration.
What. What, exactly, is a "Hellfire trigger"? I'm not a proper member of "Gunforge", but I'd wager I know a little more about them than you do -- in fact, I can guarantee that I do, based on your idea that there's such a thing as "nearly full automatic" fire, or that the stock is what makes it possible -- and I've never heard of a "Hellfire trigger". So let's see some EDIT: Never mind, found my own. And you're worried this is going to be fitted to a cake?
Wow, once again I don't see this at all like you do - so we have an actual sanction against a kid for a totally inoccuous concept. I certainly opposed that - no way should that kid have had any official action taken against him, at worst a mild talking to, and even that seems to be a stretch. In this case the guy had to make a couple of phone calls more than he expected to. There's no sanction here except social. Or is that the part that you find concerning? Yeah, lots of people find the NRA to be trading on patriotism for blood money, and aren't going to support an assault weapon in every cupboard. There's a HUGE disconnect in how people in densely populated areas feel about guns. This is a generality, granted, but I can see why someone would feel reassured by gun ownership in a low population area - that's why its so much part of the culture there. Hell, odds are if someone is going to be a problem for you, you'll have warning long before you have any reason to be in direct danger. In a street with a thousand people on it, everyone understands that if one of them is armed and goes on a rampage, lots of people are going to die before anything can happen over it. The situation is completely different, and while the chance of any one individual being nuts is low, in huge population density areas that climbs just due to numbers.
LOL. No. I'm not the one who brought up bump fire. This is based on a long conversation I had with Shoes (IIRC) about why the AWB went after the features that it did. The powers that be never enumerated that, bad PR on their side, so I had to go on what I could ferret out from the list. I agreed a few were ridiculous, but the cruxt of the argument was modifications to weapons. The current slide stock allowing rapid fire approaching full auto capability stood out. Gunforge was dismissive of the concept of bump fire in general, but I think it's hard to ignore the possiblity of the slide stock attachment being used in a rampage some day.
Flow, you come from the 'the government is going to send its death squads against us if we give up our guns' faction. The rest of us just take for granted the shit you say isn't going to make sense and slowly pat you on the head while giving you a cookie.
The Bump Fire nonsense you keep pushing is such a lame argument...... Bad guys don't need silly tools to have a high body count. They just need unarmed targets courtesy of people like you.......
Right - because my position has been 'disarm everyone'. The only way you guys can 'win' an argument over shit like this is to lie. So you are lying. Same as it ever was.
And they still don't need it. You don't need such a tool to generate a high body count. See Orlando Night Club shooting for an example of a gun not having a bump fire tool on it. But one guy allegedly used it. Though it hasn't been confirmed yet. And the one picture shown of a gun in his hotel room didn't have it. So if this guy did use it he would be the first one out of hundreds of thousands of owners of the stupid thing to actually use it. And why hide behind a fake account?
That is a dumb argument. If our point is to say that guns with a high rate of fire like automatics should be outlawed because they provide destructive abilities that are too much for public safety then that means all items and methods that provide for that rate of fire. For instance paintball banned full auto markers because of health issues from being hit so many times in one ace that occurred more often from guns capable of firing over twelve lbs per.second. That included triggers that remained semi auto but had things like bounce where it allowed the trigger to vibrate and shoot at those rates. Electronic markers were limited by insurance regulations to these lower rates of fire to reduce injuries. One of the problems with renegade play is an increase in injuries because there are less regulations and enforcement. When we allow a device or trigger modification on real guns that allows for fast long-distance bursts of fire we are not enforcing the spirit of the law which is to lower the ability to fire so many rounds by the shooter. Your argument that we should allow something that overcomes the spirit of the as simply because the law does not specifically mention that device is stupid. It is immature and childish, and an attempt to get around a rule you simply do not like. Stop being a baby.n if you want to argue limiting rate of fire is something we should not do because we should accept the risks and dangers of high rate of fire weapons then argue that. It is at least an honest argument even if we might find it does not stand up.
"If our point is to say that guns with a high rate of fire like automatics should be outlawed because they provide destructive abilities that are too much for public safety then that means all items and methods that provide for that rate of fire." Well blame the ATF. They approved the Bump-Fire system. Not me.
