What do Americans think about the redneck revolt

[Lonestar]

Since all the states are connected, there isn't much that is going to stop heavy weapons from leaking into those. They may be the strongest links in the chain, but they will always be affected by the weakest links, which are just too many at this point.

"Heavy Weapons"? You think people are rolling up with M60s or M2s or something?

You do realize you using terms like this just signals you like to engage in hyperbole and/or don't give a shit about accuracy right?

That's good on MA. I'm more and more growing to like that state...

I'm glad you like seizure of property without due process under threat of felony indictment.

This attitude, by the by, is precisely why gun owners such as myself tend to fight like hell against more gun control laws. We know that the end goal is confiscation so why would we help with incremental changes towards enabling that?

Since the Las Vegas incident I've been growing more and more concerned that bump stocks and other similar ways to emulate automatic weapons fire will become popular.

They did get more popular, because people anticipated that individuals such as yourself would advocate for seizure of private property and the conversion of law abiding citizens into felons.

I'd probably say "maybe the politicians should just grow a spine and finally do what is right regardless of what the voters explicitly tell them", but beyond the inherent conflict between morality and politics, there is also ...

By and large it is right not to disarm the populace. More specifically, it's the right thing to not write laws that are designed to disarm law abiding citizens(who frequently cite "self defense" as the purpose of ownership) quicker than criminals.

Very few gun laws out there have been written to address straw purchasing, or, you know, sending the cops out when known prohibited individuals try to buy firearms. Gun control proposals since the 80s have mostly centered on "how can we fuck those dumb rednecks who like scarrry salt rifes?".

[MKSheppard]

The gist of what I'm saying is: Gun culture has spread massive amounts of weapons in so many directions and it has been rarely checked against in the last two decades. Even the bump stock ban idea that was floated about is going nowhere. There just isn't a political interest in controlling this fallout.

Democratic Party, Gun Salesmen of the Year since 1968.

[MKSheppard]

Very few gun laws out there have been written to address straw purchasing, or, you know, sending the cops out when known prohibited individuals try to buy firearms.

Straw Purchasing/Prohibited Persons laws, etc have all been around for a long, long time. But they're not exactly high priorities. They are also very politically unpopular amongst Attorney Generals, who like to get elected/re-elected.

Can't do that if you're having to defend enforcement actions that place predominantly minorities behind bars and break up predominantly minority families with the children going to foster care every night.

So these laws just get ignored until something bad enough happens to rustle the jimmies of local politicans, who then demand action.

Gun control proposals since the 80s have mostly centered on "how can we fuck those dumb rednecks who like scarrry salt rifes?".

Well, because their attempts to ban handguns failed. The Brady Campaign used to be known as Handgun Control, Inc. So they had to find something new; and ALUMINUM ALLOY RIFLES were unusual in the early 1990s.

[MKSheppard]

The incredibly vast majority of Americans don't give a shit about gun violence, mostly because it doesn't affect them.

This is the dirty truth of gun control. Once you don't count suicides as "gun violence" and control for the occupational specialty of the dead, excluding known criminals being killed; the numbers drop dramatically.

[Dragon Angel]

"Heavy Weapons"? You think people are rolling up with M60s or M2s or something?

You do realize you using terms like this just signals you like to engage in hyperbole and/or don't give a shit about accuracy right?

Y'know, at some point it is possible that you're just being an annoying and pompous pedant.

"Heavy weapons", in the context of current civilian weapons ownership, was intended by me to mean anything owned by civilians that does not have an immediate alternative use from being ruthlessly efficient at killing human beings in a battlefield. Pistols and shotguns you can make an argument has a use for defending your home or other such situations. Hunting rifles and even assault weapons, you can make an argument has a use for gathering food. Something that emulates automatic weapons fire, you cannot make those arguments, because they are incredibly inefficient for those tasks.

Okay, I got a little term I made in the spur of the moment wrong. I didn't realize I was writing a peer-reviewed paper here. Take that as a "concession" if you wish.

I'm glad you like seizure of property without due process under threat of felony indictment.

This attitude, by the by, is precisely why gun owners such as myself tend to fight like hell against more gun control laws. We know that the end goal is confiscation so why would we help with incremental changes towards enabling that?

Pray tell, what use will people have with automatic weapons emulators besides the intent to mow people down in hails of bullets? How is confiscating such emulators going to extend to your precious non-automatic rifles? Who is being hyperbolic now?

Maybe gun owners like yourself should make more of an effort to read people's statements and check if you are anywhere close to reality first.

They did get more popular, because people anticipated that individuals such as yourself would advocate for seizure of private property and the conversion of law abiding citizens into felons.

We already seize weapons such as true automatics and other military-grade hardware, and for good reason, even if they turn out to be "privately owned". Do you disagree with that line?

If you don't, please feel free to step off your soapbox and stop hyperventilating about the stance you're imagining that I have.

By and large it is right not to disarm the populace. More specifically, it's the right thing to not write laws that are designed to disarm law abiding citizens(who frequently cite "self defense" as the purpose of ownership) quicker than criminals.

Very few gun laws out there have been written to address straw purchasing, or, you know, sending the cops out when known prohibited individuals try to buy firearms. Gun control proposals since the 80s have mostly centered on "how can we fuck those dumb rednecks who like scarrry salt rifes?".

By and large "disarming the populace" is a matter I consider entirely academic now. You're attacking a straw position I never took.

Unless you want to advocate the right for civilians to hold military grade hardware or weapons sufficiently close to it, and in that case, thanks for increasing the chances of an even bloodier conflict between the Right and the Left if you succeed at that!

Also if you think "those dumb rednecks" are a targeted group by lawmakers on the level of black people, then I really don't know what to say to you.

[Dragon Angel]

Just would like to add: There are people who try to lecture the Left about how our tactics are "scaring more people toward the Right". Or some such nonsense.

Lonestar's completely hyperbolic blowing of my stance out of proportion is an example of how the Right makes itself completely unsympathetic to the Left. Or more specifically, this "right-leaning" stance of gun rights compared to the "left-leaning" stance of gun control. By taking a statement of "maybe bump stocks should, you know, not be allowed" and extrapolating "ROUND UP ALL THE GUNS!" from it, you honestly weaken your stance and make yourself look ridiculous.

I should like to remind the audience that I started this thread off on the side of gun ownership. Perhaps for a different reason than other guns rights advocates, but nevertheless, it's there.

[Lonestar]

Y'know, at some point it is possible that you're just being an annoying and pompous pedant.

Given that further down in this post you double down on using incorrect language, it could be you're just a dumbass who is wordsmithing for your end goal and are just upset you got caught at it.

Something that emulates automatic weapons fire, you cannot make those arguments, because they are incredibly inefficient for those tasks.

Okay, I got a little term I made in the spur of the moment wrong. I didn't realize I was writing a peer-reviewed paper here. Take that as a "concession" if you wish.

Pray tell, what use will people have with automatic weapons emulators besides the intent to mow people down in hails of bullets? How is confiscating such emulators going to extend to your precious non-automatic rifles? Who is being hyperbolic now?

It's mostly used for range toys. That's it. And that's perfectly fine.

Do you advocate banning sportscars from private ownership as well? How about supercars that could never reach their capabilities legally on public roadways?

Maybe gun owners like yourself should make more of an effort to read people's statements and check if you are anywhere close to reality first.

Your statement boils down to "because I personally don't want them, or think that anyone else should have them, they should have their private property seized without compensation under threat of felony indictment".

We already seize weapons such as true automatics and other military-grade hardware, and for good reason, even if they turn out to be "privately owned". Do you disagree with that line?

When was the last time we seized a privately, previously legal to own true automatic? 1934?

Illegally owned firearms are frequently seized when discovered, but more frequently when something is made illegal and it's gun related, it's grandfathered in. Again, you not having any problem with this confiscation in this instance essentially signals that you're arguing in bad faith.

If you don't, please feel free to step off your soapbox and stop hyperventilating about the stance you're imagining that I have.

You're stating approval of threatening confiscation of previously legal property under threat of felony conviction. You've doubled down in this post to support this stance.

Is this incorrect? If it is, why were you pleased that MA sent those letters out?

By and large "disarming the populace" is a matter I consider entirely academic now. You're attacking a straw position I never took.

You started this whole chain off whining about the (imagined) de-regulation of ownership. It's very clear that you don't want scary salt rifles in private hands.

Unless you want to advocate the right for civilians to hold military grade hardware or weapons sufficiently close to it, and in that case, thanks for increasing the chances of an even bloodier conflict between the Right and the Left if you succeed at that!

And you decided to repeat hyperbolic statements. My Bolt-action Mosin 91/30 is a actual rifle used in a war, my Mauser was issued(but, so far as I know, never used in combat). A Mossberg pump-action shotgun was issued to me in the navy.

Somehow, I doubt that this are "military grade hardware" you are referring to when you shake in your boots about this. But hey, they great thing about talking about "military grade hardware" is that it's so expansive you can keep moving that goalpost down and down until all guns are removed from private ownership due to their "military" nature.

Hell, Israel uses .22lr plinking rifles in the IDF, we can even remove those from civilian ownership! Military Grade and all that.

Also if you think "those dumb rednecks" are a targeted group by lawmakers on the level of black people, then I really don't know what to say to you.

Interestingly, I said gun control since the 1980s(the same era you complained about of de-regulating ownership) has been to "target dumb rednecks with scary salt rifles". I referenced decades and decades long laws that are already used to attack minorities. The one I specifically referenced, the Sullivan Act of 1911, is over a century old.

Lonestar's completely hyperbolic blowing of my stance out of proportion is an example of how the Right makes itself completely unsympathetic to the Left.

Hey, don't want to be thought of someone who is a-ok with confiscating firearms and doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, maybe don't state that you're pleased with confiscation and talk about "heavy weapons" and "military grade hardware".

You used hyperbolic language first, not me. You gave flat out false statements first("de-regulating gun ownership"), not me. You expressed approval of confiscation of previously legal private property without compensation under threat of felony indictment.

And the kicker is?

You still have no problem with all that. You're the victim here, right? Mean ole Lonestar is the bad guy for pointing all of the above out.

BTW, this guy who is lecturing "the left" is a card carrying member of the LGC and frequents Pink Pistol shoots. He's active in his local Democrats precinct.

How about you?

[MKSheppard]

BTW, this guy who is lecturing "the left" is a card carrying member of the LGC and frequents Pink Pistol shoots. He's active in his local Democrats precinct.

Are you a member of VCDL? You may want to become one, after their recent slaughter of the latest round of gun bills in the VA Militia, Police and Public Safety committee.

[MKSheppard]

"Heavy weapons", in the context of current civilian weapons ownership, was intended by me to mean anything owned by civilians that does not have an immediate alternative use from being ruthlessly efficient at killing human beings in a battlefield.

Supreme Court ruled in 1934 that only arms which have an immediate use of being ruthlessly efficient at killing human beings in a battlefield were protected.

Naturally, they never really thought out fully their logic.

[Dragon Angel]

Given that further down in this post you double down on using incorrect language, it could be you're just a dumbass who is wordsmithing for your end goal and are just upset you got caught at it.

Ah, making up a motivation and pinning it to me to win your argument. An ad hominem if I've ever seen one.

Let me know when you're done shadowboxing a hallucination, I'll just be sitting here waiting.

It's mostly used for range toys. That's it. And that's perfectly fine.

Do you advocate banning sportscars from private ownership as well? How about supercars that could never reach their capabilities legally on public roadways?

Wow, you so epically missed the point it'd be the stuff of legends.

Sports/supercars are not meant to kill people. They're status symbols for those who are truly interested in having them or have some other specialist desire, but nevertheless, their primary use is the same as any other car.

Guns were made to severely injure or kill things. Automatic guns were made to be exceedingly efficient at severely injuring and killing multitudes of things.

The world of difference should be so obvious here but of course you're the type of person who would bring a tired false comparison that I obviously haven't seen one million times by your fellow gun nuts.

As far as gun range toys go, I have potential ideas for a compromise in that respect, but I honestly have no desire at the moment to expound on them.

Your statement boils down to "because I personally don't want them, or think that anyone else should have them, they should have their private property seized without compensation under threat of felony indictment".

Actually, not. There's that hallucination of me you're fighting again.

When was the last time we seized a privately, previously legal to own true automatic? 1934?

Illegally owned firearms are frequently seized when discovered, but more frequently when something is made illegal and it's gun related, it's grandfathered in. Again, you not having any problem with this confiscation in this instance essentially signals that you're arguing in bad faith.

You're stating approval of threatening confiscation of previously legal property under threat of felony conviction. You've doubled down in this post to support this stance.

Is this incorrect? If it is, why were you pleased that MA sent those letters out?

See, we could have a decent discussion about this. If MA's execution of this is gravely flawed, I could have learned something and modified my stance. There are implications that I was not aware of and didn't think of until now.

Instead we decided to have a shouting match. Good job, I guess.

And you decided to repeat hyperbolic statements. My Bolt-action Mosin 91/30 is a actual rifle used in a war, my Mauser was issued(but, so far as I know, never used in combat). A Mossberg pump-action shotgun was issued to me in the navy.

Somehow, I doubt that this are "military grade hardware" you are referring to when you shake in your boots about this. But hey, they great thing about talking about "military grade hardware" is that it's so expansive you can keep moving that goalpost down and down until all guns are removed from private ownership due to their "military" nature.

Hell, Israel uses .22lr plinking rifles in the IDF, we can even remove those from civilian ownership! Military Grade and all that.

I use military grade hardware as a shorthand since I have the audacity to not be a gun nerd, so if you'd like to continue picking that apart and sliding on your slippery slope I guess you can feel free to, wherever that will take you.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Interestingly, I said gun control since the 1980s(the same era you complained about of de-regulating ownership) has been to "target dumb rednecks with scary salt rifles". I referenced decades and decades long laws that are already used to attack minorities. The one I specifically referenced, the Sullivan Act of 1911, is over a century old.

If you don't want me confusing your statements then you should actually pay attention to how your statements will come across. I also already acknowledged the fallacy of these laws with regard to the marginalized. Why are you continuing to charge this discussion?

If you have a desire to ascribe positions to me that I've either never made or have since modified my beliefs and acknowledged, then let me know because I have better things to do than continue a pointless shouting match.

You started this whole chain off whining about the (imagined) de-regulation of ownership. It's very clear that you don't want scary salt rifles in private hands.

Hey, don't want to be thought of someone who is a-ok with confiscating firearms and doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, maybe don't state that you're pleased with confiscation and talk about "heavy weapons" and "military grade hardware".

You used hyperbolic language first, not me. You gave flat out false statements first("de-regulating gun ownership"), not me. You expressed approval of confiscation of previously legal private property without compensation under threat of felony indictment.

And the kicker is?

You still have no problem with all that. You're the victim here, right? Mean ole Lonestar is the bad guy for pointing all of the above out.

Which I already admitted I'd failed to properly word my ideas about. Sorry for not being a complete gun nerd, it's not exactly my speciality. I get my information from friends who are gun nerds and this is a subject that does not regularly come up between us. If you're trying to say I can't articulate the specific details about guns in a way gun nerds would be satisfied with, well, guilty as charged?

As someone who is specialized in IT and programming, there is terminology that computer illiterates regularly abuse that either amuses or annoys me, but I have the decency to act like a normal, socially healthy person and either ignore the infraction, or gently educate the person about how they're wrong and how to avoid the mistake. I'm more or less sure this is how it's done in the real world too, unless you want to rack up scores of people who will just consider you utterly insufferable.

If someone says something stupid about a hot button tech issue with wide-reaching effects like net neutrality, I have the sense too to realize that they may not know all the implications of them and fully grasp them. With a proper discussion, misunderstandings can be solved and people swayed. Who knew shouting matches were not an effective tactic?

(Incidentally, there are legions of computer nerds out there who do act in the way I despise, and they, too, are equally as insufferable. So, I'm not giving my field a pass here.)

Lastly, the pronoun's she, not he.

BTW, this guy who is lecturing "the left" is a card carrying member of the LGC and frequents Pink Pistol shoots. He's active in his local Democrats precinct.

How about you?

Mostly left, either Socialist or Social Democrat depending on who you ask. Not involved in any organizations at the moment due to my chronic pain, though hopeful to be more involved when or if I am able to get treatment for it. The DSA was one of my ideas. Many apologies for not being able to match your ego penis at the moment though.

Glad to see you're involved with your local Dems. That does not change the fact that "gun rights" are traditionally in this great land a right-leaning belief. You might say, I have some sort of right-leaning beliefs too because of that. SHOCK!! HORROR!!! POLITICS AND PEOPLE ARE COMPLICATED!

Funny thing too, I started to google Pink Pistols and it turned out that I already had googled it at some point in the past that I forget. The search query followed by the city I'd just recently moved in. So, at some point I was interested (and probably might still be) in joining such a branch. Let me know which branch you're a part of so I can avoid it if you happen to be in the one here. I have a distaste for unrepentant self-righteousness.

[Soontir C'boath]

Ok, enough of this tangent. At the end of the day, Republicans are more likely to own guns than Democrats for the pure simple reason that Democratic population centers like NYC and Chicago pretty much outright ban them. Done. Finito. End of story.

It's the matter of perhaps expanding groups like the Liberal Gun Club to act as a counter or even regular Republican groups like Redneck Revolt against the neonazis and far right wing militias that are across the country and I think that point was made just fine alone.
____________________
Frankly at this point, I rather have a more hands on experience by Democrats so they can at the very least not be lost in the hyperbole of the next worst thing to come out of the gun industry and maybe the reforms we all want can actually be passed.

[Raw Shark]

It has been suggested to me, as a resident of very gun-toting state, that I am exactly the candidate that we need on the left. Picture the ad: "Hi, I am Raw Shark (holding rifle), and I am an avid advocate of the Second Amendment. I'd also like to preserve the wetlands so we can all blow the beaks off of ducks, defend our homes, or just target shoot and view natural beauty. I support universal healthcare, gay, immigrants', and womens' rights, and I want the rollback of Citizens' United. My fellow shooters who are liberal, our time has come. I'm Raw Shark, and I support this message." I'd (figuratively) kill that shit.

[The Romulan Republic]

It has been suggested to me, as a resident of very gun-toting state, that I am exactly the candidate that we need on the left. Picture the ad: "Hi, I am Raw Shark (holding rifle), and I am an avid advocate of the Second Amendment. I'd also like to preserve the wetlands so we can all blow the beaks off of ducks, defend our homes, or just target shoot and view natural beauty. I support universal healthcare, gay, immigrants', and womens' rights, and I want the rollback of Citizens' United. My fellow shooters who are liberal, our time has come. I'm Raw Shark, and I support this message." I'd (figuratively) kill that shit.

Two years ago, I'd have said that some of things you posted here would make you unelectable if leaked, but we found out last year that that shit doesn't really matter any more if you have a persona that appeals to enough voters, and you'd sure as hell be better than the current pack of Quislings holding the reins. Why not go for it?

[Raw Shark]

I identify pretty closely with Sanders. He didn't make a huge point of it, but the Green Mountain Boys loves us up some firearms despite being very leftist otherwise. Vermont may have fought on the side of the thirteen original colonies against the redcoats, but they were not the fourteenth until about a decade of well-tooled independence.

[The Romulan Republic]

Vermont sounds like a cool state-I'm not much of a gun guy myself, obviously (I don't think I've ever even held an actual firearm), but I won't hold that against them. Its on my list of places I'd like to visit.

[Raw Shark]

Vermont is a beautiful and left-leaning state. I'm just a natural shot as far as I'm concerned. We've got the tools, we've got the talent, in the words of Mr. Winston Smith. There were some lean years when I was a kid that it was my job to put meat on the table, and by the sacred Invisible Pink Unicorn I did. I'd come home after school as a latchkey kid, go sit out on the back porch, and bag anything that tried to devour our crops, and then Mom would get home and improvise some shit. You can make a decent enough stew out of squirrel. Joke's on them. You can fry 'em, too. LT has a decent recipe.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I've lived in relatively low-crime suburbs my entire life (excluding three years at university in Toronto, I guess), so I've never had much cause to learn firearms skills.

Though I admit that, were I living in the US now (especially in a swing or red state), I'd probably be seriously considering picking those skills up. Just in case.

[Raw Shark]

Vermont sounds like a cool state-I'm not much of a gun guy myself, obviously (I don't think I've ever even held an actual firearm), but I won't hold that against them. Its on my list of places I'd like to visit.

Okay, if you ever want to start, learn how to keep it clean in proper working order. Actually just learn to keep the safety on until the point and never muzzle-sweep a human who doesn't need it first, but speaking regular stuff. It's not a toy, but you can go down to the range and have fun with it if you're careful. And practice, in case the worst happens. That said, it's fucking awesome. I love shooting stuff that won't feel pain. Totally fun, and good practice. So very cathartic. It makes you feel like a maybe bad person at first, but then you just start thinking about protecting those who can't and it gets natural and better. Picture a 12-year-old girl. Would you ventilate some dick to protect her from a rapist? Or to defend your own girlfriend? Yes, you would.

[MKSheppard]

It has been suggested to me, as a resident of very gun-toting state, that I am exactly the candidate that we need on the left. Picture the ad: "Hi, I am Raw Shark (holding rifle), and I am an avid advocate of the Second Amendment. I'd also like to preserve the wetlands so we can all blow the beaks off of ducks, defend our homes, or just target shoot and view natural beauty. I support universal healthcare, gay, immigrants', and womens' rights, and I want the rollback of Citizens' United. My fellow shooters who are liberal, our time has come. I'm Raw Shark, and I support this message." I'd (figuratively) kill that shit.

Not really.

To be effective in a very gun toting state, you'd have to do more than tote a Model 700 and prance around in blaze orange; that's so 35 years ago; and effectively what Democrats already do when they need to claim they are for the Second Amendment in a close election or whatever, pull out the "hunting" card. We're kind of wise to that now.

You need to go FURTHER. May I suggest Class III

[Zaune]

I say split the difference and go with a Mini-14. It fires the same rounds as a civilian AR-15 but it has fewer unfortunate associations. And yes, I know it makes sod-all sense but that's human psychology for you.

[Highlord Laan]

Something that emulates automatic weapons fire, you cannot make those arguments, because they are incredibly inefficient for those tasks.

Better make it illegal to own both an AR-15 and pants with belt loops and/or hip pockets, then. Because that's all one needs to "emulate automatic weapons fire" with said rifle, and quite a few others.

Feel like continuing up this hill?

[Zaune]

Bump-stocks don't really need any extra laws against them anyway. Converting a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic is already covered by US federal law; you can do it even as a private citizen if you pass the appropriate background checks.

[Dragon Angel]

Bump-stocks don't really need any extra laws against them anyway. Converting a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic is already covered by US federal law; you can do it even as a private citizen if you pass the appropriate background checks.

That's the thing; under law, a bump stock would get around that it would seem. You would still be in the clear legally while owning something that is sufficiently close to being an automatic (but AFAIK less efficient), without itself being technically classified as an automatic. So, no, current laws would not cover this case.

And then there are possible unintended consequences? Like:

Better make it illegal to own both an AR-15 and pants with belt loops and/or hip pockets, then. Because that's all one needs to "emulate automatic weapons fire" with said rifle, and quite a few others.

Feel like continuing up this hill?

Maybe? Having little idea of how that would work I'd like it if you could explain them then and what consequences there would be in them being excessively caught in such a ban. Without such knowledge, this might as well be technobabble to me.

[Zaune]

That's the thing; under law, a bump stock would get around that it would seem. You would still be in the clear legally while owning something that is sufficiently close to being an automatic (but AFAIK less efficient), without itself being technically classified as an automatic. So, no, current laws would not cover this case.

Has that been tested in court yet? Because I'm pretty sure you'd struggle to sell most judges on the idea that something that offers almost exactly the same functionality as adding a full-auto sear by a different mechanism is anything but a modification to convert a gun to full-auto.

[Highlord Laan]

Better make it illegal to own both an AR-15 and pants with belt loops and/or hip pockets, then. Because that's all one needs to "emulate automatic weapons fire" with said rifle, and quite a few others.

Feel like continuing up this hill?

Maybe? Having little idea of how that would work I'd like it if you could explain them then and what consequences there would be in them being excessively caught in such a ban. Without such knowledge, this might as well be technobabble to me.

Seriously? You're going to pretend to not know what a fucking belt loop is? Or a pocket? Get the fuck out.

I'll walk you through it. Pockets are those little pouches you can put things in. Most pants have one on each side at hip level. Now, you do know what pants are, right?

Belt loops are, as the name implies, little loops on your pants (you've figured out pants, right? They're those garments you put on over your legs) also at waist level that you, surprise surprise, put a belt through. You know what a belt is, right? They're useful for cinching up a too-large waistline, hanging things on, or simply rounding out a look. Since I've had to explain all this to you, I assume you now want to ban belts because most holsters attach to them, and people shouldn't be allowed military-style evil black assault ghost belts that obviously only exist to make killing other people easier.

Now, if one is so vile and evil as to own a military-style evil black 600 bullet a second murder machine forged in the blood of children and infused with demonic voices to make the wielder hunger for death and carnage you can hold the murder implement in such an evil manner as to hook your thumb (you do know what a thumb is, right? It's the bigger digit on the inside of your hands. Though now I'm assuming you know what hands are) though the belt loop at the side of your pants (uh-oh. That makes them assault pants!) keep your other hand on the evil black murder machine, slightly pull forward until the trigger of the sixty-thousand round a minute evil ghost gun catches and fires the murder machine. Keeping up that pressure with the forward hand (again, I'm still assuming you know what hands are) on the forward grip and the thumb of the hand holding the trigger hooked in the loop of the assault pants, the evil murdershooter can then "emulate automatic weapons fire" until the magazine is empty.

You won't hit a dammed thing you're aiming at, but it's an amusing way to occasionally blow trough a magazine.

Also, just to make it even more clear, yes, I am talking down to you.