General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGun lovers are just going to have to give up assault rifles.
There is no justifiable reason for them to be on the street and accessible at all. Hobby, fetish and tradition are not worth the risk to our society. M
And don't even start the pedantic definition debate. I don't give a goddamn what you call it. Don't even start, that has precluded reform far too long.
Any weapon capable killing an office party before any can get out, of spraying 100 LGBT folks celebrating pride in a safe place, capable of overpowering a police force and picking off 5 and hitting 11 does not belong in the arms of any citizen. No matter how well adjusted, clean or quiet.
We are a grown up society, a country capable of changing. Change isn't always comfortable. But, just as the people got on board or got left behind thoughout the civil rights movement, women's movement and the marriage equally movement, among so many others, the people are ready. We've had enough.
Gun reform is a civil rights movement. It is a social movement. Those movements always move forward, even with set backs. Get on board.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
doc03
(35,325 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hillary, Dem House and Dem Senate.
calimary
(81,220 posts)You'll get all kinds of excuses and rationales and other crap about why somebody needs and just simply HAS TO have a massacre machine. Their problems just simply MUST become a problem for all the rest of us, I guess. Nobody can tell me there's a reason on earth why, that will ever make any sense to me. And Heaven knows they've certainly tried!
And their whole canard about the so-called "good guy with a gun" - hell, Dallas police were the absolute poster children of that, in the madness that erupted there, and look how nicely that all worked out. I'm fed up being held hostage to the 2nd Amendment. And no one can tell me it simply mustn't ever be touched. Baloney. If they can futz around with the 15th Amendment, there's no reason on earth why the 2nd Amendment must absolutely be immune to a few nips and tucks, and much-needed modernization, too. The 2nd Amendment desperately needs further amending. If we have ANY hope of reducing further carnage, that is.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)with your post.
I don't understand the huge need to own semi automatic weapons. But I call those people ammo-sexuals. I know a few of them, a couple of my in-laws, actually.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Every year or less there is a "repeal/rewrite the 2nd amendment" poll in GD. There has never been a single poll on this topic that is even close...always 4 to 1 against any such action....and that is on DU....society in general is even less likely.
villager
(26,001 posts)Yet it still finally happened.
SpookyDem
(55 posts)
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)SpookyDem
(55 posts)Jerry442
(1,265 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 09:53 PM - Edit history (1)
The StG 44, an early German assault rifle, was adopted by the Wehrmacht in 1944.
-----------------------------------------------
Colt AR15A4
-----------------------------------------------
Yep, those Nazis knew how to build a good huntin' rifle.
(And yes, I know the AR-15 isn't full-auto. This is very significant to somebody.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On edit: a couple of respondents have pointed out that the first image is not in fact an StG 44 but is a replica. Apparently accidentally showing a picture of a replica of the StG 44 which was intentionally constructed to be nearly indistinguishable from the original has destroyed my entire argument. Here is a genuine picture, although for some reason you won't see it until you click on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44#/media/File:MP44_-_Tyskland_-_8x33mm_Kurz_-_Arm%C3%A9museum.jpg
Here is a picture also appropriate to this discussion:
michreject
(4,378 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's a cheap imitation of an StG44 that is actually a .22LR semi-automatic rifle. It is functionally the same as this:
Response to Jerry442 (Reply #6)
Name removed Message auto-removed
3Stones
(85 posts)SpookyDem
(55 posts)
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Even the pro-gun people I know who love them only take them to firing ranges, and that's not a god damned sport. They serve no purpose other than being exceptionally good tools for killing people.
SpookyDem
(55 posts)MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)No, no you don't.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)That's what he Virginia Tech shooter used. Look, I think you have a right to keep and bear arms, but if you can get the political will to pass an "assault weapon" ban then great. But the weapon used in Dallas might not even qualify as an "assault weapon," so instead of using imprecise terms he controllers need to identify what function they want to ban, like high capacity detachable magazines.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Im sorry if that will deprive people of their hobby. If that's the price we have to pay to end this madness, so be it.
I understand my position is extreme, and probably unrealistic. But I'm absolutely DONE enabling violence by attempting to adopt half-measures. Too much blood has been shed. No more.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Even if I disagree with it. Here's my issue with those calling for a ban. First, as you recognize it isn't feasible. Second, it gives groups like the NRA fodder for the argument "they want to take our guns"!!! And the related point is that basically makes any gun control much more difficult.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)And I am certainly arguing from a place of emotion.
But I do want to take the guns. And if enough people start saying it, loudly and without fear of the NRA, we might actually start to break the strangle-hold they have on this country.
Again, thanks for the discussion.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And you may be right. If you TRULY want to stop or lower the rate of mass shootings then a firearm ban is the only way to do so.
Scruffy1
(3,255 posts)The time for half measures has long passed. It's my right not to be shot by crazies with guns. They are always talking about rights.
I can't see where the rights of a gun nut trump the rights of the eight year old girl who was killed by a stray bullet about a mile from my house or the guy who was murdered for his cell phone a block away from here. I think the assault weapons ban is ludicrous and will not accomplish anything. But if enough people start to see the light we could get a change in attitude. The proposed legislation is only a feel good sop.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)I'm breaking in because, with civility and respect, I'm far more interested in reining in the 7,000+ handgun deaths a year before we worry about the 500 or so mass shooting deaths a year - in 2014 rifles of all kinds killed about 250 people while handguns killed about 14 times as many people.
I do understand that mass shootings are far, far more visible and emotionally challenging, but there is, at best, limited political capital for gun control in America - it might be possible to ban the sale of semiauto rifles (I don't think a buyback would be possible), but that would pretty much be the end of gun control for years. The way an AWB addon has poisoned other gun control bills in the last decade should evidence that. I favor a differently targeted, broader package that I also suspect would be much easier to pass with less blowback, and would have ten times the impact on American gun violence as even an immediate, fully effective, confiscatory ban of "assault weapons":
I believe in a nationwide, mandatory ownership license, with safety and responsibility training.
I believe in mandatory dealer transfers, where not only is a background check performed, but a record of the sale is made.
I believe in a "title", much like a car, where the duly legal owner of the firearm is documented, and it must be passed to the next owner, with record of transaction. Possessed by the owner, but severe penalties for not having it.
I believe in severe, mandatory, criminal charges for gun crime, including failure to secure your gun properly.
I believe in handgun registration.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)They are not mutually exclusive.
trueblue2007
(17,210 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)1) Write up an amendment to the constitution. Basically, all it needs to say is this:
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of firearms, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
2) Convince 290 members of the House of Representatives that amendment should be passed.
3) Convince 67 members of the Senate that amendment should be passed.
3.5) Barring being capable of both 2) and 3), convince 34 state legislatures to pass identical legislation calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention for the purposes of considering that amendment, then have 26 voting delegations vote to pass it.
4) Upon completion of 2) & 3) OR 3.5), convince 38 state legislatures to ratify that amendment.
5) Then just get all 50 states to make all firearms illegal.
Best get started right away and good luck!
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)The idea that the people will stand up to a tyrannical national government that possesses the means to extinct cities is laughable. The original intent was to fight a standing army of the National government with flintlock muskets. But hey if you belive your little pop guns can stand up to tactical bombers and nukes, then by all means live in that wolverine fantasy world. It's a stupid amendment written by some very drunk people.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The original intent was to have a militia of individuals ready to defend the nation against enemies. So long as all people had the right to be armed, we would have the means of national defense.
It was NEVER intended to prove the people with the means to overthrow the government that guaranteed such rights. In fact, every attempt to do so has been crushed, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion during the Washington Administration.
Regardless, the only way to ban all guns is to amend the constitution. There is no other way.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)is different than mine, but that is once again the silliness of the this amendment. It is written in a fools language, most likely by drunken founders as they were known to do at the time. And besides when you rewrote my words to fit your narrative, you kind of lost. I said to protect against a tyrannical national threat.
Some people disagree with your opinion
“The Second Amendment was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states,” then-Justice John Paul Stevens correctly noted in his minority opinion.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And could be dangerous. Wild pigs, for example, can be very dangerous if you miss your shot or only wound the pig. Sometimes a rapid follow up shot or three is necessary.
But in any case, you need to be specific. Are semi-autos with a fixed magazine acceptable to you?
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)No more tip-toeing around the issue just to protect an outdated tradition.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Why should we sacrifice our lives rather than they sacrifice their fun? Where are our priorities?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)You'll be sure to realize your goal in no time.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Managing wildlife populations?
Abandoning hunting would be a disaster.
And for many, hunting is not just a hobby, but a major food source.
SheriffBob
(552 posts)Beatles. "Hey Bungalow Bill, who did you kill?"
"It could have been us instead of him"
Oink, Oink.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)jack_krass
(1,009 posts)michreject
(4,378 posts)I use mine for 3 gun competition.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)You don't NEED an an Assault Rifle derived weapon.
SpookyDem
(55 posts)sir pball
(4,741 posts)OK, so it isn't a genuine Remington Defense M24 Sniper Weapons System (available to the public!), it's just identical - a Remington Model 700 in 300 Winchester Magnum with a heavy barrel and adjustable stock, fitted with a bipod and adjustable scope. Well, the scope is better, so I guess it isn't the exact same...but it's still as innocuous a rifle as you could hope for, perfectly legal even in the UK. If this assface in Dallas had it, everybody he shot would be dead, and yet nobody's howling to ban it, yet.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The majority of those who own them.
That's simply your opinion, and an ignorant one at that.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Ignorance is pretending these guns have any place in a civilized society. You are part of the problem.
Why not just admit firing a big gun makes you feel good? That's their only purpose, and it's not a good enough one to justify their existence.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)How many people die each year from Alcohol-related causes?
What exactly is the purpose of alcohol?
Personal pleasure. And most people don't drive drunk, right?
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)Drunk drivers are routinely punished in this country and are not considered remotely socially acceptable. They are vilified, and rightly so.
Gun violence, on the other hand, is "just something we have to live with" and gun-rights activists are seen as legitimate, even though guns are responsible for atrocities beyond imagination.
Apples and oranges.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Drinking is not illegal, and neither is owning a gun. It's the actual crime part that is illegal. But drinking facilitates drunk driving, the same way owning a gun faciliates gun violence.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)vilified - and yes - rightly so.
They are something we have to effectively deal with, not live with.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)almost never hurt other people.
If being drunk made you like someone on PCP, you might have a point.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)And other drunk acitvites almost never hurt anyone? Are you serious?
Bar fights, domestic violence, non-driving accidents while drunk, liver disease, fetal alcohol syndrome, young people killing themselves with alcohol poisoning, getting young people drunk to facilita rape? Those ring a bell at all?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)
beevul
(12,194 posts)No. Ignorance is believing that any majority share your opinion.
Uh...because it doesn't? It doesn't make me feel one way or the other.
Again, this is your opinion.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Even if you do not like it
ileus
(15,396 posts)sir pball
(4,741 posts)Dead serious - it's a pretty popular target rifle in Germany (which oddly enough means the controls on it are looser than a hunting rifle); they adore them so much they manufacture them themselves. I'd love to have one, they're probably as well made as an HK.
http://www.schmeisser-germany.de/
http://www.hera-arms.com/
http://www.oberlandarms.com/produkte-infos-rifles-oa15-de-artkat=11-Selbstladeb%FCchsen+Rifles+OA+15.html
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Shooting people.
Like fish in a bowl.
SheriffBob
(552 posts)It takes no athlete ability to pull a trigger.
melm00se
(4,991 posts)the ISSF recognizes up the 9 shooting disciplines in the summer Olympics and an additional 9 disciplines in the World Championships.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Siding a rock across ice. These organizations made shooting a sport because of lobbying from gun makers and gun enthusiasts.
If shooting was only restrained to these events, it wouldn’t be a problem.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)To hit a small target, that is why it is an Olympic sport.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Don't want to pull a finger muscle.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its a gun, not a guided missile.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Three position, timed at 200, 300, and 500 yards. No glass sights.
I shoot a National match grade M1Garand.308, Wife and kids shoot Military Match AR-15's.
I would challenge you to try it. Then repeat the ignorance you just wrote.
mythology
(9,527 posts)It doesn't require any particular physical strength. Darts and pool aren't sports in my book either.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)It requires physical control, mental alertness, and the ability to recover and repeat within the time limits.
Why don't you try it, before you put it down.
or are you afraid to try, and fail.
sir pball
(4,741 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Ouch! Since when is somebody ignorant for expressing an opinion which you disagree with.
Video games require more skill than shooting a gun.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Unless you are afraid to fail.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Please do carry on, it's quite amusing.
SheriffBob
(552 posts)hallucinating
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)As a nation, we have to turn our backs to them.
calimary
(81,220 posts)
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)
Amishman
(5,556 posts)if the NRA ceased to exist tomorrow, their millions of rabid backers and the gun industry itself would just pick another gun group to rally behind. All you would change is the name on the donation checks.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Although the NRA only has about 5 million members. The anti-gun movement should be able to gather that many supporters you'd think but so far it hasn't happened, at least not in an organized way.
SCantiGOP
(13,869 posts)It has almost unlimited money - they are the marketing and lobbying arm of the US gun and ammo industry, posing as a citizen's advocacy group.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But if the left was serious about gun control - truly serious - they could find the organization and funding. For example, pro-choice groups are very well funded and very organized, and those are largely left-leaning groups.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Michael Bloomberg has tossed millions towards gun control causes and candidates with little to show for it.
Pro-choice and pro-gun organizations are actually very similar. Both groups are being asked to give up rights that they hold dear by people who offer nothing in return. Both see incremental laws as a slippery slope to total bans by an opposition who occasionally makes it clear that a total ban is in fact the end objective.
Finally, people who are against both gun control laws and anti-choice laws tend to make this issue of primary importance to them in the voting booth. For those who support increased gun control or limits on abortion, the issue is often near the bottom of stuff they care about.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Even his billions is not getting actual widespread support.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)The revenue of all US gun makers combined....all...added....together...do not make a single fortune 500 company. The NRA has some 5 million members. The NRA's money is absolutely limited.
Far, far too many claims of the all-powerfulness of the NRA. The only power the NRA really has is, 'we will challenge that proposed law on grounds of constitutionality', and 'the people...voters...will not support that'....that's it...
The issue is that most every proposal for gun control are either asked and answered as being unconstitutional, or are obviously to any objective thinker to be constitutionally impossible...
Constitutional challenges will ensue any legislation with or without the NRA.
Igel
(35,300 posts)On the one hand it's redmeck whites that we point to as prototypical.
But most guns are owned by middle classers.
And an unreasonably large number of deaths are at the hands of African-Americans.
So "gun culture" is the same across those three groups--the privileged and least so, blacks and the most racist?
One culture, or easiest talking point that has problems with close examination?
Scruffy1
(3,255 posts)A lifetime time of screen and television have created the glamour of the gun. The population is so inundated with this bullshit that it has become an act of faith that a guns fix things. From John Wayne, the draft dodger, to Dirty Harry to Rambo and lately Django. I am so glad I came from a military family. My grandfather had three Silver stars and never owned a gun in his life. My father served in two wars and liked to hunt birds. The good news is that the number of the households having guns has declined steadily over the years. The truth is that even for hunting, anything more than a single shot is unnecessary. With a shotgun by the time you get the barrel down and back on lead it's too late and in most deer hunting you really get one shot.. Even in open country, it's rare to get a second shot and if you do it's at a running target, which maybe one in a hundred could hit and they would have hit it the first time. The bolt action repeating rifle was just a hand me down from the military for when you are shooting at stuff that can shoot back. The repeating shotgun was aimed at market hunters not sportsmen. At the best it's just a convenient way to carry ammo. Some trap shooter like auto shotguns because of less recoil, but there are a lot of ways to reduce recoil.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)What was his terminal rank?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)SheriffBob
(552 posts)We need to confront them and kick their ass.
Motley13
(3,867 posts)how do the cops tell the good guy from the bad guy?
One guy in Dallas was open carrying & was mistakenly identified as the killer, he is lucky to be alive. His brother told him to give his gun/rifle to a cop, which he did. Glad someone in his family had a brain.
So what good does it do?
We must vote everyone out of office that does not support gun regulation!
B Calm
(28,762 posts)he feels like he needs to carry a firearm. He said he was a county prosecutor that has sent a lot of bad people to jail. That said he made the point he has a lot of enemies.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)likely to be killed or wounded by a firearm. As a County DA, he should be smart enough to comprehend the well-established actuarial science.
Or maybe he harbors a secret death wish.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)took a gun safety course when they showed interests in deer hunting. The three of us went through the course together. My son grew up as very liberal with no love for guns. He was more interested in archery and even went bear hunting with a traditional bow.
His friend (the county prosecutor) grew up to be a staunch gun loving Republican, but I do know he is smart enough to safely use his gun.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)it doesn't change the FACT that the mere possession of a firearm makes you 8.5 times more likely on average to be killed or wounded by discharge of a firearm.
IOW, his many "enemies" notwithstanding, your son's friend would be safer if he disposed of all firearms in his possession.
The actuarial statistics do not lie.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)The discredited Kellermann study concluded 2.7x more likely. Unfortunately, Kellermann counted a "gun in the home" as meaning a gun brought into the home for the sole purpose of killing the resident. Say if a neighbor brought a gun into the home of someone else to kill the home owner, that was counted as if the deceased home owner had a "gun in the home".
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Gun control advocates use statistics like a drunk uses a street light....for support rather than lumination.
Gun control advocates also include suicides in their crooked definition of "gun violence" because 67% of gun related deaths are suicide. Just to inflate the numbers.
former9thward
(31,986 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It was a made up number
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Your 8.5 is complete hogshit....you know it is hogshit and stand by it anyway...don't expect lies to help your cause.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Wyoming is an open carry state and you'll be hard pressed to go to any town or "city" in the state and find a single person openly carrying a firearm who is not a security guard or a member of law enforcement.
But having worked on a ranch as a boy I would not want to go out checking fences and not have a firearm strapped to my hip because of the potential for an encounter with deadly wildlife, which has happened to me when I was 14 in the form of a rabid coyote. The .38 S&W I had in my holster on my hip that day probably saved me from an agonizing medical treatment at the very least. Had it not been legal for me to open carry, I would have been in a world of hurt.
Squinch
(50,949 posts)
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)40+ at this moment.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is because we put people "on ignore" and huddle up in our safe spaces only with those whom we agree with, unwilling to learn or discuss compromise. The Atlantic had a pretty good article on this issue recently. And it isn't like folks here are ignoring Ted Nugent on the gun issue, but instead are ignoring other Dems who might actually be willing to compromise.
jack_krass
(1,009 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)It's a large enough caliber to kill a squirrel if you're a good aim.
Assault weapon? Jerry Brown says it is.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Rimfire ammunition can still be deadly.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Something something!
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)It seems to have gone completely off their radar that Hitler, for example, was elected.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)never received a majority in any free and fair election.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)Still, it was electoral processes that got him into position to assume dictatorial powers. The actual reality is quite complicated. One could study it for a lifetime.
One thing's for sure -- the vision that some have that Hitler seized power riding into Berlin on a tank is not even remotely correct.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)"coopt" Hitler if they brought him into the government, much the same way I imagine Republican power brokers imagine they will control Trump.
with a nuclear arsenal of 8,500 warheads, Trump is arguably more dangerous than Hitler.
All leftists must hope for the best but plan for the worst. I am.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Mexican Cartels would never supply murderous fucks with illegal weaponry, would they? It's not like they have experience moving illegal goods and human beings across the US border, right?
Of course, every police department in America has semi-auto M-4 type carbines in their patrol cars. Plus, many are getting DRMO'd full-auto M-16's from Homeland Security. Is that a concern? Or is it only regular citizens we need to worry about?
But yeah, sure, another ill-conceived Assault Weapons Ban will do worlds of good.
-app
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Are you worried about the police and HS weapons? Do you think your weapons will protect you from theirs?
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)I try not to worry about police at all. I interacted with a few officers today during the aftermath of a big storm down this way, and they were courteous, professional, and helpful. I appreciate that, and their important work helping to keep citizens safe around downed power lines, etc.
My own semi-auto weapons are for protection against home invasion, as police are usually >25 minutes away from me. That's a long response time if something bad were to happen.
If police departments can own full-auto guns and exploding robot drones, etc., then why can't an American own a simple semi-auto rifle? Police and non-police are both just regular, civilian citizens...
Banning citizens from owning semi-auto rifles will not necessarily make it harder for the murderous fucks...
-app
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There is always a cost when something is illegal. The criminal business cost is not insignificant.
I'll worry about the cop's weapons after we deal with the gun nuts.
how did people become such cowards? You'd think ISIS was about to personally invade your house.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)I mean, the odds of dying in a fire are infinitesimal. Still "cowards" like me make sure there are a few in the house.
-app
G_j
(40,367 posts)parked in your driveway.
"My own semi-auto weapons are for protection against home invasion"
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Howitzers and their shells are tightly regulated by the NFA as "destructive devices," in case you did not know. I feel no need to own one, nor would my bank account permit me to do so.
A semi-auto hand gun is rather like a fire extinguisher in that it is small, individually-deployed, and generally only powerful for moderate defensive purposes. One won't stop an already-full blaze with a fire extinguisher, nor are the odds good to face-off an entire gang with a single handgun.
-app
-app
sir pball
(4,741 posts)..medical, not criminal, but the first responder on scene was a Skowhegan cop (Skow was actually closer to us than Fairfield where we technically lived).
Showed up twelve minutes after the 911 call. I guess you can call me a coward if you wish, but I'd rather not wait 12 minutes with somebody of unknown intentions in my home.
G_j
(40,367 posts)to have semi automatic weapons. People watch too much TV me thinks.
beevul
(12,194 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)why would you want to pick what likley may be considered an inferior choice?
I.E. Why would you want to settle, say, for 6 rounds of .38 when you could have 8 rounds of .45, or 16 rounds of 9mm?
Doesn't make much sense, if the choice is there.
G_j
(40,367 posts)state that a shot gun is plenty sufficient for home protection, unless of course you think a Colombian drug cartel, jackbooted government thugs or ISIS is coming after you.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)shotguns too, that are quite popular. Wouldn't necessarily want to choose a 28" over/under.
Overall, I think I'd still prefer the handgun, but don't get all worked up over it.
Hmm...a small pistol-caliber carbine like the Beretta Storm could be ideal.
hack89
(39,171 posts)because you won't have that many rounds to play around with.
sarisataka
(18,621 posts)Seriously?
Do you remember why there was a protest in Dallas in the first place?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/
morningfog
(18,115 posts)and killed them for it.
sarisataka
(18,621 posts)they shouldn't have guns. Well why didn't anyone think of that before. Police won't kill an unarmed black man...
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Ban whatever the fuck you want.
Then travel to CA, AZ, NM, and TX, and buy it all day and twice on Sunday.
Hello.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You just make it harder for everyone else that obeys.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Not many violent losers have got $20k to spend on an illegal weapon.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)When drugs are legalized, the prices drop precipitously.
beevul
(12,194 posts)See Colorado.
Marr
(20,317 posts)And guns are nothing like pot. Put severe penalties on gun possession, and it will be very expensive to get a gun.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Would you like to guess how well that would work out?
Marr
(20,317 posts)That nonsense about prices dropping when items become harder to get is just absurd.
But I have to say, your fallback position is equally nonsensical. We can't have harsher gun laws because... there would be violence? What do you think we have now? Have you taken a look at a US newspaper lately? Ever heard of a place called Australia? Compare them.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I admit nothing. Explain why legal weed in CO is more expensive than black market weed, and we'll go from there.
Gun control proponents regularly engage in mischaracterization. Here, you mischaracterize my argument, by falsely attributing to it, something I did not specify in it - violence.
That was uh...nice...of you, but I was referring to lack of success. Or did you think the war on drugs was a success?
Oh, and by the way, the U.S. is not Australia. Not geographically, and not culturally.
Marr
(20,317 posts)fucking weed to a gun is just apples to apples.
lol.
Australia is not the moon. One can certainly make reasonable predictions based on their national laws. A lot more than you can compare the prices of pot and guns, anyway.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Gun control advocates also tend to double down when called on their mischaracterizations, and mischaracterize again, like you just did:
I never compared 'a fucking weed to a gun', I compared prohibition of a thing, to prohibitions of other things.
Australia is also not the U.S.
Yes, one can, particularly if one looks at how such laws are received when attempted here, such as in CT and NY.
What does 5% compliance in those states indicate for equally/more pro-gun states, such as...nearly every state in the union?
Like I said, the U.S. is not Australia, geographically, or culturally.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You are aware that, in forums, your words remain printed right ^^^ over your current post, right?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Reading comprehension is your friend.
Marr
(20,317 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)When I was comparing one prohibition to another.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Obviously we're talking about those two items in terms of their price in a setting that bans them. They are not comparable. Pot is easily produced on site. It literally grows like a weed. You don't need to import pot.
Guns are another story entirely. The buyer would pay for the risks taken by all the middlemen along the route-- not to mention the fact that those middlemen are moving guns instead of very profitable illegal drugs.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yes you did, and unless you edit or delete, I'll keep quoting you as proof:
That obviously refers to something I've said, and it is a mischaracterization, since I was comparing prohibitions, not comparing guns to "a fucking weed".
Unless you have a turd in your pocket, that's enough with the "we". You may be talking about 'items in terms of their price in a setting that bans them", I am talking about why would one prohibition work when they other is a clear and obvious failure.
So are guns.
You don't need to import guns either.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)look at how low the cost is in the EU (where most are illegal or HIGHLY restricted)
Illegal Gun Trafficking Brings Millions Of Weapons Into The EU
http://www.ibtimes.com/charlie-hebdo-massacre-illegal-gun-trafficking-brings-millions-weapons-eu-1779070
There is no definitive count, but the bloc estimates that around half a million lost or stolen firearms remained unaccounted for within the EU. And that only accounts for weapons that were once registered and later went missing. Many of the automatic “war weapons” are illegally trafficked from the Balkan Peninsula and former Soviet Bloc states, where millions of leftover arms from the Croatian, Bosnian and Kosovo wars are regularly stolen, bought and transferred in small numbers, mostly to organized crime clients in Southern Europe, according to Gunpolicy.org. In France, there are an estimated 10 million to 20 million illegal weapons alone, according to a Christian Science Monitor report.
snip
Guns can be acquired in the EU through a number of means. A .44-caliber Desert Eagle is advertised for 1,250 euros, or $1,481, by an anonymous European arms dealer on the Deep Web. The dealer ships that weapon through the mail. With the proper connections, which the Charlie Hebdo gunmen appeared to have, an AK-47 costs around $400 to $900 in certain European markets, and about $1,100 to 1,800 in France, according to a Bloomberg report.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Making an item illegal (so long as there are harsh penalties for possession) does not drive the price down. You pay for all the risk-taking middle men between you and your fix.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)stop putting words in my mouth. Also Australia is a completely different situation compared to the EU or the USA. It is so geographically isolated and thus has no natural borders of inflow for cheap illegal weapons.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Again, see Australia.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)There are NO neighbouring countries such as the ones in Eastern Europe or Mexico for that will keep up a steady supply of illegal arms and thus lower the increase of price dramatically.
THATS why the price increased so much. But you are just being obtuse on purpose.
Marr
(20,317 posts)It isn't a tiny island fortress. If you really think Australia's geographical position makes it's borders so much less porous than those of the US, I don't know what to tell you. This is just an asinine line of reasoning, I'm sorry. I've heard gun nuts make the same argument about Britain, as if it's sea and airports aren't arteries of trade.
This 'island fortress' argument might have made sense in the 1800's-- today, it does not.
AntiBank
(1,339 posts)a fantasy wherein firearms in the US are outlawed. The 2nd Amendment is never going to be repealed and confiscation would trigger a civil war.
End of story.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Hypotheticals sort of require you to accept a premise and extrapolate from it. My personal desires are irrelevant.
But since you brought up fantasies, I think your 'civil war' fantasy is absurd. I seriously doubt it would inspire more than a few isolated militia groups and lone wolves to acts of violence, and they'd be crushed in no time. This isn't 1860-- it wouldn't be rifle against rifle, but rifle against a militarized police force, helicopters, drones, apcs, 360 degree surveillance, cooperating international intelligence agencies, etc. Anyone thinking they're going to challenge the government with their little pea shooter has serious delusions of grandeur.
beevul
(12,194 posts)When ten thousand of them decide to do it at the same time, that militarized police force, those helicopters, drones, apcs, 360 degree surveillance, cooperating international intelligence agencies, etc, wont stop it.
How come a militarized police force, helicopters, drones, apcs, 360 degree surveillance, cooperating international intelligence agencies, etc, didn't stop the texas shooter before the 5 vs 1 trade?
Marr
(20,317 posts)Oh, right--he's in several places, isn't he? Because he's in a bunch of little pieces. I think you just made my point.
I didn't say you can stop all violence. I explicitly stated that I was sure there'd be a few ignorant nitwits who would respond violently, and they'd find themselves facing more than a few rifles, as this Texas clown did. If, hypothetically, ten thousand diabetic Wal-Martians did rise up to start a civil war, ten thousand would be in the dirt the next day.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Of course you do, because you aren't thinking things through to their logical conclusion.
If, hypothetically, ten thousand diabetic Wal-Martians did rise up to start a civil war, ten thousand would be in the dirt the next day
The texas shooter is dead. And? If this scenario is played out proportionally (meaning a 5 to 1 kill rate), with the hypothetical ten thousand I mentioned earlier, that hypothetical ten thousand just wiped out cleanly half of ALL law enforcement in America, and incapacitated half of the remaining half. You do realize there are under a million state local and federal law enforcement in ALL of America, right?
Like I said, you didn't think this through. You obviously don't remember the havoc the DC sniper caused.
I didn't say you said you could.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Yes, one loon with a rifle managed to kill several unsuspecting cops in an ambush before they put his corpse into a collection of body bags. If you think that's what our gun nuts would average in some mystical, spontaneous uprising to defend your toy chest, then I can only shake my head and laugh.
I expect it would trend a little closer to the Ammon Bundy clown show.
beevul
(12,194 posts)How many did Whitman kill? How many did the DC sniper kill?
That's nice. People who operate under the assumption that if there ever were such a conflict, it would be like the revolutionary war where lines openly faced each other and the sides were obvious, make me laugh even harder.
Assymetrical conflicts do not work that way. Again, you aren't thinking this through.
Marr
(20,317 posts)A troop of diabetic Wal-Mart shoppers vs. the US Government. Basically Bambi vs. Godzilla. There just aren't enough tired old white guys with militia fetishes, or at least, not enough willing to actually put their money where their mouth is, to be anything but an occasional rampage shooting nut job.
One of us isn't thinking this through, alright-- but it isn't me.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Up to a state level. Those who want to repeal the 2A I believe vastly overestimate the general populations eagerness to surrender armed power on an individual level to the state.
Marr
(20,317 posts)are vastly overestimating the American public's willingness to upset the apple cart-- not to mention their capacity for doing so.
If we were in the middle of an extended, deep economic depression and those cops weren't being paid, there might be some significant pushback. Maybe. It would still be crushed in days, but it *might* try to start. But today? No, I'm sorry. The police would do their job, collect their checks, and rationalize it as doing their duty, no matter how they felt about the 2nd Amendment.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Would be minimal. IMO, a fair number of states would openly defy any confiscation directives and actively interfere with any federal entity attempting to do so.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)As a culture, we are addicted to prohibition. Do you seriously believe markets, business systems and supply & demand remain static when some prohibitionist scheme is adopted?
Marr
(20,317 posts)If you really want to argue that more regulation/control makes prices drop, I have a whole world full of economists to direct you to. It's nonsense. Make it harder to get a thing, and the price goes up. The price of guns in Australia shot up like a rocket once they were made illegal.
Also, pot and guns aren't comparable to begin with. Guns don't grow like... well, weeds, and the consequences for pot possession are relatively light.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I mean, criminals are only going to break them.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The point is, laws that don't prevent criminals from violence, but burden people not prone to it, are not real useful.
Proof, is in the fact that folks like you keep asking for more and more of them, regardless of how many there currently are.
Straw Man
(6,623 posts)I mean, criminals are only going to break them.
Malum in se vs. malum prohibitum. Some actions are evil in and of themselves. Gun ownership is not one of them.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)years have done nothing to change the gun debate, but finally the shooting of some cops may actually make a difference. Maybe.
Has the NRA spoken up yet on this?
rusty quoin
(6,133 posts)They were meant for the military. An example of that was yesterday when a robot bomb was needed to take what's his name down.
If you cannot figure that one out, then goodbye. We have nothing to talk about.
beevul
(12,194 posts)They're semi-automatic rifles designed specifically for the civilian market that do not function like the military weapons they resemble.
They're designed as such, because the law says they have to be, to be legal to sell.
KeepItReal
(7,769 posts)If a weapon can fire as fast as I can initiate the firing mechanism and I can fire and reload dozens of rounds in mere seconds with an unlimited amount of ammunition I can purchase legally...
That is the problem.
beevul
(12,194 posts)We weren't debating the 'definition', we were debating whether the nature of the weapon matched the definition you chose to use, and it didn't.
That is the problem.
If that was true, the US would be a war zone with millions dead annually.
Spin and hyperbole aren't going to get you anywhere on this topic, and you aren't going to find support among the American people, to take lawfully ownable firearm technology back into the 1800s, or to ban them all together.
Sorry.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)If they are so deadly why don't the military use them?? They use the M4 instead, a very different rifle..
We have nothing to talk about, because you lack basic understanding of the subject at hand, let me use point out some hard facts.. If they where ment for the military, WHY don't the military USE them??
I don't believe ANY military in the world, uses the AR 15.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Modern military assault rifles are not available to civilians in the US. It's been a piece of gun control that has worked very well for about 8 decades.
(That said, the exact same clause in the law banned sawed-off shotguns; that has not worked nearly as well. It's probably worth pondering on why one has worked and the other has not.)
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)You know what he meant.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Until the Democratic Party gets over this very basic but very pervasive factual error, we're going to be chasing our tails on gun control.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)You're making the "military rifles are fully automatic, civilian rifles are semi-automatic" argument. It's been a very useful straw man for a long time. While he may be technically incorrect about these being "military," the point remains that NONE of these weapons ought to be in the hands of civilians. Period.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)80% of guns manufactured in the past century? If that's what people mean, they need to say it, and we can start working on it. What we can't do is pretend that there's some small class of guns we can ban and that capability will go away. Hell, like I said in another post, if I could snap my fingers and replace every semi-automatic handgun (which are the real problems) with an AR-15, I would do it, and I think it would make the country safer...
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)because they are disgusted by the very notion of these weapons. I agree that people should be educated, but again, this is all a deflection from the real issue. It's missing the forest through the trees. And while I agree handguns are an extreme problem, especially in domestic violence/street crime situations, semi-auto rifles are unquestionably the go-to tools for mass murder.
Start a buy-back program and melt them all down. They serve no pumps in modern America.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)We are talking firearms on a board for liberals and I find it extremely frustrating when people start talking about banning "assault weapons" because they are "military" weapons. The simple fact is that they are not and never have been and are used in a minuscule number of overall killings. So when you start from a factually incorrect and uninformed premise you are going to get tuned out, and even more so when this discussion takes place in the national arena with Republicans who don't necessarily trust you on the issue to begin with.
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)but statements like these-
"The simple fact is that they are not and never have been and are used in a minuscule number of overall killings"
ignore and excuse the fact that they are the weapon of choice for people looking to commit mass murder.
No more excuses. No more half-measures.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Killed 32 people with two semi-auto handguns. So banning "assault weapons" isn't going to stop mass shootings. If you want to make these weapons perhaps less dangerous then enact a high capacity mag ban.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Yes, a few high profile ones. Handguns kill thousands of times more and those are just the facts. Why is no one on here mentioning the many more killed in Chicago weekly?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously. What weapons are you talking about? This isn't derailing or deflecting; you are just ubcomfortable that there's no good answer to that question.
Why is this the only issue about which liberals are proud to advocate policies from an admitted position of ignorance?
MirrorAshes
(1,262 posts)And I am grouping many types of guns together because they all share the same thing in common--they are tools of murder.
I agree with you we cannot fight from a position of ignorance. But too often we get caught up in these technical distinctions which DO derail the bigger picture, the bigger goal--to end this scourge of violence in our country.
When it comes time to write the laws, the experts will make all of this very clear. The layman does not need to know every detail to help enact change. The point is to stop cowering before the gun lobby, and speak harsh truths to people like yourself. I respect you and your opinions. But I am also advocating that you make sacrifices for the greater good.
I'm not the guy who will make or break the argument. I'm just one voice saying enough is enough, and asking people to join me in saying so.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)No thanks. I have no desire to keep "these weapons" legal but regulate their grip shape. You shouldn't either.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Bolt , pump action or lever action rifle
Semi-automatic rifle
Fully automatic or burst fire rifle
Please stop with it looks like a military weapon or what kind of features it had. KISS principal, when you let those so called legislative experts make the laws you get crap like that AWB. You do know the firearm used at Sandy Hook was fully AWB compliant, right?
In fact, if one actually makes an attempt to educate themselves about firearms, there is a good chance one will be accused by fellow progressives about being a 'gun humper.'
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Not to mention, posting NRA talking points
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Orlando, Dallas, Sandy Hook, etc., are evidence enough of that. Don't you think?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Hoyt, I respect you, and this is a serious question: do you honestly think the guns in those massacres had been converted to full auto?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)they can be converted. Semi vs full-auto is just a smoke screen, nothing more.
But why convert them-- Orlando, Dallas, Sandy Hook, etc., prove a semi-auto does the job. In fact, the military keep their weapons on select fire most of the time.
You usually are on target, but here you've missed it -- Who cares if guns sold here are just semi-auto, you don't need a full-auto to kill a lot of people efficiently.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What people want is to ban semi autos. Just say that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm all for rescheduling semi-autos under the NFA
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Weapons are now manufactured so military or equivalent parts will not fit. The receivers are just not close to being military specification.
Please stop posting that misinformation bull
Any rifle easy to convert is classified under law as a machinegun.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
beevul
(12,194 posts)The word 'convert' has a very specific meaning.
That does not 'convert' a rifle in any way, the trigger must still be pulled every time before a round can be fired.
Weak sauce.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)But, beevul, the real point is that with all the gunner obsfucation -- it's not an "assault" rifle because it's semi-auto; it's a magazine, not a clip; and similar BS -- the exact rifles used by the Orlando, Dallas, Sandy Hook, etc., killers are available today to all those yahoos who got up early and lined up to buy one.
Line the Saturday after Sandy Hook for chance to buy a quasi-assault rifle exactly like the one Adam Lanza used:
beevul
(12,194 posts)No, it isn't. The trigger must still be pulled before each and every round is fired.
If it were otherwise, it would be illegal.
Blubbedy blubbedy blub.
You made a very specific and very false claim (which I suspect you knew was false when you made it).
I let you know that your claim was false. You then put forward in support of this false claim, evidence which does not support it.
Just admit you are wrong and we can move on.
You have no idea what anyone in that line went there to buy. Zip, zero, nada.
If you listen closely, you may hear your name being whispered, that's reality calling to you, pining for your safe return.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The rifles available down the street at your favorite gun store are exactly like those used in Orlando/Newtown/Dallas/Etc mass shootings, to intimidate people, to shoot ones spouse, to soothe gunners fears, etc., every friggin day.
Here's a Bundy militiaman drawing down on federal agents with a rifle available at most gun stores right this minute:
beevul
(12,194 posts)Fact is, you don't know what you're talking about. 'Select fire' is the type of weapon it is, not a 'mode it can be put into'.
Tell us more about them.
All your opinion.
Without seeing the sight picture in the scope, I'd say its a leap to conclude exactly what he was aiming at.
But then, for those that behave as if they can read minds over the internet, I imagine it doesn't seem such a leap.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Quit playing the "gun nomenclature game." Real assault rifles are seldom used on full auto.
That's what I'd say too, if I were ignorant about a subject that I was trying to be mouthy and pseudo-authoritative about.
Response to morningfog (Original post)
SuperDutyTX This message was self-deleted by its author.
Aristus
(66,326 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 10:02 AM - Edit history (1)
It's the only thing that gives their otherwise empty lives any meaning. The feverish hope that one day, one glorious day, the 'gubmint' is going to come for their guns, and they can do a Rambo-style "weaponing-up" montage-style maneuver that fulfills all of their squalid dreams. Going out in a blaze of glory.
Yeah, they'll probably have to give their guns up some day. But they're going to kill a lot of people before that actually happens...
Response to morningfog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Waldorf
(654 posts)sir pball
(4,741 posts)Of course, the section on "Legality" in the AR-15 article on Wikipedia has conveniently vanished, but suffice it to say that literally dozens of countries allow private AR-15/"assault rifle" ownership, they just properly and reasonably restrict ownership in the first place. Mostly by severely limiting HANDGUNS.
Rifles of all kinds killed less than 300 people in 2014, while handguns killed almost 7,000 - do you honestly feel that assault weapons are a good Waterloo for gun control?
THREE HUNDRED vs SEVEN THOUSAND. That's my calculus. Ban handguns now.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)That's the only logical option.
There is no middle ground. Either stick with your huge mass murder problem, or give up all the guns.
It's time.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)as I keep stating, over and over.
The rest of the civilized world manages it just fine.
It's really not that difficult.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)First, you'd have to amend the constitution, which isn't going to happen on this issue. Then (or assuming you get Heller reversed) you'd have to pass the ban on a federal level because numerous state constitutions protect private ownership of firearms. Next you'd have to figure out how to get 300,000,000 guns out of the hands of private citizens, the vast majority of whom would simply ignore any ban. None of those things sounds particularly easy.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)However if you truly believe all firearms should be banned then you are getting start on that constitutional convention right?
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)evolves.
It's time for that evolution.
But hey, I guess the gun humpers haven't had enough death, murder, suicide, slaughter and destruction.
No evolution for you!
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Or are you a "keyboard Kommando" only capable of spreading highly disingenuous crap on the internutz.
underahedgerow
(1,232 posts)I've made as much of a difference as I can, and I've done some good work. Some huge differences, and a lot of good, small ones.
It was my idea, way back in the 90's, to take down the giant billboard on Sunset Blvd in West Hollywood of the Marlboro Man. It was iconic, had been there for decades. I brought the notion to my city councilman who had it taken down. He got the credit, and I'm fine with that, he was the one on the stump, not me. I didn't need any glory. I was happy to instigate the process.
The same guy was one of the first to create a ban Saturday Night Specials in a city. Let's just say it wasn't his idea, but he took the credit and made it happen, and again, since he was the public official, I was thrilled that he did. He needed someone to light the fire, to let him know he should go for it. He learned that anything really IS possible. I've always believed anything is possible.
I'm proof that anything is possible.
I work my magic behind the scenes, always have. I run a couple of websites, am active with those sites on Facebook and Twitter and have a good presence on social media, and that's where I do my work. I get a few thousand hits a month, which isn't bad for being less than 6 months old, and I'm still on the learning curve of how to make a good site tick along with integrating social media; my followers are growing steadily, and I'm happy with that.
Nothing will change until the good voices yell loud enough to drown out the bad voices. Clearly the USA isn't ready to take back all that the GOP has taken away. Not sure it will be, even in the next generation or two. Perhaps it's heading for the prescient Maxx Headroom reality after all.
I know I keep checking airfares to head back to visit, and can't bring myself to get on the plane. I had a long discussion with a French friend who lived in AZ for about 8 years while in his teens. He's now 30, and was almost in tears yesterday because he was so upset at the abuse he's taking from his AZ school pals on FB who are all gun humpers, and he of course supports the rational position of banning all guns. They're trump supporters and guns fanatics, and he just doesn't understand how they can all be so effing stupid, and worse, incredibly rude and abusive to him. I told him that he evolved and they didn't, and that he can't argue with stupid. He's just got to walk away from them.... he's gutted.
It's either all or nothing on this issue, there's no middle ground and no compromise.
What are you going to do about it? Any ideas?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)And what are you going to do about it?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Do you really mean ALL guns?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)
If I could snap my fingers and replace every handgun in the US with an AR-15, I would do that, and I think we'd be much safer for it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)sir pball
(4,741 posts)Quoting myself here…
I believe in a nationwide, mandatory ownership license, with safety and responsibility training.
I believe in mandatory dealer transfers, where not only is a background check performed, but a record of the sale is made.
I believe in a "title", much like a car, where the duly legal owner of the firearm is documented, and it must be passed to the next owner, with record of transaction. Possessed by the owner, but severe penalties for not having it.
I believe in severe, mandatory, criminal charges for gun crime, including failure to secure your gun properly.
I believe in handgun registration.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)No need to fear any consequences of any bans, because you will need to find someone to enforce it "chuckles"..
Can't even enforce drug laws, how are you going to deal with people like me, that are LOLing at bans, and live in communities, and among law enforcement that AGREE with me???.. And if you do manage a ban, how will you deal with "Sanctuary STATES"? that will be certain to crop up?? The same way we deal with sanctuary cities?
All the while, as a trained CNC machinist, I may be building more, and more, and more, and more... I wonder how many I can make in a DAY? Wanna find out??
How do you deal with folks like me, with certain skills, and absolutely no fear of any consequences from any very poorly wrote, thought out, knee jerk, emotion based, and ultimately unenforceable legislation?
Heck I may even make a thread here teaching people how to make their own ammunition...share my knowledge for FREE..
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)I can get a nice substitute at any grocery store...yes even the primers will not present a problem...
Been loading my own ammo for years, want me too teach you how?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Ban guns and Ammunition, and you will make many MANY people very wealthy.
And without the social stigma of prohibition!
It's a win win!
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Do you pay taxes? if so then a part of those taxes are used to provide equipment, including guns and ammo, to your police officers. in addition you are paying for the guns and ammunition used by the military.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)OccupyPA
(44 posts)I'm a white occupier of wall st z-park. My girlfriend is black. We regularly shoot our ar15's and ak47's here at ranges in New York. You will never live to see the day any of us give up our semi autos. We are democrats that have completely rejected Cuomo's SAFE Act. You can type your fantasy until you're blue in the face. It will never happen.
Join The Liberal Gun Club website and help us fight assault weapons bans, universal background checks and magazine capacity limits. The Liberal Gun Club is against it all.
JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)michreject
(4,378 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)JonathanRackham
(1,604 posts)They're still used today by LEO'S and military to breach and clear houses.
Response to morningfog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The fact that some nonetheless use them for hunting is a triumph for terrorist propaganda from the NRA and the irresponsible weapons manufacturers that support it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Do you think they fire "more bullets" than "non-assault" weapons? (They don't)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)
Obviously these are much more macho...
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
FXSTD
(25 posts)The rifle of our choosing. The reason is to keep our own government in check should they become tyrannical.
GaYellowDawg
(4,446 posts)that states that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of keeping our government in check. I'll just give you a hint: you won't be able to. So stop bullshitting about the Constitution, please.
The intent of the Second Amendment is to ensure that militias could be readily supplied with armed citizens. At the time the Constitution was written, militias were considered by many in the Congress to be a superior alternative to a standing army. You can read quite a bit about this in Ron Chernow's excellent biography of George Washington (and how it just about screwed the Revolution).
beevul
(12,194 posts)THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
GaYellowDawg
(4,446 posts)That's a HUGE stretch. If you stretched underwear like that, you'd have to throw it away.
beevul
(12,194 posts)What you do see, is restrictions on government of which the second amendment is one, aimed at keeping government 'beneficient', which is on the other end of the scale from oppressive.
So no, not a huge stretch.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
SheriffBob
(552 posts)I may add.
romanic
(2,841 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Paranoid relics.
romanic
(2,841 posts)But I don't think insulting people on here who carry legally is a good bridge to talking. js
morningfog
(18,115 posts)out the same old shit. Enough.
romanic
(2,841 posts)I don't see how calling other people on here assholes, gun humpers, ammosexuals or whatever else is going to incite a civil conversation but ok. :p
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I think it's mental illness induced by too much lead exposure.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Bye now.
-app
morningfog
(18,115 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)Then you can see, read, and understand our Constitution.
Coffee maybe, to clear that fog? You don't need my permission to drink that either, although there have been movements to regulate or even ban it in the past (17th Century Europe and early 20th Century USA, for example).
-app
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Don't you have some lead to handle?
The time for coddling these people is over.
hack89
(39,171 posts)They are kicking your ass in the political and public arena .
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Nothing ever gets done sadly 
morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is the people who are pro-mass murder. Fuck them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Because I believe in the RKBA?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)So it would seem that you were saying I was one of those. I know I am not.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You are the one making the accusations about people. Come on, quit being coy and put up or be quiet.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)SheriffBob
(552 posts)Tell me about it.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)How can we write a law that bans something, without defining the thing we are banning?
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)I just bought two more this month.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)This talk of banning them makes me want one.
My 77 year old mother who has never owned a gun in her life told me the only way she would EVER get a gun would be the day they were banned.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm right there too. The more they grind their axe about them, the more tempting it is to start saving and buy one.
Outside of that, I don't really want or need one.
aikoaiko
(34,169 posts)j&g sales has used Chinese models for $330 plus another $20 for shipping to your FFL and another $25-50 for a transfer and you can have it for $400 or less.
I was just looking at them.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You mean there is a law that requires that?
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)Some people own many cars, but if the cost of license and insurance is high, maybe a few will do. That tax can be used to fund emergency rooms where injuries are treated, and for the cost of the many funerals.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)a car. Then we should also allow weapons to be sold without any background check. Sell weapons across state lines. Sell weapons over the internet in eBay. 50 state open carry as long as I am insured and the weapon is registered.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Poll taxes went away long ago....
Vinca
(50,269 posts)How does anyone - especially a cop - know if the guy walking down the street with the weapons is a bad guy or a good guy? IMO, people who insist on displaying their weaponry on their bodies have no regard for the rest of us. If I enter a business and see Joe Lunatic standing there with his AK while buying paint, I leave.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If somebody is displaying their gun openly I'm generally pretty sure they're not someone to worry about. It's the person hiding it (and obviously I have no idea who that is) that troubles me.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)My point is you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy and for cops, especially, this creates a real dilemma. There was a young black man wearing a camouflage shirt and carrying a long gun at the Dallas rally. He was one of the good guys, but when the shooting started, someone reported him as one of the shooters. If he hadn't managed to find a cop to hand his weapon over to he probably would have been shot. That also negates the notion that carrying a weapon will keep you safe if you feel you must turn it over to a cop to avoid being shot.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Allows that situational awareness. I am against open carry myself.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)If you want to ban assault rifles, you'll have to ban semi-automatic rifles altogether.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027921026
While I'm fine with that, how are we going to get tens of millions of rifles off the streets?
hack89
(39,171 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)more death and destruction every year and they're CONCEALABLE. Name and shame the people who want to carry long guns around.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)What I don't understand is why police groups don't stand up for an assault weapon ban.
They can't defend themselves against shooters who are more heavily armed than they are.
Maybe Dallas will get some to speak up, but I doubt it.
For assault weapon bans and bans on people on watch lists buying guns, police should be shouting in favor of laws.
Statistical
(19,264 posts)Police aren't outgunned. Police have actual military hardware. Most Police Officers are well aware that in 90%+ of homicides involving a firearm it means a handgun was used.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)it is an assault type weapon.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Here are some simple techniques well known to just about any so-called "law-abiding" gunner:
This first one is a quick, 8 second clip showing how a 1911 -- common semi-auto pistol -- can be rapid fired WITHOUT any modification (my apologizes but I tried to find an effective, short video that does not make fun of the man, that is not my intention):
Slide stock, perfectly legal and available on Amazon for $99.99:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step
Other conversion techniques:
There are hundreds of other techniques including a little machine work on the lower. I’m sure many white wing militia groups can show one how to do it, or provide a referral if one can’t do a simple google search.
BUT THE TRUTH IS -- despite all the obfuscation by gunners -- A SEMI-AUTO RIFLE OR PISTOL WILL KILL LOTS OF PEOPLE QUICKLY. THEY DON'T NEED AN HONEST TO GOD FULLY AUTO "ASSAULT RIFLE" TO DO IT. AND, THEY KNOW IT.
hack89
(39,171 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)There has not been a single mass shooting where the shooter bump fired.
That could be because, while it can be fun, bump firing is incredibly inaccurate and simply throws a lot of ammunition down range without actually hitting the intended target.
The bump fire stocks are a novelty, nothing more. They can also result in curious law enforcement coming to where you are firing expecting the worst.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to so-called semi-auto assault rifles. Restricting them will close down much of the gun industry. Pistols should be next.
As I've said before, allowing people to keep a gun or two AT HOME for hunting doesn't really bother me. So no, I don't support a full ban.
People who need em deserve to have a gun to cherish behind closed doors -- revolver, bolt or lever action.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I wish all gun controllers were like you.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)I see what you did thier. 
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)What the third video instructs you to do is illegal already. HAd they actually filed down the mechanism, they would have committed a federal felony.
There are well over 100,000,000 semi-automatic weapons in general circulation in the United States. Suggesting you grab them is evenmore absurd than suggesting you can deport 11,000,000 undocumented people.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)MAYBE IF YOU GUN GUYS WOULD QUIT ARGUING THAT "it's not an assault weapon" and similar BS, we'd get something done. Let's call it a QUASI/PSEUDO-ASSAULT WEAPON if that makes you happy.
beevul
(12,194 posts)But then you knew that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)"This first one is a quick, 8 second clip showing how a 1911 -- common semi-auto pistol -- can be rapid fired WITHOUT any modification . . . . . ."
Once again, Beevul, if you are no more perceptive than that, you need to give up your guns.
Remember saying that?
If your memory is so short that you can't remember what you said, you don't have any business telling me what I should or shouldn't do.
Now, be a consistent lad and make some snide comment about a gun in my pantz, wont you?
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Has determined that a bump stock is not an automatic conversion. That is why they are legal, however stupid. Please quit with the disinformation.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Response to morningfog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Rex
(65,616 posts)They need to give up assault weapons and assault rifles.
Motley13
(3,867 posts)324 million people
60 + million under 14, couldn't get statistics up to 18 (the legal age for purchasing a gun)
Your gun should be locked in a safe place, so your kids can't get to them, by the time you get them from your safe place, you are probably already in danger.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)before 1986 will be available to you if you go through the process to be able to own one.
So effectively, assault rifles are already banned.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Making up new terms, lol
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)As opposed to people who can't be bothered to know what they're talking about on an issue they claim to feel important about, who have a tendency to revel in their ignorance and who put ten times the amount of energy into using every pejorative term in the book to describe the people they disagree with and the guns they hate, than it would take to simply educate themselves?
Yeah, things are just terrible for you folks.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Say what you mean or you will be called on it. You are calling for a law and without clear definitions, there can be no law.
Define what you want, apply a term, and we can discuss the merits of the proposal.
If you want to ban possession of all "quasi-assault rifles", please define explicitly what you mean by "quasi-assault rifle" and do so clearly in terminology currently applied to the item(s) in question.
Is your problem with scary looking black rifles? If so, the manufacturers will produce the weapons in camouflage and your problem is solved.
Do you wish to make all semi-automatic firearms illegal? Good luck with that because all you will accomplish is instantly creating about 100 million scared criminals who are armed to the teeth with plenty of ammunition.
IF you are going to discuss proposed laws, your terminology must be clearly defined and as I showed, what the OP called for making illegal is already so regulated as to be illegal.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)If you did not mean "Assault Rifle" don't use those words because there is a very specific legal definition of the term.
Oh yeah, that's right, those who want to grab over 100 million firearms don't even know what they are talking about.
Waldorf
(654 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)If you want to ban something, get your definitions right or expect court challenges and or easy workarounds (i.e., the last ban).
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I live in Virginia. Ammunition supplies in the Commonwealth sell out every week and have since 2008. There is no permit required to purchase a firearm, no registration, no background checks for private sales, no magazine restrictions. Open carry is permitted, concealed carry permits are freely issued, and the Commonwealth law preempts any local attempts at gun control.
It's pretty much been this way in Virginia for 400 years.
Virginia does not even make the top ten list of states with the most permissive gun laws. There are reputedy functional cannons that were hidden away here in the 1860s.
I understand the wish to control and restrict the proliferation of firearms, but I also understand that such a thing is a practical impossibility which, if implemented poorly, will create millions of deeply stupid and frightened criminals, practically overnight. Worse still, the doofuses are already provided with the weapons they need to begin a civil revolt, and they're not real damned good at figuring things out for themselves.
Until someone can show me a reasonable proposal about HOW we can enact effective gun control--or even better reduce gun violence--without violating our civil rights or stoking the coals of American stupidity, I simply cannot advocate banning the millions of weapons already out there. Please offer practical proposals, because speaking over the top of these realities doesn't even begin to address the problem.
I will start with one right now: Let's provide adequate mental health resources to people who desperately need them.
Thank you for your consideration.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Very well stated
sofa king
(10,857 posts)I'm really not trying to start a fight here. I am trying to redirect the conversation into something more constructive than a mere loggerhead debate.
We need to talk about making people less frightened, better provided with the basic necessities of modern life, more willing to engage and interact constructively with their community law enforcement, and less inclined to take matters into their own hands when society fails them.
That is how we fix the problem, in my opinion.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)I think that any time we limit a right in the name of public safety, it backfires; mandatory minimum sentences come to mind.
Unfortunately, most would rather fall back on simplistic partisan labels like "ammosexual" or "grabber" than actually engage in a dialog. Hell, I'm already banned from the gun activism group.
SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)Even without debating the merits of the 2A, or taking into account the political capital you'd have to expend to accomplish such a thing, the actual enforcement of a ban/confiscation I suspect would be a complete quagmire; very similar to the "war on drugs".
Most figures that I have seen estimate that there're roughly ~300-400 million firearms in private circulation; it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that at least half (150M) fall into a "semi-auto"/high capacity category. So how exactly does one effectively remove these?
Even for people who voluntarily comply (let's say 15% *similar to CT registration compliance* of the earlier mentioned 150M statistic), the federal government can't seize property without fair market compensation; doing some "back of the napkin" math, and assigning an average reimbursement price for just the firearm at $500, you're looking at roughly ~$11.25 billion to get only 15% of firearms out of public hands. Mind you, those numbers are a low/conservative estimate.
You'd still then have to deal with confiscating the other ~85%. This creates a significant challenge, as firearms aren't registered, and thus no government body knows their location. Adding to the challenge is that firearms last indefinitely, and technology is evolving to where they can now be printed by the average person.
From my perspective, the genie is out of the bottle and won't go back in. Attempts to ban/restrict/confiscate either don't account for the hundreds of millions of firearms already out there, or they'd likely end up costing so much in both blood and money, that I don't believe they're a real option.
Additionally, the longer there is talk about bans/confiscation etc. it creates panic in the market. That panic artificially inflates the demand, leading to even more firearm proliferation. Basically, it's almost impossible to implement now, but with each passing day it continues to become more untenable.
That said, I do not advocate "doing nothing". I think it would be wise to open up the NICS system to the public, to allow for private citizens to conduct background checks for potential buyers. I would also advocate for increased funding of the NICS system to better enable states to send information to the FBI.
It also wouldn't be a bad idea to look at NICS denials; if prohibited people are attempting to purchase weapons, that likely warrants further investigation.
Lastly, I believe that people who are truly insane/deranged/political extremists, hell-bent on harming innocent people, is an issue that goes extends well beyond "guns". For now, firearms are a common method, but if you could snap your fingers and make them disappear, I have a feeling they'd just transition to something else.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)sofa king
(10,857 posts)... from the very barrels of the weapons you propose to take away from them.
It's up to us to find a way to make them less inclined to rely upon weapons as solutions, because the weapons themselves are never going away. We must find ways to reduce the number of violent assholes behind the triggers. Canada manages to pull this off, somehow. Surely we can, too.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)an "Ass backward hick"?
Do tell.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)but hate, insults and put downs.
If you believe that it describes yourself, then so be it.
DonP
(6,185 posts)It's nice that Skinner provides a location for gun control fans to vent.
Otherwise there might be far more aneurisms out there. Get it off your chest out there!
As usual though, not one concrete idea or proposal for action in this thread or any other by all these gun control heroes.
No calls for picketing local gun stores across the country or all those gun shows that worry everyone. Not one single real action proposed. Just bile venting. Then they wonder why nothing happens and use the; "The NRA buys everyone in DC" as an excuse to sit on their hands again.
I'd be willing to bet that the paid memberships in Everytown, MDA or Brady don't get much of a bump from all the anger and frustration either.
I don't really count "Fuck The NRA" as action, since I don't think they mean to get busy with Wayne LaPierre in reality. Hell most of them don't even know about all the other organizations they have to overcome like SAF, GOA, NSSF or the 50+ multiple state organizations.
My favorite posts, after calling gun owners "gun humpers", "ammosexuals", "gun stroking assholes" et. al., are the demands that we provide the detailed technical solutions for them, so they can send men with guns to take ours while they stay in the basement cheering others on.
Same old song.
Response to morningfog (Reply #248)
Post removed
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
maveric56
(137 posts)They can give up assault weapons.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)We're not determined to be covered by a constitutional right.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The makers of modern lawn darts sell them in two parts completely legally.
You just have to connect the metal parts to the plastic parts after you purchase the two separate products.
Angel Martin
(942 posts)the far left response: disarm the intended victims
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)...of the semi-auto carbines (AR-15, AK-47, etc.) you may be referring to. I don't really "Need©" one, nor do I think it will be banned, thus allowing me a quick profit when your law goes into effect. But, you have piqued my interest in the relatively unknown stuff in the fantasy world of banned objects, behaviors and statuses. I'll let you know of my purchase.
I am acting ONLY in the manner hundreds of thousands acted post Sandy Hook when they circled blocks to get into gun shows across the nation: In a respectful gesture to those who wish to act as you would.
Until then, be well.
napi21
(45,806 posts)and has more guns than most people. The other day we were talking about all the stupid shootings that have been happening across the Country, and he said, "We should go back to the days when there were no semi-automatic guns, like when I was a kid. You don't need them for anything, certainly not hunting OR protection."
I think I can say he loves his guns. He takes care of them like they were his pets, cleaning and polishing them all the time. Not ALL gun lovers would be angry about giving up their "assault" guns. Those people who will get upset over a ban will rant and rave for a while, but they'll get over it. THIS TIME though, the law cannot have an expiration date!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Semi-automatic firearms have been around since before the year 1900.
They're not going to be banned.
trueblue2007
(17,210 posts)
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)It would about as feasible as Donald Trump's mass deportation plan.
DustyJoe
(849 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)You genuinely believe that gun owners/gun-rights people are all pro-massacre?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)How about a percentage you think are?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)Is there anyone in this thread you've identified as "pro-massacre"?
You've made a claim, and been asked questions; the intellectually honest thing to do would be to support it with some detail (at this point I'd take either fact or feeling).
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And this point you can shit in one hand and wish in the other.
I can wish you'll give me a reasoned response, but we know which will come first.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)When they are challenged to back up their comments
SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)Just spewing insults and vitriol fueled solely by emotion.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)You refuse to back it up, I am not surprised
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)and according to some, that makes me a baby killer.
So, what the hell do I know.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)In any discussion about guns, if you want to frame it properly, they should be called killing machines.
Also, the type of killing machine is totally irrelevant.
And discussions of nomenclature are merely smoke.
Waldorf
(654 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Before Congress? A semi-auto rifle? A semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine? A semi-auto rifle with bayonet lug? Semi-auto pistols? Shotguns? Nomenclature actually matters, at least to people who want to get things done.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)Nothing more, nothing less.
SuperDutyTX
(79 posts)By this logic the best way to frame the following arguments are:
Cars are DWI machines.
All males are rapists who haven't yet raped.
Medical professionals are genocidal baby killing maniacs.
Airplanes are tower destroyers.
It's intellectually dishonest/regressive thinking.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It is semi-automaticc rifle.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Banning "killing machines." But then I don't get the sense that you are particularly interested in reasoning or learning.
GoneOffShore
(17,339 posts)Killing machines.
And they only care about minutiae.
Not so much human beings.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That the pro control side fails when it comes to actually writing legislation
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Instead of engaging in discussion regarding how we make a difference, the controllers want to assign tags like "killing machine" and then obstinately stick to their pet names. This is why gun control is failing in not only Congress but almost every single state (except Hawaii, California and New York).
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)MurderPenis.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)to confiscate them...
All of my guns, except a recent revolver purchase, are 'off the books', e.i. not registered or acknowledged in any form by the gov't.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)Changes to try and limit or prevent this. The fact that there are those who think nothing should change is remarkable.
Aurora- 12 dead 70 injured.
VT- 32 dead 17 injured
San Bernadino- 14 dead 22 injured
Tucson- 6 dead 15 injured
Fort hood- 13 dead 32 injured
Newtown- 27 dead 1 injured
Orlando- 50 dead 53 injured
Dallas- 5 dead 7 injured
Roseberg 9 dead 9 injured
...the list goes on.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Much more and by handguns, not rifles.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)VT shooter used semi-auto pistols. Dallas appears to be (though not entirely clear yet) a semi-auto rifle that would not qualify as an "assault weapon." Fort Hood was also semi-auto pistol. Aurora was shotgun/semi-auto pistol/semi-auto rifle.
Not a single person on DU is arguing nothing should change. All support some sort of improvement, such as better mental health treatment, background checks, magazine capacity limits, etc. There are many that simply don't support useless laws, like an assault weapon ban.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts) discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Apparently we have...
These know-nothing folks want to be taken seriously and even be relied upon to write laws.
I've certainly had enough.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Did not break out laughing
Response to morningfog (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MadDAsHell
(2,067 posts)Got it, that makes perfect sense...
Democracy isn't your forte, is it?
Re-read the first word of this website's name; you might be in the wrong place...
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)R.A. Ganoush
(97 posts)While the other posts like 'panicky idiot #2' from a bad B movie.
Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)I'm sorry but that sound more like an infantilized society. It's the same kind of thinking that drove Prohibition and we all know how well that worked out.
tirebiter
(2,536 posts)...the rifle used by the suspect in the Dallas murders wasn’t an AR-15 variant rifle as many people originally thought. No, in fact the gun used was a 70+ year old relic that would not meet the definition of an “assault weapon” under most state laws. CBS News is reporting that the firearm used was an SKS rifle
The rifle has a non removeable 10 round magazine and uses a heavy, traditional wood stock. None of the features that states such as California, Massachusetts, and New York use to classify so called “assault weapons” such as a pistol grip, forward vertical grip, removable magazine or other cosmetic features.
ileus
(15,396 posts)If I had assault rifles I'd sell them...
SheriffBob
(552 posts)L think there is a strong sexual connection among gun bunnies and guns.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Although technically it's a military rifle, it's one from the 1940's similar to an M1. It does not have a removable magazine so reloads are done with stripper clip that is not exactly easy like an AR-15 and factory it's limited to 10 rounds. The guy killed as many as he did most likely due to military training over the rifle he used.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)And if so, would be described as an AW.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)SheriffBob
(552 posts)master.
Wayburn
(24 posts)I don't have a rifle that isn't bolt action but I reserve the right to get one to protect my family if our area gets bad. Why should I give up my Constitutional right to protect my family with the best rifle I can get? My family is worth it.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)It may be hard for some to swallow, but there are many gun owning Democrats that *will* fight for gun rights...
You can ignore it, you can deny it, you can pretend...
But we are still here...After all it is an election year, and politically, as a party we are at our weakest in many generations.
I wonder what the effect of all this "gun ban" and "gun control" talk will have on the electorate? History tells us what that will be.....
morningfog
(18,115 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Tend to extremely knowledgeable, politically active, connected, open their wallets, and follow this issue much closer than you think.
This is how they continue to win in the vast majority of this nation.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Hitching their wagons to the NRA. Nasty extremist lot they are.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Your the one saying "they will just have to give them up"..
So, YOU are the one to dictate what folks do with their own personal property, and YOU are the one calling them extremists?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)clinged to by paranoid, usually racist, usually white men. Tomato tomato.
Anyone who cares more about a death tool than a safe a stable society is an extremist.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Instrument of death? Mine "as far as I know" have never hurt anyone, cars, doctors, swimming pools kill far more, than my rifle..
Paranoid? Racist? White Men?.... Obfuscate much??
Who says those with the rifles does not care about a safe society?? Ahh, besides YOU?
It is posts like the one I am replying too, that help assure that gun control will continue to be loosing issue nationally.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)We'll make progress without your regressive paranoia holding it up.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)I am not obsessed with what other people own, you are...
I am not trying to dictate to others what to do with their personal property, you are..
I am not paranoid about anything, your the one trying to dictate terms, all i said in response is "NO", with a LOL!!
Restricting civil liberties IS regressive.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)The debate with this one has swung so far from "arms" as to be at the point of argument about taking guns away completely, yet the people that want to keep modern firearms are the extremists in this ones estimation.
I think that says about all that needs saying.
ileus
(15,396 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)SheriffBob
(552 posts)Don't be a party pooper.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Albertoo
(2,016 posts)More than trucks or guns, the problem is terrorists. Who will always find a way.
I'd rather the majority of decent citizens had the means to defend themselves.