Should AUTOMATIC firearms be legal ?

[2aguy]

I grew up hunting in Montana as a kid and there were always guns around. We had everything from handguns (6 shooters mostly), to semi automatic handguns (only 1 for home defense), to bolt action rifles, which we had the most of.

I also served 20 years in the military, and one tour spent it on the Security Force where I carried a weapon on patrol.

Here is my opinion. If you want a 6 shooter, have as many as you want. If you want a semi automatic pistol, have as many as you want, but you shouldn't be able to shoot more than 10 rounds before having to reload.

If you want a bolt action rifle? Have as many as you want. Not only are they more accurate than semi automatic weapons, but they also come in calibers of sufficient size to bring down big game.

If you want an AR-15? Have as many as you want, just make sure they are like the first model that came out and only carried 6 rounds before having to be reloaded. You don't need 30 to 100 rounds sent downrange before reloading.

Should bump stocks be legal? Hell no. They make AR15's into fully automatic weapons.

Should fully automatic weapons be legal? Not for civilian use. The only reason to "need" a full auto weapon is in a war zone.

Magazine limits are stupid....they achieve nothing, and just as we don't limit the fire department to 100 gallons of water to put out a house fire....you don't get to limit the ability of people to defend their families to 10 rounds in a magazine...which one day will be down to a 6 shot revolver...since the Florida shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines....

Bump stocks do not make the AR-15 into a fully auto weapon...

 

[2aguy]

I grew up hunting in Montana as a kid and there were always guns around. We had everything from handguns (6 shooters mostly), to semi automatic handguns (only 1 for home defense), to bolt action rifles, which we had the most of.

I also served 20 years in the military, and one tour spent it on the Security Force where I carried a weapon on patrol.

Here is my opinion. If you want a 6 shooter, have as many as you want. If you want a semi automatic pistol, have as many as you want, but you shouldn't be able to shoot more than 10 rounds before having to reload.

If you want a bolt action rifle? Have as many as you want. Not only are they more accurate than semi automatic weapons, but they also come in calibers of sufficient size to bring down big game.

If you want an AR-15? Have as many as you want, just make sure they are like the first model that came out and only carried 6 rounds before having to be reloaded. You don't need 30 to 100 rounds sent downrange before reloading.

Should bump stocks be legal? Hell no. They make AR15's into fully automatic weapons.

Should fully automatic weapons be legal? Not for civilian use. The only reason to "need" a full auto weapon is in a war zone.

Sorry, but I have grown to love my 30 round hi cap mags for my Ruger Mini.

Anybody who wants to take them away can peel them from my cold dead hands.

Are you really such a crappy shot that it takes you 30 rounds to hit your target?

That is a stupid fucking argument.....you don't know how many bullets it will take to stop one or more determined criminals from harming your family or your physical ability at the time you may have to do it....

The only people who need 30 round magazines...or actually 15-17 round magazines for pistols since that is the intent behind banning magazines over 10 rounds.....getting the pistols.......are normal, law abiding people.

A standard 15 round magazine means you don't have to change it as often when you are under attack or injured......if you are injured, you lose control of your small motor skills.....like changing a magazine...so if you need more than 10 rounds to fight off one or more criminals, you will need to change your 10 round magazine........which is a lot harder if you have already been shot, or been injured, the adrenaline just from having to fight is a real issue....those extra 5-7 bullets may mean the difference between life and death for you and your family.

The famous FBI shootout in Florida? The FBI agent at the end had to change his magazine one handed because he was wounded...and he would have been murdered if the shooter hadn't run out of bullets

 

[Muhammed]

I’m trying to gauge the level of the hyper gun crowd here .

Could you define what constitutes a "hyper gun" in your opinion? Would various Nerf guns fall into your arbitrarily defined category of a "hyper gun"?

After all, the fact of the matter is that a Nerf gun can be used as a very cruel murder weapon, especially if the murderer is significantly stronger than the murder victim. It is even very likely that a well-trained strong young Russian soldier could torture an elderly disabled victim in order to coerce them into voting for Trump.

If the vulnerable and disabled minority elderly people in the USA cannot effectively defend themselves from the Russians, how you can have any confidence whatsoever that they will not use Nerf guns to meddle in our elections?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They are already legal. You just have to pay the tax.

Well, not really.

Well, yes really.

Of course we should ban them entirely because all you have to do is pay. Tax right?

How about we ban crazy people instead?

 

[WinterBorn]

I’m trying to gauge the level of the hyper gun crowd here .

They live to lecture about how automatics aren’t really legal, which is true . But that’s water under the bridge .

If you could reverse the ban on auto weapons, would you ?

Because it seems like the gun crowd here is against ANY kind of gun control .

What difference does it make, Timmy? You are looking for an answer that will allow you to bash those who support the 2nd amendment. Fact is that it makes no difference what is legal or not. Those who would murder don't give a rat's ass about laws and there are more than enough illegal firearms they can get ahold of. Remember all those weapons that the Obama administration allowed into the hands of criminals? That's just a tiny percent.

Criminals would continue to have all kinds of weapons even if a total ban became law.

The person holding the gun is either dangerous or not dangerous. If a dangerous person does have a weapons of any kind, a gun is the only equalizer. Maybe you liberals are fine with becoming victims should your home get invaded by a gang but many would rather have the means to fight.

Gang home invasions have increased, especially in the southern states. If 4 or 5 gang members kick your door down in the middle of the night, an automatic weapon is your only hope of saving your family.

If guns scare you, don't buy them. I hope you have good home security and cameras to help the police catch the murderers. Of course, if they are illegal, they'll end up in a sanctuary city anyway.

As long as criminals have weapons, I will have mine. Always need to be as well armed as any potential threat. I don't want to be a victim.

In the past, the biggest threat to unarmed people was the government. History can and will repeat itself if the same circumstances come about.

I would live in fear of a liberal government and a gun ban. It would be the end.

I’ll take that as a yes.

Why don’t you just own your screwball position? Why are u embarrassed by it? Unless, deep down you know you are wrong .

YOu haven't owned the fact that your original question is based on a faulty premise, since automatic weapons are not actually banned.

Effectively they are.

No, they are not. Unless you have done something wrong and your sheriff won't sign off or you have committed a crime that prevents you from owning one. Then YOU are banned from owning them.

Regulated does not equal banned. There are over 28k machine guns owned by civilians in Texas alone.
About 28,690 machine guns are registered in Texas

 

[Timmy]

I’m trying to gauge the level of the hyper gun crowd here .

Could you define what constitutes a "hyper gun" in your opinion? Would various Nerf guns fall into your arbitrarily defined category of a "hyper gun"?

After all, the fact of the matter is that a Nerf gun can be used as a very cruel murder weapon, especially if the murderer is significantly stronger than the murder victim. It is even very likely that a well-trained strong young Russian soldier could torture an elderly disabled victim in order to coerce them into voting for Trump.

If the vulnerable and disabled minority elderly people in the USA cannot effectively defend themselves from the Russians, how you can have any confidence whatsoever that they will not use Nerf guns to meddle in our elections?

Hyper gun? I’d say the extreme right on the gun spectrum .

 

[Timmy]

I’m trying to gauge the level of the hyper gun crowd here .

They live to lecture about how automatics aren’t really legal, which is true . But that’s water under the bridge .

If you could reverse the ban on auto weapons, would you ?

Because it seems like the gun crowd here is against ANY kind of gun control .

What difference does it make, Timmy? You are looking for an answer that will allow you to bash those who support the 2nd amendment. Fact is that it makes no difference what is legal or not. Those who would murder don't give a rat's ass about laws and there are more than enough illegal firearms they can get ahold of. Remember all those weapons that the Obama administration allowed into the hands of criminals? That's just a tiny percent.

Criminals would continue to have all kinds of weapons even if a total ban became law.

The person holding the gun is either dangerous or not dangerous. If a dangerous person does have a weapons of any kind, a gun is the only equalizer. Maybe you liberals are fine with becoming victims should your home get invaded by a gang but many would rather have the means to fight.

Gang home invasions have increased, especially in the southern states. If 4 or 5 gang members kick your door down in the middle of the night, an automatic weapon is your only hope of saving your family.

If guns scare you, don't buy them. I hope you have good home security and cameras to help the police catch the murderers. Of course, if they are illegal, they'll end up in a sanctuary city anyway.

As long as criminals have weapons, I will have mine. Always need to be as well armed as any potential threat. I don't want to be a victim.

In the past, the biggest threat to unarmed people was the government. History can and will repeat itself if the same circumstances come about.

I would live in fear of a liberal government and a gun ban. It would be the end.

I’ll take that as a yes.

Why don’t you just own your screwball position? Why are u embarrassed by it? Unless, deep down you know you are wrong .

YOu haven't owned the fact that your original question is based on a faulty premise, since automatic weapons are not actually banned.

But they kind of are banned . Sure there are some floating around and you need to go thru all kinds of hoops to get . But it’s effectivly a ban .

 

[beagle9]

I’m trying to gauge the level of the hyper gun crowd here .

They live to lecture about how automatics aren’t really legal, which is true . But that’s water under the bridge .

If you could reverse the ban on auto weapons, would you ?

Because it seems like the gun crowd here is against ANY kind of gun control .

The right to bear ARMS shall not be infringed.

WELL REGULATED! you ain’t the only one who can cherry pick lines .

Well regulated by the person that owns the firearm is what it means...

Yeah no, not buying that. You know damn well what regulated means.

Ever heard of regulating your own actions in life, and this in so that you could be a responsible citizen who has in his or her care the price of freedom to gaurd ???

 

[beagle9]

I grew up hunting in Montana as a kid and there were always guns around. We had everything from handguns (6 shooters mostly), to semi automatic handguns (only 1 for home defense), to bolt action rifles, which we had the most of.

I also served 20 years in the military, and one tour spent it on the Security Force where I carried a weapon on patrol.

Here is my opinion. If you want a 6 shooter, have as many as you want. If you want a semi automatic pistol, have as many as you want, but you shouldn't be able to shoot more than 10 rounds before having to reload.

If you want a bolt action rifle? Have as many as you want. Not only are they more accurate than semi automatic weapons, but they also come in calibers of sufficient size to bring down big game.

If you want an AR-15? Have as many as you want, just make sure they are like the first model that came out and only carried 6 rounds before having to be reloaded. You don't need 30 to 100 rounds sent downrange before reloading.

Should bump stocks be legal? Hell no. They make AR15's into fully automatic weapons.

Should fully automatic weapons be legal? Not for civilian use. The only reason to "need" a full auto weapon is in a war zone.

Magazine limits are stupid....they achieve nothing, and just as we don't limit the fire department to 100 gallons of water to put out a house fire....you don't get to limit the ability of people to defend their families to 10 rounds in a magazine...which one day will be down to a 6 shot revolver...since the Florida shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines....

Bump stocks do not make the AR-15 into a fully auto weapon...

.The problem with any actions taken on gun control is that the criminals don't honor any type of laws that are put in place to regulate the good guy's who commit no crime, but rather defend against it.

The major problem is that we know how politicians and lawmakers lie all the time, and how we are left vulnerable by those dam lies.

Go get the guns and weapons from the bad guy's first, and then we can all sit down at the table to talk, but it won't be no talk like this one -

 

[WinterBorn]

I’m trying to gauge the level of the hyper gun crowd here .

They live to lecture about how automatics aren’t really legal, which is true . But that’s water under the bridge .

If you could reverse the ban on auto weapons, would you ?

Because it seems like the gun crowd here is against ANY kind of gun control .

What difference does it make, Timmy? You are looking for an answer that will allow you to bash those who support the 2nd amendment. Fact is that it makes no difference what is legal or not. Those who would murder don't give a rat's ass about laws and there are more than enough illegal firearms they can get ahold of. Remember all those weapons that the Obama administration allowed into the hands of criminals? That's just a tiny percent.

Criminals would continue to have all kinds of weapons even if a total ban became law.

The person holding the gun is either dangerous or not dangerous. If a dangerous person does have a weapons of any kind, a gun is the only equalizer. Maybe you liberals are fine with becoming victims should your home get invaded by a gang but many would rather have the means to fight.

Gang home invasions have increased, especially in the southern states. If 4 or 5 gang members kick your door down in the middle of the night, an automatic weapon is your only hope of saving your family.

If guns scare you, don't buy them. I hope you have good home security and cameras to help the police catch the murderers. Of course, if they are illegal, they'll end up in a sanctuary city anyway.

As long as criminals have weapons, I will have mine. Always need to be as well armed as any potential threat. I don't want to be a victim.

In the past, the biggest threat to unarmed people was the government. History can and will repeat itself if the same circumstances come about.

I would live in fear of a liberal government and a gun ban. It would be the end.

I’ll take that as a yes.

Why don’t you just own your screwball position? Why are u embarrassed by it? Unless, deep down you know you are wrong .

YOu haven't owned the fact that your original question is based on a faulty premise, since automatic weapons are not actually banned.

But they kind of are banned . Sure there are some floating around and you need to go thru all kinds of hoops to get . But it’s effectivly a ban .

Effectively a ban? There are over 28,000 of them in Texas. If that is a ban, it is most ineffective.

 

[WinterBorn]

I grew up hunting in Montana as a kid and there were always guns around. We had everything from handguns (6 shooters mostly), to semi automatic handguns (only 1 for home defense), to bolt action rifles, which we had the most of.

I also served 20 years in the military, and one tour spent it on the Security Force where I carried a weapon on patrol.

Here is my opinion. If you want a 6 shooter, have as many as you want. If you want a semi automatic pistol, have as many as you want, but you shouldn't be able to shoot more than 10 rounds before having to reload.

If you want a bolt action rifle? Have as many as you want. Not only are they more accurate than semi automatic weapons, but they also come in calibers of sufficient size to bring down big game.

If you want an AR-15? Have as many as you want, just make sure they are like the first model that came out and only carried 6 rounds before having to be reloaded. You don't need 30 to 100 rounds sent downrange before reloading.

Should bump stocks be legal? Hell no. They make AR15's into fully automatic weapons.

Should fully automatic weapons be legal? Not for civilian use. The only reason to "need" a full auto weapon is in a war zone.

Magazine limits are stupid....they achieve nothing, and just as we don't limit the fire department to 100 gallons of water to put out a house fire....you don't get to limit the ability of people to defend their families to 10 rounds in a magazine...which one day will be down to a 6 shot revolver...since the Florida shooter, the Santa Barbara shooter used 10 round magazines....

Bump stocks do not make the AR-15 into a fully auto weapon...

.The problem with any actions taken on gun control is that the criminals don't honor any type of laws that are put in place to regulate the good guy's who commit no crime, but rather defend against it.

The major problem is that we know how politicians and lawmakers lie all the time, and how we are left vulnerable by those dam lies.

Go get the guns and weapons from the bad guy's first, and then we can all sit down at the table to talk, but it won't be no talk like this one -

As I have seen said before, the entire "Common sense gun laws" argument is based on the idea that there are Bad Guns and Good Guns. Start with that nonsense and the result is worthless.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I grew up hunting in Montana as a kid and there were always guns around. We had everything from handguns (6 shooters mostly), to semi automatic handguns (only 1 for home defense), to bolt action rifles, which we had the most of.

I also served 20 years in the military, and one tour spent it on the Security Force where I carried a weapon on patrol.

Here is my opinion. If you want a 6 shooter, have as many as you want. If you want a semi automatic pistol, have as many as you want, but you shouldn't be able to shoot more than 10 rounds before having to reload.

If you want a bolt action rifle? Have as many as you want. Not only are they more accurate than semi automatic weapons, but they also come in calibers of sufficient size to bring down big game.

If you want an AR-15? Have as many as you want, just make sure they are like the first model that came out and only carried 6 rounds before having to be reloaded. You don't need 30 to 100 rounds sent downrange before reloading.

Should bump stocks be legal? Hell no. They make AR15's into fully automatic weapons.

Should fully automatic weapons be legal? Not for civilian use. The only reason to "need" a full auto weapon is in a war zone.

Sorry, but I have grown to love my 30 round hi cap mags for my Ruger Mini.

Anybody who wants to take them away can peel them from my cold dead hands.

Are you really such a crappy shot that it takes you 30 rounds to hit your target?

What about multiple targets?

 

[SavannahMann]

They are already legal. You just have to pay the tax.

Well, not really.

Well, yes really.

Of course we should ban them entirely because all you have to do is pay. Tax right?

How about we ban crazy people instead?

I like how you skipped all the details. Not surprised. The last thing you want to do is discuss the truth.

 

[whitehall]

That's the problem with the left. Because they are so full of hatred they make crazy assumptions that have no basis in reality. The ban against fully automatic weapons has been in place since the 30's and so far there is no effort to repeal it. It should be noted that there are exceptions to the law and a person could obtain a fully automatic weapon after an investigation and payment of substantial fee and registration with the ATF.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I grew up hunting in Montana as a kid and there were always guns around. We had everything from handguns (6 shooters mostly), to semi automatic handguns (only 1 for home defense), to bolt action rifles, which we had the most of.

I also served 20 years in the military, and one tour spent it on the Security Force where I carried a weapon on patrol.

Here is my opinion. If you want a 6 shooter, have as many as you want. If you want a semi automatic pistol, have as many as you want, but you shouldn't be able to shoot more than 10 rounds before having to reload.

If you want a bolt action rifle? Have as many as you want. Not only are they more accurate than semi automatic weapons, but they also come in calibers of sufficient size to bring down big game.

If you want an AR-15? Have as many as you want, just make sure they are like the first model that came out and only carried 6 rounds before having to be reloaded. You don't need 30 to 100 rounds sent downrange before reloading.

Should bump stocks be legal? Hell no. They make AR15's into fully automatic weapons.

Should fully automatic weapons be legal? Not for civilian use. The only reason to "need" a full auto weapon is in a war zone.

That is an awesome idea, just please be sure to inform the home invader, or mugger that they too will also need to only bring magazines that hold 6 rounds. [emoji846]

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They are already legal. You just have to pay the tax.

Well, not really.

Well, yes really.

Of course we should ban them entirely because all you have to do is pay. Tax right?

How about we ban crazy people instead?

I like how you skipped all the details. Not surprised. The last thing you want to do is discuss the truth.

Law enforcement had 40 incidents involving Cruz prior to the shooting. They did nothing.

 

[beagle9]

They are already legal. You just have to pay the tax.

Well, not really.

Well, yes really.

Of course we should ban them entirely because all you have to do is pay. Tax right?

How about we ban crazy people instead?

I like how you skipped all the details. Not surprised. The last thing you want to do is discuss the truth.

Law enforcement had 40 incidents involving Cruz prior to the shooting. They did nothing.

.And it appears that they did nothing because they had a leftist or liberal sheriff. Is he one of those leftist that tells the illegals to scatter before ICE arrives ?? Is he one who disapproves of the death penalty ?? Is he one who carries the water for the leftist cause ? Was he and his depart. derilic in their duties ?? Was Cruz yet another example of leftist compassion or sympathies for the devil (devil meaning evil) ?

 

[bripat9643]

I’m trying to gauge the level of the hyper gun crowd here .

They live to lecture about how automatics aren’t really legal, which is true . But that’s water under the bridge .

If you could reverse the ban on auto weapons, would you ?

Because it seems like the gun crowd here is against ANY kind of gun control .

What difference does it make, Timmy? You are looking for an answer that will allow you to bash those who support the 2nd amendment. Fact is that it makes no difference what is legal or not. Those who would murder don't give a rat's ass about laws and there are more than enough illegal firearms they can get ahold of. Remember all those weapons that the Obama administration allowed into the hands of criminals? That's just a tiny percent.

Criminals would continue to have all kinds of weapons even if a total ban became law.

The person holding the gun is either dangerous or not dangerous. If a dangerous person does have a weapons of any kind, a gun is the only equalizer. Maybe you liberals are fine with becoming victims should your home get invaded by a gang but many would rather have the means to fight.

Gang home invasions have increased, especially in the southern states. If 4 or 5 gang members kick your door down in the middle of the night, an automatic weapon is your only hope of saving your family.

If guns scare you, don't buy them. I hope you have good home security and cameras to help the police catch the murderers. Of course, if they are illegal, they'll end up in a sanctuary city anyway.

As long as criminals have weapons, I will have mine. Always need to be as well armed as any potential threat. I don't want to be a victim.

In the past, the biggest threat to unarmed people was the government. History can and will repeat itself if the same circumstances come about.

I would live in fear of a liberal government and a gun ban. It would be the end.

I’ll take that as a yes.

Why don’t you just own your screwball position? Why are u embarrassed by it? Unless, deep down you know you are wrong .

YOu haven't owned the fact that your original question is based on a faulty premise, since automatic weapons are not actually banned.

But they kind of are banned . Sure there are some floating around and you need to go thru all kinds of hoops to get . But it’s effectivly a ban .

Effectively a ban? There are over 28,000 of them in Texas. If that is a ban, it is most ineffective.

Texas has population of 28 million. That means only 0.1 percent of the population owns one - perhaps even less since collectors probably own more than one.

 

[SavannahMann]

They are already legal. You just have to pay the tax.

Well, not really.

Well, yes really.

Of course we should ban them entirely because all you have to do is pay. Tax right?

How about we ban crazy people instead?

I like how you skipped all the details. Not surprised. The last thing you want to do is discuss the truth.

Law enforcement had 40 incidents involving Cruz prior to the shooting. They did nothing.

So your objections should focus on law enforcement. Look. Let’s try being honest for a change. The police have had the ability for more than thirty years in Florida to involuntarily commit someone for three days to get a psychiatric evaluation. Cruz rang every bell, and it was never taken. The FBI was advised, and did nothing. It wasn’t that the system lacked the authority or ability. They lacked the will. Not unusual. Every attack has had warning signs. The Boston Marathon Bombing? Oh a typo prevented the Feds from connecting the dots.

In a way, our response to these events in absolutely insane. It’s like the guy who puts a buck on the lottery and loses. Then he doubles down with two bucks. Before long he is putting everything on the lottery every week. We would say he has a gambling problem. As a society we have a legislation problem. The laws prohibiting the tragedy didn’t work because the authorities didn’t use them. Instead of blaming the folks not doing their jobs, we want a new law to prevent it.

Imagine that there is a stretch of road where kids are drag racing. The speed limit is fifty. The cops never show up and pass out tickets. So we lower the speed limit to 40. The kids keep drag racing. Again no tickets. We demand that the speed limit be lowered. Then lowered again. Eventually the speed limit is 5 and nothing has changed. Sound insane? Well it is what we are doing with guns. We don’t enforce the laws we have and instead demand new ones.

People argue that progressive ideas are logical. They aren’t. They are fantasy. In the UK they have speed cameras up all over. This is to reduce highway deaths. The highway deaths are exactly the same as before they put the cameras up. The answer? More cameras are needed. If something isn’t working, more of the same won’t work either.

The system is broken. The cops aren’t doing the job. So pretending that lowering the speed limit again will fix it is asinine. It’s delusional.

 

[WinterBorn]

They are already legal. You just have to pay the tax.

Well, not really.

Well, yes really.

Of course we should ban them entirely because all you have to do is pay. Tax right?

How about we ban crazy people instead?

I like how you skipped all the details. Not surprised. The last thing you want to do is discuss the truth.

Law enforcement had 40 incidents involving Cruz prior to the shooting. They did nothing.

.And it appears that they did nothing because they had a leftist or liberal sheriff. Is he one of those leftist that tells the illegals to scatter before ICE arrives ?? Is he one who disapproves of the death penalty ?? Is he one who carries the water for the leftist cause ? Was he and his depart. derilic in their duties ?? Was Cruz yet another example of leftist compassion or sympathies for the devil (devil meaning evil) ?

Not just the local LE, but the FBI received a tip saying they thought he would shoot up a school. They did nothing.