Simple question to gun advocates

[Frankeneinstein]

There will always be wingnuts on both sides of the spectrum calling for more or less. You can never satisfy everybody. But it also is not fair to say that an entire ideology or side is in agreement with the extremists. I don't hear many on the Left calling for the abolishment of the second amendment, so until that is the reality, lets stick with what is actually happening.

why would you "hear them"...when you are trying to abolish an amendment to the constitution your best course of action is stealth...one step at a time...nibble, nibble, nibble.

I'm curious. Why did you support the ban of automatic weapons in 1986?

I figured gun crime would go away...how can ya have mass shootings if the automatics are banned?...I do believe that the 86 ban was due in large part to sudden rise of the UZI...I read an article about drive-by shootings in L.A. where "uzi-spray" was all the rage...I could be wrong about that but I think that was the case.

Do you think the ban may have saved lives by diminishing the firepower from crazy shooters? Putting single shot weapons into their hands instead of bullet spraying uzi's...

Almost NO one uses automatic weapons for shooting people, it is not that hard to get a fully automatic weapon if one wants one, they are inefficient and not designed for shooting up people. the purpose of full auto on a rifle is suppression fire and almost NO military actually uses that any more they depend on dedicated automatic weapons.

So do you support legalizing them?

depends on how it would affect future court rulings concerning the second amendment, if banning them can in any way become even the slightest of precedents used to go after other things then I am completely against banning them, if it can be proven that it will not be used in such a manner and that all gun control efforts will cease after they are banned then I will not object to it...now lets turn the table 180 degrees....if they are banned will you drop all future gun control arguments and fully support the right to bear arms by private citizens?

 

[Zander]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

No.

Does the military use automatic weapons? How about the paramilitary police forces throughout the country?

Yes. So what?

Then we should have the right to own them as well.

The framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Automatic weapons were not banned in 1986.

It was a provision the Firearm Owners' Protection Act... I'm not interested in the semantics or gotchya games. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the right to own automatic weapons or not.

There is no ban on automatic weapons. That is not nit picking nor is it semantics

THAT IS A FACT.

So the entire premise of your thread is based on nonfactual statements

Can you go to your local gun store and buy an automatic machine gun?

You can order them they are NOT banned. There is NO Federal law banning the ownership purchase or transfer of automatic weapons.

I'm speaking to the House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, otherwise known as the hughes amendment. This is an amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to derail the discussion by knit picking these details and stick to the subject at hand

 

[TomParks]

I'm fine with automatic weapons being banned. But if we give the gun control freaks and inch they take a mile, look lets be honest the gun control lobby their goal is to ban guns, period. It doesn't matter how much we compromise with those assholes they will just keep coming back until there is a full ban on private gun ownership.

Your right you cannot give in at all because liberals will not rest until the 2nd amendment is gone

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Automatic weapons were not banned in 1986.

It was a provision the Firearm Owners' Protection Act... I'm not interested in the semantics or gotchya games. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the right to own automatic weapons or not.

There is no ban on automatic weapons. That is not nit picking nor is it semantics

THAT IS A FACT.

So the entire premise of your thread is based on nonfactual statements

Can you go to your local gun store and buy an automatic machine gun?

Irrelevant. I can own an automatic weapon with the proper federal permits and I can buy one from a dealer with the proper federal permits therefore there is no ban on automatic weapons

Good for you. Not the point of this thread.

 

[Slade3200]

I said multiple times yesterday bump stocks should 100% absolutely be banned!! I have a BIG problem with a device intended to do an end run around current law and getting away with it on a technicality. Second, bump stocks only make it that much easier for the gun control lobby to attack us its freaking stupid.

How about we trade bump stocks for national CCW reciprocity?

Sounds like you like the political pork trading games that stall up just about every bill trying to get pushed through Washington. How about we just deal with one issue at a time? If you think bump stocks are a hazard then lets ban them. If you think the CCW laws in NYC are too strict the make your case and rally votes to change them.

Nah, if you reealllly think banning bump stocks is that important, you would be willing to trade something as obviously infringing as NYC's handgun laws.

Sorry, I don't play those games

Then you really don't care then do you?

Yeah, i care about being straight forward and deal with issue at face value, not playing petty games

 

[Frankeneinstein]

I see the campaign is fishtailing

 

[Skull Pilot]

Automatic weapons were not banned in 1986.

It was a provision the Firearm Owners' Protection Act... I'm not interested in the semantics or gotchya games. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the right to own automatic weapons or not.

There is no ban on automatic weapons. That is not nit picking nor is it semantics

THAT IS A FACT.

So the entire premise of your thread is based on nonfactual statements

Can you go to your local gun store and buy an automatic machine gun?

You can order them they are NOT banned. There is NO Federal law banning the ownership purchase or transfer of automatic weapons.

I'm speaking to the House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, otherwise known as the hughes amendment. This is an amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to derail the discussion by knit picking these details and stick to the subject at hand

Still not a ban.

All that did was make it illegal to buy or transfer an automatic weapon made after 1986

 

[Slade3200]

why would you "hear them"...when you are trying to abolish an amendment to the constitution your best course of action is stealth...one step at a time...nibble, nibble, nibble.

I figured gun crime would go away...how can ya have mass shootings if the automatics are banned?...I do believe that the 86 ban was due in large part to sudden rise of the UZI...I read an article about drive-by shootings in L.A. where "uzi-spray" was all the rage...I could be wrong about that but I think that was the case.

Do you think the ban may have saved lives by diminishing the firepower from crazy shooters? Putting single shot weapons into their hands instead of bullet spraying uzi's...

Almost NO one uses automatic weapons for shooting people, it is not that hard to get a fully automatic weapon if one wants one, they are inefficient and not designed for shooting up people. the purpose of full auto on a rifle is suppression fire and almost NO military actually uses that any more they depend on dedicated automatic weapons.

So do you support legalizing them?

depends on how it would affect future court rulings concerning the second amendment, if banning them can in any way become even the slightest of precedents used to go after other things then I am completely against banning them, if it can be proven that it will not be used in such a manner and that all gun control efforts will cease after they are banned then I will not object to it...now lets turn the table 180 degrees....if they are banned will you drop all future gun control arguments and fully support the right to bear arms by private citizens?

I own guns and support the second amendment. But I don't think anybody should make such a crass claim to drop all future agruments about control measures. If we can make our world safer and find a way our law enforcement can help in those efforts then of course i'd support it. I also wouldn't support measures that I think are unnecessary or ineffective.

 

[martybegan]

How about we trade bump stocks for national CCW reciprocity?

Sounds like you like the political pork trading games that stall up just about every bill trying to get pushed through Washington. How about we just deal with one issue at a time? If you think bump stocks are a hazard then lets ban them. If you think the CCW laws in NYC are too strict the make your case and rally votes to change them.

Nah, if you reealllly think banning bump stocks is that important, you would be willing to trade something as obviously infringing as NYC's handgun laws.

Sorry, I don't play those games

Then you really don't care then do you?

Yeah, i care about being straight forward and deal with issue at face value, not playing petty games

The issue is that gun rights people simply do not trust gun control people when they say "we just want to limit or ban x".

By passing national reciprocity at the same time or having NYC in a show of good faith fix its handgun law they would be showing that they don't want to just ban everything eventually.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Automatic weapons were not banned in 1986.

It was a provision the Firearm Owners' Protection Act... I'm not interested in the semantics or gotchya games. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the right to own automatic weapons or not.

There is no ban on automatic weapons. That is not nit picking nor is it semantics

THAT IS A FACT.

So the entire premise of your thread is based on nonfactual statements

Can you go to your local gun store and buy an automatic machine gun?

Irrelevant. I can own an automatic weapon with the proper federal permits and I can buy one from a dealer with the proper federal permits therefore there is no ban on automatic weapons

Good for you. Not the point of this thread.

It is if you insist on saying that automatic weapons have been banned

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

No.

Does the military use automatic weapons? How about the paramilitary police forces throughout the country?

Yes. So what?

Then we should have the right to own them as well.

The framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny.

Thats fine. I support making our society a safer place and think selling automatic weapons at walmart as counter productive to that

 

[Slade3200]

It was a provision the Firearm Owners' Protection Act... I'm not interested in the semantics or gotchya games. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the right to own automatic weapons or not.

There is no ban on automatic weapons. That is not nit picking nor is it semantics

THAT IS A FACT.

So the entire premise of your thread is based on nonfactual statements

Can you go to your local gun store and buy an automatic machine gun?

You can order them they are NOT banned. There is NO Federal law banning the ownership purchase or transfer of automatic weapons.

I'm speaking to the House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, otherwise known as the hughes amendment. This is an amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to derail the discussion by knit picking these details and stick to the subject at hand

Still not a ban.

All that did was make it illegal to buy or transfer an automatic weapon made after 1986

Thus dramatically reducing accessibility, production, and use of these weapons... Can we move on now to the actual point of this thread?

 

[Slade3200]

Sounds like you like the political pork trading games that stall up just about every bill trying to get pushed through Washington. How about we just deal with one issue at a time? If you think bump stocks are a hazard then lets ban them. If you think the CCW laws in NYC are too strict the make your case and rally votes to change them.

Nah, if you reealllly think banning bump stocks is that important, you would be willing to trade something as obviously infringing as NYC's handgun laws.

Sorry, I don't play those games

Then you really don't care then do you?

Yeah, i care about being straight forward and deal with issue at face value, not playing petty games

The issue is that gun rights people simply do not trust gun control people when they say "we just want to limit or ban x".

By passing national reciprocity at the same time or having NYC in a show of good faith fix its handgun law they would be showing that they don't want to just ban everything eventually.

NYC pass their own laws based on the voting public. Do you not believe in state rights?

 

[Slade3200]

It was a provision the Firearm Owners' Protection Act... I'm not interested in the semantics or gotchya games. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the right to own automatic weapons or not.

There is no ban on automatic weapons. That is not nit picking nor is it semantics

THAT IS A FACT.

So the entire premise of your thread is based on nonfactual statements

Can you go to your local gun store and buy an automatic machine gun?

Irrelevant. I can own an automatic weapon with the proper federal permits and I can buy one from a dealer with the proper federal permits therefore there is no ban on automatic weapons

Good for you. Not the point of this thread.

It is if you insist on saying that automatic weapons have been banned

Are you just trying to be obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious?

 

[martybegan]

Nah, if you reealllly think banning bump stocks is that important, you would be willing to trade something as obviously infringing as NYC's handgun laws.

Sorry, I don't play those games

Then you really don't care then do you?

Yeah, i care about being straight forward and deal with issue at face value, not playing petty games

The issue is that gun rights people simply do not trust gun control people when they say "we just want to limit or ban x".

By passing national reciprocity at the same time or having NYC in a show of good faith fix its handgun law they would be showing that they don't want to just ban everything eventually.

NYC pass their own laws based on the voting public. Do you not believe in state rights?

The law is from the 1920's and was designed to fight armed italian and jewish mafia types.

And do you believe in States rights when it comes to abortions?

The state and city of NY cannot infringe on my 2nd amendment rights, and a 6 month waiting period and $600 in fees is sure as hell infringement.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Do you think the ban may have saved lives by diminishing the firepower from crazy shooters? Putting single shot weapons into their hands instead of bullet spraying uzi's...

Almost NO one uses automatic weapons for shooting people, it is not that hard to get a fully automatic weapon if one wants one, they are inefficient and not designed for shooting up people. the purpose of full auto on a rifle is suppression fire and almost NO military actually uses that any more they depend on dedicated automatic weapons.

So do you support legalizing them?

depends on how it would affect future court rulings concerning the second amendment, if banning them can in any way become even the slightest of precedents used to go after other things then I am completely against banning them, if it can be proven that it will not be used in such a manner and that all gun control efforts will cease after they are banned then I will not object to it...now lets turn the table 180 degrees....if they are banned will you drop all future gun control arguments and fully support the right to bear arms by private citizens?

I own guns and support the second amendment. But I don't think anybody should make such a crass claim to drop all future agruments about control measures. If we can make our world safer and find a way our law enforcement can help in those efforts then of course i'd support it. I also wouldn't support measures that I think are unnecessary or ineffective.

I don't own guns, in fact when my father passed away he left me 2 and I gave them away [hunting rifles] because I just don't like them...but what is the point of giving in to banning automatic weapons if you are going to have to continue fighting gun control advocates who do want to abolish the second amendment? if you cannot drop the gun control argument I cannot support the ban...my entire argument is that no amount of appeasement to the gun control advocates will ever be enough until the second amendment is gone.

 

[whitehall]

Automatic weapons have been banned since 1935.

 

[ph3iron]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

I never hear to all these brave packers "how many times has a gun saved your life"

 

[ph3iron]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

Talk about living in the 1870s