Simple question to gun advocates

[Likkmee]

NO. I want equal access to the arms the Nazi police punks and military meatheads have. I think Walmart should sell full auto water cooled fifties to those who pass drug, background and psychological reviews !

 

[BluesLegend]

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 live in the country on acreage, my next door neighbors are morons trust me they should not own a machine gun.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

The line gets drawn at a certain point. For example, I don't think a state should have the right to institute slavery if they wanted to. If a city or state wanted to enforce strict gun control measures and that is what the residents vote for then I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't support a complete ban on guns as that is protected by the second amendment, but if a city/state chooses to undertake strict restrictions and enforcement for the public safety of its citizens then i'm fine with that.

 

[BluesLegend]

As a private citizen I should be able to purchase and carry the exact same firearms law enforcement carries to protect themselves from the same criminals I may have to protect myself and family from. What better definition is there for what the 2nd amendment means by "Arms" in our current day and age?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

I don't think it is a smart approach to throw out measures to increase responsibility and safety over the use and ownership of lethal weapons just because you fear the intentions of a fraction of extremists. Again, most leaders on the left support the second amendment. Show me how many are calling for the abolishment of the second amendment.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The line gets drawn at a certain point. For example, I don't think a state should have the right to institute slavery if they wanted to. If a city or state wanted to enforce strict gun control measures and that is what the residents vote for then I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't support a complete ban on guns as that is protected by the second amendment, but if a city/state chooses to undertake strict restrictions and enforcement for the public safety of its citizens then i'm fine with that.

The whole concept of a right is that the majority doesn't get to vote on you exercising it or not.

The idea of the strict restrictions is a de facto ban, nothing more. How about we impose a 3 week waiting period and a $250 fee for an abortion?

Not be infringed is not being infringed. NYC has no right to be assholes to me when it comes to firearm rights.

and we are talking about a 6 shot freaking revolver, 6 months, $600 in fees just to keep one in my apartment legally.

 

[Borillar]

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.

Oh, kind of like conservatives with abortion rights.

 

[Vastator]

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

No. The people should be armed with the standard issue infantry weapons, or their equivalents, of the days military at a minimum.

 

[Slade3200]

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

Why do you want to talk about that?

 

[TNHarley]

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

No. I believe we should have whatever the bloated federal govt has.
What percent of people that would own automatic weapons abuse them?
I love shooting AKs and ARs. Fully auto would be badass.

 

[Auld Phart]

What part of "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in unclear?

The part about "Well-Regulated Militias...."

This guy on Sunday is not a well-regulated militia...

NO, he is not.
I doubt he is part of any kind of militia


However, he is

part of the people.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

[Slade3200]

NO. I want equal access to the arms the Nazi police punks and military meatheads have. I think Walmart should sell full auto water cooled fifties to those who pass drug, background and psychological reviews !

Well why stop there? we are all citizens under the constitution. Why should those who smoke the occasional joint or have a few voices in their heads have their rights taken away?

 

[koshergrl]

NO. I want equal access to the arms the Nazi police punks and military meatheads have. I think Walmart should sell full auto water cooled fifties to those who pass drug, background and psychological reviews !

I think they should be passed out to everybody, paid for by the feds.
No background checks.

 

[koshergrl]

NO. I want equal access to the arms the Nazi police punks and military meatheads have. I think Walmart should sell full auto water cooled fifties to those who pass drug, background and psychological reviews !

Well why stop there? we are all citizens under the constitution. Why should those who smoke the occasional joint or have a few voices in their heads have their rights taken away?

That's right!

 

[whitehall]

So called "gun advocates" are fine with the hundreds of restrictions placed on the 2nd Amendment. Are lefties O.K. with the concept of using firearms to achieve a political agenda? How come nobody on the left demonstrated against James Hodgkinson's attack on a republican baseball team or complained about H'wood celebs threatening the life of the President? If allegations are true and Paddock murdered 58 people because he was angry about last November's election the democrat party is through as a viable political party.

 

[koshergrl]

 

[Slade3200]

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.

The line gets drawn at a certain point. For example, I don't think a state should have the right to institute slavery if they wanted to. If a city or state wanted to enforce strict gun control measures and that is what the residents vote for then I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't support a complete ban on guns as that is protected by the second amendment, but if a city/state chooses to undertake strict restrictions and enforcement for the public safety of its citizens then i'm fine with that.

The whole concept of a right is that the majority doesn't get to vote on you exercising it or not.

The idea of the strict restrictions is a de facto ban, nothing more. How about we impose a 3 week waiting period and a $250 fee for an abortion?

Not be infringed is not being infringed. NYC has no right to be assholes to me when it comes to firearm rights.

and we are talking about a 6 shot freaking revolver, 6 months, $600 in fees just to keep one in my apartment legally.

Citizens also have the right to be safe and protected. Some feel that owning a gun makes the safe and protected and other feel that less guns in the hands of irresponsible people makes them safe and protected. This is a safety issue which different states handle in different ways. It doesn't really compare to the abortion situation which is a personal choice that a women and families have to make for themselves. It doesn't pose a public safety risk.

 

[martybegan]

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.

The line gets drawn at a certain point. For example, I don't think a state should have the right to institute slavery if they wanted to. If a city or state wanted to enforce strict gun control measures and that is what the residents vote for then I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't support a complete ban on guns as that is protected by the second amendment, but if a city/state chooses to undertake strict restrictions and enforcement for the public safety of its citizens then i'm fine with that.

The whole concept of a right is that the majority doesn't get to vote on you exercising it or not.

The idea of the strict restrictions is a de facto ban, nothing more. How about we impose a 3 week waiting period and a $250 fee for an abortion?

Not be infringed is not being infringed. NYC has no right to be assholes to me when it comes to firearm rights.

and we are talking about a 6 shot freaking revolver, 6 months, $600 in fees just to keep one in my apartment legally.

Citizens also have the right to be safe and protected. Some feel that owning a gun makes the safe and protected and other feel that less guns in the hands of irresponsible people makes them safe and protected. This is a safety issue which different states handle in different ways. It doesn't really compare to the abortion situation which is a personal choice that a women and families have to make for themselves. It doesn't pose a public safety risk.

All that typing and you refuse to answer the questions.

What a pussy.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

The line gets drawn at a certain point. For example, I don't think a state should have the right to institute slavery if they wanted to. If a city or state wanted to enforce strict gun control measures and that is what the residents vote for then I don't have a problem with that. I wouldn't support a complete ban on guns as that is protected by the second amendment, but if a city/state chooses to undertake strict restrictions and enforcement for the public safety of its citizens then i'm fine with that.

The whole concept of a right is that the majority doesn't get to vote on you exercising it or not.

The idea of the strict restrictions is a de facto ban, nothing more. How about we impose a 3 week waiting period and a $250 fee for an abortion?

Not be infringed is not being infringed. NYC has no right to be assholes to me when it comes to firearm rights.

and we are talking about a 6 shot freaking revolver, 6 months, $600 in fees just to keep one in my apartment legally.

Citizens also have the right to be safe and protected. Some feel that owning a gun makes the safe and protected and other feel that less guns in the hands of irresponsible people makes them safe and protected. This is a safety issue which different states handle in different ways. It doesn't really compare to the abortion situation which is a personal choice that a women and families have to make for themselves. It doesn't pose a public safety risk.

wrong
wrong
wrong...and yup...
wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

There is NO BAN on fully automatic weapons. You are a liar. The ban only prevents new ones from being sold and it is perfectly legal in 37 States to own a fully automatic weapon and YES you can buy one.