Simple question to gun advocates

[Slade3200]

Driving is NOT a right. Should we curtail 1st amendment rights cause people get nasty at protests? There are already more then enough restrictions on the 2nd amendment.

No shit Sherlock, I was using a metaphor to show an example of how we can help public safety through smart regulation. It isn't a hard concept to understand. I wasn't saying the two situations were the exact same.

 

[radical right]

Fully automatic weapons are inefficient and not designed for high body counts that's why the military does not equip most soldiers with one.

Quite the opposite, the military for the longest preferred bolt action rifles over semi-automatics for the same reason they dropped the full-auto M-16 in favor of the three burst selective fire version.

Ammo

The army has problems keeping the troops in supplies like ammo. And having the front line troops burn through ammo at hundreds of rounds a minute, is unsupportable. But from a killing power standpoint, full-auto is the way to go. Every squad had a M-249 SAW

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986?

No, but I was in 6th grade, so I really didn't have much say.

Do you support it now?

Still absolutely no. (most particularly, the Hughes Amendment)

Why or why not?

1. Because fuck commies.
2. We need equal weapons to that of the army our government controls.
3. It did not prevent any violent crime as the commie left promised. It resulted in the commie left calling for even more gun restrictions, when that one didn't work.
4. Fuck commies.
5. No 2A advocate would support it now, and it would NEVER pass, because the untrustworthy communists on the left continue to push for more restrictions.
6. Did I mention, fuck commies?

 

[radical right]

2. We need equal weapons to that of the army our government controls.

Simply be all that you can be. Join the well regulated militia and you can have all the weapons you want. Or join the police force, they're allowed to have any weapon under the sun.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

We're just going round in circles now, this has been explained, this has been explained

Let me paint it a different way then. Instead of talking about guns and gun control lets parallel it with Driving.

We all enjoy the luxury of driving cars, but many many many people die each year on the roads. So we forgo some of our freedoms to make the roads safer. We have safety regulations imposed on car manufacturers to have things like airbags, we require drivers to have licenses and they have to pass a test to get one, we require drivers to be insured and wear a seat belt. All of these measures help us keep more responsible people behind the wheel and reduce the damage when accidents occur. These measures are not a secret effort to take our cars away, they are there to make the roads safer. Wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't have any control measures and the amount of car deaths each year increased exponentially? Do you see my point?

View attachment 152869

 

[Slade3200]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986?

No, but I was in 6th grade, so I really didn't have much say.

Do you support it now?

Still absolutely no. (most particularly, the Hughes Amendment)

Why or why not?

1. Because fuck commies.
2. We need equal weapons to that of the army our government controls.
3. It did not prevent any violent crime as the commie left promised. It resulted in the commie left calling for even more gun restrictions, when that one didn't work.
4. Fuck commies.
5. No 2A advocate would support it now, and it would NEVER pass, because the untrustworthy communists on the left continue to push for more restrictions.
6. Did I mention, fuck commies?

You want equal weapons to that of the army? So since they have tomahawk missiles and nukes do you think it a smart idea to equip our citizens with the same?

 

[radical right]

 

[Slade3200]

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.

We're just going round in circles now, this has been explained, this has been explained

Let me paint it a different way then. Instead of talking about guns and gun control lets parallel it with Driving.

We all enjoy the luxury of driving cars, but many many many people die each year on the roads. So we forgo some of our freedoms to make the roads safer. We have safety regulations imposed on car manufacturers to have things like airbags, we require drivers to have licenses and they have to pass a test to get one, we require drivers to be insured and wear a seat belt. All of these measures help us keep more responsible people behind the wheel and reduce the damage when accidents occur. These measures are not a secret effort to take our cars away, they are there to make the roads safer. Wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't have any control measures and the amount of car deaths each year increased exponentially? Do you see my point?

View attachment 152869

Looks like we are doing something right, what do you think has brought the gun homicide rate down?

 

[westwall]

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

No. To date, since 1934 when machineguns were heavily regulated, a SINGLE legal machinegun has been used to commit a crime. And that was a MAC10 that a COP used to try and murder his wife.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

We're just going round in circles now, this has been explained, this has been explained

Let me paint it a different way then. Instead of talking about guns and gun control lets parallel it with Driving.

We all enjoy the luxury of driving cars, but many many many people die each year on the roads. So we forgo some of our freedoms to make the roads safer. We have safety regulations imposed on car manufacturers to have things like airbags, we require drivers to have licenses and they have to pass a test to get one, we require drivers to be insured and wear a seat belt. All of these measures help us keep more responsible people behind the wheel and reduce the damage when accidents occur. These measures are not a secret effort to take our cars away, they are there to make the roads safer. Wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't have any control measures and the amount of car deaths each year increased exponentially? Do you see my point?

View attachment 152869

Looks like we are doing something right, what do you think has brought the gun homicide rate down?

The premise of the anti gunners is that MORE firearms equals more homicides more crime and more deaths, That is proven false and yet they keep claiming it.Since the 90's EVERY single time a State passed less restrictive firearms laws the anti Gunners and the democrats all claimed it would be wild shoot outs in the streets shootings in bars and clubs and general mayhem. It has not happened ONCE.

 

[Slade3200]

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

No. To date, since 1934 when machineguns were heavily regulated, a SINGLE legal machinegun has been used to commit a crime. And that was a MAC10 that a COP used to try and murder his wife.

What about gangs using Uzi's and AK-47s in the 1980's. See any problems there?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

We're just going round in circles now, this has been explained, this has been explained

Let me paint it a different way then. Instead of talking about guns and gun control lets parallel it with Driving.

We all enjoy the luxury of driving cars, but many many many people die each year on the roads. So we forgo some of our freedoms to make the roads safer. We have safety regulations imposed on car manufacturers to have things like airbags, we require drivers to have licenses and they have to pass a test to get one, we require drivers to be insured and wear a seat belt. All of these measures help us keep more responsible people behind the wheel and reduce the damage when accidents occur. These measures are not a secret effort to take our cars away, they are there to make the roads safer. Wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't have any control measures and the amount of car deaths each year increased exponentially? Do you see my point?

View attachment 152869

Looks like we are doing something right, what do you think has brought the gun homicide rate down?

The premise of the anti gunners is that MORE firearms equals more homicides more crime and more deaths, That is proven false and yet they keep claiming it.Since the 90's EVERY single time a State passed less restrictive firearms laws the anti Gunners and the democrats all claimed it would be wild shoot outs in the streets shootings in bars and clubs and general mayhem. It has not happened ONCE.

Thats not my premise. Go talk to one of them about your issues with that, but while you hear you can speak to me and the things that I say.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

No. To date, since 1934 when machineguns were heavily regulated, a SINGLE legal machinegun has been used to commit a crime. And that was a MAC10 that a COP used to try and murder his wife.

What about gangs using Uzi's and AK-47s in the 1980's. See any problems there?

Be specific and cite for us this use. Show legit sources that support this claim.

 

[Slade3200]

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

No. To date, since 1934 when machineguns were heavily regulated, a SINGLE legal machinegun has been used to commit a crime. And that was a MAC10 that a COP used to try and murder his wife.

What about gangs using Uzi's and AK-47s in the 1980's. See any problems there?

Be specific and cite for us this use. Show legit sources that support this claim.

Killings Related to Street Gangs Hit Record in '87

 

[koshergrl]

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.

We're just going round in circles now, this has been explained, this has been explained

Let me paint it a different way then. Instead of talking about guns and gun control lets parallel it with Driving.

We all enjoy the luxury of driving cars, but many many many people die each year on the roads. So we forgo some of our freedoms to make the roads safer. We have safety regulations imposed on car manufacturers to have things like airbags, we require drivers to have licenses and they have to pass a test to get one, we require drivers to be insured and wear a seat belt. All of these measures help us keep more responsible people behind the wheel and reduce the damage when accidents occur. These measures are not a secret effort to take our cars away, they are there to make the roads safer. Wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't have any control measures and the amount of car deaths each year increased exponentially? Do you see my point?

View attachment 152869

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Quote by C. S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised...”

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We're just going round in circles now, this has been explained, this has been explained

Let me paint it a different way then. Instead of talking about guns and gun control lets parallel it with Driving.

We all enjoy the luxury of driving cars, but many many many people die each year on the roads. So we forgo some of our freedoms to make the roads safer. We have safety regulations imposed on car manufacturers to have things like airbags, we require drivers to have licenses and they have to pass a test to get one, we require drivers to be insured and wear a seat belt. All of these measures help us keep more responsible people behind the wheel and reduce the damage when accidents occur. These measures are not a secret effort to take our cars away, they are there to make the roads safer. Wouldn't it be a shame if we didn't have any control measures and the amount of car deaths each year increased exponentially? Do you see my point?

View attachment 152869

Looks like we are doing something right, what do you think has brought the gun homicide rate down?

The premise of the anti gunners is that MORE firearms equals more homicides more crime and more deaths, That is proven false and yet they keep claiming it.Since the 90's EVERY single time a State passed less restrictive firearms laws the anti Gunners and the democrats all claimed it would be wild shoot outs in the streets shootings in bars and clubs and general mayhem. It has not happened ONCE.

Thats not my premise. Go talk to one of them about your issues with that, but while you hear you can speak to me and the things that I say.

IT is the premise of EVERYONE that is actively trying to take firearms away from law abiding citizens. Every Democrat and every anti gun proponent. Until you accept that you won't understand why the 2nd amendment protectors have no reason to deal with the disingenuous lies of those trying to pass MORE laws to restrict firearms.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

No. To date, since 1934 when machineguns were heavily regulated, a SINGLE legal machinegun has been used to commit a crime. And that was a MAC10 that a COP used to try and murder his wife.

What about gangs using Uzi's and AK-47s in the 1980's. See any problems there?

Be specific and cite for us this use. Show legit sources that support this claim.

Killings Related to Street Gangs Hit Record in '87

Semi automatic weapons. NOT fully automatic, I thought so.

 

[koshergrl]

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

No. To date, since 1934 when machineguns were heavily regulated, a SINGLE legal machinegun has been used to commit a crime. And that was a MAC10 that a COP used to try and murder his wife.

What about gangs using Uzi's and AK-47s in the 1980's. See any problems there?

Be specific and cite for us this use. Show legit sources that support this claim.

Killings Related to Street Gangs Hit Record in '87

"MS-13 was founded in Los Angeles in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants but spread back to El Salvador, where its leadership is incarcerated, and to the East Coast beginning in the mid-1990s. "

MS-13 gains recruits and power in U.S. as teens surge across border

 

[Darkwind]

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

I do not and I will not now.

A gun, automatic or otherwise, in the hands of law-abiding citizens are no more a danger to you or anyone else than a pack of playing cards.

 

[Crixus]

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

At the risk of trying to would luke warm, I do support it as well as NFA, but I think it needs a serious rework. I think there is room to review and rework it. Full auto weapons and shotguns with 12 inch barrels as well as “silencers”, yet crime committed with these weapons is really very, very low. I don’t think anymore regulations are needed at all so much as a reorganization. Make silencers and short barrled rifles and shotguns legal and more easy to obtain. Then take items that mimic full auto and make owning that the same as full auto. Yes, make it more easy but keep all the regulations and taxes. That’s really two levals of regulation.