Simple question to gun advocates

[Crixus]

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.

This is true, but many states don’t allow stick cars on the roads and you have to do things like register them with the track you drive at and submit to very basic safety precautions like modifying the battery compartment, roper crack safety measures and a fire extinguisher, all that. Don’t have to ban, just regulate.

 

[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.

This is true, but many states don’t allow stick cars on the roads and you have to do things like register them with the track you drive at and submit to very basic safety precautions like modifying the battery compartment, roper crack safety measures and a fire extinguisher, all that. Don’t have to ban, just regulate.

Sure, but is driving stick cars a right?

 

[Crixus]

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.

This is true, but many states don’t allow stick cars on the roads and you have to do things like register them with the track you drive at and submit to very basic safety precautions like modifying the battery compartment, roper crack safety measures and a fire extinguisher, all that. Don’t have to ban, just regulate.

Sure, but is driving stick cars a right?

According to my iPhone yeah, but not reallocate no. Stock cars, dragsters, no banning, just moving stuff around.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

This is true, but many states don’t allow stick cars on the roads and you have to do things like register them with the track you drive at and submit to very basic safety precautions like modifying the battery compartment, roper crack safety measures and a fire extinguisher, all that. Don’t have to ban, just regulate.

Sure, but is driving stick cars a right?

According to my iPhone yeah, but not reallocate no. Stock cars, dragsters, no banning, just moving stuff around.

Driving is NOT a right. Never has been.

 

[Flash]

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

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

 

[blackhawk]

It doesn't bother me for hunting ducks it's a shotgun for personal or home protection it's a glock.

 

[fncceo]

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

No.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Fine, but I don't really care about those people. I am a gun owner. I'm fine with gun control measures that help public safety. I don't want to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.

 

[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

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

wow, you won another imaginary argument. Congrats!

 

[Slade3200]

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.

This is true, but many states don’t allow stick cars on the roads and you have to do things like register them with the track you drive at and submit to very basic safety precautions like modifying the battery compartment, roper crack safety measures and a fire extinguisher, all that. Don’t have to ban, just regulate.

Sure, but is driving stick cars a right?

According to my iPhone yeah, but not reallocate no. Stock cars, dragsters, no banning, just moving stuff around.

Driving is NOT a right. Never has been.

So sick of that knee jerk dumbass response... Read between the lines genius. Nobody is claiming that driving is a right.

 

[Slade3200]

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

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

There was no ban. Just a provision that "restricted" and "closed the registry"... Ok

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fine, but I don't really care about those people. I am a gun owner. I'm fine with gun control measures that help public safety. I don't want to take guns away from responsible law abiding citizens.

That's all new gun laws would do.

 

[Flash]

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

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

There was no ban. Just a provision that "restricted" and "closed the registry"... Ok

That is what I was saying, or meant to say if it came across garbled.

 

[Crixus]

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.

This is true, but many states don’t allow stick cars on the roads and you have to do things like register them with the track you drive at and submit to very basic safety precautions like modifying the battery compartment, roper crack safety measures and a fire extinguisher, all that. Don’t have to ban, just regulate.

Sure, but is driving stick cars a right?

According to my iPhone yeah, but not reallocate no. Stock cars, dragsters, no banning, just moving stuff around.

Driving is NOT a right. Never has been.

No one said that. Race cars were simply used as an excample is all. You can regulate stuff without banning it is all. Ever wonder why shooting ranges typical don't let private owners use devices or shoot full auto other then what they rent?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

It's proportional with more and more states adopting a CCW program. Since the 90's, laws for law abiding citizens became more favorable to us. Prior, most were favorable to the criminal.

For instance we created a Castle Doctrine and a CCW program about ten years ago. Prior to that, nobody could get a license to carry a firearm. If somebody broke into your house and hurt themselves, or you hurt them but had an escape route, you could end up in prison and the intruder end up suing you.

When we had enough, we elected gun friendly representatives that allow us to fight back in our home, and if an intruder gets hurt or killed, there is nothing they can do to you. In fact, we extended our Castle Doctrine to CCW holders in their car. If somebody is trying to break into my car, it's (by law) considered the same as somebody trying to break into my home. I have the legal right to kill the SOB, and I won't even get a traffic ticket.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Tomahawk missiles, grenades, and nukes are not used for self defense. They are not used for hunting either.

 

[westwall]

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

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

There was no ban. Just a provision that "restricted" and "closed the registry"... Ok

Up until 1986 machineguns were legal to make and sell. I bought my 1921 Colt Thompson for 1,200 bucks way back in the 1970's. Today that weapon is worth a little over 75,000 thanks to the 1986 law. And, as has been stated, the only criminal use of a legally held machinegun was by an off duty cop. So your statement that machineguns used in crime is very low is in error. It is in fact a singular occurrence.

 

[radical right]

It's proportional with more and more states adopting a CCW program. Since the 90's, laws for law abiding citizens became more favorable to us. Prior, most were favorable to the criminal.

For instance we created a Castle Doctrine and a CCW program about ten years ago. Prior to that, nobody could get a license to carry a firearm. If somebody broke into your house and hurt themselves, or you hurt them but had an escape route, you could end up in prison and the intruder end up suing you.

New York has had the castle doctrine since the revised penal code 1968, and in case law since 1972

N.Y. Penal Law § 35.15 b,c,d,e,f,g,i;
N.Y. Penal Law § 35.27h;
People v. Stevenson, 31 N.Y. 2d 108 (1972)

New York Consolidated Laws, Penal Law - PEN § 35.15 Justification;  use of physical force in defense of a person

1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force.  Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;  except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;  or

 

[Flash]

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

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

There was no ban. Just a provision that "restricted" and "closed the registry"... Ok

Up until 1986 machineguns were legal to make and sell. I bought my 1921 Colt Thompson for 1,200 bucks way back in the 1970's. Today that weapon is worth a little over 75,000 thanks to the 1986 law. And, as has been stated, the only criminal use of a legally held machinegun was by an off duty cop. So your statement that machineguns used in crime is very low is in error. It is in fact a singular occurrence.

Isn't a "single occurrence" very low?

We are in agreement here. Don't quibble.

 

[westwall]

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

There was no ban in 1986. The Hughes Amendment to the Crime Act stopped any guns after 1986 from being registered as NFA. It restricted the number of full auto weapons to about 300,000 that were already in existence.

There has only been one crime with a F=A NFA gun. It was a crime of passion by an off duty policeman that found his wife with another guy.

Legal full auto weapons are not used in crimes.

It is a stupid law. I have a legal Class III M-16. I use it just as responsibly as I use my semi autos.

There was absolutely no reason to close the registry. It was despicable.

There was no ban. Just a provision that "restricted" and "closed the registry"... Ok

Up until 1986 machineguns were legal to make and sell. I bought my 1921 Colt Thompson for 1,200 bucks way back in the 1970's. Today that weapon is worth a little over 75,000 thanks to the 1986 law. And, as has been stated, the only criminal use of a legally held machinegun was by an off duty cop. So your statement that machineguns used in crime is very low is in error. It is in fact a singular occurrence.

Isn't a "single occurrence" very low?

We are in agreement here. Don't quibble.

"Very low" implies more than one. A SINGLE case from 1934 to the present day is not "very low". It is nonexistent.