Ex-Supreme Court Justice Wants to Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons-What Is a Semi-Automatic Weapon?

[HereWeGoAgain]

I find that hard to believe.
I mean here you are in a discussion about gun control and you're trying to tell me you dont even know what the 2nd is about?

Then why did you ask?

This statement right here....

"Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation."

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?

I just 'splained it to you.

No you didnt.

 

[toobfreak]

[Q

Do you need to register to vote? To own and drive a car? To go to school? To own a business? To earn any money at all? You are confusing the "rights" of citizens within a certain country to the rights of someone living alone on a deserted island.

Since only citizens are allowed to vote we have voter registration.

You do not need a license to drive a car unless you are driving it on roads paid for out of public funds.

Business licenses are nothing more than the locals getting some of your tax dollars.

In my life I have earned all kinds of money without government permission.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Go look it up.

That is the only license an American citizen needs to keep and bear arms.

Funny that "only a citizen can vote" yet the conservatives are now and always have been all in for illegal criminals, even those on the no-fly list, to buy guns.
If you BUY a car you still have to have it registered AND have a license, unless you buy a car from a private citizen (like a car thief for example).
Business licenses are there to make sure you are paying your taxes (as all citizens and most illegals do) as well as complying with this countries laws. Only law breakers try to justify not following the law with taxes. Like Don't tax you and don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree (or laws apply to you and not me).
If you earned money and did not report it you are a criminal. It's funny because many "Illegals" do report all their money and as such are less criminal than you in that sense.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the first four words of the Second. Well regulated MEANS the government can regulated (or pass any laws concerning guns). Go look it up yourself. And while you are there look up all the regulations regarding guns that were imposed by the actual writers of that amendment also known as our forefathers. Derp.

A WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the first four words of the Second. Well regulated MEANS the government can regulated (or pass any laws concerning guns). Go look it up yourself.

Another bonehead speaks up. So, in other words, sedwin, your infarctive cranial cesspool of a mind has decided that the Framers intended that a well regulated militia with the intention of being able to stand up against a standing army in order to insure the security of a Free State be defined and controlled by the very authority it might be called upon to oppose?

ARE YOU THAT FREEKING STUPID?

So in other words, if the government wanted to assert autocratic control, all they would need to do is "regulate" the militia to having only slingshots? Get them out of the way. Take their guns. No more militia to get in their way. Maybe you ought to read THIS:

The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Then why did you ask?

This statement right here....

"Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation."

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?

I just 'splained it to you.

Yeah, it's funny that back when the 2cd was written people carried, muskets, swords and knives. In my State you can own and carry a gun on your hip or over your shoulder anywhere, at any time, except in liquor stores, court houses and banks. But even owning a switch blade (kept in a box in your attic) is a felony punishable by prison. I wonder why? Oh yeah. There is no National Knife Association looking to protect their profits. lol

Switchblades are only illegal in certain states.

 

[xyz]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

You are correct, it does mean most guns.

A revolver or single shot rifle means you need to put a new round (bullet) in a chamber before you can fire. A revolver does that automatically by revolving the rounds you put in it.

A semi-automatic means the rounds load themselves. When you squeeze the trigger, a round goes off and a new one is automatically put into the chamber.

I think revolvers are similar, unless it's one where you have to cock the hammer before each shot. I'm not really that familiar with revolvers, are those that you keep having to cock even still made or just cowboy relics?

Of course you can cock even regular pistols with magazines so you can fire the first shot faster, but that's not what I'm getting at.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

You are correct, it does mean most guns.

A revolver or single shot rifle means you need to put a new round (bullet) in a chamber before you can fire. A revolver does that automatically by revolving the rounds you put in it.

A semi-automatic means the rounds load themselves. When you squeeze the trigger, a round goes off and a new one is automatically put into the chamber.

I think revolvers are similar, unless it's one where you have to cock the hammer before each shot. I'm not really that familiar with revolvers, are those that you keep having to cock even still made or just cowboy relics?

Of course you can cock even regular pistols with magazines so you can fire the first shot faster, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Single action revolvers are obsolete when you consider you can shoot the double action in the same manner if you choose to do so.

 

[Darkwind]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

There is no overkill involved. An AR-15 is nothing more than an ugly looking semi-automatic rifle. It has no features which make it any more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol.

You are correct but who cares even if it is "overkill"? I know I don't. I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire. They are good things.

My car can go faster than any speed limit. Isn't that overkill? Do these Moon Bats want to restrict everything that they consider to be overkill?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

You still have the right to carry, just not those. Your rights are untouched.

Show Me where the Second say, "Except for these items here".

BTW. Take a trip through history and discover how banning ANYTHING has never worked.

 

[toobfreak]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

Let me explain it this way as you are not a gun user. Why do you drive an automatic and not a stick? Worse, imagine if your car had three gears, but you had to stop the car to change from one gear to the next. Imagine if your cellphone could only do telephone OR internet OR games. Not all at the same time. Imagine when you bought a TV or DVR, it could only watch one channel or record one station and not several.

Would you consider any of the better, popular choices overkill? Of course not. The question seems ridiculous because you take your options for granted. It is the same way with a semi-auto. They have had semi-auto since the Old West because it simply makes the firearm better, more fun, easier to use for more stuff. Less hassle to operate. Better sport. Only from a military aspect does it also make the gun more potentially deadlier.

People would live healthier if all they ate was Kale. People would be killed in far fewer car accidents if they were all made to only go 25 mph. People would spend far less time on cellphones if they were only made to make telephone calls. People would spend more time with their families instead of watching TV if TV was only on from 8 to 11, and there was only 3-5 TV channels like when I was a kid. And guns would be less easily misused to hurt others if they only shot one round of .22LR at a time.

But just as no one wants to live on Kale, people want and need to go faster, cellphones are desired for other things, and folks will watch all the TV they can get, guns are both desired for and needed for more than plinking tin cans. The shooting and hunting sports is a wide and diverse field, firearms is a vast and proud tradition of history with many fans and adherents, and no one can define the needs of "civilian use;" just because today, they may sit in a closet collecting dust, or out on the field target practicing and competition or bringing home food, who can say what lays ahead a year from now, five years from now or 25 years from now? History shows that war, civilian suppression, oppression, and abuse are cyclic, and if it ever comes down to tyranny (and many feel we are getting close to that now), do you really want to be left there with nothing but your finger to point in your defense? Or are you just willing to lay down, surrender and die?

The one thing history teaches is that governments always act in THEIR best interests, not in those of its people. Only a fool thinks all these efforts to limit, restrict and ban guns is "for the public good," and once gone, you're not getting them back, and free of that restraint of an armed populace, even the best of governments with good intentions are now free to do whatever the hell they damn well please. I choose not to gamble on their good will.

So you're ok with some restrictions on cars (like a speed limit) but you're against any kind of controls for weapons? And it's because you're paranoid of your own government? Geez, that's pretty scary.

What is pretty scary is that your mouth moves and your fingers type, but you habitually misread other's statements and put words in their mouth they never even said! Then when you come to the most idiotic mis-conclusions, you accuse and label others based on your own inability to even ******* read.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When all you guns freaks WASH THE BLOOD OFF YOUR HANDS FROM ALL THE DEAD CHILDREN!!!

Probably about one-one hundredth of the blood that flows out of abortion clinics.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

Let me explain it this way as you are not a gun user. Why do you drive an automatic and not a stick? Worse, imagine if your car had three gears, but you had to stop the car to change from one gear to the next. Imagine if your cellphone could only do telephone OR internet OR games. Not all at the same time. Imagine when you bought a TV or DVR, it could only watch one channel or record one station and not several.

Would you consider any of the better, popular choices overkill? Of course not. The question seems ridiculous because you take your options for granted. It is the same way with a semi-auto. They have had semi-auto since the Old West because it simply makes the firearm better, more fun, easier to use for more stuff. Less hassle to operate. Better sport. Only from a military aspect does it also make the gun more potentially deadlier.

People would live healthier if all they ate was Kale. People would be killed in far fewer car accidents if they were all made to only go 25 mph. People would spend far less time on cellphones if they were only made to make telephone calls. People would spend more time with their families instead of watching TV if TV was only on from 8 to 11, and there was only 3-5 TV channels like when I was a kid. And guns would be less easily misused to hurt others if they only shot one round of .22LR at a time.

But just as no one wants to live on Kale, people want and need to go faster, cellphones are desired for other things, and folks will watch all the TV they can get, guns are both desired for and needed for more than plinking tin cans. The shooting and hunting sports is a wide and diverse field, firearms is a vast and proud tradition of history with many fans and adherents, and no one can define the needs of "civilian use;" just because today, they may sit in a closet collecting dust, or out on the field target practicing and competition or bringing home food, who can say what lays ahead a year from now, five years from now or 25 years from now? History shows that war, civilian suppression, oppression, and abuse are cyclic, and if it ever comes down to tyranny (and many feel we are getting close to that now), do you really want to be left there with nothing but your finger to point in your defense? Or are you just willing to lay down, surrender and die?

The one thing history teaches is that governments always act in THEIR best interests, not in those of its people. Only a fool thinks all these efforts to limit, restrict and ban guns is "for the public good," and once gone, you're not getting them back, and free of that restraint of an armed populace, even the best of governments with good intentions are now free to do whatever the hell they damn well please. I choose not to gamble on their good will.

So you're ok with some restrictions on cars (like a speed limit) but you're against any kind of controls for weapons? And it's because you're paranoid of your own government? Geez, that's pretty scary.

What is pretty scary is that your mouth moves and your fingers type, but you habitually misread other's statements and put words in their mouth they never even said! Then when you come to the most idiotic mis-conclusions, you accuse and label others based on your own inability to even ******* read.

Pretty funny stuff....he thinks driving is a constitutional right and he doesnt realise the 2nd was put there because the framers rightfully recognized the dangers of a tyrannical government.
Which we had just defeated with....thats right,firearms.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That these kinds of weapons are favored by mass murderers in schools is all I need to know. You obviously don't care about children getting shot by high powered weapons.

So what's your point, you would rather them be shot with lower power weapons?

 

[xyz]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

You are correct, it does mean most guns.

A revolver or single shot rifle means you need to put a new round (bullet) in a chamber before you can fire. A revolver does that automatically by revolving the rounds you put in it.

A semi-automatic means the rounds load themselves. When you squeeze the trigger, a round goes off and a new one is automatically put into the chamber.

I think revolvers are similar, unless it's one where you have to cock the hammer before each shot. I'm not really that familiar with revolvers, are those that you keep having to cock even still made or just cowboy relics?

Of course you can cock even regular pistols with magazines so you can fire the first shot faster, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Single action revolvers are obsolete when you consider you can shoot the double action in the same manner if you choose to do so.

But what I'm getting at is that most revolvers are basically the same as semi-automatic pistols in usage (not mechanics) as long as they are not single action.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

You are correct, it does mean most guns.

A revolver or single shot rifle means you need to put a new round (bullet) in a chamber before you can fire. A revolver does that automatically by revolving the rounds you put in it.

A semi-automatic means the rounds load themselves. When you squeeze the trigger, a round goes off and a new one is automatically put into the chamber.

I think revolvers are similar, unless it's one where you have to cock the hammer before each shot. I'm not really that familiar with revolvers, are those that you keep having to cock even still made or just cowboy relics?

Of course you can cock even regular pistols with magazines so you can fire the first shot faster, but that's not what I'm getting at.

All cocking does is pull the hammer back instead of allowing the trigger to do it. Mostly people do that for accuracy. Just pulling the trigger takes some effort and can throw off your shot. But revolvers are slow for self-defense. Somebody with a semi-automatic will get off five rounds before you can fire two, so using a revolver would put you at a disadvantage.

 

[toobfreak]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

You are correct, it does mean most guns.

A revolver or single shot rifle means you need to put a new round (bullet) in a chamber before you can fire. A revolver does that automatically by revolving the rounds you put in it.

A semi-automatic means the rounds load themselves. When you squeeze the trigger, a round goes off and a new one is automatically put into the chamber.

I think revolvers are similar, unless it's one where you have to cock the hammer before each shot. I'm not really that familiar with revolvers, are those that you keep having to cock even still made or just cowboy relics?

Of course you can cock even regular pistols with magazines so you can fire the first shot faster, but that's not what I'm getting at.

Single action revolvers are obsolete when you consider you can shoot the double action in the same manner if you choose to do so.

But what I'm getting at is that most revolvers are basically the same as semi-automatic pistols in usage (not mechanics) as long as they are not single action.

Strictly speaking, the main (legal) difference between a revolver and a pistol is only one of reloading. Both can be considered semi-auto, but the revolver doesn't use an easily replaced magazine. And since magazines can be any size, that also limits a revolver's use. Of course like Ray was getting at, the basic MECHANICAL difference is that while with a revolver, your pulling the trigger DRIVES THE ENTIRE MECHANISM (pulls back the hammer, rotates the cylinder), with a pistol, all the trigger does is release the hammer, and the explosion of the powder does the rest for you.

 

[Flash]

[Q

Do you need to register to vote? To own and drive a car? To go to school? To own a business? To earn any money at all? You are confusing the "rights" of citizens within a certain country to the rights of someone living alone on a deserted island.

Since only citizens are allowed to vote we have voter registration.

You do not need a license to drive a car unless you are driving it on roads paid for out of public funds.

Business licenses are nothing more than the locals getting some of your tax dollars.

In my life I have earned all kinds of money without government permission.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Go look it up.

That is the only license an American citizen needs to keep and bear arms.

Funny that "only a citizen can vote" yet the conservatives are now and always have been all in for illegal criminals, even those on the no-fly list, to buy guns.
If you BUY a car you still have to have it registered AND have a license, unless you buy a car from a private citizen (like a car thief for example).
Business licenses are there to make sure you are paying your taxes (as all citizens and most illegals do) as well as complying with this countries laws. Only law breakers try to justify not following the law with taxes. Like Don't tax you and don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree (or laws apply to you and not me).
If you earned money and did not report it you are a criminal. It's funny because many "Illegals" do report all their money and as such are less criminal than you in that sense.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the first four words of the Second. Well regulated MEANS the government can regulated (or pass any laws concerning guns). Go look it up yourself. And while you are there look up all the regulations regarding guns that were imposed by the actual writers of that amendment also known as our forefathers. Derp.

None of that big government oppression you quoted above is prohibited in the Bill of Rights, however, it says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Trust me on that. You can go look it up if you think I am making it up. It is the second item in the Bill of Rights.

If your point is that the government ***** with us in other ways then it is OK to **** with the rights in the BOR then you are very confused. Very weak argument.

 

[Flash]

We will get a lot of Liberal tears with this:

No. You'll get a lot of liberal laughter as Trump is a clown. But I bet there were a lot of conservative tears when Trump said he would confiscate all guns until the courts reviewed your mental status. Only a moron would trust Trump regarding anything he tweets. lmao

Is that like only a moron would have voted for that affirmative action asshole Obama or that piece of corrupt lying shit Crooked Hillary?

 

[Flash]

Then why did you ask?

This statement right here....

"Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation."

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?

I just 'splained it to you.

Yeah, it's funny that back when the 2cd was written people carried, muskets, swords and knives. In my State you can own and carry a gun on your hip or over your shoulder anywhere, at any time, except in liquor stores, court houses and banks. But even owning a switch blade (kept in a box in your attic) is a felony punishable by prison. I wonder why? Oh yeah. There is no National Knife Association looking to protect their profits. lol

Is that like the millions of illegal aliens that Obama allowed to flood across the border because there was no advocacy group for American sovereignty?

 

[Flash]

This is a good indication the Liberals are on the wrong side.

NRA donations tripled after Parkland, Florida shooting - CNN

Donations to the NRA tripled after the Parkland shooting

CNN)In the days and weeks following the February 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, the National Rifle Association saw a significant spike in donations.

In fact, reports from the Federal Election Commission show donations to the NRA's Political Victory Fund tripled from January to February.

 

[xyz]

To be honest, I don't think there is going to be any ban on semi-automatic weapons in the foreseeable future, or even an attempt to do so. I don't know what will happen 100 years from now.

Much more likely some people will call for a ban of high capacity magazines. Over 10 rounds no doubt, but it's hard to say if the proposed max allowed will be 11 or 15 or 25.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

One retired Supreme Court justice decides to say the Big Dirty just to stir up the hive, and now EVERYONE IS AFTER ALL OUR GUNS.

do you intentionally keep missing the bill put in play recently to ban semi-automatic guns?

GIGGILE GIGGLE HA HA AT YOU TEE HEE TEE HEE.

i'll bet it's kinda stupid when i do it but you're the clever one for acting 12.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

once again since you keep selectively missing this shit.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

and again cause you do tend to gloss over facts you don't like.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

fuckers are coming for guns. only an idiot would be denying it at this point.

go ahead. deny it again.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

They expected that to pass about as much as the Republicans expected to repeal Obamacare while Obama was in office.
If they caught that car, they'd shit themselves.

i don't care. they are openly stating they are coming for them. damn good thing it won't pass but if you're NOT coming for guns, you'd NEVER put this in play.

no one is falling for the shit anymore so give it up with the "giggle, no one is coming for your guns, giggle" shit.

just because they're not going to succeed doesn't mean they're not trying now does it?

Where did the "giggle" come from? I never giggle in gun control threads. Someone might shoot me.

Given the stupidity of this thread you’d be justified to laugh out loud.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It means banning all firearms where you don't have to reload after every single shot. That pretty much eliminates ALL handguns and rifles except for bolt action rifles most often used for hunting big game.

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

One retired Supreme Court justice decides to say the Big Dirty just to stir up the hive, and now EVERYONE IS AFTER ALL OUR GUNS.

do you intentionally keep missing the bill put in play recently to ban semi-automatic guns?

GIGGILE GIGGLE HA HA AT YOU TEE HEE TEE HEE.

i'll bet it's kinda stupid when i do it but you're the clever one for acting 12.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

once again since you keep selectively missing this shit.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

and again cause you do tend to gloss over facts you don't like.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

fuckers are coming for guns. only an idiot would be denying it at this point.

go ahead. deny it again.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

They expected that to pass about as much as the Republicans expected to repeal Obamacare while Obama was in office.
If they caught that car, they'd shit themselves.

i don't care. they are openly stating they are coming for them. damn good thing it won't pass but if you're NOT coming for guns, you'd NEVER put this in play.

no one is falling for the shit anymore so give it up with the "giggle, no one is coming for your guns, giggle" shit.

just because they're not going to succeed doesn't mean they're not trying now does it?

That’s exactly what it means.

No one is ‘coming for your guns’ – the notion is as moronic as it is wrong.