Simple question to gun advocates

[Rustic]

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.

If you support banning automatic weapons then wouldn't it make sense to ban the bump stocks that turn semi's into autos? also anything else that gives the mass destruction capabilities which is at the heart of why the Autos were banned?

No, The bump stock can never make an over-the-counter AR into a military grade weapon.

 

[Rustic]

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.

exactly, after they get what they want this time they will be right back asking for more gun control, that is how your rights are taken away...these gun control zealots make me thankful for the second amendment and even more so the NRA

Why do you two obsess over "whats next"? You are fighting a strawman and not dealing with the actual issues. If somebody makes a common sense proposal for gun safety then you can agree or disagree. What you think they are going to do next shouldn't be any kind of a factor.

If you don't think Auto weapons should be legal because they are too destructive but you won't support making an accessory that turns semi's into autos illegal because you don't want to give your political opponents anything for fear of what they will want next... Well that doesn't make very much sense does it?

Because you can never trust a control freak…

 

[Rustic]

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...

They will just use cars and bombs… just like they do in the Middle East their Prefered weapon.
This is not a big problem, more people die from falling out of bed then being killed by someone use and then an Ar style sporting rifle.

 

[Rustic]

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.

Law abiding people should be able to own anything they want when it comes to firearms... ‘’Shall not be infringed’’

 

[Rustic]

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.

No amount of frivolous gun laws will save anybody…

 

[Rustic]

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?

An ar is a sporting rifle nothing more nothing less

 

[Rustic]

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?

Those crazies can do what ever they want, The weak federal government is a good thing

 

[The Original Tree]

Again....

THERE IS NO ******* MYSTERY why this Leftist Democrat Piece of Shit did this.
The Media wants to spin the narrative about gun control, but the Story is MORE LEFTY HATE & MURDEROUS INTOLERANCE.
Same as the Congressional Baseball Game where only GOP Congressmen were targeted.

Let's not forget that Hillary Clinton paid millions of dollars to have thugs commit violent assaults and riot, commit mass vandalism at Trump Rallies.

Do you Lefties think we don't know EXACTLY why this was done?

The TARGET HE CHOSE shows his MOTIVE.

He chose the largest gathering of "DEPLORABLES" and Red Neck Trump Supporters he could find and then mowed them down.

He sent $100,000 to his Muslim Girlfriend in the Philippines.

He attended Anti-Trump Rallies and spewed a lot of hateful venom towards The President and his supporters.

Vegas Shooter Spotted at Anti-Trump Rally [VIDEO]
Footage of Las Vegas Shooter Stephen Paddock at an Anti-Trump Protest? – Dr. Rich Swier





And then there is THE MEDIA who played the same game with the Congressional Baseball game....urging people not to jump to conclusion (i.e. Obama)
Then they gradually swept that story that the shooter was a Leftard Trump Hater..to the back pages...and instead talked about confiscating guns and more gun control.

Lastly, I never saw someone's Social Media page taken down as fast as this guy's. There was no reason to do that. They could have locked comments on his page, and let THE PEOPLE see what this guy was about, and his girlfriend.

 

[RealDave]

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

back then I supported it, but the enemies of America here at home have become boldly violent and boast about rioting on evening TV...and even with that aside I am a constitutionalist, I can see through the smoke enough to know that this [todays anti second amendment movement] is about abolishing the second amendment, just look at all the avenues they are going down to try and get what they want, when one fails they have another different argument in hand and at the ready...the commies are not fooling anyone

Yet another moron claiming people are calling for banning all guns.

 

[GHook93]

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

I was barely out of diapers back then. I do and don’t.

There is a reason 80% of shooting, including mass shootings, are done by a handgun. The concealment factor is essential to get to the place you need.




Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Trick question...

Why?

You want to introduce the argument to pass laws that would outlaw bump stocks but let be honest to modify a Semi into a fully automatic weapon is against the law...

Fully automatic weapons were banned because they put too many bullets out in too short of a time. Nobody has a need for that unless they are trying to kill a lot of people. It had nothing to do with the way a trigger worked, or how the next shell was put into the chamber. It was all because of the amount of led scattered out the barrell. Bump stocks advertise up to 500 rounds per minute. Nobody needs that kind of fire power unless they are in the military.

What they don't tell you us that bump stocks also have a high failure rate. In fact it's been reported that several of the Vegas shooters weapons were jammed.

Guns are manufactured with a tolerance. Kind of like buying a large boat and trying to haul it around with your Honda Civic. When you blow the transmission, you realize that your Civic was not designed to haul boats.

Guns produce heat and the steel that they use for those guns were not designed to tolerate rapid fire like a machine gun or any other automatic weapon. So the barrel can melt and you can even injure yourself in the process of using bump stocks.

So it's OK to have a cheap way to convert a gun to be able to fire 500 rounds per minute because it might eventually break? Great logic there Sherlock.

Did I say that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Slade3200]

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 *****.

You asked one question about abortion and I addressed it. Learn how to read

A right is a right is a right. You can't say ok to restrictions on 1 designed to suppress use and say no to another without looking like a godawful hypocrite, you godawful hypocrite.

So under that pretext you would support the unencumbered rights for anybody in America to purchase, own or sell any kind of weapon regardless of background or mental stability? Should we be selling uzi's over the counter at the local 7-11?

argumentum ad absurdum, the last resort of the scoundrel with no argument.

All rights have limits, but when limited they must be done in a way that imposes a minimum impact on those who's right is being infringed on.

As for background, once you are a felon you have been through the judicial process, which is why your freedoms can be restricted.

As for mental issues, again the only way to infringe on a person's rights is with due process through the legal system.

Which is why we are talking about making laws to regulate the sale and use of firearms. I understand your frustrations with NYC. You want to get a handgun to protect yourself and they make it extremely expensive and time consuming. I don't think law abiding citizens should have to go through that just to get a gun to protect themselves. I'm not for banning guns, but I am for limiting the firepower of the ones that we produce and sell to the public and I am for better screening to make sure only responsible citizens are sold to.

 

[martybegan]

All that typing and you refuse to answer the questions.

What a *****.

You asked one question about abortion and I addressed it. Learn how to read

A right is a right is a right. You can't say ok to restrictions on 1 designed to suppress use and say no to another without looking like a godawful hypocrite, you godawful hypocrite.

So under that pretext you would support the unencumbered rights for anybody in America to purchase, own or sell any kind of weapon regardless of background or mental stability? Should we be selling uzi's over the counter at the local 7-11?

argumentum ad absurdum, the last resort of the scoundrel with no argument.

All rights have limits, but when limited they must be done in a way that imposes a minimum impact on those who's right is being infringed on.

As for background, once you are a felon you have been through the judicial process, which is why your freedoms can be restricted.

As for mental issues, again the only way to infringe on a person's rights is with due process through the legal system.

Which is why we are talking about making laws to regulate the sale and use of firearms. I understand your frustrations with NYC. You want to get a handgun to protect yourself and they make it extremely expensive and time consuming. I don't think law abiding citizens should have to go through that just to get a gun to protect themselves. I'm not for banning guns, but I am for limiting the firepower of the ones that we produce and sell to the public and I am for better screening to make sure only responsible citizens are sold to.

and I am saying people who support RKBA would be fools to give an inch until the other side backs off a bit.

 

[westwall]

We can never stop murder or gun violence. We can make it harder for people to achieve mass murder by limiting their fire power. What if Uzi's were available at Walmart and that was the weapon of choice in the last dozen shootings... How many more bodies would be pilled up. Probably something comparable to Vegas. See the point yet?

If you admit that we can't prevent it, and you acknowledge that bad people will always be able to get the guns they want, what makes you think they won't just get them? Here is an Israeli woman with an M-16.

Here are some more...

Or how about at the beach?

The Israeli's have figured out that gun control doesn't work. So have MORE people carrying guns and they will be able to stop the bad actors before they are able to kill a lot of people.

That is the reality.

Im sure some bad guys will always be able to get their hands on those guns. Others maybe not. Maybe they just use a pistol instead or the quickest easiest thing they can find... In those cases maybe they only kill a couple people and not dozens. Don't you think that makes sense? Don't you think if it saves lives then it is worth exploring?

For example in the UK, criminals can get their hands on guns, but often don't use them because they're afraid of losing their gun and being unable to get another one. The biggest exception were the Yardies from Jamaica who were managing to bring in guns. The mob of Britain before the Yardies came in was generally without guns. But there was a spike about 15 years ago in gun violence, but the authorities mostly dealt with that.

If that were true the number of gunshot victims flooding UK hospitals wouldn't be........well flooding in. You are factually wrong.

Doesn't look like much of a flood to me. I would trade numbers with them any day.

Everytowns numbers are bullshit as anybody knows, no doubt that is why you didn't post a link hoping no one would figure out where you got your BS chart. But, and this is the funny part, when you add up all of the numbers, as you should if you wish to compare apples to apples (in other words lets get equal populations) the whole of Europe has a HIGHER percentage of gun murders per 100,000 residents than the US does.

That's why everytowns numbers are shit, they try and baffle you with bullshit by not posting up the facts. The actual facts. The facts are that Europe taken as a whole (which you should thanks to the EU) is MORE VIOLENT, and has MORE MURDERS per 100,000 people than the USA. Thanks for posting that chart that so eloquently proves what I said.

Bet you feel like a right proper dumb ass now don't you.

 

[Slade3200]

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

I was barely out of diapers back then. I do and don’t.

There is a reason 80% of shooting, including mass shootings, are done by a handgun. The concealment factor is essential to get to the place you need.

Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It is also harder to get Uzi's and AK-47's, that also makes a bit of a difference don't you think?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

back then I supported it, but the enemies of America here at home have become boldly violent and boast about rioting on evening TV...and even with that aside I am a constitutionalist, I can see through the smoke enough to know that this [todays anti second amendment movement] is about abolishing the second amendment, just look at all the avenues they are going down to try and get what they want, when one fails they have another different argument in hand and at the ready...the commies are not fooling anyone

Yet another moron claiming people are calling for banning all guns.

I see you are falling back on your liberal education to make a point...good job

 

[PredFan]

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

I do not support it. Why? Because I want one, and it's an illogical argument that making them legal would cause more deaths.

 

[Slade3200]

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

I do not support it. Why? Because I want one, and it's an illogical argument that making them legal would cause more deaths.

Do you think if the Orlando shooter had one then more people would have died in the club? Do you think if he had body armor or an Uzi more or less people would have died?

 

[BULLDOG]

So now you support universal background checks for individual sales. Good to know.

As long as the government provides an easy way for private sellers to use the system, and the law doesn't do dumb things like make it illegal for friends to share guns when hunting or letting family members use the same firearms without having to "transfer" them.

See you gun control freaks are untrustworthy, so we assume you would try to add bullshit like that to any law.

You assume lots of crazy stuff.

Pelosi said herself she hopes for the "slippery slope," so not crazy at all.

We both know that won't happen. Grow up.

Again, when NYC is allowed to get away with infringement and all the gun grabbing idiots are OK with that, it gives us no reason to trust you on anything.

So childish of you to think I am NYC. You choose to believe all that crap. Logic and facts don't back you up.

 

[martybegan]

As long as the government provides an easy way for private sellers to use the system, and the law doesn't do dumb things like make it illegal for friends to share guns when hunting or letting family members use the same firearms without having to "transfer" them.

See you gun control freaks are untrustworthy, so we assume you would try to add bullshit like that to any law.

You assume lots of crazy stuff.

Pelosi said herself she hopes for the "slippery slope," so not crazy at all.

We both know that won't happen. Grow up.

Again, when NYC is allowed to get away with infringement and all the gun grabbing idiots are OK with that, it gives us no reason to trust you on anything.

So childish of you to think I am NYC. You choose to believe all that crap. Logic and facts don't back you up.

I mean "you" as in your side of gun grabbing idiots.