Simple question to gun advocates

[Slade3200]

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

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

That's right!

Totally, and then all the mass shootings that we've had in the past could have just used Uzi's and gained multipliers on their body counts having similar effects as the latest event in Vegas. You go girl!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Automatic weapons have been banned since 1935.

No they have been regulated, you can own possess and use a fully automatic weapon in 37 States.

 

[Slade3200]

NYC pass their own laws based on the voting public. Do you not believe in state rights?

The law is from the 1920's and was designed to fight armed italian and jewish mafia types.

And do you believe in States rights when it comes to abortions?

The state and city of NY cannot infringe on my 2nd amendment rights, and a 6 month waiting period and $600 in fees is sure as hell infringement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that typing and you refuse to answer the questions.

What a *****.

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

 

[Slade3200]

It was a provision the Firearm Owners' Protection Act... I'm not interested in the semantics or gotchya games. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the right to own automatic weapons or not.

There is no ban on automatic weapons. That is not nit picking nor is it semantics

THAT IS A FACT.

So the entire premise of your thread is based on nonfactual statements

Can you go to your local gun store and buy an automatic machine gun?

You can order them they are NOT banned. There is NO Federal law banning the ownership purchase or transfer of automatic weapons.

I'm speaking to the House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332, otherwise known as the hughes amendment. This is an amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to derail the discussion by knit picking these details and stick to the subject at hand

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

I've explained this 5 times now and specifically spelled out the provision I was talking about, you still don't get it. Fine you win i'm a liar. Now go away.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

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

That's right!

Totally, and then all the mass shootings that we've had in the past could have just used Uzi's and gained multipliers on their body counts having similar effects as the latest event in Vegas. You go girl!!!

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

 

[Slade3200]

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

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

That's right!

Totally, and then all the mass shootings that we've had in the past could have just used Uzi's and gained multipliers on their body counts having similar effects as the latest event in Vegas. You go girl!!!

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

Tell that to the people in Vegas

 

[Slade3200]

NYC pass their own laws based on the voting public. Do you not believe in state rights?

The law is from the 1920's and was designed to fight armed italian and jewish mafia types.

And do you believe in States rights when it comes to abortions?

The state and city of NY cannot infringe on my 2nd amendment rights, and a 6 month waiting period and $600 in fees is sure as hell infringement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You debate like a 5 year old. Now go eat your snack pack, its almost nap time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

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

That's right!

Totally, and then all the mass shootings that we've had in the past could have just used Uzi's and gained multipliers on their body counts having similar effects as the latest event in Vegas. You go girl!!!

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

Tell that to the people in Vegas

How often are you going to have a packed restricted crowd where that works?

 

[martybegan]

The law is from the 1920's and was designed to fight armed italian and jewish mafia types.

And do you believe in States rights when it comes to abortions?

The state and city of NY cannot infringe on my 2nd amendment rights, and a 6 month waiting period and $600 in fees is sure as hell infringement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that typing and you refuse to answer the questions.

What a *****.

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.

 

[Slade3200]

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

That's right!

Totally, and then all the mass shootings that we've had in the past could have just used Uzi's and gained multipliers on their body counts having similar effects as the latest event in Vegas. You go girl!!!

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

Tell that to the people in Vegas

How often are you going to have a packed restricted crowd where that works?

Uhh, every night in multiple venues across America... Concerts, sporting events, festivals, races, night clubs, parades etc etc. WTF?

 

[Slade3200]

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that typing and you refuse to answer the questions.

What a *****.

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's right!

Totally, and then all the mass shootings that we've had in the past could have just used Uzi's and gained multipliers on their body counts having similar effects as the latest event in Vegas. You go girl!!!

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

Tell that to the people in Vegas

How often are you going to have a packed restricted crowd where that works?

Uhh, every night in multiple venues across America... Concerts, sporting events, festivals, races, night clubs, parades etc etc. WTF?

And how many have high rise apartments or hotels behind them to keep the shooter out of the crowd and in an elevated spot to do the shooting? Once again fully automatic is NOT the choice of almost every shooter out there.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Almost NO one uses automatic weapons for shooting people, it is not that hard to get a fully automatic weapon if one wants one, they are inefficient and not designed for shooting up people. the purpose of full auto on a rifle is suppression fire and almost NO military actually uses that any more they depend on dedicated automatic weapons.

So do you support legalizing them?

depends on how it would affect future court rulings concerning the second amendment, if banning them can in any way become even the slightest of precedents used to go after other things then I am completely against banning them, if it can be proven that it will not be used in such a manner and that all gun control efforts will cease after they are banned then I will not object to it...now lets turn the table 180 degrees....if they are banned will you drop all future gun control arguments and fully support the right to bear arms by private citizens?

I own guns and support the second amendment. But I don't think anybody should make such a crass claim to drop all future agruments about control measures. If we can make our world safer and find a way our law enforcement can help in those efforts then of course i'd support it. I also wouldn't support measures that I think are unnecessary or ineffective.

I don't own guns, in fact when my father passed away he left me 2 and I gave them away [hunting rifles] because I just don't like them...but what is the point of giving in to banning automatic weapons if you are going to have to continue fighting gun control advocates who do want to abolish the second amendment? if you cannot drop the gun control argument I cannot support the ban...my entire argument is that no amount of appeasement to the gun control advocates will ever be enough until the second amendment is gone.

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

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

 

[Slade3200]

So do you support legalizing them?

depends on how it would affect future court rulings concerning the second amendment, if banning them can in any way become even the slightest of precedents used to go after other things then I am completely against banning them, if it can be proven that it will not be used in such a manner and that all gun control efforts will cease after they are banned then I will not object to it...now lets turn the table 180 degrees....if they are banned will you drop all future gun control arguments and fully support the right to bear arms by private citizens?

I own guns and support the second amendment. But I don't think anybody should make such a crass claim to drop all future agruments about control measures. If we can make our world safer and find a way our law enforcement can help in those efforts then of course i'd support it. I also wouldn't support measures that I think are unnecessary or ineffective.

I don't own guns, in fact when my father passed away he left me 2 and I gave them away [hunting rifles] because I just don't like them...but what is the point of giving in to banning automatic weapons if you are going to have to continue fighting gun control advocates who do want to abolish the second amendment? if you cannot drop the gun control argument I cannot support the ban...my entire argument is that no amount of appeasement to the gun control advocates will ever be enough until the second amendment is gone.

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

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?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

nothing you proposed there is necessary to protecting our freedoms or in violation of our constitution, in fact driving is not only not a right it is a privilege, your point would be better understood if you used something constitutionaly protected like the right of free assembly, just moments ago the local news showed 5 protesters in front of lee zeldins office because he opposes gun control, what if one of them has an explosive device? would prudence dictate that we remove them and all protesters from exposure to the public by letting them protest in an open field where they could not hurt anyone, we take precautionary measures with driving why not protesters who are likely to have a reason to hurt others...I have a better understanding of your point in this scenario

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

Also you left out what kind of threat those vehicles pose to a tyrannical government...and ow someone who wanted to abolish the second amendment would go about doing so as opposed to someone who can and does take away your driving "privileges"...would they announce they are going to abolish your rights? or would they erode them away?

 

[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

nothing you proposed there is necessary to protecting our freedoms or in violation of our constitution, in fact driving is not only not a right it is a privilege, your point would be better understood if you used something constitutionaly protected like the right of free assembly, just moments ago the local news showed 5 protesters in front of lee zeldins office because he opposes gun control, what if one of them has an explosive device? would prudence dictate that we remove them and all protesters from exposure to the public by letting them protest in an open field where they could not hurt anyone, we take precautionary measures with driving why not protesters who are likely to have a reason to hurt others...I have a better understanding of your point in this scenario

ok, but we do have protections around protests. In many areas there needs to be permits and authorities will provide barricades and law enforcement support for the larger rallies. You also said earlier in regards to gun control that you supported the ban on automatic weapons, so I believe you understand how smart regulation can help the safety of our people. Why ignore instituting smart safety measures because of an agenda that only a small fraction of people support?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

ok, but we do have protections around protests. In many areas there needs to be permits and authorities will provide barricades and law enforcement support for the larger rallies. You also said earlier in regards to gun control that you supported the ban on automatic weapons, so I believe you understand how smart regulation can help the safety of our people. Why ignore instituting smart safety measures because of an agenda that only a small fraction of people support?

they did not have any, but you skipped over the part about them being made to protest away from public exposure where no one can get hurt by a looney, the right to free assembly will still be intact...and I said I would support a ban on automatic weapons if it were the last act of gun control, it was a compromise position not a policy one...and you use subjective terms like "smart measures" when you could/should be using the term "subversive measures"...see how that works? and regardless of what the real intentions of gun control are, politicians looking to subvert the constitution would use the tactics employed by todays gun control advocates so as to give them "who me"?/"not me" cover.

 

[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

Also you left out what kind of threat those vehicles pose to a tyrannical government...and ow someone who wanted to abolish the second amendment would go about doing so as opposed to someone who can and does take away your driving "privileges"...would they announce they are going to abolish your rights? or would they erode them away?

Of course I left that out because they don't apply to the metaphor. You obviously didn't get my point but thats ok, i'm growing tired of this conversation so lets just agree to disagree. Thanks for the effort.