So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

[Canna Sylvan]

The only reason for not banning semi-automatics is that they are considered within the class of firearms that are legal to posess in the united states under the 2nd amendment. I believe that were they to be banned and those that are banned magicaly dissapear from gun closets and safes all over the country we would see a few fewer lives being taken in these sorts of shootings. but what i said is an accurate depiction of our country, those children died for our right to keep and bear, children will always die for our freedom as that is the way things are. fetuses die for our freedoms, Afghanistani children die for our freedoms and school children die for our freedoms, the sort of weapon used does not change that fact.

Banning semi-automatic weapons was just a thought and I wondered if there was an argument. That it is the "weapon of choice" for those who carry is sort of an odd argument seeing that it is also the weapon of choice for the average mass shooter of children.

Seriously you have deep seeded mental issues. I only know of one incident where civilians used an assault weapon during a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

What I find real funny, you get jail time for a concealed knife, but only a slap on the wrist for a concealed gun.

Maybe the law knows something you chicken littles don't? NYC has some of the strictest gun laws. Nationally, while knife homicides are on the decline, they've risen 50% in NYC!

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Now that is a good question - why not? why do we not see more explosives use in the U.S.? could it be that the improvised things are not that useful and that the professional ones are scarce because.... they are banned and controled?

Spain practically bans all guns for everyone. It has one of the highest uses of zip guns. Try harder.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

Government hasn't shot children citizens since waco. they are a bit more trustworthy.

Seriously? On July 21, 2012, Manuel Diaz was shot from behind gang execution style, on his knees from froj behind, by police. The next day residents protested. The police shot at women and children, and released a dog on a pregnant woman.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/anaheim-police-shooting-manuel-diaz-sparks-protest/story?id=16837477

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtr8STtPcCg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

A nearly 9 months pregnant woman was kicked in the stomach, the same way he was trained to kick in a door during a raid, by a police officer when she didn't know her place and wouldn't shut up, asking questions why the father of her unborn parasite was being arrested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0l4jRf9lG4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Again, we don't need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government?

You're real credible, aren't ya? Especially how Santorum is a convicted pedophile.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

I thought Bin ladin was dead? Why are we in Afghanistan again? You do know that we still wage war there right? Because Bin Laden passed through on his way to Pakistan right?

To tell you the truth, I don't really think you are able to distinguish the facts from the lies on this subject.

It's because we want a cut of their hash, opium and lithium mining production. I don't think it was really ever about stopping terrorism.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

The day you can plant a glock seed and grow your firearms in your back yard or garage under lamps is the day your particular argument will make any sense at all.

I can take a welding torch and some pipe to make a zip gun. Granted it's not very good. Like I sure can't grow Marinol either.

For someone who hates Romney, you sure love to use his logic style.

 

[Red1966]

We should ban the sale, use, or possession of automobiles. They cause many more deaths than guns. I went and bought a semi-automatic handgun before they try to ban the sale. Laser sight, I can't shoot for shit now.

 

[Red1966]

Seriously? On July 21, 2012, Manuel Diaz was shot from behind gang execution style, on his knees from froj behind, by police. The next day residents protested. The police shot at women and children, and released a dog on a pregnant woman. http://abcnews.go.com/US/anaheim-police-shooting-manuel-diaz-sparks-protest/story?id=16837477 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qtr8STtPcCg&feature=youtube_gdata_player A nearly 9 months pregnant woman was kicked in the stomach, the same way he was trained to kick in a door during a raid, by a police officer when she didn't know her place and wouldn't shut up, asking questions why the father of her unborn parasite was being arrested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0l4jRf9lG4&feature=youtube_gdata_player Again, we don't need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government? You're real credible, aren't ya? Especially how Santorum is a convicted pedophile.

"we don't need guns to protect us from a tyrannical government?" Few seem to be aware that is the reason for the 2nd amendment. But then, do we want people having access to fully automatic weapons? Explosives? Poison gas? Nuclear? Where to draw the line?

 

[Red1966]

The only reason for not banning semi-automatics is that they are considered within the class of firearms that are legal to posess in the united states under the 2nd amendment. I believe that were they to be banned and those that are banned magicaly dissapear from gun closets and safes all over the country we would see a few fewer lives being taken in these sorts of shootings. but what i said is an accurate depiction of our country, those children died for our right to keep and bear, children will always die for our freedom as that is the way things are. fetuses die for our freedoms, Afghanistani children die for our freedoms and school children die for our freedoms, the sort of weapon used does not change that fact. Banning semi-automatic weapons was just a thought and I wondered if there was an argument. That it is the "weapon of choice" for those who carry is sort of an odd argument seeing that it is also the weapon of choice for the average mass shooter of children.

"it is also the weapon of choice for the average mass shooter of children" Those who carry prefer a handgun, not a long gun. We seem to put too much emphasis on the wrong thing. A handgun can be carried without having it in your hands. A long gun usually requires that it be in your hands. If you're carrying a long gun, you're ready to shoot.

 

[Red1966]

I can take a welding torch and some pipe to make a zip gun. Granted it's not very good. Like I sure can't grow Marinol either. For someone who hates Romney, you sure love to use his logic style.

I can make a pistol. And it would function as well as anything you can by. It's not that hard to make a gun. They make them in Afghanistan in little one or two man operations that are very good quality. Mostly copies of mass made weapons, but also pieces that are really works of art.

 

[FootballFirst]

If you ban semi autos then everyone will join the mexican mafia so they can still get semi autos from the U.S. government.

Fixed your post.

 

[NoDrama]

It's because we want a cut of their hash, opium and lithium mining production. I don't think it was really ever about stopping terrorism.

Exactly, we want their resources and are not beyond making up every lie we can to get the Citizens to go along with it.

 

[NoDrama]

Eliphalet Remington hand made a gun in his shed that was superior to most production guns at the time. The rest is history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliphalet_Remington

 

[Mr Neutron]

Government hasn't shot children citizens since waco. they are a bit more trustworthy.

... and there it is, your whole philosophy in a nutshell. The government hasn't shot any children for 20 years, so they are more trustworthy; they don't steal ALL my money, so it's OK to steal some; they haven't taken away ALL of my rights, so restricting a few is alright.
If you are so worried about the number of deaths of children, then why do you support the wholesale murder of the most innocent of all?
You try and sound all rational and reasonable, but you still make as little sense as the trolls​.

 

[Mr Neutron]

Yet the presumption of many gun owners is that they are singlehandedly protecting us from governmental tyranny. They aren't. Your and your neighbor's guns will not protect us from any modern assault on our rights - that time is long over. If you don't care about personal defense and you don't care about hunting then there really is no reason for firearms in the hands of citizens.

Then I'd like to know what IS standing in their way? Are they reluctant because they might hurt someone's feelings​?

 

[Mr Neutron]

Sure, but times are changed. On the one hand we have something I consider quite dangerous and that is non-lethal weapons. Sure, it is kind to criminals to not kill them when we shoot them, it is kind to crowds that we gas them rather than simply shooting into their midst but the truth is that now the government can control large crowds or small groups without inciting the ire that they would if those people were killed.

Just as the gun toters claim that guns don't kill people, several million guns don't alter the balance of power in this couuntry without people behind them. Those people are rarely trained, have no central control, no tactics, and no real will whereas government controled, trained militia that also have helicopters and tanks and have been long prepared for civil insurection of any sort are fully capable of managing all those millions of mismatched firearms.

There will be no need for door to door action, as I have long described, there are other far more sophisticated methods of controling the masses - even if those masses have firearms.

All of our technology didn't help us in Viet Nam or more recently, in Afghanistan.

 

[Mr Neutron]

No, you don't get it, I don't hate firearms, I don't fear my neighors, I don't worry that someone won't submit to my will. Read my posts carefully and you will see that I don't hate firearms, what I do hate is the fairy tale beliefs and tired rehetoric surrounding pro-gun folks.

Those who believe the way you do will believe that we all have this wonderful last chance after we lose our fisrt amendment rights to take the country back by force. When we all agree that that is an imposibility rather than romanticizing about it we are far less likely to actually lose our 2nd amendment rights. You folks actually believe you can protect your 2nd with your 2nd, it won't work that way.

No, I don't agree.
Just because you would lay down and submit to an oppressive government enforcer, doesn't mean that everybody would.

 

[deprave]

Government hasn't shot children citizens since waco.

If by waco you meant to write YESTERDAY then you'd be correct.

 

[Mr Neutron]

no? so The Whiskey Rebellion didn't happen? Waco didn't happen? Kent state didn't happen? Ruby ridge didn't happen? The military tends to do as it is told when it has been trained to do it that way, furthermore, you cannot know that the majority of the military would know the truth of a particular situation. "keeping the peace" can mean many things and one of them

You may assume too much. Personally, I feel we have less to fear from the military than the alphabet soup of armed federal agents.

 

[Mr Neutron]

And my tiny liberal brain (seems you folks always wind up insulting when you run out of decent arguments) has no problem comprehending the difference between a car and a firearm.

That's good, now you can concentrate on right/wrong.

 

[unohu69]

http://www.infowars.com/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/



but, ya, you can trust them. and this is only some of the shit we CAN prove....