So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

[desert dude]

It is an extraordinary jump from "show me where the U.S. is involved in the wholesale murdering of U.S. citizens" to "the government would never do anything wrong". And your statement goes exactly nowhere in providing proof of Cahrois's assertion.

The very simple point being made was, "let's keep them honest". That is the whole point of 2A.

 

[canndo]

The very simple point being made was, "let's keep them honest". That is the whole point of 2A.

Really? really? the 2nd keeps them honest how exactly? and the 2nd HAS kept them honest has it? We know of at least two American citizens who were detained for years without due process. We know of another handful of American citizens who were blown up by drone attacks. And, for the most part my first example was actually lauded by those very same gun toters, and the only reason they had problems with the second example is that it wasn't their guy who did the shooting.


You and you all believe that I love government and do not fear it, when in fact I fear it far more than you. I know what it is capable of. If you actually think that your ability to keep a few rifles and handguns in your garage is enough to "keep them honest" then you don't fear your government half as much as you should.

 

[desert dude]

Really? really? the 2nd keeps them honest how exactly? and the 2nd HAS kept them honest has it? We know of at least two American citizens who were detained for years without due process. We know of another handful of American citizens who were blown up by drone attacks. And, for the most part my first example was actually lauded by those very same gun toters, and the only reason they had problems with the second example is that it wasn't their guy who did the shooting.


You and you all believe that I love government and do not fear it, when in fact I fear it far more than you. I know what it is capable of. If you actually think that your ability to keep a few rifles and handguns in your garage is enough to "keep them honest" then you don't fear your government half as much as you should.

You fear government and support disarming the citizenry. That is an odd combination.

 

[Kite High]

• So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?
  fuck no and fuck you
  

 

[FootballFirst]

I'm certain that the founding fathers provided us with the 2nd Amendment to protect ourselves from people like canndo, the left wing nut, and Westboro Baptist, right wing nut.

 

[canndo]

You fear government and support disarming the citizenry. That is an odd combination.

If you would kindly show me where on this thread or anywhere I post (of course you can't do that), I ever stated that I am for the disarmament of the civilian population of the United States, I'd love to see it.

 

[canndo]

I'm certain that the founding fathers provided us with the 2nd Amendment to protect ourselves from people like canndo, the left wing nut, and Westboro Baptist, right wing nut.

The founding fathers knew nothing of semi-automatic weapons. I believe that the best soldiers of the day might have gotten off 5 or 6 shots a minute.

 

[desert dude]

If you would kindly show me where on this thread or anywhere I post (of course you can't do that), I ever stated that I am for the disarmament of the civilian population of the United States, I'd love to see it.

I draw your attention to the title of the thread, "So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?". Was that just a rhetorical question designed to stimulate conversation?

Were your statements about gun owners "emotional attachment" to their guns just rhetorical? Were your assertions about gun owner's responsibility for the deaths of children, and that the blood of children was the price we pay for the second amendment simply rhetorical?

 

[canndo]

I draw your attention to the title of the thread, "So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?". Was that just a rhetorical question designed to stimulate conversation?

Were your statements about gun owners "emotional attachment" to their guns just rhetorical? Were your assertions about gun owner's responsibility for the deaths of children, and that the blood of children was the price we pay for the second amendment simply rhetorical?

First, it was a question, and second, how exactly would banning one particular type of firearm amount to disarming all civilians?


So far as the blood of children is concerned, that has nothing to do with disarming anyone at all. I never said that dead children was the price we pay for the second amendment, I said that dead children is the price we pay for our American brand of freedom, note that I mentioned fetuses as well.

 

[Dr Kynes]

The founding fathers knew nothing of semi-automatic weapons. I believe that the best soldiers of the day might have gotten off 5 or 6 shots a minute.

3 rounds a minute with a muzzle loading rifle, 4 with a smooth bore musket.

but when repeating arms were invented the US military and the people all jumped on board.
when machine guns were invented no only were they legal for sale to anyone, but in 1920 or so my grandpappy got a derringer as a prize in a tin of tobacco. shocking!

what caused the rampant crime wave and dissolution of civil society that requires drastic measures to eliminate firearms "for our own good"? nothing. its a figment, a creation of hysterical 24/7 media and wall to wall coverage of every shootout.

when i was a lad you could go toe to toe with another cat in a punchup, now thats a criminal assault for BOTH participants. pen knives are now considered deadly weapons, and shouting at your old lady is "domestic violence".

we have become a nation of whiners, sissies and fools who mutter "Be Safe" as a mantra on parting.

FUCK SAFETY!

"Be Safe" is the most retarded thing you can wish on a fella. if youre "Being Safe" you arent risking anything, and without risk, theres no victory.

stop worrying about "Safety" and start thinking about "Personal Responsibility" for a change.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

The founding fathers knew nothing of semi-automatic weapons. I believe that the best soldiers of the day might have gotten off 5 or 6 shots a minute.

While that may be true, they made it perfectly clear they wanted the citizenry to have access to the same weapons available to the troops.

Are you really suggesting that a homeowner can defend his/her family just as effectively with a bolt action rifle as with a semi-automatic? That only holds true if the assailant is 50 yards away and is also obeying the law and brings a bolt action weapon. What are the infinitesimal odds of that? I can't believe how stupid this is getting.

So, the law abiding citizens must regress to weapon technology of the 1800's, while the bad guys who don't give a fuck about your regulations, get to arm themselves with weapons that give them an enormous advantage.

Or at the very least, let's ban rifles that LOOK SCARY. Better to do something that has no chance at success, than to face reality and try legislation that addresses the actual problem.

 

[FootballFirst]

While that may be true, they made it perfectly clear they wanted the citizenry to have access to the same weapons available to the troops.

Are you really suggesting that a homeowner can defend his/her family just as effectively with a bolt action rifle as with a semi-automatic? That only holds true if the assailant is 50 yards away and is also obeying the law and brings a bolt action weapon. What are the infinitesimal odds of that? I can't believe how stupid this is getting.

So, the law abiding citizens must regress to weapon technology of the 1800's, while the bad guys who don't give a fuck about your regulations, get to arm themselves with weapons that give them an enormous advantage.

Or at the very least, let's ban rifles that LOOK SCARY. Better to do something that has no chance at success, than to face reality and try legislation that addresses the actual problem.

Especially when the government is the criminal with automatics trying to take your and my stuff without permission.

The government should stay out of weapon regulation. It poses the largest conflict of interest there could possibly be.

 

[desert dude]

First, it was a question, and second, how exactly would banning one particular type of firearm amount to disarming all civilians?


So far as the blood of children is concerned, that has nothing to do with disarming anyone at all. I never said that dead children was the price we pay for the second amendment, I said that dead children is the price we pay for our American brand of freedom, note that I mentioned fetuses as well.

You might as well take that "question" to its philosophical heart: "In the late 1700s, black powder muzzle loaders were state of the art military weapons. Americans have the right to "beep and bear" muzzle loaders." I have heard it, and read it for years as the hoplophobes position.

 

[canndo]

While that may be true, they made it perfectly clear they wanted the citizenry to have access to the same weapons available to the troops.

Are you really suggesting that a homeowner can defend his/her family just as effectively with a bolt action rifle as with a semi-automatic? That only holds true if the assailant is 50 yards away and is also obeying the law and brings a bolt action weapon. What are the infinitesimal odds of that? I can't believe how stupid this is getting.

So, the law abiding citizens must regress to weapon technology of the 1800's, while the bad guys who don't give a fuck about your regulations, get to arm themselves with weapons that give them an enormous advantage.

Or at the very least, let's ban rifles that LOOK SCARY. Better to do something that has no chance at success, than to face reality and try legislation that addresses the actual problem.

If that is the case, then we should all have access to fully automatic weapons. I think that everyone believes that firearms simply descend from heaven and that gun laws interceed only at the point of purchase. Gun manufacturers are not blameless in all of this and were there to be laws against semi-automatic weapons they might very well be executed at the level of the producer.

Now what ever the true cause and nature of this last shooting I will reverse my last forecast - that nothing would happen. Now it is likely that something will happen, that the scary looking guns will be made illegal. Now if the only distinguishing thing about these "assualt weapons" is that they look scary, then why are so many responsible gun owners so upset? If it is just a matter of how a gun looks, then who among them really cares that they will be made illegal. Certainly it can't be because they actually want results, as they only seem to lament the inefectivness of our current gun laws when something like this falls into their laps or bites them in the butt.

 

[FootballFirst]

Somebody else said it, but it bears repeating.

Canndo is posting all of this in a decidedly liberal forum and has absolutely no support on this issue.

 

[canndo]

You might as well take that "question" to its philosophical heart: "In the late 1700s, black powder muzzle loaders were state of the art military weapons. Americans have the right to "beep and bear" muzzle loaders." I have heard it, and read it for years as the hoplophobes position.

I see no need for that question. I also don't see any but the few rare absolutists claiming that we all are entitled to fully automatic weapons, are the rest also bound by your philosophical question? The point remains that you are accusing me of maintaing a stance that I do not put forth. This is another example of the reason the gun toters are looked upon with such distaste by the rest. "we don't think you folks should have rounds that are capable of penetrating body armor" - "but.. but... you want to take OUR GUNS AWAY", "this is just the first step and then those jackbooted sorts will march from house to house and get them all", "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" - now is that the sentiment of someone who views a firearm as "just a tool?".

 

[canndo]

Somebody else said it, but it bears repeating.

Canndo is posting all of this in a decidedly liberal forum and has absolutely no support on this issue.

Where does it say that I need or even want consensus? Where does it say that consensus indicates correctness?

 

[cannabineer]

The founding fathers knew nothing of semi-automatic weapons. I believe that the best soldiers of the day might have gotten off 5 or 6 shots a minute.

How is that of consequence? I firmly believe that the underlying rationale of the 2nd Amendment was to maintain a balance of power between government and populace, specifically a balance unfavoring government.
Now we have semi- and full-auto weapons.
If you follow the logic, they should not be restricted from the general populace.
That logic does eventually lead to absurdity. Nukes are also now a technology in hand, and there is no way a nuke can be used to correct a social imbalance. They are hopeless tools for revolution. I would add strategic bombers to that list of useless area weapons.
But drawing the line within the domain of "dumb projectile weapons", up to and including anything that doesn't lob an explosive projectile, seems arbitrary and strict to me ... and worse, it plays into the hands of the keepers of the ratchet that seems to operate where civil liberties are concerned. It only goes one way: tighter. cn

 

[canndo]

Especially when the government is the criminal with automatics trying to take your and my stuff without permission.

The government should stay out of weapon regulation. It poses the largest conflict of interest there could possibly be.

I must be extemely lucky as I have yet in my 60 years to see anyone from the government approaching me with their automatic and attempting to "take my stuff".

 

[desert dude]

I see no need for that question. I also don't see any but the few rare absolutists claiming that we all are entitled to fully automatic weapons, are the rest also bound by your philosophical question? The point remains that you are accusing me of maintaing a stance that I do not put forth. This is another example of the reason the gun toters are looked upon with such distaste by the rest. "we don't think you folks should have rounds that are capable of penetrating body armor" - "but.. but... you want to take OUR GUNS AWAY", "this is just the first step and then those jackbooted sorts will march from house to house and get them all", "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" - now is that the sentiment of someone who views a firearm as "just a tool?".

So, you don't advocate outlawing semi auto weapons? I am confused.

Full auto weapons were completely legal not very many years ago.