So how about banning all semi-automatic weapons?

The guy that lives next to me has 3 machine guns.
He is no dealer and has no ffl.
He did not go through much to get them either.
Hell my boss has a few himself.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-supplier-sells-more-three-years-worth-magazines-just-three


Firearms Supplier Sells More Than Three Years Worth Of Magazines In Just Three Days


By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
December 21, 2012
Subscribe to Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.'s posts





Brownells, the world's largest supplier of firearms, has reportedly sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in just seventy-two hours.
Brownells CEO said:
"I wanted to take a minute to shed some insight on the magazine situation if I can. First of all I wanted to offer an apology for the situation... with magazines being 'In-Stock' and back-ordered moments later... [The] demand for magazines actually exceeded the ability for the system to keep up with the volume that was being ordered."
"To shed some more light on the magazine situation at present, it really has been unprecedented in the last 5 days. During a roughly 72 hour period...we sold the 'average demand' equivalent of about 3.5 years worth of PMAGS, and an even greater amount of our Brownells magazines."

squarepush3r said:

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/firearms-supplier-sells-more-three-years-worth-magazines-just-three


Firearms Supplier Sells More Than Three Years Worth Of Magazines In Just Three Days

By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
December 21, 2012
Subscribe to Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.'s posts





Brownells, the world's largest supplier of firearms, has reportedly sold three-and-a-half years worth of magazines in just seventy-two hours.
Brownells CEO said:
"I wanted to take a minute to shed some insight on the magazine situation if I can. First of all I wanted to offer an apology for the situation... with magazines being 'In-Stock' and back-ordered moments later... [The] demand for magazines actually exceeded the ability for the system to keep up with the volume that was being ordered."
"To shed some more light on the magazine situation at present, it really has been unprecedented in the last 5 days. During a roughly 72 hour period...we sold the 'average demand' equivalent of about 3.5 years worth of PMAGS, and an even greater amount of our Brownells magazines."

Click to expand...

Who says Obama is not business friendly!

Guns aren't the problem. People are.

Get rid of Violent overly judgmental tv programming. Make the media report factual news that's not twisted in hopes of making the world look crazy to keep you inside. Use common sense and logic when decision making and don't assume that everybody else is out to get you.

If you have that mindset and watch that crap all the time your going to be that. Turn your TV's OFF and live in reality. It's a much more pleasant place to be. You want to talk about mass killings than lets talk about these fake wars we keep fighting.

i shoot a lot, love my guns i have been all over the world and the usa is the Only place you can buy and shoot guns without asking for permission first, LAND OF THE FREE..

cancer survivor said:

i shoot a lot, love my guns i have been all over the world and the usa is the Only place you can buy and shoot guns without asking for permission first, LAND OF THE FREE..

Click to expand...

Got to love them guns!

I think a better solution to a ban would just be to reclassify semi-auto weapons as class 3 this would put them in the same category as silencers and full auto. I have several guns and would still buy them under this classification and pay my tax stamp, I think this would be a win for obama politically speaking. It would force a more strenuous back ground check and a waiting period. With that said many of the guns I own I don't need so I think maybe implementing a Buy Back program could be usefull.

iSmokealottaweed said:

Guns aren't the problem. People are.

Get rid of Violent overly judgmental tv programming. Make the media report factual news that's not twisted in hopes of making the world look crazy to keep you inside. Use common sense and logic when decision making and don't assume that everybody else is out to get you.

If you have that mindset and watch that crap all the time your going to be that. Turn your TV's OFF and live in reality. It's a much more pleasant place to be. You want to talk about mass killings than lets talk about these fake wars we keep fighting.

Click to expand...

Fuck that, if you ban violence from the tv then you're basically the same as Hitler.

Harrekin said:

Fuck that, if you ban violence from the tv then you're basically the same as Hitler.

Click to expand...

I agree with Harrekin, and this is why:

Violence is a lot like nudity. One persons version of violence is art to someone else.





Those all seem to be decent classical paintings. I don't really have any dirty thoughts about them and I appreciate them for what they are. There are many paintings I never really believed it to be art.(picasso, haha) I didn't care either way. I spent a good amount of time at the Lightner Museum and I saw a painting that really drove it home for me that even the things that are obviously garbage(picasso and dali haha.) might be viewed differently if you actually spent time with them.(even dali I guess) This is the painting that really struck the cord with me:



The painting is Roman Charity. The version I saw was a pretty well painted one, but it didn't tell the story of the painting well. It wasn't obvious that he was a prisoner and being starved from the painting. It just looked like he was a dirty old man who was molesting some pale skinned younger girl. In the painting I saw she was looking away in distress. Something was wrong in the painting for me. It wasn't until I researched it that I realized the man was her dad, and he was in prison and being starved by his captives. She was feeding him to keep him alive. Immediately, the painting went from something kind of nasty and dark to something uplifting to a trumpeting of love, spirit, and endurance.

Many people watch movies like Clockwork Orange and Pulp Fiction and only see a violent movie with no real purpose but the love of gratuitous violence. Do they see the same thing when they see Full Metal Jacket? Braveheart? How about Saving Private Ryan? Gettysburg? Most people will at some point in that line of movies stop believing the moves are about violence but are about something else. I think SPR is probably the most violent and graphic of them, yet most people don't object to that movie.

At some point people have to accept if they think that things should be controlled that others do/own/say then they must accept that control in their own lives for things they might not believe should be controlled. You either work to keep freedoms like gun ownership which you don't agree with, or you accept that the eye might turn on you eventually.

Ban banning.

Beefbisquit said:

Hmm.. this is delving into the 'use of deadly force' debate. When is it constituted? If someone pushes you? If someone slaps you? Where's the line in the sand?

Click to expand...

It is written right in the statute: "...reasonable fear of great bodily harm, or death..."

rooky1985 said:

Got to love them guns!

I think a better solution to a ban would just be to reclassify semi-auto weapons as class 3 this would put them in the same category as silencers and full auto. I have several guns and would still buy them under this classification and pay my tax stamp, I think this would be a win for obama politically speaking. It would force a more strenuous back ground check and a waiting period. With that said many of the guns I own I don't need so I think maybe implementing a Buy Back program could be usefull.

Click to expand...

The weapon of choice for defensive carry is the semi-auto pistol. Why do you want regular folk to not have those? Would you also be good enough to extend this ban onto the nonmilitary gov't agencies? There is absolutely no excuse for permitting the police to outgun the citizen. Not in this country.

I say ban because new Class 3 tax stamps just don't get issued. It's like the marijuana tax stamp. It's a legal way to grow hemp and weed, and by law all you need is the tax stamp. Imagine ... they aren't issuing any. This is one power we should simply deny the government. cn

cannabineer said:

The weapon of choice for defensive carry is the semi-auto pistol. Why do you want regular folk to not have those? Would you also be good enough to extend this ban onto the nonmilitary gov't agencies? There is absolutely no excuse for permitting the police to outgun the citizen. Not in this country.

I say ban because new Class 3 tax stamps just don't get issued. It's like the marijuana tax stamp. It's a legal way to grow hemp and weed, and by law all you need is the tax stamp. Imagine ... they aren't issuing any. This is one power we should simply deny the government. cn

Click to expand...

Tax stamps for a fully auto weopon are not hard to get I own one It's just the price of the weapon that is hard to swallow.

rooky1985 said:

Tax stamps for a fully auto weopon are not hard to get I own one It's just the price of the weapon that is hard to swallow.

Click to expand...

Okay. Tell me how. Keep in mind that my location might introduce complexities. But prove that I as a citizen have this access without undue encumberment. cn

cannabineer said:

Okay. Tell me how. Keep in mind that my location might introduce complexities. But prove that I as a citizen have this access without undue encumberment. cn

Click to expand...

Well the idea is based on undue encumbrance, I believe we as valid gun owners would have to suffer for the "greater good". I don't like the idea of impulse buys, I have found that many of my friends that own a unnecessary amount of firearms (beyond personal protection) have bought these as impulse buys. I think that the shear number of guns sold would deminish due to the encumbrance, and those who actually needed a weapon for personal protection would not mind "jumping through the hoops" to get one. Which I feel would ensure a lesser amount of firearms just lying around. I love guns and own several, but politicians have their backs against a wall on this. I don't want to give up my constitutional right to possess or purchase fire arms, but I think this is the lesser of two evils instead of a silly semi-automatic ban. Of-course a felon would be a red flag and a no go as they are already so I think the only difference is a little bit more paperwork and a waiting period including a few trips to your local gun store.

cannabineer said:

The weapon of choice for defensive carry is the semi-auto pistol. Why do you want regular folk to not have those? Would you also be good enough to extend this ban onto the nonmilitary gov't agencies? There is absolutely no excuse for permitting the police to outgun the citizen. Not in this country.

I say ban because new Class 3 tax stamps just don't get issued. It's like the marijuana tax stamp. It's a legal way to grow hemp and weed, and by law all you need is the tax stamp. Imagine ... they aren't issuing any. This is one power we should simply deny the government. cn

Click to expand...

Guns have been a constitutional right ever since the constitution was written, so I do not see the parralel between firearms and marijuana at all. It is harder for a goverment to take something you already have then it is for a goverment take what you are not given yet.

rooky1985 said:

Guns have been a constitutional right ever since the constitution was written, so I do not see the parralel between firearms and marijuana at all. It is harder for a goverment to take something you already have then it is for a goverment take what you are not given yet.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the tax stamp as an unacknowledged prohibition. Your suggestion of moving a gun into class 3 is just a sneaky way of making it unavailable. cn

rooky1985 said:

Well the idea is based on undue encumbrance, I believe we as valid gun owners would have to suffer for the "greater good". I don't like the idea of impulse buys, I have found that many of my friends that own a unnecessary amount of firearms (beyond personal protection) have bought these as impulse buys. I think that the shear number of guns sold would deminish due to the encumbrance, and those who actually needed a weapon for personal protection would not mind "jumping through the hoops" to get one. Which I feel would ensure a lesser amount of firearms just lying around. I love guns and own several, but politicians have their backs against a wall on this. I don't want to give up my constitutional right to possess or purchase fire arms, but I think this is the lesser of two evils instead of a silly semi-automatic ban. Of-course a felon would be a red flag and a no go as they are already so I think the only difference is a little bit more paperwork and a waiting period including a few trips to your local gun store.

Click to expand...

I do not think I can buy a class 3 weapon of any description where I live, and I live in the lower 48+1. So I repeat my challenge. Back up the "not hard" part, with me as example. Show me how. If you cannot, I expect you to retract. cn

cannabineer said:

I do not think I can buy a class 3 weapon of any description where I live, and I live in the lower 48+1. So I repeat my challenge. Back up the "not hard" part, with me as example. Show me how. If you cannot, I expect you to retract. cn

Click to expand...

You need to snap out of that k-hole. He already admitted in what you quoted he doesn't care. He embraces "encumbrance," which means HARD in my language.

Canna Sylvan said:

You need to snap out of that k-hole. He already admitted in what you quoted he doesn't care. He embraces "encumbrance," which means HARD in my language.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I thought I expressed my views rather vividly.

cannabineer said:

I do not think I can buy a class 3 weapon of any description where I live, and I live in the lower 48+1. So I repeat my challenge. Back up the "not hard" part, with me as example. Show me how. If you cannot, I expect you to retract. cn

Click to expand...

I don't think a retraction is in order, rather it just looks like you can only buy six shooter in your state then. Very simple legislation to complete but I am sorry that your state does not allow class 3 maybe you could buy them out of state (all hypothetical ofcourse). I interpreted this whole thread as a Fed stance on the subject, that is only thing pertinant because Fed law is all that will be affected by the proposed ban. Now states may jump in like yours and try to go that extra step as yours did, but the bill will be a Fed Law. My state doesn't allow mmj but yours may and Fed Law stays the same.