Which weapons should be banned?

[mrjurrs]

I don't see the need for auto or semi-auto. For all of you originalists, I support your right to bear arms of the same general style available to the people of the United States about the time the Constitution was ratified.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I think there is kind of a GIGANTIC difference between access to weapons that kill fellow citizens, and freedom of speech, religion press and the right to vote.

your premise that you can't have those freedoms without unfettered access to firearms is nonsense. I am not saying deny access, I'm saying demonstrate you are responsible enough to have access to them in the first place.

Interesting that its considered an existential threat to one's rights and freedoms to endorse qualified access to very means of projecting existential threats on everyone around you. I

OW, everyone should have the right to have the means to easily kill dozens of their fellow citizens without any restriction or qualification.

I think there is kind of a GIGANTIC difference between access to weapons of self-defense and allowing complete dumbasses the right to vote, run for office, use their daddy's money to buy up media outlets and otherwise seek to impose their dumbass ideas on all American citizens. The Founders drew up the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as is for a reason.

 

[ChezC3]

Not a single, ****ing one.

 

[TurtleDude]

I don't see the need for auto or semi-auto. For all of you originalists, I support your right to bear arms of the same general style available to the people of the United States about the time the Constitution was ratified.

so you don't think the first amendment should cover telephonic conversations either then. I don't see the need for progressives to have any say in our elections since that political mindset didn't exist when the founders wrote the constitution either

 

[SMTA]

Which weapons should be banned?

A very short primer on the weapons

There are automatic, semi-automatic and single-shot weapons.

Automatic guns are illegal. These are machine guns. You press the trigger and the bullets fly until you stop depressing the trigger. An exception to the rule is a Gatling Gun, but we’ve progressed far beyond that type of automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic: You must press the trigger for each bullet to be fired.

Single-shot: you load each bullet manually.
###

The Choices For Banning Are:

PISTOLS
Single shot pistols (musket)

Revolver type pistols (not semi-automatic officially but not single shot)

Semi-automatic pistols (cartridge)


RIFLES

Single shot rifles (Bolt action, Lever action)

Semi-automatic rifles (cartridge)


SHOT GUNS

Single shot (pump action, break action)

Semi-Automatic


NONE OF THE ABOVE

As usual, you are wrong.
A $200 tax stamp from the BATFE and approval from the local Sheriff allows ownership of automatic weapons.
Do try and educate yourself before posting.

 

[SMTA]

Point of order.
Automatic weapons are not illegal, you can own one with the right amount of money, background checks, and paperwork.

They just can't be manufactured after 1986, when I was approximately 2.

Edit: Also, none of the above should be illegal.

Correct. You beat me to it.

 

[mrjurrs]

so you don't think the first amendment should cover telephonic conversations either then. I don't see the need for progressives to have any say in our elections since that political mindset didn't exist when the founders wrote the constitution either

You may have noticed that the first amendment has changed over time. It is the second amendment that clings to the time of the founders.

 

[TurtleDude]

You may have noticed that the first amendment has changed over time. It is the second amendment that clings to the time of the founders.

yeah the first has EXPANDED the freedoms of citizens. You gun banners want to restrict the freedoms of citizens. That is insane

 

[smallvoice]

You may have noticed that the first amendment has changed over time. It is the second amendment that clings to the time of the founders.

Actually. it doesn't

 

[BahamaBob]

I think there is kind of a GIGANTIC difference between access to weapons that kill fellow citizens, and freedom of speech, religion press and the right to vote.

your premise that you can't have those freedoms without unfettered access to firearms is nonsense. I am not saying deny access, I'm saying demonstrate you are responsible enough to have access to them in the first place.

Interesting that its considered an existential threat to one's rights and freedoms to endorse qualified access to very means of projecting existential threats on everyone around you. I

OW, everyone should have the right to have the means to easily kill dozens of their fellow citizens without any restriction or qualification.

That is a rather naive view. After all radical speech has prompted many people to take violent actions. Examples would be the left wing zealot who shot up the Congressional baseball team. Another example would the all the violence committed by the KKK and their ilk after listening to hateful speech. There is also no denying that religious zealots fueled by hate speech have committed thousands of unspeakable crimes.

In fact, if it wasn't for religious intolerance and hate speech most mass shooting probably never would have occurred. Hate speech and religious intolerance prompted the violence. Guns were merely the tool they often chose to use.

As for voting. I noted that there were counties in California in the 2016 election where up to 138% of the eligible voters voted. When obvious voter fraud like this is occurring, people are in effect being denied their right to vote. We have seen this happen all to often at many locations. Crooked politicians stuffing the ballot box in order to get their corrupt cronies elected.

 

[Jonsa]

That is a rather naive view. After all radical speech has prompted many people to take violent actions. Examples would be the left wing zealot who shot up the Congressional baseball team. Another example would the all the violence committed by the KKK and their ilk after listening to hateful speech. There is also no denying that religious zealots fueled by hate speech have committed thousands of unspeakable crimes.

In fact, if it wasn't for religious intolerance and hate speech most mass shooting probably never would have occurred. Hate speech and religious intolerance prompted the violence. Guns were merely the tool they often chose to use.

Not naive, not interested in whatever the wing nuts "motivation" for taking an automatic weapon and hosing down a walmart might be. No tool, not whacko.

As for voting. I noted that there were counties in California in the 2016 election where up to 138% of the eligible voters voted. When obvious voter fraud like this is occurring, people are in effect being denied their right to vote. We have seen this happen all to often at many locations. Crooked politicians stuffing the ballot box in order to get their corrupt cronies elected.

You may have noted it, but I dont' think the FEC has. Do you have a credible link to support what is a massively serious accusation.

Wanting to dick with the elections is getting the Dear Furhrer impeached.

 

[Moderate Right]

Which weapons should be banned?

A very short primer on the weapons

There are automatic, semi-automatic and single-shot weapons.

Automatic guns are illegal. These are machine guns. You press the trigger and the bullets fly until you stop depressing the trigger. An exception to the rule is a Gatling Gun, but we’ve progressed far beyond that type of automatic weapon.

Semi-automatic: You must press the trigger for each bullet to be fired.

Single-shot: you load each bullet manually.
###

The Choices For Banning Are:

PISTOLS
Single shot pistols (musket)

Revolver type pistols (not semi-automatic officially but not single shot)

Semi-automatic pistols (cartridge)


RIFLES

Single shot rifles (Bolt action, Lever action)

Semi-automatic rifles (cartridge)


SHOT GUNS

Single shot (pump action, break action)

Semi-Automatic


NONE OF THE ABOVE

As I know you already know, weapons do not kill people. People kill people. Banning weapons won't do a damn thing as long as we allow dangerous people to run around loose. That's the problem.

 

[BahamaBob]

Not naive, not interested in whatever the wing nuts "motivation" for taking an automatic weapon and hosing down a walmart might be. No tool, not whacko.




You may have noted it, but I dont' think the FEC has. Do you have a credible link to support what is a massively serious accusation.

Wanting to dick with the elections is getting the Dear Furhrer impeached.

Seems you only want to beat the party drum and run with the rest of the lemmings. If a problem is going to be eased, you must look at the underlying causes. We don't blame cars for drunk drivers, why blame guns for wackos?

As for voter fraud, read it and weep.

Election Fraud? Registered Voters Outnumber the Eligible, in 462 Counties | National Review

 

[Jonsa]

Seems you only want to beat the party drum and run with the rest of the lemmings. If a problem is going to be eased, you must look at the underlying causes. We don't blame cars for drunk drivers, why blame guns for wackos?

As for voter fraud, read it and weep.

Election Fraud? Registered Voters Outnumber the Eligible, in 462 Counties | National Review

for all the fake news floating about I would think that someone such as yourself would look at such an absurd claim from absurd source and at the very least ask a question or two. Like "could this possibily true and yet is somehow being swept under the rug" even tho voter fraud accusations have been one of Dear Furhrer's long list of whiny little bitches?


Here's the rebuttal

Fact check: Do 11 California counties have more voters than eligible adults? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

this is the source of the rebuttal.
Access Denied

 

[BahamaBob]

for all the fake news floating about I would think that someone such as yourself would look at such an absurd claim from absurd source and at the very least ask a question or two. Like "could this possibily true and yet is somehow being swept under the rug" even tho voter fraud accusations have been one of Dear Furhrer's long list of whiny little bitches?


Here's the rebuttal

Fact check: Do 11 California counties have more voters than eligible adults? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

this is the source of the rebuttal.
Access Denied

Some proof of rebuttal. The article doesn't even deny that it is true. All they say is inactive voters may have voted. Imagine that, Californian's were so hyped by Hillary that 5 million additional voters came out to vote. Yeah right.

Splain this to me Lucy. This is in LA alone and the LA Times is anything but a conservative hit job.

an extensive investigation by the Los Angeles Times found that the new system was plagued by glitches responsible for upwards of 100,000 inaccurate voter-registration records, including wrong party preferences, voters incorrectly being designated as wanting to vote by mail and at least 1,500 noncitizens wrongly allowed to register to vote.

By the way, California is also taking steps to insure it doesn't happen again. Why would they take steps to stop something that didn't occur?
Calif. Begins Removing 5 Million Inactive Voters on Its Rolls | RealClearPolitics