Would you support a ban on semi-automatic weapons and ammunition?

[Caveman Jim]

troll much?

He's a typical FUDD.

 

[monkeybutler]

But if it got banned, what would I do with all this semi-automatic ammunition?

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Hell no.
To quote Leo from "Blood Diamond"
"Are you craze mon?!"

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Would you support a ban on semi-automatic weapons and ammunition?

Kiss my $&! Troll.

 

[hongkong2]

Incoming, phuck NO!!!! And added to my ignore list....

 

[Flopsweat]

Firearms are used well over 1 million times per year in the United States to lawfully, morally and successfully defend people and property. I wouldn't sacrifice any of the effectiveness of those people's weapons for an already proven ineffective solution, even if it were somehow constitutional.

 

[CLT65]

Where are all those from that other thread, who said they support this? As I recall, there were even a number of forum regulars who don't talk about this, but "liked" the posts calling for this. There are more gun owners than you realize, even right here among us, who support a ban. When the raw emotions of a horrible event come up, they come out of the woodwork and talk about it.

Now is the time to fight emotional overreaction with facts and reason.

Like I said in the other thread, the gun control lobby has emotion on their side, but not science. It's an incredibly emotional thing, and none of us wants to ever see another mass killing like the recent ones if we could do anything to stop it. BUT- realistically, banning guns and magazines (and ammo?) is an ineffectual feel-good measure.

Check out the 1994 Federal AWB. It was studied at length and found to have accomplished nothing. Check out the statistics on the percentage of crimes actually committed with rifles, let alone semi-autos. It's a very small percentage.

Better questions might be:
What is wrong with our society and culture that these horrible things happen?
What can we do to protect our schools?
How can we identify and get help for these severely mentally ill people before they do something so evil?
How can we keep guns out of the hands of criminals, dangerous, and mentally ill people, without infringing on the rights of the law abiding?

 

[edzz]

Will Brandon give up his gas guzzling Corvette to fight global whining?

Just say NO to trolls.

 

[mhayd93]

Where are all those from that other thread, who said they support this? As I recall, there were even a number of forum regulars who don't talk about this, but "liked" the posts calling for this. There are more gun owners than you realize, even right here among us, who support a ban. When the raw emotions of a horrible event come up, they come out of the woodwork and talk about it.

Now is the time to fight emotional overreaction with facts and reason.

Like I said in the other thread, the gun control lobby has emotion on their side, but not science. It's an incredibly emotional thing, and none of us wants to ever see another mass killing like the recent ones if we could do anything to stop it. BUT- realistically, banning guns and magazines (and ammo?) is an ineffectual feel-good measure.

Check out the 1994 Federal AWB. It was studied at length and found to have accomplished nothing. Check out the statistics on the percentage of crimes actually committed with rifles, let alone semi-autos.

Very well stated!

 

[Andy54Hawken]

No I would not.

Dead is dead....and no one will ever say :
"Gee I'm glad he was murdered with a rifle that wasn't a semi auto or only had a magazine with 10 or less rounds.".

Having had combat expereince and been shot at with both semi auto and full auto fire...
I can say , that may just mean more misses and not so many hits.

It ain't the firearm that is the issue.
Its the will to murder / the idea that shooting others will solve what problems I have , that is the issue.

Besides all of the above....
It is important to remember just what the 2nd Amendent does say...
( in part )
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."
Please note that it does not say :
"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , but only certain types of Arms and only for certain purposes , shall not be infringed."
Andy

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

Absolutely not. Never. Semi-autos are what give the Second Amendment teeth. Governments have, to date, and outside of war, killed an estimated 100-200 million people. Right now in China, large groups of people can be dragged away, imprisoned for life, tortured or killed.

 

[Camelfilter]

Would you support a ban on semi-automatic weapons...

No.

...and ammunition?

No, and I honestly have no idea what that even means...


There is no "quick fix", you simply can't legislate away evil. It's just not possible.

What you can do is push our representatives towards re-institutionalization for folks whom need such.

Maximum terms, no "deals" etc for criminals.

Oh yeah, and that addictive drug epidemic - slaps on the wrists aren't helping the addicts, nor society. At all.

 

[Richo877]

Again this leads to the argument that only lawful and responsible gun owners will abide, and those with ill intent will still be able to access them readily. Also, this turns everyday Joe into a criminal if he decides to not follow suit.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

We have around 20,000 gun laws here in the US.
If gun laws , bans and restrictions kept us safe...then why do we need so many or yet more of them...?

If you want to see something differrent happen ...
Then you gotta do something different.
Tossing out yet another law , ban or restriction , ain't gonna do anything different than the other 20,000.
Andy
*Edit to give a more accurate number of firearm laws.

 

[Will_White]

Mass killings cannot be stopped, but why give the killer the advantage of a weapon which cycles quickly, carries multiple rounds, and can be reloaded easily? Sure, a pump, revolver, lever, or bolt action will kill but no way it can even come close to a semi.



I carry a semi or revolver for personal protection. I would happily give up the semi if it would lead to a (slow) reduction in the availability of that type of weapon.



When I use to hunt, absolutely no one carried a semi-automatic rifle since this would result in mocking their marksmanship or competence with a firearm. The goal was always one shot and done.

You ever see what buckshot does to flesh?

 

[HA556]

Let's ban forks so fat people lose lbs……

Unfortunately my fingers work just as well!

 

[WAYNO]

NO.

 

[Flopsweat]

Unfortunately my fingers work just as well!

Lets see, OP is from Salem (State Capitol), 13 posts and asks this type of question on this type of Forum. Not hard to figure out what's here!

I don't know. It's his only post like that. Doesn't fit the pattern of most trolls we get here. Let's give him a chance. If he's really a troll we'll know soon enough.

 

[HA556]

I don't know. It's his only post like that. Doesn't fit the pattern of most trolls we get here. Let's give him a chance. If he's really a troll we'll know soon enough.

You are correct my friend! Forgot to be "Excellent".

 

[MTpockets]

Eight .36" lead pellets traveling 1325 fps from one trigger pull.

A fully automatic rifle couldn't accomplish that....