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

[Flopsweat]

Relevent:

View attachment 1208897

 

[ma96782]

Simple.
Can YOU figure out the agenda here?

-- by Martin Niemoller (with my additions for firearms)

First they came for the Socialists Hi-cap magazines, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist had no Hi-cap magazines.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists Semi-automatic firearms, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist had no Semi-automatic firearms.

Then they came for the Jews shotguns, rifles and revolvers, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew did not own a shotgun, rifle or revolver.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me real weapons left to put up a fight with.



So then........





Aloha, Mark

 

[nammac]

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.

So, absolutely not. Not up for discussion. That's just asinine idea…

Next you'll want to remove your genitalia to prevent rape.

 

[Mikej]

Can we PLEASE quit talking about cutting things of our bodies?? Please?

 

[CLT65]

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.

This post shows a serious ignorance/misunderstanding of the issue, and guns in general, but rather than attack and mock the OP, we should use this as an opportunity to educate. I don't think the OP is a troll. I think he doesn't understand the issue and has probably been taken in by the emotions of the moment.

1. What is semi-auto ammunition? The ignorant gun banners seem to think it's somehow deadlier than regular hunting ammo. The reality is (as most of us know) there is no difference, other than that the ammo more commonly used in ARs and the like is FMJ military grade ammo, which is LESS lethal than your typical expanding hunting round.

I remember a Doonesbury comic strip way back when, where a character was hunting with an "AR15". "BRRAAAP! (machine gun fire- WRONG!)
In the next panel he's looking for what's left of his deer that was blown into tiny pieces- "I think I found a piece of antler"
People believe this garbage! It's false, completely and factually wrong. A single shot from a 30-06 hunting rifle is far, far more lethal that a 5.56 fmj round- that's a demonstrable fact.

2. Who is talking about banning small semi-auto concealed carry pistols? How does this even fit into this discussion?

3. Hunting- this is a weak argument that has been dismantled completely long ago. For one, it's not about hunting, never has been. Hunting rifles are a tool used by hunters, that's all. The Second Amendment and right to bear arms is and has always been about defense of one's self and country, NOTHING about hunting. The hunting argument is something that the gun control lobby uses to confuse people. It's weak and irrelevant.

 

[nwslopoke]

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.

How would this actually help and what does it have to do with hunting?

One point always brought up is taking X gun away. There is never a plan to replace what X gun does. I have X=AR15, for a reason. I give it up and what do you have to replace the void? Your peace of mind does not replace my need.

In this case in Texas, this murderer did everything the anti-gunners said would keep people safe, with the available information. Obviously it didn't, so there's that. So their ideas didn't work and government failed to protect. I'll keep my X.

 

[Hawaiian]

I am up for a trial. Ban them in the high shooting neighborhoods of the major cities. If the gang bangers and criminals turn theirs in and it reduces the number of shootings, then we can talk about it.

 

[Bobbygun]

I don't think the OP is a troll.

I don't think he is either. I've gotten similar questions from my mom. She's 85 years old and a longtime NRA member. Even after talking with me, she's not a fan of modern sporting rifles. She just doesn't bring it up anymore.

 

[Will_White]

I am up for a trial. Ban them in the high shooting neighborhoods of the major cities. If the gang bangers and criminals turn theirs in and it reduces the number of shootings, then we can talk about it.

I think they tried that in Chicago, seems to be working as designed.

 

[Jason999]

No.

I could say some rotten things but I'm trying real hard to be less of a jerk.

 

[salmon creek gary]

No. There is zero historical evidence that banning anything has ever been effective. From that, I conclude that banning semi-auto firearms would follow the same pattern. The result would be rise of a robust criminal industry involving semi-auto firearms. Frankly, that scares the bubblegum out of me. If a ban means that I must give up mine, but those with ill intent can't (or won't) be made to give up theirs, then I and those close to me are at a totally unacceptable disadvantage.

If a ban on semii-auto firearms only applies to civilians (i.e. the police and the army do not give up theirs), then all of society is at an unacceptable disadvantage. Powerless subjects have never in history benefited from a magnanimous overlord (that's a first-class oxymoron). Whatever remained of our free society would inevitably succumb to a totalitarian state. We only have to look at the stranglehold that Putin has on Russia to see how unattractive that would be to any of us.

For anyone with half a brain, it shouldn't even be necessary to describe the slippery slope. Instead, it should be enough to say, "It is a stupid, idealistic brainfart that just will not work".

​

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[nwslopoke]

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

I've always found the argument, well, he was on drugs at the time. Much like saying to your wife, I know I cheated, but it was with your sister. Neither are valid excuses for the evil act. Just adds negatively. If you do something criminal while loaded you should get double the penalty.

 

[ma96782]

I've always found the argument, well, he was on drugs at the time. Much like saying to your wife, I know I cheated, but it was with your sister. Neither are valid excuses for the evil act. Just adds negatively. If you do something criminal while loaded you should get double the penalty.

Or......in today's society.



Aloha, Mark

 

[Camelfilter]

I've always found the argument, well, he was on drugs at the time. Much like saying to your wife, I know I cheated, but it was with your sister. Neither are valid excuses for the evil act. Just adds negatively. If you do something criminal while loaded you should get double the penalty.

Yup. Also, in respect to this discussion, allegedly the evil kids mother is a drug addict.

One can only imagine the alternate outcome if the mother was not in the picture during the evil kids upbringing. Perhaps the outcome COULD HAVE BEEN different?

Thought procceses like such, and how they MAY have a positive outcome on society are challenging for folks to understand. Plus systems meant to rebuild stable families (and remove unstable family members) could take generations.

The "quick fix" emotional knee jerk reaction is the easy way, which as most reasonable folks understand will not work anyways.

 

[VanceInWA]

Click bait.


HOWEVER...
I am curious to do a poll to ascertain just which measures may have, if not outright support, some modicum of room for consideration. And hopefully I've had enough exposure with NWFA members that they know I'm not just trying to troll for responses, or present an anti-gun message cloaked in a survey, etc. Just want to see where folks may stand from an objective point of view. Might take some time, but I'll get on it...

 

[jjfitch]

Apparently, some people have a short memory!

ANTIFA and BLM announced on my television that they were coming to my neighborhood and break into my house rape my wife and children and kill my dog!

When they did show up our little "red neck" logging town met them with streets lined up with people holding "black ugly guns" and a backhoe at every intersection! It was a peaceful demonstration!

No, we don't need no stinking "black ugly guns"!

We need people to stand up to the Marxist Mafia formally recognized as the Democrat party. We need "black ugly guns" to stand up to tyranny and protect our sovereign borders. We have a God given right to protect ourselves and families by any means including any manner of semi-auto firearm!

 

[Will_White]

From that, I conclude that banning semi-auto firearms would follow the same pattern. The tesult would be: a robust criminal industry involving semi-auto firearms.

Remember that before prohibition people mostly drank beer, wine, and other fermented drinks and because it was easier to transport for the same penalty Liqour became more popular during and after prohibition.

Same thing goes with Drug Prohibition before they were outlawed weed and street drugs were much less potent, now you can buy almost pure THC, and Fentynal is killing hundreds of people everyday.

There won't be an underground of Semi-Autos it will be full auto all the way.

 

[CountryGent]

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

Blatantly unconstitutional and totally ineffective, so, no.

 

[Mikeyg]

No, hell no. Not now not ever. The second amendment does not have anything to do with hunting and to imply that it does is flat out wrong.