Ban semi-auto weapons would stop all shootings!

[dutch508]

boston bean (25,306 posts) http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027423151

I'm thinking that if we banned the sale and resale of all semi auto weapons that in approximately 3 months we would have averted many/most mass killings where these are the killing implement of choice. History shows, most of these murderous creeps just purchased their NEW playthings.

And shootings that did occur using non semi auto weapons, we would see less carnage, because the creeps would have to reload or carry 15 one shot rifles and 100 revolvers to equal what they could accomplish with a couple of semi autos and loaded magazines.

I'm all for that.

Voting for DOTY is almost over, BB.

tularetom (22,100 posts)
2. You mean like back in 1919 when we passed the Volstead act and banned the sale of alcoholic beverage and in approximately 3 months, there was no more booze in the United States?

Oh, wait.

libdem4life (7,407 posts)
4. No but we can stop making the bullets And just like we did gold...demand they bring them in and receive something of value in trade. I still say one gun per household. ..but regulated similar to auto and driver's licences.

 

cherokeeprogressive (21,283 posts)
19. Nothing related to control of our borders will ever be discussed in the context of gun control.

You'll see a certain few screaming "BAN THEM ALL!" but if you ask them how that's possible with the lax control of our nation's borders... crickets. That or cries of xenophobia, racism, nationalism, or some such.

Squinch (10,005 posts)
14. Many will tell you that this will not work, though those very same people insist, often to the point

of being hysterical about it, that 99.9% of gun owners are totally law abiding. So clearly they are contradicting themselves.

I think it would be worth trying your idea. Personally I tend to believe that the majority of gun owners are law abiding, and therefore I think the average gun owner would follow laws that limited the numbers of guns per household and required regulation like you describe.

Even if we found that they didn't abide by such laws, at least then we would have proof that the gunners are full of shit when they say the average gun owner is law abiding.

MohRokTah (10,720 posts)
11. Violation of the constitution. Wouldn't stand as long as it takes the ink to dry.

You cannot ban guns which are already in widespread legal use to the tune of 120 million.

libdem4life (7,407 posts)
16. they did with gold and it was more widespread than guns.

But it will take a few more white, homegrown terrorists and a lot more dead Americans and carnage

MohRokTah (10,720 posts)
17. There is no constitutional right to own gold.

Unlike the case with guns.

boston bean (25,306 posts)
26. I do know what the problem is and it isn't me.

It's damned gun nuts who think their right to own a killing machine that can kill dozens in minutes who are the problem.

This will change. They better stock up on their guns and ammo, and maybe be go from a law abiding gun owner to an unlawful one... it's going to happen sooner than you think.

The appetite for this in America is dwindling fast.

Anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together knows we cannot live like this.

zazen (2,431 posts)
27. how did auto-weapons every get defined as "guns" in the first place?

Do I have the right as an American citizen to own a poisoned dart gun? Or to shoot pellets full of napalm or something? Or have a flame-thower?

This never had to be a constitutional issue if the assault weapons had been properly classified in the first place as weapons of war rather than "guns" for home protection or hunting.

It's more than semantics. An assault rifle is less like a musket of the late 18th century or a revolver of the late 19th century than it is like a military grade rocket launcher. How it ever got defined as a "gun" in the first place is beyond me.

And if we can outlaw certain types of pesticides and herbicides for home use and even arrest people if they possess them, why the hell can't people be arrested for continuing to possess recalled "defective" (military grade) weapons?

I still wish all new manufactured guns had to have fingerprint signatures to operate and bullets went way up in price (like Chris Rock said). The only way to keep earlier revolvers and rifles would be to officially register them as antiques.

OMG. Actually the musket of the 18th century WAS the assault weapon of the time, idiot.

Eleanors38 (14,212 posts)
35. boston, the chief support for your bans is MSM...


Which do you think will die off as a major force first?

1). MSM

2). Old white men (core of the hated "other" in the gun culture wars)

Please note that Pew Research (no friend of the Second) has found that "millenials" support the Second in similar numbers to their old-fart countrymen.

nadinbrzezinski (141,953 posts)
43. But it also found that 33 percent of people own guns

(there are regional differences), unlike the high tide of 50 percent.

Urban populations are NOT going to own them in as large numbers as they were in the past, unless something very dramatic changes.

X_Digger (16,689 posts)
46. No, some percentage *admit* to owning guns.

And in this internet age, where data collection is scary smart, I doubt as many would admit to owning a gun as do in previous years.

Also, more young people don't have land lines, and therefore don't get picked up by typical survey methods (or just hang up on survey takers.)

Here in Texas, urbanites are making a night on the town of going to the shooting range, then going to the Melting Pot or the Improv. Acccording to the distribution of CHL permits, per DHS demographics reports, the majority of permits are centered in urban areas.

Imajika (4,033 posts)
44. Gun control = enormous loser of an issue...

It's sad to see the party slide down that road again. I thought we'd learned our lesson in the 90's.

Re-branding "gun control" as "gun safety" was a smart move, but in the end the American people are far more concerned with actual real or perceived terrorists, not so much the tools they use.

The problem is whenever there is one of these mass shootings, far from wanting to ban various guns or take other action against guns, people tend to feel unsafe and want to be able to buy a gun (or another) themselves. If you are going to push gun control/gun safety, you'd need to somehow tie in a huge increase in law enforcement funding or something along those lines.

This issue is not just a loser, on the local level it is positively poisonous for Democrats.

Believe this, the Republicans/conservative/right wing fanatics/etc are pleased as punch many Democrats and the media they believe is aligned with Democrats (such as the NY Times, NY Daily News, etc) are beating this gun control issue again. It will end up being a serious liability for us going into 2016.

Lurks Often (4,463 posts)
45. How about thinking about ideas that will pass Congress?

instead of OP after OP of unrealistic ideas that will,

Never pass through Congress
Never hold up to judicial scrutiny
Never be obeyed by the majority of states
Never be enforced by law enforcement

Let's say Barry goes off the deep end and does executive action tonight and outlaws all sales of guns in the USA, outlaws all ownership of guns in the US and demands than gun owners start turning guns in tomorrow. How long do you thing before the white house is stormed by federal agents to remove him from office?

Hm?

[RayRaytheSBS]

boston bean (25,306 posts)
26. I do know what the problem is and it isn't me.

It's damned gun nuts who think their right to own a killing machine that can kill dozens in minutes who are the problem.

This will change. They better stock up on their guns and ammo, and maybe be go from a law abiding gun owner to an unlawful one... it's going to happen sooner than you think.

The appetite for this in America is dwindling fast.

Anyone with a couple of brain cells to rub together knows we cannot live like this.

No bean, what we normal  people can't live with is all the attention these brethren of YOUR WEBSITE keep getting, and the fact that you @#$! SJW's have made it so we can't call a spade a spade,  and say a devout Muslim is a TERRORIST. 

We're sick and tired of being  told that law-abiding gun owners (the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the gun-owning population) are criminals,  and need to give up their CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED RIGHT. GFYS with a pineapple grenade sans pin... sideways

[98ZJUSMC]

(like Chris Rock said)

Oh, goodie..... the retarded quoting the stupid.

boston bean (25,306 posts)

The appetite for this in America is dwindling fast.

Record sales, first-time buyers and NEW, first-time NRA members say differently.

How the 'New York Times' and Loretta Lynch Made Me Join the NRA
 
BY ROGER L SIMON DECEMBER 6, 2015  Used to be further left than you sperm burpers.

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/12/6/how-i-joined-nra

But the NRA was always a bridge too far. I interviewed Wayne LaPierre, its CEO, once for PJTV, but I never joined. I'm still a Jewish boy from New York whose mother cringed at buying him a cap gun.  It's not in my DNA.

The New York Times and Attorney General Loretta Lynch have finally put an end to all that. Hello again, Mr. LaPierre. Here's my twenty-five bucks.  Send me that rosewood knife.  I'm in.

[thundley4]

zazen (2,431 posts)
27. how did auto-weapons every get defined as "guns" in the first place?

Do I have the right as an American citizen to own a poisoned dart gun? Or to shoot pellets full of napalm or something? Or have a flame-thower?

Flame Thrower
If you feel the need to throw some fire around, you are legally allowed to purchase a flamethrower under federal law, and 40 states have no laws against owning the weapon. Though it’s restricted in some states, such as California, unlicensed possession is only considered a misdemeanor.

Cannon
Black powder cannons are legal and do not even need to be registered with the government. To purchase black powder, you need to buy it directly from a licensed explosive dealer. Black powder federal purchase is limited to 50 pounds, but varies by state. Cannons can be purchased online for around $3,000.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2013/03/28/10-Weapons-You-Wont-Believe-Are-Legal

[Skul]

Snip

Used to be further left than you sperm

That's just the DUmp menz, 98.
I'm not sure how to reference the Vaginal Vanguard.

[I_B_Perky]

The thing about all this is... if obama would come out tomorrow and say everyone should be armed, then the Dummies would all fall in line like the lemmings they are.

I know it and so do the dummies.

And they call us brainwashed.   

[Carl]

boston bean (25,306 posts)
I'm thinking...

You are attempting something you have no equipment for.

[FiddyBeowulf]

Squinch (10,005 posts)
14. Many will tell you that this will not work, though those very same people insist, often to the point

of being hysterical about it, that 99.9% of gun owners are totally law abiding. So clearly they are contradicting themselves.

I think it would be worth trying your idea. Personally I tend to believe that the majority of gun owners are law abiding, and therefore I think the average gun owner would follow laws that limited the numbers of guns per household and required regulation like you describe.

Even if we found that they didn't abide by such laws, at least then we would have proof that the gunners are full of shit when they say the average gun owner is law abiding.

This post makes no sense. If gun owners are law abiding why have them turn in their guns? We know they are law abiding, since the 90's the number of gun owners has gone up but the number of gun crimes have gone down. If the gun owners were not law abiding you would not expect that to happen.

[Patriot Guard Rider]

This post makes no sense.

Sure it does, if you doubleplusgood DUmmiethink.

What it's saying is 99.9% of gun owners are law abiding. SO, if laws are passed by the gov't allowing us to only have one gun in the house, plus all sorts of gov't restrictions such as registration, insurance (which doesn't cover criminal acts by the way), unannounced police visits to make sure the guns were locked up, etc., 99.9% of gun owners would turn in their excess guns and jump through the hoops to comply. Failure to do so would prove the 99.9% are not law-abiding, providing a contradiction, and proving the point.

See? It's easy once you understand those idiots.

[BlueStateSaint]

Mike Williamson has a good article on his blog--I found it via a link on SurvivalBlog.com.  Even though it's from three years ago, it's just as relevant today.

Why The Assault Weapon Ban Failed, And A New One Would, Too

Dec 20, 2012    1:44PM

I will try to make this a layman's presentation.

First, we have to look at the definition of "assault weapon."

There is a military definition of "Assault rifle," which is a rifle of intermediate caliber, firing from a closed bolt, in select fire (both self-loading, and automatic or burst), intended for engagements primarily under 200 yards.  Assault rifles are strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (It predates assault rifles by a decade), requiring a background check, law enforcement approval, a $200 tax stamp, and are illegal in 12 states at the state level.  No new ones can be manufactured for civilian sale since 1986.  Current market prices are around $12,000 and up.  My research shows none have ever been used to commit a crime of violence.

There are two cases of registered full autos that were not assault rifles used for violence.  Both perpetrators were law enforcement officers.

Using the AR15 as an example, the civilian version has 7 different components inside, than the military version.  There are ways to convert an AR15 to automatic or burst, but it generally requires a machine shop.  If you have a machine shop and the diagrams, you can illegally make your own anyway without much difficulty.

The rest of the post is here:  http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/index.php?itemid=219

[SVPete]

"The problem is that Prog pols' and DU-folks' "definition" of "Assault rife" is, "It looks scarier to me than a Hello Kitty bubble gun."

[BlueStateSaint]

"The problem is that Prog pols' and DU-folks' "definition" of "Assault rife" is, "It looks scarier to me than a Hello Kitty bubble gun."

How's this look?

[txradioguy]

boston bean (25,306 posts)
26. I do know what the problem is and it isn't me.

Actually the problem IS you.  You're just too stupid and stuck in your Marxist ideology to see it.

It's damned gun nuts who think their right to own a killing machine that can kill dozens in minutes who are the problem.

Automobiles and cancer are more of a "killing machine" than any legal gun owner.

FWIW you can kill "dozens in minutes" with a pump shotgun, a level action rifle or a wheel gun too.  It's not the weapon used that causes so many people to die IMO...it's the carefully staked out locations where they know the response will be slow to stop what they are doing.

[RayRaytheSBS]

Actually the problem IS you.  You're just too stupid and stuck in your Marxist ideology to see it.

Automobiles and cancer are more of a "killing machine" than any legal gun owner.

FWIW you can kill "dozens in minutes" with a pump shotgun, a level action rifle or a wheel gun too.  It's not the weapon used that causes so many people to die IMO...it's the carefully staked out locations where they know the response will be slow to stop what they are doing.

Hi5 and I agree. Heinlein said it best when he said "There are no dangerous weapons,  there are only dangerous men".