To be fair, last time their was a Dem. Pres, they did pass a ban, and Obama and others in his admin. have spoken in language supporting that sort of idea.

Let's ban freedom of speech next.

Let's ban freedom of speech next.

You can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

You can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

You can't shoot in a crowded theater either. I don't get your point.

 

Let's just go down the constitution and see what cool rights we can take away.

It amazes me this thread turned into what it did, because this is a simple story. There are crazy people out there, and as long as we have a free society, those crazy people are going to do awful things like this and what happened in Binghamton sometimes. Want to ban guns? That's your problem because that clearly isn't going to happen (and neither is the AWB), and it's ESPECIALLY your problem if you think banning or severly restricting guns would prevent things like this. Last I checked, drugs are banned in this country too and LOTS of people still buy and use them every single day. Now, obviously using drugs is nowhere near as serious a crime as killing a few cops, but my point is that if people want something, they are going to get it regardless of if it's legality status.

Edited April 6, 200917 yr by whitesoxfan101

You can't shoot in a crowded theater either. I don't get your point.

 

Let's just go down the constitution and see what cool rights we can take away.

The point is fairly simple. If you want to argue absolutes, such that any restriction at all on guns is totally equivalent to a complete banning of all of them, then that also implies that any restriction at all on speech is totally equivalent to a ban on talking.

 

I responded with an example where, for public safety, we have abridged the right to free speech. Hardly anyone would dispute that people do not have a right to endanger people's lives using words. Thus, you shout fire in a crowded theater, people die in the stampede, and you go to jail. The right to free speech is therefore not absolute. Similarly, we can't pretend that the 2nd amendment is absolute and that you should have the right to bear whatever weaponry you wish under whatever circumstances you wish.

The point is fairly simple. If you want to argue absolutes, such that any restriction at all on guns is totally equivalent to a complete banning of all of them, then that also implies that any restriction at all on speech is totally equivalent to a ban on talking.

 

I responded with an example where, for public safety, we have abridged the right to free speech. Hardly anyone would dispute that people do not have a right to endanger people's lives using words. Thus, you shout fire in a crowded theater, people die in the stampede, and you go to jail. The right to free speech is therefore not absolute. Similarly, we can't pretend that the 2nd amendment is absolute and that you should have the right to bear whatever weaponry you wish under whatever circumstances you wish.

 

I, for one, am not a gun owner. I just feel there will be consequences when you take freedoms away and put too much control in government. There are plenty of responsible gun owners, we should not lose our freedoms due to isolated incidents. You could kill a crowd of people with a H3 Hummer too, how about banning over sized vehicles and kitchen knives for public safety?

 

I'm all for strict screening processes, mental evaluations and re-evaluations.

I'm all for strict screening processes, mental evaluations and re-evaluations.

Then you'd be for gun laws that are vastly stricter than what currently exist in this country.

Then you'd be for gun laws that are vastly stricter than what currently exist in this country.

 

If there was an easy solution for guns to be in deserving hands without banning them altogether or creating a doorway to ban them altogether, then sure, I would agree with you.

If there was an easy solution for guns to be in deserving hands without banning them altogether or creating a doorway to ban them altogether, then sure, I would agree with you.

I'd be game for trying the things you just suggested...more screening than a simple background check when people try to buy them.

You don't want to give the government too much power but are going to have the gov't decide whether you are mentally capable of owning a weapon.

I'd be game for trying the things you just suggested...more screening than a simple background check when people try to buy them.

 

 

Yes, people with sketchy mental history (the Va Tech shooter) should never be allowed to purchase a gun. I'm sorry but those "problems" never go away.

 

Also, if they arent completely banned already, civilians should not be able to purchase any type of military style semi-automatic machine gun. I see no reason someone would need one.

 

Events such as what happened in Pittsburgh and Binghamton will never go away, unfortunately. But I think the absolute wrong course of action would be to ban guns completely.

 

And I dont think there is any way to completely prevent these things from happening either. It'd be nice, but it's not realistic. You can't control lunacy. That's the thing about living in such a free society, there will always be people on the fringe who try to f*** up life for everyone else.

You don't want to give the government too much power but are going to have the gov't decide whether you are mentally capable of owning a weapon.

The government can already decide whether you're mentally capable to do a number of other tasks (Stand trial, go to jail, choose to get treatment, work a wide variety of jobs, be an active member of society in a number of other ways).

Also, if they arent completely banned already, civilians should not be able to purchase any type of military style semi-automatic machine gun. I see no reason someone would need one.

Semi-automatic? Hell, we don't even ban fully automatic, large caliber, military style heavy weapons. The guy in this case had a fully automatic AK-47 and it was totally legal for him to have it, and that's a hell of a lot more powerful than what you just said.

I'd be game for trying the things you just suggested...more screening than a simple background check when people try to buy them.

wow... that's it? A compromise in the filibuster? I was expecting to get flamed.

 

 

Semi-automatic? Hell, we don't even ban fully automatic, large caliber, military style heavy weapons. The guy in this case had a fully automatic AK-47 and it was totally legal for him to have it, and that's a hell of a lot more powerful than what you just said.

What? That cannot be right. You cannot legally own a fully automatic weapon as a civilian. If his AK was fully auto, then it was changed to be that way, or he got it illegally.

 

There's also no such thing as a semi-automatic machine gun.

There's also no such thing as a semi-automatic machine gun.

Well, sort of. There are machine guns back-converted to single shot weapons.

 

Yes, people with sketchy mental history (the Va Tech shooter) should never be allowed to purchase a gun. I'm sorry but those "problems" never go away.

 

Also, if they arent completely banned already, civilians should not be able to purchase any type of military style semi-automatic machine gun. I see no reason someone would need one.

 

Events such as what happened in Pittsburgh and Binghamton will never go away, unfortunately. But I think the absolute wrong course of action would be to ban guns completely.

 

And I dont think there is any way to completely prevent these things from happening either. It'd be nice, but it's not realistic. You can't control lunacy. That's the thing about living in such a free society, there will always be people on the fringe who try to f*** up life for everyone else.

 

There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic machine gun." Fully-automatic weapons are already very heavily regulated in this country; people can own them, but there's a lot of hoops to jump through and they had to have been manufactured prior to 1986. The rest of civilian firearms are either semi-automatic or single-shot. Each pull of the trigger results in one bullet fired, but a semi-automatic weapon (handguns, many rifles) chambers the next round while a non-semi-automatic means you have to load a round for each shot.

 

The "military-style" weapons on the civilian market are cosmetic look-a-likes with completely different functionality. You or I could go buy an AK rifle, but it wouldn't be the same thing as what you see insurgents using. It would look similar, but it would have to be a semi-automatic.

 

I am in strong disagreement with your last point that I bolded, though. IMO, the government needs to show strong evidence and reasoning for restricting something, not the other way around.

There's also no such thing as a semi-automatic machine gun.

 

I meant the AK-47 style gun...so automatic machine gun

Semi-automatic? Hell, we don't even ban fully automatic, large caliber, military style heavy weapons. The guy in this case had a fully automatic AK-47 and it was totally legal for him to have it, and that's a hell of a lot more powerful than what you just said.

Just Google the ATF rules on this. You cannot have a fully auto weapon, you cannot covert to that. This guy probably bought the semi-auto version of the AK-47 and illegally converted it.

 

I meant the AK-47 style gun...so automatic machine gun

Oh, full auto weapons in general? They're already illegal.

What? That cannot be right. You cannot legally own a fully automatic weapon as a civilian. If his AK was fully auto, then it was changed to be that way, or he got it illegally.

Accused cop-killer Richard Poplawski spent hours posting racist messages on an extremist right-wing Web site, decrying blacks and Latinos and warning of forthcoming economic collapse fueled by the "Zionist occupation" of America, an expert in political extremism has determined. Earlier, he had praised the "AK" rifle as his ideal weapon.

 

It was an AK-47 that police say Mr. Poplawski used to gun down three Pittsburgh police officers who arrived at his house Saturday morning in the midst of a domestic dispute.

 

...

Earlier this year, Mr. Poplawski's account carried vivid descriptions of after-game revelries when the Steelers won their sixth Super Bowl championship. In keeping with the poster's racial views, he referred to orderly behavior in his neighborhood by "happy whites." In another, he alluded to professional football as "negroball."

 

Still another post expounded at length about his dislike of African-American, Latina and Asian women.

 

"Don't mix your blood with dirt, son," he posted.

At one point, advising another poster on ideal weapons, he praised his "AK" -- an AK-47, the kind of weapon police say he used to kill three of their ranks in a deadly standoff Saturday.

 

Asked Dec. 8 what one weapon he would want if he could keep just one, he wrote "I guess I'd have to say my AK. Which is nice because it doesn't have to fall from the sky -- its ina case within arms reach."

Can't tell for certian that it was fully automatic. There are repeated reports of it being "automatic".

 

Police said Mr. Poplawski knew his mother had called 911, knew officers would come to his house. He apparently lay in wait, armed with an AK-47 assault-style rifle, a .22-caliber rifle and a revolver and wearing a bulletproof vest.

....

 

Drew Stadler, 34, who also lives on Oglethorpe, said he saw the gunman repeatedly firing an automatic weapon from a double window above the garage of the house. Gunfire pinned down several SWAT officers, who used shields for protection, Mr. Stadler said. A SWAT sharpshooter positioned himself on the roof across the street, targeting his rifle at Mr. Poplawski's house.

Automatic rifles are overrated anyway IMO. Real life is different than video games, you end up wasting a lot of ammo and it's hard to hit your target.

Semi-automatic? Hell, we don't even ban fully automatic, large caliber, military style heavy weapons. The guy in this case had a fully automatic AK-47 and it was totally legal for him to have it, and that's a hell of a lot more powerful than what you just said.

 

I know I've been over it several times in this forum. Do not rely on media reports whenever guns are involved, because they are hilariously misinformed. You can buy semi-automatic AK-47 look-a-likes all day long, but they are not functionally equivalent to real AK-47's. A real AK-47 was not used in this crime.

 

Fully automatic weapons have been very heavily regulated since the 30's. There have only been two incident of a legally-owned one being used in a crime since then, and one was by a police officer.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

 

I know this is a bit snarky, but the anti-gun crowds are just completely ignorant when it comes to knowing what guns actually are.