House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: violet
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Oh you can die here as fast as being shot.

Just need to be an asshole part time bus driver and kill 19 in a heartbeat.

Or how bout a night time ride through the Andes or the himalayas in a bus?

That argument is always a weak one.

You forgot suicide pilots, suicide bombers, Hitler
There’s 1000’s of ways to die at the hands of another.

Why make it easy for a crackpot intent on killing en masse?
Guns are so easy to do it in a quick way

a reply to: JBurns

Time to remove all gun laws.

The second,4th,8th,9th,10th, and 14th amendment supports that call.

a reply to: JBurns

I won't either. I have a wife and 3 daughters at home. I will not give up my ability to protect them from those with bad intentions.

a reply to: violet


Right.

But they're the ONLY tool we can use for defense against a DEADLY threat.

Cars aren't accessible enough.
No one is in an aircraft 24/7
Hiting them with my fist/OC/taser isn't "deadly force"

No.

A deadly threat ALWAYS calls for deadly force in response.

The most efficient tool to stop (and killing is the most effective means to stop them) is a firearm. Better yet a rifle, with standard-capacity magazines (30-60 rounds, at least) in semi-auto function is best. Automatic works well if you're defending yourself a large roving gang of thugs or something

Your argument is defeated.

There are already laws against crime.

1) The stuff they deal with is already illegal, yet it stops no crime
2) It would make guns illegal, and would still fail to stop crime

You act as though all firearms will simply disappear with the stroke of a pen.

How will you deal with the MILLIONS (3%) of folks who WILL refuse to turn in any firearm for any reason? That is why they'll still always be available, as well, if not by theft.

How do you propose to come take that firearm from me when I refuse, in line with my Constitutional rights, to surrender it? Please describe. In detail preferably.

On the bright side, these moron "Democrats" (socialists) have solved a MAJOR hurdle for the firearms industry...

We just heard REMINGTON was going bankrupt, and other companies are not doing so hot in the Trump-slump either. Socialists and their ridiculous fairytales of "gun control" has no doubt handed massive profits to the manufacturers.

For a bunch of tree huggers that claim to hate firearms/the gun industry, they sure do a lot of things to help it out.

Thanks Socialists. Anti-American scum, every one of you (the socialists)

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: JBurns

Time to remove all gun laws.

The second,4th,8th,9th,10th, and 14th amendment supports that call.

Lets make sure our Reps hear resounding support for gun freedom folks

Our Constitution is sovereign and absolute. A gun-less society threatens American sovereignty, at a time we need to defend it most.

Guess ill need to go ahead and make a couple pistol purchases if it starts to look like this is going to pass.

It seems to me that ANY GUN CONTROL puts Americans at risk for increased boating accidents.

And since we enjoy taking our firearms (all of them, but perhaps our primary carry and one long gun) on boats with us (piracy and what not, on the open-lakes), you could also see a risk of DANGEROUS FIREARMS FALLING INTO THE WATER. Think of the sea life, folks. Do we really want to arm the manatees?

I don't trust those sneaky manatees.

The uptick in boating accidents alone could cause our ~400,000,000+ guns to turn into ~100,000x firearms OVER NIGHT.

In the zest and zeal to ban all guns, what about all the people that are employed to manufacture guns, ammo, scopes, bipods, range finders, lasers, grips, gun oil, repairs, salesmen, private small business owners, silencers, the list goes on and on.

Lots of people, literally more than a million, revoked from their livelihoods because you know best and your opinions matter without remotely considering let alone listening to descention or the very rule of law itself.


Selfish bastards really, if you think about it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Finally gang members and people with criminal records won't be able to get semi automatic weapons. I cam finally move to Chicago and Baltimore and feel safe without a gun.

I'm sure the Democrats and Obama aren't interested in gun trafficking anymore either

a reply to: Xcathdra

From my cold, dead hands.

Second line.

It is truly awe inspiring to see the reactions of patriots on here and elsewhere.

The common sentiment appears to echo the above poster's: "From my cold dead hands"

Bravo, and seconded

Our Constitution is worth defending. And if I were the anti-American socialist traitors, I wouldn't bet on the Military/Federal LE standing against the Constitution. The oath they swear is to the Constitution and the notion of liberty itself, not to any government, congress, legislative body or political institution.

Congress has no right to usurp the Constitution. However, I'm confident the majority of congress value their jobs and wouldn't dare vote anything but "NO" to such a ridiculous bill.

In case people here haven't figured it out, by the same measure being used against guns: no law really "works"

There are laws against murder. Laws against drug use. Laws against theft, and assault or battery, and harassment, and DUI, and texting while driving, laws against felons owning firearms, etc.

Yet all of those things still happen. If ANY law was truly 100% effective, we'd have zero cases in our court systems - instead of the massive overflow of cases that require plea bargains in 99% of cases. Make no mistake, any proposed gun law would be no different.

The only difference is that you turn tens of millions of Americans into felons overnight. And in the case of defending our Constitutional right, that is a label I'd wear proudly.

Regardless, any system that attempts to label victimless offenses as felonious conduct is clearly lacking legitimacy.

a reply to: Ahabstar

n the zest and zeal to ban all guns, what about all the people that are employed to manufacture guns, ammo, scopes, bipods, range finders, lasers, grips, gun oil, repairs, salesmen, private small business owners, silencers, the list goes on and on

They don't give one rats rear end about those middle class tax paying jobs.

Not one iota!

Quick!
Hurry!
Look over here!

a reply to: vinifalou


I posted a topic on this the day after he was elected. I wouldn't be surprised if he signs that bill into law if it's voted in.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Quick!
Hurry!
Look over here!

It's only a piece of paper burning.

No worries it's just the Bill of Rights.

a reply to: JBurns

I have no ideas on how to resolve gun issues. I think it’s rather evident it’s a tough one.

Of course I don’t think a stroke of a pen will take care of it.
Nothing will happen to take your guns away. If I had a gun and I don’t, I most certainly would not turn it in or hand it over.

I realize you have a right to protect yourselves and your family.

You are all saying you want to feel safe in your homes or on the streets, just as children have a right to feel safe in their schools. It’s the only thing you have in common (on both sides)

Yes people could still get guns, the same way people can acquire illegal drugs. It’s not that hard.

It has to start somewhere and maybe it’s a good idea to start with people who shouldn’t have a gun because they are showing signs they wouldn’t be responsible with one.

Do you have any ideas? Or do you just say no I’m not listsning, I don’t care?

a reply to: neo96


Not one iota. They want to keep farming us for taxes though. All under their authoritarian watchful eye + threat of jack boots.

Socialist authoritarians make me sick.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Notice the logic involved.

"We need to ban assault weapons. These weapons have only one purpose, to kill a lot of people quickly."

"So this ban applies to law enforcement as well?"

"No, the police need these weapons to do their job."

Apparently, they feel the job of the police is to kill a lot of people quickly.

Well, you know, a lot of "crazy right-wingers".

But I wonder how they will reconcile that stance with their perceived police brutality.

a reply to: violet

violet, I apologize for the dismissive tone of my last post. It is clear you're genuinely interested in an actual discussion, and I really appreciate that fact.

It has to start somewhere and maybe it’s a good idea to start with people who shouldn’t have a gun because they are showing signs they wouldn’t be responsible with one.

Do you have any ideas? Or do you just say no I’m not listsning, I don’t care?

You're right and I have zero issues with ensuring dangerous people aren't allowed to have firearms. Those are the same people I'd most likely have to use my own firearm against to defend myself, so I have no issues there.

And I am listening and do care, and I know I could do a much better job of conveying that. It is just so frustrating to hear people cherry picking our Bill of Rights, and trying to dictate what we need/don't need. I can't imagine the backlash if we did that with the first amendment (probably the most dangerous one of them all) or something like abortion

I also agree that children should feel safe in school. However, attempting to take my firearms from me will not provide that safety. Unless you confiscate weapons from *all* people (including government, police and criminals) there will always be a means to source firearms for criminals.

Most importantly, we simply have no reason to trust the government/military to have all of the firearms. As it stands right now, we have a clear advantage in that regard. I see no reason to give up such an advantage.

I don't claim to have the answers, and have been more than supportive of "reasonable/common sense" measures like ensuring background checks are effective, background checks for private sales by giving private sellers NICS access, etc.

Targeting semi-automatic rifles, however, is senseless. First of all, it is handguns that are used in most homicides with firearms. Semi-automatic rifles are rarely used. Yet they provide a much needed deadly force capacity, especially in dealing with unusual threats.

For instance, home invasions commonly occur with multiple armed assailants
these days. It is not beyond them to wear soft body armor (costs $45.00 on ebay for level IIIA vest) capable of defeating virtually all handgun rounds and shotgun rounds. The ar-15 (and any semi-auto rifle) shines for this task.

What about dealing with multiple attackers? No one can hit the mark 100% of the time. 10 rounds in a non-removable magazine is a death sentence for anybody that doesn't already have the standard-capacity weapons.

To be sure, any sort of confiscation will be outright refused. Any sort of ban is patently unconstitutional, since "shall not be infringed" can never be interpreted to mean "infringe sometimes"

My ideas are very simple. To start focusing on the severe mental health issues facing these people, universally. These shooters were garden variety whackos that abused a Constitutional right to cause mayhem and death. But our laws already punish the guilty parties. And they're trying to give responsible teachers/staff who already have training/CHL to carry firearms in schools. They can carry everywhere else, and there is no reason not to carry in a school.

In any case, any sort of ban or confiscation will be seen by the patriots of this country for exactly what it is: an unlawful power grab and usurpation of the Constitution. That condition is not compatible with liberty.