Banning Semi-Automatic Weapons. Thoughts from a gun owner.

I have no immediate desire to get rid of my semi-automatic weapons.

The point I am trying to get across is that I own them, I have had a CHL for along time and in 3 different states. There was even a point I went to the range quite frequently. I do enjoy shooting semi-automatic fire arms. HOWEVER, they are entirely irrational. There is NO need to a semi-automatic weapons in our society. I would absolutely support a ban of all semi-automatic weapons and buy back program and would gladly give it up.

I'm fine with non-military grade firearms, that are meant for actual hunting, or self/home defense.... NOT Military conflict.[/quote]

I think you've made your opinion very clear. We don't agree with your opinion.

As someone from Europe I find American love for guns fascinating. Every week there is a shooting but still you say it is not a problem. You are very good at ignoring facts. Like every year is hotter and ice melting but still no problem. You say "we need guns to protect freedom". Are we here, or in Japan or Australia or other western countries not free? You say "it is not guns fault it is crazy people". Do you think you have a monopoly on all the crazy people in the world? Maybe you do with so many of this kind of thinking.

I have no immediate desire to get rid of my semi-automatic weapons.

The point I am trying to get across is that I own them, I have had a CHL for along time and in 3 different states. There was even a point I went to the range quite frequently. I do enjoy shooting semi-automatic fire arms. HOWEVER, they are entirely irrational. There is NO need to a semi-automatic weapons in our society. I would absolutely support a ban of all semi-automatic weapons and buy back program and would gladly give it up.

I'm fine with non-military grade firearms, that are meant for actual hunting, or self/home defense.... NOT Military conflict.[/quote]

As far as I'm aware, an AR-15 has never been used in a military conflict.

Podolski wrote:

As someone from Europe I find American love for guns fascinating. Every week there is a shooting but still you say it is not a problem. You are very good at ignoring facts. Like every year is hotter and ice melting but still no problem. You say "we need guns to protect freedom". Are we here, or in Japan or Australia or other western countries not free? You say "it is not guns fault it is crazy people". Do you think you have a monopoly on all the crazy people in the world? Maybe you do with so many of this kind of thinking.

Glad you like it there. Stay.

Podolski wrote:

As someone from Europe I find American love for guns fascinating. Every week there is a shooting but still you say it is not a problem. You are very good at ignoring facts. Like every year is hotter and ice melting but still no problem. You say "we need guns to protect freedom". Are we here, or in Japan or Australia or other western countries not free? You say "it is not guns fault it is crazy people". Do you think you have a monopoly on all the crazy people in the world? Maybe you do with so many of this kind of thinking.

To be fair, I don't think anyone (save a few people on the far right and some crazy groups here and there) can honestly say that they don't think guns are a problem irregardless of whether they are a gun owner or 2nd amendment supporter. From a recreational standpoint, I can see the fun an AR-15 offers on the range as with any other gun, however, there should be a nationwide purchasing policy that is clear and upheld if that gun is to still be offered. I don't really think it's productive to compare the United States to other countries unless you mirror the majority of factors exactly. I mean, does Australia have the same population as the United States? Does Australia have the same cultural mixing that the United States has (I know Australia is extremely diverse but I am strictly speaking about cultures that are markedly different from each other)? Mental health (especially in regards to youth) seems to clearly be a larger issue here than it is in many different countries and that seems to be compounded by a mixture of other factors in play as well (parental support, bullying statistics etc.). Do you think that some countries that have bans that saw a decrease in shootings (of course this usually happens) only had those decreases because of the ban? Or do you think there were other factors in play before/after the ban as well?

I'm not saying you don't have a point, it's just that the whole "I don't understand Americans/America" line runs like a broken record. Can you honestly not understand it? I live here and I understand it in 2 seconds. There are a myriad of issues with tons of variables in play...crazy people thinking guns are the answer is surely one of the prevalent issues as well, but I'd argue that, that group is a minority.

It's interesting you took my post as support for banning all guns.

I was making a point about the state of legislation in the US and the double standards of some organisations.

The 2nd amendment cannot be used as a defence against banning semi-automatic weapons, when the gov already happily banned certain other types of arms such as automatic weapons.

It seems under the current legal interpretation of the 2nd amendment, which appears to now be 'within reason', there is nothing legally preventing the state from expanding it's definition of what it considers 'unreasonable'.

The state could remove all types of weapons, attachments and accessories except one token weapon like a bolt action rifle, for example.

The way I see it, the right of the people to bear arms has already been infringed. In multiple ways. And nobody is complaining about it really.

Makes me think perhaps as time goes on people will accept a further and further reduction of their rights, disregarding the 2nd amendment. Only time will tell

STUPID STUPID STUPID.

Over the last century we have expanded tons of rights to people, wtf are smoking? Please name a right that has been revoked or diminished in any way shape or form.

I get it, this country has FEAR, however honest it may be it is MISPLACED. Decades of propaganda have convinced people they are under attack by their own government. Are we under attack? YES, but not by the government, we are under attack by the Corporate state, which has unlimited unchecked power.

You want to talk about rights disappearing? Look no further than everything we have lost to corporations.... Our health, clean water, clean air, land, education... Ever our democratic VOICE, it's gone.

It is undeniable that the right to bear arms has been restricted, and increasingly so, since the writing of the 2nd amendment.

For better or for worse.

I envisage a future where gun ownership is not as normalized as it is today and nobody worries about the 2nd amendment any more.

Ban anyone on psych drugs from owning weapons, same as driving while intoxicated.

Think for once wrote:

I guess the guy in this picture on the ground wishes he had the gun of his choice when his Govt either went bad or abandoned him.

https://www.iraqinews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ISIS-Execution.jpg

Girly men are plenty

https://pics.onsizzle.com/european-europen-men-then-men-now-refugees-welcom-here-6748153.png

I thought militia weirdos like you are just on TV documentaries.

1 Is that really going to happen in America

2 Anyone can get a gun in the type if country you refer to

3 The army and police would annihilate the militia.. revolution only happens in those 3rd countries where the army switches side.

Now go back to having a rootin tootin good old time Yosemite Sam.

You are an IDIOT. " It is undeniable that the right to bear arms has been restricted, and increasingly so, since the writing of the 2nd amendment."

Please explain? How has the right to bear arms been INCREASINGLY restricted? Because I am pretty sure within a day I could be armed enough to take on 25+ people with muskets as that is what they had when the 2nd amendment was written. I'd say the 2nd amendment is doing pretty well based on that logic.

I think you've made your opinion very clear. We don't agree with your opinion.[/quote]

That's because you are an irrational idiot.

Jerry Maguire wrote:

Logicality? wrote:

It is undeniable that the right to bear arms has been restricted, and increasingly so, since the writing of the 2nd amendment.

For better or for worse.

I envisage a future where gun ownership is not as normalized as it is today and nobody worries about the 2nd amendment any more.

You are an IDIOT. " It is undeniable that the right to bear arms has been restricted, and increasingly so, since the writing of the 2nd amendment."

Please explain? How has the right to bear arms been INCREASINGLY restricted? Because I am pretty sure within a day I could be armed enough to take on 25+ people with muskets as that is what they had when the 2nd amendment was written. I'd say the 2nd amendment is doing pretty well based on that logic.

Your method of arguing is really very embarrassing. Calling people names discredits what you have to say. Try to remember that.

I am talking about the law, not comparing the technology of today to then.

When the 2nd amendment was written, no weapons that existed were prohibited for an individual to own. Now technology has moved on and there are many types of weapons, of which many are banned.

The 2nd amendment has been decided by the legal system to be inadequate to apply to today's society in its virgin form. It has been agreed that some restrictions on what people can own, some infringement on the right to bear arms, is necessary.

So I ask how can it make any legal sense to use the 2nd amendment to defend a semi auto rifle but not an automatic one?

Logicality? wrote:

So I ask how can it make any legal sense to use the 2nd amendment to defend a semi auto rifle but not an automatic one?

I see what you are saying but you are trying to reason with an irrational, rabid, and deranged group of gun nuts who are willing to give up their own children's lives for the right to own guns.

Jerry Maguire = Pearce Morgan

Dude....You people need to get out more....There are millions of folks across the U.S who own and use semi automatic rifles for hunting.....Semi automatic simply means one bullet for one trigger pull.

If more guns made for a safer society than the U.S. would be a very safe place.

It's not.

We've pretty well proven out that the nearly unfettered access to guns is a social policy disaster. We own most of the guns in the world, and we have the highest levels of gun violence.

The argument that "good guys with guns" is the answer gets a major fail. Sure, there's a logic there, but the real world shows that the logic is faulty. Doesn't work.

Change is needed. Will it take time? Yes. That doesn't change the need to restructure how we handle this issue.

truthseakr wrote:

Dude....You people need to get out more....There are millions of folks across the U.S who own and use semi automatic rifles for hunting.....Semi automatic simply means one bullet for one trigger pull.

Wow thanks for the lesson there bud.

Everyone knows what semi-automatic means. It's not even some technical term solely used for guns.

If you read my post properly you will see I am not stating semi-auto is the same as auto or anything of the sort.

The original post here says that the OP thinks we should ban semi-autos. People are saying that's an infringement on the 2nd amendment. However, America has shown that the 2nd amendment can be legally partially bypassed, and what's more; nobody minds.

I'm simply stating; why don't 2nd amendment supporters campaign for fully automatic weapons to be legalised? And how do they justify certain types of weapons being banned, when the 2nd amendment clearly states 'shall not be infringed'?

If a self proclaimed 2nd amendment supporter comes on here and says the founding laws of his country state clearly he should be allowed an AK-47 then I could only entirely agree.

If he states that actually he shouldn't be allowed an AK but an AR-15 is ok, I ask why? How does one justify that standpoint based upon the 2nd amendment?