Semi automatics need to be outlawed

[SHRED]

1 year grace period to turn them in.

5 year mandatory minimum after that if caught with one.

[Hoyt]

1. [phone]. Gun-strokers will whine and claim it's unpatriotic. Tough!

[SHRED]

2. There is no need for these weapons

None.

[TheRealNorth]

129. It's a great idea

If you want to lose in 2020. You will lose WI, MI and maybe even PA and MN if you did this.

A lot of guns today are semi-automatic (ie each trigger squeeze shoots a bullet with the reloading of the chamber automated).

[at140]

179. My little 9mm does exactly what you describe

and for old geysers like me (nearing 80) it is the only chance to survive an attacker/invader.

I think the OP is talking about AR-15 type guns which can fire many rounds quickly.

[IggleDuer]

3. Just a thought:

If a mother and her doctor determine that the newborn should be executed, would it be OK, in Trump World, if an AR - 15 were used????

[bluecollar2]

4. Semi automatic what? N/T

[Maru Kitteh]

54. Semi-automatic shit-wits? Perhaps?

It's a good start, I guess. Who really knows. It's all so vague.

[Lithos]

5. This won't happen

I get the intent, but the legal mechanics behind this are going to be weak given that semi-automatic is far from being technically defined term.

The focus should be more towards allowing database sharing, increased licensing/training, and granting better judicial oversight for medical mental health interventions
.

L-

[SHRED]

6. We can land a man on the moon

We can take pictures of a black hole.

But we can't do this.

Got it.

[Lithos]

7. No, it's a case of definition

What's semi-automatic?

Is a revolver a semi-automatic? For some definitions, yes.

L-

[SHRED]

8. Yep impossible

[Lithos]

12. Whatever

I'm on your side - like to stop the carnage. However, I dare anyone to define a semi-automatic in a way which is ironclad and does not create legal loopholes or which creates a shadow-grey market which makes a mockery of whatever is in effect.

My thought is that we're selling way too many guns as is. Taxes, licenses, liabilities and education are the ways to change the culture from one of a testosterone "braugh" one to back to being a responsibility. However, trying to create artificial definitions which are either weak or easily subvertable with a little "tech" are not the way to go.

L-

[better]

16. Actually, defining semi-automatic is quite easy, if you actually know how firearms work.

It's a weapon in which the energy expended by firing a round is harnessed to chamber the next shot automatically, and where the trigger must be released before another round can be fired. It really is that simple. A revolver generally falls technically outside this classification because while no action other than pulling the trigger is necessary to chamber the next round, a revolver chambers the next round mechanically by the trigger action rather than by harnessing the expanding gasses, and before the round is fired, rather than after. And actually, if we want to be super-technical, we would include that a semi-automatic fires only one round per trigger pull, and get into things like a 3-round burst-fire mode found on some select-fire weapons, but you get the idea.

Part of the problem we have getting effective legislation passed is that many on the left mistakenly believe that "semi-automatic" means "machine gun", when in fact it quite explicitly means not a machine gun, specifically because the trigger must be released before another round can be fired. Rounds firing continuously as long as the trigger is held is what actually defines a machine gun.

As a nearly lifelong gun owner and a solid liberal, I really wish that more people on our side of the aisle would invest the effort to understand enough about firearms to be able to tell the difference between legislation that is scientifically sound and would make a difference and legislation that targets the wrong thing. I post explanations like this despite it often being perceived as "gunsplaining" because in order to regulate something well, it is important to understand it well enough to be able to differentiate between regulating it well and regulating it poorly. And the same holds true to an extent for supporting legislation.

As I've said many times before, the real problem is not AR-15's or semi-automatics in general. A semi-automatic, even an AR-15, is perfectly reasonable to allow civilians to own, for a variety of lawful uses. Where the real problem lies, and what is not reasonable for civilians to own, are high-capacity magazines. The AR-15 is the weapon of choice in mass shootings primarily because it is the weapon for which high capacity magazines are most common. Outlaw all magazines above a reasonable capacity, and an AR-15 is no more unsuitable for civilian use than any normal old ranch or hunting rifle.

At the end of the day, we're probably not ever going to see a ban on semi-automatic weapons, because there are legitimate reasons for civilians to be allowed to own them, and the arguments against them are almost entirely founded upon an inadequate and often completely incorrect understanding of what they are and how they work.

Extended capacity magazines, on the other hand, we actually do stand a reasonable chance of being able to outlaw, in no small part because even those of us who support lawful gun ownership can and will acknowledge that unlike some of the famously targeted characteristics like pistol grips, extended capacity truly does have a direct correlation to a weapon's suitability for assault, and none of the lawful uses for which most reasonable gun owners want to own semi-automatics justifiably require high capacity. Being able to fire 30 rounds before reloading is important in combat, but not for hunting, competition, or target practice, and honest, reasonable, law-abiding gun owners will admit that. There are of course many who would still oppose it, but enough would accept it that it might actually be achievable, and it really would make a difference.

[Lithos]

20. You have done a great deal to define the issue

You've done a lot of definition without actually talking about semi-automatic.

Extended capacity magazines are not - semi-automatic
machine guns are not semi-automatic


The legal issues due to various definitions:

https://www.theregreview.org/2018/11/14/kopel-defining-assault-weapons/

And this is the current legal definition:

https://gun.laws.com/semi-automatic-laws

Which shows such a definition while possible seems to be hard to define in a *legal* (political) sense.

[brewens]

77. You must be able to identify an AR-15 hammer spring blind folded to have an opinion on

semi-auto guns. Those are the NRA babbling points.

[MH1]

154. Give the poster ("better") credit for wanting action on high capacity magazines

I would like broader gun safety measures but HELL YEAH, I'll take a ban on high capacity magazines, if that's something we can get. That would absolutely reduce the lethality of these attacks. It would save lives.

[brewens]

164. Last time, with the assault weapons ban, they ramped up manufacturing of those magazines

before it went into effect. You could still sell them. It amounted to just paying a little more than they would have otherwise.

[spin]

192. I was one of the few regulars at the gun range who didn't buy hi-cap magazines...

during the period the assault weapon ban was in effect.

I do not believe in the “fill the air with lead” philosophy of self defense with a firearm.

[spin]

191. I couldn't identify an AR-15 hammer spring without a blindfold but ...

I still know what a semi-automatic firearm is. It is not rocket science.

A semi-automatic firearm, also called self-loading firearm or autoloading firearm (though fully automatic and selective fire firearms technically are also self-loading), is one that not only fires a bullet each time the trigger is pulled, but also performs all steps necessary to prepare it to discharge again—assuming cartridges remain in the firearm's feed device. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber. To fire again, the trigger is released and re-pressed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm

I prefer revolvers to semi-automatic pistols but own both. I currently do not own a semi-automatic rifle but may in the future as I am moving from a urban area to a rural area. Of course I may just buy a lever action rifle.

[Baconator]

27. The steady line has been ( and will be) that the reason for the 2nd Amendment...

... is to push back against the government if necessary.

Then comes self defense...

Then comes "hunting, competition, or target practice"

[krispos42]

155. The other issue is that 95% or more of homicides are single-victim incidents

While mass shootings grab the headlines, the cold hard fact is that, when the type of gun used in a murder is known, 90% of them are handguns, 5% are rifle, and 5% are shotgun. Banning some configurations of semi-automatic rifles, or limiting magazine capacity, will not, CAN NOT, help the murder rate in this country

The other cold hard fact this that the homicide rate in this country is about half of what it was from 30 years ago. While it seems worse, this is an illusion from the pervasiveness of headline-grabbing news feeds from a dozen directions. The nation is a very small place now, and what happens a thousand miles away from you can easily be shown as if it was happening a block away.

Between CNN, MSNBC, Faux News, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Twitter, Facebook, Google News, and everybody carrying an internet-connected camera on them 24/7 and able to upload instantly to those entities, when anything happens we know about it almost immediately, and with great intimacy. Events like mass shootings draw a lot of eyeballs and other attention, which also draws copycats and attention-hungry sickos.

It seems to be snowballing. No doubt driven by the stochastic hatred that Dimwit Donnie spews from his piehole, but the communication systems we have also allow tiny populations among a large geographic region to connect and create their own reality bubbles and then marinate in them. Or perhaps the better term is "fester". One example is the Flat Earthers, to cite a non-political group, but there are many more. Comments on news stories, for examples, or on YouTube. reddit.com has groups, called "subreddits", that people of a like mind hang out in. I am to understand that the subreddit the_donald is pretty noxious, but I'm not in the mood to soil my soul to investigate.

Unfortunately, I have no solution. It's not a hardware problem, not really, any more than heroin use is a hardware problem. There are fundamental issues that are not being resolved in our society and it's putting strain on many of us, and the more people there are under more strain, the more of us are going to crack and decide that a random mass killing with "show them". The paradox is that we can't fix society unless we're running things, and treating it as if it is a hardware problem seems to generally keep us from running things!

We need to commit ourselves as a nation to the idea of a large and powerful single-income middle class, and we need to get our progressive agenda moving to do so! What we did on the environment and women's rights in the 60's and 70's let directly to the massive crime drop a generation later. That crime drop was far larger than anything that was accomplished with gun laws or stiffer penalties or more cops on the street, but it was a totally unintended consequence.

How will universal health insurance help lower the crime rate? I don't know, maybe it won't. But there also could be some totally intended and unforeseen way that it does help.

[Amishman]

185. Nailed it

The hardware problem approach is going to quickly become impossible. Advances in 3d printing and home manufacturing, combined with distribution of plans through the internet will soon make limiting access infeasible.

[krispos42]

187. It's not even that complex

Look, these insane people that do these things, their mission is to cause national headlines and anguish. Their mission isn't logical or reasonable. A mass shooting will give them what they want, regardless of the the actual body count or who the victims are. The mere fact that it happens is the goal. The insane person isn't trying to fight his way through to rescue a hostage from kidnappers, or steal a vital piece of intel to help the war effort, or hold a defensive strongpoint until reinforcements arrive. In these logical and reasonable scenarios, if the person or people tasked with don't have the equipment or the manpower or whatever, they don't go.

But the insane person goes "hey, for the price of an AR-15, I can buy 3 handguns!" Is this materially better than him having an AR-15? If anything, 3 pistols are easier to conceal than a rifle! Whereas, if you took the rifles from a rescue team and told them they could only use pistols, there's a good change they would not be able to perform their mission and thus would not try.

The homemade gun concept isn't really an issue and never has been. Improvised guns are not hard to make, particularly single-shot smoothbores. People trying to 3D print them is not and will not be an issue for the foreseeable future. Get us to the "Star Trek" style replicator, and then you have a problem.

[spin]

72. There were no aliens on the moon shooting at us when we landed. ....

You can bet a significant number of gun owners will resist any attempt to confiscate their firearms. They have been predicting gun confiscation would occur for decades and many are ready and willing to resist.

If I was a cop ordered to disarm honest, responsible citizens because a gun ban and confiscation law just passed, I would quit on the spot. I might be willing to put my life on the line to stop criminals but not people who had never done anything wrong just because they owned firearm.



.

[sarisataka]

138. Mentally unstable

Plus any person who would even think about owning a firearm should be deemed mentally unstable to begin with. 

You are aware that both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are gun owners? Probably other Democratic candidates are as well.

Does that affect who you will support in the primaries? Will you vote for a "mentally unstable" gun owner in the GE?

[friendly_iconoclast]

159. Excellent questions all, which will no doubt be dodged with the skill of a NFL wide receiver...

[sarisataka]

170. I am truly shocked

That was hidden, or even alerted

[spin]

140. I have talked to the locals in my area. ...

They have absolutely no interest in arresting citizens because a law passed and they refused to turn in their firearms. Some of the officers in my area have extensive firearm collections themselves that include semiautomatic assault weapons.

Of course to be fair just about everybody in this small Florida town where I live owns firearms. People who live in places like New York City or Chicago would say the people here are armed to the teeth.

Florida is known as the Gunshine State for good reason. Well over a million residents have concealed carry permits and many carry a handgun on a regular basis.

[hack89]

9. Too bad the public doesn't care that much

Gun control is not priority for the American public. If it was, the laws would have been passed years ago.

[sarisataka]

10. Not enough....

Turned in with a $100 disposal fee, gun huggers created the market, they can pay to remove these threats to humanity

After the grace period the government needs to scour sales records and social media for anyone who may be holding a death machine. Those people need a visit from a SWAT team to search their property. Anyone who cries about "rights" needs to suck it up and stop being a baby. Anyone resists- well Chuck Heston defined the terms.

Why bother with half measures?

[ADX]

13. *SIGH*

...It's beyond ironic that you say "those people" need a visit from a SWAT team... armed with fully-automatic death machines...

[sarisataka]

23. It is ironic

That the draconian gun control measures would be enforced by people with guns, is it not?

[Fla_Democrat]

14. You're almost there, but lets kick it up a notch......

They may get some more death machines after the visit from SWAT... maybe we should consider putting officials in their home to watch and make sure they continue to be good citizens. Not soldiers, per se, but maybe quarter reserve officers to watch them.

[sarisataka]

24. Now you are thinking outside the box

That 3rd Amendment is as old as the 2nd and I have been told we should just ignore "obsolete" Amendments since they were written in a very different time for very different technology.

However the 1st was written at the same time and I do not think it was done on a computer; come to think of it the 4th, 5th, etc to the 10th are just as old.

[Fla_Democrat]

98. Maybe an expiration date is in order.....

And, not wanting to get too far ahead of the curve, but I do notice that a lot of drunk driving issues abound. Maybe after we burn through the single digits, perhaps a look at the XXI is in order. A repeal, of the repeal. If people complain, we can repeal the repeal of the repeal.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

163. Where is a useful "Saloth Sr" when you need one?

[ADX]

11. No they don't and no they won't. ...

...If the government/law enforcement/powers-that-be are ever able to disarm the general population, you can kiss your rights and your ass goodbye. Be careful what you wish for...

[handmade34]

28. disarm?

[USALiberal]

32. LOL, ok! Nt

[uponit7771]

33. I don't think we should tacitly advocate threatening to shoot at our government with guns ...

... that are intended for war.

If its that bad already shooting at our government isn't going to help, there are more courageous ways to act.

[ADX]

85. I didn't advocate for anything of the sort...

...so what are you talking about?

[uponit7771]

91. Yeah, 'disarm' means take our arms off at the shoulder and kissing our rights 'goodbye'

... after disarmament means we were going to tickle the government if we had our arms?

come on with this shit

[ADX]

93. Oh really? Is that what "disarm" means? To "take (someone's) arms off at the shoulder"?

...Let's see how the Oxford English Dictionary defines "disarm", shall we?

DISARM

VERB [WITH OBJECT]

1. Take a weapon or weapons away from (a person, force, or country)

"guerrillas had completely disarmed their forces"

1.1 [no object] (of a country or force) give up or reduce its armed forces or weapons.

"the other militias had disarmed by the agreed deadline"

1.2 Remove the fuse from (a bomb), making it safe.

"police yesterday disarmed a parcel bomb"

2. Allay the hostility or suspicions of.

"his tact and political skills will disarm critics"

2.1 Deprive of the power to hurt.

"camp humour acts to provoke rather than disarm moral indignation"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/disarm

Well, whatta ya know? Not one mention of removing peoples arms from their shoulders...

As for the rest of your response, feel free not to own a firearm all you want but don't tell me or any one of millions of responsible gun owners that we can't.

Come on with this shit, indeed...

[scrutineer]

15. In 1994 Ronald Reagan supported the assault weapons ban. Every Republican needs to be asked at every

In 1994 Ronald Reagan supported the assault weapons ban. Every Republican needs to be asked at every opportunity on camera by the very liberal media: why do you oppose a bill that Ronald Reagan supported? Why was Ronald Reagan wrong? Can't you stand up to the NRA the way Ronald Reagan did?

[better]

19. There's one problem with that idea.

It presents them with the opportunity to make arguments against the proposed legislation that have the benefit of actually being valid and accurate, because the AWB both banned characteristics that don't actually matter, and left unaddressed characteristics that actually do, because it defined "assault weapon" very poorly and incorrectly.

For a case in point, see this picture...



The rifle on the bottom in this picture would be outlawed under the definition of an assault rifle in the AWB, while the rifle on top would not. While that might seem reasonable looking at them, it actually isn't, for four reasons, all of which are valid.

1. The only reason the bottom one would be outlawed is because it has a pistol grip and a telescoping/folding stock, neither of which make a weapon more dangerous.
2. Both fire the same round as the AR-15, which was banned, and just as quickly.
3. Extended capacity magazines, which do make a weapon more dangerous, are available for both.
4. Because they are, in fact, actually the exact same rifle, just mounted in two different stocks.

Personally, I favor putting pressure on lawmakers to support and pursue outlawing extended capacity magazines, full stop. It's much harder to make a valid argument against banning those than it is against the AWB, because extended capacity really does actually matter, and lawful reasonable uses do not require them.

[uponit7771]

34. Your number one is factually false on its face due to bump stocks and number 4 is the reason why...

... the design on the second weapon makes it more dangerous.

Just ban all automatic rifles ... done deal

Enter in what we can't do because of whatever non good reason here ....

[better]

53. No, point number one is not in fact false, per the actual language of the AWB.

Pistol grips and folding/telescoping stocks were both in the list of enumerated features, of which any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and having two or more features from said list was considered an assault rifle. But you're missing the entire point I'm trying to make.

The problem with the AWB, as it has been written, is that one can simply replace the scary looking stock in the bottom picture that you are claiming makes the rifle more dangerous with the wooden stock in the upper picture, and the rifle is no longer banned, despite the fact that it retains every feature that actually makes any difference in how dangerous the weapon really is. You state that the design on the second weapon makes it more dangerous, but you seem to be not understanding that these are not two different weapons. They are the same weapon, mounted into pieces of wood or plastic that have different shapes. The shape of that piece of wood or plastic is the ONLY difference. And the point is that the AWB fails by banning things that don't make the weapon more dangerous, while leaving legal the things that do.

Yes, banning all semi-automatic weapons would resolve that issue, but aside from the fact that we know quite well from experience that such a ban would face tremendous opposition and is extremely unlikely to pass in this country, that's not what the post to which I was replying addressed. It addressed challenging Republicans with why they don't support the AWB, so I pointed out the glaring deficiencies in that law.

Please try to understand that I am not saying that we should not ban assault weapons. I am saying that we need to define assault weapon properly, and pointing out why the current definition is incorrect, specifically with regard to where the current definition fails by leaving legal things that shouldn't be. I fully support banning assault weapons, but it is counter-productive to try to do so in a way that provides the opposition with arguments against the legislation doing so that are, in fact, valid.

Bump stocks, by the way, are now banned, which is a move with which I very strongly agree. But banning bump stocks alone is also not enough, because a rifle can be bump fired without any modification whatsoever. But if you understand firearms well, it also becomes obvious that banning high capacity magazines is a quite good way of discouraging bump firing, or any other means of increasing the rate of fire, because the utility of a high rate of fire is inversely proportional to capacity. Bump firing isn't very attractive if you can only fire at one thing, for literally no more than a single second, before you have to reload.

Banning high capacity magazines will make a profound impact on the carnage we are seeing, and because such a ban would target one and only one thing, and there really are no legitimate arguments against it, we're more likely to succeed in doing it. Case in point, bump stocks are now banned, and we didn't see much backlash against it, for that exact reason.

Bottom line, I'm trying to enter in what we CAN do, in a way that stands to achieve the most impact with the least resistance.

[EX500rider]

78. You do understand that all rifles kill less people then knives, hand, feet & clubs?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

Pistols kill over 9,000 every year, rifles around 400.

Also things that kill more people:
Ladders and stairs, whatever's under your sink and in your medicine cabinet and whatever is parked in your driveway.

Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 34,673
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 40,327
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.5

Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 58,335
Deaths per 100,000 population: 18.1

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

[mac56]

118. This lame ass argument again.

I can only assume it works well on junior-high debate teams.

[EX500rider]

119. Trying to ban something that won't put a dent in the homicide rate but will elect a bunch of GOP's

Sounds like a good idea to you?

It's not like mass murderers couldn't just switch to pistols like Seung-Hui Cho who used pistols to kill 32 and wound 23.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

And your counter argument was non-existent.

[friendly_iconoclast]

160. We're dealing with actual animists who believe inanimate objects control minds...

...and who dream of a low-crime Eden where those awful guns aren't making people hurt each other.

[EX500rider]

173. It is amazing...they seem to think banning AR15's will somehow matter...

....like the mass murderer wouldn't just use another rifle or several pistols or a IED or a U-Haul truck.

I think without rifles the death toll might actually increase as IED's and trucks are far more lethal.


On the evening of 14 July 2016, a 19-tonne cargo truck was deliberately driven into crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, France, resulting in the deaths of 86 people and the injury of 458 others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_truck_attack

And if a bunch of goat herders in Afghanistan far from a Home Depot can make IED's, I am pretty sure our wackos can.

[fescuerescue]

48. Simple Solution

Ban them both.

[Sparkly]

188. You beat me to it.

[Recursion]

38. The AWB leaves semi-automatics legal, unfortunately

Which is why so many of us keep saying it's not worth spending any political capital on. You can still have an AR-15, it just can't have a bayonet lug. Awesome.

A semi-auto ban makes a lot more sense.

[better]

57. On the other hand...

A manual action can be cycled in approximately half a second, so the impact of banning semi-autos would be relatively modest.

A much more productive approach, in my opinion, would be to make all civilian weapons hold a very limited number of rounds. That would still be fine for hunting and target practice, as well as probably the majority of likely self-defense scenarios, while greatly reducing mass shootings.

There's a reason mass shooters don't gravitate toward revolvers, and it's not because they can't be fired as quickly as a semi-auto. It's because they have to be reloaded more often.

[Recursion]

64. I do sometimes think fixed magazines are the answer here

It seems like there should be a way to make that work. It doesn't require you to turn in any guns, just to have the fixed mag welded to the well.

[better]

67. In concept, I'd agree with that, to a point.

My concern, though, would be that I want severe limitations on capacity, regardless of whether the magazine is fixed or detachable. A fixed 30 round mag that can be reloaded with stripper clips would still strike me as excessive for civilian use. It's the capacity that must be regulated, imho.

[Recursion]

68. I'm thinking of the AR in particular

Weld the magazine to the well so that you have to actually take off the upper receiver to feed rounds in. Stripper clip or not that's definitely going to slow down a shooter. And since the AR seems to be the problem here....

[hack89]

44. He supported it because it didn't actually ban military style weapons

The Sandy Hook shooter's AR-15 was perfectly legal during the 94 AWB.

[aikoaiko]

17. Nope.

[USALiberal]

127. Hmmm, what a shock! Nt

[EX500rider]

18. That's a thought that ought to get a lot of GOP voted in to office. nt

[uponit7771]

35. No it wont, the polling is with the OP not this opinion

[EX500rider]

49. Really..

What polling shows support for confiscation of over 80% of existing firearms? None I bet.

[former9thward]

86. Please link to that polling.

[uponit7771]

88. here

https://www.businessinsider.com/assault-weapons-ban-poll-gun-reform-2018-2

[former9thward]

100. Nope, not at all.

The link you posted says 70% want "stricter" gun control laws. That says nothing about confiscation. In fact in says nothing about anything because "stricter" is not defined. It is totally subjective and means something different to everyone that is asked.

[GulfCoast66]

21. Semi-Automatic what?

I bird hunt with a semi-automatic Belgium made Browning 16 gauge shotgun my dad bought in the early 60's and I got when he passed. It can hold 5 shells, but because I hunt federally regulated birds it is pugged to hold only 3 shells.

No way in hell I voting for someone who wants me to turn that in.

I do favor limiting magazine size to 10 rounds. Or 8 or 6. Don't much care. My deer rifle, which is not semi-automatic, only holds 4 rounds. But can kill at 400 yards.


I agree with the last Democratic Party Platform that we have a right to own firearms. But strongly with the platform that the right has limits.


But your premise is not one most Americans or even most Democratic voters will support

[tritsofme]

22. Geez, how heavy is your portfolio into private prisons?

Sounds like a proposal they would love!

[Baconator]

25. Stuff like this is what keeps the NRA funded and bunkers stocked...

The 'liberal' menace / dream of sending the government around to kick in doors and haul millions of Americans to jail.

[uponit7771]

37. Polling is with OP not NRA on this issue

[atreides1]

51. Polling for stricter gun laws!

Not gun confiscation!

[uponit7771]

89. Strawman, no one said confiscation

[Baconator]

109. Did you read the OP?

Semi automatics need to be outlawed

1 year grace period to turn them in.

5 year mandatory minimum after that if caught with one.

[uponit7771]

110. Confiscated means take in this case just don't get caught with one

[Baconator]

111. Distinction without a difference...

[Kaleva]

55. Polling doesn't gauge how strongly people feel about an issue

NRA often wins because its members donate more and are more active and vocal even though they are a minority.

[uponit7771]

90. 70% want stricter assault weapons laws

https://www.businessinsider.com/assault-weapons-ban-poll-gun-reform-2018-2

[Kaleva]

97. But that 70% really don't fight for it that hard.

If they did, assault weapons would have already been banned.

[EX500rider]

71. You say that like it's true...lol...feel free to post a link to a poll..

....showing majority support for ANY gun confiscation.
I think you are mixing up your feelings on the matter with the general populations.

[uponit7771]

92. You can google like I can

https://www.businessinsider.com/assault-weapons-ban-poll-gun-reform-2018-2

[EX500rider]

94. "Stricter assault weapon laws" has zero to do with confiscation or outlawing. nt

[uponit7771]

95. Stricter doesn't communicate more in any way

[EX500rider]

96. The amount of support for a semi-auto ban and confiscation would be in the single digits. nt

[fescuerescue]

47. The NRA needs to be taken care of to

Given their alignment with the Russians, this isn't as hard to do as anyone thinks.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

26. No, no, no.

Guns make us safer! At least that's what the gun apologists tell us.

I'm sure all of those at Sandy Hook and Parkland feel quite safe. Oh, and all of those who were in Las Vegas a while bak. Yes, safe.

What were we talking about?

Personally, I think guns should be confiscated. If you hunt, then your guns can be kept in a safe place. You check them out when you hunt.

And don't give me a load of horseshit about how you need a gun in your home to keep you safe. I'm 70 years old and have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER felt a need for a gun. So if you think you need one, you need to completely rethink things.

So hand over your guns. And trust me, your children will thank you.

[Marengo]

60. So, because you never have no one else ever has or will ever have a need? Your experience is...

Universal and applicable to everyone, everywhere?

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

69. Yeah, I think I'll go there.

I think my lack of need for a gun is a lot more representative than the claim that people need to have guns to be safe. Safe, like the kids at Sandy Hook. Safe, like the people at the synagogue the other day. Those people at the concert in Las Vegas.

On and on. And the notion that these things are stopped by a mythical good guy with a gun is utter horseshit. The shootings only end when the shooter runs out of bullets or the gun jams and he flees the scene. Or takes his own life at the end.

New Zealand took less than a month to ban the kind of gun used in the mosque shooting. In this country the NRA and every single gun apologist out there doubles down and says we need more guns.

No. We need fewer guns.

[Marengo]

70. And your "there" is more conceited rubbish. For those who have actually used a firearm in...

Selff defense (which includes myself) the “claim” became reality. But, since YOU have never needed one, fuck the rest who have, right?

[EX500rider]

73. "I'm 70 years old and have NEVER, NEVER, NEVER felt a need for a gun."

Worlds silliest argument:

"I'm X years old and have NEVER needed:

a smoke detector
a fire extinguisher
seat-belts
auto insurance
motorcycle helmet
etc.

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

[Hoyt]

101. So your need for an AR15 trump's everyone else's need for safety.

[EX500rider]

106. I don't have or need a AR-15....but outlawing ALL rifles won't put a dent in the US homicide rate..

....since pistols do 20x's the killing rifles do. And mass murderer's will have no problem switching to several large mag pistols.
Except you won't get all rifles outlawed, all you will do is get a bunch of GOP's elected.

[Hoyt]

115. Yeah, let's do nothing for another decade and put another 100 Million guns on the street that we'll

have to deal with when we finally decide to bite the bullet and say enough.

Semi-auto pistols ought to be outlawed too. So what is your favorite daily carry weapon nowadays?

[EX500rider]

116. Who said I have a "daily carry weapon"?

As I have told you on numerous occasions I own some WWI era historical bolt action rifles and a Warsaw Pact CZ-52 pistol.
All very good investments as they have tripled in value since I bought them.

[Hoyt]

121. Then, you should find it pretty easy to give up your guns for the good of society.

[EX500rider]

122. No thanks. My guns don't hurt "society" Maybe you should give up your car for the good of society?

Trying to get rid of rifles which hardy kill anyone in comparison to pistols is silly.


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

Pistols kill over 9,000 every year. Rifles around 400.

Also things that kill more people:

Ladders and stairs, whatever's under your sink and in your medicine cabinet and whatever is parked in your driveway.
Maybe you should get rid of all those, you know, "for the good of society"?

Unintentional fall deaths
Number of deaths: 34,673
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.7

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 40,327
Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.5

Unintentional poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 58,335
Deaths per 100,000 population: 18.1

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

[Hoyt]

123. Come on EZrider, unintentional poisoning deaths have not relevance in our gun problem. Your problem

is that you apparently plan on profiting from your gunz, not to mention the comfort you get from them.

Give it up, we don't need a boatload of guns in this country.

You'll do fine, we've all given up other bad habits.

[EX500rider]

147. Sure, I give them up....as soon as..

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2019, 06:51 PM - Edit history (2)

.....you convince me that:

A: My antique bolt action rifles rifles are ever going to hurt anyone.

B: Mass murderers and career criminals are going to give up their's at the same time.

C: My disarming my household is somehow in my best interest.

D: Without firearms mass murderers won't switch to more lethal methods like IED's and U-Haul trucks.

[Marengo]

124. Give up all his guns? What of the one or two you have previously made allowances for?

[Hoyt]

125. Marengo, who is your favorite in the Democratic Primary?

[Marengo]

128. Irrelevant to the topic of this thread, how about an answer to my question?

[SQUEE]

133. I see you are looking to come out of retirement.

[Hoyt]

134. I see all gunners -- that have been quiet for awhile -- must have issued call to arms on this thread

[SQUEE]

136. Recent events in this country have re-affirmed my desire to stay armed

As far as i know, no one is hunting your people Hoyt. And yet you stand here thinking you have the right to call us red necks and humpers because we do not want to be chased and murdered, AGAIN.

[Hoyt]

139. Gunners have been promoting guns for a long time, and guns are the threat we all have to

deal with.

Most prejudiced gun-strokers are impotent without their guns, that's the best reason to restrict them. Earnest would never have gone into the synagogue without a gun. Thankfully, unarmed people stopped him.

I don't think arming up is good for our country, apparently you do.

I think some of the gunner noise right now -- maybe not in your case, in view of recent shootings -- is that they know gun-protector trump may be on his way out, and Democrats are fed up with guns.

I do know that gunners always have an excuse for more guns.

[SQUEE]

141. An ARMED man stopped him Hoyt.

I am sick of you dehumanizing me as nothing but label Hoyt. It is constant and it is sick. You complain about people that support the 2A showing up, and yet here you are, first post like moth to a flame, to post more dishonesty, to demean, and to insult your fellow Democrats. Same as it ever was.

[Hoyt]

142. He was run out of the synagogue by unarmed people. Anger and guns don't mix well, SQUEE.

I'm tired of the excuses gunners use to protect their guns and the killing.

[SQUEE]

143. The Rabbi has stated differently, the news has stated differently.

An off-duty Border Patrol agent believed to be inside the synagogue shot at the suspect as he fled, but did not hit him.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poway-synagogue-shooting-suspect-john-earnest-in-custody-after-1-dead-3-injured-today-live-updates-2019-04-27/

As congregants ran for their lives, two ran in the opposite direction — directly towards the shooter. Oscar Stewart, a longtime congregant and U.S. military veteran, charged the terrorist. At that time, the shooter’s weapon jammed, and he turned tail and fled the building. A moment later, Jonathan Morales, an off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent, fired four rounds, striking the gunman’s

vehiclehttps://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/4366063/jewish/Rabbi-Recounts-the-Horrific-Poway-Chabad-House-Shooting.htm

It is more obvious to me than it has EVER been my people need to be armed Hoyt, We are targets yet again. And we are not humpers, graspers, strokers and red necks. We are people yest again being killed simply because of who we are.

[Hoyt]

144. More guns aren't going to protect anyone. Besides, you were promoting guns

long before the recent hatred.

I hope it stops, but more guns is not the answer, of that I’m certain.

[SQUEE]

145. Promoting guns, another mischaracterization

I advocate for the ability to defend myself, for others to do the same. Because I grew up knowing this has happened before, and was inevitable it would happen again. Your simplistic ideas will not save me and my family.

Just your use of the word "recent" shows you know nothing of what we and many others go through. You live in a bubble and think you can tell all of us outside of it how to live and stay safe. I think privileged is the perfect word to describe that idea.

[Hoyt]

149. You used the term "recent" first. I'm sorry, more guns won't protect you or

anyone else. Irrational ignorant white wingers want guns to protect them from minorities and the gubmit, old folks want guns to protect themselves from so-called young “thugs,” etc.

70% of us get along fine without a gun in our pants.

Time for this crud to stop, SQUEE.

[friendly_iconoclast]

156. *Do* let us know when *you'll* be providing unarmed security at a synagogue or black church

Until then, you're just another chickenhawk plumping for a War on Guns.

[Hoyt]

166. LMAO. And you are just another gun-stroker who thinks he's going to save the world toting

gunz in public.

[friendly_iconoclast]

175. Hoyt, I'm just like you A: I don't own guns, and B: I'm not doing anything to restrict them

[friendly_iconoclast]

178. Contemplating restarting your robbery career, and worried about job safety?

Evidently, *your* sense of self-preservation is more important than that of any potential victim...

[friendly_iconoclast]

161. Did you carry a gun or guns when you used to rob people?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

If so, how did you obtain them?

[Marengo]

184. I wonder how Hoyt will respond. Whenever I remind him of this he never directly denies having

Been a thief.

[friendly_iconoclast]

182. The gun control claque is quite open about expecting *others* to 'take one for the team'...

..while not actually giving a damn about the safety of them, only themselves

[rickford66]

29. Perhaps all civilian weapons should be required to be pink.

[better]

56. Maybe rainbow instead.

Make them really irritate the bigots.

[Drahthaardogs]

30. No. This is an Ill- informed statement and is EXACTLY

The kind if stuff that gets us in trouble. I have three semi-automatic shotguns. One for waterfowl, one is for trap, and one is a collector piece.

I have a semi-automatic .22 and all pistols are semi-automatic.

Statements like these are sure fire ways to lose an election. Semi-automatic is NOT the same as an assault weapon. The action is quite common on sporting guns.

[bluestarone]

39. THIS!!

[Baconator]

113. Vegas shooter had weapons that weren't semi-automatic either if I remember correctly...

[inwiththenew]

31. Not a good idea

You'd have to grandfather or make it particularly lucrative to turn them in.

I bet more than half of all gun owners own at least one semi auto weapon between either a handgun, shotgun, or rifle. That is probably like 20-30 million people. Are you going to put them all in prison if they don't comply? Even if only 10% don't comply that is more than our total prison population now.

[Amishman]

146. Yup, you'd need to grandfather or pay way above market value

Australia's buyback paid market value and got maybe half, and they don't have America's hardcore gun culture.

To get a meaningful level of compliance, we'd have to pay way over market value. Exploit their greed to get them to do it, make them want to turn them in if only for the money.

[Recursion]

36. This proposal makes 1000% more sense than the assault weapons ban (nt)

[aikoaiko]

40. True, but that's because the Assault Weapons Ban makes almost no sense.

[Drahthaardogs]

41. No. It's stupid and made by someone who doesn't understand firearms

Legislation like this would cause a bloodbath in our elections. We would lose the west entirely including local and state legislative bodies.

Someone needs to do a little more research on what "semi-automatic" means. A Browning Auto5, one of the most popular hunting shotguns is a semi auto. This is how you lose elections.

[Recursion]

42. And that *still* is more sensible than an AWB (nt)

[Drahthaardogs]

43. Yeah, I was referring to the OP, not the other statement

Sorry about that

[fescuerescue]

45. And the rest after that

Any any organization that advocates for them outlawed.

They will still have knives and clubs, so the second amendment is honored.

[tritsofme]

50. Satire/sarcasm is hard to detect over the internet. I hope you are not

actually an authoritarian with dreams of outlawing advocacy groups and other speech you dislike.

That sounds more like Trump’s speed...

[EX500rider]

74. "They will still have knives and clubs,"

Actually those things already kill more people then rifles do.


https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

[Aristus]

46. No. We need them in case thirty people break into our house at night...

[better]

58. That would be an (idiotic) argument in favor of keeping high capacity magazines, not semi-autos.

Semi-auto with a 5 round capacity is an entirely different animal from one with a 30 round capacity.
There'd be a great deal more support for a blanket ban on high capacity magazines.

[Aristus]

59. 'I need them to protect myself if someone breaks into my house at night' is already

an idiotic argument. Burglars aren't going to break in to your house at night whle you're asleep; they're going to break in when you're not there.

[better]

61. That might be easy to say when it hasn't happened to you.

Very nearly my earliest memory in life was of some crackhead kicking in our door and pistol-whipping my mother.
Maybe you should consider that possibilities extend beyond what you deem likely.

[Aristus]

62. The people it does happen to tend to end up blasting family members instead of spooky, scary

burglars.

[better]

66. Perhaps you can advocate for your position without making light of real trauma.

The derision in your "spooky, scary burglars" remark, quite pointedly in response to being confronted with evidence that what you say doesn't happen does in fact happen, is quite palpable, and in incredibly poor taste. News flash, when someone kicks down your door and starts pistol whipping your mother in the face, yes it IS in fact spooky and scary. Hopefully you never have occasion to discover that reality firsthand.

Further, I would challenge you to cite evidence to back up your claim that people who do get confronted with home invaders tend to end up killing their family members instead of the home invaders the threat posed by whom you deride. Given that you started this conversation by refuting the very idea that people might face a situation I myself have personally faced, I'm not inclined to take your opinion as fact on a subject about which you are very clearly inadequately informed.

By all means, advocate for gun control, and stand up against completely stupid arguments, but do try to recognize that not every argument with which you may disagree is stupid.

[Kaleva]

63. Home invasion is a serious matter and not to be laughed about

"In some parts of the United States and some other English-speaking countries,[1] home invasion is an illegal and usually forceful entry to an occupied, private dwelling with intent to commit a violent crime against the occupants, such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

"An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization (figure 1). "

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

"Home Invasion Crime Statistics and Facts:

According to a United States Department of Justice report:
38% of assaults & 60% of rapes occur during home invasions.
Over 2,000,000 homes will experience a break-in or burglary this year.
There are over 4,500 home burglaries per day in the United States.
The average number of home invasions per year was 1,030,000 between 1994 and 2010."

https://www.nationsearch.com/blog/home-invasion-crime-statistics-that-will-keep-you-up-at-night/

[Marengo]

65. A cursory Google search indicates that invasions of occupied homes at night do in fact occur.

Sometimes resulting in injuries and fatalities.

[EX500rider]

75. "they're going to break in when you're not there." Sure of that are you?

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

[samnsara]

104. im in central wash in the mountains...5 acres of beautiful solitude.. and i HAVE had people bang..

on my door in the middle of the night....on not just ONE occasion..because they were up in the hills mudding or some other idiotic testosterone driven activity..and they got stranded/stuck. They hike the miles down the road and my house is the first one they see. Hubby works out of town a LOT. So when they bang on my door at 11 pm and my two dogs go to the door and wiggle butt greetings to them (Golden Retrievers, need i say more?) Thank GOD I had my Glock..with a laser sight. And thank God that, so far, they have all been legit people in need (only because after i stood upstairs with my gun, they finally went away and hiked even further for help).



AND......my Grandmother was raped and murdered..and I will NEVER be a statistic.

[friendly_iconoclast]

176. "Guns for me, but not for thee", eh?

[Maru Kitteh]

52. K & R

[50 Shades Of Blue]

76. K & R

[LiberalArkie]

79. I have to turn in my pistol? It is semi automatic

[Fla_Democrat]

102. Yes, and get a Sig.

[LongtimeAZDem]

107. +1

[sarisataka]

120. Agree

[aka-chmeee]

80. So for having the Remington 22 we gave my dad 60 years ago

and I walked a thousand miles beside him while he carried it hunting, You'd throw me in jail unless I give it up? You seem to have autocratic inclinations just like...well. you know.

[LiberalArkie]

81. Or this semi automatic BB gun

[samnsara]

83. hey thats MY gun!

[samnsara]

82. heck NO! I LIKE my semi automatic. Hubby and I took saftey courses, competed in shoots and..

..gosh darn it Im NOT using a BB gun on the bear, cougar and rattlesnakes that grace my property 24-7.

[Baconator]

114. I suspect that folks who make silly proposals like this don't live in places where it might come up.

[spanone]

84. K&R...

[maxsolomon]

87. Realistically, we're generations away from that happening.

If it's even technically possible.

Just throw the bodies on the pile and move along, like a good Constitution-loving American.

[walkingman]

103. I have no great love for guns but I do like to have my .22 for varmits - I haven't shot my shotgun

or 30-06 in years. I'm thinking just ban assualt weapons and maybe big clips as a start.

[SCantiGOP]

105. Anyone should have access to an AR-15

All they have to do is join the military or police force

[oneshooter]

152. Nether of which issue or use the AR15. n/t

[SCantiGOP]

153. You know that is misleading

Not that it really matters, but the AR-15 is the cilvilian version of the military issued M-15, and it is used extensively by police departments.
There was another school shooting an hour from me today, so I’m really not in a mood to consider anything except why these guns should be banned for civilian use.

[friendly_iconoclast]

162. Then you'll get pump action AR-15 style rifles, for good bad or indifferent:

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/1172205775

Will you seek to ban those, as well?

However well meaning your mooted ban, it won't stop bad people- because inanimate objects
don't actually get people to do things...

[SCantiGOP]

165. Oh, guns don't kill people, right?

Don’t bother to answer gunhumper. You’re on full Ignore.

[jcmaine72]

108. Any talk of gun control always seems to bite us in the ass

My advice to any Democratic Presidential candidate would be to say nothing regarding any kind of gun control whatsoever during the campaign. Following winning the election, and if circumstances allow (e.g. we control both houses), do something I wish President Obama had done during his first two years: Push for the most comprehensive gun control laws this nation has ever seen, including bans on just about every type of automatic and semi-automatic weapon.

[MichMan]

148. So you advocate candidates saying whatever it takes to get elected...

.... and then do the opposite once they get in office? Maybe that also applies to things you favor too?

They can campaign on things like MFA, student loan forgiveness, higher minimum wage, and raising taxes on the wealthy knowing full well they wont implement any of them if elected.

[Codeine]

151. So you want them elected

but not re-elected?

[jcmaine72]

183. Don't you just love the way some people around here like to put words in other people's mouths?

[pintobean]

112. Only 24 recs here at DU

says a lot.

[Bonx]

117. Let's not and say we didn't.

[zipplewrath]

126. You're talking about most guns

And maybe that is your intent. But most "modern" guns tend to be semi-automatics. Revolvers are still made, but even some of those might be classified as semi-auto.

I'd much rather just limit clip/magazine size. The Pulse shooter got something like 300 rounds off in less than 3 minutes. A 6 or 10 round limit could have cut that WAY down.

[guillaumeb]

130. What if the Russians invade?

Or aliens from space?

Or the black UN helicopters filled with troops?

[SQUEE]

135. or rabid, recently empowered anti-Semites come to your shul to kill you.

Terrorists are out there, and they are coming out more and more.

Never again has many different meanings for me and mine.

[friendly_iconoclast]

157. It's long past time for armed "Gabbais for Defense and Justice" groups to form

And there's excellent role models to be found:

https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/deacons-defense-and-justice/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x331645

Remembering Robert Hicks and the Deacons of Defense

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41rWx-C0c1L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg


From an ex-shabbos goy...

[Soxfan58]

132. Not so!

They should reduce the clip size to 1

[rsdsharp]

137. You might want to read the 5th Amendment again.

[Seeking Serenity]

150. I've been mulling about getting my concealed-carry license

Reading OPs like this one makes me that much more convinced that I should.

DH has had his for years, and he's all for me getting mine.

[friendly_iconoclast]

158. Gun control advocates come in 2 types:1) animist fools that think inanimate objects cause crime...

and 2) those exploiting the first type

[Seeking Serenity]

167. Just between you and me

(a silly attempt at humor since this is a public message board)

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, and yes, I am a Democrat, anyone who proposes anything even resembling an outright ban on firearms, much less severely punitive "turn 'em in" confiscation (by the implied use of force) schemes, is the last person I want anywhere near the levers of power. I want extremists like that to be completely marginalized. Because, in my view, anyone who could seriously advocate for "getting rid of all teh gunz" and advocate for making criminals out of everyone what owns a firearm, backed up by the prospect of a prison sentence is someone who could easily say, "I don't like your speech, and we have too much speech out there anyway, and your speech is getting people killed, so I think your speech has to be restricted."

Or, "This person is really a dangerous criminal. Just trust me, she's a true threat to the State and the people. Why do we continue to insist on that antiquated concept of jury trials? And in this modern, technological age, it just feels right that we should be able to try these dangerous people as many times as necessary to get a conviction. And anyway, that'll never even happen (since if a criminal insists on remaining silent in his own defense during interrogation or trial, that's unimpeachable proof of his guilt)."

Be gone, authoritarians! Away with thee into the outer darkness from whence thou cam'st!

[sarisataka]

169. Welcome to DU

We deem these weapons as only good for mass murder, which is why we support bans that only allow the police to have them. Obviously the police have mass murder in their job description, so it makes sense that they would need weapons we deem “mass murder weapons” and not be banned from having them as well. That’s just plain common sense. 

We need to get these damn things out of the hands of the common people. Only the police, whom we trust explicitly, should have them. We hold protests about how violent, abusive and trigger happy the cops are, so it makes sense we would trust them to be the only ones with an AR-15. Again, common sense. 

We can not have an armed population. That hinders the agents of the government from doing with them whatever they wish. That is simply not civil. 

I’m Mr Hypocrisy and I have spoken.

[irisblue]

171. Pizza time.

[irisblue]

172. So what do you like on pizza MrH?

[Seeking Serenity]

174. I have a better idea

Why don't we just cut to the chase and simply ban murder, with stiffer penalties if one murders more than one person in a single event or series of connected events?

That ought to do it, seeing that people always obey the law, no matter how outlandish the law may appear to be.

[dlk]

177. I Understand All it Takes is Filing Down a Pin to Make a Semiautomatic an Automatic

No one had hysterics when machine guns were prohibited for civilians.

[sarisataka]

180. Your understanding

Is incorrect

[dlk]

181. Could Be. Someone Who Was a Firearms Guy Shared that Tidbit With Me a Long Time Ago

Things change

[Fla_Democrat]

189. Think about that for a minute

If that was the case, why would anyone go to the trouble of manufacturing and selling a 'bump stock'? Seems to me a 3x5 index card and a nail file would be all they needed to sell. Cuts down on inventory space, lot cheaper, so greater profit margin.

Heck, why even bother buying the index card... "Hey Google, which pin to I need to file down on a _________, to make it automatic?"

[dlk]

190. I'm Not a Gun Person, Nor Do I Care to Be

However, I strongly believe semi-automatic weapons should be banned. You don’t have to agree with me.

[friendly_iconoclast]

186. Congrats to the OP- This thread brought out most of the would-be cultural cleansers