there is essentially no difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-auto. so we ban semi, too

[farminator3000]

i don't want to hear a bunch of crap about the range of a desert beagle

or the accuracy % of a schmuzi

or the stopping power of a douchemaster.

one takes i'll guess 10 seconds longer to shoot 30 bullets than the other.

you could say semis are more accurate, therefore more dangerous.

if you need more than 2 dirty harry sized handguns to defend yourself (12 bullets 6 in each) you might want to think about where you are hanging out and with whom.

you also might want to think about maybe locks and alarms to avoid gun battles inside of your home.

stray bullets- also very dangerous

end of story

[former-republican]

1. "there is essentially no difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-auto"

Your wonders of deduction never cease to amaze.

[farminator3000]

6. you are very good at copying and pasting

and not saying a single goddamn thing.

thanks for agreeing, and then posting a little guy rolling around.

or is it that you don't agree, but don't know how to express your thoughts? or concerned that i will make your words seem foolish?

[former-republican]

11. I'm not going to go through the mechanical design of how a firearm operates

when you make a statement so erroneous. That it simply defies all logic and mechanical engineering.

I don't suffer fools well and I don't play childish games

[farminator3000]

12. i know how guns work

and both kinds fire lots of bullets really fast.

i don't give a flying crap what is inside the gun, the bullets coming out are the thing to look at here

you also don't read well, and you post childish things

i'm not going to bother with you unless you have a thought to share- all you have said so far is "you have to pull the trigger every time on a semi-auto"

so what?

[former-republican]

13. Your statement is they are both the same , automatic and semi-automatic

There are two laws that were enacted the National Firearms Act of 1934
and the Hughes Amendment of 1986 that clearly and legally differentiates what a
automatic weapon is and how it operates.

You can discuss law with me , you can discuss mechanical design with me .

Or you can can act like a fool.



On second thought after reading your reply in #10 to another member

I'm done with you.

good by

[farminator3000]

15. we are talking about changing the law to make it better

so stop telling me things i already know.

a gun, in action, produces bullets from its end of a certain caliber, at a certain speed and rate.

we are discussing rate here. the difference is negligible-that's my point. it is basically a fact.

to put it another way, i can tap my finger on my mouse pad and make it sound like an automatic. try it! see!
i'd estimate i can tap my finger faster than a gatling gun shoots. get it?

now run with it! away!

[farminator3000]

16. sweet!

I'm done with you.

good by

i hope you read that last post of mine. tap tap.

[intaglio]

19. There is only one difference

The "semi"-auto has an interrupter to stop it firing repeatedly

BTW can you explain why automatic pistols are automatic despite the fact they (normally) fire only one round per trigger pull and Semi-automatic long guns are not automatic?

[former-republican]

63. They are not they are called semi automatic

You are talking about the 1911 .45 ACP

It was the designation of the ammo developed in 1904
Before that people said .45 which meant .45 long , another entirely different cartridge case used in the late 1800's

That's why you hear a 1911 ACP or a 1911 automatic colt pistol

[intaglio]

80. Oh goody, I wanted you to lie about this

Because you participating in the deliberate redefinition of the word "automatic," begun by the gun industry to make their weapons of war appear more civilian friendly. You see automatic pistols existed before automatic ammunition. The early automatics, the Schoenberger-Laumann or the Steyr-Mannlicher used a rimmed round although the extraction groove was already starting to be developed. The rimless round with extraction groove was named for the mechanism not the other way round

Automatic, in this case, means automatic opperation or automatic cycle firearm. This is why you still find references to "fully automatic" in weapon descriptions.

The cycle is:
1) firing pin released (in early types sometimes integral with a hammer);
2) round fires;
3) recoil begins;
4) breech opens;
5) casing extracted and ejected;
6) new round gathered;
7) breech closes;
8) firing pin cocked (although, depending on mechanism and pin design, this may happen earlier).
Please note that what initiates the release of the firing pin is not part of the cycle.

Because of this please stop telling people that semi automatic fire does not come from an automatic weapon. Semi auto is just as automatic as anything fully auto weapons but more accurate and therefore deadly. I'm sure you know what full auto fire is called.

Redefinition is a very successful marketing ploy to make previously unacceptable concepts more acceptable. Others include "pro-life" for "anti-abortion"; "enhanced interrogation" for "torture" and the infamous "collateral damage" for "civilian deaths and injuries"

I notice that now, on Wiki, there have been recent edits to classify all pistols of this class as "semi automatic".

Edit to add; although Wiki defines the Webley-Mars as semi-automatic the actual name of the production company was "Mars Automatic Pistol Syndicate Ltd"

[pnwmom]

30. What you fail to understand is that to non-gun fanatics, the detail of the design is unimportant.

Any gun that allows for a magazine or clip holding enough bullets to easily dispatch dozens of victims within half a minute should be strictly regulated, whether it is semi-automatic or automatic.

[farminator3000]

125. nice!

you can empty any gun in 30 seconds.

with a "normal" gun, with 6 bullets x 2 hands, you've got 12.

what would happen to any normal person that requires that many bullets for self defense?

if 6 people break into your house and you start shooting, you wouldn't stand a chance unless they ran away.

you could shoot 6 people in 30 seconds without getting shot? i doubt it.

even 2 invaders, you'd be in bad shape.

lanza's gun was so powerful it hit cars in the parking lot.

so you need that to defend yourself? who is going to defend your neighbor from YOU?

[pnwmom]

127. Why do you think I would need a gun like Lanza's to defend myself?

Or are you talking to someone else?

[farminator3000]

130. i'm talking 'you' as in 'a person'

or 'you' to the dolt arguing with you!

[XRubicon]

185. Are you a mechanical engineer?

I am.

[RomneyLies]

25. Here's a semiautomatic weapon being fired

HUGE difference from an automatic weapon, right?

[99Forever]

32. Are the bullets less lethal?

That's the only thing that really matters.

Well?

Are they?



(not aimed at you personally RL)

[Aerows]

36. I saw that video

That's legal for civilians in this country? To run around with a gun that you can bump fire into it being essentially a bullet spewer?

Anyone that thinks there is sanity in allowing those in the hands of anyone that wants one is not anywhere in my definition of rational.

[RomneyLies]

38. 100% legal.

The physics of the thing means the trigger is pulled for each shot fired. The fire rate is slightly lower than the fully automatic version.

You can bump fire pistols, too.

[Aerows]

37. Did you see that video

of that bump firing stock for an AR-15? That's as much of a bullet spewer as an automatic. Explain why a civilian needs that. Explain why any joe blow needs something capable of spewing that many bullets.

[NickB79]

105. The ATF can ban that stock in a heartbeat

They don't even need approval from Congress or the White House to do so.

So far, they have not. In fact, they signed off on the approval letter that was required by the manufacturer to legally sell it. That particular example is a failure of the ATF's management itself.

[farminator3000]

126. check this out

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/50253890#50253890

the atf is so understaffed that when obama announced the gun commission thing, there was nobody at atf to answer any questions.
the person that answered said 'call the west coast, maybe they're still there"

and the bit with uncle joe at the beginning is awesome

[nakocal]

128. Because they are cowards

Anybody that believes that they need multiple guns and hundreds of rounds for self defense is a stupid coward. Unless you have insulted the mob, have extremely large amounts of cash lying about your house, or are dealing drugs the chances of your home being invaded by a hoard of armed invaders is extremely small.

[Hoyt]

2. I agree completely. Both are of interest to gun cultists because they are so deadly.

[Hugabear]

3. Prepare to be "educated" by the DU gun lobby in 3..2..1..

There are plenty of folks here on DU who absolutely love their semi-automatic weapons, and many of them even strongly defend assault weapons.

[farminator3000]

8. they all love their cars, too.

and they don't bitch about insurance and registration, or they bitch and pay at least.

i say- man up, bitches, and prove that you are capable of doing so safely if its so important to you.

"your right" in no way means "your secret"

[RomneyLies]

26. Gun-huggers love inanimate machines of death more than they love human beings. n/t

[flying_wahini]

47. You are correct, sir!

they love the feeling of power it gives them.

[CTyankee]

181. Pretty sad, isn't it?

It really must SUCK to be them.

[tblue]

4. If it shoots more than one round at a time

who cares what it's called? Ignore the fetishists showing off their ample familiarity with killing machines. They should be ashamed. They are not helping matters one iota. Thanks for posting & Merry Christmas &

[Kurska]

7. By definition semi-automatics do not.

I think some basic gun knowledge would be required to successfully regulate or suggest regulations for them. I couldn't imagine trying to regulate automobile engines without knowing anything about them, why would it be different for guns? Do you think DEA is completely ignorant of drugs?

[bettyellen]

9. For the purposes of this conversation it does not

We're fed up with the hair splitting word parsing bullshit and want rapid firing guns seriously regulated. Whatever you call the fucking things. Trust me, well figure out the lingo and close the loopholes this time.

I'm not getting sucked into gun lingo lessons from NRA apologists.
It's bullshit and its straight from their play book. And NRA talking points do not belong on DU.

[hobbit709]

40. ANY gun can be rapid fired by someone with practice

[Aerows]

45. I trust that guy

Far more than the guy in the other video with the 100 round drum and a bump fire stock that allows him to spew bullets without having world record level skills.

If you don't see the difference, you don't WANT to see the difference, and as such, you aren't interested in a conversation, you are interested in feeding us a line of bullshit. A VERY OBVIOUS line of bullshit.

[hobbit709]

50. Pointing out an obvious fact gets you called a gun supporter?

I just responded to the post saying rapid fire semi-automatic guns should be banned.

I have even less use for the NRA types than I have for any other fanatics.

[Aerows]

52. LOL

Again, if you don't see a difference between a man that has world record level skills in firing a REVOLVER, and reloading a REVOLVER and a bump fire stock or a 30 clip magazine for a handgun, you are pedaling a line of very obvious bullshit.

It's like comparing an Olympic class lumberjack who can fell a tree in record time with an axe vs. a guy with a chainsaw and calling them exactly the same thing. I mean, seriously?

[hobbit709]

53. I know the difference

One is made so that any idiot can fire as fast as they can, the other takes practice.
But some people are sarchasm challenged.

[Aerows]

54. This is a serious subject

And we have more than enough bullshit pushers on this subject, so forgive me if I didn't see the sarcasm without a sarcasm tag. My point still stands, and if you agree, great, and maybe it will open the eyes of someone else that is on the fence or doesn't quite understand the argument with the way the NRA types muddy the waters.

[bettyellen]

65. if you play NRA word games to divert the conversation, you will appear to be a supporter

because this kind of hair splitting is used (again and again) to advance the argument that no limits or regulations regarding gun control will help curb gun violence.
LP did it in his speech yesterday and it was one of a few reasons he came off as a massively callous douchebag.
So consider that when you spew this particular nonsense.

[CTyankee]

182. One word for these people: LOSERS!

[Major Nikon]

49. ...

[hobbit709]

51. OK. Any gun made after about 1860

[Major Nikon]

56. ...

[hobbit709]

60. How long do you want to quibble semantics while others accuse us of being frivolous?

[Major Nikon]

62. So pointing out obvious facts is now quibbling semantics?

[farminator3000]

129. just make it even MORE sarcastic!

like-

ANY gun can be rapid fired by someone with practice

BUT, it takes a real pro to put 30 bullets in one mugger

amount matters!

[Aerows]

42. They don't

and look at that video. That's a perfectly legal modification to a gun and it is absolutely hair splitting to define that as "semi-automatic". It's a damn bullet spewer by any definition, and the bullet spewers need to be harshly curtailed and regulated.

[Kurska]

95. So getting the basic definition right of what you want to regulate is optional?

Because you're "fed up".

How do you intend to advocate for the regulation of something you lack basic knowledge about?

[bettyellen]

98. It'll be dead easy advocating for the most stringent gun regulations possible- I'm not the

one developing them, and I'm guessing you're not either. When proposals are made- great analysis will be available. Better then the bullshit coming out of the Gungeon, no doubt.
I don't need gun fetishists to "educate" me to get there, and DU doesn't need them to disrupt conversations. Just because you know tech specs for guns, doesn't mean your opinions have more value than most here. That's a load of crap.

[Kurska]

152. So you don't have to understand it now you'll understand it when there is "great analysis"

"Just because you know tech specs for guns, doesn't mean your opinions have more value than most here."

When we are talking about the specifics of gun regulations, I imagine someone who actually knows basic gun information might have a leg up on someone who does not.

[bettyellen]

161. I understand that 90% talking guns specs are avoiding productive conversation

And generally just here to disrupt the conversation. Out a a few hundred of these riduculous posts, I think one or two people are actually seriously for increasing gun regulations. The others are just disruptive, and like to fuck with people over semantics. It's bullshit, and you know it as well as I do.

[CTyankee]

179. You are absolutely right, bettyellen. There can be plenty of gun experts on our side to

write the laws that perfect the technical language required.

We are in a discussion forum, however, and we are tired of hearing this shit over and over again and looking at the gun porn over and over again. We are not listening to you gun lovers, do you understand that?

Get out of here if you don't like it. Good riddance, IMO.

[farminator3000]

10. do you think the NRA is completely ignorant about guns?

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

i do.

semi-autos do not..what? fire continuously? i think he knew that.

yes, i think the DEA is totally ignorant of drugs. they've prob. never heard of them...

[exboyfil]

14. Well you tell me the difference

&feature=player_embedded

Perfectly legal aftermarket alteration with a 100 round drum magazine.

Imagine what that could have done in the police station in Detroit with four armed officers instead of a 20 gauge pump action shotgun

http://www.freep.com/article/20110128/NEWS01/110128009/Watch-video-released-by-Detroit-police-showing-police-station-gun-battle

[Kurska]

96. Bump fire

"All these techniques horrendously degrade the accuracy of the firearm, due to the necessary jerking of the weapon, which makes viable aiming impossible. The techniques trade accurate, aimed fire for an increase in the firearm's rate of fire. Bump-firing requires practice and concentration. It is uncommon to "empty the mag" without at least one stoppage. The inaccuracy, difficulty, and ammunition costs render the practice uncommon."

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

Oh and every bullet is still corresponding to one pull of the trigger.

[farminator3000]

131. i'm just pasting this because you people all say the same things

i said this to some other gun lubber, but you don't get it either.

to wit:
a gun, in action, produces bullets, from its end, of a certain caliber, at a certain speed and rate.

we are discussing rate here. the difference is negligible-that's my point. it is basically a fact.

to put it another way, i can tap my finger on my mouse pad and make it sound like an automatic. try it! see!
i'd estimate i can tap my finger faster than a gatling gun shoots. get it?

now run with it! away!

[exboyfil]

163. This guy can put a .223 on target pretty effectively

The fact that it is a ammo hog could be the most alarming thing about a simulated automatic. Who doesn't care about the cost of ammo - someone who doesn't care about their finances (ie their future)? It kills the barrel - so what you don't plan to use the gun again.

A full auto has a walking problem as well. I remember firing a full auto M16 as a teenager in ROTC, and my accuracy was gone. Remember these guys don't care about accuracy - spraying a room or a schoolyard full of bullets is their primary approach - not targeting an individual.

[Lordquinton]

17. I think basic knowledge of any subject should be required

to regulate it, but the right only applies it to guns, and if you get one minor thing wrong, or make one tiny mistake, you are automatically an imbecilic who knows nothing about guns, and shouldn't talk about them, and they are now ignoring you forever and ever.

Then they talk about "Mental Illness" as if they were experts.

[farminator3000]

132. who is "they"?

[Lordquinton]

162. They are the ones who expect anyone in a gun conversation

know every intimate detail, and never misspeak on the matter, yet do the exact same thing about the issues they use to deflect to. Never have I seen people so scared that even talking about an issue will lead to all guns being banned, if that is their logical conclusion, then maybe it is the right one?

[farminator3000]

168. gotcha!

i read your first post as "right to bear arms" not right as in "conservative".

some people hear the word ban and stop reading.

ban doesn't mean take away all guns, it means make a law containing definitions of CERTAIN GUNS that are banned

so all the people freaking out about guns bans are not factoring in the reality of how a law is made and works.

also, mass murderers are without a doubt mentally ill, but so are millions of people with minor disorders.

health care and gun laws can work together- "oh really, mrs. lanza, your son was burning himself with a lighter? we will keep your guns safe at the police station until we get him some help"

and then he gets interviewed and a doctor could say- "definitely not with this kid and guns"

[pnwmom]

33. No one has to have basic knowledge of auto mechanics to propose speed limits.

We are just proposing speed limits on guns. Any gun that can speedily dispatch dozens of victims needs to be strictly regulated.

[Kurska]

97. Do you understand that cars run on gasoline, because that is about the same

basic level of knowledge for car that "Semi-automatic=one pull of the trigger means one bullet" would be for guns.

I certainly wouldn't want someone that didn't know that cars run on gasoline to be purposing car regulations.

[pnwmom]

103. Silly me. I thought some cars ran on electric batteries. So what?

When a gun such as the 223 used by the Sandy Hook shooter can fire a bullet that travels at the speed of 3200 feet PER SECOND into the body of a 6 year old -- and can continue to shoot 30 or more times before having to reload, I don't care what the hell name you want to call it. It's evil.

[Kurska]

154. I don't generally classify inanimate objects as good or evil.

Seems a little silly to do so, do you believe that gun was a bad person? It is a tool, don't ascribe morals to it.

[farminator3000]

133. and again

a gun, in action, produces bullets from its end of a certain caliber, at a certain speed and rate.

we are discussing rate here. the difference is negligible-that's my point. it is basically a fact.

to put it another way, i can tap my finger on my mouse pad and make it sound like an automatic. try it! see!
i'd estimate i can tap my finger faster than a gatling gun shoots. get it?

now run with it! away!

[Kurska]

155. Tapping a finger is a lot easier than pulling a trigger

There is also no recoil on a mouse click, it isn't a comparable action.

You're comparing 800 rounds/min with automatic fire to about a round a second with semi-automatic (that is assuming you never aim).

Does that sound like a negligible difference to you?

[pnwmom]

158. It's not a difference that matters in this situation.

Both weapons should be under tight regulation.

A hydrogen bomb is worse than a nuclear bomb. Does that make the nuclear bomb less devastating than it is? Of course not.

[LiberalFighter]

23. I'm trying to think of a gun or rifle that shoots more than one round at a time.

I'm not aware of any. I'm just barely familiar with weapons requiring bullets. But don't they all have just one chamber except for maybe a shotgun? And each bullet has to be fired separately?

The difference is how soon after each bullet is fired can the next one be ready to fire?

[Jackpine Radical]

55. Yes, they all have only barrel. (Except for "Gatling Gun-style" Miniguns

& the like, which are mounted on helicopters or various grund vehicles & not hand-carried.)

Some, like revolvers, can be said to have more than one chamber.

A shotgun (unless it's a double-barrel) also has only one chamber, but fires a round that has more than one projectile in it. By its very nature, a double barrel has only 2 rounds in it before you have to reload.

Many hunters use semi-auto rifles and shotguns, but generally with relatively small magazines (there is no need or excuse for anything over maybe 5 rounds).

For all practical purposes in the field, something like a pump action is just about as effective as a semi-auto, because when you hunt you take time to aim each round. In fact, a pump is mechanically more reliable & less prone to jamming than a semi-auto.

I happen to have a semi-auto deer rifle, but would be just as happy with a pump action.

[LiberalFighter]

59. I'm assuming you hunt

I'm wondering based on your icon where in Wisconsin?

[Jackpine Radical]

66. I live near Chippewa Falls, but have hunted quite a bit of the northwestern

part of the state. Douglas, Sawyer, Chippewa, Eau Claire, Buffalo, Clark & Taylor Counties for the most part.

I haven't hunted deer since 2007, when an old hunting buddy died in a car accident just after deer season.

I hunted grouse until a couple of years ago.

[LiberalFighter]

72. k I'm originally from the Baraboo area

Most of my relatives in that area do (did) a lot of hunting. Including some of my aunts and female cousins.

[Jackpine Radical]

75. Yup, from the time I was a kid we had a lot of women hunting with us.

It's not at all unusual in WI, and those farm women always knew how to dress out their game too.

[LiberalFighter]

79. My grandmother did all of the poultry and my mother would help out.

Numerous times at grandmother when she would butcher the chickens out back with them running around after losing their head.

Don't believe either of them had anything to do with game animals themselves. Recall my uncles doing squirrel and turtles themselves along with the deer. Nothing else for game.

[farminator3000]

134. by "at a time" he means "every time you pull the trigger"

shoots more than one round every time you pull the trigger

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. I like the shmuzxi

You have a way of putting things there...

I like it.

[farminator3000]

193. thanks

humor is always worth a try

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. You do know regular citizens can, and do, legally own fully automatic weapons.

They are not actually banned from possession.

[Progressive dog]

20. So this isn't true?

Federal Firearms Regulations

It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the ATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. They can own machineguns, no?

I never said they had to be new... or that they weren't registered. But people so inclined can own them.

In fact the SCOTUS held, in the Heller briefs, that "longstanding prohibitions" and restrictions may be acceptable for articles uncommon in nature, but that there is an elevation of guns "in common use at the time" (addressed in the Miller case). To which they are referring to the stringent federal regulation of short barreled rifles, sawed off shotguns, machineguns, silencers, and other odd/dangerous weapons... but common/ubiquitous/popular firearms are indeed covered by the 2nd Amendment. I read it as the 1934 NFA being constitutional because the articles it controls are not common firearms. They are sort of drawing the line in their decision and saying that while the 2A protects an individual right, there are limitations and here is one of them ... (basically so that other laws controlling some of the more extreme firearms aren't overturned using Heller).

Heller:

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia&quot , which may not by itself protect machine guns:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

Miller:

In dicta, the Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

More or less, the 2nd Amendment ideally covers firearms commonly available and in common use at the time. Assault type weapons (ARs, AKs, etc.) are not only extremely commonly available, they have been some of the best (if not the best) sellers for the past decade. They are America's most popular rifle. I believe, given Miller/Heller, that a ban on these most common rifles is constitutionally unwarranted.

And even looking at the 1934 NFA... the items weren't banned outright. They were just regulated heavily and new MGs were prohibited from registration in 1986. All the old ones stayed in the system because ACTUALLY banning and removing them would have been a legal fiasco. I honestly believe, with our current current court, gun controllers and politicians don't want to touch the 1934 NFA and 1986 Hughes Amendment with a 6 foot pole because it may get overturned... especially if they try to add the most common rifles in america to that NFA list.

[RomneyLies]

43. You know who else is big on quoting dicta from SCOTUS decisions?

Birthers.

[lbrtbell]

22. That's like saying a bike is the same as a motorcycle

Hey, they both have 2 wheels, right?

Like a bike, a semi-auto requires you to expend physical effort for each forward thrust. Like a motorcycle, you just hold something down (accelerator is like the trigger) and that full auto is going to spew a LOT more bullets and do a lot more damage.

So hop on your bike and join the Hell's Angels. That makes about as much sense as your hilariously inaccurate post.

[RomneyLies]

27. No, it really isn't. Wathc this man firing a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. So if you can ride a bicycle down a steep hill, it can become a motorcycle?

[RomneyLies]

87. .

[lbrtbell]

166. That's a modified rifle

The item advertised in the video MODIFIES the rifle to shoot that way. That rifle is modified to be fully automatic.

Here's a video of a police officer trained in weapons and teaching gun safety, explaining what I stated in my post--that a semi-auto requires the trigger to be pulled for EACH bullet fired. It's worth viewing, as it's presented from a neutral point of view.

"The Truth About Firearms"

[farminator3000]

136. learn how to make comparisons

1.semi-auto: 30 bullets in 20 seconds
auto: 30 " in 10 seconds

auto=twice as fast

2. bike 25 mph downhill
harley 100 mph top speed

harley= 4 times as fast.

so what.

now, watch this:

it would take 20 seconds to shoot 30 people with a semi, and 10 seconds with an auto.

which is more dangerous? is an auto 10 seconds more dangerous?

how can two guns be different when they can both commit mass murder in under 30 seconds?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

24. stop making the magazines

no ammo

[horsedoc]

28. These guns are luxury items

No one needs them for home defense or hunting or anything. It is because they are toys and gun enthusiasts don't want to give them up. I would love to have an AR-15, fun as hell to shoot, but I will never own one and I shouldn't.

[Mec9000]

31. Then don't ... problem solved

[farminator3000]

137. you are cool

thanks for being reasonable

[geckosfeet]

29. Great. I don't want to hear the facts. I want to make policy based on my fantasies.

I see more and more of these threads. People who have little if any understanding of firearms demanding and claiming the authority to push an agenda for firearm law. And I suppose remaining ignorant is a legitimate choice, but please, don't pretend your knee jerk misguided off the mark with little chance to succeed ideas for legislation will be any more effective than the assault weapons ban of 1994.

We all understand something has to be done. We want to do it right.

[RomneyLies]

35. You've convinced me. No new legislation can be achieved

You've left us the only choice. Classify all semi-automatic weapons identically to automatic weapons on the NFA and the problem is solved.

If you want a semi-automatic weapon, simply meet the licensing requirements.

[geckosfeet]

41. More nonsense? You will pardon me if I put you on ignore.

[RomneyLies]

44. Ah, I've hurt your delicate feelings. n/t

[SQUEE]

187. Already done..

Each and every one of my Semi-rifles and 2 pistols are registered as an SBR, and is established in trust. There is no added licensing requirement attached to NFA firearms, just a $200 check and patience. So you now have absolutely no problem with the rifles I own now correct?

[pnwmom]

39. You don't need understanding of the mechanics of guns to understand the effect

of the guns when bullets are shot at a human body.

You don't need understanding of the mechanics of guns to know that guns that can kill dozens of victims in half a minute should be strictly regulated.

[geckosfeet]

46. Partailly agree. You do need to know how and what to regulate.

RE: See failed assault weapons ban 1994.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Your statement is similar to saying I don't need to know how cars work to write traffic laws and design roadways and bridges and towns. I am not sure that is entirely true.

[farminator3000]

139. so all politicians, urban designers, and architects can change a carb or tranny on a car?

sorry. that don't fly

[geckosfeet]

165. Not what I said. So that don't fly either.

[farminator3000]

188. what you said was

thus
pnwmom's statement is similar to saying I don't need to know how cars work to write traffic laws and design roadways and bridges and towns. I am not sure that is entirely true.

about her ACTUAL statement
You don't need understanding of the mechanics of guns to understand the effect
of the guns when bullets are shot at a human body.
You don't need understanding of the mechanics of guns to know that guns that can kill dozens of victims in half a minute should be strictly regulated.

then, it gets weird


you took what she said and changed it to a person doesn't need to know how cars work to write traffic laws and design roadways and bridges and towns.

by saying her statement was "similar" to the italicized bold there (kind of lame and vague) and then saying you are not sure it is entirely true (which is kinda lame and vague)

so you think it is false.

by vaguely disagreeing with her you are making the vague assertion that something YOU said (also in a vague way)-" that people who write traffic laws and build bridges and design cities all have to know how do work on cars" is TRUE. but it is not true

so i asked-
so all politicians, urban designers, and architects can change a carb or tranny on a car?

on this planet, in reality, i asked you a question, about something you implied in a lame kind of way,
and you are afraid to say no, because then you will be admitting that you are being completely false, disingenuous,
and that your original statement about needing to be some kind of gun expert to even mention gun law
is a total crock of horseshit. let's look at it again, and i'll translate it

you said-
Great. I don't want to hear the facts. I want to make policy based on my fantasies
I see more and more of these threads. People who have little if any understanding of firearms demanding and claiming the authority to push an agenda for firearm law. And I suppose remaining ignorant is a legitimate choice, but please, don't pretend your knee jerk misguided off the mark with little chance to succeed ideas for legislation will be any more effective than the assault weapons ban of 1994. We all understand something has to be done. We want to do it right.

on my end it sounds like-
you people are too dumb to talk about this
i like to argue with people who support gun laws. anyone who doesn't know about guns has an agenda and doesn't deserve the privilege of discussing gun law. there was a law before that sucked. even though you have different ideas now than in 1994, they still suck. we understand something has to be done, and done right, but we can't do it because we are the experts and we don't know how

so,
who is the we you refer to? don't "you" have an "agenda"?
is it "don't even talk about guns if i don't agree with you"?
could you maybe suggest a single good idea for a gun law instead of being a dingleberry?
you say you want to "do it right"?
do what? what is it that you want to do? type nonsense and insult people?

ignorant knee jerk misguided off the mark little chance to succeed.

so what? why use such BS language on something with no chance?

[bettyellen]

73. and there's no reason to split hairs before we see what BO is proposing. It's an attempt to shut

non gun lovers out of the conversation. Sorry, dudes. I'm not interested in your geeky gun knowledge, I can catch up when the debate is further along. But the idiocy I see spewed makes me lean towards being supportive of tougher regulations. Instead of being gee wiz all impressed at their superior technical knowledge.

[pnwmom]

78. Right. Their superior technical knowledge counts for very little.

What we need here is a firmer grasp on reality and common sense.

[bettyellen]

94. Exactly. I'm kind of sad how impressive or important they think their tech knowledge is when

you rarely see any of them being intellectually honest about the conversation that's going on.
Those more patient with the yammering about gun specs are picking up enough to form some interesting more detailed proposals that can close some loopholes. But it's not like they are meaning to help, just blah blah blah.

[green for victory]

48. This is what it was like trying to debate Washingtons Cannabis Decrim law

no one wanted to hear the possibility that it wasn't the best thing since sliced bread or Coca Cola's original recipe. "We'll Fix it" they said! Kind of like how NAFTA has been "fixed", perhaps.

We were called growers, law enforcement (ironic because lots of law enforcement supported the decrim initiative) and worse. It's disgusting.

Now, our concerns are taken a little bit more seriously. But it's a little too late for some.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2025916

(the media lied when they called it legalization, it is decriminalization- but when the media talks to millions the truth can be hard to tell)

Nobody should be surprised when badly written legislation results in innocent people being charged with crimes.

[pnwmom]

90. I don't see the connection. But with regard to that OP,

some key details appear to have been left out of the article at the link.


According to the police report, Scott Rowles failed the sobriety test and admitted to smoking pot within 90 minutes of the incident. Given these circumstances, the police were correct to do the blood test.

I doubt that the ACLU will want him to be the poster boy for deficiencies in the new law.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/dec/19/no-charges-now-east-mill-plain-pedestrian-traffic-/

Just before 5:50 p.m. Monday, Collins crossed the eastbound lanes of Mill Plain in front of Safeway carrying a grocery bag, according to witnesses. He stopped in a median, and then proceeded into westbound traffic. He was not in a crosswalk or an unmarked intersection.

A man driving a black Hyundai Sonata in the left lane slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting Collins. Rowles’ pickup, in the right lane, struck Collins.

Collins was dead when Vancouver police arrived.

Rowles told police that he had smoked “a bowl of marijuana” about one hour to one and a half hours before the collision, according to a probable cause affidavit.

Police said they could smell the pot on Rowles’ breath. He also failed a sobriety test, police said.

[farminator3000]

138. please explain how your understanding is better just because you own a gun

you have some sort of firearm credentials?

and maybe say something besides 'you are wrong i am right and i'm smarter, too, so i won't tell you my thoughts

or are you secretly aware you have no argument?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

34. There is essentially no difference between LOSING HOUSE SEATS IN 1994 AND 2014.

Since most of the voting public did not want the first gun ban and Congress rejected that and acted in an undemocratic way to adopt the gun ban, the Democratic Party lost its 50-year control over the House of Representatives in 1994. Bill Clinton, in his biography, describes the passage of the gun ban as a factor in the loss of the Congressional seats.

Wayne LaPierre used to be a Democrat. He only acquired his position of power, and switched to being a Republican, after the gun ban.

It is known that Karl Rove (using Donald Segretti tactics) advised some of his followers to sign on to Democratic web sites to screw with Democrats.

Will the passage of an anti-gun Bill result in more Democrats being elected, or will fewer Democrats be elected? Will such passage, with the Republican control of the House, even happen?

So what are we left with? Serious discussions about the gun issue and illegal shootings? Virulent posting of anti-gun posts? How will any virulent postings of anti-gun posts result in more Democrats being elected instead of having more Republicans elected? Is anyone even thinking about this?

[MightyMopar]

70. It's different electorate now, the NRA will get the same surprise Romney did

More urban, less white, much less gun friendly. I think the reason the NRA set up shop in DU is to endlessly play concern troll about 1994 election.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

74. I don't care about the NRA. Not at all. But if your use of the NRA works for you as a bogeyman,

or if you think that the invocation of "NRA" works for you, go for it.

You can join the chorus demanding that the House pass legislation which the Republican-controlled House will never do, and then you can watch more voters reject Democratic candidates in 2014.

In what way, exactly, do you believe that the Republican-controlled House will pass anti-gun legislation?

[MightyMopar]

76. Make them stand against it and defend their extremism in the next election

[AnotherMcIntosh]

84. Ironically, that is what will happen to Democratic politicians as it did in 1994.

But you don't seem to mind.

Why is that?

[bettyellen]

99. because winning is pointless if they don't represent our core values.

[MightyMopar]

108. THE nra HUFFED AND PUFFED IN THE 2012 ELECTION AND GOT IT'S ASS WHIPPED, THE FUTURE IS AGAINST THEM

White power has peaked.

[bettyellen]

119. true, the electorate looks a lot different than it did 8- 12 years ago. THANK GOD.

[farminator3000]

141. oh, so gun laws are the only factor in who gets elected? the most important one?

Last edited Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:25 PM - Edit history (1)

in reality, if republicans don't pass gun laws?

they will probably lose their seats for being a-holes.

that is a good thing

[farminator3000]

142. um

I don't care about the NRA. Not at all.

they aren't paying you enough?

[Ikonoklast]

86. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat.

Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.

Just because one calls themselves a thing does not mean he is one.



See current public opinion over new gun control legislation, you just might find yourself and your buddies on the wrong side of the numbers on this one.

Because that is the basis for your argument.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

89. No. You misrepresent the basis for my position. Why am I not suprised?

[Ikonoklast]

91. You were the one basing an argument of a faulty supposition.

I only pointed it out.

Lots of people here call themselves Democrats, yet act and post Republican positions upon which they base their discussions.

I suppose I am also bound to take them at their word they are what they pretend to be.


"By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them."


And I don't really care how easily surprised you are.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. When someone says "Why am I NOT suprised?" that means that they are NOT SURPRISED.

Maybe you were not intending to misrepresent my position. Maybe you genuinely have a compehension problem.

When someone says, as I did at #34, that "There is essentially no difference between LOSING HOUSE SEATS IN 1994 AND 2014.," that is not a Republican position.

When someone says, as I did at #34, that "Since most of the voting public did not want the first gun ban and Congress rejected that and acted in an undemocratic way to adopt the gun ban, the Democratic Party lost its 50-year control over the House of Representatives in 1994. Bill Clinton, in his biography, describes the passage of the gun ban as a factor in the loss of the Congressional seats.," that is not a Republican position.

When someone says, as I did at #34, that "Wayne LaPierre used to be a Democrat. He only acquired his position of power, and switched to being a Republican, after the gun ban.," that is not a Republican position.

When someone says, as I did at #34, that "It is known that Karl Rove (using Donald Segretti tactics) advised some of his followers to sign on to Democratic web sites to screw with Democrats.," that is not a Republican position.

When someone asks, as I did at #34, "Will the passage of an anti-gun Bill result in more Democrats being elected, or will fewer Democrats be elected? Will such passage, with the Republican control of the House, even happen?," that is not a Republican position.

And when someone asks, as I did at #34, "So what are we left with? Serious discussions about the gun issue and illegal shootings? Virulent posting of anti-gun posts? How will any virulent postings of anti-gun posts result in more Democrats being elected instead of having more Republicans elected? Is anyone even thinking about this?," that is not a Republican position.

In my view, the ones who act like Republicans are those who comprehend the views of others but mischaracterize them.

[farminator3000]

140. the difference is 20 years

Is anyone even thinking about this?

i am not at all. those thoughts are all you.

what anti-gun posts are you talking about?

"we shouldn't pass any gun law at all because politicians are worried about their seats"

is lame.

what does posting something anti gun have to do with anybody being elected or not?

who posted it?

everything was exactly the same in december of '92 as now?

[Ligyron]

57. I've been thinking the same thing about semi vs auto weapons

It's really magazine capacity that would make a difference in killing power. If there were only three rounds in your clip, it wouldn't much matter if you had to hold down the trigger or just pulled it real fast.

Most hunters can live with that. Bolt action only. If you need more rounds than that to kill a whatever, your not much of a sportsman. Let the thing live. Shotguns for hunting are limited to three shells in the magazine in most states, though if you take out the plug, they'll hold more.

I think most military use assault weapons (firearms which a human being could actually carry around) are now built to deliver only the short, three round bursts, which we were always taught to use when on automatic anyway.

Leave it on automatic for more than that -- and it just sprays shit everywhere. Maybe good for suppressive fire but otherwise a waste of ammo and not real accurate. Looks good in the movies tho' which is why most young males inclined to such think they want one.

No measure short of a total ban would be a perfect fix, but even one less bullet delivered= one less killed would be an improvement.

and none of this addresses multi-round 9mm pistols, .45's etc. Sheesh, IDK

[farminator3000]

143. well said

If you need more rounds than that to kill a whatever, your not much of a sportsman. Let the thing live.

[NightWatcher]

58. Holy Fuck, I'm so sick of people who dont know shit about guns, talking about guns

Guns are deadly and there needs to be something done to try to help prevent another mass shooting, but we also need educated people proposing policies and not people who are scared of big black guns and who know the terminology and specifics about the guns they aim to regulate.

There is a huge difference between the spray and pray of a fully automatic and a semi automatic.

But what the fuck do I know, I only worked in federal investigations after receiving advanced criminal justice degrees. I've been range qualified and trained on numerous firearms ranging from fully auto IDF Uzi to handguns to training on US Capitol Police sniper rifles.

I am not a gun nut, but I own several which are locked safely away. I am in favor of closing the gun show loopholes and reigning in the influence of the NRA.

I hope that something will be done to help prevent violence, but hyperbolic hang wringing and overreaction doesnt help our side.

On Edit:

It helps give your argument added strength when you speak from a position of knowledge on a subject. It also helps you to not fling hyperbole at the side you are debating against. If we advocate gun control we need to do so from a position of intelligence with advanced research and statistics on our side, not hyperbolic statements and fear based rhetoric (that's how repukes operate, with fear and loathing).

Thank you

[Duckhunter935]

61. thank you

I own a few that I lock up. No problem with limiting magazine size (will not help much), banning bump stocks, all transfers via FFL dealer, enforcing current laws and the the NRA needs to back off some and come up with common sense regulations.

edited add bump stocks

[farminator3000]

145. who makes the regulations?

the NRA needs to back off some and come up with common sense regulations.

THATS A GREAT IDEA WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT????

[geckosfeet]

67. Most intelligent DU post on the topic I have seen since, well since forever.

I am sick of obvious agenda driven hyperbole. I want to be as safe from nut bags with guns as the most rabid fact free anti-gun fanatic. But I want laws that stick, laws that work, laws that punish criminals and protect public safety.

[farminator3000]

146. how can it be intelligent?

when he says "there is a huge difference"

the topic is "there is no difference"

he didn't say a single word about the difference. that's a good argument?

and don't say that i'm too stupid to understand it, since you also don't understand me, you would really be saying "i'm just as dumb as you"

[geckosfeet]

164. Excellent.

Here is the issue. Initiating discussion based on an erroneous premise is futile. It exposes a lack of knowledge and credibility about the topic at hand. If one does not acknowledge and realize the error discussion will proceed from a fallacy, and outcomes will rest upon that fallacy.

The argument is bogus on it's face. It is a straw man. Because there are huge differences. Mechanically, effectively, functionally and in just about any other sense that you can think of.

But to even postulate such a statement (there is no difference) is an absurdity and essentially renders useful discussion impossible. That is your aim (pun intended) is it not?

Again, initiating discussion based on a false and erroneous premise is futile. You are pissing away what little opportunity exists.

[farminator3000]

186. wow. i didn't know that. can you explain this too?

it would take 20 seconds to shoot 30 people with a semi, and 10 seconds with an auto.

which is more dangerous? is an auto 10 seconds more dangerous?

how can two guns be different when they can both commit mass murder in under 30 seconds?

also, could you explain why, when you are making laws to protect people, the mechanical workings of a gun have any bearing whatsoever?
and how exactly you intend to render useful discussion?

or go render some bacon?

[geckosfeet]

192. I can't explain it nor would I try.

I can say I have a few semi-auto pistols. No rifles. No autos at all. I would never be able to get thirty shots off in twenty seconds, not with the ten round magazines that are legal in MA, much less hit my intended target with all thirty rounds. Some people could. Average person couldn't. Not with a pistol.

A basic understanding of the subject at hand is always a good thing when you are trying make laws that are effective and work and will stand the test of time.

I like bacon. I hate the NRA.

[farminator3000]

195. well there you have it, in good old MA!

Massachusetts Law requires firearm owners to be licensed through their local Police Department or the Massachusetts State Police if no local licensing authority is available. A license is required by state law for buying firearms and ammunition. An applicant must have passed a State approved firearm safety course before applying for a license.

All applications, interviews, fees, and fingerprinting are done at the local Police Department then sent electronically to the Massachusetts Criminal History Board for the mandatory background checks, and processing. All approved applicants will receive their license from the issuing Police Department. All licensing information is stored by the Criminal History Board. Non residents who are planning on carrying in the state must apply for a temporary license to carry (LTC) through the State Police before their travel.

i will admit to being a bit over-the-top with this thread- i could have been more specific.
but all i really said was ban semi-autos with clips larger than 12

that's one of the harder problems to solve here- how do you ban a lanza-type weapon, but not affect the responsible owners?

does it really make sense that any joe off the street should be able to have a more powerful gun than an average cop?

this is my understanding at its most basic-
civilians don't need military-style weapons. it's frivolous. and dangerous. we have to make laws to fix this problem.

you don't have those types of weapons, so i don't really care what you think.
why do you get so excited about the idea of banning a gun you don't even own?

wouldn't using MA gun laws as a model be a good place to start? get it? interviews?
the cops say "oh, you're the lady with that kid that burns himself with lighters, maybe you should not keep 5 guns in the basement where he plays shooter games, and we require you to store them at the gun range to become an owner"

see how that might work?

[geckosfeet]

196. I find the MA licensing process very reasonable. But I would guess that 75% of the country

has far less in the way of licensing requirements.

But this is a real issue that many non-gun owners are not always fully aware of - firearms laws vary tremendously from state to state. A good place to start is to try and get more uniformity through some kind of federal regulations.

The 1994 assault weapons ban included a 10 round limit to magazines. But when it expired no one had the backbone to patch it up and renew it. MA had adopted and enforced the 1994 federal assault weapons ban and when it expired MA kept the 10 round magazine limit on the books.

[farminator3000]

201. and it WORKS!!

New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and Hawaii round out the top six states with the strongest gun laws, with scores ranging to 72 from 50, respectively. Those states also have the lowest gun death rates in the nation.

At the other end of the spectrum are Arizona, Alaska, and Utah with 0 points each. Florida made news this year after a demerit category was added for a gag rule on doctors that limits their freedom to discuss the dangers of guns with patients. Florida enacted the gag rule last year and that dropped its score to from 5 points to 3 points.

hmm.

better gun laws, less deaths.

lame gun laws, gag orders.

hmm.

[geckosfeet]

202. It works in its way, given that it is patchwork of overlapping and contradictory regulations.

But I suppose when you have federal laws superimposed on state laws thats what you end up with.

List of countries by firearm-related death rate
I found this listing of gun deaths per capita very interesting - look at who is in the top 10, and the bottom 10. UK comes in in the bottom 11. The death rate per 100,000 people is roughly 2.5% of what it is in the US. Japan is less than 1% of the US rate. Very strict gun laws there - guns are banned. Don't ever let anyone say bans don't work. The question is, would a ban be enforceable and/or constitutional on public safety grounds.
Chart: The U.S. has far more gun-related killings than any other developed country

Now I do not know how a full out ban would be imposed in the US, nor do I support such a thing as it would be unconstitutional. It would require some kind of amendment to, or a full out repeal of the 2nd amendment. I do not see it happening in our lifetimes - not my lifetime anyway. But as you point out, there are effective measures that can be taken to reduce gun related violence.

Not sure if this is the chart you are referencing for state rate.
Crime Statistics > Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state
This chart in itself has interesting contradictions. Discussion for a later time.

[farminator3000]

205. just like marijuana laws with the fed/state thing

totally, a federal gun law that works with state laws is like a unicorn.

in AZ, people want to open carry uzis

California continues to blaze legislative trails in saving lives, rising to a high of 81 points on the 2011 Brady State Scorecard rankings of state gun laws. California’s universal background check system, retention of purchase records, limiting handgun purchases to one a month, and an assault clip ban are just some of the laws that provide a road map to preventing gun violence.
Brady campaign site

then this is about as far as you can go without an all out ban

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.

i mean, there must be some people in AZ who understand why japan's idea makes sense?
besides the ones who were shot along with gabby giffords?

[bettyellen]

71. Tough shit. I don't need to know the technical lingo and specs to YOUR satisfaction buddy in order

to talk about sensible regulations. You seem to think we are crafting laws here on DU and should STFU if we don't have your "expertise". That's ridiculous. Most of the people here are splitting hairs to deflect from the issue.

And have a geeky gun nut giggle at those who aren't immersed in the gun culture.
They have no clue what assholes they look like, because the NRA does the same fucking thing.

The civilized world is fed up with these games. And we don't give a shit anymore or fall for the NRA talking point that we cannot or should not discuss it for any reason. We don't need or want your permission to discuss sensible gun regulations. We can split hairs at an appropriate time- when proposals are made. But thanks for your concern.

[ManiacJoe]

85. You (group you) are not being faulted for you lack of vocabulary.

There is no requirement to use the short words to convey long ideas. If you want to not use the short words, feel free to use the long descriptions.

What you are being faulted with is knowingly using vocabulary wrongly. Not only does that make you sound unknowledgeable, but it also makes it difficult for you to accurately communicate whatever it is you are trying to communicate.

Words have meanings. Pick the right words to properly convey your thoughts. The rest of the world will thank you.

[bettyellen]

92. um, how about not diverting the conversation with picky gun nerd bullshit like the NRA does?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. How about adding to the conversation by contributing something other

than anger and ignorance?

[bettyellen]

111. Ha ha. I think it's the pro gun wack jobs who are angered right now. I am thrilled they tipped their

hand this week. Aren't you?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

113. There have been no surprises here except for the vitriol and ignorance

[bettyellen]

114. well, the gungeoneers were let loose, so what did you expect?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

116. The gungeoneers were always loose

and participated across all groups on DU. Most of them contributed well.

Then again we have posters like this one, who's primarily contribution seems to be the F word
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=246323&sub=trans

[farminator3000]

148. post an example and say why it is ignorant please

can you?

[farminator3000]

147. that's a really impressive entrance to the thread there

how about not calling someone who knows EXACTLY what they are talking about ignorant?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

100. Actually you need some information to intelligently interact

Wallowing in ignorance and anger does nothing. Support BS screeds like the OP does even less.

[bettyellen]

112. I thought the OP was a parody of the gun geekery? It's really hard to say- I've never seen so

much silly crap on DU before. Guns aren't bringing out intelligent interaction from loads of people here, LOL.
The place is thick with the NRA bullshit that appalled the nation on Friday.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

115. No, its hyperbolic rant

with a very familiar posting style.

[bettyellen]

117. I guess some people do not realize when they're being parodied.

I thought it was pretty amusing. Maybe you should lighten the fuck up? LOL.

[farminator3000]

170. definition of rant for your perusal professor

Speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned way.

i am not speaking, certainly not shouting, nor lengthy, nor wild

i left one out.

then look up hyperbole and explain how i am overstating or exaggerating.

i meant it to be taken literally.

if you are talking about mass killings, both can kill 30 people in under 30 seconds- they are ESSENTIALLY the same

fundamental. basic. human dignity.

dig·ni·ty
/ˈdignitē/
Noun

The state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect.

why am i looking up words for a professor?

go away. maybe back to school.

[farminator3000]

150. the headline is absolutely serious

but a little parody always helps

[farminator3000]

149. again

stop using the word ignorance if you can't give an example

give us some info that is not ignorant. too much effort? not possible?

[farminator3000]

144. what more do you need to know than they are both really way too dangerous?

it would take 20 seconds to shoot 30 people with a semi, and 10 seconds with an auto.

which is more dangerous? is an auto 10 seconds more dangerous?

how can two guns be different when they can both commit mass murder in under 30 seconds?

[pnwmom]

160. There's a huge difference also between a nuclear bomb and a hydrogen bomb.

Does that mean I need a PHD to know that they both should be banned?

[farminator3000]

171. you're cool!

keep it real, sister!

[pnwmom]

175. Thank you, farminator3000!

You're cool, too!

[farminator3000]

167. not sure if that was directed at me or everybody who wants more gun laws?

but, you are not in charge of this forum or gun regulation.

this is america- we have freedom of speech- i haven't seen a law that says "only educated people can voice ideas on subjects."

there ARE educated people proposing policies- like the VP and his commission

there is also a president who said on tv, to paraphrase "it is also your job as the people to stay involved in this discussion."

he did not mention any sort of credentials being required. if you think that's cheesy, so what?

also, ask biden, he is afraid of big black guns. fact.

There is a huge difference between the spray and pray of a fully automatic and a semi automatic.


it would take 20 seconds to shoot 30 people with a semi, and 10 seconds with an auto.
which is more dangerous? is an auto 10 seconds more dangerous?
how can two guns be different when they can both commit mass murder in under 30 seconds?

you are imposing your opinion as a professional on soccer moms everywhere.

I am in favor of closing the gun show loopholes and reigning in the influence of the NRA. I hope that something will be done to help prevent violence, but hyperbolic hang wringing and overreaction doesnt help our side.

so when a guy with a lot of guns starts insulting a soccer mom for saying what you say above, the bold part,
ie- "ha ha dbag there are gun laws and they don't work"
is it the soccer mom's fault?

a soccer mom must read some textbooks on guns to be able to say the mass murder in 30 seconds thing?

if only educated people have a say in policymaking, well, that sounds like censorship to me.
this is an internet forum, not the senate floor.

oh, and you say "our side"?

what's up with that?

[CTyankee]

183. And we're so sick of people like YOU.

Listen, buddy, we'll find the experts who'll write the laws we want. They'll match your big fat knowledge and do you one better. We'll get experts who agree with us and who will write the language WE want into those laws, have no fear. We don't need YOU to tell us what to think, got that?

In the meantime, too bad for you, we're not listening to you and your propaganda. And we are not intimidated by you. Understand that.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. More cluelessness and "I don't want facts to interfere with my screed"

I would also not that your posting style is very familiar

[rrneck]

68. Is there a significant difference

between shooting a semi automatic rifle and a pump shotgun? Nope. Not only can you shoot a pump shotgun just about as fast as a semi auto rifle, each shell has eight or ten individual pellets. So each pull of the trigger releases eight or ten or fifteen "bullets". So I guess after you outlaw semi auto guns, you'll have to outlaw pump guns. Then lever action guns. Hell, even a bow can be semi automatic.

But lets say you have successfully fought your way through enough legislative battles to outlaw guns, because that's where your logic is headed. And assuming in the process we still have some sort of democracy left after you have expended all your political capital tilting at gun control windmills. Remember, just changing the appearance of a selection of rifles resulted in serious defeats for Democrats. But lets say you get your wish. You haven't done anything to regulate the real cause of the problem.

So if the bad guy is reduced to wielding a single shot .410 gauge shotgun you know what will happen? He'll just turn it around and use it as a club to beat the crap out of you. Now, you may think that's nothing like killing a bunch of people at once, but it's really no different.

What's the rate of fire for an axe? How many defenseless people do you think someone could kill with a melee weapon? Would you want to be the one to run in there and stop him?

The problem to be solved is not the implements of destruction. We are reduced to niggling over distinctions without a difference now. The problem is the disparity of force between attacker and defender. And the thing to regulate is human ingenuity gone horribly wrong.

Here's a video of the world's fastest everything, just for fun.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

88. The video of Bolstad looks like he could have been a Saxon.

[Drahthaardogs]

69. Wow, you are really uninformed.

I could explain, but why bother.

[bettyellen]

81. please spare us the gun geekery.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

102. Facts matter, and the OP is at best ignorant

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

107. You have to know your subject before you can talk about it

The OP is precisely the type of person who should a) learn something and b) keep quiet until he/she does.

A favorite conservative talking point is that people who are want gun bans are afraid of guns, particularly "scary-looking" guns. When we say stuff like the OP, it makes us sound like were ignorant and reacting in fear.

Gun geekery is vitally important.

[bettyellen]

110. I already know I will support the strongest and most sensible measures possible.

and I DO NOT need to know the details at this moment OR STFU, which is what gunners are saying.
And the the NRA is telling them to say.
Sorry, the proposals and policies will be dissected to death at a time in the near future.
I don't have to descend into the gungeon to talk about it. LOL. That shit is ridiculous.

[farminator3000]

172. here is one post from this thread where an anti-gun person understands exactly what i mean

pnwmom
160. There's a huge difference also between a nuclear bomb and a hydrogen bomb.

Does that mean I need a PHD to know that they both should be banned?


maybe you missed it.

so you are saying since gun lovers say we are scared of guns, we shouldn't do that, because somebody will think we are scared.

that makes no sense-
who is this "somebody" i mentioned?
why do they care what i say?
what is the solution?
how does what you are saying make sense?

if you had typed censorship instead of gun geekery it would have at least made sense while being wrong
if you are getting paid to post silliness, you should probably get a pay cut

[MotherPetrie]

77. Douchemaster! ROFL!

[REP]

82. If you don't want to be bothered with facts, fine

But there is a big difference between a fully-automatic fire weapon and and semi-automatic fire weapon.

You've made up some funny names, though.

[farminator3000]

157. big difference?

and the difference is?

[NickB79]

109. There are something like 300 million guns in the US

Maybe more. Something like 1/3 of all households have firearms in them.

Semi-automatic weapons have become so popular in the past 40 years that they now overwhelmingly outsell all other guns for all purposes, such as hunting, target shooting, and home defense. I've read estimates stating that the MAJORITY of guns in this country are now semi-automatic. People are buying 9mm's instead of .357 revolvers for home defense, semi-auto 12-gauge guns instead of pump actions for duck hunting, semi-auto .22's instead of bolt-actions for squirrels,rabbits, and target practice, and semi-auto AR-15 style rifles for instead of lever-action .30-30's for deer and bear.

An attempt to ban all semi-automatic weapons would be a political clusterfuck of epic proportions. You'd not only have to deal with the fallout from the few million hardcore gun owners with arsenals of assault rifles, but the tens of millions of pissed-off homeowners and hunters who would be losing their guns as well.

[bettyellen]

118. few are advocating a ban any time soon.

[NickB79]

121. The OP did so in his title statement

Literally hundreds of DU posters have called for exactly that, an immediate gun ban and repeal of the 2nd Amendment, in the past week.

[bettyellen]

123. the OP was exaggerating for effect, and now you are too

[NickB79]

124. Why do you think the OP was exaggerating for effect?

Like I said, there have been literally hundreds of DU posters in the past week calling for an outright ban on all guns, right now.

Were all of them also exaggerating for effect?

[farminator3000]

174. not exaggerating

how do you know what i'm calling for by reading one sentence?

if you then look at the rest of it, there is the number 12 involved.

i didn't say anythin about taking guns away- you are right laws would be a mess

so letting people keep guns and modifying the clip laws is a way to address that. get it?

[Motown_Johnny]

120. more like 250 million

and we all acknowledge that this is a multi generational problem which will require a multi generational approach to solving it.

[Berserker]

151. We have to remember

We are not dealing with the populace of the United States we are just responding to members of a website forum some of which you can't reason with. Yes it would be a political cluster fuck as some will find out. I will always be a Democrat but I now realize our party is divided. "Together we stand divided we fall".

[farminator3000]

159. why do you need 30 bullets to shoot a deer? sportsmanship is no longer a concept?

to create a ban, you have to include a definition of "semi-auto"

it doesn't matter what a gun book says- it matters what the law-to-be will say.

the rate at which a gun shoots has little bearing on how dangerous it is in everyday society.

the number of bullets is more important to keeping people safe.

twelve. that's a good number. six shooter in each hand.

you can't have a gun that will hold more than 12 bullets.

nobody really goes blasting away with both hands in reality

you can have a gun that will TAKE a 30 round clip- you can only put a twelve round clip in it.

what's so awful about that?

[Mec9000]

169. Why does people always relate it to hunting...

[farminator3000]

191. guns are used for hunting at times?

[Ghost in the Machine]

122. Nominated for "most ignorant and uninformed" post of the year...

"there is essentially no difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-auto"

No one really gives a shit *WHAT* you want to *hear*, I can promise you that! You are entitled to your own opinion, but you're NOT entitled to your own *FACTS*.

Live with it....

[farminator3000]

153. and again

it would take 20 seconds to shoot 30 people with a semi, and 10 seconds with an auto.

which is more dangerous? is an auto 10 seconds more dangerous?

how can two guns be different when they can both commit mass murder in under 30 seconds?

[Rex]

135. I disagree.

There is a large gaping difference between an M249 and an M9. Between 500 rounds of belt fed ammo compared to a clip of 9 bullets and one in the chamber.

[farminator3000]

156. did i say BAN? i meant BANG!

no, i meant ban

to create a ban, you have to include a definition of "semi-auto"

it doesn't matter what a gun book says- it matters what the law-to-be will say.

the rate at which a gun shoots has no bearing on how dangerous it is in everyday society.

the number of bullets is more important to keeping people safe.

twelve. that's a good number. six shooter in each hand.

you can't have a gun that will hold more than 12 bullets.

nobody really goes blasting away with both hands in reality

you can have a gun that will TAKE a 30 round clip- you can only put a twelve round clip in it.

what's so awful about that?

[Arkansas Granny]

173. Sounds reasonable to me. I can't think of a valid reason

that non military personnel would need such a weapon. All I hear from the gun enthusiasts I know is that they want one because it would be fun to shoot therefore they deserve to own one.

[ManiacJoe]

176. "Fun to shoot" is a valid reason.

So are:
hunting
competition shooting
plinking / target practice
self defense

[Arkansas Granny]

177. And I suppose you might need one for the zombie apocalypse, too.

[ManiacJoe]

178. They even make ammo for it!

http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/zombiemax

[farminator3000]

197. THANK YOU!!

Arkansas granny! you are cool! and that's the biggest part of the problem, really!

they want one because it would be fun to shoot therefore they deserve to own one.

[TransitJohn]

204. They don't need a reason to exercise their Constitutional rights

as they've been interpreted by the courts.

Do the rest of us need a reason to not take away your right to post of this message board?

[sendero]

180. Good ..

... luck with that. While you are at it free the unicorns and raise the minimum wage to $100 per hour.

[farminator3000]

198. noooooo!

WHO HAS JAILED THE UNICORNS?!?!?

tell me, i WILL save them!!! screw guns, the unicorns need me!

[crazyjoe]

184. give it up, never going to happen.

you and I will be long dead from old age before there is any chance of disarming the american population.

[farminator3000]

199. you mean "thought of disarming"

disarming the population is a preposterous idea, i didn't say anything about that

disarming psychos and criminals? probably safer then waiting for them to make a move and then everytbody starts shooting, right?

[jody]

189. OP rejects knowledge so simple answer is zero probability all semi-automatics will be banned. nt

[ileus]

190. The difference is how long it takes to eat up your wallet.

With a nice semi auto you can take hours shooting a 30 round mag out of your semiauto AR. With a full auto it's maybe 5 seconds if you're easy on the trigger.


I recommend semi-autos for us poor folk, leave the class III stuff the the docs and bankers.

[flvegan]

194. Trolls on both sides of the issue.

Score one for DU.

[NashvilleLefty]

200. Actually, there is a big difference.

Magazines are the major difference.

Why does anyone need more than a 3-load mag?

If you are a hunter, if you don't hit your target on the first shot, you're pretty much screwed. So, really a single load is all you need. A 3 load mag seems pretty generous.

[TransitJohn]

203. Well, no difference if words in English have no meaning, anyway.

Semi-auto and automatic are different by definition.

[farminator3000]

206. there are definitions that aren't in the dictionary

if you define them by the amount of damage they cause when used, there is essentially no difference.

if you define them by what happens when someone walks into a room of defenseless people and empties a clip, no D

the only person who should care about the definition is a military tactician.

have you studied these tactics?

[TransitJohn]

207. Ok then,

green jello monster! fire xylophnone carpet!

[farminator3000]

208. try this definition if you can manage to stick with it the whole way thru-i like the last part

dis·in·gen·u·ous
/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
Adjective
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
Synonyms
insincere - false - devious - hollow-hearted

who might i be describing? GO AWAY