Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons. Period.

Posted 5 years ago on Dec. 14, 2012, 9:40 p.m. EST by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

You can own a hunting rifle, a shotgun, a revolver and protect your home, your family, your possessions, yourself, and hunt. However, the ownership of semi-automatic weapons and extended clips can no longer be justified by anyone nor can hollow point munitions. There was a line that was crossed today. Period. We cannot allow it to be crossed again without at least attempting to make some logical decisions to change things. Those who would claim these events should not be politicized are ignorant.
These very events should be politicized. We must demand change from lawmakers. This must not be so easy to do.



Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 5 years ago

"Big Money, ALEC and The Gun Agenda", by Lisa Graves :

et e tenebris, lux ...

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Banning any kind of weapon is ineffectual.

It's the mentality and mind-set that needs work.

Question why American people are willing to commit mass murder.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Why is anyone - it is not a uniquely USA thing. Thousands murdered every year in south America. Anyone remember the massive slaughter in Rwanda? How about that guy in - what(?) - Norway(?) went to that campground and just started executing people as he came across them.

No mass murder slaughter is not a unique USA phenomenon.

[-] 0 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

South America has been a hotbed of political and social unrest for a long time, and if you take a look at who is behind a lot of that unrest, the CIA keeps popping up time and again. I don't know enough about Rwanda's history to comment, and in the case of Norwegian right-wing fanatic Anders Behring Breivik, his islamaphobia is an extreme case that is mirrored in the current public feelings about having multiculturalism foisted upon them.

There are others who wish they had done what he'd done. I'm not one of them. And that's a sad reflection on our times. He has hero status among some islamaphobe forums I've read.

I still have no real information about this case, as I've been too busy to research, but I don't discount the possibility that it's a conspiracy to disarm Americans. Need more information, and that usually comes a long time after the gnashing of teeth and torrents of tears for the victims.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

really? we had plenty of success banning the tommy gun. it worked out wonderfully. so really your statement lacks any credibility whatsoever. just a typical libertarian talking point you picked up on. let me state this again. we banned machine guns and the streets were flooded with them when we did. yet somehow magically you don't see machine guns in peoples homes. we could easily do the same with semi automatic weapons. the notion that we can't or it won't be effective is pure horse shit.


[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Banning any kind of weapon is ineffectual.

Why would you say that? Can you prove this to me?

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

While gun ownership in the US is higher than any other country, there are places like Canada, where gun laws are lax, and Switzerland, where every male over 20 has a gun or rifle at home. You don't hear of mass killings in schools or churches there.

Some interesting stats at this site. http://www.oyetimes.com/news/america/33147-owning-a-gun-in-the-united-states

There's got to be a reason for this kind of mind-set, particularly among our youth. Violent movies and games can't be totally to blame, because all western nations have access to them.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

"The Zug massacre took place on September 27, 2001 in the city of Zug (Canton of Zug, Switzerland) in the canton's parliament. Fourteen people were shot dead by Friedrich Leibacher, who killed himself shortly after the crime.[1] When issuing weapon licenses, the application is closely examined, since Leibacher had been diagnosed with a paranoid personality disorder and "brain weakness" ("Gehirnschwäche"). He was able to legally buy the weapons although he had already threatened people, had been known as a grumbler and has had a report made against him."

"A mass murder from Lugano, Switzerland. Erminio Criscione was on a wholesale meat suppliers training course when he snapped. One would think it fair to assume that he didn't enjoy the company of his fellow trainees when looking at his actions on the morning of March 5, 1992.

It seems Criscione had been having some trouble with his work mates so he went out early one morning with his Kalashnikov automatic assault rifle and visited his best friend and co-worker. When he answer the door he was shot in both legs. No words were said, just two bullets then Criscione was off.

He then travelled to another co workers house where he shot and killed four members of the one family. He also injured three others in this family.

He went on to kill two more workmates before reaching his final destination, his boss's place. Unfortunately for Criscione he wasn't home, but his wife was. She copped two in the legs and was told, "Tell him I'll be back" (in whatever language they speak in Switzerland of course)."

Hey, licensing? Licensing? Switzerland? Maybe we don't know what the hell we are talking about?

"Ignoring mass murder would quickly destroy their credibility, simply because mass murder, especially in the last few years, seems to be an increasing part of Western culture. (This problem, unfortunately, is not limited to the United States. Canada, Britain, France, Australia, and Switzerland have all experienced such incidents recently, in spite of considerably stricter laws regulating firearms ownership in most of these countries.) "

Mass shootings in Europe

The shootings in the eastern Belgian city of Liege and Florence, Italy, on Tuesday have several precedents over the past 10 years in Europe:

  • September 27, 2001 - SWITZERLAND

A man bursts into the local assembly in the central Swiss town of Zug and opens fire, killing 14 members of parliament and local government then turning the gun on himself.

  • March 27, 2002 - FRANCE

Eight local councillors are killed and 19 injured when a man opens fire on members of the municipal council of Nanterre, outside Paris. He kills himself the next day while in police custody.

  • April 26, 2002 - GERMANY

Sixteen people, including 12 teachers and two students, are gunned down at a school in Erfurt in eastern Germany by a 19-year-old former student, apparently in revenge for having been expelled, who then killed himself.

  • November 7, 2007 - FINLAND

An 18-year-old goes on a shooting rampage in a school in the southern Finnish town of Tuusula, killing eight people before shooting himself.

  • September 23, 2008 - FINLAND

Eleven people, including the 22-year-old gunman, die in a massacre at a training school at Kauhajoki, Finland.

  • March 11, 2009 - GERMANY

Nine pupils, three teachers and three passers-by are killed in a school shooting at Winnenden in southern Germany by a former pupil who then kills himself.

  • June 2, 2010 - ENGLAND

Twelve people are killed when a 52-year-old taxi driver goes on a shooting spree in the English region of Cumbria, before killing himself.

  • April 9, 2011 - THE NETHERLANDS

A gunman opens fire in a packed mall in the Netherlands, killing six people before shooting himself dead.

  • July 22, 2011- NORWAY

A bomb attack on government buildings in Oslo that kills eight is followed by a shooting which kills 69 at a summer holiday camp organised by the ruling Labour party on the island of Utoeya, near to the capital. A right-wing extremist is arrested for carrying out both attacks.

  • December 13, 2011 - BELGIUM

Three people, plus the gunman, are killed when a man, armed with grenades, opens fire on a square packed with children and Christmas shoppers in the eastern Belgian city of Liege.

In ITALY a far-right militant kills two Senegalese street vendors and wounds three people in a shooting spree in Florence after which he apparently kills himself.

[-] 2 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Thanks for this list. It is helpful for to me. Terrible list, but it has to be out there. People ought to be aware.

You know of Operation Gladio, I guess. Shouldn't state sponsored Terror be part of this discussion and the list? CIA & NATO actions against innocent people like school kids.... Governments are perpetually out of control. The bigger the government the more state sponsored horror.

How about a list of US Covert Military Actions by the CIA. How are we going to stop our own corrupt government ... or do we just say ... "Well they are only a little corrupt and a little murderous".

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive. - Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)

These are getting long in the tooth. Will they die out gracefully, be actively maintained or (mis) appropriated by crime syndicates?

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

I think we have to leave to form a new nation under God, indivisible, and with Justice for all.

[-] 2 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Thanks (or not). Maybe it's your media that is to blame for jamming these incidents down your collective throat? I'm still of the opinion that there is a deap-seated hate issue percolating within those souls in America who have been bullied and ignored.

Oh, and you left out Martin Bryant's killing spree in Hobart. Though he just had a semi-auto or two.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Facts. I just Googled them. Media has a lot to answer for. Fear is the source of a lot of aberrant behavior, stoked by media and politicians.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

This gunman was mentally ill. His mother, the legal gunowner was guilty of irresponsible behavior by having a small arsenal accessible, and actually bringing the mentally ill son to the shooting range.

You haven't mentioned these facts related to this specific case. Any gun owner so irresponsible show be serving a long jail term.

And yes we should absolutely ban automatic weapons. Of course. No one needs them.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

You may be interested in:

Deadliest Mass Shootings Around The World www.huffingtonpost.com/.../deadliest-mass-shootingsn1688820.ht... Jul 20, 2012 – Some of world's worst mass shootings: July 20, 2012: At least 12 ... Nidal Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 ...

[-] 1 points by UFAAisTheWay (11) 5 years ago

I would say, since this is supposed to be a progressive movement, that we need higher funded mental health programs.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

I think there is a mistake in equating gun control with a shift in morality. It does not happen that way and that is not the intent. If I was to make a comparison between countries, I would look at the different social safety nets in place.

Let's say that you have a high crime gang banging area that you might have a shot at controlling and eradicating shooting deaths and drugs. 'Cept that you reduce your police force and/or freeze hiring anymore and then defund any other little watchdogs/ programs/agencies AND reduce prison sentences.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

Yes, the proof comes from places like the UK & Australia where crime rates went up after banning guns. DC banned hand guns & saw its murder rate go up.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

Tell that to Austrailia -
that had a Newtown incident around 16 years ago
implimented a large buy back program & much stricter laws NOT ONE MASS SHOOTING SINCE

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one’s idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush’s closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard’s other lasting legacies is Australia’s gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia’s footsteps. “There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit,” he concluded. “But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path.”

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law’s effectiveness.

DC gets its guns from ex-confederal sate Virginia

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

Don't you just love the statistics war. See my post below for some reality: http://occupywallst.org/forum/ban-semi-automatic-weapons-period/#comment-895603

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

I looked at your source PDF - from a gun rights advocate group like the nra
and your claim about "crime" is not the issue - IT IS GUN DEATHS

how many mass shootings have there been in AU since this law was passed?

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

"In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%." This is what happened in Australia after they banned guns, gun deaths went up. That is the real issue not mass shootings.

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Did crime rates go up in Australia after the gun buyback scheme??

Briefly by 0.02 % but falling since then.

The reality is, that blackmarket gun purchases are on the increase, and prices for those guns has risen.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

Myth: Gun control in Australia is curbing crime Fact: Crime has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after Australian gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity.316 In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%.317 From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are: • Firearm-related murders were up 19% • Armed robberies were up 69% • Home invasions were up 21% The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation: • Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% • Firearm-related deaths fell 50% http://jpfo.org/pdf03/gun-facts-v6.0-screen.pdf

[-] 1 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

You forgot Chicago. That city is the poster child for gun control failure.

[-] -1 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

As a matter of fact I do have a problem with that, but we were talking about banning any kind of gun and specifically I was talking about how Chicago is a glaring example of what a failure gun bans are. Apparently you can't argue with that so you choose to change the subject. Typical left wing debate SOP.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

Banning any kind of weapon is ineffectual.

No, it isn't an either or situation. It doesn't have to be. The problems start when you make it one. Just as an FYI, the second amendment wasn't an issue until an NRA putz started this shit in a 1980 something law review. My stance is that like it or not it is now an incorporated right. It isn't going anywhere so the either/or shit is irrelevant.

Further more, your wild west little towns like Dodge City had people turn in their guns when they arrived. So, pointing to Chicago in the grand scheme of things is a crap argument.

I will be more inclined to listen to your right wing bull shit when you are able and willing to address the problems in the two links that I provided above.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

I have a problem with anyone stealing anything, assuming it is employees taking the guns. If it is the companies selling them off the books then no, I applaud them for evading the tyrant's evil measures.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

How's the weather in Libertopia?

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

Better than on your looney island.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

So says the guy on a permanent psychotic break.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

LOL. Libertopia. that's good.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

I'm not going to get into an insult contest with people who use that instead of serious discussion. Carry on.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Keep defending irresponsible gun owners, and sitting silent about the 20 defenseless innocent 7 year old children along with the heroic women (teachers) who sacrificed themselves to save other kids.

Keep that wacky shit up in the name of gun ownership and you will be labeling yourself as an extremist gun nutter who shows no compassion for the victims of gun violence.

Libertopian LOL. C'mon you gotta admit that is some funny shit.!

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

Actually, I'm an advocate of some profound institutional change, not a conservative "leave guns alone" type. Look at it this way what happened at Sandy Hook was a failure of the present educational & judicial/police system to protect the students. I've long been an advocate of private education & the private production of security. As long as people keep advocating govt police, govt (in)justice, & govt education they're just asking for more massacres. The reason the left hates guns is that they need an excuse for the failure of their agenda. Today, we live in a world of the progressives creation. Their empowerment of the govt has created a society ruled by force rather than voluntary cooperation. This is a sick society. Rather than face that truth they advocate more force to disarm everyone. One day they may learn what the true causes of our problems are & stop trying to put out the fire with gasoline.

Below is a speech that I gave on the subject of guns a few weeks before the killings at Sandy Hook. I stand by what I said, I actually think my points are more valid than ever:

Gun Rights, Peace, and Liberty (video)

Darren Wolfe talks about peace, liberty, gun rights, and security from the point of view of arming the people to protect themselves while disarming the government. The talk was based on his opening statement at the Greater Philadelphia Thinking Society (http://www.meetup.com/thinkingsociety/events/88133332/) sponsored gun control debate where he took the pro-gun side. The speech was delivered at the End the Fed/ End the Wars rally (https://www.facebook.com/events/443568162351325/) in Philadelphia, PA on November 24, 2012.


[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Stop regulation, & licensing on big pharma cause it hasn't worked. I agree that there is too much protection of the corps, & not enough protection of the people, but certainly that is no reason to eliminate all regulations. That's the worse thing we could do.

How do we "stifle the poor" as you say.?

[-] 0 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

I said stifle the economy, it hurts more than just the poor. Taxation, regulation, central banking, the expense of the war machine. It all makes us poorer:

Martin Luther King and the Empowerment of the War Machine: A Libertarian’s View http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2011/01/martin-luther-king-day-lockheed-martin.html

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

What do you propose we do to minimize access to guns by criminals.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

My proposal is about people not guns. Let's stop with the social policies that create criminals like the war on drugs. Let's stop stifling the economy so poor people don't have to turn to crime to survive. Let's start abiding by the non-aggression principle instead of having a govt that sets an example of gross immorality.

Let's stop the regulation & licensing of the pharma, medical, & insurance industries. The fact that most mass murderers are or have recently been on pharma products shows us that this regulation is failing to protect us from dangerous drugs. Quite the opposite, it protects the pharma companies while their products create killers.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Gun control failures is a weak excuse to do nothing.

Strong measure to deal with the uncrupulous, irresponsible gun dealers/owners/makers who sell (or allow theft) guns to just anyone without a background check.

Those people are a big part of the problem. Profits over people is never good.

We should also identify all NRA 'A' rated pols & mount a pressure campaign on them.

You with us?

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

No, & what makes you think I want to do nothing? I just talked about some serious change.

BTW, I can't stand the NRA. LaPierre just came out with the idea of turning all the schools into little police states. Those clowns are no friends of liberty.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

I absolutely di not support mob rule. We have decided (like all civilized/developed democracies) that the best security model is a police force answerable to the people through the peoples govt.

Adding armed guards everywhere, is simply creating a police state. I support less police/armed guards. And better control of guns. Preferablestrong action/measures to keep guns from criminals/mentally ill.

In regards to empowering the govt it has only been your republicans who have grown the govt and exploded the size/debt. Not democrats, & absolutely NOT progressives.

So we disagree. Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

I don't support mob rule either. That's why I'm against the govt mob. That's why I don't bitterly cling to the democracy fantasy that has failed so miserably.

Progressivism was & is an ideology based on strong & activist govt. it has been adopted by both the Rs & Ds.

BTW, how's that gun control working for the Russians & Brazilians? In DC or Chicago? Not to well, oops.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 5 years ago

You don't engage in serious discussions unless you think that you can promote your libertarian agenda.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

You're right, but so what? Everyone here is promoting an agenda. Try having a serious discussion you just might learn something.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Libe(R)tarians have proven to be incapable of "serious discussion".

If they were capable of that, they would no longer be libe(R)tarians.

Would you like a Koch with that?

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

No I'll take a Rothbard, thank you.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 5 years ago

Sorry, you don't have that "choice".

You get the Kochs, with a side of Ayn Rand.

Besides, the Austrian experiment in Chile was an abject failure.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

The Monetarist experiment in Chile you mean. That was Friedman's boys. The Austrian experiment in Germany after WW II was a great success, it was called the German miracle. http://mises.org/document/4333

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

So a city law did not keep illegal guns out of Chicago criminals hands?

[-] -1 points by freakyfriday (179) 5 years ago

You need to get out more kid, or at least find your news somewhere else besides msnbc and motherjoneser

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

Why? You don't like the fact that chicago city law didn't change access to guns. That isn't reported anywhere besides msnbc, & motherjones?, Where would you recommend I get get news? FOX? LOL. Why didn't you link to a story that was related.

And what the fuck are you talkin about 'kid'? Is that some kinda silly personal attack? Weak! And indicative of a lack of substance on the issue. I've been around long enough (probably longer than you). Certainly I ain't a kid.

[-] -1 points by Zophim99 (12) 5 years ago

Shhhh! your making too much sense That's not what this thread is for. Its to perpetuate hysteria and mindless jibber about inanimate objects and their lust for human blood. So please leave and don’t come back until you have something stupid to say!

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 5 years ago

These kinds of decrees will always be highly contentions. Better to relegate decisions to local officials, where things can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. See http://www.quora.com/GunControl/A-fair-and-balanced-proposal-for-gun-ownership-control

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

this is a national issue.

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 5 years ago

It's a national issue, but it can't be decided at the federal level because people will argue the 2nd amendment or tyranny of the state. Frankly there's no one competent enough to suggest anything.

Local officials can take the responsibility for what they approve and put it on the public record. Come on.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

I think the compromise I would settle on is, ban and collect all clips. Not just high capacity, all of them. You can hand load cartridges one at a time. Then they can keep their guns. They can still hunt. People hunt with black powder muzzle loaders, with bows.Neither of these shoot fast. It kind of gives the animal a chance. Not much of a chance, but... If you are a mighty hunter, shoot once and go field dress the game. If you aren't a great shot, shoot once, track 'em for a mile and shoot them again. Repeat as necessary. Next year don't buy a license for hunting, try fishing. (Buy a license? What an idea. You could buy a license to own a gun.) Protect your home and family with a fly rod and maybe you won't get shot by your child when she finds your gun you didn't lock up.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

LOL = Repeat as necessary.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

PLEASE understand that the 1994 "assault weapon ban"
DID NOT ban assault weapons
it banned their manufacture - a trivial step

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 5 years ago

Tell that to Austrailia -
that had a Newtown incident around 16 years ago
implimented a large buy back program & much stricter laws NOT ONE MASS SHOOTING SINCE

[-] 1 points by Middleaged (5140) 5 years ago

Presumably you want cooler heads to prevail on this issue. What principals are you looking at as the basis for Changing National or State Law. Shouldn't Law be based on Principals, as well as things like the effect of legislation, ...I don't want to act like I know law. And maybe we as a people should try to simplify the gobbly gook that Lawyers spout off to get higher fees.

1st Principal is probably Public Saftey, safety of women, kids, elderly, and frail. Guns do help the frial defend themselves. Police will never be around as often as it was in the past (IMHO).

2nd Principal should be Common Law, Historical Law, Constitutional Law, Legal Presedences, something... do we think Laws should be made to suit the Majority?

3rd Principal Majority Law is what the Nazis used. This is probably a flaw of democratic government or votes.

Free, Voluntary, Socialized Mental Disease Testing and Evaluation & Treatment. Make it affordable to get mental illness treatment... even treatment for drug & alcohol.

Look at Work Place Shootings. Is there any doubt that the stresses on people are all four 1) Social 2) Economic 3) Mental illness 4) Drugs & Alcohol.

The problem is Mental Health Testing can take up to like a year. It is very expensive. Many people will not seek treatment, evaluations, advice, or even pay for drugs for a mental illness. This is way beyond any stigma from having a mental illness. There are many factors in why people don't take care of themselves or get advice or go find medical evaluations.


[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

you must be stupid. hey, stupid.

[-] 1 points by andymorro (16) 5 years ago

wow you anti gun people are violent lol

Civility: NRA Leaders and Members Getting Death Threats http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/17/civility-nra-leaders-and-members-getting-death-threats-n1468555

NRA Shuts Down Facebook, No Tweets Since School Shooting December 17, 2012 12:53 PM

[-] 1 points by andymorro (16) 5 years ago

what are we supposed to use against robbers and armed psychos at the movie theaters... harsh language?


[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 5 years ago

But no one ever stops these guys with their legal gun? That's bullshit.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 5 years ago

Builder has a point (below). The mental aspect, not the guns. However since he concedes banning is ineffectual I am sure he won't mind if we go ahead and do it.

So building on his suggestion, we should ban all semiautomatic gun....owners. And we should ban their guns. People who have the sort of paranoia that motivates them to own a semiautomatic weapon should not be in society. After we let all of the prisoners out who are in prison for possessing small amounts of pot, (see Washington and Colorado) we will have a good start on being able to house the mental cases who own semiautomatic weapons. They can't claim to be sportsmen. Bow hunters and black powder, single shot guys are sportsmen. If they are going to use AR-15's with 50 round magazines, we will have to arm the deer to make it sporting.

I am not so sure about revolvers, either. The cops have shown us how quickly they can change cylinders. I think dueling pistols might be the best choice. They were damned hard to conceal as well, which is a plus. If they aren't concealed the other nuts will know who to shoot first. Then you have to choose cap and ball or flintlock or matchlock. I like matchlocks because you can smell them a long way. Easier for the airport security guys to catch.

For home protection, I think hand grenades are a good choice. People are less likely to use them on a whim. Something that is going to level your house and probably burn it as well, is less likely to be used casually than something that just punches a small hole in some dry wall. Personally I am not really fond of guns or grenades in the bedroom since we have two small granddaughters here frequently.

You are definitely on the right track, though. We have to start thinking outside of the box labeled, "No solutions inside".


[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

are you a prepper?



[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Obama should EO the 1st Amendment dissolved before considering the 2nd. After all the word is mightier than the sword.

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 5 years ago

How do you feel about varmint grenades?


[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

i smell what you are cooking in the kitchen. disarming a nation might have worked a generation or two ago but we don't need guns to take our country back from the bankers we just need some balls. social media makes guns obsolete tools of revolution.


[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

LMAO,you really don't understand too much about much do you.

[-] 0 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

is that all you have? so not even a logical argument. not even going to try? why bother when you know you are wrong, right? just sit there and take it like a man. i like that. that takes, well it takes a little bit of integrity, not a whole lot of brains but a little bit of integrity. cheers!

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

I call you out and all you do is blow a gasket and talk shit.

You are a know nothing Leftist that pontificates on subjects you know nothing about cause you're too busy getting stoned.

Grow a pair and learn a few things. Then come back and show us all that you actually know something instead of spewing Leftist propaganda and Democrat talking points.

[-] 0 points by Coyote88 (-24) 5 years ago

Hollow points are for self defense.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

ridiculous. they are designed to penetrate kevlar and to do as much damage as possible. that is offense.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

No - not hollow points - Teflon tipped are meant to penetrate Kevlar - hollow points are made to easily mushroom and stop when hitting the target - which means if it hits flesh it does a lot of damage but is less likely to continue through the target and hit something/someone else - Kevlar is made to stop these hollow point bullets from penetrating.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

yes so the bullet rattles around in you doing maximum damage. got it. teflon tipped. check.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Air Marshall's are armed with hollow point ammunition - so that they don't go through the target and puncture the plane.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

no they just rattle around in you like a ping-pong ball inflicting maximum damage. they could design a bullet with a lower muzzle velocity if they were concerned with bullets going through things.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Bullets/guns are instruments of death. Their owner/user chooses what they want to kill - why they want to kill.

[-] 0 points by 3roundmagsonly (-63) 5 years ago

i believe there are 285 million guns in America. You would be closing the barn door a little late.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

better late than not at all. plus i am not opposed to gun ownership of all weapons. just semi automatic weapons. i would venture to say at least half the weapons out there are not semi automatic.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) 5 years ago

Posting arguments based on what you know to be faulty info. You shit heads aren't even trying any more.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

pretty much like you when you think.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

Hey, we also need to ban alchol, cars, boats, cigarettes, sugar, water sports, - all these things kill so why not ban them also?

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

none of those things were designed with the specific intention of killing.

[-] 0 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

So I guess that doesn't matter because it wasn't intentional - right? Do you consider these deaths as incidential and not note worthy because a firearm wasn't used. I mean people did die intentional or not.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

i think you are grasping at straws.

[-] -1 points by Shayneh (-482) 5 years ago

I'm not - people die every day because of other things and no one is outraged by those deaths - why not - people died at the hands of someone else -

Why not hold them accountable just as they want to hold gun ownership accountable? .

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

because those things involve the freedom of choice. getting shot does not.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33496) from Coon Rapids, MN 5 years ago

Freedom of personal choice - and still punishable when personal choice leads to the injury or death of others.

[-] -1 points by Clancy (42) 5 years ago

2.5 million people died in Rwanda from machetes. Not guns, that shows that it is people behind the guns not the guns that commit violence. Besides imagine if the guy that shot up the school had used propane bombs like the kids at Columbine had tried to do. Theirs didn't work because they built them wrong and it was the days before the Internet. It is a lot easier to kill a lot of people with things other than guns.


[-] -1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Around here,that's what we call a Helluvadeal.Even if the idea was only to stop selling new ones and make it illegal for gunsmiths to repair them or sell used ones,while allowing people who already have them to retain them,a huge Hue And Cry would be the result.Outcome:no action by Congress and a few extra Gun Rampages to convince everybody that American Gun Owners are NOT Pussies,

[-] 1 points by Builder (4202) 5 years ago

Gun owners are simply people. No need to say anything more.

Here's the instance that resulted in Australian gun ownership becoming extremely limited.


[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 5 years ago

Here in the States,many people are well convinced that they can defend themselves from Tyrannical paramilitary police sent by Whoever It Is that controls the Government.Even the most ordinary,everyday people know that the American People DO NOT control the government.So it's a hard argument when you can't tell people they shouldn't fear the government.Nobody actually knows who is in control of the government.It seems as though whoever it is has no use for most of us.Trying to resist the fabled Might of the US government with what amounts to so many pop guns seems stupid,but I'm not going to try telling them that.The Egyptians have done and are doing the ONLY method that can suceed,IMHO

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

yes the notion that you and your ar-15 is going to fend off tyranical military units hell bent on the destruction of the constitution is well it is alex jones territory. they will simply drone strike you and that will be that. so if we are headed for tyranny i don't think semi autos are saving you.

[-] -1 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Your notion of simply cowering and submitting to tyranny rather then fighting it is typical of sheeple to which you obviously are just another of the herd.

So if we are headed for tyranny I believe you'll be more like Vidkun Quisling then a patriot fighting to save your country.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 5 years ago

sheeple? me? ha ha ha ha wow that is fucking funny. wow, just wow. yeah i am a fucking sheeple. you run and buy some guns make sure you listen to your favorite am radio personality.

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

What's even funnier is reading your post's. You resort to laughter and foolishness when you can not defend your position.

[-] -1 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

You're right, but that is a reason to disarm the govt not the people.

[-] 0 points by outlawtumor (-162) 5 years ago

Excellent point.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 5 years ago

There’s never a good time to talk about disarming the people. What the discussion should be about is disarming the govt. Now there’s some gun control I can get behind! There is a massive imbalance between the power of the govt & the power of the people. Not only the military but the law enforcement establishment here are overwhelmingly strong. We need to start shifting the power away from the govt by putting these functions back in the people’s hands where they belong. One of the lesser-known Founders, Tench Coxe, explained it well. Picking up on the same theme as Mao he wrote:

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom.… Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

There is only one way to guarantee our lives & liberty. That is to be stronger than those who seek to take them.