Reply With Quote
Right so killing purposes. Do you NEED to use it? What would you, or anyone else, lose by having semi-automatic weapons banned? I say we stick to the true meaning of the second amendment and only weapons from the late 1700's should be legal.
i use a semi-auto sks for hog hunting.Interesting. Let's hear some alternate uses for a semi-automatic pistol or rifle. Because if they have alternate, not killing or severely harming purposes, then they should be legal.
fertilizer. I heard one idiot say "Obesity is a huge problem. Should we outlaw spoons?"
Right so killing purposes. Do you NEED to use it? What would you, or anyone else, lose by having semi-automatic weapons banned? I say we stick to the true meaning of the second amendment and only weapons from the late 1700's should be legal.
logical fallacy. people who supply what others are after (usually pot) often hard sell more dangerous drugs.
and
obviously you dont know the severity of the hog problem in the south texas agricultural industry
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...-in-Texas.html
Since they aren't being used daily to kill, I'd say they must have alternate uses. If their only purpose is to kill, then they are likely the most underutilized products on the planet, right next to the treadmill on Avante's porch.
Maybe then you and a few others here could construct a rational argument that doesn't invoke ignorance and baseless fear, instead of using well worn out and long ago debunked fallacious reasoning and parroted lib talk.
If you can do that, if you can show me how existing gun laws were followed and these things still happened, how a semi-automatic weapon becomes more evil because it has a sling, a bayonet lug, a forearm grip, a retractable stock or a Red Dot sight, and if you can even remotely classify weapons properly instead of referring to everything in improper terms, then we can have a real debate and I might learn something from you. Right now all any of you anti-gun people are doing is copying each other and hiding behind group ignorance. A couple of you even openly admitted you know nothing of guns or gun laws, but you want them changed.
Work on that and get back to me.
Same then with the 1st Amendment. No internet freedom of speech, no right to peacefully assemble on Wall Street since it didn't exist. No cell phone privacy, no search and seizure laws since you now have a home alarm, and "secure in your person" cannot stand because no one from those days is still alive.. Let's not stop there. No due process unless you're accused of a crime that was even possible in the 1700's.
Still want to be stupid?
How about a change of terms? Right to bear arms, just change the definition of "arms".
Good luck getting states to ratify any of that. Most of you have no idea how the Cons ution works, what it does, how hard it is to change an article. There have been like what, 27 changes in 200 years. Most of those were to compromise to get states to ratify the Cons ution itself, and only prohibition was eliminated. The BoR historically is about freedoms, not restrictions.
Uh, don't know how to tell you this nose picker, but euthanasia is the killing of someone else, not of yourself.
Why would it be harder? Oh that's right, because of the law. Are you saying people will commit crimes even if it's illegal to do so? The reasoning on this forum is breathtaking.
I was pointing out Chomag's post about how the law wouldn't prevent the crimes because people who want to commit these crimes will ignore the law. It's obvious that the law won't stop these people but it would make it harder for them to commit such crimes. How hard is it to understand that more strict laws = smaller chances that someone will be able to get their hands on certain weapons and therefore will be less murders coming from those weapons.
Your comment has nothing to do with what I said. I said that if drugs were legal, there would be more people going after them. If certain weapons were illegal, there would be less people with said weapons. Less guns around = smaller chances of death caused by those guns.logical fallacy. people who supply what others are after (usually pot) often hard sell more dangerous drugs.
and
Indeed "The reasoning on this forum is breathtaking."and
WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATE USES?
The issue is I don't need to. Semi-automatic weapons can have a higher fire rate than other guns - true or false? Banning them really doesn't take away anything from the people who already own them. You lose nothing except a shiny toy to kill things with. If banning semi-automatic weapons saves 1 life, isn't that enough? And it has been do ented that such bans DO reduce gun related deaths. Please tell me why you need such a gun. I'm willing to hear rational arguments instead of "you don't know anything about guns therefor you know nothing about the issue."Maybe then you and a few others here could construct a rational argument that doesn't invoke ignorance and baseless fear, instead of using well worn out and long ago debunked fallacious reasoning and parroted lib talk.
If you can do that, if you can show me how existing gun laws were followed and these things still happened, how a semi-automatic weapon becomes more evil because it has a sling, a bayonet lug, a forearm grip, a retractable stock or a Red Dot sight, and if you can even remotely classify weapons properly instead of referring to everything in improper terms, then we can have a real debate and I might learn something from you. Right now all any of you anti-gun people are doing is copying each other and hiding behind group ignorance. A couple of you even openly admitted you know nothing of guns or gun laws, but you want them changed.
Work on that and get back to me.
Which is why our lovely government has the ability to CHANGE laws. Only gun enthusiasts won't allow it. My point with that statement was emphasize that when the 2nd amendment was adopted they had NO IDEA what kinds of killing machines would be invented. You honestly think if the founders were alive today they'd approve of citizens owning weapons that can kill FELLOW CITIZENS so easily?
I'm only following your leadStill want to be stupid?
So because it's difficult we shouldn't do it. I like your thinking!How about a change of terms? Right to bear arms, just change the definition of "arms".
Good luck getting states to ratify any of that. Most of you have no idea how the Cons ution works, what it does, how hard it is to change an article. There have been like what, 27 changes in 200 years. Most of those were to compromise to get states to ratify the Cons ution itself, and only prohibition was eliminated. The BoR historically is about freedoms, not restrictions.
When someone feels the urge to learn about what they're talking about, let me know. Opinions are a dime a dozen, and uneducated ones are not marketable.
WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATE USES?
The issue is I don't need to. Semi-automatic weapons can have a higher fire rate than other guns - true or false? Banning them really doesn't take away anything from the people who already own them. You lose nothing except a shiny toy to kill things with. If banning semi-automatic weapons saves 1 life, isn't that enough? And it has been do ented that such bans DO reduce gun related deaths. Please tell me why you need such a gun. I'm willing to hear rational arguments instead of "you don't know anything about guns therefor you know nothing about the issue."
Which is why our lovely government has the ability to CHANGE laws. Only gun enthusiasts won't allow it. My point with that statement was emphasize that when the 2nd amendment was adopted they had NO IDEA what kinds of killing machines would be invented. You honestly think if the founders were alive today they'd approve of citizens owning weapons that can kill FELLOW CITIZENS so easily?
I'm only following your lead
So because it's difficult we shouldn't do it. I like your thinking!
There are already laws that are being broken. Laws don't make it harder to commit crimes. What you are saying, basically, is that by punishing the law abiding citizen, there could be some trickle down punishment to the criminals.
If drugs were legal people wouldn't be getting shot over them. Making them illegal creates a black market for them. Maybe you need to research prohibition. Yeah no one went after alcohol when it was illegal. No crime was caused by that market opening up.Your comment has nothing to do with what I said. I said that if drugs were legal, there would be more people going after them. If certain weapons were illegal, there would be less people with said weapons. Less guns around = smaller chances of death caused by those guns.
The education leaves a lot to be desired, but the urge to preach unlearned sermons is astounding.Indeed "The reasoning on this forum is breathtaking."
Haha ok ignore everything else even though I know what a semiautomatic weapon is and why they should be banned. Must be convenient to refuse to answer questions from people you deem uninformed. Lucky I guess eh?
ok, let's hear it in your own words.
What's a semiautomatic weapon?
Why should they be banned?
Please, the floor is yours. (here's me giving you enough rope)
Wikipedia must be down.
Or he's donating.
yep....you're right
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-au...fle#Mechanisms
Recoil operated
Main article: Recoil operation
Recoil-operated arms operate similarly to blowback arms, except that the bolt is mechanically locked or "delayed" in some manner at the moment of firing. In some designs, the barrel is locked to the bolt and travels a short distance rearward with it until it unlocks, allowing the bolt to continue rearward in its cycle. In other systems, the bolt is delayed by spring-loaded rollers. The delay function allows higher-powered chamberings, since it ensures that chamber pressures have dropped to a safe level before the breech opens.
These guns shoot really really fast and look scary. Many educated Spurstalk posters think they should be banned.
Not a semiauto.
I was on a date. But you guys were close! A semiautomatic weapon, in my mind, is a weapon that can be primed to fire multiple rounds without having to adjust the ammo input. Fire rate is higher than other guns. They are more deadly than say, a flint lock pistol. They should be banned BECAUSE THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE. They only do MORE harm than other, legitimate self defense or recreational weapons. Is that good enough or should I become a gun nut just so I can tell someone I've never met what a semi-automatic weapon REALLY is?
It's nice to know we have such intelligent and well spoken folks supporting our right to blow things away without discretion on the interwebs.
"wikipedia must be down" <-- I chuckled
If I'm wrong in my perception of things please enlighten me. Unlike some other people here I'm all for learning new things. I also respond to questions posed in my general direction.
Children of all races always respond well to President Obama. How children act around a stranger tells you as much about the stranger as about the children themselves. I love how comfortable little children are with our president. He is such a good man, and if we aren't, WE SHOULD BE so proud to have a person like him as our president.
What a precious picture..It goes to show that racists aren't born they are bred....Stop the madness folks
So you just repeated yourself and that's somehow an explanation?
I am not going to educate you on guns. You might shoot someone.
Shut yo ass upChildren of all races always respond well to President Obama. How children act around a stranger tells you as much about the stranger as about the children themselves. I love how comfortable little children are with our president. He is such a good man, and if we aren't, WE SHOULD BE so proud to have a person like him as our president.
What a precious picture..It goes to show that racists aren't born they are bred....Stop the madness folks
Your use of "assertion" is incorrect. I never stated my opinion forcefully or with great confidence in the accuracy. See how annoying that is?
I apologize that my terminology isn't adequate enough for you. I know you really enjoy showing off how much you know about guns, but one doesn't need to be an expert to see the difference between a semi-automatic weapon that has an INCREASED FIRE RATE and something that shoots less frequently. My point about a flintlock is that guess what, that's what they used when they crafted the 2nd amendment. I'd be fine with those weapons being legal because you could probably only take down one kid before someone tackled you. Why? Because it takes forever to reload a flintlock pistol and shoot again. But you were too dumb to understand my point. My bad.1. You attempted to define the term "semiauto" (wrongly).
2. You claim that, since the gun "serves no purpose", it should be banned.
A revolver doesn't need ammo adjustment (lol flintlock). It's not a semi-auto. The semi auto chambers the next round through the gas release of the s while the revolver has a moving chamber containing a round that's actuated by the finger pull on the trigger.
You already said that. You're firing off the same point like it was a... I don't know guns gimme a hand with this simile.You are wrong in your definition of the semi-auto.
My opinion does mean something because I, like you, have a vote. I also have brain and heart, two things I think you might be lacking.You have to resort to hyperbole "gun nut" in an attempt to excuse yourself of your own ignorance of the gun aspect of the gun debate, yet you still think your opinion means something.
I am not here to teach you how to argue what no one invited you to debate. Know your subject matter or shut your pie hole.how convenient for you yet again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
