Biden: "The idea we still allow semiautomatic weapons to be purchased is sick. It's just sick. It has no social redeeming values."
"Not a single, solitary rationale for it except profit for the gun manufacturer"
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
trollslayer · 46-50, M
It seems like there seems to be a strong majority opinion that ordinary citizens should not be able to own fully automatic military weapons. And it seems to be a pretty strong majority opinion that small magazine weapons, handguns, and rifles should be accessible to law abiding citizens.
A "well-regulated militia" would probably need military weapons these in order to be effective. The amendment was written at a time when ordinary citizens had just beaten an occupying army with hunting rifles and muskets. That's not reality anymore. When the 2nd amendment was written, the USA had no standing army and instead expected ordinary citizens to take arms against invaders, just as they had done during the revolution. In that sense, part of the purpose for the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to 2022, although I have no problem adapting the purpose to modern life by saying you have a right to own a gun to defend yourself and your property.
You can carry out a mass shooting with a handgun or hunting rifle. However, it seems like many of the recent shooters carry guns that look like military guns. I am guessing this is what people mean by "semiautomatic" or "assault rifle". The reality, as I understand it, is that these are no different than hunting rifles with larger capacity magazines. Their purpose is to make money off of folks with military fantasies. Many of the mass shooters seem to harbor those fantasies. If those guns were unavailable, would they satisfy their fantasy with another gun? Who knows.
I'm not a gun owner, and really can't imagine myself ever being one. Politically, you can sway me either direction on this issue. Mass shootings in the USA are a big issue. Big issues need attention and need action.
One side of this issue recognizes the issue and thinks banning certain guns and stricter background checks with slow the mass shootings. Is it an overreaction? Maybe. But it is an action.
The other side may or may not recognize the issue, and if they do it is minimalized or the blame is passed elsewhere - lack of security, mental illness, not enough "good guys with guns". But they take no action. Mental illness is still not dealt with. They resist laws that would keep unstable people from owning guns. There were police/security on site in Uvalde and Parkland. Same result. Good guys with guns? When I read about a "good guy with a gun" stopping a shooting, that "good guy" has a handgun, not an AR-15.
I tend to gravitate towards the side of those who recognize the problem and want to take action on a potential solution. And my feeling is that the only detriment to banning weapons that look like military rifles is you will piss off those that have military fantasies and want to own things that look cool. Will it solve mass shootings? No. Will it slow them? Maybe some. But when you look at the mass shootings over the past 20 years, most of them were carried out by people who had many previous red flags and had no business owning a gun.
A "well-regulated militia" would probably need military weapons these in order to be effective. The amendment was written at a time when ordinary citizens had just beaten an occupying army with hunting rifles and muskets. That's not reality anymore. When the 2nd amendment was written, the USA had no standing army and instead expected ordinary citizens to take arms against invaders, just as they had done during the revolution. In that sense, part of the purpose for the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to 2022, although I have no problem adapting the purpose to modern life by saying you have a right to own a gun to defend yourself and your property.
You can carry out a mass shooting with a handgun or hunting rifle. However, it seems like many of the recent shooters carry guns that look like military guns. I am guessing this is what people mean by "semiautomatic" or "assault rifle". The reality, as I understand it, is that these are no different than hunting rifles with larger capacity magazines. Their purpose is to make money off of folks with military fantasies. Many of the mass shooters seem to harbor those fantasies. If those guns were unavailable, would they satisfy their fantasy with another gun? Who knows.
I'm not a gun owner, and really can't imagine myself ever being one. Politically, you can sway me either direction on this issue. Mass shootings in the USA are a big issue. Big issues need attention and need action.
One side of this issue recognizes the issue and thinks banning certain guns and stricter background checks with slow the mass shootings. Is it an overreaction? Maybe. But it is an action.
The other side may or may not recognize the issue, and if they do it is minimalized or the blame is passed elsewhere - lack of security, mental illness, not enough "good guys with guns". But they take no action. Mental illness is still not dealt with. They resist laws that would keep unstable people from owning guns. There were police/security on site in Uvalde and Parkland. Same result. Good guys with guns? When I read about a "good guy with a gun" stopping a shooting, that "good guy" has a handgun, not an AR-15.
I tend to gravitate towards the side of those who recognize the problem and want to take action on a potential solution. And my feeling is that the only detriment to banning weapons that look like military rifles is you will piss off those that have military fantasies and want to own things that look cool. Will it solve mass shootings? No. Will it slow them? Maybe some. But when you look at the mass shootings over the past 20 years, most of them were carried out by people who had many previous red flags and had no business owning a gun.
SW-User
@trollslayer show us where the general public can buy a fully automatic weapon
SomeMichGuy · M
@trollslayer Well-written. Thank you.
@dakotaviper actually it requires three references in Canada. And none of the references can have a criminal record. Try to get a job in the United States without providing references. If you want to work at McDonald’s you need to supply references but if you want to buy a deadly weapon you don’t? Your absurdity is mind numbing
SomeMichGuy · M
@dakotaviper Unstable? What do you see as evidence of *that*?