I think a pistol would include semiautomatic handguns.

Also I think you mean semiautomatic rifles (and I would include shotguns) and not just assault rifles. A term I saw used is autoloading.

How about The Rifleman 1892 Winchester.

full auto - M60's and mounted 50 calibers (melted the barrel on one), burst fire M16's while in the military and this guy sent more rounds down range in that time frame than I could of with any of the aforementioned weapons.

I'll do it here since I can't post in that other thread, but then neither can you.

First, I didn't alert on this foul little missive from you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7416765

Someone else did. Probably because it was pretty disgusting. I can't say, because it wasn't me.

And in your very sad alert on me (really, very touching. I did hear the violins):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7420437,

you talked all about how I am stalking and harassing you. You poor, poor dear. Except this post right here is only the third post of yours I have ever responded to. You've responded to just as many of mine. So two posts constitutes stalking and harassment? That's quite paranoid.

Geez, no wonder you think you need a gun.

Buh bye, now.

here you are again, stalking.

High sweetie, want me to give you a big ol' kiss? I love you!

Bet that video above made your head explode.....

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom....and the stalkers head explodes just watching it and he's gotta open his trap again.

You're attractiveness to me is flattering, won't you come on over and let me give you a big ol' sloppy wet kiss.

Bless your cute little heart.

Didn't see any video, sorry to disappoint you. You jump to a lot of wrong conclusions, don't you?

How's that bunker coming along?

I hope you don't find the wait too unsettling.

Thanks for sharing.

Why doesn't admin just rename the General Discussion Forum into the "I want to ban guns so I think I'll post yet another vanity expressing this desire" forum?

Yawn...

.... associated with weapons of destruction is FAR more important than the slaughter of innocents. The human lives lost are irrelevant. How can we possibly have a discussion r/t mass murder and the implements used to commit these horrific acts, or random acts of violence .... or murder for hire .... or "accidental shootings" ..... none of this matters if you can't get the nomenclature related to these godly implements correct .... jeeze, get it together.

ignorance about guns?! There oughta be a TEST administered BEFORE you are allowed to post!

on second thought, why are we wasting time with gun threads anyway? Let's tighten restrictions on what can and cannot be posted here at DU on guns. Gun sites have plenty of news about them for, er, "sportsmen."

... And started spouting off nonsense about a subject of which they are clearly ignorant.

They would and should be ripped to shreds.

Is it really too much to ask that folks be accurate in their statements? Especially if they want to influence and help create law that the rest of us will have to live with?

....That would be equally as horrible .... oh wait t is not necessary to know the exact medical tools and devices.

... Seems to be as well informed as an anti abortionist claiming that the process is done with a home vacuum and a turkey baster.

Offensive, purposefully inflammatory and ignorant...

That's all most people know .... and that s the important part .... its irrelevant if ones calls the currette a knife .... just as the exact nomenclature in this case is irrelevant.

actually know what the hell they're talking?
Jus sayin"

Folk can pretend they don't understood when common terms are used .... but they do. Its an attempt to deflect from the main topic.

It would be nice to have the debate here between people who know something about what they are talking about.

It'd be amusing if it weren't so hopeless.

That much is common sense.

As long as there are fewer of them? Is that what you're saying?

Wouldn't they be just as dead if shot by revolver as they would be if shot with a rifle, or would they be more dead if shot by rifle?

I'm confused.

would have just put more effort into the pipe bombs. Might have used pressure cookers.

I'm assuming those are ok since no one called for a ban on pressure cookers after Boston, and pipe bombs would be ok since no one calls for those to be banned, you know, because both of them aren't guns.

The next step..

The majority of those he killed and wounded were shot with a bolt action center fire rifle (an actual "high power rifle&quot .

that forced him to keep his head down, allowing police and an armed civilian to ascend the tower and finally take him out.

I think he may have grabbed Crum's shotgun to finish him off, but it was a cop, not the civilian.

he's the one who shot and killed him.

I misread your post; no harm intended.

it's all good.

"Assault weapons" are not assault rifles. The key factor that makes a rifle an assault rifle is automatic fire.

There are roughly 120,000,000 semi-automatic weapons held by civilians.

Banning them would violate the constitution as explained in Heller because the numbers alone prove the Heller test of already being widely used for lawful reasons.

One looks scary. The other is select fire and is illegal to own without following the procedure set forth in FOPA.

Probably more because they learned nothing from the stupidity of the AWB.

And I have no doubt that many AR-15s are sold because they look "badass," which is a crappy reason to buy any weapon. I'm fully behind background checks, waiting periods, written/range tests for individuals but also can't help to think something has to be done upstream at the FFL issuing level, too.

1. You can't get it passed by Congress
2. It would probably be ruled unconstitutional in the court system
3. More then half the states in country would tell the Federal government to fuck off
4. The majority of law enforcement would refuse to enforce it
5. Most gun owners would refuse to comply

Your "idea" has no basis in reality

...cuz guns trump a civilized society (although civilized societies allow change)
...cuz gun owners feelings trump bullet-bloodied kids bodies

"5. Most gun owners would refuse to comply"

The it will never happen argument presupposes that all Americans have the same tolerance for blood and gore as do the fetishists of toys of terror, the mavens of machines of murder...

And this self proclaimed willingness to resist society and kill for a political cause (2nd amendment) is why the sane world is becoming aware that guns cause insanity.

not based in reality, but nice rant.

The majority of the country doesn't care about gun control, they are more concerned with work, family and paying the bills. That is THEIR priority.

Wake up call, there has been massive non-compliance in the very blue states of NY and CT with NY county sheriff departments REFUSING to enforce the law. CT does not have the country sheriff system, so the position of CT law enforcement is harder to determine, if the whispers are correct, the rank and file law police will not enforce the law either.

to semi-autos, ask George Zimmerman. Six shooters and leverage action rifles would emasculate the gun crowd.

That's why the idiots came up with the "assault weapon" ban instead, which was useless nonsense.

What you suggest is as idiotic as wanting a ban on abortion.

And one who explicitly states that he/she will seek a like minded Supreme Court nominee if elected and likely will have to replace a Court member or two?

Just wondering...

If our nominee comes out in favor of confiscating guns, or banning semi-automatic weapons, I'll probably no longer be a Democrat and won't vote in the presidential election.

or for confiscating guns, I have little to worry about.

And this all comes from a guy who owns not a single gun.

It's doable.

Just convince maybe 60% of the people in our country to go along with it. Add that to the maybe 15% you already have, and you'll be in great position to make that change.

Good luck.

Ban semi-auto rifles and all handguns.

If the nuts can't "defend their homes," take a deer and get their jollies with a bolt-action rifle and a shotgun, then it's too bad for them.

waiting for me to reload, wouldn't be many mass murders.

Go figure.

You are more likely to be killed with a .22 caliber pistol than a scary assault weapon.

Or decommission it by welding a plug in the barrel.

If it works, it's banned.

'nuff said.

You are not content with modern weapons being banned, even though that goal is stupidity of the highest order, you want to go after black powder weapons, too!

I said replica. A replica is a new copy of an old weapon. These are available all over and they USE BLACK POWDER, Balls, and caps.

It's not like anyone's going to comply, anyway...

People go to jail every day for not complying with a variety of laws. The large majority follow the law, however.

If your precious is worth a year or five in jail, then by all means, don't comply.

You're in favor of creating millions of new felons?
All because of your disdain for firearms and their owners?

Real progressive of you.

I take that back, how authoritarian of you.

...on whether the confiscation teams got to me before they ran out of cops.

Look, I realize "taking them all away" is a beloved fantasy of gun control extremists, but that's all it is: a fantasy. This country might experience an absolutely massive socio-cultural shift and arrive at a point where there was political will to do this and such a small number of people willing to resist that their resistance would be a trivial problem to overcome. But that day ain't happening in our lifetimes.

In the mean time, the rest of us can ignore the extremists on either side and actually accomplish something.

nearly 200 years before the Bill of Rights:

http://thornews.com/2014/03/27/the-worlds-oldest-existing-revolver-1597/

Where everybody can enjoy it.

Nope, you'll never see your foolish ban.

Never.

Revolvers are 4 century old technology. Any attempted ban would be a direct violation of the second amendment.

or slide action rifle or shotgun was used. Also how many mass murders have there been using a revolver.

Edit to add: naval yard shooting.

these mass murders this year alone. You come up with one. Granted if someone
was intent on a sniper type shooting a bolt action would be the weapon of choice for me.
But I would guess in these mass shootings like San Bernardino the AR-15 and a high capacity
semi auto pistol would be the best choice. Myself I have a Springfield XDM .40 it has a 17 shot capacity
16 in the magazine and 1 in the chamber. I guess I could fire the 17 rounds in maybe 3 seconds and reload
with the extra magazine in 3 second and knock off another 16 rounds maybe what 9-10 seconds total. Probably could do it faster with practice. I can't see any reason a civilian needs such firepower. You take an AR-15 with 2 30 round magazines taped together like the San Bernardino killers had even a novice could fire 60 rounds in maybe 15 seconds, what purpose does that serve any civilian?

Naval Yard, correct. That nut used a shotgun.

He switched to a shotgun.

Holmes fired 76 shots in the theater: six from the shotgun, 65 from the semi-automatic rifle, and five from the .40-caliber handgun.

because the drum jammed. I stand corrected.

who needs a semi-automatic for self defense? They are practically for a mass shooting.

Adam Lanza killed 26 people in 5 minutes. With multiple gunshots to some of them.

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

Limit them to war zones.

it's for deer/elk hunting, it's chambered in .308, has a AZ compliant 5 round mag, it's light weight, ergonomic, easy to use, and I had a custom .223 upper manufactured for it to use the .223 for smaller game and protecting our livestock from the predators in our neck of the woods.

The AR platform is the most popular rifle in America today, in relationship to how many are in public hands, very few are used in crimes.

It's a one of a kind rifle per se.

I believe it's a standard AR-15 bolt, but I'll ask him and get back to you.

Semi-automatic weapons are more than a century old and account for some 120 million weapons in civilian hands in the US. As the technology is so ubiquitous, any ban on semi-automatic weapons would be struck down as unconstitutional before the ink dried on the paper.

This is why the Congress passed the idiotic Assault Weapon Ban, because their legal advisors informed them, attempting to ban this technology would be a direct violation of the second amendment.

rocket launchers and hand grenades around. That's bull shit that guns can't be regulated, the second amendment says they can if you read the part you guys always skip over.

If there were a big market for them, I have no doubt that market would be served. Full-auto firearms are (extremely) rare in the US, but there are literally millions floating around in global arms markets. They'd find there way here if there was a legit black market demand for them. There isn't.

The Heller test is wide legal use, which 120 million units fits to a tee.

Automatic weapons are not in wide legal use in the US, thus a ban is constitutional.

as are tanks, fighter jets, rpgs, etc.

They are very expensive to buy and operate, and require onerous paperwork, but a lot of people do indeed possess NFA and other arms.

I'm curious what would happen if Congress tried an outright ban on the civilian ownership of all automatic weapons in this political climate, and how courts would respond to such an unlikely event.

Justice Scalia made that clear in Heller v DC, the problem is there isn't the widespread appetite in the country for much gun control beyond Universal Background Checks.


MohRokTah is saying that to amend or repeal the 2A would take 2/3rd's of the Congress to pass and 3/4ths of the states to ratify, IOW, it would take only 13 states to deep six any change to the Constitution.

That's the test set by the SCOTUS.

Semi-automatic weapons are in VERY widespread legal use.

but you are correct with the rest of it.

13 States have the right of veto, though. I don't see how they can convince enough states even if they can gt the Congress.

Can you explain why it's okay for the government to ban full auto but not semi-auto?

All you really need for reasonable gun control is a competent Supreme Court, and a Congress and President that do the right thing.

"The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
--- Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, December 16, 1991

There was not widespread legal use of the technology, thus heavy regulations (they aren't banned, just regulated to the point where most people cannot afford to meet the requirements to purchase a pre-1986 automatic weapon) was constitutional.

With 120 million semi-automatic weapons in civilian hands, the technology meets the Heller test of widespread legal use, thus the only way you can effectively ban them would be to amend the constitution.

You see, the government is expected to respond to problems, not just say "the shit is ubiquitous so we can't do anything." LOL.

It's why there wasn't a semi=automatic weapon ban in the 90s and instead they put up the nonsensical assault weapon ban.

The test is widespread legal use, and semi-automatic weapons pass that test to the tune of 120 million in widespread legal use.

Explain, please.

why are revolvers any less lethal than semi auto firearms?
What's the purpose of a semi auto ban compared to revolvers?

Government should he need to do so. I ask him did he think he could defeat the US military, he thought he could, WTH, he thinks he can shoot and kill all with guns, I told him they have drones, he will just shoot them down. He would not be able to look in all direction to ward off the military.

...of genuine insurrection in this country that actually included an intact military. If the cause for the insurrection isn't sufficient to produce widespread defection from the military, then it's not really an insurrection, it's a few nutjobs/cultists/whatever heading off "innawoods" to pretend to be insurrectionists. Law enforcement will deal with them.

If the military remains intact, it would be very difficult even for a really big insurrection to defeat it (although they could certainly make things nasty for the military...as surely we learned in Vietnam, etc.). But a legit insurrection would see the military falling out on either side, in proportions roughly equal to the general population. That changes everything.

I suppose the casus belli just might be such that the nation divided itself on liberal/conservative grounds. Not to put too fine a point on it, we'd be all kinds of fucked: the military has taken a profound turn to the right (and is less and less non-Christian-friendly all the time). I don't expect such a scenario (or any insurrection scenario, for that matter).

The military excels at fighting other military units on a battlefield. Hit and run tactics in urban areas are not a strength. This is why I oppose ground wars in unfriendly cultures.

Vietnam and doubtful ever had a days training in the military.

The forces have a lot of power to destroy buildings, equipment, and stop an army. It has limited reasonable power to stop a group of people in an urban area. For instance, the normal response to an entrenched sniper is to smash the building he is in with tank artillery fire. A domestic use of such power would be devastating - entire cities could be leveled to just neutralize 800 men. And in the meantime, the army is smashing peoples homes and lives to rubble, sapping energy for the continuation of such a conflict.

In Iraq, it spawned terrorists faster than we could kill them.

All other gun ban and confiscation measures like the one you propose have required as such to pass court muster.

150 million guns x $500-$1000 market value at the time the legislation would go into effect.

$75-$150 billion dollars.

Hope you got some deep pockets.

..Discontentment...

That's all I can tell you.

It is exactly analagous to the way that the Republicans flog the abortion issue. So long as they can keep the true believers whipped up, they are freed from any actual action on people's behalf.

Fundagelicals will vote for anyone who says the right things about abortion, without regard to any of the actual results.

We have our own fundagelicals.

I'm okay with gun control legislation and wouldn't vote against a candidate who supports it on that basis, but many do. It is an election loser, and there are so many other social priorities that we can't afford to lose.

I get it, fear sells soap, and guns, and candidates. We're being trained to fear the wrong things.