Quantcast

Questioning banning semi-automatic and military weapons

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by MissouriCrowinMass, Mar 19, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MissouriCrowinMass

    MissouriCrowinMass Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    182
    Location:
    Lawrence, MA
    Hi,

    I'm writing this to see if anyone else shares my opinion? I think that if any effective ideas about reducing mass-shootings are born - they will come from the firearms community. I'm 66. I belong to two Rod & Gun Clubs and I shoot a lot of trap and pin competitions. I've re-loaded both metallic and shot shells for years. I've always liked to shoot. I conceal carry - especially walking my dog at night. I'm not an AR guy, I like old MilSurp bolt action rifles. And, of course shotguns.

    The people in my Clubs are some of the finest people that you'd ever meet. They would help you out in an emergency - some would give you the shirt off their backs. Most would really disagree with what I'm going to say.

    I'm questioning Gun Control after the last school shooting. I've been thinking about it for years. What's the best thing to do to protect school kids? These mass shootings rip your heart out.

    1. I support teachers "volunteering" to conceal carry after receiving Practical Shooting Training. I think this would be a deterrent to mass murders.

    2. I support armed guards in schools.

    3. I don't think banning bump-stocks will do squat.

    Here's where I differ from the shooting community. I'm thinking that semi-auto weapons are just too effective in killing people to be legal and to be so available. I'm talking everything between an AR and an M-9. If a law that banned the manufacture of new semi-auto weapons and provided a buy-back of existing guns over a 30-year period were passed - anyone could keep their current semi's for their lifetime. I think such a law would need to additionally guarantee & reinforce the Right of Americans to own revolvers, bolt action rifles, low capacity auto-shotguns for hunting, pump shotguns and bolt action rifles forever. I'm not for dis-arming America. I am for reducing the number of semi-automatic human-killing machines available to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

    I can think of the counter arguments. A nut could take a S&W Model 28 with 20 speed loaders and effect mass carnage. However, it would be harder than using an AR or AK with a 30 round mag. Semi-auto's with high-cap box magazines are just too effective in killing people fast. I think they should be military and police weapons only. Kel-Tec has a new 15-round high-cap shot gun. My question is - does a civilian need a weapon like that for self-protection? Imagine the carnage a 15-round shotgun could effect. I mentioned that I concealed carry. I carry a Sig P-238 but I'd feel just as safe with a K-frame revolver.

    Is there anyone out there that feels the same way? This might be stupid as hell but what is the best way to do something? I think unless WE come up with an idea that the anti's will scapegoat us all for the mass shootings. I do not want to lose my Right to self-protect myself.

    Thanks -I'd appreciate any ideas
     
  2. plinky

    plinky Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2008
    Messages:
    374
    How about we just restrict the bad guys and empower the good guys. Those really are our core principles. Oh, and stop creating so many bad guys.

    We seem to be intent on letting identified lunatics and violent criminals run the streets and then restricting everybody down to a level that makes the loons incapable of doing harm. It's a recipe for dysfunction not to mention a s#!##y way of life.
     
  3. Hokie_PhD

    Hokie_PhD Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2017
    Messages:
    2,424
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    So you really think a ban on semi automatic weapons will be effective?

    You do realize that the Clinton AWB has no positive effect on crime?

    You do realize that you could never confiscate all of the existing guns and parts?

    And do you know that mass murders are a tiny amount of crime?

    Did you know China has a problem with mass murder by knife?

    You do realize there are tons of 80% guns out there?

    And finally you do realize law abiding gun owners don’t commit crimes.

    Sorry but NO
    Some of us don’t respectfully disagree with you, we think your view is misguided and naive.
     
  4. Mike OTDP

    Mike OTDP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,890
    Location:
    Somewhere in Maryland
    It IS stupid. You do realize, don't you, that ALL the pistols used in the Olympic shooting sports aside from Air Pistol are semi-automatic? Do you hate our Olympic shooters that much?

    And I hate to break it to you, but the efforts to stop the importation of drugs haven't been too successful...what do you think the odds are of effectively interdicting arms smuggling?

    No. The desire to "Do Something" is a path to folly. We must think before we act - and insist that others do so as well.

    A more useful approach would be to allow teachers and school staff who wish to do so to arm themselves. And to design school buildings for rapid escape - a schoolhouse, instead of a prison.
     
  5. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,201
    It shames me that I can't remember who said this, but its good, and applicable, so here goes:

    First they came for the labor unionists, and I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Gypsys and the homosexuals, and I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up.
    When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up.

    If they take our semiautos, and you don't speak up, don't expect there to be anyone left to speak up when they come for your shotgun and revolver.

    And they will come. It is anethma to the leftist to leave ANY arms in private hands- including yours.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2018
    HOWARD J, Shimitup, plinky and 4 others like this.
  6. Robert

    Robert Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    11,474
    Location:
    Texan by birth, in Colorado cause I hate humidity
    No, I do not agree with you.
     
    P5 Guy, Yo Mama, <*(((>< and 7 others like this.
  7. jmr40

    jmr40 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    11,815
    Location:
    Georgia
    AR 15 rifles have been sold to civilians for 55 years. Surplus military rifles such as the M-1 Carbine been sold by the millions to civilians since the 1940's. Rifles and shotguns capable of doing exactly the same thing have been available since 1905. Up until recently no one has tried to shoot up schools. Something has changed, and it isn't the weapons.

    A SXS shotgun loaded with #1 buck shot in each barrel sends more projectiles down range in a split second than an entire magazine from an AR 15. And both barrels can be reloaded in about the same amount of time as a magazine change on an AR 15.

    I can empty the magazine on my 308 bolt rifle in under 4 seconds with much more powerful rounds.

    We can ban AR-15's. But when someone does the same thing with a hunters Browning A-5 that has been sold since 1905 or a 150 year old SXS shotgun, what makes you think they won't be next.
     
    P5 Guy, JTHunter, easy and 3 others like this.
  8. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Messages:
    6,562
    Location:
    SouthEastern FL
    The liberal agenda, that desire to "dumb down the masses" and make them dependent on the government, that desire to create a people who lack personal accountability and have a sense of "entitlement" to the fruits of the labors of others, has been around a long time, and is the root of the problem. AR-type rifles have been available to the masses for at least five decades, and only the latest couple of generations have had such serious issues with their "feelings" as to make the rifle the platform for the inability to handle those feelings. That agenda, by the way, goes a lot farther than trying to ban so-called "assault rifles."

    Another huge factor is people such as yourself declaring that they should be banned. Every time you all start flapping your lips about it, you drive more people out to protect their right to own them by purchasing more. Some of those people are buying their first ones, and are poorly-equipped (mentally and/or logistically) to own them. The rifles end up in homes in which there is little, if any, secure storage, and in which there are irresponsible people also present.

    Tell you what: You quit bleating about how "the gun is the problem", and less-responsible people will quit running out and buying them. It took decades for the AR-type to become the most-popular rifle in America, and it wasn't because of us that it finally did.

    EDIT: I see jmr40 is making the same points..
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2018
    P5 Guy, plinky, ontarget and 3 others like this.
  9. Telekinesis

    Telekinesis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,638
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    So we can ban all the weapons that YOU don't like, as long as you get to keep the ones that you do like.


    So in order to keep the anti's at bay, we give them exactly what they've been trying to get for the last 20 years? You realize that a semi auto ban is the most EXTREME gun control idea that's been raised in the last few years, right?


    Not for disarming America, but you want everybody to be forced to give up their guns? Some of us only own semi-autos. Also, if you think 30 years is long enough for everyone to keep their weapons for their life time, you are severely mistaken. Nothing says "I don't care about the future generations" like proposing legislation that requires them to turn in their guns at the time that they are just starting to have grand kids...

    Yes, this is stupid as hell. Come up with some good ideas and I'm happy to have a discussion. Posting an argument of "these should be banned because I don't like them" doesn't qualify.
     
    P5 Guy, DoubleMag, <*(((>< and 7 others like this.
  10. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,231
    Location:
    Virginia
    What about the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which was that the citizenry should be as well armed as the standing army? Or do you think that we, as a country, have "outgrown" concepts like that?

    If you concede semiautomatics, it won't belong before the antis come after your bolt guns and revolvers. After all, your beloved bolt rifles, to some people, are "long range sniper rifles."

    Guarantees by the antis that they would go no farther than a semiauto ban would be worthless. Their goal is the total disarmament of America, and the more honest among them admit it.

    I'm all for dialogue, but it has to be treated as a negotiation with the enemy. Let's see the antis give something for a change, instead of always taking.
     
    P5 Guy, DoubleMag, FROGO207 and 8 others like this.
  11. GBExpat

    GBExpat Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2007
    Messages:
    5,191
    Location:
    Rural, far beyond the beltway, Northern Virginia,
    I sure hope not.
     
    P5 Guy, Yo Mama, <*(((>< and 9 others like this.
  12. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    56,855
    Location:
    Alabama
    But you think taking away semi autos will?
    Yep.

    And hey, if AlexanderA doesn't think you make sense, well.......... your way off base. :)
     
    P5 Guy, FROGO207, <*(((>< and 3 others like this.
  13. mjsdwash

    mjsdwash Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,132
    until someone with a 'battlefield grade sniper rifle' goes on a rampage on a perch, then we can see the end of deer rifles too. The gun control movement has no intention of letting anyone keep any handgun. Really, supporting any new gun control is supporting a complete ban on legal civilian armament. If that's your view, your entitled to it, but dancing around the idea of compromise is fantasy. Even a full nationwide repeal of the 2nd, and by default the 4th and a door to door confiscation, we would not see a major drop in these crimes for 50 years. Then knife and bomb attacks go up. As long as we have a violent culture, we will have crime. The only change will be that for the first time since Europeans conquered America, the US will have to face the threat of a foreign invasion.
     
    P5 Guy, Elkins45, plinky and 2 others like this.
  14. MedWheeler

    MedWheeler Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2008
    Messages:
    6,562
    Location:
    SouthEastern FL
    I just noted the OP's age (66). I'm stunned that he doesn't notice that it's not people in his age bracket that are "shooting up people" with "assault rifles." I guess it's easy for him to disassociate himself, being so many years removed from the general age bracket in which the "culture of violence" seems to be the most prolific.

    Oh, and I'm not down there, either.
     
  15. somethingbenign

    somethingbenign Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Messages:
    443
    Only way I could get behind this is if the military and police are the first to disarm semi auto firearms. Second amendment, the way I understand it, is less about self defense and more about keeping the government in line.

    Before this gets out of hand thanks for at least trying to think of a solution even if it is something that made my eye twitch to read. A lot of people are content to just sit on the sidelines.
     
  16. SharpDog

    SharpDog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    901
    Location:
    Tennessee

    We should just go the whole 9 yards and make murder illegal ... Oh Wait ! :what:

    let's just say I'm not with you ! :fire:
     
  17. jags

    jags Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2012
    Messages:
    27
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Can't give an inch to the fanatics. They will just want more and more. I have purchased everything legally, I have committed no crimes. I have done nothing wrong. Go after the people who are committing the crimes and hold them accountable for their actions. Stop trying to infringe on my constitutional rights.
     
    tomturkey, P5 Guy, gsbuickman and 6 others like this.
  18. TomJ
    • Contributing Member

    TomJ Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2014
    Messages:
    1,591
    Location:
    Illinois
    What's happening here is the left has implemented moronic ideas and when, as expected they fail they place the blame elsewhere, in this case on guns. It meshes with their goal of ending private gun ownership. In the case of the recent Florida shooting the school district knew the shooter was a danger but wouldn't report him due to their policy. The FBI and local LEO dropped the ball also. So the answer is to take guns away from people who had nothing to do with this? How does that solve the problem? Instead of bowing down to the anti's so they don't scapegoat us, how about if we do a better job of educating people to the facts?

    Everything you suggested has been tried and failed miserably, because the problem is not guns. They're inanimate objects. It's the people who use them for evil purposes who are responsible. In most months here in Chicago there are more people killed than died in the Florida shooting. The silence regarding that is deafening, as Chicago has among the strictest gun laws in the country but it's failed liberal policies of not prosecuting gun crimes, keeping kids in crime infested schools instead of giving them school vouchers so they can have a chance at a decent life, more than 70% of father abandoning their kids and the complete lack of values they have that are responsible for this. As far as your idea goes, not just no but hell no.
     
    P5 Guy, DoubleMag, JTHunter and 3 others like this.
  19. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,231
    Location:
    Virginia
    I've always said that "compromise" is a two-way street. If the antis are to get something they want, they have to give up something they don't want. That's how negotiation in the business world and in international relations works.

    Nevertheless, I have certain red lines. An AWB is foremost among them.
     
  20. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    5,231
    Location:
    Virginia
    Or at least parity.
     
    P5 Guy, plinky, EIB0879 and 2 others like this.
  21. bikerdoc

    bikerdoc Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    Messages:
    19,828
    Location:
    Southern Virginia
    Sorry OP, you are way off base.

    Im almost 70 - me or my guns never committed a crime
    the only people hurt by me were enemies of my country, street punks on the streets I patroled and the poor unfortunate that tried to break into my home and hurt my wife.
    Nope not only am I giving up nothing I want them to give up everything.
     
    P5 Guy, MedWheeler, JTHunter and 5 others like this.
  22. Jenrick

    Jenrick Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,923
    Location:
    Austin, TX
  23. jbmillard

    jbmillard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    No. All these stupid "compromises" do one thing -- whittle away at our rights. Just no. You sound like another "I support the 2nd amendment for hunting" types.
     
    P5 Guy, <*(((><, JTHunter and 4 others like this.
  24. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,201
    Thanks, been probably 20 years since I read it, but it sticks with me.
     
  25. JeffG

    JeffG Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2017
    Messages:
    1,384
    Location:
    NE Wisconsin
    The theory that a society can be a padded cell, a safe playground, is ludicrous. Removing all of the "sharp edges" ie: semi auto guns, axes, machetes, baseball bats etc., and then continuing to allow mentally ill, violent criminals to go unchecked among innocent law abiding citizens, will not work. We as a people and individuals have the right to defend ourselves from violent criminal onslaught. That onslaught is getting statistically larger by the year.

    Gun removal, gun control or disarmament will only allow criminals a "target rich environment" of easy victims. I will not be disarmed in the face of rampant crime. When seconds count, police are only moments away. They do not save anyone, they are often too late to defend anyone; they tend to the wounded, bag the dead, identify the criminal, and write the report... I want the chance to live through an attack, I've seen too many in body bags.

    Your neighbor has a car that goes 100mph, so does yours. Last night he killed three people in a drunk driving crash going 100mph. Now the government wants the keys to your car, they are buying it back, but you can't own it anymore, because cars that go 100 mph are dangerous. You have done nothing wrong. That my friend, is gun control.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2018
    P5 Guy, plinky, ontarget and 4 others like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice