Ex-Supreme Court Justice Wants to Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons-What Is a Semi-Automatic Weapon?

[sedwin]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

No. For example, a single-action revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon. A bolt action rifle is not a semi-auto. A semi-auto prepares the ammo for firing without any action needed by the shooter.

It is important to know that even when "assault rifles" were "banned" under the Brady Bill, or full auto rifles were "banned" decades ago, you still could purchase and own such arms if you applied to the ATF for essentially what is a "trust account." They check your background, make you wait, and make you pay for the "license." I bought two "assault rifles" while the Brady Ban was in effect. The claim that all firearms will become "Illegal" is just a fear tactic used by the NRA to ensure that they can profit off firearm sales by being able to sell such to anyone including the mentally disabled, criminal population or those that cannot afford to pay for paperwork. Sensible firearms laws should be: 'If you can qualify, you can own.' Qualification means you lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to such.

 

[toobfreak]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

It means banning all firearms where you don't have to reload after every single shot. That pretty much eliminates ALL handguns and rifles except for bolt action rifles most often used for hunting big game.

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

Your guns would be GONE long ago; the only thing that has stopped that is an ugly little thing called The Law. The Constitution was designed to LIMIT the power of government and so now you see an ex-top government official calling for it be removed from the Constitution and the Dems are all for that. THEY WANT YOUR GUNS SO BAD THEY CAN TASTE IT. But make no misunderstanding: once your guns are gone and you are utterly helpless and defenseless in an increasingly violent world, not only will the police become LESS available to come protect you (they will be busy), but those who took away your guns (the politicians) will be guarded by armed men behind locked steel gates. Only the average person will be left twisting in the wind, and all those who laugh at gun grabbing and confiscation and call for their limitation, regulation, banning and control are idiot wankers of the highest order like the cattle who blindly march off a cliff.

 

[iceberg]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

No. For example, a single-action revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon. A bolt action rifle is not a semi-auto. A semi-auto prepares the ammo for firing without any action needed by the shooter.

It is important to know that even when "assault rifles" were "banned" under the Brady Bill, or full auto rifles were "banned" decades ago, you still could purchase and own such arms if you applied to the ATF for essentially what is a "trust account." They check your background, make you wait, and make you pay for the "license." I bought two "assault rifles" while the Brady Ban was in effect. The claim that all firearms will become "Illegal" is just a fear tactic used by the NRA to ensure that they can profit off firearm sales by being able to sell such to anyone including the mentally disabled, criminal population or those that cannot afford to pay for paperwork. Sensible firearms laws should be: 'If you can qualify, you can own.' Qualification means you lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to such.

and by what means do we determine that? many bought guns after having a background check done who should have not been able to if the info in the background checks was up to date and followed.

we don't need more laws. we don't need to ban more guns.

we need to fix how we check people and their backgrounds.

 

[iceberg]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

It means banning all firearms where you don't have to reload after every single shot. That pretty much eliminates ALL handguns and rifles except for bolt action rifles most often used for hunting big game.

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

Your guns would be GONE long ago; the only thing that has stopped that is an ugly little thing called The Law. The Constitution was designed to LIMIT the power of government and so now you see an ex-top government official calling for it be removed from the Constitution and the Dems are all for that. THEY WANT YOUR GUNS SO BAD THEY CAN TASTE IT. But make no misunderstanding: once your guns are gone and you are utterly helpless and defenseless in an increasingly violent world, not only will the police become LESS available to come protect you (they will be busy), but those who took away your guns (the politicians) will be guarded by armed men behind locked steel gates. Only the average person will be left twisting in the wind, and all those who laugh at gun grabbing and confiscation and call for their limitation, regulation, banning and control are idiot wankers of the highest order like the cattle who blindly march off a cliff.

yep.

it's why i can't help but wonder about the mental state of those who continue to say "but we're not coming for your guns".

they are. in actions, and in trying to create law. to say otherwise is just willful ignorance.

 

[CowboyTed]

would an M16 be a useful instrument to the militia

Right you took a lie about George Washingto to make a point because you ran out of any truth...

Real Quote:
"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

Spurious Quotations

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

It means banning all firearms where you don't have to reload after every single shot. That pretty much eliminates ALL handguns and rifles except for bolt action rifles most often used for hunting big game.

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

One retired Supreme Court justice decides to say the Big Dirty just to stir up the hive, and now EVERYONE IS AFTER ALL OUR GUNS.

 

[iceberg]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

It means banning all firearms where you don't have to reload after every single shot. That pretty much eliminates ALL handguns and rifles except for bolt action rifles most often used for hunting big game.

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

One retired Supreme Court justice decides to say the Big Dirty just to stir up the hive, and now EVERYONE IS AFTER ALL OUR GUNS.

and knowing THAT is their end goal is why the NRA won't give an inch.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

It means banning all firearms where you don't have to reload after every single shot. That pretty much eliminates ALL handguns and rifles except for bolt action rifles most often used for hunting big game.

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

One retired Supreme Court justice decides to say the Big Dirty just to stir up the hive, and now EVERYONE IS AFTER ALL OUR GUNS.

But, but, but....she was only talking about assault weapons. That's out of context.
~lying gun grabbers

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

You do know what the 2nd is for right?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation

The .223/5.56 is most definitely NOT overkill. They are easy to use and reliable. I would much rather use that than a handgun in a home defense situation. If it works well for people who are not good at using guns, why would we take it away from them?

The only times I've ever heard of anyone using these types of weapons is to shoot up a school or something similar. Seems to me that if they are the go-to guns for mass murderers, you'd want to do something about that.

And in close combat as in a house where someone just broke in, I'd use a handgun as they're easier to maneuver in tight situations.

You're kidding right?
Actually very few people are killed with rifles compared to handguns.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They expected that to pass about as much as the Republicans expected to repeal Obamacare while Obama was in office.
If they caught that car, they'd shit themselves.

They still tried to do it. They still want it. YOU still want it.


We must fight and defeat you to preserve our liberty.

You may not have been here long enough to know that I wish we had severe gun control, like Australia. That doesn't mean I'm actually asking for it.

Yet.

 

[g5000]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

Stevens did not call for a ban on semiautomatic weapons. He mistakenly said the recent protests were a call to ban them. They weren't. They were calling for an AWB, and raising the age to buy a gun to 21.

What Stevens did call for is a repeal of the Second Amendment.

 

[g5000]

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms.


Obviously if you are basically banning all guns, there is no point to raising the age to 21. Stevens made an error.

 

[toobfreak]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

It means banning all firearms where you don't have to reload after every single shot. That pretty much eliminates ALL handguns and rifles except for bolt action rifles most often used for hunting big game.

and it's the biggest reason for my giggles in here when people like OldLady say "we're not coming for your guns!" when all signs show they sure are.

One retired Supreme Court justice decides to say the Big Dirty just to stir up the hive, and now EVERYONE IS AFTER ALL OUR GUNS.

do you intentionally keep missing the bill put in play recently to ban semi-automatic guns?

GIGGILE GIGGLE HA HA AT YOU TEE HEE TEE HEE.

i'll bet it's kinda stupid when i do it but you're the clever one for acting 12.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

once again since you keep selectively missing this shit.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

and again cause you do tend to gloss over facts you don't like.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

fuckers are coming for guns. only an idiot would be denying it at this point.

go ahead. deny it again.

House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons

They expected that to pass about as much as the Republicans expected to repeal Obamacare while Obama was in office.
If they caught that car, they'd shit themselves.

POINT BEING that if the democrats ever get control of congress again, I believe they WILL try to pass such laws. I guess everyone has forgotten the big gun grab that Al Gore tried to go after years ago. The Left has been maneuvering to tighten gun laws down to zero tolerance for years despite enormous opposition by the people, which just goes to show how much they really "represent" you. They want to make it about hunting and home defense when the point of the 2nd Amendment was to have a fallback to limit a government that ever tried to go too far. And if you don't think the gun owners of this country cannot control the Fed, neither the police nor the military will defend the Fed if they go rogue against the people (because they are the people too!) and the gun owners of this country are at least 50 million I'd say. The Fed is 545 people. Put another way, the gun owners of this country would be like A HUNDRED WOODSTOCKS marching down upon Washington DC. Bigger than all the armies of the world combined. Why do you think we cannot win wars in some of these backward countries? We have superior weapons but war is a game of NUMBERS. Why do you think they want you disarmed???

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation

The .223/5.56 is most definitely NOT overkill. They are easy to use and reliable. I would much rather use that than a handgun in a home defense situation. If it works well for people who are not good at using guns, why would we take it away from them?

The only times I've ever heard of anyone using these types of weapons is to shoot up a school or something similar. Seems to me that if they are the go-to guns for mass murderers, you'd want to do something about that.

And in close combat as in a house where someone just broke in, I'd use a handgun as they're easier to maneuver in tight situations.

Well, that's what happens when you believe any tripe the media feeds you, and never bother to research a damned thing on your own.

 

[EGR one]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

There is no overkill involved. An AR-15 is nothing more than an ugly looking semi-automatic rifle. It has no features which make it any more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol.

 

[Papageorgio]

John Paul Stevens in a NYT editorial advocated the banning of not assault rifles but semi-automatic weapons.

So can we define a what a semi automatic weapon is because as far I know and since I am not a gun owner and really don’t know guns, aren’t most hand guns semi-automatic?

So this to me sounds like a ban on most guns, is this correct?

I have been for more control and better background checks but I see the left wanting to ban guns all together and I am seeing the right wing being rightfully cautious.

No. For example, a single-action revolver is not a semi-automatic weapon. A bolt action rifle is not a semi-auto. A semi-auto prepares the ammo for firing without any action needed by the shooter.

It is important to know that even when "assault rifles" were "banned" under the Brady Bill, or full auto rifles were "banned" decades ago, you still could purchase and own such arms if you applied to the ATF for essentially what is a "trust account." They check your background, make you wait, and make you pay for the "license." I bought two "assault rifles" while the Brady Ban was in effect. The claim that all firearms will become "Illegal" is just a fear tactic used by the NRA to ensure that they can profit off firearm sales by being able to sell such to anyone including the mentally disabled, criminal population or those that cannot afford to pay for paperwork. Sensible firearms laws should be: 'If you can qualify, you can own.' Qualification means you lessen the amount of firearms in the hands of those who should not have access to such.

I didn't say all firearms, I said a ban on semi-automatic handguns which if I am not mistaken are the vast majority of all handguns. I don't know or care about the NRA, I am referring to this article and this former Supreme Court Justice wanting to ban all semi-automatics and repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I don't own a gun however when a person says the word "ban" then I take that as not being able to own a semi-automatic, if they wanted to strengthen gun control then they need to word it so.

 

[Flash]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation.

There is no overkill involved. An AR-15 is nothing more than an ugly looking semi-automatic rifle. It has no features which make it any more deadly than any other semi-automatic rifle or pistol.

You are correct but who cares even if it is "overkill"? I know I don't. I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire. They are good things.

My car can go faster than any speed limit. Isn't that overkill? Do these Moon Bats want to restrict everything that they consider to be overkill?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just curious, why do you care if you have one? Seems like overkill for pretty much any civilian situation

The .223/5.56 is most definitely NOT overkill. They are easy to use and reliable. I would much rather use that than a handgun in a home defense situation. If it works well for people who are not good at using guns, why would we take it away from them?

The only times I've ever heard of anyone using these types of weapons is to shoot up a school or something similar. Seems to me that if they are the go-to guns for mass murderers, you'd want to do something about that.

And in close combat as in a house where someone just broke in, I'd use a handgun as they're easier to maneuver in tight situations.

1 - it's the #1 sporting rifle in the country these days. but due to the look people go nuts on them.
2 - because you've not heard of it much would indicate you don't follow guns in general and since the news doesn't say anything BUT bad things about them, what other conclusion can you come to IF this is your only source?
3 - people use what they're comfortable with. gun, pistol, shotgun, a 5lb bucket of rocks...

I have a sword, and a bow and arrows, but talk about difficult to use in tight spaces . . .

 

[hunarcy]

Ex-Supreme Court Justice Wants to Ban Semi-Automatic Weapons-What Is a Semi-Automatic Weapon?

you don't even know what you do. i guess this is more of a "guffaw" than a giggle. but you're busy laughing at the truth and trying to get people to not realize you're full of shit here. and of course you gotta get your SHOT in here and take pot-shots at gun owners now shooting you for disagreeing. last i checked, the libs were the ones doing that to senators playing softball.

*giggle*

Well, obviously, neither of us is in the mood to be serious today. Which is fine with me. I've shot all my ammunition, facts wise, and just get told I'm lying, so why bother? I'll raise a little hell instead, like most of the gun nutters.

ah hell, you tell me i'm lying all the time and yet that's ok.

you've got all pro-gun people into 1 pigeonhole and seem to get upset when that is challenged.

and yea, you can shoot off all your ammo pretty quick when you have none.

O quit sputtering, wouldja? It's too damned early in the morning for your whining. I don't use the damned "LIAR" reply unless it's true, and that's not usually you.

yea, you don't giggle either.

*giggle*.

funny, too early for my whining but yours can be in full gear and it's just talking, to you. maybe, just maybe, i'm just talking like you, but from a different perspective.

yet - look at you go.

Look, buddy, you're the one who called me to this thread and then proceeded to give me a hard time for whatever I say.
All you're doing is trolling.
Gun control in this country is overdue and badly needed, but it is not just guns that need to be addressed. There is much work to do. We'll see if anyone bothers or if they just keep wasting their energy over squabbles of who's gonna shoot whom.

I disagree with your opinion. I don't see ANY need for "gun control" as it will, in my opinion (based on my observations of the war on drugs) be completely ineffective. Instead, we need to deal with the people who would misuse firearms.