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

[EGR one]

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.

If you need permission from government to exercise a right, it is no longer a right. Is that too damn difficult to understand? A license is permission from government to exercise a constitutional right.

 

[IsaacNewton]

 

[whitehall]

If a 97 year old man thinks the 2nd Amendment is a 18th century relic and should be repealed what does he think of the rest of the Bill of Rights? Should we re-examine other18th century relics like freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

 

[Taz]

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?

No, please explain.

 

[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.

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.

You did not link to Stevens's opinion piece.

I did.

And as I pointed out, he did not call for a ban on semiautomatic weapons in his opinion piece. He mistakenly said the kids who were protesting are trying to get a ban on semiautomatic weapons. This is incorrect. They are shooting for (no pun intended) an AWB and raising the limit to buy guns to 21.

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

The NRA has been so intransigent on standing against even the most common sense changes to our gun control laws, using the Second Amendment as their argument, that they have left little choice to their opponents than to try to knock that one and only leg out from under them.

 

[Taz]

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.

That these kinds of weapons are favored by mass murderers in schools is all I need to know. You obviously don't care about children getting shot by high powered weapons. Now get back on your broom and go get me an eye of newt.

 

[Taz]

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?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

 

[Taz]

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 . . .

Sounds more like your brain is having a hard time negotiating the tiny spaces it's in.

 

[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.

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.

Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

From Stevens editorial: That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons,

So what did he mean when he wrote, "enact legislation prohibiting ownership of semiautomatic weapons"?

Then he calls for a repeal of the Second amendment.

 

[Papageorgio]

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?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

 

[Taz]

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?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

It is about taking away Constitutional rights and freedoms.

You still have the right to carry, just not those. Your rights are untouched.

 

[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?

No, please explain.

I find that hard to believe.
I mean here you are in a discussion about gun control and you're trying to tell me you dont even know what the 2nd is about?

 

[iceberg]

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?

"I like high capacity magazines and rapid fire" it's not about you, it's about trying to save children from getting shot at school. Grow up.

if you own a gun and someone is coming for it using "the children" as an excuse, that puts those using the kids more pathetic than the gun owners you're attacking who've done nothing wrong at all.

STOP USING THE CHILDREN!!!

 

[Taz]

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?

No, please explain.

I find that hard to believe.
I mean here you are in a discussion about gun control and you're trying to tell me you dont even know what the 2nd is about?

Then why did you ask?

 

[Taz]

if you own a gun and someone is coming for it using "the children" as an excuse, that puts those using the kids more pathetic than the gun owners you're attacking who've done nothing wrong at all.

STOP USING THE CHILDREN!!!

When all you guns freaks WASH THE BLOOD OFF YOUR HANDS FROM ALL THE DEAD CHILDREN!!!

But you get 2 points for parroting an NRA line almost word for word.

 

[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.

That these kinds of weapons are favored by mass murderers in schools is all I need to know. You obviously don't care about children getting shot by high powered weapons. Now get back on your broom and go get me an eye of newt.

Yes, the only way to care about children being killed is to do exactly what a proudly-uninformed doofus demands.

You want to give orders, get a waitress, ass napkin.

 

[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 . . .

Sounds more like your brain is having a hard time negotiating the tiny spaces it's in.

Coming from you, that means less than nothing.

 

[Taz]

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.

That these kinds of weapons are favored by mass murderers in schools is all I need to know. You obviously don't care about children getting shot by high powered weapons. Now get back on your broom and go get me an eye of newt.

Yes, the only way to care about children being killed is to do exactly what a proudly-uninformed doofus demands.

You want to give orders, get a waitress, ass napkin.

I figured out why you're so grumpy all the time: splinters between your legs from your broom.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

That these kinds of weapons are favored by mass murderers in schools is all I need to know. You obviously don't care about children getting shot by high powered weapons. Now get back on your broom and go get me an eye of newt.

Yes, the only way to care about children being killed is to do exactly what a proudly-uninformed doofus demands.

You want to give orders, get a waitress, ass napkin.

I figured out why you're so grumpy all the time: splinters between your legs from your broom.

I doubt you could figure out how to tie your own shoes without detailed instructions and maybe a diagram.

 

[Taz]

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.

That these kinds of weapons are favored by mass murderers in schools is all I need to know. You obviously don't care about children getting shot by high powered weapons. Now get back on your broom and go get me an eye of newt.

Yes, the only way to care about children being killed is to do exactly what a proudly-uninformed doofus demands.

You want to give orders, get a waitress, ass napkin.

I figured out why you're so grumpy all the time: splinters between your legs from your broom.

I doubt you could figure out how to tie your own shoes without detailed instructions and maybe a diagram.

I bet it's way easier to start your broom.