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.

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.

I'm not sure anyone could say, "semi-autos are the vast majority of all handguns." That's a guess, at best. Many States do not track firearm ownership at all. Many people own single-action revolvers and many more own bolt action rifles, shotguns and lever-action rifles. NONE of these are "semi-auto," and as far as I know even the government couldn't say how many single action revolvers versus semi-auto's are in circulation. Once again, fully automatic guns are "banned" and assault rifles were "banned" at one time but if you are a law abiding citizen who qualifies you can still buy and own these "banned" arms. You just cannot buy them without applying and registering with the ATF.

 

[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?

Then why did you ask?

This statement right here....

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

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

 

[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.

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.

Do you need to register to vote? To own and drive a car? To go to school? To own a business? To earn any money at all? You are confusing the "rights" of citizens within a certain country to the rights of someone living alone on a deserted island.

 

[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?

This statement right here....

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

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

This statement right here....

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

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?

 

[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.

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.

I'm not sure anyone could say, "semi-autos are the vast majority of all handguns." That's a guess, at best. Many States do not track firearm ownership at all. Many people own single-action revolvers and many more own bolt action rifles, shotguns and lever-action rifles. NONE of these are "semi-auto," and as far as I know even the government couldn't say how many single action revolvers versus semi-auto's are in circulation. Once again, fully automatic guns are "banned" and assault rifles were "banned" at one time but if you are a law abiding citizen who qualifies you can still buy and own these "banned" arms. You just cannot buy them without applying and registering with the ATF.

some good points i've not heard before so i went to look it up. this answer on quora seems interesting as a read. will have to dig more later.

https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-guns-in-the-US-are-semiautomatics

 

[iceberg]

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?

This statement right here....

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

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

then it also doesn't say what CAN'T be under this rule now does it?

 

[Flash]

[Q

Do you need to register to vote? To own and drive a car? To go to school? To own a business? To earn any money at all? You are confusing the "rights" of citizens within a certain country to the rights of someone living alone on a deserted island.

Since only citizens are allowed to vote we have voter registration.

You do not need a license to drive a car unless you are driving it on roads paid for out of public funds.

Business licenses are nothing more than the locals getting some of your tax dollars.

In my life I have earned all kinds of money without government permission.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Go look it up.

That is the only license an American citizen needs to keep and bear arms.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not sure anyone could say, "semi-autos are the vast majority of all handguns." That's a guess, at best. Many States do not track firearm ownership at all. Many people own single-action revolvers and many more own bolt action rifles, shotguns and lever-action rifles. NONE of these are "semi-auto," and as far as I know even the government couldn't say how many single action revolvers versus semi-auto's are in circulation. Once again, fully automatic guns are "banned" and assault rifles were "banned" at one time but if you are a law abiding citizen who qualifies you can still buy and own these "banned" arms. You just cannot buy them without applying and registering with the ATF.

I promise you most handguns/pistols are semi auto.
No one buys a wheel gun that isnt double action anymore.

 

[Flash]

We will get a lot of Liberal tears with this:

 

[toobfreak]

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

Let me explain it this way as you are not a gun user. Why do you drive an automatic and not a stick? Worse, imagine if your car had three gears, but you had to stop the car to change from one gear to the next. Imagine if your cellphone could only do telephone OR internet OR games. Not all at the same time. Imagine when you bought a TV or DVR, it could only watch one channel or record one station and not several.

Would you consider any of the better, popular choices overkill? Of course not. The question seems ridiculous because you take your options for granted. It is the same way with a semi-auto. They have had semi-auto since the Old West because it simply makes the firearm better, more fun, easier to use for more stuff. Less hassle to operate. Better sport. Only from a military aspect does it also make the gun more potentially deadlier.

People would live healthier if all they ate was Kale. People would be killed in far fewer car accidents if they were all made to only go 25 mph. People would spend far less time on cellphones if they were only made to make telephone calls. People would spend more time with their families instead of watching TV if TV was only on from 8 to 11, and there was only 3-5 TV channels like when I was a kid. And guns would be less easily misused to hurt others if they only shot one round of .22LR at a time.

But just as no one wants to live on Kale, people want and need to go faster, cellphones are desired for other things, and folks will watch all the TV they can get, guns are both desired for and needed for more than plinking tin cans. The shooting and hunting sports is a wide and diverse field, firearms is a vast and proud tradition of history with many fans and adherents, and no one can define the needs of "civilian use;" just because today, they may sit in a closet collecting dust, or out on the field target practicing and competition or bringing home food, who can say what lays ahead a year from now, five years from now or 25 years from now? History shows that war, civilian suppression, oppression, and abuse are cyclic, and if it ever comes down to tyranny (and many feel we are getting close to that now), do you really want to be left there with nothing but your finger to point in your defense? Or are you just willing to lay down, surrender and die?

The one thing history teaches is that governments always act in THEIR best interests, not in those of its people. Only a fool thinks all these efforts to limit, restrict and ban guns is "for the public good," and once gone, you're not getting them back, and free of that restraint of an armed populace, even the best of governments with good intentions are now free to do whatever the hell they damn well please. I choose not to gamble on their good will.

 

[sedwin]

[Q

Do you need to register to vote? To own and drive a car? To go to school? To own a business? To earn any money at all? You are confusing the "rights" of citizens within a certain country to the rights of someone living alone on a deserted island.

Since only citizens are allowed to vote we have voter registration.

You do not need a license to drive a car unless you are driving it on roads paid for out of public funds.

Business licenses are nothing more than the locals getting some of your tax dollars.

In my life I have earned all kinds of money without government permission.

The right to keep and bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. Go look it up.

That is the only license an American citizen needs to keep and bear arms.

Funny that "only a citizen can vote" yet the conservatives are now and always have been all in for illegal criminals, even those on the no-fly list, to buy guns.
If you BUY a car you still have to have it registered AND have a license, unless you buy a car from a private citizen (like a car thief for example).
Business licenses are there to make sure you are paying your taxes (as all citizens and most illegals do) as well as complying with this countries laws. Only law breakers try to justify not following the law with taxes. Like Don't tax you and don't tax me, tax the guy behind the tree (or laws apply to you and not me).
If you earned money and did not report it you are a criminal. It's funny because many "Illegals" do report all their money and as such are less criminal than you in that sense.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA are the first four words of the Second. Well regulated MEANS the government can regulated (or pass any laws concerning guns). Go look it up yourself. And while you are there look up all the regulations regarding guns that were imposed by the actual writers of that amendment also known as our forefathers. Derp.

 

[Taz]

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?

This statement right here....

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

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?

I just 'splained it to you.

 

[sedwin]

We will get a lot of Liberal tears with this:

No. You'll get a lot of liberal laughter as Trump is a clown. But I bet there were a lot of conservative tears when Trump said he would confiscate all guns until the courts reviewed your mental status. Only a moron would trust Trump regarding anything he tweets. lmao

 

[Taz]

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?

This statement right here....

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

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

then it also doesn't say what CAN'T be under this rule now does it?

It's a broad outline that says you can't be unarmed totally. Do you have another point?

 

[Zander]

Molon labe.

 

[Taz]

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

Let me explain it this way as you are not a gun user. Why do you drive an automatic and not a stick? Worse, imagine if your car had three gears, but you had to stop the car to change from one gear to the next. Imagine if your cellphone could only do telephone OR internet OR games. Not all at the same time. Imagine when you bought a TV or DVR, it could only watch one channel or record one station and not several.

Would you consider any of the better, popular choices overkill? Of course not. The question seems ridiculous because you take your options for granted. It is the same way with a semi-auto. They have had semi-auto since the Old West because it simply makes the firearm better, more fun, easier to use for more stuff. Less hassle to operate. Better sport. Only from a military aspect does it also make the gun more potentially deadlier.

People would live healthier if all they ate was Kale. People would be killed in far fewer car accidents if they were all made to only go 25 mph. People would spend far less time on cellphones if they were only made to make telephone calls. People would spend more time with their families instead of watching TV if TV was only on from 8 to 11, and there was only 3-5 TV channels like when I was a kid. And guns would be less easily misused to hurt others if they only shot one round of .22LR at a time.

But just as no one wants to live on Kale, people want and need to go faster, cellphones are desired for other things, and folks will watch all the TV they can get, guns are both desired for and needed for more than plinking tin cans. The shooting and hunting sports is a wide and diverse field, firearms is a vast and proud tradition of history with many fans and adherents, and no one can define the needs of "civilian use;" just because today, they may sit in a closet collecting dust, or out on the field target practicing and competition or bringing home food, who can say what lays ahead a year from now, five years from now or 25 years from now? History shows that war, civilian suppression, oppression, and abuse are cyclic, and if it ever comes down to tyranny (and many feel we are getting close to that now), do you really want to be left there with nothing but your finger to point in your defense? Or are you just willing to lay down, surrender and die?

The one thing history teaches is that governments always act in THEIR best interests, not in those of its people. Only a fool thinks all these efforts to limit, restrict and ban guns is "for the public good," and once gone, you're not getting them back, and free of that restraint of an armed populace, even the best of governments with good intentions are now free to do whatever the hell they damn well please. I choose not to gamble on their good will.

So you're ok with some restrictions on cars (like a speed limit) but you're against any kind of controls for weapons? And it's because you're paranoid of your own government? Geez, that's pretty scary.

 

[sedwin]

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?

This statement right here....

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

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?

I just 'splained it to you.

Yeah, it's funny that back when the 2cd was written people carried, muskets, swords and knives. In my State you can own and carry a gun on your hip or over your shoulder anywhere, at any time, except in liquor stores, court houses and banks. But even owning a switch blade (kept in a box in your attic) is a felony punishable by prison. I wonder why? Oh yeah. There is no National Knife Association looking to protect their profits. lol

 

[sedwin]

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?

This statement right here....

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

Do you know the intent of the 2nd or not?
If not,you dont need to be in this discussion. If you do,your statement is absolutely stupid and you know it.

The 2nd doesn't say the right to own any weapon ever made. It says that you have the right to bear arms. Which you'd still do even if they took some kinds of guns off the market.

then it also doesn't say what CAN'T be under this rule now does it?

It's a broad outline that says you can't be unarmed totally. Do you have another point?

It's an outline that said we will have no standing army (and we didn't;t have any law enforcement at the time) so we needed weapons to hunt and protect ourselves. Now we "hunt" the grocery store, have hundreds of law enforcement agencies and an actual standing Army and Reserve. There is no reason to fight to arm criminals, those who sell to criminals, those on terrorist watch lists or the mentally disturbed. If a single conservative EVER said they wanted to pass laws to prevent criminals, terrorist and mentally disturbed people from buying guns without registering them they would show everyone they were concerned with the safety of American children and citizens. Since they never do say that they clearly are not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's an outline that said we will have no standing army (and we didn't;t have any law enforcement at the time) so we needed weapons to hunt and protect ourselves. Now we "hunt" the grocery store, have hundreds of law enforcement agencies and an actual standing Army and Reserve.

Sounds great. If some thugs bust down your door in the middle of the night, call the army reserves. If they bust down mine, I'll grab my 9mm and call the cops when I get up in the morning to pickup the corpse.