Simple question to gun advocates

[9thIDdoc]

Automatic fired wepons would be the best possible gun for them to use. They don't use them because they are so highly regulated. Gun control does work quite well in that situation.

Not if your goal is to prevent mass murder because guns are only one of many ways mass murder is committed.

Curious how it's been posted again and again, how successful the 1934 NFA was in preventing use of full-auto (machine guns) in murdering people.

Then you argue that gun laws don't work, when you got slapped in the face with proof they do.

So? Who cares unless there is proof that has resulted in some reduction in the total number of all types of mass murder? Getting shot is worse than being burned to death? I don't think so.

 

[radical right]

The CHRB is supposed to review the paperwork and do the background check. Except THEY DON'T DO IT. They claim to be too overloaded with permit applications to do the transfer checks.

Like with background checks, the rule is they have 72 hours to find a disqualifying court record. If they can't in that period of time, for whatever reason, the transfer is allowed to go through.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of 'Ancient & Outdated' 2nd Amendment
Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of 'Ancient & Outdated' 2nd Amendment

Katy Tur Suggests Repealing 2nd Amendment Should Be Democrats' End Goal
Katy Tur Suggests Repealing 2nd Amendment Should Be Democrats' End Goal

You're confusing them with Al Franken, who hasn't called for repeal of the 2nd amendment, and is the one in congress and not making political movies and books.

See the left wing logic here exposing it tyranny:

Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of 'Ancient & Outdated' 2nd Amendment
Michael Moore Calls for Repeal of 'Ancient & Outdated' 2nd Amendment

what is the point of calling it "ancient and outdated" if not to give his point what he feels is a valid reason? the left will try to avoid explaining this but the 1st amendment is even older and in real time he has got believe the same thing about the entire constitution and so does anyone who does not take issue with Moore's claim...the left just does not like the way the constitution binds its political tentacles

 

[9thIDdoc]

OK so when you can tell who will commit a crime with a gun in the future you let me know
Until then I'll keep my guns

Nobody wants to take away your guns. They are only after certain accessories

Jut like New York isn't taking away anybodies car, but they did outlaw dark window tints, and license plate obscuring covers..

So who exactly do you think has a problem regulating bump stocks?

 

[radical right]

Curious how it's been posted again and again, how successful the 1934 NFA was in preventing use of full-auto (machine guns) in murdering people.

Then you argue that gun laws don't work, when you got slapped in the face with proof they do.

So? Who cares unless there is proof that has resulted in some reduction in the total number of all types of mass murder? Getting shot is worse than being burned to death? I don't think so.

You can't stop mass murder, whether 9-11 or Las Vegas. But you can make it so hard, it doesn't happen very often. We've stopped use of machine guns, we've stopped use of commercial airliners, now it's time to chip away on all the other methods.

 

[radical right]

what is the point of calling it "ancient and outdated" if not to give his point what he feels is a valid reason? the left will try to avoid explaining this but the 1st amendment is even older and in real time he has got believe the same thing about the entire constitution and so does anyone who does not take issue with Moore's claim...the left just does not like the way the constitution binds its political tentacles

He claimed a plan to repeal the 2nd amendment. And used the rants of a political movie maker, a reporter and writer, and the only thing from congress was one from 1993, that went nowhere and died in 1994.

 

[radical right]

So who exactly do you think has a problem regulating bump stocks?

Diane Feinstein wanted to ban them in 2013

 

[Frankeneinstein]

what is the point of calling it "ancient and outdated" if not to give his point what he feels is a valid reason? the left will try to avoid explaining this but the 1st amendment is even older and in real time he has got believe the same thing about the entire constitution and so does anyone who does not take issue with Moore's claim...the left just does not like the way the constitution binds its political tentacles

He claimed a plan to repeal the 2nd amendment. And used the rants of a political movie maker, a reporter and writer, and the only thing from congress was one from 1993, that went nowhere and died in 1994.

all fine and well, but you should actually try replying to the poster whose point you are addressing, as I was addressing the issue of what Moore and the left [except for those on the left who disavow Moore's statement] are saying and what their mindset really is as exposed by the Moore claim of calling our second amendment [and by extension the constitution] old and outdated you could not possibly have intended your post for me since it completely avoids the point I was making.

 

[radical right]

all fine and well, but you should actually try replying to the poster whose point you are addressing, as I was addressing the issue of what Moore and the left [except for those on the left who disavow Moore's statement] are saying and what their mindset really is as exposed by the Moore claim of calling our second amendment [and by extension the constitution] old and outdated you could not possibly have intended your post for me since it completely avoids the point I was making.

And I was addressing what you are saying. Whether they are your original thoughts, or repeating previously posted ideas, or grabbed from other places.

 

[radical right]

you could not possibly have intended your post for me since it completely avoids the point I was making.

I responded to what you posted. If your point was carried in a different post, try posting it again.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Did you support the provision that banned automatic weapons in 1986? Do you support it now? Why or why not?

They are actually not banned. They require a federal permit, which is heavily vetted and difficult to obtain, and they are incredibly expensive.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Curious how it's been posted again and again, how successful the 1934 NFA was in preventing use of full-auto (machine guns) in murdering people.

Then you argue that gun laws don't work, when you got slapped in the face with proof they do.

So? Who cares unless there is proof that has resulted in some reduction in the total number of all types of mass murder? Getting shot is worse than being burned to death? I don't think so.

You can't stop mass murder, whether 9-11 or Las Vegas. But you can make it so hard, it doesn't happen very often. We've stopped use of machine guns, we've stopped use of commercial airliners, now it's time to chip away on all the other methods.

But you can make it so hard, it doesn't happen very often.

Untrue. You cannot prove the measures you cite have made mass murders harder or reduced in number. If anything I suspect there has been considerable increase in mass murder.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

you could not possibly have intended your post for me since it completely avoids the point I was making.

I responded to what you posted.

technically that is true, problem is you responded with something that had/has absolutely no bearing on my post and no base in reality...see next quote as an example of what I am attempting to slowly and methodically explain to you

If your point was carried in a different post, try posting it again.

see, completely of balance with no basis in reality...the good news is you may just have an inner ear problem

 

[westwall]

You can ban bump stocks, but they can be easily made at home, and someone as extreme or as sick as the Las Vegas murderer was wouldn't care whether they were illegal or not.
Go ahead and ban them,.

If they're made illegal, the person has to practice far from the maddening crowd. He can't take them to the gun range, or where other people might hear or see them.

Coincidence that republicans want to also bring back silencers?

"Silencers" don't make the guns quiet. They protect the hearing of the shooter, but downrange they are every bit as loud. Stop speaking from a position of ignorance.

 

[Anathema]

Like with background checks, the rule is they have 72 hours to find a disqualifying court record. If they can't in that period of time, for whatever reason, the transfer is allowed to go through.

Nope. In MA the PRIVATE gun transfer occurs at the time the paperwork is done. THEN the paperwork gets snail-mailed to Boston. By the time it gets to Boston it's likely to have been 72 hours.

 

[westwall]

Curious how it's been posted again and again, how successful the 1934 NFA was in preventing use of full-auto (machine guns) in murdering people.

Then you argue that gun laws don't work, when you got slapped in the face with proof they do.

So? Who cares unless there is proof that has resulted in some reduction in the total number of all types of mass murder? Getting shot is worse than being burned to death? I don't think so.

You can't stop mass murder, whether 9-11 or Las Vegas. But you can make it so hard, it doesn't happen very often. We've stopped use of machine guns, we've stopped use of commercial airliners, now it's time to chip away on all the other methods.

That is provably false. The Paris shooters had no problem transporting multiple AK's across an ocean, and through multiple countries in Europe to carry out their attack.

 

[Anathema]

Can’t we deal with both? Make sure the best regulations are in place to ensure responsible use and production of lethal weapons while also address cultural issues that contribute to crime and violence

Fix the Social ills and the other, unconstitutional, changes are unnecessary.

 

[radical right]

"Silencers" don't make the guns quiet. They protect the hearing of the shooter, but downrange they are every bit as loud. Stop speaking from a position of ignorance.

You are the ignorant one. True that a silencer by itself doesn't silence a firearm, one doesn't use a silencer unless in conjunction with silencer ammunition. Which eliminates downrange noise.

 

[Anathema]

Until we can fix (medicate, institutionalize etc) every dangerous person in the country, the best solution is to separate them away from from dangerous weapons.
We don't give children the "pointy" scissors, we don't let the Iranians have nukes.

Unless you can tell with 100% accuracy who will be criminally violent in the future, your suggestion is unfeasible.

I know more than a handful of people who have refused the suggestion that they might benefit from seeing a therapist BECAUSE it could lead to them losing their gun license or firearms. These aren't dangerous or violent people. They're dealing with stresses or the loss of family members or similar, low level mental health issues.

I give kids the pointy scissors. I invite them to touch the hot section of the stove and stick the fork in the outlet. Thsts how they learn.

 

[westwall]

"Silencers" don't make the guns quiet. They protect the hearing of the shooter, but downrange they are every bit as loud. Stop speaking from a position of ignorance.

You are the ignorant one. True that a silencer by itself doesn't silence a firearm, one doesn't use a silencer unless in conjunction with silencer ammunition. Which eliminates downrange noise.

It's called subsonic ammunition and I actually own silencers so no, I know significantly more than you do. At the range he was firing he would have needed to use standard high velocity ammunition to be able to aim accurately. It's not like you see on TV dude. Just sayin...