Please gun supporters - explain to me once and for all why you need an automatic weapon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read every article I've seen on gun supporters. You want to keep your handgun "for safety", fine. But please tell me why you need and feel it's your right to buy something like an AR-15. I just can't understand.

Brilliant article by the way -

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/gun-laws-and-terrorism-an-american-nightmare?mbid=social_facebook

You're an idiot. You can't buy an automatic weapon.

Sure you can. It just takes a lot of time and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So even an honest question gets disgusting answers.

We're doomed.

Disgusting answers include pointing out that the question is invalid, as automatic weapons are illegal?

Different poster here. That's a valid answer, but still misses the point. Those semi-automatic rifles can still be fired quickly and are very powerful. People who don't know the difference are CALLING them automatic weapons, but they MEAN semi-automatic rifles, and they seem to be the weapons of choice for those who want to kill a lot of people fast.

So what was the point? If the question is factually invalid, then no intelligent response can be provided.

The point is you can correct the OP's facts and still address the actual intent of his question, which is: Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle?

Ah, so only now is the true issue revealed. If that's the question, then the answer is simple.

There is no need to justify any exercise of one's 2nd Amendment rights.

That's not an answer. Your rights are one thing. The specific manner in which you choose (or are allowed to) exercise your rights are another. If you say, "I need a semi-automatic rifle so I can shoot a lot of people at a bar," this would not be a legitimate exercise of your second amendment rights. If you say, "I need a a semi-automatic rifle because I need to target practice," that would be a better answer, but still not a good answer because you'd be describing a want rather than a need. So the question remains: Why do you NEED a semi-automatic rifle?

NP here. I think that your analysis is flawed. It's akin to asking someone why they "need" a website to exercise first amendment rights when they have a pen and paper, in furtherance of an argument that the government should ban websites based on content of speech.

Certain content is in fact banned. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater and you can't set up a website that provides detail planning for overthrow of the US Government. You also can't buy a fully automatic weapon. Maybe you can come up with a legitimate need for one, but so far the courts have not overturned that ban.

Until 2004, there was a ban on semi-automatic rifles. It was not overturned by the courts, it expired. That ban could be reinstated, and if it were, there would certainly be a discussion about why you would need such a weapon. Until Scalia died, the Supreme Court would have certainly overturned it. If Clinton is elected and gets a democratic congress too, that ban could come back for good.

I'm afraid that you're mistaken re: the law that expired in 2004: it did not ban semi-automatic rifles (which have been used for hunting, etc., since the late 19th century). The law that expired in 2004 banned a narrow subset of semi-auto weapons, which is why it was widely derided--in effect, it banned "scary-looking" guns, while allowing ownership of functionally similar guns.

Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

[Anonymous]

This thread is so depressing. I weep for humanity. Only when it's too late, will people realize the consequences of clinging to their murder weapons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. I weep for humanity. Only when it's too late, will people realize the consequences of clinging to their murder weapons.

If the murder of 20 5-7 yrs olds wasn't "too late" and spur action, nothing is. It is indeed sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. I weep for humanity. Only when it's too late, will people realize the consequences of clinging to their murder weapons.

If the murder of 20 5-7 yrs olds wasn't "too late" and spur action, nothing is. It is indeed sad.

+1. True, and heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a ban on semi-automatics aaide, why do so many of you have problems with banning large capacity magazines?

Because law-abiding shooters who use their guns to shoot at targets at a gun range don't want to spend all their range time reloading magazines when they could be shooting. It's the same concept as getting a big bucket of balls at the declining range instead of the three that come in the box.

It's not nearly as nefarious as gun control advocates make it sound.

Then you should be required to A) be licensed to operate a firearm through a federeally approved training course, B) register your firearms with ATF (and re-register every 1-2 years like you do with a car), and C) register as an FFL if you want to sell your gun to a third party so that you have the legal obligation to conduct a federal background check OR agree that you must sell your firearm(s) to an FFL who is required to run a background check before they can re-sell it. Anyone in possession of a firearm who does not have every single one of these things should be penalized with a HEAVY fine and/or a misdemeanor offense for repeat offenders. I also personally think that gun owners should be required to purchase a gun safe and provide proof of purchase in order to maintain a license, the same way you have to prove you have car insurance in order to renew your car registration. These are common sense laws that in NO WAY impinge on your rights to own firearm(s) for sport. You can still own a fucking arsenal and go shoot your crazy heart out every damn day. This is exactly what we do with vehicles. We don't just let any idiot operate a 2-ton piece of machinery, and we shouldn't just let any idiot own and operate firearms. The amazing number of loopholes people can use to purchase guns without a background check is insane and wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so depressing. I weep for humanity. Only when it's too late, will people realize the consequences of clinging to their murder weapons.

I share the sadness, but not your conclusion.

In fact, I think that attitudes like yours contribute to the inability to identify meaningful solutions.

When you talk about people "clinging to their murder weapons", you demonize those with whom you need to forge agreement.

Very Trumpian/Cruzian of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a ban on semi-automatics aaide, why do so many of you have problems with banning large capacity magazines?

Because law-abiding shooters who use their guns to shoot at targets at a gun range don't want to spend all their range time reloading magazines when they could be shooting. It's the same concept as getting a big bucket of balls at the declining range instead of the three that come in the box.

It's not nearly as nefarious as gun control advocates make it sound.

Then you should be required to A) be licensed to operate a firearm through a federeally approved training course, B) register your firearms with ATF (and re-register every 1-2 years like you do with a car), and C) register as an FFL if you want to sell your gun to a third party so that you have the legal obligation to conduct a federal background check OR agree that you must sell your firearm(s) to an FFL who is required to run a background check before they can re-sell it. Anyone in possession of a firearm who does not have every single one of these things should be penalized with a HEAVY fine and/or a misdemeanor offense for repeat offenders. I also personally think that gun owners should be required to purchase a gun safe and provide proof of purchase in order to maintain a license, the same way you have to prove you have car insurance in order to renew your car registration. These are common sense laws that in NO WAY impinge on your rights to own firearm(s) for sport. You can still own a fucking arsenal and go shoot your crazy heart out every damn day. This is exactly what we do with vehicles. We don't just let any idiot operate a 2-ton piece of machinery, and we shouldn't just let any idiot own and operate firearms. The amazing number of loopholes people can use to purchase guns without a background check is insane and wrong.

I agree with every one of these suggestions, and would even go further in some instances.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that any of these would have prevented Orlando.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fix your shit, gun people.

In Florida, though, you don't need a license to buy or carry a rifle like the AR-15. There is a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun like the Glock Mateen also had on him, but no waiting period at all to buy an AR-15.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613#ixzz4BUIsTgzV

And...

Today, just over 24 hours since the Pulse attack, the NRA broke its silence by using the Twitter account of a magazine it owns to retweet from @NRABlog, “Need a gift for #FathersDay? How about a gift from the #NRA store?!”

It's pretty common to not need a license to buy or carry a long gun, and in most places you only need a permit to carry the handgun if you are going to conceal it. If you want to wear it on your belt or in a shoulder or thigh holster where it can be seen, you can without a permit.

Right, and those of us with COMMON SENSE want you to be required to be licensed only after you have completed a federally approved training and safety course just like a car, and to be required to MAINTAIN your license through periodic testing just like a car, and to have any violations or offenses count against your lisence just like a car, and to be required to REGISTER your firearms just like you register your car and to re-register periodically just like your car, and to PROVE that you have proper safety equipment in place (i.e. a gun safe). If you are so law-abiding I see no reason why you can't do this. No one is coming for your GD guns, just like no one is coming for your car. But just like with a car, you should be held LEGALLY accountable for maintaining it and operating it safely, and if you can't, then yes you should lose the privilege. We don't want reckless crazy people on our streets putting our lives in danger. We shouldn't accept reckless crazy people on our streets with guns without any way to check them either. A one-time background check at the time of purchase is bullshit. A patchwork of state laws is bullshit. I want FEDERAL LAWS that apply to everyone so that, no matter where you go in this country, you know everyone is playing by the same rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So a ban on semi-automatics aaide, why do so many of you have problems with banning large capacity magazines?

Because law-abiding shooters who use their guns to shoot at targets at a gun range don't want to spend all their range time reloading magazines when they could be shooting. It's the same concept as getting a big bucket of balls at the declining range instead of the three that come in the box.

It's not nearly as nefarious as gun control advocates make it sound.

Then you should be required to A) be licensed to operate a firearm through a federeally approved training course, B) register your firearms with ATF (and re-register every 1-2 years like you do with a car), and C) register as an FFL if you want to sell your gun to a third party so that you have the legal obligation to conduct a federal background check OR agree that you must sell your firearm(s) to an FFL who is required to run a background check before they can re-sell it. Anyone in possession of a firearm who does not have every single one of these things should be penalized with a HEAVY fine and/or a misdemeanor offense for repeat offenders. I also personally think that gun owners should be required to purchase a gun safe and provide proof of purchase in order to maintain a license, the same way you have to prove you have car insurance in order to renew your car registration. These are common sense laws that in NO WAY impinge on your rights to own firearm(s) for sport. You can still own a fucking arsenal and go shoot your crazy heart out every damn day. This is exactly what we do with vehicles. We don't just let any idiot operate a 2-ton piece of machinery, and we shouldn't just let any idiot own and operate firearms. The amazing number of loopholes people can use to purchase guns without a background check is insane and wrong.

I agree with every one of these suggestions, and would even go further in some instances.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that any of these would have prevented Orlando.

They would if the background check systems actually worked. I'm sorry, but if you've been the subject of a 10-month investigation by the FBI, you just shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms legally. And how the hell he was working with a security company is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[
Your revised first amendment analogy is getting more compelling now that you've moved away from the "need" framework. I agree that the widely recognized "public safety" limitations to the first amendment serve as a model for reasonable additional regulation on firearms. However, a ban on all semi-automatic weapons is a non-starter--they simply have too many legitimate applications.

IMO, people seriously interested in meaningful gun control ought focus on background checks for all transfers, criminal liability for negligent transfer/storage, and similar measures designed to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

Can you spell out for me the many legitimate applications? All I ever hear is target practice, which I think is only legitimate in that it's fun.

I'm all for the background checks, criminal liability, etc., but it appears impossible to keep firearms out of the wrong hands. They're in the right hands until those hands turn wrong.

[Anonymous]

When did "thoughts and prayers" come to mean FU?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fix your shit, gun people.

In Florida, though, you don't need a license to buy or carry a rifle like the AR-15. There is a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun like the Glock Mateen also had on him, but no waiting period at all to buy an AR-15.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613#ixzz4BUIsTgzV

And...

Today, just over 24 hours since the Pulse attack, the NRA broke its silence by using the Twitter account of a magazine it owns to retweet from @NRABlog, “Need a gift for #FathersDay? How about a gift from the #NRA store?!”

It's pretty common to not need a license to buy or carry a long gun, and in most places you only need a permit to carry the handgun if you are going to conceal it. If you want to wear it on your belt or in a shoulder or thigh holster where it can be seen, you can without a permit.

Right, and those of us with COMMON SENSE want you to be required to be licensed only after you have completed a federally approved training and safety course just like a car, and to be required to MAINTAIN your license through periodic testing just like a car, and to have any violations or offenses count against your lisence just like a car, and to be required to REGISTER your firearms just like you register your car and to re-register periodically just like your car, and to PROVE that you have proper safety equipment in place (i.e. a gun safe). If you are so law-abiding I see no reason why you can't do this. No one is coming for your GD guns, just like no one is coming for your car. But just like with a car, you should be held LEGALLY accountable for maintaining it and operating it safely, and if you can't, then yes you should lose the privilege. We don't want reckless crazy people on our streets putting our lives in danger. We shouldn't accept reckless crazy people on our streets with guns without any way to check them either. A one-time background check at the time of purchase is bullshit. A patchwork of state laws is bullshit. I want FEDERAL LAWS that apply to everyone so that, no matter where you go in this country, you know everyone is playing by the same rules.

Reasonable proposals, but judging by this thread, quite a few people ARE coming for your guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've read every article I've seen on gun supporters. You want to keep your handgun "for safety", fine. But please tell me why you need and feel it's your right to buy something like an AR-15. I just can't understand.

Brilliant article by the way -

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/gun-laws-and-terrorism-an-american-nightmare?mbid=social_facebook

You're an idiot. You can't buy an automatic weapon.

Sure you can. It just takes a lot of time and money.

Go buy one then..tell me how that goes..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fix your shit, gun people.

In Florida, though, you don't need a license to buy or carry a rifle like the AR-15. There is a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun like the Glock Mateen also had on him, but no waiting period at all to buy an AR-15.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613#ixzz4BUIsTgzV

And...

Today, just over 24 hours since the Pulse attack, the NRA broke its silence by using the Twitter account of a magazine it owns to retweet from @NRABlog, “Need a gift for #FathersDay? How about a gift from the #NRA store?!”

It's pretty common to not need a license to buy or carry a long gun, and in most places you only need a permit to carry the handgun if you are going to conceal it. If you want to wear it on your belt or in a shoulder or thigh holster where it can be seen, you can without a permit.

Right, and those of us with COMMON SENSE want you to be required to be licensed only after you have completed a federally approved training and safety course just like a car, and to be required to MAINTAIN your license through periodic testing just like a car, and to have any violations or offenses count against your lisence just like a car, and to be required to REGISTER your firearms just like you register your car and to re-register periodically just like your car, and to PROVE that you have proper safety equipment in place (i.e. a gun safe). If you are so law-abiding I see no reason why you can't do this. No one is coming for your GD guns, just like no one is coming for your car. But just like with a car, you should be held LEGALLY accountable for maintaining it and operating it safely, and if you can't, then yes you should lose the privilege. We don't want reckless crazy people on our streets putting our lives in danger. We shouldn't accept reckless crazy people on our streets with guns without any way to check them either. A one-time background check at the time of purchase is bullshit. A patchwork of state laws is bullshit. I want FEDERAL LAWS that apply to everyone so that, no matter where you go in this country, you know everyone is playing by the same rules.

Reasonable proposals, but judging by this thread, quite a few people ARE coming for your guns.

Oh, please. Everyone KNOWS that that will never happen. Republicans repeat this lie because it riles people up. It's irresponsible and borderline criminal to play politics that way while people die. Who cares if a bunch of anonymous internet strangers say they support taking your guns when you know damned well that it will never happen? I mean, logistically, how at this point could the authorities possibly round up every gun in America? It would be the shootout at the OK Corral on every street corner in America. This is as stupid an assertion as deporting 11 million people or banning Muslims from the country. Can't we all grow up, be reasonable, analyze our problems and apply common sense to solving them? Be a part of the solution. Stop the nonsense. Stop the ideological pandering. And I say this to EVERYONE, regardless of political persuasion. We've all lost our goddamned minds.