Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
30. What you fail to understand is that to non-gun fanatics, the detail of the design is unimportant.
Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:12 AM
Dec 2012

Any gun that allows for a magazine or clip holding enough bullets to easily dispatch dozens of victims within half a minute should be strictly regulated, whether it is semi-automatic or automatic.

"there is essentially no difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-auto" former-republican Dec 2012 #1
you are very good at copying and pasting farminator3000 Dec 2012 #6
I'm not going to go through the mechanical design of how a firearm operates former-republican Dec 2012 #11
i know how guns work farminator3000 Dec 2012 #12
Your statement is they are both the same , automatic and semi-automatic former-republican Dec 2012 #13
we are talking about changing the law to make it better farminator3000 Dec 2012 #15
sweet! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #16
There is only one difference intaglio Dec 2012 #19
They are not they are called semi automatic former-republican Dec 2012 #63
Oh goody, I wanted you to lie about this intaglio Dec 2012 #80
What you fail to understand is that to non-gun fanatics, the detail of the design is unimportant. pnwmom Dec 2012 #30
nice! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #125
Why do you think I would need a gun like Lanza's to defend myself? pnwmom Dec 2012 #127
i'm talking 'you' as in 'a person' farminator3000 Dec 2012 #130
Are you a mechanical engineer? XRubicon Dec 2012 #185
Here's a semiautomatic weapon being fired RomneyLies Dec 2012 #25
Are the bullets less lethal? 99Forever Dec 2012 #32
I saw that video Aerows Dec 2012 #36
100% legal. RomneyLies Dec 2012 #38
Did you see that video Aerows Dec 2012 #37
The ATF can ban that stock in a heartbeat NickB79 Dec 2012 #105
check this out farminator3000 Dec 2012 #126
Because they are cowards nakocal Dec 2012 #128
I agree completely. Both are of interest to gun cultists because they are so deadly. Hoyt Dec 2012 #2
Prepare to be "educated" by the DU gun lobby in 3..2..1.. Hugabear Dec 2012 #3
they all love their cars, too. farminator3000 Dec 2012 #8
Gun-huggers love inanimate machines of death more than they love human beings. n/t RomneyLies Dec 2012 #26
You are correct, sir! flying_wahini Dec 2012 #47
Pretty sad, isn't it? CTyankee Dec 2012 #181
If it shoots more than one round at a time tblue Dec 2012 #4
By definition semi-automatics do not. Kurska Dec 2012 #7
For the purposes of this conversation it does not bettyellen Dec 2012 #9
ANY gun can be rapid fired by someone with practice hobbit709 Dec 2012 #40
I trust that guy Aerows Dec 2012 #45
Pointing out an obvious fact gets you called a gun supporter? hobbit709 Dec 2012 #50
LOL Aerows Dec 2012 #52
I know the difference hobbit709 Dec 2012 #53
This is a serious subject Aerows Dec 2012 #54
if you play NRA word games to divert the conversation, you will appear to be a supporter bettyellen Dec 2012 #65
One word for these people: LOSERS! CTyankee Dec 2012 #182
... Major Nikon Dec 2012 #49
OK. Any gun made after about 1860 hobbit709 Dec 2012 #51
... Major Nikon Dec 2012 #56
How long do you want to quibble semantics while others accuse us of being frivolous? hobbit709 Dec 2012 #60
So pointing out obvious facts is now quibbling semantics? Major Nikon Dec 2012 #62
just make it even MORE sarcastic! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #129
They don't Aerows Dec 2012 #42
So getting the basic definition right of what you want to regulate is optional? Kurska Dec 2012 #95
It'll be dead easy advocating for the most stringent gun regulations possible- I'm not the bettyellen Dec 2012 #98
So you don't have to understand it now you'll understand it when there is "great analysis" Kurska Dec 2012 #152
I understand that 90% talking guns specs are avoiding productive conversation bettyellen Dec 2012 #161
You are absolutely right, bettyellen. There can be plenty of gun experts on our side to CTyankee Dec 2012 #179
do you think the NRA is completely ignorant about guns? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #10
Well you tell me the difference exboyfil Dec 2012 #14
Bump fire Kurska Dec 2012 #96
i'm just pasting this because you people all say the same things farminator3000 Dec 2012 #131
This guy can put a .223 on target pretty effectively exboyfil Dec 2012 #163
I think basic knowledge of any subject should be required Lordquinton Dec 2012 #17
who is "they"? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #132
They are the ones who expect anyone in a gun conversation Lordquinton Dec 2012 #162
gotcha! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #168
No one has to have basic knowledge of auto mechanics to propose speed limits. pnwmom Dec 2012 #33
Do you understand that cars run on gasoline, because that is about the same Kurska Dec 2012 #97
Silly me. I thought some cars ran on electric batteries. So what? pnwmom Dec 2012 #103
I don't generally classify inanimate objects as good or evil. Kurska Dec 2012 #154
and again farminator3000 Dec 2012 #133
Tapping a finger is a lot easier than pulling a trigger Kurska Dec 2012 #155
It's not a difference that matters in this situation. pnwmom Dec 2012 #158
I'm trying to think of a gun or rifle that shoots more than one round at a time. LiberalFighter Dec 2012 #23
Yes, they all have only barrel. (Except for "Gatling Gun-style" Miniguns Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #55
I'm assuming you hunt LiberalFighter Dec 2012 #59
I live near Chippewa Falls, but have hunted quite a bit of the northwestern Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #66
k I'm originally from the Baraboo area LiberalFighter Dec 2012 #72
Yup, from the time I was a kid we had a lot of women hunting with us. Jackpine Radical Dec 2012 #75
My grandmother did all of the poultry and my mother would help out. LiberalFighter Dec 2012 #79
by "at a time" he means "every time you pull the trigger" farminator3000 Dec 2012 #134
I like the shmuzxi nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #5
thanks farminator3000 Dec 2012 #193
You do know regular citizens can, and do, legally own fully automatic weapons. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #18
So this isn't true? Progressive dog Dec 2012 #20
They can own machineguns, no? OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #21
You know who else is big on quoting dicta from SCOTUS decisions? RomneyLies Dec 2012 #43
That's like saying a bike is the same as a motorcycle lbrtbell Dec 2012 #22
No, it really isn't. Wathc this man firing a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon RomneyLies Dec 2012 #27
So if you can ride a bicycle down a steep hill, it can become a motorcycle? AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #83
. RomneyLies Dec 2012 #87
That's a modified rifle lbrtbell Dec 2012 #166
learn how to make comparisons farminator3000 Dec 2012 #136
stop making the magazines Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2012 #24
These guns are luxury items horsedoc Dec 2012 #28
Then don't ... problem solved Mec9000 Dec 2012 #31
you are cool farminator3000 Dec 2012 #137
Great. I don't want to hear the facts. I want to make policy based on my fantasies. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #29
You've convinced me. No new legislation can be achieved RomneyLies Dec 2012 #35
More nonsense? You will pardon me if I put you on ignore. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #41
Ah, I've hurt your delicate feelings. n/t RomneyLies Dec 2012 #44
Already done.. SQUEE Dec 2012 #187
You don't need understanding of the mechanics of guns to understand the effect pnwmom Dec 2012 #39
Partailly agree. You do need to know how and what to regulate. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #46
so all politicians, urban designers, and architects can change a carb or tranny on a car? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #139
Not what I said. So that don't fly either. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #165
what you said was farminator3000 Dec 2012 #188
and there's no reason to split hairs before we see what BO is proposing. It's an attempt to shut bettyellen Dec 2012 #73
Right. Their superior technical knowledge counts for very little. pnwmom Dec 2012 #78
Exactly. I'm kind of sad how impressive or important they think their tech knowledge is when bettyellen Dec 2012 #94
This is what it was like trying to debate Washingtons Cannabis Decrim law green for victory Dec 2012 #48
I don't see the connection. But with regard to that OP, pnwmom Dec 2012 #90
please explain how your understanding is better just because you own a gun farminator3000 Dec 2012 #138
There is essentially no difference between LOSING HOUSE SEATS IN 1994 AND 2014. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #34
It's different electorate now, the NRA will get the same surprise Romney did MightyMopar Dec 2012 #70
I don't care about the NRA. Not at all. But if your use of the NRA works for you as a bogeyman, AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #74
Make them stand against it and defend their extremism in the next election MightyMopar Dec 2012 #76
Ironically, that is what will happen to Democratic politicians as it did in 1994. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #84
because winning is pointless if they don't represent our core values. bettyellen Dec 2012 #99
THE nra HUFFED AND PUFFED IN THE 2012 ELECTION AND GOT IT'S ASS WHIPPED, THE FUTURE IS AGAINST THEM MightyMopar Dec 2012 #108
true, the electorate looks a lot different than it did 8- 12 years ago. THANK GOD. bettyellen Dec 2012 #119
oh, so gun laws are the only factor in who gets elected? the most important one? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #141
um farminator3000 Dec 2012 #142
Strom Thurmond was a Democrat. Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #86
No. You misrepresent the basis for my position. Why am I not suprised? AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #89
You were the one basing an argument of a faulty supposition. Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #91
When someone says "Why am I NOT suprised?" that means that they are NOT SURPRISED. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #104
the difference is 20 years farminator3000 Dec 2012 #140
I've been thinking the same thing about semi vs auto weapons Ligyron Dec 2012 #57
well said farminator3000 Dec 2012 #143
Holy Fuck, I'm so sick of people who dont know shit about guns, talking about guns NightWatcher Dec 2012 #58
thank you Duckhunter935 Dec 2012 #61
who makes the regulations? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #145
Most intelligent DU post on the topic I have seen since, well since forever. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #67
how can it be intelligent? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #146
Excellent. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #164
wow. i didn't know that. can you explain this too? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #186
I can't explain it nor would I try. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #192
well there you have it, in good old MA! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #195
I find the MA licensing process very reasonable. But I would guess that 75% of the country geckosfeet Dec 2012 #196
and it WORKS!! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #201
It works in its way, given that it is patchwork of overlapping and contradictory regulations. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #202
just like marijuana laws with the fed/state thing farminator3000 Dec 2012 #205
Tough shit. I don't need to know the technical lingo and specs to YOUR satisfaction buddy in order bettyellen Dec 2012 #71
You (group you) are not being faulted for you lack of vocabulary. ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #85
um, how about not diverting the conversation with picky gun nerd bullshit like the NRA does? bettyellen Dec 2012 #92
How about adding to the conversation by contributing something other ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #101
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #106
Ha ha. I think it's the pro gun wack jobs who are angered right now. I am thrilled they tipped their bettyellen Dec 2012 #111
There have been no surprises here except for the vitriol and ignorance ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #113
well, the gungeoneers were let loose, so what did you expect? bettyellen Dec 2012 #114
The gungeoneers were always loose ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #116
post an example and say why it is ignorant please farminator3000 Dec 2012 #148
that's a really impressive entrance to the thread there farminator3000 Dec 2012 #147
Actually you need some information to intelligently interact ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #100
I thought the OP was a parody of the gun geekery? It's really hard to say- I've never seen so bettyellen Dec 2012 #112
No, its hyperbolic rant ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #115
I guess some people do not realize when they're being parodied. bettyellen Dec 2012 #117
definition of rant for your perusal professor farminator3000 Dec 2012 #170
the headline is absolutely serious farminator3000 Dec 2012 #150
again farminator3000 Dec 2012 #149
what more do you need to know than they are both really way too dangerous? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #144
There's a huge difference also between a nuclear bomb and a hydrogen bomb. pnwmom Dec 2012 #160
you're cool! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #171
Thank you, farminator3000! pnwmom Dec 2012 #175
not sure if that was directed at me or everybody who wants more gun laws? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #167
And we're so sick of people like YOU. CTyankee Dec 2012 #183
More cluelessness and "I don't want facts to interfere with my screed" ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #64
Is there a significant difference rrneck Dec 2012 #68
The video of Bolstad looks like he could have been a Saxon. AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #88
Wow, you are really uninformed. Drahthaardogs Dec 2012 #69
please spare us the gun geekery. bettyellen Dec 2012 #81
Facts matter, and the OP is at best ignorant ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #102
You have to know your subject before you can talk about it Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #107
I already know I will support the strongest and most sensible measures possible. bettyellen Dec 2012 #110
here is one post from this thread where an anti-gun person understands exactly what i mean farminator3000 Dec 2012 #172
Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #93
Douchemaster! ROFL! MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #77
If you don't want to be bothered with facts, fine REP Dec 2012 #82
big difference? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #157
There are something like 300 million guns in the US NickB79 Dec 2012 #109
few are advocating a ban any time soon. bettyellen Dec 2012 #118
The OP did so in his title statement NickB79 Dec 2012 #121
the OP was exaggerating for effect, and now you are too bettyellen Dec 2012 #123
Why do you think the OP was exaggerating for effect? NickB79 Dec 2012 #124
not exaggerating farminator3000 Dec 2012 #174
more like 250 million Motown_Johnny Dec 2012 #120
We have to remember Berserker Dec 2012 #151
why do you need 30 bullets to shoot a deer? sportsmanship is no longer a concept? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #159
Why does people always relate it to hunting... Mec9000 Dec 2012 #169
guns are used for hunting at times? farminator3000 Dec 2012 #191
Nominated for "most ignorant and uninformed" post of the year... Ghost in the Machine Dec 2012 #122
and again farminator3000 Dec 2012 #153
I disagree. Rex Dec 2012 #135
did i say BAN? i meant BANG! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #156
Sounds reasonable to me. I can't think of a valid reason Arkansas Granny Dec 2012 #173
"Fun to shoot" is a valid reason. ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #176
And I suppose you might need one for the zombie apocalypse, too. Arkansas Granny Dec 2012 #177
They even make ammo for it! ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #178
THANK YOU!! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #197
They don't need a reason to exercise their Constitutional rights TransitJohn Dec 2012 #204
Good .. sendero Dec 2012 #180
noooooo! farminator3000 Dec 2012 #198
give it up, never going to happen. crazyjoe Dec 2012 #184
you mean "thought of disarming" farminator3000 Dec 2012 #199
OP rejects knowledge so simple answer is zero probability all semi-automatics will be banned. nt jody Dec 2012 #189
The difference is how long it takes to eat up your wallet. ileus Dec 2012 #190
Trolls on both sides of the issue. flvegan Dec 2012 #194
Actually, there is a big difference. NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #200
Well, no difference if words in English have no meaning, anyway. TransitJohn Dec 2012 #203
there are definitions that aren't in the dictionary farminator3000 Dec 2012 #206
Ok then, TransitJohn Dec 2012 #207
try this definition if you can manage to stick with it the whole way thru-i like the last part farminator3000 Dec 2012 #208
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»there is essentially no d...»Reply #30