Reply #3

In the discussion thread: Murdoch calls for automatic weapons ban [View all]

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:37 PM

bossy22 (3,192 posts)

3. ignorant comment

Automatic Weapons have been strictly controlled since 1934 and any manufactured after 1986 is illegal for a civilian to own for personal use

My guess is he is referring to semi-automatic weapons in which then he is also ignorant since that the majority of handguns are semi-automatic- in fact pistols are often used to refer to a handgun that's semi-automatic (Depending on what state you in, the forms you fill out often give the option under handgun types "pistol, Revolver, Other".

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

90 replies	Author	Time	Post
Murdoch calls for automatic weapons ban [View all]	caseymoz	Dec 2012	OP
NRA isn't going to be happy? Then I'm delighted.	TheCowsCameHome	Dec 2012	#1
The balls on that asshole	ItsTheMediaStupid	Dec 2012	#2
ignorant comment	bossy22	Dec 2012	#3
Automatic weapons were banned by law during Clinton Administration, but only until...	Left Coast2020	Dec 2012	#24
Wrong	Ter	Dec 2012	#31
Well, suppose he said 'automatics with an apostrophe.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#25
The technical language makes a world of difference	bossy22	Dec 2012	#37
Explain to me the real world consequences.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#41
Put his finger in the wind, did he?	aquart	Dec 2012	#4
My first thought was nervous.	dogman	Dec 2012	#56
Murdoch, Romney and those of that ilk will still have weapons - this is a law for the common folk	DeschutesRiver	Dec 2012	#86
Automatics have been very, very strictly regulated in the US for something like 80 years, no? (nt)	Posteritatis	Dec 2012	#5
Since 1934	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Dec 2012	#18
Get rid of the fucking assult rifles!!!!nt	Buddaman	Dec 2012	#6
When they've lost Rupert Murdoch, I think the gun-nuts are in serious trouble.	backscatter712	Dec 2012	#7
Looking forward to O'Reilly and Hannity this week	Eric the Reddish	Dec 2012	#82
This twits corporations promote the NRA and make money off of salacious stories of death.	Lint Head	Dec 2012	#8
Really who cares what this idiot says. He owns a company that encourages weapons. If he really	southernyankeebelle	Dec 2012	#9
I don't like him or trust him, but he said it, so we can hold him to it.	Tigress DEM	Dec 2012	#10
I'm not sure I have ever agreed with him before	Marrah_G	Dec 2012	#11
It's weird, doesn't feel right.	Ash_F	Dec 2012	#17
And here's another article regarding Murdock...	Tx4obama	Dec 2012	#12
When they stop being afraid that the NRA	Cha	Dec 2012	#28
Ban automatic and handguns and see what happens	Blandocyte	Dec 2012	#13
Tell Conservatives they have to boycott Fox News now! Nt	Ian David	Dec 2012	#14
for all practical purposes they were banned in 1934	gejohnston	Dec 2012	#15
I wonder why Murdoch is coming out in favor of a ban on automatic weapons	meow2u3	Dec 2012	#16
As per usual, he doesn't know what he's talking about.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#19
Sophistry there.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#26
Because it isn't.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#45
I stop on your first sentence.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#49
Yeah, you wouldn't want to accidentally read the single biggest proponent of gun control in the	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#50
Because it's bullshit . .	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#54
I'll just take that as an admission that you cannot refute the facts I cited.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#55
You mean except that they're flatly false?	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#61
Yes, I fabricated Josh Sugarmann's quote. Very good. Got me there.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#68
No, you quoted a source, who quoted a source . . .	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#71
Walked right into that one.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#74
You said it best when you said...	beevul	Dec 2012	#81
You must be seeing something there that I'm not.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#85
That link shows Sugarmann acknowledging that confusion between semi and full auto is beneficial to	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#89
Definitely drunk.	tavernier	Dec 2012	#20
He's about 80 years too late since automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934	tularetom	Dec 2012	#21
Reasonable Conversation?	fightthegoodfightnow	Dec 2012	#22
You know, this is the fourth time somebody has said this here?	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#27
When you use the wrong words, you end up	ManiacJoe	Dec 2012	#40
Really? What's the real world consequences here?	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#53
My fear is that we end up with another copy of the useless AWB.	ManiacJoe	Dec 2012	#58
Look, if you want to fix this	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#60
Your problem is that you don't know the simple industry standard terms but still want to use them.	ManiacJoe	Dec 2012	#62
Now you sound like a cult member.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#63
Knowledge often does that with the uninformed.	ManiacJoe	Dec 2012	#64
So do stupidity and insanity with everyone else.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#67
"the ban looked effective to me."	SpartanDem	Dec 2012	#65
Imprecision in language did not put any of that crap in.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#66
Actually I'm very sincere	SpartanDem	Dec 2012	#70
If you're sincere, than I've still shown the mistake.	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#72
Oh no, we understand Murdock perfectly well.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#46
The entire debate would actually be over already if the 2nd amendment itself was written to be	cstanleytech	Dec 2012	#34
That would be dangerous. It might lead to a clarification on "person" or "people"	valerief	Dec 2012	#36
The Supreme Court addressed that issue in 1939	NickB79	Dec 2012	#42
Yes but that same argument could be turned around to argue for allowing	cstanleytech	Dec 2012	#43
Firearms are classified in the eyes of the court as very different from Destructive Devices.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#47
But there were no fully automatic weapons back in 1787 when the Constitution was written	cstanleytech	Dec 2012	#59
There were semi-automatic weapons.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#69
Problem with that is we are discussing the 2nd amendment to the Constitution	cstanleytech	Dec 2012	#75
You are using a line of logic that has been used to try and proscribe certain free speech	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#76
I believe we are just going to have to agree that we disagree as I still believe	cstanleytech	Dec 2012	#79
That is certainly a valid avenue of attack.	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#80
So you want to split hairs about semantics.......	llmart	Dec 2012	#39
So, where ARE we allowed	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#48
Where's this technically mature discussion about automobile regulation?	caseymoz	Dec 2012	#84
"You're cluttering and obstructing discussion and impugning other people's right to free speech"	AtheistCrusader	Dec 2012	#87
"the Founders were wrong about guns" I wouldnt go that far.	cstanleytech	Dec 2012	#90
Guess	lsewpershad	Dec 2012	#23
Let's see this carried through on Fox	BainsBane	Dec 2012	#29
+	struggle4progress	Dec 2012	#73
Let him put his money & propaganda network FOX News to work then.	Historic NY	Dec 2012	#30
Why wont Murdoch fire his cronies...	NYtoBush-Drop Dead	Dec 2012	#32
Did the shooter have a Glock 18?	ileus	Dec 2012	#33
Oh come on Rupert	durablend	Dec 2012	#35
The phone hacking criminal has advice for us?	dawn frenzy adams	Dec 2012	#38
Note to DU Gunsters: You're too far right for Murdoch	Doctor_J	Dec 2012	#44
there seems to be a divide on this issue among wealthy and the rest of gop	JI7	Dec 2012	#51
=Sorry, it doesn't solve the problem. Reframe as Terror & deal with all OUTSIDE STREET guns.	graham4anything	Dec 2012	#52
Hey Mordor(ch). I'll see your automatic weapons ban and raise you	Pretzel_Warrior	Dec 2012	#57
I'd rather see a ban on every news outlet Murdoch owns.	olddad56	Dec 2012	#77
He seems unaware that AUTOMATIC weapons have been illegal in the US since that whole Al Capone stuff	kestrel91316	Dec 2012	#78
Heh. He's old enough to know. He just doesn't read the real news.	truthisfreedom	Dec 2012	#83
Next thing he will call for is a ban on pipe bombs.	AngryAmish	Dec 2012	#88

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.