General Discussion

Liberal Veteran

(22,239 posts)

40. Ok. How about banning guns that allow rapid succession of fire and quick reloading via magazines?

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:13 PM

Dec 2012

Or we can just sit around and argue semantics while the body count piles up?

Isn't that really what you are saying? We have failed to do anything good about gun control because of lame ass sophistry?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

149 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For those of you who support gun ownership answer me this...... [View all] LynneSin Dec 2012 OP

The need to protect ourselves Turbineguy Dec 2012 #1

Bullshit!!!!!!! 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #31

He probably means protect himself from the police and military. Walk away Dec 2012 #146

You are asking the wrong question SajayHobbs Dec 2012 #2

no, shesn't!!!!!! 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #32

FREEDUMB! FREEDUMB! FREEDUMB!!! Odin2005 Dec 2012 #108

I doubt you'll get a coherent response. TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #3

right- Non Coherent all over the place!! 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #33

See reply #2 for incoherent. Zoeisright Dec 2012 #71

Kill lots of prairie dogs at one time? exboyfil Dec 2012 #4

You mean no removable magazines? (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #7

I admit I know almost nothing about guns exboyfil Dec 2012 #12

The magazine is just a box with a spring in it Recursion Dec 2012 #17

This varies by state. In MA it is illegal to buy new magazines with more than 10 round capacity. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #26

Or make one AlexSatan Dec 2012 #100

Ha... so funny at a time like this! 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #34

It's not a joke. .223s are powerful enough for groundhogs and coyotes but not much more Recursion Dec 2012 #44

Add six year olds to that mzmolly Dec 2012 #76

Unfortunately (nt) Recursion Dec 2012 #78

And six adults, mzmolly Dec 2012 #79

ummmmmmm DustyJoe Dec 2012 #81

Because I know what "assault weapon" actually means Recursion Dec 2012 #5

It does not seem to be about the power exboyfil Dec 2012 #15

OK, but neither of those have anything to do with something being an assault weapon Recursion Dec 2012 #19

problematic DustyJoe Dec 2012 #87

WHAT ?? 4 t 4 Dec 2012 #37

Exactly what I wrote Recursion Dec 2012 #39

Known for years.nt Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #119

no weapons no! Berndbrett Dec 2012 #6

They'll scream 'It wasn't an assault weapon!!!' Kingofalldems Dec 2012 #8

It may or may not have been, depending on whether or not it had a bayonet lug Recursion Dec 2012 #10

5th recommendation CountAllVotes Dec 2012 #9

You want to ban weapons with removable magazines? Recursion Dec 2012 #11

Didn't know there was a Dept of Need that had to approve these things rl6214 Dec 2012 #88

OK, how's this union_maid Dec 2012 #13

no more guns! why you want more guns?!?! Berndbrett Dec 2012 #16

Um, I don't union_maid Dec 2012 #25

+1 robinlynne Dec 2012 #126

Looks like someone is trolling the site with ridiculousness rl6214 Dec 2012 #91

Media coverage of mass shootings aside, they really aren't used in crimes Recursion Dec 2012 #21

Let's not forget that the "non-hand gun" is the preferred gun for mass murders. Walk away Dec 2012 #27

You're right. It's a horrifying... Recursion Dec 2012 #28

Wow! Maybe we should ban assault weapons and then those "miniscule" mass murders might be prevented Walk away Dec 2012 #59

What did the VT punk use? Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #120

And what does that have to do with it? nt Walk away Dec 2012 #136

Since the punk used pistols "maybe" an AWB wouldn't Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #142

The state's chief medical examiner said the gunman used a rifle. Walk away Dec 2012 #143

But you ignore VT? Not very compassionate. Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #147

Actually these types of guns have only been used a few times in crimes rl6214 Dec 2012 #92

Yep, however, handguns are responsible for the vast majority AlexSatan Dec 2012 #102

"so rare that thet get a lot of media attention (case in point)" thucythucy Dec 2012 #36

That's true Recursion Dec 2012 #38

10 shootings in Chicago last night alone , 4 of them were teenagers shot former-republican Dec 2012 #54

And yet Chicago has a total gun ban rl6214 Dec 2012 #93

You gloat...eom Kolesar Dec 2012 #112

Just a fact rl6214 Dec 2012 #128

Too bad the country doesn't have a total gun ban... Walk away Dec 2012 #137

So they can shoot down the UN black helicopters. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #110

Bullets should cost $5000 apiece. Chris Rock is right. nt valerief Dec 2012 #14

no money for guns! Berndbrett Dec 2012 #18

So we again return to the calls to ban all firearms, and hand power back over to the GOP. Kennah Dec 2012 #20

Yep, that worked in 1994. Why not try it again? AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #42

It seems to me that most assault weapon aficionados have law enforcement and... Walk away Dec 2012 #22

That's not always true democrattotheend Dec 2012 #83

Hard to explain to people who are not familiar with firearms. geckosfeet Dec 2012 #23

Oh Lynne, you're just asking for a long, dyspeptic dissertation Aristus Dec 2012 #24

Hit the nail on the head bongbong Dec 2012 #29

Maybe we need a moratorium on that phrase. I admit my knee jerks when I see it Recursion Dec 2012 #30

Ok. How about banning guns that allow rapid succession of fire and quick reloading via magazines? Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #40

We freak out about the definition because a horribly stupid definition became law in 1994 Recursion Dec 2012 #43

I haven't made a exhaustive study of weapons (unless you count 5 inch 54 caliber naval guns). Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #48

No. The minutiae are what become law Recursion Dec 2012 #50

I don't disagree with you in principle. Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #63

I don't know. From this side, I see *any* attempt to get people to actually be specific... Recursion Dec 2012 #75

The minutia is often purposely used to muddy the waters. ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #116

Semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines and the Aristus Dec 2012 #127

Well, some good news: altering to full auto is a complete myth Recursion Dec 2012 #130

Well, take a look at the M1 Garand rifle from World War II. Aristus Dec 2012 #138

I could see requiring fixed magazines Recursion Dec 2012 #141

And there's always the multiple contradictions ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #35

The military switched to the M16 because it wounds more than it kills (among other reasons) Recursion Dec 2012 #41

It was more about rate of fire and capacity - nt ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #46

And the cheaper ammo. (nt) ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #117

That's a tricky question. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #55

Because I don't want anyone to take retread Dec 2012 #45

other than food, clothing and shelter, people don't NEED much WooWooWoo Dec 2012 #47

I am what probably would pass.. sendero Dec 2012 #49

As a gun owner AlexSatan Dec 2012 #104

The reason I keep reading here is to kill "dangerous" critters NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #51

I know, right? renie408 Dec 2012 #53

You don't have chickens do you? Raccoons are dangerous to us chicken keepers! No, I don't kelly1mm Dec 2012 #89

Not sure why you feel the need to blast them NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #135

So only people in government, bush, etc, you trust? The Straight Story Dec 2012 #52

Guns are PART of the problem. renie408 Dec 2012 #56

Why not change the cause? The Straight Story Dec 2012 #57

No, the easy way out is reading what you want to read renie408 Dec 2012 #58

An admirable idea, but fraught with problems. Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #61

We start. renie408 Dec 2012 #65

VIOLENCE is glorified in this country, not guns. davidn3600 Dec 2012 #60

If I read one more recycling of that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' CRAP renie408 Dec 2012 #64

Fine, believe what you want. davidn3600 Dec 2012 #67

Oh. My. God. renie408 Dec 2012 #68

You just said that you are tired of hearing that 'guns dont kill people, people kill people?' davidn3600 Dec 2012 #70

Ok. Let's pretend like I am typing really slowly here and see if you can follow along... renie408 Dec 2012 #72

You just repeated complete BS Tsiyu Dec 2012 #73

The guy in China slashed 22 kids, but none were killed. lob1 Dec 2012 #115

+1 union_maid Dec 2012 #69

The weapons you would ban have been available to US Civilians since WWI ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #82

That would sound great and all, if you were actually CORRECT. renie408 Dec 2012 #86

Violence levels in society is not just measured in homicide rates ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #95

The people you help are carrying assault rifles around? renie408 Dec 2012 #96

Of course not...they are illegal in CA ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #98

Honey, I live in South Carolina. renie408 Dec 2012 #103

Really? This is the typical response I expect from gun owner apologists LynneSin Dec 2012 #124

Leave the guns alone...guns don't kill. Ammunition does. It worked for gold. It worked for libdem4life Dec 2012 #62

you do know that an Asssault weapon is a joke right? backwoodsbob Dec 2012 #66

What makes the argument useless is one side muddying the waters with bullshit trivia. Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #74

I can tell you how to reduce the drivers of violence in this country TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #94

Which one of those AlexSatan Dec 2012 #107

I am not focused on anomalies. I would hope any number would contribute to an environment TheKentuckian Dec 2012 #148

I don't have an argument AlexSatan Dec 2012 #149

That's easy ... earthside Dec 2012 #77

If we dust off the assault weapons ban and reinstate it Politicub Dec 2012 #80

If you are talking about high capacity magazines; I don't see the need for such. Kaleva Dec 2012 #84

It is just a rifle, labeling it an assault weapon doesn't make the bullets rl6214 Dec 2012 #85

You can't legally buy Rincewind Dec 2012 #90

Sure you can legally buy a full auto assault weapon. You need a $200 transfer fee and about $20K+ kelly1mm Dec 2012 #97

The NFA of 1934 has nothing to do with assault weapons Kaleva Dec 2012 #111

ill you why i own one rdking647 Dec 2012 #99

If the "whack jobs" take over, an assault rifle isn't going to help you. Liberal Veteran Dec 2012 #113

I support gun ownership up to a point... ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #101

What is an "assault weapon?" Thanx. Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #122

You do know how to Google, don't you? n/t ohheckyeah Dec 2012 #125

Yes. What is your definition of an "assault weapon?" Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #132

The only private citizens who should be allowed to have assault weapons are collectors. Odin2005 Dec 2012 #105

There is none JoDog Dec 2012 #106

I am not against gun ownership, Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #109

They're fun to own and shoot recreationally. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #114

Tell me what you mean by "assault weapon." Thanx Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #118

Okay, this is my first gun thread. Sissyk Dec 2012 #121

Are the DU mods tracking those who defend these child killing machines? TRJuan Dec 2012 #123

who died and made you God? bossy22 Dec 2012 #129

A Week Ago DU Gun Militants Were Proclaiming Gun Control A Dead Issue. Paladin Dec 2012 #131

Twenty kindergartners in Connecticut. renie408 Dec 2012 #139

Do you wear khaki army uniforms when issuing edicts? Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #144

Once escalating to a gun, we then escalate to a bigger badder gun. Festivito Dec 2012 #133

A semi automatic rifle is not an assault weapon Ya Basta Dec 2012 #134

nope Marrah_G Dec 2012 #140

Before I can answer, who's definition of Assault Weapon are we using? Glassunion Dec 2012 #145