General Discussion

spin

(17,493 posts)

120. I agree that your post was just basically a rant against our current society. ...

Tue Jun 14, 2016, 12:37 PM

Jun 2016

I also agree with you that while many will suggest banning certain firearms the chances of anything significant happening with that issue are slim to none.

Many Senators in Congress may vote to pass legislation to ban some firearms but the problem is that each state has two Senators. If all the Senators who live in states that support such a ban were to vote for it they would be out voted by the Senators who come from gun friendly states.

To be fair most Senators wish to stay in office and in many states voting for a ban on certain firearms would be political suicide. It is also fair to point out that Senators are elected to represent the people in their state and if the people in a Senator's state oppose something they can't be faulted for voting against it. That is the strength as well as the weakness of living in a representative democracy or a constitutional republic such as we have.

Your suggestion was:

1. Ban all firearms that can fire (or can be made to fire) more than one round in any consecutive five second period.
2. Ban all firearms that can load (or can be made to load) more than one round at a time.

Effectively that would ban at least 95% of the firearms in our nation which is why I suggested you should just go for a total ban.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

138 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Can we agree to ban the weapon used by the mass murderer? [View all] yardwork Jun 2016 OP

And leave the AK? ileus Jun 2016 #1

Apparently we're frozen in immobility due to a lack of definitions. yardwork Jun 2016 #3

And that frozen in immobility is the intent of the definitions game stevenleser Jun 2016 #18

precisely. spanone Jun 2016 #37

Exactly rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #41

That's the point of this OP. yardwork Jun 2016 #64

Include it too. This is what Mr. Kalashnikov himself... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #62

That suggestion would leave the AR, too. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #96

He had two from what I understand philosslayer Jun 2016 #2

Did that weapon kill 49 people in seconds? If so, ban that too. yardwork Jun 2016 #4

You want to ban Glocks? Do you really think that's a realistic goal? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #58

I don't think a Glock is capable of killing dozens of people in seconds. yardwork Jun 2016 #74

It fires every bit as fast as the rifle he used, and can accept magazines holding over 30 rounds. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #76

A Glock can fire around 16 rounds in well under 10 seconds TeddyR Jun 2016 #81

Nice diversion rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #42

Thank you. yardwork Jun 2016 #65

I too grew up hunting - in rural NY. Semi auto rifles (742) and shotguns (1100, A5) jmg257 Jun 2016 #103

MCX doesn't use a clip deaniac21 Jun 2016 #136

those asshole cowards carry the handgun to suicide themself. Sunlei Jun 2016 #111

He didn't. linuxman Jun 2016 #127

He knew the police would, when he stoodup and ran at them. Sunlei Jun 2016 #130

Then what was the pistol for? linuxman Jun 2016 #134

to suicide himself, like these assholes always try to do. Sunlei Jun 2016 #135

You can agree all you like and it won't change the ruling of SCOTUS... pipoman Jun 2016 #5

Let's just sidestep the name barrier, eh? yardwork Jun 2016 #6

No, in all likelihood these are sold as recreational sporting rifles pipoman Jun 2016 #12

"Its only purpose is mass murder"? No, I cannot agree with that. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #13

Bully for you. Some people have pet king cobras, but they're still illegal. yardwork Jun 2016 #25

Yes, but I have the 2nd Amendment with protects the liberty to own commonly used firearms aikoaiko Jun 2016 #32

I use mine for competitive target shooting hack89 Jun 2016 #16

You aren't allowed to own a pet tiger, though. yardwork Jun 2016 #26

But I am allowed to own semiautomatic rifles hack89 Jun 2016 #36

You must be so proud. yardwork Jun 2016 #67

Why would I be? hack89 Jun 2016 #69

You sound proud. Your gun is "cool" according to you. yardwork Jun 2016 #71

I was just feeding your words back to you. hack89 Jun 2016 #73

While you play word games, 49 people are dead. yardwork Jun 2016 #77

No. Gun ownership is a serious matter hack89 Jun 2016 #79

It must be a game to you. Your rediculous argument gets mauled and handed back to you... cleanhippie Jun 2016 #102

Not really... EX500rider Jun 2016 #137

Yet that's obviously NOT the purpose to which the extant tens of millions are actually used. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #98

We shouldn't defeat this notion because of syntax, make it ANY device DESIGNED to kill humans ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #8

You can make it anything you wish, won't....can't happen... pipoman Jun 2016 #9

OK, so people are allowed to carry grenades? No.. they're not, so it will happen if we vote for uponit7771 Jun 2016 #10

This is asked and answered many many times... pipoman Jun 2016 #15

In that case I'll take common sense regulation, place the same barriers to owning a gun as there uponit7771 Jun 2016 #47

Any "barriers" which can be applie to one civil liberty/right pipoman Jun 2016 #53

How is "relatively efficiently" defined? Rifles with 5 round magazines did the job relatively... Marengo Jun 2016 #100

More efficiently than a musket for a start... we can move down from there... a rock or bow and uponit7771 Jun 2016 #118

Most likely, the bolt action with up to 5 round magazine is the baseline... Marengo Jun 2016 #126

That sounds practical, I'm sure someone in congress has presented it but its been smacked down by uponit7771 Jun 2016 #128

We can elect Clinton rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #43

And yours as well, gun owner? Marengo Jun 2016 #45

Nope rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #48

Actually, no one really needs a gun to hunt... Marengo Jun 2016 #60

Just like the conservative judges have overturned Roe... pipoman Jun 2016 #49

No see rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #52

I read an article on The Atlantic last week TeddyR Jun 2016 #85

That's a way too, just change the SCOTUS laws and enact whats in the best interest of the electorate uponit7771 Jun 2016 #50

It's how the right has operated rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #56

+1, 2000 was a really horrible decision uponit7771 Jun 2016 #59

Do you really think it is that hard? Uponthegears Jun 2016 #66

SCOTUS: Is the firearm "in common use for lawful purposes"? pipoman Jun 2016 #70

Writing laws is easy, writing laws that are constitutional is harder. nt jmg257 Jun 2016 #106

That law would easily be held constitutional Uponthegears Jun 2016 #117

No thanks, I have a career. Besides I do not think I was being smug, or snide at all. jmg257 Jun 2016 #122

Well dang Uponthegears Jun 2016 #131

Lol! Good stuff though, so no harm no foul! Cheers! nt jmg257 Jun 2016 #133

Make it harder to get any devices DESIGNED to kill a lot of people than it is to drive a car.... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #7

You mean that you wish to ban the Sig Sauer MCX? aikoaiko Jun 2016 #11

One is better than none. Let's start somewhere and stop the foolish games. yardwork Jun 2016 #23

No, because it is pointless. We learned this from the 1994 AWB that banned some guns by name aikoaiko Jun 2016 #29

+1 Just reading posts Jun 2016 #55

All two or three thousand of 'em! Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #95

I guess I better buy one now before yardwork's ban goes into effect. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #104

Can the manufacturer change the name and have THOSE legal? jmg257 Jun 2016 #14

Nope. No names. yardwork Jun 2016 #24

The you have to define the FEATURES that define the model. Adrahil Jun 2016 #30

My point is that the argument over definitions keeps us from doing anything. yardwork Jun 2016 #72

See post #75. It matters. Adrahil Jun 2016 #78

We could also just ban everything until "they" can come up with some workable definitions. nt gollygee Jun 2016 #17

I'm on board with that. Tired of the games and obstructionism. yardwork Jun 2016 #21

And that's why we have the 2nd Amendment. aikoaiko Jun 2016 #125

Sigh. "Semi-automatic" is very easily defined and can be banned with a single signature Recursion Jun 2016 #19

Go for it. yardwork Jun 2016 #22

Oh we will rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #44

You are correct. But good luck with that. Adrahil Jun 2016 #27

I agree on both counts. I'd even back a semi-auto ban Recursion Jun 2016 #35

"semi-auto with detachable mags, and semi-autos with fixed mags over 10 rounds" jmg257 Jun 2016 #51

I'm actually OK with fixed-mag semi-autos Recursion Jun 2016 #57

CA tried it - just went about it poorly. It is a compromise indeed. jmg257 Jun 2016 #61

Nothing about that poses a Constitutional question Recursion Jun 2016 #80

Hmm...tough call I would think...interesting! nt. jmg257 Jun 2016 #84

Just read on motherjones it was a sig "black mamba"..so yes let's ban it. ileus Jun 2016 #20

The Black Mamba isn't even an actual AR-15. Adrahil Jun 2016 #31

Oh well then rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #46

You miss the point. Adrahil Jun 2016 #75

No, I don't miss rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #83

But that's not what you said, or what this thread was about. Adrahil Jun 2016 #86

Prior to Heller any of the things you propose TeddyR Jun 2016 #89

Then the solution is to ban the characteristics that they share Orrex Jun 2016 #87

Ummm rethink that a bit. Adrahil Jun 2016 #112

Well, it's sort of meant a starting point Orrex Jun 2016 #115

Okay. Good luck. Adrahil Jun 2016 #119

Let's suppose your idea was suggested in Congress. ... spin Jun 2016 #113

Consider the implication of what you're saying Orrex Jun 2016 #116

I agree that your post was just basically a rant against our current society. ... spin Jun 2016 #120

Then we largely agree Orrex Jun 2016 #121

In this nation there are at least 80,000,000 gun owners. ... spin Jun 2016 #124

you know SWAT used a similar firearm as a life saving machine. ileus Jun 2016 #90

SWAT are sworn and bonded police officers rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #101

I vote no. NaturalHigh Jun 2016 #28

The restriction should be on who is allowed to buy guns. FLPanhandle Jun 2016 #33

I prefer to ban all Assault weapons hertopos Jun 2016 #34

What is an "assault weapon" though? TeddyR Jun 2016 #40

Anything used for assault could be defined as an assault weapon, even a pool noodle ileus Jun 2016 #92

The same issue comes up with laws against "bath salts" and other synthetic marijuana substances. Brickbat Jun 2016 #38

No, we won't. Pointless and a politicial impossibility right now. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #39

Gun humpers have made this country into their version of Utopia. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #54

We all have a say. It's time to speak up. yardwork Jun 2016 #63

I vote in every election. It hasn't changed anything yet. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #82

I'm with you. AirmensMom Jun 2016 #88

I hope so! get the red out Jun 2016 #68

The Sig Sauer MCX was the weapon used by the Orlando shooter Calista241 Jun 2016 #91

I personally thinks the Second Amendment TeddyR Jun 2016 #93

Agreed. Such a broad ban on semi-autos woudl simply be ignored by the majority of owners. Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #97

And this attitude is exactly why we have so many mass murders in the U.S. yardwork Jun 2016 #99

change headline, "The weapon used for the last FOUR American mass murders" Sunlei Jun 2016 #94

Yes - it would be a "start", but then we could buy these just fine: jmg257 Jun 2016 #109

I know, but we need A START before NEXT crazy hater tries to one-up the count score Sunlei Jun 2016 #110

I have fired that model of weapon Jester Messiah Jun 2016 #105

Isn't the semi-automatic like porn? The courts don't define that. They say they just valerief Jun 2016 #107

No TeddyR Jun 2016 #123

Except nil desperandum Jun 2016 #108

Can we agree to ban the words used by the mass murderer? DesMoinesDem Jun 2016 #114

The words didn't kill anybody. More false equivalency games. yardwork Jun 2016 #138

Re-instating the deathrind Jun 2016 #129

The reality is doing so will have very little impact on overall bighart Jun 2016 #132