BAN semi-automatic weapons

Quote from dcraig:

Yes.

And here's another one, possibly the worst killing spree in modern times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Arthur_massacre_(Australia)

Gun laws were tightened substantially in the aftermath and semi-automatic weapons are now very restricted. Gun crime has certainly not gone up as a consequence of the tighter laws. US gun laws are widely regarded as idiotic in Australia.

And Australians are now slaves to their government overlords.
 
Since every deranged nut chooses to kill those gathered in mass in a common location... obviously the answer is to BAN mass assembly.

Quote from killthesunshine:

My question to you is which would YOU ban, and why?
 
Quote from rew:

And Australians are now slaves to their government overlords.

Yep, and we will too if the loony left has their way.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M1u0Byq5Qis&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M1u0Byq5Qis&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

I am NOT anti-gun but I think we need to take a hard look at phasing some of this liberalism crap out that serves no use but may be excessively deadly in the wrong hands. that's all I'm saying, and liberalism past age of 11 falls into this category. (as do adult politicians)

\

There fixed that for you.
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

That's interesting that you WEIGHT all criminal activity the same...but what evidence (as you asked of me) do you have to show that those convicted of minor infractions (that involve NO violence, eg local firecracker law)) should have their rights stripped for life from owning anything that shoots, as you put it? Where do YOU get this right?

The right exists until by due process, one is individually barred from enjoying that right.
 
Quote from killthesunshine:



Why do you NEED a semi-auto rifle for protection?

Perhaps you should ask the Billings of Pensacola that question.

There's just one problem. They're dead. They were murdered by three armed men who entered their home from different entrances in the house.

Are you aware that when the Billings were murdered, they had many small children in the house?

I'm sure if you really wanted to, you could find many more examples of armed invasions conducted by multiple assailants.

But you don't really want to.
 
Should NO weapons be banned? Certainly no one is suggesting this, and I am not suggesting banning all weapons. Just those that "overcompensate" as a defensive weapon.
 
Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

ive told your learning impaired ass at least two other times in this thread. one homogeneous gun policy for a country as large and diverse as the united states doesn't make sense.

different weapon policies should be implemented to suit the needs of each different state, county, or in some cases, city. manahattan's gun policy shouldn't be the same as rural wyoming. different societies within america should be free to determine their own firearm standards.

Can you give an example of one city's or locale's different needs for self defense than another's?

Which city, for example, would need a FULLY AUTO for defense? :confused:
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

Should NO weapons be banned? Certainly no one is suggesting this, and I am not suggesting banning all weapons. Just those that "overcompensate" as a defensive weapon.

You did say semi-autos should be banned.

I just described to you a situation that a single shot weapon may not have sufficed. You have no prayer if multiple armed assailants are coming at you. You will need a semi-auto weapon. And you will need to be trained with it, whether it is a pistol or a rifle.


Perhaps you should look at the ills of society before you ban the weapons chosen by law abiding citizens to defend themselves.
 
Back
Top