Ban full and semi autos now!!!

**Permalost** · Posted On: 2/05/2013 7:32pm

Originally Posted by goodlun

Not sure the amount done with guns vs other things but it seem to me that if you want to kill a bunch of people you will find a way.

Although thus far few have opted to lift weights until they can toss kids like frisbees.

**goodlun** · Posted On: 2/05/2013 7:40pm

Originally Posted by Permalost

Although thus far few have opted to lift weights until they can toss kids like frisbees.

So much for Roid Rage

**rnc357** · Posted On: 2/07/2013 3:14am

Originally Posted by kenburke

Full-automatic and semi-automtic firearms should be banned from public ownership. Also, the right to carry a firearm on one's person (either concealed or displayed, as in a holster) should be limited to law enforcement officials and, in some instances, security guards.

I have a question for all of the pro gun controll people out there. If we ban all Semi-auto firearms and the first time someone armed with 7 or 8 six shot revolvers and a pump action shotgun commits a mass shooting will you want to ban those too. The truth of the matter, I believe,is that most gun controll advocates would like to see all guns banned.
Also fully automatic firearms are highly regulated. An automatic fire arm is a title 2 firearm. A t-2 firearm is a full auto, a short barreled rifle or shotgun, a sound suppressor or other weapons such as a pen or cane gun. To purchase a t2 firearm you have to go through a class 3 dealer. There is special paper work, fingerprints, a 200 tax for each firearm and registration and approval by the ATF. I may have left somthing out but you get the point. Its been this way since 1934.

**rnc357** · Posted On: 2/07/2013 4:04am

Forgot to mention that autos are very expensive to buy and shoot. I know a guy who has several, and they are worth more than my new car. Also I believe there has been only one crime committed by the owner of a legally owned Automatic since 1934.
Also Im not even arguing the fact that semi-auto rifles with hi-cap mags can be very deadly, they are. As a matter of fact I would be willing to give up my modern sporting rifle (so-called assault rifle) and hi-cap mags, even though I use a glock 17 in competition. If we would pass a law that says there will be NO more firearm legislation for the next 20 years or so. But somehow I dont think that will happen.

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 2/07/2013 1:03pm

Originally Posted by Permalost

Although thus far few have opted to lift weights until they can toss kids like frisbees.

Two things, first I can't believe you're still stuck on that out of context argument, and second they wouldn't toss them like frisbees, they would chuck them like kegs. That's a completely different type of flightpath.

Let me ask you this do you believe that banning certain weapons will provide you with a more secure environment?? And if so where would you draw the line??

**Permalost** · Posted On: 2/07/2013 1:50pm

Originally Posted by Bneterasedmynam

Two things, first I can't believe you're still stuck on that out of context argument,

Oh I'm just having fun; I was pretty much done with it.

and second they wouldn't toss them like frisbees, they would chuck them like kegs. That's a completely different type of flightpath.

NOW who's still stuck on that argument? Do you really want to talk about the flight path of flung children?

Let me ask you this do you believe that banning certain weapons will provide you with a more secure environment?? And if so where would you draw the line??

Well, I think the weapons banned by the Geneva Convention are probably a good call, although its unlikely I'd be flamethrower'd or white phosphorus'd to death either way. I think nuclear de-proliferation was a good thing, since there's really no need to be able to destroy the world many times in a row- once is more than enough. But I feel that at this point, banning firearms is futile- there's too many floating around and any ban will have to involve criminals obeying authorities and giving over their property, so fat chance.

**Bneterasedmynam** · Posted On: 2/07/2013 3:31pm

Originally Posted by Permalost

Oh I'm just having fun; I was pretty much done with it.

NOW who's still stuck on that argument? Do you really want to talk about the flight path of flung children?

Well, I think the weapons banned by the Geneva Convention are probably a good call, although its unlikely I'd be flamethrower'd or white phosphorus'd to death either way. I think nuclear de-proliferation was a good thing, since there's really no need to be able to destroy the world many times in a row- once is more than enough. But I feel that at this point, banning firearms is futile- there's too many floating around and any ban will have to involve criminals obeying authorities and giving over their property, so fat chance.

Lol the flightpath part was just a mild troll on my part.

The where to draw a line part is something that has been on my mind lately. I was thinking about starting a poll on it to see where people stand, but I can't from my phone.

**goodlun** · Posted On: 2/07/2013 6:50pm

Originally Posted by Permalost

Do you really want to talk about the flight path of flung children?

My vote would be for about 45 degrees as it gives you the most distance flung as well as it seems that you could use your strongest muscles in achieving this throw.

**Raving&Drooling** · Posted On: 2/07/2013 6:59pm

Originally Posted by goodlun

My vote would be for about 45 degrees as it gives you the most distance flung as well as it seems that you could use your strongest muscles in achieving this throw.

Post vids or STFU