SERIOUS Compromise between Pro gun and gun control!

But they must be manually reloaded in some fashion between every shot

 

Of course, but he’s not alone.

 

According to -your- definition, this doesn't matter.
You read your definition of "regular gun", right?

 

Well yes.
This is why we have the 2nd Amendment.

 

Yes I read it.

This is a much better legal distinction.

A semi automatic firearm shall be any gun which only requires one action between each bullet fired. A standard firearm shall be any gun which requires multiple actions between each bullet fired.

I support all those amendments, I am simply using the precedent set by DUI tests where you can be put in jail or have some legal action taken for refusing to take it.

 

You know what made me anti 2A? Sandyhook.

No amendment is worth the lives of toddlers. In ANY other nation that is a functioning democracy or republic, that would have been the final straw.

 

Some, but not all semi autos use a gun’s recoil to chamber a round. That is not a precise definition.
But, supposing it were, what makes a semi auto so specially dangerous that needs to be banned?

Which of the guns below are semi auto?

 

Was it a horrific slaughter of innocents, Yes. But Sandy Hook wasn’t made the tragedy it was by the type of gun use. It was the product of a sick mind and could have been accomplished with many non firearm weapons in any count in the world, regardless of their laws.

 

That they allow for a person to keep shooting without slowing down and being able to more easily focus on killing.

Number 2/Middle one?

 

And thus, every firearm is a standard firearm, as every firearm requires multiple actions between shots.
Well done.

And yet, you actively seek to violate them all.

 

An entirely irrational, illogical, nonsensical, and thoughtless conclusion.

 

When you only have to pull the trigger that is one action.

Really? cause The UK and Australia (the place with real dangerious wildlife and an actual need for firearms) and NZ gave up there guns after their big shooting. Same with Norway. I guess those were all irrational decisions though

 

Only the revolver

 

It’s obvious you are talking from the talking points of others, otherness that also have as little knowledge as you.
What rate of fire is too fast?

 

Yes.
The same people that would take little issue of having guns in places like AK or Wyoming to protect against large predators advocate, people shouldn’t do the same for the more dangerous two legged predator.
Again, you are parroting the talking points of others. You have nothing of value or new to add to the forum's debate that hasn’t been hash over and over again, made worse by your lack of knowledge.

 

I have never had issues with people having a gun for legitimate reasons, protecting against wildlife or hunting for food. I take issue with people who feel the need to have massive guns with tons of ammo and guns that are built to kill humans as quickly as possible.

They have NO argument for why they need AKs and ARs and other huge guns with massive firing capacity other than "2A says I can".

We have to go to extreme measures like fighting for gun confiscations when people fight for the right to have ARs and AKs in cities like NY.

 

Demonstrating once again, the previously established facts. The entire campaign message being presented on the part of yourself, is that the people of the state of Michigan should vote you into office, so that you can go about forcibly depriving them of their constitutional rights, as punishment for them not acting in the manner that you believe they should be acting.

 

The actions of a deranged, mentally ill individual, who acquired their firearms through murdering the registered legal owner, breaking into the safe in which they were stored, and stealing them for the purpose of committing criminal actions?

Four years ago in the nation of France, eighty five individuals were murdered, and another four hundred and eighty six individuals were severely injured, in a span of less than five minutes by a single individual.

Would it be said that such results would be grounds for completely prohibiting the weapon that was used to facilitate this incident?

 

According to the united state supreme court, the highest court in the land and the court that would be judging every proposal presented on the part of yourself, using firearms for the purpose of killing humans is indeed a legitimate reason for their ownership.

In the united states, no private individual is legally required to justify why they must be allowed to exercise their constitutional rights in whatever manner they see fit. The law simply does not work that way, as it was never intended to work that way, nor can it ever be made to work that way. Such would constitute viewpoint discrimination, which has already been ruled as being unconstitutional right regard to the exercising of constitutional rights.

Pray tell, unless a particular individual in possession of such is actually predisposed to committing harm and murdering others for their own reasons, exactly what dangers to such firearms pose to the public of the state of New York? Explain such. Demonstrate the legitimacy on the part of yourself.

 

If they had a son that was mentally ill they should never have been allowed a gun in the house in the first place. Also yes because of his actions and the subsequent mass and school shootings that followed

No because trucks unlike guns are much harder to obtain and serve a real purpose that is not to kill.

You just gave me an idea, on the registration forum to apply for a firearm or renew the license, make then check off which reason they want a gun.

Hunting, Protection from dangerious wildlife, recreational, or to kill another human being.

Anyone who says the last one gets instantly prohibited.

New Jersey requires people to give a reason to own a gun. Also gun owners are not a protected class. So saying public healthcare or gun ownership would be totally legal.

The city of new york that has 10K people per square mile or more than 2 people per square foot. That is to small and compact to have guns. Which is why only the NRA and not actually gun owners living in the city have said anything about the ban outside of shooting ranges.

 

Considering your ignorance on guns, you aren’t qualified to comment on what people need or don’t need. Nor do you understand why ARs the most popular rifle in the market today. And, many in this form have provided their reasoning and the majority don’t simply state that motive as “The need to have massive guns with tons of ammo and guns that are built to kill humans as quickly as possible.”; to say so is another parroted talking point and disingenuously ignores a huge amount of commentary by gun owners throughout the forum.

Keep trying, you don’t have the knowledge to competently manage the debate.

 

That;s not the only action required to fire off another round.
Learn a little more about firearms and get back to us.

Yes. A reasoned, rational thought process, undertaken be a rational, reasoned an honest person, cannot lead to the hatred of the 2nd because of Sandyhook.

 

So why was the blame applied to the second amendment, rather than those who have made it so overwhelmingly difficult to have an individual involuntarily committed when they pose a clear and obvious danger to not only themselves, but also others?

How are motor vehicles more difficult to acquire then firearms?

Does such truly matter when it is so easy to repurpose a motor vehicle for the purpose of committing murder?

Again, viewpoint discrimination, and unconstitutional. Such a program would never be allowed to legally stand.

Prove the claim about the state of New Jersey to be factually correct.

Such does not answer the question that was presented. Such does not even attempt to answer the question that was presented.

Once again, unless a particular individual in possession of such is actually predisposed to committing harm and murdering others for their own reasons, exactly what dangers to such firearms pose to the public of the state of New York? Explain such. Demonstrate the legitimacy on the part of yourself.

 

You don't understand the basic concept of rights do you?

The government has no authority to disallow a persons ability to own a gun before they commit a crime.

The government is to lowly an entity to do such a thing

 

Glass bottle and a rag.