House Democrats introduce bill prohibiting sale of semi-automatic weapons: Reeeee - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53162861]The 1994 AWB stipulated "for private use". I'm sure this bill has similar wording in there somewhere. I really doubt they are trying to prevent the military or the police from being able to acquire semi-automatic rifles.[/QUOTE] Ok yeah, it has a few paragraphs of exemptions for parts of the US government, law enforcement, and strangely enough, retired law enforcement who will apparently be allowed to just take their work guns with them when they quit.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53162877]ar 15 is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the US[/QUOTE] AR-15's in what caliber? Because in most places, at least where I lived in the US when I lived there, it's illegal to hunt most game with 5.56 due to Game & Fish regulations with ethical hunting. I'd wager using the argument that the AR-15 is a "hunting rifle" is pretty disingenuous if that's a universal thing there.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53162880]AR-15's in what caliber? Because in most places, at least where I lived in the US when I lived there, it's illegal to hunt most game with 5.56 due to Game & Fish regulations with ethical hunting.[/QUOTE] Ar-15s p.much come in every caliber possible. They are seriously that popular of a weapon.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53162880]AR-15's in what caliber? Because in most places, at least where I lived in the US when I lived there, it's illegal to hunt most game with 5.56 due to Game & Fish regulations with ethical hunting. I'd wager using the argument that the AR-15 is a "hunting rifle" is pretty disingenuous if that's a universal thing there.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/"]http://time.com/4390506/gun-control-ar-15-semiautomatic-rifles/[/URL] time disagrees

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53162880]AR-15's in what caliber? Because in most places, at least where I lived in the US when I lived there, it's illegal to hunt most game with 5.56 due to Game & Fish regulations with ethical hunting. I'd wager using the argument that the AR-15 is a "hunting rifle" is pretty disingenuous if that's a universal thing there.[/QUOTE] The AR-15 is an incredibly modular platform. They can be chambered in 9x19 all the way to small .50 cartridges, and many things around and in between.

[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53162880]AR-15's in what caliber? Because in most places, at least where I lived in the US when I lived there, it's illegal to hunt most game with 5.56 due to Game & Fish regulations with ethical hunting. I'd wager using the argument that the AR-15 is a "hunting rifle" is pretty disingenuous if that's a universal thing there.[/QUOTE] In addition to what other people said, .223 is legal in most states as far as I can tell but I'm using a list from a forum from 2013 so v:v:v Hunting is like the weakest reason why someone needs a gun though. The best answer is to turn the question around and ask why it needs to be regulated.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53162896] Hunting is like the weakest reason why someone needs a gun though. The best answer is to turn the question around and ask why it needs to be regulated.[/QUOTE] We do and most times people leap to emotional arguments and personal insults

-snip-

[QUOTE=Aide;53162866]I own 2 guns. Can anyone think of a legitimate purpose for actual SMG, AR, or PDW.[/QUOTE] Amongst other reasons, the NRA instructor that stopped the Sutherland’s springs church shooter was able to defeat the perpetrator’s body armor with his AR.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;53162865]Haha... No. That happens, and lots of people in this this country will snap.[/QUOTE] So whats the actual argument against it?

Tbh the left does have valid concerns about gun control but they then ruin any efforts they make to control guns by refusing to understand why rural people in fly over states need guns and looking down at rural people as idiots who just want to keep their guns for no reason. Also the refusal to learn anything about guns and banning cosmetic features/copying lists of guns from video games to ban doesn't really help

I know it's just language intended the ban scary underbarrel rail systems, but do "rocket launcher" actually exist for that purpose? Cause I'm pretty sure that's horseshit.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162846]Ok and what bars you from that license, pray tell.[/QUOTE] Up to states to enact their own licensing process. It could be mercilessly hard in some states and some people will fail that personally feel they shouldn't, but honestly tough shit lol, literally move away you dont have the right to endanger society for that which you feel so pathetically entitled. At least, you shouldnt.

[QUOTE=Aide;53162866]I own 2 guns. Can anyone think of a legitimate purpose for actual SMG, AR, or PDW.[/QUOTE] those first two are already effectively banned (assuming by ar you mean assault rifle) and pdw is a role, not a classification. everything from uzis to p90s to ar15s to m1 carbines to fn fals have been used in a pdw role. come to think of it there's even a particular config of browning hi power that could be called a pdw

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162908]So whats the actual argument against it?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't personally support it because guns are cool and I see no reason to ban them in totality. If it did come to a constitutional amendment then I guess I'm fucked.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53162934]I wouldn't personally support it because guns are cool and I see no reason to ban them in totality. If it did come to a constitutional amendment then I guess I'm fucked.[/QUOTE] Guess you didn't read what I proposed if you think I want guns banned.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162920]Up to states to enact their own licensing process. It could be mercilessly hard in some states and some people will fail that personally feel they shouldn't, but honestly tough shit lol, literally move away you dont have the right to endanger society for that which you feel so pathetically entitled. At least, you shouldnt.[/QUOTE] are you saying my guns are endangering society? fuck off with that shit, my guns aren't sentient.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53162910]Tbh the left does have valid concerns about gun control but they then ruin any efforts they make to control guns by refusing to understand why rural people in fly over states need guns and looking down at rural people as idiots who just want to keep their guns for no reason. Also the refusal to learn anything about guns and banning cosmetic features/copying lists of guns from video games to ban doesn't really help[/QUOTE] I'd say the right has used its normal combination of propaganda networks and fear-mongering tactics (War on X, They are coming to take your X) to spread the idea that Gun Control means BAN ALL GUNS too. That phrase is politically tainted now, which is exactly what they want. You can't have a proper discussion now when you use that phrase because it's so loaded. Which is stupid because no politician in their right mind would try to literally ban guns, that's impossible given the vast number of them in this country and the culture we have. It'd be even more disastrous than Prohibition imo. But then certain Democratic peeps try to do stupid shit and everytime they do, they further that image of incompetence surrounding guns and it's really unfortunate.

[QUOTE=butre;53162940]are you saying my guns are endangering society? fuck off with that shit, my guns aren't sentient.[/QUOTE] Are you saying my bomb collection is endangering society? Fuck off my bombs arent sentient.

[QUOTE=butre;53162933]those first two are already effectively banned (assuming by ar you mean assault rifle) and pdw is a role, not a classification. everything from uzis to p90s to ar15s to m1 carbines to fn fals have been used in a pdw role.[/QUOTE] Not only that, but gun owner's know that saying "PDW, AR, and SMG" doesn't really matter. At that point you just have to say you want semi-automatics banned or certain calibers and be honest about it. Because anyone who owns guns know they can just make their Ruger Mini-14 just as mean as any AR. Also, I would hope to god I have something atleast equal to a better advantage to a criminal who gets their gun illegally for my intent for self-defense.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162937]Guess you didn't read what I proposed if you think I want guns banned.[/QUOTE] I'm just assuming that removing the right to guns would logically at some point lead to banning them outright. You actually got there on your own a couple pages later. [QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162920]Up to states to enact their own licensing process. [B]It could be mercilessly hard in some states and some people will fail that personally feel they shouldn't, but honestly tough shit lol, literally move away[/B] you dont have the right to endanger society for that which you feel so pathetically entitled. At least, you shouldnt.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=butre;53162940]are you saying my guns are endangering society? fuck off with that shit, my guns aren't sentient.[/QUOTE] Instead of reacting emotionally hows about arguing against being entitled not to firearms, but to the fair petition for a license? Just you feel super entitled to them?

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162944]Are you saying my bomb collection is endangering society? Fuck off my bombs arent sentient.[/QUOTE] find me an example of a gun killing someone with no human input. I'm waiting.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162944]Are you saying my bomb collection is endangering society? Fuck off my bombs arent sentient.[/QUOTE] Here we go again with this shit, why is it that you people always go "Oh you want guns, WELL WHAT ABOUT BOMBS/NUKES/DEATH STARS? WHY CANT I HAVE THOSE?!"

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162944]Are you saying my bomb collection is endangering society? Fuck off my bombs arent sentient.[/QUOTE] Unlike explosives, of which many do not age well and can become massively unstable, firearms do not have any inherent dangers associated with storing them. Certain explosives, like tannerite, can even be legally purchased and stored because it is generally a safe substance due to its binary nature.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162920]literally move away you dont have the right to endanger society for that which you feel so pathetically entitled.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53162900]We do and most times people leap to emotional arguments and personal insults[/QUOTE] And this right here is why a lot of gun control conversations that could be held, aren't.

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162920]Up to states to enact their own licensing process. It could be mercilessly hard in some states and some people will fail that personally feel they shouldn't, but honestly tough shit lol, literally move away you dont have the right to endanger society for that which you feel so pathetically entitled. At least, you shouldnt.[/QUOTE] The right to bear arms is protected at a federal constitutional level. Pretty sure it would be you who needs to move away. Tough shit.

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;53162957]Here we go again with this shit, why is it that you people always go "Oh you want guns, WELL WHAT ABOUT BOMBS/NUKES/DEATH STARS? WHY CANT I HAVE THOSE?!"[/QUOTE] Because it shows that an argument is not per se legitimate

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53162950]Instead of reacting emotionally hows about arguing against being entitled not to firearms, but to the fair petition for a license? Just you feel super entitled to them?[/QUOTE] I've covered that in a hundred posts over a hundred threads. what already goes down in may-issue states should be plenty to show you why having to petition for a license is a bad idea

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53162896]In addition to what other people said, .223 is legal in most states as far as I can tell but I'm using a list from a forum from 2013 so v:v:v Hunting is like the weakest reason why someone needs a gun though. The best answer is to turn the question around and ask why it needs to be regulated.[/QUOTE] It's legal of course but you can't use it for medium/large game like deer. Like iirc, if you shoot a deer with 5.56 and a game warden catches you then you're in trouble. Though as stated my point is moot since I guess the AR-15 platform is widely adapted to a very wide range of calibers, many of which are perfectly fine for hunting common game.