If you're as ignorant as your post makes you look, I wouldn't want you on my side.

I'm giving reasons for my thoughts instead of just calling someone "ignorant". Let's see you bring up a good point for your side that I haven't already **** logic on below you teenage videogame addicted stupid **** .

"teenage videogame addicted stupid **** "

You're ignorant.

Okay, I'm ignorant. Tell me why. Tell me why the public will ever need automatic guns (and please read below, I've covered most ******** arguments.)

"Covered" or otherwise known as put his fingers in his ears and yelling "NAHH NAHH I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

It's not to protect yourself from other people
it's to protect yourself from tyranny; from either a foreign or domestic government

insurance for bad politics, basically.
nothing wrong with not wanting to make yourself helpless, ya know?

Until criminals get the guns. This is the United States of America, and anyone with any foresight can tell that we will most likely never need to revolt.

And what if they try to **** the Metahuman Registration Act? What then? We endanger Spider-Man's loved ones by forcing him to reveal his secret identity? **** that. He's a hero.

even if they did ban guns criminals would still get them, it would be just like illegal drugs even though they are "banned" a **** ton of people still get them.

lol wot
the fact that we're even having this discussion is proof enough that it's not about individual liberty for many people and politicians, it's about forcing what THEY think is the right thing. it happens on both sides

"i dont think guns make sense, so lets get rid of them for everyone!"
"I dont want to pay into a medicare program, so lets just end it!"

so yeah. liberty and social choice isn't given out by authority, it has to be maintained by the people.

I think most of what you're saying in this message is covered by more of my other replies below. I'm honestly getting tired and losing my conviction to care enough to argue, I'm just trying to close up lose ends so I can move on.

Among this ***** hurricane, thanks for being reasonable. It's refreshing.

well if there's one thing I love, its a ***** hurricane!

More people have guns and knives and things than automatic weapons. In the shootouts that do have automatic weapons, more people are likely to get shot.

Technically, mercenaries are civilians.

But, seriously: marksmanship is a hobby that exists, people collect firearms, a more powerful weapon gives the owner an edge in home defense.

The only home defense situation that would warrant the use of an automatic weapon is against another automatic weapon. As a hobby, I say **** that, public safety comes first. You can have just as much fun shooting cans with a pistol or hunting rifle or even a shotgun. If you really want to shoot up a school or play rambo in the back yard, you can make your own gun.

Like I said, an "edge." As in, an advantage. If a dude breaks in with a pistol, and you have a carbine, he's pretty much ****** unless he's an awesome shot.

Regardless, exactly how is public safety more protected if ******* rifles are illegal but shotguns are kosher? You'd probably kill/wound/maim more people emptying a shotgun into a crowd than a SMG or ******* rifle.

Shotguns aren't as deadly at range.

Point, but how much range do we need to consider something dangerous? You can hit things accurately from 50 yards or more with buckshot, IIRC. If we're worried about especially long ranges, a hunting rifle is just as capable of picking off somebody from far away.

Hunting rifle can't get off as many shots per second as an automatic weapon.

Ah, so we're only interested in protect large groups of people stand very close together, and not individuals?

You can't have it both ways. Automatic fire isn't going to accurately hit people from 100+ yards away. If you're going to use a rifle, any rifle, for its range you'll need to place your shots, and fire single-shot or in the briefest of bursts.

This has nothing to do with automatic fire capabilities, but more with uneducated thinking that a gun with a pistol grip and adjustable stock is a "high powered military ******* weapon", .223 is a **** tier cartridge, but nobody is interested in banning large caliber "hunting rifles"

I just now heard about the ban, so I don't know much about it, but I personally think that any automatic fire weaponry has a place in the public's hands.

"I just now heard about the ban, so I don't know much about it"

Why don't you try reading the damn thing before giving your opinion. You'll seem less ignorant that way.

You do realize that automatic weapons are a minority when it comes to gun deaths right?

I'm not talking about the ******* gun ban, I'm talking about gun rights in general. And yeah, automatic weapons are a minority, because less people HAVE them. In the situations WITH automatic weapons more people die than in the situations with handguns and **** .

As I said earlier, ******* with legal automatics have only happened twice, and no, auto =/= more kills, that is complete and total ******** . Automatic fire is exceedingly difficult to control, and wastes ammunition. Shot placement > volume of fire, just look at Simo Hayha, he killed over 500 Russians in the winter war wit his bolt-action mosin nagant, and they were doing a hell of a lot more than shooting back at him.

You're joking right? There are most instances around the world of MANY more individuals being killed by a killer wielding a KNIFE than an ******* weapon.

Yeah no **** , because knifes are easier to get. But in the event of a shootout with an ******* rifle, more people will die than in a knife fight.

Or someone with that ******* rifle could stop someone going on a killing spree with a knife. I literally also just said, MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED IN MANY EVENTS INVOLVING KNIVES THAN ******* WEAPONS, meaning, there are more cases in which higher numbers are ******** as a result of knives than ******* weapons.

Why aren't you advocating the ban of knives?

Your argument has deteriorated into rabble. This portion of the thread is done.

So you can't answer my question, therefor you end the conversation. Very nice showing how childish you are.

In order to obtain one, you need to either be a ***** 3 FFL, or jump through some hoops with the BATFE, and even then you must find a transferable, preban automatic which can cost between $25,000-$50,000. and then it is registered with the BATFE as an NFA weapon.
also, to my knowledge, only 2 ******* have ever been committed with a legally owned automatic.

Without a place to get them legally, there's nowhere to get them ILlegally. Someone with a good record and **** probly buys 'em and sells for a higher price to criminals.

The United States has some of the worst border (land and sea) security in the world,most guns used in crimes are smuggled in. And with minimal instruction a single person can turn out ~30 STEN family submachineguns in a day with minimal equipment.
And people do not "resell" NFA weapons and accesories, because they are registered, and the BATFE does regular inspections.

The less options criminals have to get guns, the better. Less is better than more, even if none isn't an option.

A complete ban on guns would work in some countries, in America, it would just make it worse.

Based on what logic?

The amount of guns in the country, 50% of the worlds guns. The US government does not have the resources to ********** all of them. and most states do not have gun registries, so nobody knows who owns what. essentially the best they can do is disarm the law abiding citizens while criminals keep the guns they have and buy up more from crooked government agents. And even if they had the resources, the sheer cost would push them over the fiscal cliff.

All you need is a few cops per city going door to door searching houses for the ******* weapons (and possibly finding more evidence to crimes) during the times they would normally be gaffing about.

That would take years, and ************ would be handled by the BATFE, an organization with an overinflated budget and incompetent bureaucrats. Also, some towns, cities, and states have the authority to deny access to federal agents.

Well that's ****** up. Still, the actual ************ measures is another argument entirely. I was merely talking about the concept, not the logistics.

Give me one reason a household needs more than one knife, a single knife can kill multiple individuals and CHILDREN! So obviously to protect the CHILDREN we should remove all knives from peoples homes, I mean why would they possibly need more than one? Oh and they also need to be registered and you need to have a background check whenever you sharpen it.

Seriously though, we are talking about guns and clip sizes in general, people should be able to own them because it is used for sport, fun, and self-defense, and yes self=defense counts as a ******* reason it's not "paranoid" ******** .

Sport and fun are below public safety, and there is not one goddamn person who is gonna break into your house that you would be more well off with an ******* rifle than with a pistol or hunting rifle.

A "hunting rifle" rifle is pretty much the worst thing possible for home defense, you'd be better off hitting him over the head with it.
Also, like " ******* weapons", the term "hunting rifle" has no definition, one could cut rifling grooves in a lead pipe, fire a bullet out of it at an animal and it could be ******* as a "hunting rifle".

Public safety? Guns stop more crimes then they cause. You should probably address my whole knife thing then, they kill people, why is it not being stopped?

" there is not one goddamn person who is gonna break into your house that you would be more well off with an ******* rifle than with a pistol or hunting rifle."

I'm not talking about purely ******* weapons, I'm talking guns in general no matter the clip size.

What are you, retarded? You think a few hicks with guns can rival the UNITED STATES MILITARY? That's ignorant as **** .

Let's give an entire city ******* rifles. 1 each, plenty of ammo. Now tell me, how is that gonna help when TANKS are rolling through the streets? Do civilians have bomber jets?

Take a look at Stalingrad, children destroyed as many tanks with molotovs as the red army did. And the US government has a limit on how much force its willing to use on revolutionaries. airstrikes would likely be limited to rural areas, and if a revolution were to happen, a large portion of the military would defect, with their equipment.

So in event of a revolution, the military defectors would bring ******* weapons to the civilians? Then why do the civilians need to buy any now?

Not " ******* weapons" (that isn't a real word btw), the soldiers may have their issued firearms, but the equipment I mentioned would be thins like tanks, aircraft, artillery pieces, even ships.

That makes the automatic weapons seem pretty insignificant, doesn't it?

A battleship isn't controlled by man? Really, I do love philosophy, but this is not the place for it. B for effort.

Bad grammar, you opposed guns against ships, whether you meant to or not. I'm sorry I can't ******* read minds!

The only place of tanks on the modern battlefield is against other armored vehicles, a fighter jet cannot stand on a street corner and keep order, ships cannot search houses, automatic weapons are the backbone of a revolution.

You can't search a house with a pistol? And I'm sure one of those ships, tanks, or aircraft has some automatic weapons in them.

Clearing rooms isn't as easy as kicking a door down and sticking your head inside, and a ships armory doesn't not contain enough weapons to arm every revolutionary in the US.

I still call it an effective revolution.

100 million gun owners vs US gov = revolutionary victory
100 million former gun owners running around with improvised guns and a bit of military equipment = 100 million people executed for treason because they used their second amendment right to rise up against a tyrannical government.

100 million people wouldn't HAVE guns otherwise, automatically (pun). That's a dangerous ********** .

Nope. I got the last word on all arguments that weren't faff. I saw zero good reasons.

I wasn't posing a question, I was challenging a debate. You may feel I lost, and that's your own bias view, but in my eyes, there was no argument I didn't prove as invalid. If you want to say I didn't argue correctly, that is your prerogative, and you can cease contact with me as I did those I felt were using backwards logic.

Are you ******* stupid? You honestly think the whole US Military is gonna gun down its own citizens? They'll probably turn along with the citizens.

The Marines will not kill any US citizens under any circumstances. More than half the Army and National Guard arent about to either.

Do you really think America will ever need/have a revolution? No. That's just retarded paranoid "Obama is a terrorist taking over the government" ******** .

"Do you really think America will ever need/have a revolution?"

YES, you know how I know? Because we already have had one, hence the american revolution. and you know what's funnier? That was for even less **** then is happening now.

That has to be the dumbest argument yet. The American revolution WAS AGAINST BRITAIN! The MONARCHY! We're a ******* democracy now, and if someone seems tyrannty, we're not gonna elect 'em! If we're stupid enough to elect a tyrant, than I doubt we'll care enough to revolt over it.

Really? Because the one thing that gives civilians a force advantage over the government is being demonized against. Also the reason we revolted was because we weren't being given a say in parliament, so in a situation where I don't know, almost all legal gun owners in america are being silenced due to the popularization of one instance of **** ****** when guns deter more crime and stop more crime than they cause, seems like a pretty similar scenario sparky.

Of course it is. Obama is not a terrorist but he is a less than proficient leader in protecting American rights.

Thinking that the government wont ever turn on its population is a stupid idea. History is filled with examples of it.