No one is saying that.
only someone determined to evade the point would take insult from what Feinstein said.
The designed purpose of fully automatic weapons is to kill people. There is no other practical application.
The fun-factor of shooting them at inanimate objects or at paper targets is not the issue here.
Look, I understand that some people enjoy it as a hobby and that most of these hobbyists will never use their guns to intentionally kill anyone. I’m just sick of these guns, that can be used to destroy so many people in a quick period of time, being available, or easily created with really accessible modifications. It’s just unreasonable.
So, what’s a good reason to fire so many rounds so fast?
It’s fun. Or maybe that’s not a good reason? Shit man, I guess it’s pretty subjective. That would be a problem if, as Feinstein implies, the burden is on people to justify their freedoms.
Fortunately, we move in the other direction, we start with freedoms which we then limit based on things like “whoa, that could kill a lot of people, people might not just use it for paper targets”, which I am in support of here, but I don’t know why Feinstein doesn’t see it that way.
@TimJames please build me a mute script that automatically mutes this thread every time I accidentally post in it.
Upset is too strong a word, heh. And I have to apologize. I was just getting my own dig in against her. She’s free to use targeted language for a mailing list of people that already agree with her. I get it. It’s only embarrassing when it’s out in public.
I’m confused why gamers are unable to imagine having fun shooting automatic rifles. Everyone enjoys first person shooters, right? At least a little bit? It’s practically the same thing, only with better graphics, sound, and animation. And you’re shooting an old TV in front of a dirt berm instead of the likeness of hundreds of people.
Driving my car really fast is fun too, but I’m still not allowed to do it because it endangers other folks.
I mean, I can understand why you might like shooting a TV, but that alone isn’t enough of an argument to discount any notion of regulation.
You’re ultimately saying to those folks this guy shot, “Hey folks, sorry you all got killed, but if I couldn’t buy machine guns I wouldn’t be able to have as much fun.”
You can go to a close course & go as fast as your car and nerves will allow.
Same thing with gun owners. They go to a range.
No, no, no, no. We are not arguing against this bill, or one like it. I agree that the danger these weapons present is an excellent case for restricting the freedom of enthusiasts to own them for fun.
But it’s bullshit for someone to literally say “The only reason to fire so many rounds so fast is to kill large numbers of people.” That’s not the stance from which I want to hear the government approach anything, from gun control to fast cars to whatever.
My car has a top speed of 204mph. I didn’t have to get any special waivers or licensing beyond what I’d need for a Smart Car, Prius or whatever (I think?). If I want to drive it fast, there are multiple road courses near me where I can do that (though I’d likely top out at around 155-160 before needing to brake for an upcoming turn).
edit: holy carp! you folks are fast w/ the responses!
Again, the car analogy is terrible because society has decided that all the road deaths are worth it for the utility and convenience of having automobiles. Or… Maybe, the analogy is great for that aspect?
What debate? See, this is where people who hold up this straw man arguments that “it’s the wording, it’s like you’re branding all gun hobbyists as potential murderers” and “there could be a reason other than killing people to shoot 400 rounds a minute, 'cause it’s FUN ya’ll!” are not thinking it through. It’s actually very cut and dried.
- Automatic weapons have been essentially BANNED for public purchase/use for 30+ years.
- Semi-automatic weapons are acceptable, that is unlikely to change.
- Some yahoos have come up with creative ways to turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons for all intents and purposes. Many of these methods are easily purchasable by the public.
- Because automatic weapons are BANNED, any modification/accessory that turns a semi-automatic into essentially an automatic should also be BANNED, for the exact same reason automatic weapons are BANNED.
See how easy that is? Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it grant the right to squeeze off 400 rounds a minute 'cause it’s fun ya’ll. Automatic weapons and non-automatic weapons modified or whose function has been altered to simulate automatic weapons should not be legal for private citizens to own. Period. Dead Stop. Pistols, rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic AR-15 with tacticool gear out the ying-yang, knock yourselves out America!
There comes a point when the debate about guns crosses the line from “Americans should be able to own firearms for work/sport/protective purposes as granted by the Second Amendment” to "Americans should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their guns because “Murica and fuck you for trying to tell me what to do!”. The NRA used to fall in the former category, now they are the champions of the latter, and it’s fucking ridiculous.
It’s a similar argument really.
You don’t need a Ferrari, no one does. They’re not reliable and capable of tripling the speed limit. Which makes it a terrible argument against 2nd Amendment people, especially when previous bans have amounted to “It looks scary,” as a reason to try to ban something. You don’t ban spoilers because race cars have them, that’s just going to annoy people.
Banning machine guns is a long standing thing. All you have to say is that we’re closing an obvious loophole on banning of full-auto weapons. That’s it. Don’t throw in extra crap about why you think machine guns should be banned, we already decided that issue decades ago and you’ll just give ammo for people to oppose you.
I think it’s fair to point out that folks can drive fast on closed roads, although I’m curious as to what car you have with a 204 mph top speed, or what kind of public roads in the US would allow driving at that speed.
Seriously here, just curious as to what that car is. Even something like a Maclaren P1 only has a theoretical top speed of 217, and I think most manufacturers include limiters that don’t let you go up that high.
Ah… a Dodge Charger?
What Oregon, Washington & California have done is where we all need to go. It wouldn’t have stopped the LV shooting, but it will hopefully save a lot of people.
Well if we’re going to have automatic weapons might as well legalise grenades, cannons and mini guns. Because who doesn’t love those?!
Closing the gun show background check loophole is a big assist as well.
Again, I’m not even trying to have a debate. I’m stuck back here trying to lay the foundations of understanding other people and dispelling ignorance and prejudice before we even sit down at the table.
It’s baby steps for US Senate mailing list writers.
This forum needs a like button.