MSNBC Gun Poll blows up in their face

[CF DolFan]

Agree 100% .. ban all semi-automatic weapons

ball and musket are the only arms allowed by the 2nd amendment .. i'm an Originalist !!!

Woo hoo!! Then computers, TVs and phones are not protected under the first amendment! Only the good ole printing presses and in person will be protected under the freedom of speech. People free to worship religions around in 1776 as well.

[Dolphster]

Darn right we should ban them all.  Because if there is one thing that murderers do, it is obey the law.  That is why there are never any shootings in "Gun Free Zones".  

For the record, I'm not a gun nut by any means.  I think that the dipshits in the photo montage in this thread with their rifles out in public are attention seeking morons compensating for small penises.  But I'm also not naive enough to think that banning semi automatics is going to even put a dent in the number of crimes committed with them.  Even if all production of semi automatics is stopped immediately, the hundreds of thousands of them that are already in the hands of people aren't going to magically disappear.  And no, Beto, I understand that every politician says whatever their constituents want to hear, but Beto and I both already know that neither he nor anyone else is going to "Take your AR15s away from you."    He is simply appeasing his base and even if he won the Democratic nomination (which he won't), he would immediately walk back that comment or he would lose the general election in a landslide based on that comment alone.  Let's deal in fixing problems with realistic approaches instead of attention getting "talking points" that will never get off the ground.  

[Fau Teixeira]

Woo hoo!! Then computers, TVs and phones are not protected under the first amendment! Only the good ole printing presses and in person will be protected under the freedom of speech. People free to worship religions around in 1776 as well.

you know it !

seriously tho while my original response was a joke you can't carry a nuclear bomb around with you to chipotle .. so there are limits .. banning all semi automatic guns isn't unconstitutional, the first amendment isn't absolute, and neither is the 2nd

[pondwater]

Agree 100% .. ban all semi-automatic weapons

ball and musket are the only arms allowed by the 2nd amendment .. i'm an Originalist !!!

This is actually what they all mean. They say ban "assault weapons". They say ban "weapons of war". But that's just the 1st step in their plan. They really want all guns banned even though they say they don't. Even though they say they don't want to take your guns. Yes, they actually do. They just want to do it ever so slowly so you don't even notice. One small step at a time.

I'll give you credit Fau, if nothing else, at least you're honest about your intentions, no matter how misguided. Your idea lives 150% in fantasy land. There are 300-350 million firearms in the country and they aren't going anywhere. So your common sense gun legislation, makes no sense. Your political career wouldn't last too long.

[CF DolFan]

This is actually what they all mean. They say ban "assault weapons". They say ban "weapons of war". But that's just the 1st step in their plan. They really want all guns banned even though they say they don't. Even though they say they don't want to take your guns. Yes, they actually do. They just want to do it ever so slowly so you don't even notice. One small step at a time.

I'll give you credit Fau, if nothing else, at least you're honest about your intentions, no matter how misguided. Your idea lives 150% in fantasy land. There are 300-350 million firearms in the country and they aren't going anywhere. So your common sense gun legislation, makes no sense. Your political career wouldn't last too long.

I agree with your gun assessment but disagree with Fau's career. hahaha Just because a politician's idea doesn't actually make sense in the real world it doesn't mean they won't be successful. People vote for what they like to hear ... both red and blue. 

[Fau Teixeira]

I agree with your gun assessment but disagree with Fau's career. hahaha Just because a politician's idea doesn't actually make sense in the real world it doesn't mean they won't be successful. People vote for what they like to hear ... both red and blue. 

I appreciate the backhanded compliment .. but i would be a horrible politician .. Some people are just more able to instantly form connections with other people, I'm not one of those and i don't fake it well. I have opinions and thoughts that can't be bribed by "donations" so i'd be a horrible politician.

From looking at how Barr acts, i'd be an excellent AG.  I do know how to tell people to go fuck themselves without actually saying that and I knew how to show unveiled contempt and that's apparently how an AG acts.

[Spider-Dan]

Darn right we should ban them all.  Because if there is one thing that murderers do, it is obey the law.  That is why there are never any shootings in "Gun Free Zones".

"Some people will still break this law, therefore why have it at all" is not a convincing argument.  In your own example, you imply that gun murders will happen anyway... so why does that mean that guns should be legal, but not murder?  After all, criminals won't follow the law anyway.

But I'm also not naive enough to think that banning semi automatics is going to even put a dent in the number of crimes committed with them.

It has worked pretty well in every other country that has tried it.  In the specific case of the US, the onerous regulations on fully-automatic firearms has almost completely eliminated all crime committed with them.

But I am willing to be proven wrong!  So let's try banning heavily regulating semi-autos and see.

[pondwater]

"Some people will still break this law, therefore why have it at all" is not a convincing argument.  In your own example, you imply that gun murders will happen anyway... so why does that mean that guns should be legal, but not murder?  After all, criminals won't follow the law anyway.
It has worked pretty well in every other country that has tried it.  In the specific case of the US, the onerous regulations on fully-automatic firearms has almost completely eliminated all crime committed with them.

But I am willing to be proven wrong!  So let's try [strike]banning[/strike] heavily regulating semi-autos and see.

So now you don't want to ban "assault weapons" or "weapons of war". You want to ban all semi autos. If you can't see how preposterous and unrealistic that idea is then you don't even need to be in the discussion. <<<-This is what THEY call common sense gun legislation. Ban the majority of firearms in circulation. Not gonna happen in your lifetime Spider, give it up. Go save the penguins or something, LMFAO.

[Spider-Dan]

So now you don't want to ban "assault weapons" or "weapons of war". You want to ban all semi autos. If you can't see how preposterous and unrealistic that idea is then you don't even need to be in the discussion.

If it were up to you and yours, we would stand around all day arguing about what the definition of "assault weapon" (or "clip," or "silencer," or even "ban") is.  That's the only solution you guys ever offer: run out the clock with pedantry about terminology.

So if it makes it easier to end the interminable discussion about "assault weapons" where you show a picture of a Glock with binoculars and a broom handle taped to it and ask, "So is this an assault weapon?  Is it?  Huh?", I propose that we further regulate (not "ban," because I've already went multiple rounds of this time-wasting game arguing about what the word ban means) all semi-automatic firearms.

[Dolphster]

"Some people will still break this law, therefore why have it at all" is not a convincing argument.  In your own example, you imply that gun murders will happen anyway... so why does that mean that guns should be legal, but not murder?  After all, criminals won't follow the law anyway.
It has worked pretty well in every other country that has tried it.  In the specific case of the US, the onerous regulations on fully-automatic firearms has almost completely eliminated all crime committed with them.

But I am willing to be proven wrong!  So let's try banning heavily regulating semi-autos and see.

I get what you are saying and in theory, I don't even disagree with you.  In fact, I respect the fact that you rightly see that there is a plague of gun related violent crime in this country and you care enough about society that you want it to not be like that.  I think the biggest problem is the mentality of our society.  I'm not even going to open the Pandora's box of trying to list the reasons that our society is so violent, but it clearly is a society that loves us some violence.  So to compare the success of gun laws in other countries is not an apples to apples comparison.  Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.  According to an article in the Chicago Tribune Sept. 18, 2019, 1,998 people have been shot so far this year in Chicago. 

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the idea of banning high capacity magazines (although again, so many are already in existence that I don't know how much good that will do) and some other "restrictive" legislation such as banning any of the kits that convert semi auto rifles to fully auto rifles.   I just try to be realistic in knowing that until the ultra violent mentality of our society changes (a change that won't happen in any of our lifetimes, if ever), an out of control gun violence problem will be prevalent in this country.  And as long as the gun lobby in DC is so strong and our society embraces guns, no politician will ever do anything except make appeasing speeches to their constituents while not creating any meaningful gun legislation. 

[Spider-Dan]

Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.  According to an article in the Chicago Tribune Sept. 18, 2019, 1,998 people have been shot so far this year in Chicago.

Chicago is 10 minutes from the state of Indiana, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation.  So it matters much less how strict the gun laws in Chicago are, because you can drive a short way to IN and stock up.  This is why we need federal regulations.

I just try to be realistic in knowing that until the ultra violent mentality of our society changes (a change that won't happen in any of our lifetimes, if ever), an out of control gun violence problem will be prevalent in this country.

I don't believe America is a uniquely violent country.  Many other Western countries have similar historical influences and popular media today.  Where we are unique is in the proliferation of guns here, and I think if you fix that, the results will be similar to other Western countries.

[Fau Teixeira]

Chicago is 10 minutes from the state of Indiana, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation.  So it matters much less how strict the gun laws in Chicago are, because you can drive a short way to IN and stock up.  This is why we need federal regulations.

Everybody knows that.. don''t for a second think that it's ignorance of where chicago is that keeps people bringing this same stupid point up over and over and over and over. it's a deliberate attempt to mislead and obfuscate the argument.

[CF DolFan]

We aren't anywhere close to Columbia but they don't have issues getting cocaine into the country through Mexico. The funny thing is everyone admits prohibition was a lost cause and that we can't keep drugs, which aren't legal anywhere, out of of our most secured places in our country like jails ... but somehow magically guns are going to disappear when you take them from law abiding citizens? That's so dumb on so many levels.

Until you can show how you are going to remove and keep guns out of the hands of criminals there isn't even a basis for starting an argument about making guns illegal for law abiding citizens.

[Fau Teixeira]

We aren't anywhere close to Columbia but they don't have issues getting cocaine into the country through Mexico. The funny thing is everyone admits prohibition was a lost cause and that we can't keep drugs, which aren't legal anywhere, out of of our most secured places in our country like jails ... but somehow magically guns are going to disappear when you take them from law abiding citizens? That's so dumb on so many levels.

Until you can show how you are going to remove and keep guns out of the hands of criminals there isn't even a basis for starting an argument about making guns illegal for law abiding citizens.

Honestly, i'm not concerned about a random "criminal" with a gun .. i'm concerned about the asshole teenager across the street getting his dad's ak-47 and shooing up the school.

I'm for an all-out ban on semi-automatic firearms. But regardless of that i'm also for:
- Mandated fire-arm registration and background checks.
- Criminal and civil liability for the registrant of a fire-arm that's used in a crime.

[Dave Gray]

 Let's deal in fixing problems with realistic approaches instead of attention getting "talking points" that will never get off the ground.  

I am somewhat of a centrist when it comes to guns, I think.

Guns are a money problem.  Money prevents common sense reform and ultimately hurts everyone.

Guns probably need incremental change, see what works -- you can't stop it, but you can limit it, make it harder, slow it down, lower the body count when it happens, give more power to police than the public, etc.

However, the money put up against candidates of either side that tries to do that makes it almost impossible.  So, that results in huge swing solutions, where you see people trying to ban things.  ...what else can you do?  It's reactionary because the system isn't working as intended and we're forced to use major legislation and huge political capital to get it done.