Why does no one explain the semiautomatic firing mechanism?
I'm not a gun owner and I have never fired one. I listen to people talk about gun control and I have no axe to grind. And consistently, after every event, I hear the same tired, misguided arguments. Today, we're listening to uneducated students deliver long impassioned speeches about how awful it is to experience violence and death at the hands of a shooter. And they've been told that gun control will help prevent it in the future. They've been told that an "assault weapon" is a different sort of gun that can be outlawed, and that outlawing such a weapon will help.
But ... there is no such thing. A semiautomatic firearm is simply the metal part of the gun, in the middle, with the trigger, etc. It can be small like a pistol or large like a rifle. It can have a long stock and a long barrel or it can have no stock and a short barrel like a pistol. It doesn't matter if the stock is made of wood or metal or plastic and it doesn't matter what color it is. It operates exactly the same as any other semiautomatic weapon. Each time you pull the trigger, the old cartridge is expelled, a new one is loaded and the trigger recocks, ready for another pull.
The only other type of mechanism is one that has to be manually reloaded each time you fire, like the old lever action rifle. You fire, then operate the mechanism manually, then fire again. The idea that semiautomatic weapons are made to kill people is absurd. They're made to kill, yes, but people buy them and own them to kill game animals, not people. There are roughly 400 million firearms in the country! The semiautomatic part that everyone is focused on is just a mechanism, present in almost all guns sold in the past decades. No one prefers a gun that has to be manually operated. Legislating against semiautomatic weapons would apply to every gun, not just the scary looking black ones, and the scary looking black ones operate no differently than any good hunting rifle.
And then there's the problem of the Constitution and its Amendments. The 2nd one gives us the right to bear arms. If we want to do something about guns in America, we need to repeal that Amendment.
It's a matter of education. The passion is good for TV ratings, but it's useless - all it does is feed passion. Education would help.
When someone begins the Amendment repeal process, we can argue back and forth about how to confiscate the 400 million guns that already exist. Until then, gun control as presently argued is simply ignorant and pointless. It doesn't matter how a gun looks. It's nothing more than that small metal mechanism, and it exists on 100s of millions of guns that people already own.
If you're passionate about gun control, please research the subject while you march and rally and shout.
Please.
A lot of people who know very little about guns have plenty of incorrect things to say about them. I believe we have more of a cultural problem here in the U. S. than a gun problem. Many sportsmen & women prefer non semi automatic guns for there sport. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have one if they want one.
Congratulations @graytail! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPAlright. 7 words: Just do what Australia did. It works.
No, it didn't. Home invasion is a serious problem there. I also find it convenient that Australia's statistics aren't compared with the U.S. on a per capita basis. The fact is that the vast majority of gun violence in the US occurs in the cities that have the strictest gun control. My individual rights are not up for debate, and I don't care about your feelings about it. I will take responsibility for my safety instead of screaming at a government to keep me protected from the scary people.
As if government actually can protect you from the scary people.
I read an article today about the deputy who took a defensive position and waited, while he listened to children being killed. Just swell. And he apparently earned a 6 figure salary right up until we discovered that he didn't have what it takes to defend children. I always end up wondering who was responsible for this person. Didn't he have a boss? Why isn't it the boss's fault too? For instance, did we ever hear who Pvt Manning's boss was? Why does he still have a job? What the heck IS a manager or supervisor, if their employees are bozos? I mention the article because I learned a new term from it. "Check-sucker".
We're going to count on check-suckers to protect our children? Nu uh. I think not.
Meanwhile, the problem solvers are all hysterical about which firearms we should "ban". It's so pathetic that it's frightening.
I provided at least one of those per-capita stats you are looking for in this post. What Australia did, is working, if you're willing to see it.
I'm willing to view violence for what it really is instead of blaming inanimate objects for human behavior. I also will not comply with a buyback or turn-in order. I'm interested in how you plan to deal with people like me who will not give up our rights. Please give details.
You'll retain the right to bare arms. Just not any arms you want to bare. I'd imagine if you kept your semi-auto and auto firearms hidden then they would be out of circulation so in effect you'd be getting with the program.
They wouldn't be hidden. What's next.
I'm sure they can figure out an appropriate penalty for reneging your social contract.
Who is they? Who will be sent? The constitution is the social contract, who is reneging? I want you to say it. I want you to admit that you want the police to use AR-15s to take mine away.
Is there a principle for which firearms would be banned? All semiautomatics? Only scary semiautomatics? Only rifles? How about semiautomatic handguns? Is there some sort of principle involved? Which weapons would I lose the right to bear, and for chrissakes, why? What difference does it make?
It all sounds like a utopian pipe dream to me.
You'll notice that this conversation ended when I asked what the plans are for confiscation. I have yet to get someone on the left to admit that they will have to use the guns they want to ban to confiscate them from Americans who will not give another inch. They expect existing military and law enforcement to do it for them, and they are in for a rude awakening. You'll be lucky to get 20% to even carry out the order. Even then, a good SWAT team can only carry out 6 or 7 raids a day before they need to rest. Once the word gets out, the communities they rely on for support will turn against them in a hurry. Here's a news flash: regardless of what the media portrays, the majority of Americans in the "flyover" states will not tolerate the loss of liberty being demanded by large metropolitan cities. The last election should have been a clue.
I recently heard that there are already 15 million AR-15s in the country. And the deputy had a Glock 40. So, the Supreme Court will magically declare both of them exempt from the Constitution? Then all the law-abiding folks would lose their weapons, while the policemen protect us from the law-breakers just like they did in Florida.
Sure. Uh huh.
I still can't grasp the gun-banners' logic.
I also have to agree about the civil disobedience. Confiscation ain' gonna fly in huge swaths of the country. City folks simply don't understand. The 2nd Amendment is foundational stuff. It's not about hunting - it's about freedom. We don't sit like mice and wait for the authorities to show up around here.
That's what sickens me about this Florida event - what an epic failure of authority - and still they want to rely EVEN MORE on the check-suckers, leaving us defenseless.
I can't grasp their mindset - it makes no sense. We've always had guns, always had semiautomatics. How does taking them from law abiding people help? And what the heck is "them" anyway?
Well, not to be obnoxiously picky, but that's 6 words.
And we'll still have to repeal the 2nd Amendment before we can we can try that. So everyone should immediately start advocating for repeal. Right? What's the point, otherwise? You can't ban guns until you repeal the Constitutional right to own them.
Fixed it. Thanx.
I don't think so because we didn't have to repeal the 2nd Amendment to outlaw the ownership of guns by convicted felons. The Constitution doesn't prevent such things because it's up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and the laws that get passed. If the Court says it's not unconstitutional then it's not unconstitutional, and even if the Court says state laws are unconstitutional but the citizens of the states still want to follow those laws there's nothing the Court can do about it. The only thing that can be done about it is the federal government can withhold funds from the states for things like re-paving the interstate highway in those states but the states can just ignore the feds, take a cut in revenue, and go on outlawing certain types of guns or restrict who can own one.
I've very new here and I don't know the culture well yet, so I'm not sure if debate is popular - please let me know. I tend to debate.
What I'm trying to understand about gun control advocates, is what they ultimately want. I'd be willing to debate the merits of the 2nd Amendment - I'm not a lover of firearms - but short of that, I don't understand how we solve the problem, as defined.
And what is exactly IS that problem? We have people in our culture that are deranged and murderous. They can commit mass murder in a number of ways. What makes firearms unique is that they are protected by the Constitution. Concentrating on firearm availability isn't very productive because the average citizen has an ironclad right to own them, and there are already so many in existence. And if semiautomatic weapons have existed for a century or more, something else must have changed. It can't be the weapon itself. Right? But that's a broader subject.
We can debate whether the Supreme Court would uphold a ban on semiautomatics (I seriously doubt they would), but at least that would be a principled approach. And we could budget for a national buyback program, but remember - 400 million of them already. It seems logical that there would still be plenty for deranged people and criminal gangs.
I just don't see the Australian example working in the USA because of the 2nd Amendment and the sheer quantity of them already in existence. But ... it's hard to predict the future.
Thanks for responding.
If it's against the culture to debate then I must be quite the oulaw LOL! The only real "expectation" I know is that we add value, and in my mind explaining why a post misses the mark is adding value. Not to mention a whole lot more interesting than everyone agreeing with each other all the time.
Back to the topic at hand, I see nothing done in Australia that would if done in the US violate the 2nd Amendment in the eyes of the ones making that call which is the Supreme Court. Our 2nd Amendment says, "The right to bare arms shall not be infringed." The Australian public still bares arms. That right was not taken away from them. They just have fewer choices now as to what arms are allowed and which part of the public can own them. The public is still armed, though about half as many are gun owners now compared to prior to the buyback program. Apparently just the reduced supply of firearms in the public was enough to cut gun related suicides in half and eliminate mass shootings altogether.
Felons can't own guns it's already a crime. That's why background checks are NCIS federal checks... Extra fee. Waiting period. Paperwork and Id?
If Gun Control Laws worked...our fearless leaders and police officers would lead by example and arm themselves with billy clubs and broomsticks...the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to call on a good guy with a gun...you will not win a gun debate with Liberals, they are the most fundamentally fuckin' retarded creatures on Earth...good post by the way!