Say, What Does It Take To Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles?

The gun grabbers keep exposing their true agenda on firearms. When you look at abortion, it isn’t about making them “safe and rare”, it’s about allowing them unfettered, no restrictions, right up birth to right after birth. With firearms, it’s not about making it more safe, it really is about disarmament

From the link

New Zealand banned semi-automatic rifles this week, and made the ban effective immediately to prevent “stockpiling of weapons while the legislation is being drafted.” The Kiwis are apparently not big on the “hopes and prayers” mantra that the U.S. Congress adopts after each gun massacre.

It’s easy to be dispirited by the cravenness of conservative politicians, and by the frequency of American gun deaths. Yet those failures obscure a key development in U.S. gun politics: These are glory days for the gun-safety movement.

Hey, remember when news outlets and their opinion sections were outraged by Trump using his executive power on several things, such as building a border wall? I wonder how they would feel if he banned most abortions by executive fiat?

That momentum continues. In Washington, the House of Representatives, flush with new Democratic members who campaigned on gun regulation, passed a universal background check bill in February. Multiple inquiriesinto the National Rifle Association’s political activities and Russia connections are under way in Congress, with the NRA clearly on the defensive.

Huh. So, using the power of the federal government to investigate a private organization in order to destroy them.

The (Supreme) court made seismic pronouncements on guns in 2008 and 2010, establishing first the individual right to firearms, and then requiring states to recognize that right via the 14th Amendment. Then the court beat a retreat, declining to further define the scope of the Second Amendment.

Can semi-automatic rifles be banned? Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right to carry a firearm in a public place? The court opted not to clarify such questions. It may now, removing gun regulation from the heated political arena and declaring victory — or perhaps a series of victories — for gun-rights forces.

I thought they had been talking about the scary looking assault rifles, which are now apparently weapons of war. Yet, writer Francis Wilkinson casually mentions banning all semi-automatic rifles, which would take away all rifles used for things like hunting.

Anyhow, what would it take to do like New Zealand? Gutting the Bill of Rights, for one thing. Some of the Twitter responses

Yeah, there is that. And you have to wonder just how Democrats would make it happen. Would the police and military cooperate in this un-Constitutional scheme?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

21 Responses to “Say, What Does It Take To Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles?”

  1. ST says:

    Video – Ben Shapiro blasts ‘astonishing’ Dem reactions to Mueller report

    https://commoncts.blogspot.com/2019/03/video-ben-shapiro-blasts-astonishing.html

  2. alanstorm says:

    “The (Supreme) court made seismic pronouncements on guns in 2008 and 2010, establishing first the individual right to firearms…”

    Ummmm – no. That right always existed – it just had to be explicitly stated for the slow folk among us, e.g. liberals/progressives/socialists.

  3. Kye says:

    Well, the Brits gave up their right to own arms and now their government puts them in jail for Facebook posts if that means anything. But frankly I think the Army will do what the C in C orders it to do. You have read about The Bonus Riots haven’t you? That was 17,000 WWI vets and their families (yes, women and children) who met in Washington, DC to get paid for their service. Under A REPUBLICAN president, Hoover, their demands were outright rejected. Douglas MacArthur was in command with George Patton commanding the armored cavalry. They attacked the marchers, killed at least two (the government has hidden the actual casualties) arrested about 150. One kid was killed and I think a wife died having a miscarriage. So we know what the Army will do.

    The police on the other hand are local and have family and friends in the area they patrol. Of course there’s nothing a cop won’t do nor a person he won’t arrest to get that paycheck, beni’s and golden retirement plan so you ponder on that one.

    I imagine there would be a lot of bloodshed and civil war. When the British tried to take Americans guns back in 1770 we shot them. I see no difference between then and now as far as real Americans are concerned.

    My ancestor arrived in America in the 1750’s. He came to expand his wealth and help the British kill Indians and Frenchmen (according to family lore as a Prussian he hated the French). Later both he and his sons joined Washington’s campaign and went to kill British. The men of my family have been killing America’s enemies ever since and in every war. I had my turn in Vietnam and killed a bunch of communists. I would greatly endeavor to do the same here should they pose a threat to the Republic. Molon Labe, motherf****r!

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      It’s hardly surprising you’d be willing to murder your fellow citizens because they disagree with you.

      Do you consider most Dems to be “a threat to the Republic”? How about Bernie Sanders? Hillary Clinton? Robert Mueller? James Comey? Whom else do you think should be killed?

      You are filled with hatred.

      Trump is counting on your willingness to commit mayhem to protect him from justice.

      • formwiz says:

        Kye said nothing of the kind. He said he had forebears in the French and Indian War and later the American Revolution (so did I and a lot of Americans).

        He said nothing about murdering his fellow citizens because they disagree with him.

        You, projecting as always, can’t seem to wait for the killing to begin.

        Do you consider most Dems to be “a threat to the Republic”? How about Bernie Sanders? Hillary Clinton? Robert Mueller? James Comey? Whom else do you think should be killed?

        Killing them only makes martyrs, American Horst Wessels. Apparently, projecting some more, you think those whom you construe to be threats to the Republic ought to be killed.

        Bloodthirsty little monster, aren’t you?

        I would like to seem them tried, convicted, and put in max security prisons for the rest of their unnatural lives. Willie and Zippy I want sharing cells with their “wives”.

        Trump is counting on your willingness to commit mayhem to protect him from justice.

        No need, you lost. That’s what losers do.

      • Jl says:

        And what “justice” would that be, J? What, no proof?

    • formwiz says:

      Douglas MacArthur was in command with George Patton commanding the armored cavalry. They attacked the marchers, killed at least two (the government has hidden the actual casualties) arrested about 150. One kid was killed and I think a wife died having a miscarriage. So we know what the Army will do.

      Have to disagree. MacArthur ordered the Bonus Marchers camp dismantled. Somebody took offense and the shooting started.

      Patton later complained that he Eisenhower and a group of staff officers were standing by MacArthur when a stray bullet whizzed past and every body ducked, except Patton.

      Until he looked around and MacArthur hadn’t budged. That old fiction about the Bonus March is as old as the hills.

      OTOH If a Hildabeast or Zippy ordered troops to fire on Americans, they’d probably get a rerun of Battleship Potemkin.

  4. […] via Say, What Does It Take To Ban All Semi-Automatic Rifles? — Pirate’s Cove […]

  5. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    TEACH typed: When you look at abortion, it isn’t about making them “safe and rare”

    That’s not true. The Dems support greater access to contraception, universal healthcare, greater support for education, and greater equality in wealth and income – all factors that REDUCE the number of abortions.

    TEACH typed: banning all semi-automatic rifles, which would take away all rifles used for things like hunting.

    You must not be a hunter. Although plenty of Ozark brush-apes head off to the woods with their .223 AR-15’s (you can tell by the rapid fire pop-pop-pop-pop; that’s a lot of misses), serious hunters prefer serious rifles.

    But of course this “total hunting rifle ban” distraction is a red herring. There are clear distinctions between a semi-auto hunting rifle and an assault weapon. Length, weight, air-cooled barrel, collapsible/compression stock, pistol grips all make AR style rifles the preferred weapon of choice for mass murderers.

    • formwiz says:

      That’s not true. The Dems support greater access to contraception, universal healthcare, greater support for education, and greater equality in wealth and income – all factors that REDUCE the number of abortions.

      Not really. They get tons of money from PPA and NARAL.

      And, last I looked, universal healthcare was all about making abortions available for 12 year olds without informing parents.

      greater support for education, and greater equality in wealth and income – all factors that REDUCE the number of abortions.

      Last I looked, white Lefty women led the pack in abortions, so once again, you lie.

      Although plenty of Ozark brush-apes head off to the woods with their .223 AR-15’s (you can tell by the rapid fire pop-pop-pop-pop; that’s a lot of misses), serious hunters prefer serious rifles.

      Daniela Boob comes from the StL ghetto, but she’s an expert on firearms and the wilderness. Out thar ever’ week killin’ her a b’ar.

      There are clear distinctions between a semi-auto hunting rifle and an assault weapon. Length, weight, air-cooled barrel, collapsible/compression stock, pistol grips all make AR style rifles the preferred weapon of choice for mass murderers.

      Most rifles I handles were shorter and lighter than, say, and M-1, and they were all bolt action. And every rifle has an air-cooled barrel. Can’t remember the last time I saw one with a water-cooled barrel.

      Pistol grip?

      Almost every American rifle made in the last hundred years had a pistol grip.

      You need to get your talking points from someplace other than DiFi’s website.

      All you do is lie.

      That’s what liars do.

    • Hoss says:

      “Greater access”

      You mean, someone else to pay for it. When you’re starting your defense of a point and fail to be honest it makes the rest of your words irrelevant.

      Then you double-down with another lie that AR-15s are the choice of mass murderers; it’s actually handguns, but that doesn’t work as well for the disarming narrative, does it. But feel free to turn in yours if you’d like.

  6. Kye says:

    “There are clear distinctions between a semi-auto hunting rifle and an assault weapon.”

    Yes there is Elwood, an assault weapon is fully automatic. An AR-15 is not. And there is no “clear distinction” between a semi auto hunting rifle and assault weapon other than the latter is fully auto. A Ruger Mini has the same characteristics and capabilities as an AR-15 as do hundreds of other NON-ASSAULT WEAPONS. The term “assault weapon” is another one of your radical DemCom terms deliberately bantered around to obfuscate the conversation. Assault weapons are only used by the military and police and are fully auto. That’s why the’re called “assault weapons”. Stop lying about the make-up and reason behind an AR-15. It was made by ArmaLite Rifle not assault rifle like the no nothing leftists try and push. All liars all the time. It was made to LOOK LIKE but not FUNCTION LIKE the military M16. Got it? I realize you are ignorant but “length, weight, air cooled barrel, collapsible stocks and pistol grips don’t make an assault weapon. Rapid fully automatic fire does.

    • dachs_dude says:

      But that’s the whole point.

      Gun Grabbers: We want to ban all semi-automatic weapons like the ones used in Parkland.

      Me: Semi-automatic means nothing more than 1 pull of the trigger, one bullet fired. Such a ban would ban 99% of all modern weapons including plain looking rifles and pistols. The only think left would be pump action shotguns and revolvers.

      Gun Grabbers: “Oh well.”

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Kye,

      Stop playing dumb. Nothing you just typed is true. The difference between the military assault rifle and the suburbanite assault weapon is auto vs semi-auto fire. You’re arguing over semantics.

      If you want to argue that, as TEACH does, that the buyers of AR style rifles are insecure men “playing Army”, you can. But these semi-autos offer advantages in weight, length, handling that “home defenders” and mass murderers find advantageous compared to other rifles. As an expert, do the AR type rifles offer advantages over a semi-auto walnut stocked hunting rifle?

      Your ignorance and perfidy is on full display.

  7. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making mistakes.” https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

  8. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host asked:

    Would the police and military cooperate in this un-Constitutional scheme?

    Yes, of course they would! The police hate the fact that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, and would very much welcome some sort of firearms confiscation scheme. The police want to be armed themselves; they don’t want you to have a gun.

    There are some sheriffs in rural districts which have said that they would not enforce stupid state laws on gun control, but they are very much in the minority.

    • Professor Hale says:

      I agree. The military and police would almost universally support this. You would be able to count the number opposing it on your fingers. It really doesn’t matter about the military though since they would not be called upon to implement it. local police, State police, county police and federal police have more than enough “troops” to carry this off.

      More importantly, most gun owners would grumble but comply with the law. Lots of guns would go into hiding. But the thing about law abiding Americans is… THEY ABIDE THE LAW. Even our esteemed commenter Kye, despite his anger at the issue, could be counted on to hand over his arms when told to do so or face consequences. And I don’t mean that as an insult to his character. Just saying that a lifetime of supporting constitutional government doesn’t just evaporate because the government does something like this every once in a while. Kye, if I may put words into his mouth, would remember that the USA already had an assault weapons ban. It was proven to be pointless and we got over it and now AR-15’s, Ak-variants, AR-10’s, FAL and G-3 clones are more popular than ever.

      As an aside, there is no point trying to either defend or reject the classical definition of “assault rifle”. The funny thing about law is, it literally can change what words mean arbitrarily and on a whim. For instance how the “Affordable Care Act” made medical insurance unaffordable for tens of millions of Americans who previously had it.

  9. Dana says:

    There are clear differences which make the AR-15 a poorer weapon for hunting; it’s shorter barrel (14.5 to 18 inches) is shorter than that of a typical .223 hunting rifle (typically 22 inches), and that means less accuracy.

    But, so what? Our right to keep and bear arms should not be determined by whether someone else thinks we need a firearm or whether we have the proper one for our purposes.

    • dachs_dude says:

      The second amendment was never about hunting. Libbies are trying to insinuate that is it because then they can argue than you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt a deer.

      Newsflash from all of recorded history: Gun bans lead to Tyranny……always.

      To “the resistance” who think DJT is Hitler:
      Question” Do you know how it was that Hitler was able to just load millions of his fellow Germans into cattle cars for extermination?
      Answer: Hitler disarmed them all first.

    • Professor Hale says:

      How much accuracy do you need? That round in a typical 14.5″ barrel can easily and consistently hit a lunch box (or hip defilade ground hog) at 300 yards (we don’t use meters in America) and a wolf at 500 yards. The weapon and round clearly exceed the ability of the human to use at ranges beyond that. My personal favorite is an 18″ bull barrel.

  10. Professor Hale says:

    Did I mention that making guns is 14th century technology and that any 7th grader with access to a Home Depot can make a gun? Even the lower receiver (the special serial number part) of an AR15 can be made from plywood and recycled beer cans (not that anyone I know drinks beer from cans).

Bad Behavior has blocked 6872 access attempts in the last 7 days.