You are incorrect.

Unless I am mistaken, some AK-47s are fully-automatic. If that's true, then I think you will find few people who believe that the Second Amendment prohibits regulation of them.

Cars are dangerous in the wrong hands. So are trucks, knives, hammers, propane tanks, screwdrivers, fertilizer and boxcutters. And chainsaws, let's not forget chainsaws.

How big a list do you want?

At it's core, gun control is not about guns, it's about control. And it's not just about controlling people (although that's something governments seem to pursue), but rather about people wanting to feel good about trying to control something they really can't, and in this case that is unspeakable tragedy wrought at the hands of a deranged person.

That is not to say that anyone should be allowed to own anything at any time, any place, but disarming law-abiding citizens because someone else uses a weapon for an unlawful purpose makes as much sense as cutting the legs off your neighbor's bedframe because you stubbed your toe.

With the rarest of exceptions, automatic weapons are already heavily regulated nearly to the point of banning. As sold in the US, the AK-47 is semi-automatic. But it's about "looking good" by banning a "scary looking" gun.

Making the leap to banning the gun because "some" are automatic is like making the leap to banning internal combustion engines because "some" are gross polluters.

I agree with most of that, except the part about the purpose of gun control. I think, for example, that there is social benefit in regulating automatic weapons. Do you think they should be free from any sort of regulation?

I was unclear. I didn't intend to state a position about semi-automatic AK-47s. I don't know which type Obama had in mind when he made his comment.

Any and all regardless of rate of fire.

I doubt that he knows the difference.

If the government starts down this path again and begins by banning firearms, then collecting them, etc. there will be a revolution. Too many people believe in the Second Amendment to let a resident regime destroy the Constitution and thus the country. I am NOT advocating that, but I will predict that it will happen.

Go and try to purchase a full auto Ak47 legally and report back on how "unregulated" it is.

Class III Weapons - Machineguns - AK47 - 100517-1

Here is a nice one for $17k, now call them up and find out how unregulated such a purchase is. Hurry up if you start now you might have it by the end of the year!


You anti gun guys really have no clue what it means from a legal and financial standpoint to purchase Class 3 firearms in this country do you?

First off, this UN-Gun Control piece of butt-wipe "treaty" has to be vetted by the Senate before it means anything.

If you don't want the treaty signed, grab your local nimrod by the nads and squeeze him 'til he promises, on the pain of death, not to vote for the treaty.

Otherwise, Hillary and "O" can dance around the fires and claim a "victory" for the innocent, but both of those clowns should be charged with treason and the sooner, the better.

Violating the Oath Of Office and the COTUS should be good enough to "deep-6" their political careers, pensions, as well as any of their "expected" public diatribes post-office.

Better yet, toss 'em into Levenworth and throw away the key and break out the hardtack, beans and water.

What I think is really irrelevant (and it implies something I did not say). Automatic weapons already are heavily regulated, which makes your point even more irrelevant.

You agreed with the president regarding his position that a gun that isn't automatic and wasn't used at the theater shouldn't be in the hands of citizens...or did I miss something there?

Also, the so-called "assault" rifle the theater shooter used seems to have been semi-automatic (certainly no one has talked about it as a machine gun and you know that would be one of the headlines if it were).

So unless you are going to detour from your original position and argue for the resurrection of the "assault weapons" ban -- which really is based upon how a weapon "looks" and not how it functions -- then you've argued yourself into a non sequitur corner.

It seems to bother you that probably close to 100 million people in the US own a gun of some kind. If so, why? They haven't gone out and murdered people and they are law abiding citizens...are they not? Why should their right to bear arms and defend themselves be restricted because some people use them to break the law?

And when you come back to say "because the guns might be used unlawfully" we return to my initial premise: it's not about controlling guns, it's about controlling people. Controlling a person's access to a tool does not control the person.

Timothy McVeigh killed lots of people with a rental truck and fertilizer. How do you control that?

The ultimate point is that you cannot control all people and all situations, regardless of what laws you may wish to pass that ban certain items used in mayhem. We live in a crazy world and absent living in a police state, horrific, awful things are going to happen. Look at Sandusky and other pedophiles...we have laws banning child porn and such disgusting things, but it still happens, does it not?

Would a ban on assault weapons have changed the outcome at the theater? Perhaps, but probably not. A semi-auto rifle with clips would have done the same thing. Beyond that, however, the guy who is bent on murder and mayhem is not going to be deterred because he can't buy a certain gun -- or any gun, for that matter.

Precisely why no substantive action to disarm Americans will ever happen. Sure, they might reinstate an AW ban, or otherwise regulate magazine size. Big deal, it's meaningless and isn't the top of a scary slope any more than it was when the ban was put in place the first time. Remember the dire predications? The hair-on-fire proclamations of "they're gonna take away our guns!!" ?
Psssht.
Meantime, the gun and ammunition companies have a big old time creating scary "shortages" of new models and popular calibers of ammo and reloading supplies. The NRA makes serious bank on new signups and renewals.The sheeple follow by hoarding, creating more shortages. What a bunch of fools.

X2. I'm more on the left on this issue- the gun rights nut jobs seem to have a special gene.

:confused: If what you think is irrelevant, why are you posting on OD? I also don't know what I implied, but it was unintentional. I hate it when people imply things I haven't said.You sure did. I was not aware that either Obama or I said anything about the Colorado shooter or about weapons that are not automatic. I think you implied something neither of us said.I have no idea what you are talking about. I was talking about automatic weapons.Wow. You've gone from implying things about what I said before to implying things about what I might say in the future. Strong move, but pointless, IMHO.I don't think you do.Definitely. I agree with all of that.Sounds about right.

You seem to be under the impression that we disagree about these issues.

How about enacting martial law after a terror incident where the majority of America is without power, water, heat and food.
No brainer....guns for food.

If you have guns you can always get food.:D