Serious Question: Would you be willing to give up semi-automatic guns?

I have never and will never own a gun. No one in my family ever owned a gun and we were several generations living in New York city. My husband never owned a gun nor did he grow up in a home where there was ever a gun. Also several generations in NYC. If we didn't need a gun no one does.
Assault rifles have no place in society. They are weapons of war. Is a grenade launcher ok? A missile launcher or even a tank? But machine guns are a necessity? Not even in home defense do you need a machine gun. Unless it's a zombie apocalypse then all bets are off.

Please define semi-automatic weapon.

Also I second DBCowboy's question, would you give up your right to free speech to save a life?

My answer to both is no.

I am not american. I do not own a gun, I live in a disarmed country. Given what has happened here, I know things would have turned up very differently in my country if we had had the right to bear arms. I understand, by personal experience, why your founding fathers put the second amendment in your constitution. So no, I would NEVER give up my guns, under no circumstance.

a reply to: Sillyolme


Have you ever used your 4th or 5th amendment rights? If not would you require others to give them up?

You would not have to give up the guns you already own, you would just not be able to buy automatic weaponry going forward...

YES, even if this just saves 1 life, its worth it.

Would you want people to give up their guns today to save 50 people, but in the future thousands to millions could die later?

It's a fact that every nation falls. Every nation has a change in government. that people without guns are the easiest targets.

Plus on a side note, if i asked you to list different ways that you can kill 50 people in a 3 hour period, and the only way you can come up with is a gun.....

If sandy hook didn't change everyone's mind 49 gays ain't !

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: jupiter869

serious question, how would law abiding citizens giving up their semi-auto weapons save any lives? Please expound on that a bit.

1. You don't know it wouldn't save lives.

2. The law-abiding, nice, quiet citizen until said citizen snaps?

Yeah. Okay.

1, please explain how that might occur.

2, what?

a reply to: craterman

A hand gun will take em down. Who needs a machine gun?
And entertainment? Really?

a reply to: thinline

Please keep in mind that you can still purchase guns for personal safety, just not automatic weapons.

There is a small percentage of people who prefer these types of guns for hunting, etc. Even they would be able to keep their guns, but they would not be able to buy them in the future.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
My husband never owned a gun nor did he grow up in a home where there was ever a gun. Also several generations in NYC. If we didn't need a gun no one does.

I have a few friends who live in New York City and do not own automobiles therefore everyone does not need automobiles.

a reply to: network dude

It wouldn't but if they were banned then the crazies wouldn't be able to get them either. You guys run right past that point.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I have never and will never own a gun. No one in my family ever owned a gun and we were several generations living in New York city. My husband never owned a gun nor did he grow up in a home where there was ever a gun. Also several generations in NYC. If we didn't need a gun no one does.
Assault rifles have no place in society. They are weapons of war. Is a grenade launcher ok? A missile launcher or even a tank? But machine guns are a necessity? Not even in home defense do you need a machine gun. Unless it's a zombie apocalypse then all bets are off.

machine gun. Bwahahahahahah!

a reply to: veracity

except the killer didn't use an automatic weapon(one pull/multiple shots), he used a semi automatic weapon(one pull/one shot). He could have used two hand guns and probably killed more people. He really wouldn't have to aim, with all those people, just point and shoot.

He did strike terror into people that don't know the difference between an automatic and semi automatic weapon...so to spread terror he did his job.

originally posted by: veracity
You would not have to give up the guns you already own, you would just not be able to buy automatic weaponry going forward...

YES, even if this just saves 1 life, its worth it.

How about I keep my SEMI automatic rifle and use it to save the lives of those I love.

In fact next month I am going to get one for my wife so maybe she can save MY life from some scumbag.

So I will KEEP them and save lives, OK??

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

It wouldn't but if they were banned then the crazies wouldn't be able to get them either. You guys run right past that point.

drugs are illegal. slow people seem to run right past that point as well.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I have never and will never own a gun. No one in my family ever owned a gun and we were several generations living in New York city. My husband never owned a gun nor did he grow up in a home where there was ever a gun. Also several generations in NYC. If we didn't need a gun no one does.
Assault rifles have no place in society. They are weapons of war. Is a grenade launcher ok? A missile launcher or even a tank? But machine guns are a necessity? Not even in home defense do you need a machine gun. Unless it's a zombie apocalypse then all bets are off.

What a horrible and ridiculous post, I sure as hell hope that this one was a freebie.

Your train of thought and mentality is the exact opposite of some of the core concepts this country was founded on. Choice, Freedom and equality.

"If I don't need it, NO ONE ELSE DOES"

Seriously, get a god damn clue.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Who needs a fast car? They damage the environment, animals ,a people.
Who needs a huge house? They damage the environment, animals ,a people.
Who needs computers? They damage the environment, animals ,a people.

The list can go on and on, how far should we go?

a reply to: thinline

semi-automatic and automatic - both need restrictions.'

Yes, all guns kill people but automatic (and semi-automatic) guns kill more people faster.

If he had 2 hand guns, I could guess (but not certain) that the deaths could have been way less. But it doesn't matter, even 1 life saved is worth it.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

It wouldn't but if they were banned then the crazies wouldn't be able to get them either. You guys run right past that point.

Your 'utopia' of bad guys not being able to get weapons because of LAWS is not based in reality.