The Blue Board

Really? the only automatic firearms legal to the average person are those made prior to 1986, so please tell me more about how they are available for legal purchase. While you're at it, please also provide proof of their usage in mass shooting.

Once more, the majority of the gun control advocates here are CLUELESS.

Sure, let only criminals possess them. Your logic is stunning!

Also, he used a SIG and a Glock. Hardly anything special, two ordinary handguns.

How about allowing someone to carry a weapon on school property and stop his slaughtering of children.

Also got a .357 with 3 speedloaders. Where does it end?

You are hopeless

Please provide me a link to an example of where fully auto guns are being used in massacres. The only way to obtain them is with a class 3 license.

So you only want to ban semi automatic guns and keep automatic guns? I don't understand the point you are trying to make?

but the tv said so!!!

Wow, you really should stop.

Media is your source. Explains a lot. Try again, try doing your own research this time instead of letting someone else form your opinion for you.

Please tell me what I said there that was wrong.

I have hands on first person experience. You have what some biased writer/speaker has implanted in your head.

The point is that a product you endorse is behind a lot of the violence in these mass shootings. Taking away these guns is not going to hinder your freedom or your security because there are other alternatives. It is only going to affect your want. That's a shame because you are not the problem. It's people who are abusing the product to hurt others that are the problem. But the product is the only thing we can predict/control in the situation and so we need to take action is limit the destruction other individuals may cause with those types of guns.

Little late seeing this, but I must interject. The above statement is unequivocally wrong, and shows the fundamental ignorance as to what most people believe are or are not within their constitutionally protected rights.

In 2008, SCOTUS decided Heller v. District of Columbia. The Court held that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects and individual's rights to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, legal hunting, etc., in "federal enclaves." (Note: "Federal Enclaves" is simply legalese for any place either owned/operated by the federal government, like national parks, or any other land not considered officially a part of a state. The place in which the Heller case was initiated was Washington D.C., and thus the question before the court was narrow in scope). This of course left the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond "federal enclaves" to the states completely unanswered.

Two years later in 2010, SCOTUS decided McDonald v. Chicago. In McDonald, the Court held that the same holding that it announced in Heller extended to the states, i.e., individual citizens have the right to possess firearms for traditionally lawful purposes within state boundaries.

The above two cases were not in 1939. They were within the last 5 years.