For those who say that Democrats shouldn't advocate for minimal gun restrictions because of politics

[BzaDem]

do you actually support the restrictions in question, and are just afraid of what might happen to the Democratic party if we take a position?

I am usually pretty understanding of the electability argument. I believe politics (while certainly not dispositive) should be at least a minimal factor taken into consideration when picking and choosing our battles. This is not to say a party should be unprincipled -- just that it should prioritize battles that are winnable. For example, if it would be "principled" to take a certain stand, but that stand has no chance of passing a Republican House, goes against the vast majority of the country's wishes, and would result in Republicans winning for decades, it might be a good idea to prioritize battles we can win (or battles where the electorate is actually on our side) first. Not always, but sometimes.

But then I see that most people making this argument against any kind of weapon/magazine limits actually don't support the limits as a policy matter. They make it even though polling suggests such reasonable limits have widespread support. Furthermore, some who make this electable/practical argument take the opposite side when it comes to other issues that they feel are important (and say we should take a stand regardless of whether or not taking that stand might actually lead to change, and regardless any political consequences whatsoever).

So my question is: how many here actually support reasonable restrictions on (say) the size of a magazine, but don't think we should advocate for them at all for political/electability reasons?

[leftstreet]

1. Oh FFS. Democrats should be advocating a higher minimum wage

Fuck minimum gun restrictions

[slackmaster]

2. We already have far more than "minimal gun restrictions" in place now

What kind of "weapon/magazine limits" specifically are you talking about?

So my question is: how many here actually support reasonable restrictions on (say) the size of a magazine, but don't think we should advocate for them at all for political/electability reasons?

I disagree with your presumptuous premise that whatever you are talking about is "reasonable". I can't judge the reasonableness or lack thereof without very specific details.

[BzaDem]

3. Just because we have some does not mean that further restrictions couldn't possibly be minimal

and good at the same time.

Consider the assault weapons ban as an example. (Or even a slightly scaled back assault weapons ban, if there were obvious issues with the first one.)

[slackmaster]

5. The expired AW ban was totally ineffective at improving public safety, and radicalized gun owners

It caused manufacturers to make needless changes to some of the most popular sporting firearms in order to make them compliant with the law, such as removing bayonet mounts. Sales of weapons that the authors naively thought would be banned by the law have increased dramatically since the "ban" began.

The "obvious issue" with the first one, to me, is that it did more harm than good in the long run.

However you might redefine the term "assault weapon", you are bound to piss people off. The more types of firearms your definition includes, the more people you are going to turn against you.

[BzaDem]

11. For purposes of this question, I'm not so much worried about pissing people off.

Heck, there is rarely a law that passes that doesn't piss people off.

I totally get the electability argument. It might even apply to certain restrictions that are otherwise worth passing. But what I'm wondering is why it seems that the only people who use the electability argument as applied to guns also oppose the restrictions as a policy matter (independent of the electability question).

[slackmaster]

26. I think support of bad policy harms electability

:shrug:

[aikoaiko]

51. When gun posts last in GD, you see more people who don't even own guns worry

about how Democratic led gun restrictions will impact elections.

McCarthy's bill has almost no chance of passing. Too many people have pistols with standard capacity magazines of 11-20 rounds and rifle mags at 30 rounds to buy into the "only mass killers needs more than 10 rounds" fear mongering. Plus, she is attempting to criminalize the inheritance of those magazines.

[Statistical]

6. The so called assault weapons ban was worthless.

It is a classic example of worthless, expensive (cost Democratic party control of Congress) gun control which was promoted as "sensible solutions".

Have you read what the assault weapons ban did?

Better question:
"What is an assault weapon? If the Democrats should invest political capital in banning something obviously you know what it is we should be banning."

[BzaDem]

8. I highly doubt we would have kept Congress had it not been for the ban. But that is really not what

I'm talking about

I do accept the general premise (that electability is important). But it seems that the only people that apply that premise to guns also don't actually support the restrictions in the first place.

As I said, I'm not necessarily hung up on the particular assault weapons ban that was enacted. To simplify the discussion, let's take a hypothetical bill that just dealt with high capacity magazines for guns whose normal magazine has low capacity. While I am open to the possibility that this might be a bad idea, all the justifications against it I have seen so far (you might have an army of 10 assailants coming into your home! limiting the capacity to 10 would later justify limiting it to 0! I might lose a competition without one! etc) seem silly to me.

So my question is -- is there anyone who uses the electability argument who also would support the restriction as a policy matter? Or are the people applying the electability argument to this issue just using it as a rhetorical factor?

[Statistical]

15. Police hit less than one in twelve shots under combat conditions.

So homeowner should be limited to only 10 rounds? Really

10 rounds doesn't mean 10 hits. Most cops engage one or at most two suspect AND cops have backup yet they still find it prudent to carry STANDARD capacity magazines.


"I do accept the general premise (that electability is important). But it seems that the only people that apply that premise to guns also don't actually support the restrictions in the first place."

There are a few bills that I am not completely opposed to but I feel the cost in electibility isn't worth the negligble gain.

Closing gunshow loophole - it solves a non-issue. Personally I could care less but it would affect electibility.
High capacity magazine ban (if at a reasonable limit like 18 rounds for pistols) would affect electibility. I also don't think it would do much if anything to reduce crime.

So those are just two examples where it wouldn't be a huge deal if the law changed and I wouldn't fight to have them repealed BUT they would have political cost. The negligible benefit isn't worth the cost.

Now there are some measure gun owners would likely support and would be worth some political capital but the gun grabbers never push for anything that would actually be useful.

[shadowrider]

18. You are using "Distraction". I've highlighted it for your convenience

The Lovejoy (by X-digger): No matter what the restriction is, it's justified by a plea to save the children.

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.
Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends..""

Shame: If there is a shooting they will try to exploit that tragedy against whatever NRA meeting or gun show or event that will occur in the near future. They will say such things as, "is it appropriate to have the event so soon after the shooting" which would require that the pro-gun event is somehow wrong or bad in the first place. This also requires an implied loose association between the pro gun event and something bad which is listed below as another tactic.

loose association: Trying to associate guns, gun events, gun rights activists or pro gun groups with something they are not associated with in any way that people in general may consider to be evil or bad such as Evil Banks, Evil people, bad events or anything negative even though many people don't view guns in a negative way or gun owners as being evil. An attempt to label guns, gun owners or pro gun groups as evil by loose association with that which is considered evil.

Hate/Fear/Anger: They try to use disparaging names against gun owners just like any bigot would do against a culture or a person’s view that is different from their own. Perhaps the gun owner will be affraid to support the second amendment after being exposed to this anger.

Lies, deception, manipulation, sensationalism: I have never seen a gun control debate in which the folks supporting gun control did not use a significant amount of false information, lies, and deception. They will talk about “assault weapons ban” while showing full auto guns that will not be effected by any AWB. Every part of the ignorance of firearms that they perpetuate is part of the tactic. They can’t seem to figure out the difference between a “magazine” and a “clip”.

Exploitation of tragedy: They have prepared legislation in advance with the purpose of waiting for a tragedy, so that they can introduce that legislation rapidly after a tragedy. They are like vultures waiting for the kill.

Throwing up smoke: Yet when you try to argue against their plan, they try to shame you into thinking you are wrong for posting your views in light of the tragedy and they accuse you of attempting political gain and being insensitive to the victims even though they initiated the attempt at political gain via the tragedy. They distract you from their own disgusting exploitation of the tragedy by claiming you are exploiting it.

Harass gun owners: The laws they pass are not designed to make society more safe, they are designed to only effect law abiding gun owners by threatening or harassing them via legislation. Their goal is to reduce the number of people who own guns and therefore the number of people who fight for the right to own firearms. They try to make gun laws complicated and they try to use intimidation via legislation to try to get people to sell their firearms. They also try to attack gun ownership from every angle including making it more difficult for people to go target shooting, acquire ammo or go hunting.

Forced justification (beevul): This occurs when a gun control supporter suggests that it is necessary to have a "good reason" to own a gun or accessory, if you don't have a "good reason" to own such objects than they conclude they should be banned. The "good reason" will be defined by the gun control supporter, so any reason you present will be dismissed as incorrect. The best response to this is to simply explain that you don't need to express a reason in order to practice a civil liberty.

[BzaDem]

32. I wouldn't call it necessarily "exploiting a tragedy."

If legislation that should have passed long ago is proposed after a tragedy, I don't think it should be out of bounds just because the only time it might be able to pass politically is after a tragedy. The Depression was a (different type of) tragedy, and the New Deal probably would not have passed outside of that climate. Similarly, JFK's assassination was obviously a tragedy -- but that doesn't mean Johnson should have tabled the Civil Rights bill.

As for the necessity of a "good reason," I think most would agree that the government needs a good reason to violate a civil liberty. The dispute would be that many don't think certain restrictions even come close to violating any civil liberty. One doesn't have a "civil liberty" to own any type of weapon they choose -- even the current Supreme Court admitted in its Heller opinion that the second amendment doesn't even apply to every type of weapon.

The "loose association" seems to be a bit of a strawman. No one is claiming that there is any equivalence between someone against any and all restrictions, and someone who uses a firearm to murder. Some might say that the anti-all-restriction crowd supports policies that allow certain types of evil to take place perpetrated by evil people, but they generally don't claim anyone who is anti-restriction is evil at all. It is a purely a policy question.

In fact, you seem to be picking out the most extreme arguments you can find, and acting like anyone who is in favor of a single restriction acts like that. While I don't mean to equate you and Fox at all, many Republicans who watch Fox have a similar sense against all liberals -- they would apply what you say about hate/fear/anger/throwing up smoke/shame/distraction to liberals in general. In other words, they don't just say the other side is wrong -- they say they are illegitimate and manipulative. While one may or may not be more justified in using those terms than certain people on the Right are, it seems that it would be in everyone's best interest to minimize the delegitimization of opposing arguments as much as reasonable.

[shadowrider]

36. If calling for "sensible restrictions" in light of Tucson isn't exploiting a tragedy

I don't know what is.

Your attempt to equate me with Fox, Republicans, etc. applies to all here who are good Dems and who happen to support 2A. The biggest problem is a lot of people associate being pro 2A with a right wing attitude and it just ain't so.

[BzaDem]

40. I am not equating you with Fox. I am nothing the similarity of a specific rhetorical technique you a

(i.e. the other side isn't just wrong -- they are illegitimate and manipulative, and nothing they say should be trusted) with a technique that some on the right use.

When I attack policy I oppose, I generally attack it on the merits. I don't usually attack it on the basis that the speaker is illegitimate and manipulative, and that nothing they say should be trusted.

As for "exploiting a tragedy," would you say that passing the Civil Rights bill was exploiting the tragedy of JFK's assassination?

[shadowrider]

41. I'm speaking STRICTLY on "reasonable gun control" measures recently

attempted as a direct result of Tucson. I'll not be distracted by a change in argument such as your final sentence wants me to.

[BzaDem]

44. If you are making a valid argument, it should be easy to apply that argument to a different scenario

[shadowrider]

50. The flip side, my argument isn't valid if I don't change subjects

Gotcha

[BzaDem]

54. If I am "changing the subject," it should be even EASIER for you to point out how my example is any

different than your example.

In fact, the HIGHER the difference between the "subjects," the easier it is to show that.

If I were to change the subject to (say) species of plants, it would be trivial for you to distinguish the two subjects.

The fact that you can't says much more about the validity of your argument (or lackthereof) than it does about me.

[shadowrider]

42. So it's a non-comparison comparison. Is that like a non-apology apology?

i.e. I'm sorry if you took my statement the wrong way

[BzaDem]

46. It is noticing the similarity of a rhetorical technique, and expressing an opinion on said technique

Nothing more.

[beevul]

48. The father of Christina Tyler Green might disagree.

John green:

"we don't need any more restrictions on our society"

"If we live in a country like the United States where we are more free than
anywhere else, we are subject to things like this happening, and I think thats the price we have to pay."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05ir9437zO0


As he ended the NBC interview, he defended America's freedoms.

"This shouldn't happen in this country or anywhere else, but in a free society, we're going to be subject to people like this," Green said. "So I prefer this to the alternative."

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/10/arizona-shooting-youngest-victim-christina-green-had-zest-for/

[BzaDem]

58. Well of course we are going to be subject to things like this happening.

And of course I would rather have current society than a society that somehow banned such practices from ever happening (presumably by bursting down doors and confiscating all guns, having metal detectors in every building, etc).

That doesn't mean those two states of affairs are the only two possible choices.

[beevul]

30. Why? What justification is there?

"Consider the assault weapons ban as an example."

Why? What justification is there?

What weapons would be included in such a thing, and why?

[BzaDem]

35. You start from a different starting point than I do.

Others would say that the fact that the AWB didn't cover X type of gun as a reason not to pass the AWB. In other words, if it can't be made perfect, then it shouldn't pass at all. Any type of law affecting any line drawing problem would fail under that reasoning.

I have a different opinion. If people are opposed to the AWB, it doesn't seem logical for them to argue that "it isn't expansive ENOUGH," and therefore that somehow implies it shouldn't be passed.

Furthermore, you seem to be arguing from a strict-scrutiny perspective. As we have discussed earlier, my personal view (of the Constitution and Heller) is that certain types of weapons aren't even implicated by the second amendment at all (which would mean any justification would merely have to pass the rational basis test).

[X_Digger]

49. Dicta in Heller took 'rational basis' off the table. Ain't gonna happen. n/t

[BzaDem]

56. No, it took rational basis off the table for bans/restrictions on handguns. It did not take rational

basis off the table for a restriction that isn't implicated by the 2nd amendment at all. In fact, if a restriction isn't implicated by the 2nd amendment at all, rational basis IS the standard.

Heller said:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

Therefore, there is at least one type of weapon for which the second amendment doesn't even implicate. That means rational basis is the standard for such weapons (unless you can find an affirmative limit other than the second amendment that bans such a restriction).

It is sort of similar to the first amendment context. Libel is obviously speech. A ban on libel is by definition a restriction on speech. But according to the Supreme Court, libel isn't even implicated by the first amendment at all. This means laws that solely ban libel are judged by rational basis.

[X_Digger]

65. Nice cut on context..

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

Therefore, there is at least one type of weapon for which the second amendment doesn't even implicate. Therefore, rational basis is the standard for such weapons (unless you can find an affirmative limit other than the second amendment that bans such a restriction).

It is sort of similar to the first amendment context. Libel is obviously speech. But according to the Supreme Court, libel isn't even implicated by the first amendment at all. This means laws that solely ban libel are judged by rational basis.

Your 'therefore' doesn't match up to your quote. In exploring the previous cases on the second amendment (Miller, in this case), the court made no claim as to limits imposed by Miller nor did it endorse the finding that the dissent tried to read into Miller. Had you pasted the very next sentence, that would have been clear-

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment .

This is also from Heller:

But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms .... If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.

[BzaDem]

68. I'm not "reading Miller for more than what it said," nor is Justice Scalia.

Justice Scalia specifically said that Miller said that "Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

According to Justice Scalia, that is precisely what Miller said. Those are Scalia's words. He is not reading Miller "for more than what it said," anymore than I am reading Miller for "more than what it said." We are both stating the obvious -- that Miller stated that the second amendment extends only to certain types of weapons. We both are reading what Miller said -- not MORE than what Miller said. Your sentence is completely irrelevant to the point at hand.

Your "additional context" does not dispute that at all. Obviously, a law that implicates the second amendment will not be evaluated under rational basis, just like a law that implicates the first amendment will not be evaluated under ratioanl basis. That does not mean a law that does NOT implicate the second amendment will be evaluated under some higher standard, just like a law that does NOT implicate the first amendment (like libel, by definition a restriction on speech) would be evaluated under a higher standard.

It seems that you are arguing more with Scalia than you are arguing with me.

[X_Digger]

75. Not at all..

Scalia is picking apart the dissent's reliance on Miller which was not, and was never intended to be, a case determining the scope and breadth of the second amendment.

It was a case hand-picked by the then Attorney General to try to get precedent that the 1934 NFA was constitutional. Oral arguments were made only by one side (Miller was dead at the time, and his counsel hadn't been notified in time to make it to DC.) The decision was handed off to arguably the most lazy, incompetent Justice ever on the bench.

I find your attempt to take Scalia's shredding of the dissent's reliance on Miller to be particularly funny, when Heller gives us the "in common use, for traditionally lawful purposes" statement. While they didn't set a particular test, it's pretty apparent to me at least, that handguns (and the magazines for them) would fall right in line.

eta: As would all the rifles "banned" under the '94 "Assault Weapons Ban". They are now the most popular rifles, thanks to the "ban".

[BzaDem]

78. I don't think you realize what Scalia was actually shredding

Scalia was shredding the dissent's reliance on Miller for the proposition that the second amendment is not an individual right for those not in a militia.

He was emphatically NOT shredding the fact that Miller stated certain weapons are not implicated. He even said himself that Miller said certain weapons are not implicated!

Scalia himself said X, and you are claiming Scalia said the opposite of X. You are factually incorrect. You can't read the sentence

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons"

as somehow claiming that the second amendment applies to all types of weapons (according to Miller). Up is not down, and war is not peace. Scalia said what he said -- he didn't say something other than what he said.

As for the debate on handguns, of course handguns are implicated by the second amendment according to Heller. Where have I disagreed with that? My point is that CERTAIN types of weapons aren't implicated by the second amendment -- I never claimed handguns (or other weapons in common use for traditionally lawful purposes) belonged to that group.

[X_Digger]

87. I said this is what Scalia said about Miller.. (too many 'said's in there)

If you want to argue about which weapons are not 'in common use, for traditionally lawful purposes', fine.

All of the weapons covered by the '94 "assault weapons ban" would meet those criteria, making restrictions on them subject to the protections of the second amendment.

I don't think there's a title I firearm sold in the US that wouldn't meet that test, whether that 'traditionally lawful purpose' is collecting, plinking, self-defense, investment, competition, or hunting.

Ahh, now you're being disingenuous..

"My point is that CERTAIN types of weapons aren't implicated by the second amendment -- I never claimed handguns (or other weapons in common use for traditionally lawful purposes) belonged to that group."

vs

"It is clear (to me at least) that the Supreme Court would rule that a restriction on certain high capacity magazines doesn't even IMPLICATE the second amendment, and it would probably do so unanimously."

Yet extended magazines are used quite frequently at ranges across the US. (common use, traditionally lawful purpose)

[BzaDem]

89. Scalia seems to indicate that an M-16 might be such a weapon.

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

..

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

---

He doesn't come right out and say that an M-16 can be banned. But he seems to be justifying an interpretation banning weapons like M-16s, against people who claim that if such weapons can be banned, the militia clause has no meaning. We will find out in a future case, of course, but I highly doubt that the Supreme Court is going to read the second amendment nearly as broadly as you would with regards to this issue.

[X_Digger]

92. True M-16's are Title II (Class III) -- and are quite rare (in civilian hands).

"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Now if someone develops a phaser, or a rail gun that uses superconductors and electromagnets, and the government bans them for civilian use before they can become 'in common use for lawful purposes', that'd likely pass the sniff test.

But extended magazines, that are 99% of the time used at a range? Doesn't even begin to approach it.

[benEzra]

168. Scalia was justifying the *existing* 76-year-old restrictions on M16's

and all other automatic weapons under the National Firearms Act of 1934, which he was taking care not to strike down.

The "assault weapon" issue isn't about restricting M16's; it is about restricting the most popular non-automatic civilian rifles in the United States. As I've pointed out previously, taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, more Americans own so-called "assault weapons" as hunt, and that is not even considering the separate magazine ban issue.

[beevul]

52. Indeed I do.

My starting point, is that for all things which are now legal, the burden to change that status on any given thing falls on those wishing to make it so.

It does not fall on me or anything else to defend anything.

In our society, all things are allowed, except that which is prohibited, which is quite a different thing from "all things are prohibited, except that which is allowed."

The justification on prohibition of a thing, falls on those wishing to prohibit a thing.


So I'll ask again:

Why an AWB?

Whats the justification, and what weapons will it include?

[BzaDem]

63. Because criminals use them to commit crimes.

Then, the question becomes balancing that justification against legitimate uses of such guns.

As for the particular types of weapon, let's consider the AWB that passed in 94.

[beevul]

69. And ?

To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow.

Society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding.


"As for the particular types of weapon, let's consider the AWB that passed in 94."

Which types of weapons did it ban?

[BzaDem]

71. Law abiding citizens are forced to accommodate to the expected behavior of criminals ALL THE TIME.

If your statement were true, we would not have DUI checkpoints, we would not have metal detectors, and we would barely have any reason to have police in the first place. Under your theory, everyone should be able to have their own personal hydrogen bomb to marvel at, since after all, a law abiding citizen would never set it off.

Just because you don't like the justification doesn't mean it isn't a justification. Of course the justification will be balanced with the harm on "innocent and law-abiding citizens' individual rights and liberties" (to the extent the law harms any right or liberty in the first place). But that doesn't mean there was no justification made.

[beevul]

82. You left out one part.

Society does not control crime, is what that began with.

And it doesn't seem to be doing a very good job of doing so, when law abiding citizens are forced to accommodate to the expected behavior of criminals.

"If your statement were true, we would not have DUI checkpoints"

Yeah I don't much support those either. 4th amendment anyone? probable cause anyone?

While they *might* be approved by some authoritarians and authoritarian leaning courts, I'll simply never agree.

"Under your theory, everyone should be able to have their own personal hydrogen bomb to marvel at, since after all, a law abiding citizen would never set it off."

That discussion has actually been had before, believe it or not.

Show me the law that forbids it.


You never did answer:

What weapons and other things does the 94 AWB ban?

[BzaDem]

86. As for the hydrogen bomb, I'm merely claiming that a law could pass that banned them

and ANY court would laugh any challenge to said law out of court.

Do you disagree? Would you actually vote against such a law?

(As for weapons that the AWB banned, you could probably find the answer on google in one minute.)

[beevul]

95. But I'm asking you.

"As for weapons that the AWB banned, you could probably find the answer on google in one minute."

But I'm asking you. Not because I don't know, but because I want to see what you know about it.

And google simply wont tell me that.


Weigh this:

There are 300 million+ guns in the hands of 80 million+ private hards, with both growing.

And yet comparatively low - 12-15 thousand firearm homicides.

[BzaDem]

97. What does "what I know about" have to do with anything?

Surely the merits of the AWB should stand or fall independent of one's ability to list all the weapons banned.

I would be interested in an answer to my question about whether you would vote for or against a law banning possession of a hydrogen bomb. (That is a question about your opinion -- not a quiz question I already know the answer to).

[beevul]

99. What does it have to do with anything?

"Surely the merits of the AWB should stand or fall independent of one's ability to list all the weapons banned."

One can not know the merits, without knowing what the AWB does or doesn't do.

One can likewise not be FOR something based on the merits, without knowing what the merits are.

I'm trying to get you to explain what they are. You have yet to do so. You have on the other hand suggested the enactment of such a thing.

Are you for it based on the merits? Or are you for it simply because it sounds good.



"I would be interested in an answer to my question about whether you would vote for or against a law banning possession of a hydrogen bomb."


An indescriminate weapon of mass destruction? I would't oppose a law against it.

I answered. Now its your turn.

[oneshooter]

106. Do you enjoy beating up on helpless posters? Cause I shore do enjoy watchin you do it!! n/t

[beevul]

110. LOL.

I know, asking someone to state, and define ones position is so unfair, right?

This business of trying to have a discussion, and sugesting this or that, without ever exposing ones own position to rational scrutiny...where HAVE we seen that before...

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for a reply.

[BzaDem]

115. If you looked at my post

you would find that I never said the AWB as passed is perfect. All I said was that there was a justification for the AWB as passed. The specific laundry list of guns it bans is relevant to the degree to the justification's balancing against the "individual rights" of people to own such weapons, but I never commented at all on the balancing test or how it should come out.

In other words, I simply said that there was a simple prima facie justification for such a ban (to contradict your assertion that there is no justification). That's it.

[beevul]

118. I never said...

I never claimed that you "said the AWB as passed is perfect."

Lets just quit the pussyfooting around:

It sure looks to me like you claimed you supported the enactment of the AWB in 94.

If thats not true, simply say so.

If it IS true, on what merits do you support its enactment?

Those are simple questions, and anybody that supports the enactment of such a thing based on its merits should have no problem articulating them.

So articulate them.

[BzaDem]

122. I fully acknowledge there might be valid reasons why the AWB as passed should not have been passed.

I follow other issues much more closely than the passage of the AWB in 1994, so I fully acknowledge there might have been some problems with it (maybe so great that it should not have passed). Maybe the way they set the dividing line (between assault and non-assault) made no sense at all. That's why I never claimed otherwise.

I'm speaking merely to the general principle that there can be some sort of dividing line without resulting in tyranny (untethered from the specific attempt to draw that line in 1994).

[beevul]

127. I made a point of answering your questions when you asked me to...

I made a point of answering your questions when you asked me to, is it too much to ask for you to respond in kind and answer mine?


Do you support the re-enactment of the 94 AWB?

If you do, on what merits do you support its enactment?

[BzaDem]

129. I have answered you twice.

As I said, there might very well have been problems with the way they drew the line in 1994. I do not know or care whether that particular line was correct or nonsensical or optimal without looking into that particular line more (which is why I never claimed otherwise). If you repeat the same question a third time, I will be happy to repeat my same answer a third time.

[beevul]

133. You've answered with answers to questions I didn't ask.

Do you support the re-enactment of the 94 AWB?



One simple question.


If you can manage to answer it we can move on to the next one.

[BzaDem]

136. You have asked a third time

So I shall answer a third time.

"I do not know or care whether that particular line was correct or nonsensical or optimal without looking into that particular line more"

Not sure why that is hard to understand.

[beevul]

138. Nobody asked if you think its correct or nonsensical.

The question you are being asked is whether or not you support its re-enactment.

Thats a simple yes or no question.

[BzaDem]

140. No, it isn't.

If I spent the next few days researching the particular line drawn, the legislative history behind that line, and the studies to back it up (and counterarguments to those studies), then it would turn into a yes or no question.

I do not plan on doing so, because I AM NOT CLAIMING THE AWB SHOULD BE REAUTHORIZED. If I were claiming the AWB should be reauthorized, than I would be obligated to do so to back up my argument (or to change my mind). But I am not, because I honestly don't care about the specific piece of legislation that is the AWB. In this entire thread, I am only speaking to the PRINCIPLE that there can be a line -- not that the particular line in ANY piece of legislation is correct.

You can keep badgering me about this specific bill that you seem so fascinated with, and I will keep responding the same way. (Though apparently you haven't figured that out yet, so it might take a few more rounds of repetition for it to sink in.)

[beevul]

144. Would it have been so hard...

Would it have been so hard, rather than all the typing, to simply say "no", or "not at this time", rather than all the song and dance?


"You can keep badgering me about this specific bill that you seem so fascinated with, and I will keep responding the same way. (Though apparently you haven't figured that out yet, so it might take a few more rounds of repetition for it to sink in.)"

Its not the bill, that I'm fascinated with, its the manner in which you answer questions.

[BzaDem]

145. I don't have an opinion on that particular line. If you are asking if it would have been easier to

lie to you and claim I did have an opinion of "yes" or "no," then sure, it would have been easier to lie to you and say "no" or "yes." That doesn't mean I am going to do it.

[beevul]

149. Ok, then would it not have been easier to...

Ok, then would it not have been easier to simply say the words "I don't have an opinion"?

Of course it doesnt mean you will, but if you wont...if you prefer all this useless verbosity, that in itself means something as well. You know that and I know that.


I myself try to rely on the strength of my position, on the things I state my position on.


I have a hard time understanding or trusting those that don't or wont expose their position to scrutiny in the gun discussion.

[BzaDem]

150. "I myself try to rely on the strength of my position, on the things I state my position on."

Me too. Since I didn't have a position on the particular 94AWB, I didn't state my position on it. I stated that I don't know or care whether it should be reauthorized 4 times I think.

I do, however, have a position on whether a line can be drawn in principle without resulting in tyranny, and that was what I stated my position on. Same with limiting capacity in principle.

[beevul]

154. Ok.

"I do, however, have a position on whether a line can be drawn in principle without resulting in tyranny, and that was what I stated my position on. Same with limiting capacity in principle."

Ok. Would you agree that one must know what IS - the state of things currently - before one can judge whether a particular line can be judged as "tyranny"?

[BzaDem]

158. Sure, in most cases.

I think some particular lines are either draconian enough or innocuous enough to easily classify, but I would agree that the vast majority of particular lines require more research (about the state of things currently and how the bill would change that) to judge.

[oneshooter]

175. Could I get that order to go? It is apparent that you work at Waffle House. n/t

[Fumesucker]

4. IBTM..

:evilgrin:

[Statistical]

7. What reasonable restrictions?

There hasn't been a single reasonable proposal in last decade (or longer).

The scary black rifle ban was called "reasonable"
A 500% tax on ammunitions was called "sensible"
McCarthy lies and calls 11 round magazines "extended" and such a ban would be "sensible gun control".
There is talk to close the non-existent gun show loophole as a "reasonable" change.
Bills to ban rifle ammunition if they can pierce Police body armor (all do) as "reasonable".
Hell some bills to ban non-existent plastic guns have been proposed.



So the short answer is it is both.
1) The gun grabber seem limited to passing do nothing worthless gun control which they pass of as "sensible".
2) Not only is it ineffective and overreaching there are real political costs to these stupid and clumsy attempts.

[BzaDem]

9. It seems the vast majority of the Republican party would disagree with you about body armor bullets

and plastic guns, considering those bills passed the House virtually unanimously (and even Cheney retracted his opposition to them later).

[Statistical]

13. So. Wrong is still wrong.

They were worthless bills. I don't care who proposed them or who voted on them.
Plastic guns exist only in movies. Might as well make a bill banning phasers.
All rifle ammo can pierce a vest designed to stop handgun rounds.

The point is there has been no "reasonable" or "sensible" gun control proposals in the last decade.

It is always lying worthless bullshit. Like talking about "Extended 30rnd magazines" but the actual bill bans anything over 10 rounds. Bait and switch.

[BzaDem]

17. Would you support a limit under 30 for particular types of guns?

You seem to be against a limit of 11. Fine. Does that mean you oppose any and all limits?

As for plastic guns, if we accept your premise that they don't exist, wouldn't that be even MORE of a reason to pass the ban? Since (according to your post) it doesn't hurt anyone?

[Statistical]

20. No and no.

I don't oppose all limts. I likely wouldn't oppose (nor support) a ban on true extended magazine ban (magazines which exceed 15 rounds and exceed the length of the pistol grip.

Personally I don't think it will be worth a hill of beans.
Personally I think there will be consequences for that bill.
However I wouldn't actively fight it. I simply don't care enough. I wouldn't vote against someone who did vote for it either.

However the deception and lying is why gun owners never trust any gun control legislation. It is never open, it is never transparent, it is never an honest debate. It is always say one thing and ban another.

Hell Chicago called their complete gun ban a "sensible restriction".

On the plastic guns.... no because the govt shouldn't ban things for the sake of banning things. They should ban things where there is a compelling public interest and the only way to satisfy that compelling interest is via a ban. Neither of which applies here. This is how govt is suppose to work and it goes beyond just gun control.

[BzaDem]

23. Are you saying that ALL laws should satify strict scrutiny? n/t

[Statistical]

60. All laws that restrict fundamental rights should.

[BzaDem]

64. How do you define fundamental right? A Republican would define fundamental right as including the

right to keep any dollar they make (the "right to property"). There needs to be some definition.

If the definition is what the Supreme Court considers a fundamental right, well, the Supreme Court has already stated that the second amendment only applies in the first place to certain types of weapons.

[pipoman]

62. I can't answer for him

but all restrictions on enumerated civil rights/liberties should absolutely satisfy strict scrutiny. Are you suggesting otherwise?

[BzaDem]

66. I guess I would say that there is no civil right/liberty to own a sawed off shotgun.

The Supreme Court appears to agree with me in principle:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."

(Heller, 2008, Justice Scalia.)

[X_Digger]

70. And the very next sentence after that was what? n/t

[BzaDem]

72. See post 68. n/t

[pipoman]

74. Any use of Miller as proof of anything is unreasonable

You do know that neither Miller nor a representative for Miller's position were at the SCOTUS to argue their position? Ever gone to a court hearing when the other party didn't show up? It never goes well for the absent party. Miller was no exception.

Further nobody is arguing sawed off shotgun. Also from Miller and upheld in Heller is the threshold of "in common use for lawful purposes". Would you spend your money to take a case to SCOTUS proclaiming the firearms included in almost any AWB, most being AR15 platform firearms, the single most popular and owned format of sporting rifle in the US, used by literally millions of people competitively every weekend at a range near all of us, are not "in common use for lawful purposes"?

[BzaDem]

79. Your argument is with Scalia -- not with me.

Scalia stated as plainly as could possibly be that according to Miller, the second amendment only implicates certain types of weapons. This isn't my argument -- that is Scalia's argument. It is the law of the land, and lower courts have interpreted it as such. If you think that is unreasonable, talk to him.

[pipoman]

83. So your position is that each and every

firearm format must go to scotus for determination of it's applicability to the threshold "in common use for lawful purposes"? Again I ask, would you be willing to spend your own (or even public for that matter) money to argue that the AR15 format isn't "in common use for lawful purposes"?

[BzaDem]

85. Well, yes -- each and every firearm that anyone challenges will go to the SCOTUS.

That's how our system of law works. There will be tons of decisions over the next hundred years that attempt to define "common use for lawful purposes" as cases go to the Supreme Court, just like there are tons of decisions articulating the exact scope of the first amendment.

[pipoman]

100. I don't think our lawmakers

will, in light of the reaffirmation of the "in common use for lawful purposes" threshold, share your enthusiasm in legislating against a rifle which is rarely used in crime and is widely used in competitive sport shooting, thus costing taxpayers who are broke millions only to lose. And if the AR15 platform isn't included in your AWB, then what? The semi-automatic version of the AK-47, also rarely used in crime but widely used in competitive shooting sports? The idea of AWB died with the reaffirmation of "in common use for lawful purposes". And frankly the "in common use for lawful purposes" doesn't even go to the question of the intent of the founders in wanting the public to have access to similar weapons used by government.

[BzaDem]

114. I think "common use for lawful purposes" is going to be defined more narrowly than you think.

It will probably be looked at as commonly used in lawful purposes (i.e. just because a tiny subset of the population commonly use such a gun doesn't mean the gun is commonly used in general). We shall see.

I can also assure you that whatever the Supreme Court does, they will not make the insane interpretation that the second amendment was intended to allow citizens to overthrow their government at their leisure by equalizing the weaponry. (Fortunately for most people who think that's bunk, Scalia already broadly hinted that a ban on M-16s would probably be just fine.)

[pipoman]

125. And I think that if Miller

or anyone at the time, had argued that sawed off shotguns were, at the time, in common use for lawful purposes, that argument (again at the time) may well have prevailed. There was a time when sawed off shotguns were the weapon of choice by many for home defense. Woodland partridge hunters used them widely, as well as other close in bird hunters. But, alas, the only parties at the SCOTUS hearings was the very people opposing such a finding.

Rulings by scotus, are almost always narrow. I don't believe a state AWB is as likely to be overturned as a federal ban. I believe that a federal ban would be easily overturned. As for the M16, I believe they would uphold the registry in a challenge to the NFA. I believe that in the proper circumstances they would overturn the closing of the registry. I believe the registry will be reopened in the next 10 years or so either legislatively or through court order. We shall see.

[beevul]

128. That and...

That and the "tax" portion of the NFA.

Its entirely possible that it would not withstand the proper challenge.

[BzaDem]

130. In light of McDonald, your distinction between a federal AWB and state AWB does not make sense.

Similarly, the first amendment does not somehow apply less to states than it does to the federal government.

My entire point is that just because a weapon is common within some tiny subset does NOT make it common among the general population as a whole, and I doubt the courts will take the tiny subset approach to this.

[pipoman]

142. If you consider the single most common rifle platform

in the US in the last 20 years a "tiny subset", we would disagree. If we were talking about, say, the ,50 BMG platform otoh, you may be right.

For the record, I don't own any guns which could ever be classified as an AW..never had the desire. But recently I have been considering it just because. I wouldn't mind having a .223 for the increasing populations of coyotes in my neck of the woods. I may buy consecutive serial numbers for my sons as I did with shotguns and .22 rifles.

[benEzra]

171. "a tiny subset of the population commonly use such a gun"

just because a tiny subset of the population commonly use such a gun doesn't mean the gun is commonly used in general

I think I see where you are going off the rails. "Assault weapons" does not refer to guns that are used by "a tiny subset of the population"; rather, it is an intentionally loaded buzzword for the most popular centerfire rifles in the United States.

More Americans own "assault weapons" than hunt, and more Americans own "assault weapons" than shoot skeet or clays. The AR-15 is the dominant centerfire target rifle in the United States, and is the most common defensive carbine in U.S. homes.

If the most popular civilian rifles in the United States are not "in common use for lawful purposes", then what is?

[PavePusher]

109. And perhaps we can avoid putting the Citizens to this inconvenience...

by not passing stupid laws in the first place.

It's all well and good to say "Oh, it'll work itself out in the courts...", but that takes time and money that most people don't have these days, and legislatures are notorious for not reimbursing the Citizen who has to pay for the legal action.

Or are you volunteering to fund such challanges?

[beevul]

34. "body armor" bullets?

"body armor" bullets?

Armor piercing handgun bullets are and have been banned for some time.


Armor piercing rifle bullets - if defined as anything that can pierce body armor designed to stop handgun rounds, are about any rifle bullet.

Plastic undetectable handguns - are a fiction.

[krispos42]

135. Stupidity of the majority is still stupidity.

The USA PATRIOT Act passed virtually unanimously, too.

Coating bullets in Teflon doesn't make them armor-piercing... putting a steel penetrator inside of it does. And, quite frankly, given a choice I'd rather my un-armored person get shot with an armor-piercing round than a conventional expanding one. I don't want a bullet mushrooming in my irreplaceable body!

[RSillsbee]

29. Hell some bills to ban non-existent plastic guns have been proposed.

We totally should have let them get that one through just for entertainment value

[kctim]

10. In order for it to be reasonable

it must have a valid purpose.

What would be the purpose of "reasonable restrictions on (say) the size of a magazine?"

[BzaDem]

12. To force a murderer to reload or get distracted switching to another gun, increasing the chance that

someone can knock him over.

[Statistical]

16. Like Cho?

Even if you make the argument that is needed why 10 rounds?

Why the lying. Talking about banning extended magazines while the actual text of the bill bans magazines >10 rounds.

What could be purpose other than to railroad through something which is likely going to be unpopular?
Does anyone think that eventually gun owners won't realize like they did after the AWB and vote accordingly?

[BzaDem]

19. Why in the world are you accusing me of lying?

Someone asked what the purpose was. I answered. You may disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I'm lying.

Since you don't seem to be answering the question I proposed in this thread, let me rephrase it. You ask:

"Does anyone think that eventually gun owners won't realize like they did after the AWB and vote accordingly?"

Do you put yourself in the group of "gun owners" you refer to? Would you "vote accordingly" if Democrats (say) reauthorized the AWB?

[Statistical]

22. Sorry I wasn't accusing you of lying but rather politicians with an anti-gun agenda.

"Do you put yourself in the group of "gun owners" you refer to? Would you "vote accordingly" if Democrats (say) reauthorized the AWB?"
Yes & Yes however my Senator is a strongly pro RKBA Democrat so I doubt I have anything to worry.

My Congressman is Republican and I doubt that is changing anytime soon. I will support the strongest RKBA Democrat in the primary though.

[BzaDem]

25. But if the choice was between a Republican and a Democrat who supported the AWB

(after the respective primaries), what would "vote accordingly" mean in that case?

[Statistical]

59. I wouldn't vote Republican but I would likely abstain.

In VA an anti-gun Democrat can be easily replaced by another Democrat who supports RKBA.

[RSillsbee]

33. Would you "vote accordingly" if Democrats (say) reauthorized the AWB?

Answering that question could violate DU's posting rules

[BzaDem]

38. Well I actually have more respect for someone who did so because of the AWB

than I do for someone who does so because we didn't go "far enough" on something.

I still think doing so would be totally wrong, and that it is silly for any Democrat to favor a Republican vision on everything except guns over a Democratic vision just because of the Democratic position on guns. So by "more respect," I guess I really mean a really tiny bit more respect (not much).

But at least that is logically rational -- it isn't logically wrong to prioritize the position of one party on one issue (such as guns) over other issues. (Whereas it obviously is logically irrational to vote for a party that is even more against your position on EVERY issue than the Democratic party, or enable said party's election in any way.)

[RSillsbee]

45. Again, answering that question could be a violation of DU rules

Expressing intent to not vote or vote third party, or justifying defeat of any Democratic general election candidate (unless a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative).

[one-eyed fat man]

170. You should listen to Va Tech footage

There is cell phone footage where you can hear Cho shooting in the background. You see the campus police shooing students away while waiting for the city's SWAT team to show up.

The shooting is slow, methodical, puncuated by pauses where he reloaded. Cho had almost a half hour to wander the building expending 174 rounds before "real police" entered the building. He reloaded 17 times using "ban legal" 10 round magazines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkrDYR-pd7I

This is about the last two minutes shot by a student with his cell phone. Note the stalwart campus cops milling about with no apparent sense of direction or urgency occasionally yelling at students to "Get away."

Listen to the shots. There are a couple spots where wind noise overpowers the audio, but close to the end you hear a blast where SWAT breaches the barricaded door. They rush in and almost immediately in the face of an armed response Cho kills himself.

Except for an 86 year old Holocaust survivor who tried to barricade a door no one took any action to thwart the shooter. Many of the victims simply cowered under their desks meekly waiting their turn to be shot. Why did a 61 year old Arizona grandmother act while Virginia college students didn't?

[guitar man]

14. Any time I see the word "reasonable"

It sets off alarm bells, because most of the time the anti-gunner throwing that word around has no idea WTF they are talking about.

When it comes to severe magazine limits, has anybody stopped to think of what the unintended consequences could be? If I live in the city in densely packed housing and my neighbor has to deal with an intruder, I'd rather have them armed with too many lower powered rounds than a low capacity hand cannon. A big consideration in home defense is your neighbors. Give me enough shots and I'll stick with something low enough powered that will in all likelihood stay inside my house. Limit my number of shots and I'm going to be slinging something that's going to really leave a mark when it connects like a high powered magnum.


And some of those rounds just keep going, and going, and going....

[slackmaster]

28. Appeal to "reasonableness" is often really a form of argumentum ad hominem

My position is reasonable, therefore anyone who disagrees with it is either behaving in an unreasonable manner or is just an unreasonable person.

It's a form of poisoning the well.

[guitar man]

31. "Surely you wouldn't

... oppose this *common sense* legislation"

generally put forth by politicians without enough common sense to pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel...

[BzaDem]

43. I don't think using the word "reasonable" is a form of argumentum ad hominem.

When someone speaks of what they consider to be a "reasonable" gun restriction, they generally get there by first looking at the second amendment, looking at the reasons for its passage (and the reasons articulated in Supreme Court decisions interpreting it), and go from there. They might consider a restriction reasonable if it does not diminish the underlying reason for the amendment's existence in the first place (even if it does go against an absolutist vision of the amendment that some people have, that no court or founder has ever sanctioned).

So it isn't so much used to call others manifestly unreasonable. It is more used to easily distinguish certain types of laws (restriction on certain types of guns that the second amendment doesn't even reach) versus other types of laws (such as a ban on handguns altogether, which the second amendment does reach).

[beevul]

55. Eau contraire

"When someone speaks of what they consider to be a "reasonable" gun restriction, they generally get there by first looking at the second amendment, looking at the reasons for its passage (and the reasons articulated in Supreme Court decisions interpreting it), and go from there. They might consider a restriction reasonable if it does not diminish the underlying reason for the amendment's existence in the first place (even if it does go against an absolutist vision of the amendment that some people have, that no court or founder has ever sanctioned)."

Except we don't see any examples of anyone doing that, here or in congress. The congresswoman in question, in fact couldn't even be bothered to know what some of the things her very own bill would ban were:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

This is the same congreswoman who has attatched the word "reasonable" to the magazine ban.

"So it isn't so much used to call others manifestly unreasonable. It is more used to easily distinguish certain types of laws (restriction on certain types of guns that the second amendment doesn't even reach) versus other types of laws (such as a ban on handguns altogether, which the second amendment does reach)."

It is certainly used to imply that those that disagree are unreasonable. If one looks one can even find examples of people calling those that disagree unreasonable.

[Straw Man]

61. Reasonability

When someone speaks of what they consider to be a "reasonable" gun restriction, they generally get there by first looking at the second amendment, looking at the reasons for its passage (and the reasons articulated in Supreme Court decisions interpreting it), and go from there.

That would indeed be "reasonable," but that's not the reality. The reality is that people who wish to end private ownership of firearms (e.g. Carolyn McCarthy, the Brady Campaign, the VPC) say to themselves, "Let's see how far we can push our incremental strategy this time." They test the political waters, throw some chicken entrails, and say "OK, now it's ten-round magazines." Then they crank up the PR machine and try to convince people that their new restriction is "reasonable."

These laws have very little practical effect except for the harassment of legitimate gun owners, which I'm starting to believe is the whole point. The most effective approach, IMO, would be improvement of the NICS system and aggressive prosecution of felonies committed with guns.

[BzaDem]

73. We have courts to deal with laws that violate the Second Amendment.

If Carolyn McCarthy were somehow able to get a law through that banned standard magazines (or all magazines), I highly doubt justice Scalia would sustain the law.

You say that these laws have very little practical effect. But wouldn't "aggressive prosecution of felonies committed with guns" have even LESS of a practical effect? Do you really think that someone who is about to use a gun to commit a crime would be deterred by some higher penalty or more aggressive prosecution?

[PavePusher]

77. Why force through a law that you know will be overturned by the courts?

Why waste the time, when you could apply that energy to something constructive and lasting?

Why make a mockery out of the legislative system when so many people already veiw so much of the legislative work as wasted time, money and self-promotion of pols?

[BzaDem]

80. I wouldn't force through a law that I knew would be overturned by the courts.

Believe it or not, I am not Congresswoman Maloney. :)

The fact that certain people would is not an argument against restrictions that would likely be upheld unanimously by the courts.

[Straw Man]

107. Aggressive prosecution.

Yes--we have the Supreme Court, and I believe McCarthy's proposed law will not pass Constitutional muster by the "in common use" criterion. A case might be made against the 30+ capacity magazines, but really the standard semi-auto handgun magazine now is 15 to 18 rounds. McCarthy is aiming at 10, an arbitrary number that she hopes to sell as "reasonable."

Much as this might sound like simplistic sloganeering, it's the gun in the hand of the criminal that's the problem. Unless some magic act can make all firearms (and firearms technology) disappear, criminals will still have guns. Actually, the bulk of gun crime is NOT mass murder--that's just what gets the press. Criminals of all types create plenty of mayhem with the current standard magazines, and will continue to do so as long as they remain at large.

I'm talking about long sentences, with no plea bargains. It might not deter criminals until they're actually behind bars, but then they'll be deterred for a good long time. I suggest that we clear space for violent offenders by releasing non-violent drug offenders, for example. Society needs to be protected from violent criminals, not hapless drug users. At the risk of sounding unprogressive, I would have no problem with life sentences for crimes such as armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. Society has to be protected, and this would do it far more effectively than any hardware ban.

As for the Loughners and Chos, I believe that the only effective prevention is mental health intervention. Spree killers will use whatever tools they can find, and the relative death tolls are a complete wild card. The Akihabara killer in Tokyo used a rented van and a knife, and he killed more than Loughner did. I continue to believe that the 30-round magazine is a red herring. It would be easy for me to say, "Sure, ban them," because I don't use them and my state restricts them anyway. But that's not what McCarthy et al are asking--they want 10--and it's not what they want ultimately, which is a complete ban. Their ultimate goal is, to me, unreasonable, and I see no reason to help them achieve it, especially since the steps they're proposing would not, IMO, have the effect that they are claiming, i.e. increased public safety.

[BzaDem]

116. You don't think a life sentence or the death penalty is deterrent enough?

The crimes you talk about are already punished by life sentences in various instances.

"Unless some magic act can make all firearms (and firearms technology) disappear, criminals will still have guns."

Who is saying otherwise? I'm not arguing for a handgun ban. People should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves against criminals with guns. I'm just talking about type restrictions.

[Straw Man]

157. Those are not the sentences typically applied...

...to those crimes. The death penalty is never applied for robbery or assault. (In any case, I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, because mistakenly executing innocent people undermines the social contract in the worst possible way.) Life for armed robbery or assault? Maybe, just maybe, if it's a third strike, but how many more people has this person victimized on the way to that third strike? No, I'd say give it right off the bat. Felony with firearm (even if no shots are fired)? Life.

I understand that you're not arguing for a total ban, but the drafters and promoters of this legislation are working towards that--it's very clear. The lesser restrictions you want are, IMO, ineffective and are steps along the road to a total ban. You may be a reasonable person -- you certainly sound like one -- but it has been my experience that the majority of those calling for restrictions are neither reasonable nor in good faith. I will continue to oppose the restrictions because of their questionable utility in terms of public safety and because they are steps in the incremental strategy of the proponents of total bans.

[BzaDem]

159. Actually, the death penalty can be (and is sometimes) applied to those who don't kill or intend to

kill, if someone else involved in their crime ended up killing someone. (It's called felony murder.) And regardless of that, I think life sentences are given much more often (even independent of any strikes framework).

But regardless, I doubt even the difference between a 20 year sentence and a life sentence is that much of a deterrent.

What I don't understand is the slippery slope argument. The American people would throw out of office anyone who wanted to ban all guns (or even if they enact some significant limit less draconian than a total ban). Furthermore, the law would be stayed immediately upon the first challenge and subsequently struck down. SOME might intend incremental restrictions to be steps along the way to total bans, but that doesn't mean said people are going to get anywhere.

[Straw Man]

161. The point is that there's no death penalty if no one was killed in the crime.

In any case, I'm not talking so much about a "pre-crime" deterrent effect as I'm talking about locking somebody away where he/she can't victimize society any more, ever.

As for the slippery slope, you seem to be saying that I and those who share my opinion should accept what we see as useless regulations because we can be assured that those pressing them won't someday go too far. Why even give them the chance? I see the currently proposed regulations as excessive. Sure, it could get worse, but why let it? Why not take the stand here?

Do you believe the 10-round magazine limit is reasonable? I don't, and I live in a state that has one. To qualify for my handgun permit I had to throw my life open to the county sheriff, the state police, and the FBI. I had to provide three character references, be fingerprinted, and submit to a full background check. Fair enough: I like a challenge. I passed.

My application was reviewed and approved by a judge, and I have to be approved by the sheriff's office for each handgun that I purchase. After all this, I can only carry ten rounds in a pistol rather than the fifteen or eighteen that the pistol may be designed for. The reason for this? So that I might more easily be tackled while reloading should I one day go berserk. It's ludicrous. I am regulated enough, thank you. No more, please. Why would I wish this on any other reasonable human being?

Here's the kicker: I could always opt to buy pre-1994 standard-capacity or high-capacity magazines, which are harder to find and more expensive, but still legal. So the "tackle the berserker" strategy has no teeth, and what we're left with is petty harassment of legal gun owners as part of an incremental ban strategy.

Sorry to rant, but the slippery slope is very real to me. I hope I was able to convey that.

[pipoman]

67. You don't follow this forum very closely apparently...

"When someone speaks of what they consider to be a "reasonable" gun restriction, they generally get there by first looking at the second amendment, looking at the reasons for its passage (and the reasons articulated in Supreme Court decisions interpreting it), and go from there."

[slackmaster]

169. There are certainly situations in which saying "reasonable" isn't used as an ad hominem

Just as is the case with pretty much any structure that CAN be used in a fallacious manner.

[X_Digger]

21. Both.. ill-advised politically, and no reason to expect it'll make a difference.

Additionally, I think it's setting a precedent to ultimately taking the teeth out of the second amendment, one cavity at a time.

[beevul]

24. Heres why its a political loser.

"For those who say that Democrats shouldn't advocate for minimal gun restrictions because of politics"

There is A LOT of gun control. Arguing from a pretense that we don't have any is terribly dishonest.


I'll lay this out to you clearly:

The discussion currently, revolves around magazine restrictions. People keep saying "reasonable restrictions on (say) the size of a magazine". I doubt many people who support such a thing, know or care about the particulars. The particulars, however, are what damns the current effort and the current proposed legislation, and by extension anyone foolish to have their name on it if it is passed into law. And their party too.

Why?

First some definitions:

Standard capacity magazine, means non-protruding flush fit magazine, which holds whatever internal space allows, ranging generally from 5-7 rounds, to 17 rounds. Heres a photographic example:



Extended capacity magazine:





The current talking points say "nobody needs a 31 round magazine" or "nobody needs an "extended capacity" magazine. Fine and dandy, right? Except...Legislation doesn't simply go after 31 round mags or "extended capacity" mags. It goes after STANDARD capacity mags too - that is - the BULK of gun magazines in existence in America. Again, the argument is "why does anyone need whats shown in the second picture", while the action and support for it lean toward attempting to ban that which is shown in the both pictures.

Expressed numerically it targets somewhere between a hundred million and a billion gun magazines. It makes no distinction between rifle and handgun magazines.

Would you like it if you were sold a bill of goods based on false representation - bait and switch?

I doubt most gun owners would either.

I think people that support this can not and will not understand the amount of anger this will cause, because they do not understand how many will be effected, do not understand that this is based on a deception, and do not understand how angry people in general get when they're forced to live with decisions made based upon deception.

This sort of thing, will make the repercussions from the AWB seem like a hiccup, in comparison, because it isn't simply one class of weapons that it covers. It covers ALL classes of weapons, even some around 100 years old.

If someone can talk some sense into into supporters of such a thing, and change it so that "standard capacity" magazines are not targeted or effected, and that rifles are not effected, it might have political viability.

I myself might even support something along those lines IF it is sufficiently balanced with a gain in another area, such as striking the hughes amendment language from the FOPA of 1986 for example.

[RSillsbee]

27. Please take 11 minutes

To watch this video. In which a Police Officer and firearms instructor explains the difference between an "Assault weapon" and an Assault Rifle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

I think it will give you a better understanding of the opposition to the AWB


In answer to your question I do not support any limits on magazine capacity because I don't see that it would have any effect on crime and the pro restriction side is claiming they want to ban "extended capacity" magazines when they really want to ban standard capacity magazine.

A law abiding citizen is a law abiding citizen whether they have a gun or not

[jody]

39. Interesting post but there are those who oppose arms who can never learn from reviewing facts. n/t

[jody]

37. IMO there are very few people who oppose some infringement on each unalienable/inalienable right but

many join me in opposing government illegally prohibiting an unalienable/inalienable right.

What is slight infringement to some is unacceptable to others and there are those who would establish a totalitarian government with the unilateral authority to prohibit all unalienable/inalienable rights -- as long as they control the government that destroys those rights.

I oppose prohibition of all enumerated rights that our constitution declares government is supposed to protect and the same for all unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Anyone who does not agree with me on that point IMO supports a totalitarian government.

We the People can argue about what infringement is acceptable but those who support the dream expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution oppose prohibition of those rights OUR government was created to protect.

I offer a few quotes from legends of history who from personal experience know the effect of government prohibiting unalienable/inalienable rights that I support:

You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it. ~Malcolm X

We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." ~Martin Luther King, Jr., "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Why We Can't Wait, 1963

Ordinarily, a person leaving a courtroom with a conviction behind him would wear a somber face. But I left with a smile. I knew that I was a convicted criminal, but I was proud of my crime. ~Martin Luther King, Jr., March 22, 1956

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. ~Bishop Desmond Tutu

[BzaDem]

76. You are begging the question though.

The issue is whether certain restrictions violate any individual Constitutional right in the first place -- not whether it is OK to infringe on individual rights. It is clear (to me at least) that the Supreme Court would rule that a restriction on certain high capacity magazines doesn't even IMPLICATE the second amendment, and it would probably do so unanimously.

[jody]

81. You know of course that unalienable/inalienable rights are not grated by the Constitution. You know

that a group of sovereign individuals revered today as We the People created a government based on individual rights and threw off the yoke of oppression of those who claimed the divine right of kings -- don't you?

Who are you or anyone else to claim a simple majority has the authority to prohibit a right that sovereign individuals beginning with PA on 28 Sept. 1776 assert are unalienable/inalienable meaning simply that no government has the authority to prohibit those rights?

What part of the Declaration of Independence and PA (1776) and VT (1777) constitutions do you have difficulty understanding?

[BzaDem]

84. I don't think a single founder would argue that ALL TYPES of weapons can't be restricted.

There is a spirited debate over whether the Constitution grants non-militia members an individual right to bear arms at all. Both sides have numerous state constitutions to back them up. The Supreme Court decided the issue and it is the law of the land. I am not contesting that at all.

But as far as I know, there is NO serious debate over whether any type of weapon imaginable is necessarily implicated in any fundamental right. The founders simply did not believe the 2nd amendment applies to every possible imaginable weapon under the sun. I do not know of any evidence that backs up your view -- the DOI/PA constitution/VT constitution certainly do not.

[jody]

88. You know that all males between 17-45 and to 64 in some states are in the militia, don't you? PA and

VT acknowledged RKBA for self-defense as inalienable/unalienable rights and you know what that means.

If you are a male 17-45 then you are in the militia unless you are in an exempt category.

You know of course that our Constitution says congress is supposed "To provide for . . . arming, . . . the Militia".

If you are a male age 17-45 and not exempt has congress armed you with a standard military firearm which would be some version of an M-16 rifle and M9 pistol?

[BzaDem]

90. I'm not sure how your question relates to the subject at hand.

I am merely saying that no serious legal scholar would say there was ever a fundamental right to own any weapon imaginable. Some weapons, sure -- but not every single weapon.

As for your example, obviously if Congress wanted to make owning every weapon legal, it could. That's not the question though -- the question is whether it would either be unconstitutional (or violate some "historical fundamental right") to ban one particular type of weapon.

[jody]

91. "not sure how your question relates to the subject" which is the problem we pro-RKBA Dems have with

those who are neutral on the issue who are attracted like moths to a flame over the anti-gun fantasies by those who single out one inalienable/unalienable right to prohibit.

As PA and VT so clearly acknowledged, not declared, sovereign individuals aka We the People have a right to defend SELF and state and as such no government can prohibit that right.

What do you hope to achieve by banning arms with cosmetic features or magazines with over ten round capacity?

[BzaDem]

94. Prohibiting a high capacity magazine is not restricting the right to defend yourself.

I'm not sure why you keep arguing this point -- I'm pretty sure if you asked basically any legal expert on whether the PA or VT constitution allowed ANY capacity magazine or ANY type of gun imaginable, without exception, they would laugh at you.

[Glassunion]

98. Yes actually it can "restrict" your right to defend yourself.

Prohibiting, what you call a "high capacity" magazine(more than 10 rounds) can "restrict" your right to defend yourself. It does not prohibit you from defending yourself, but it does restrict it.

By prohibiting a person from having more than 10 rounds in their magazine, you are basically stating that they will never be a victim of violent crime perpetrated by more than (X) number of people. You are also stating that it takes exactly (X) number of bullets to stop a threat. These are numbers that are virtually impossible to know because there has never been a study on it. Yet, with no scientific evidence we are supposed to accept the fact that our representatives in Congress who cannot even identify the parts of a firearm, should be trusted in restricting them?

I have 3 questions for you...
What are the household odds of being a victim of a home invasion?
How many aggressors on average participate in those home invasions per incident?
Do you feel that it only takes 1 bullet to stop each aggressor?

[BzaDem]

117. Do you know of any examples where someone saved themself with a high capacity magazine in a home

invasion, that likely would have not done so if they didn't have such a magazine?

I think much of this is theoretical nonsense that is kind of silly, but in this case we should be able to look at data, since I doubt a home invasion that required a high capacity magazine to stop would go unreported.

[Glassunion]

151. You avoided the questions. I'll post them again for you.

What are the household odds of being a victim of a home invasion?
How many aggressors on average participate in those home invasions per incident?
Do you feel that it only takes 1 bullet to stop each aggressor?

[BzaDem]

152. Do you know the answers to your own questions?

[Glassunion]

177. Are you afraid of the questions? What might the answers tell you?

You should have this info already. You are all for restricting something, so I would have to assume you are basing this on some sort of facts and not just feelings.

[RSillsbee]

112. Colorado says the same thing

Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 13

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

[BzaDem]

119. Doesn't that kind of defeat your point?

All I'm arguing about is bans on certain types of weapons/magazines. The Colorado Constitution seems to provide a much narrower right than the US Constitution, since it would seem to easily allow restrictions on types of weapons commonly used in competitions (but not so used in home invasions).

[RSillsbee]

163. What does the wording of Colorado’s Constitution have to do w/ competition?

It states that my right to carry a weapon, including long guns, for self defense cannot be questioned by the state. It clarifies that I can’t use that article to justify carrying a concealed weapon w/ out a permit.
Open carry is legal in most of Colorado

[one-eyed fat man]

155. Prior to 1934

and the passage of the National Firearms Act there was absolutely no Federal restriction on the weapons a private individual might own. There was plenty of restriction on what a person might DO with those weapons, but none on just having them

Through our history private individuals have owned battleships, cannon, warplanes, machine guns all without government stricture until 1934.

The US government has availed itself of warships owned by private individuals, manned by civilian crews. While 'privateers' are thought of as belong to the era of sail, in December 1941 and the most of 1942, the Goodyear airships Resolute and Volunteer operated as anti-submarine privateers. As the only US craft to operate under a Letter of Marque since the War of 1812, the Resolute and Volunteer , ARMED with machine guns, bombs and depth charges, and flown by civilian crews, patrolled the seas for and sank enemy submarines.

As to the Bill of Rights. This is the basis in a nutshell. Governments have POWERS. People have RIGHTS. The Bill of Rights is an explicit list of limitations on government powers; a reminder to the government enumerating rights of the people they are enjoined to protect.

The people who may peaceably assemble in the First Amendment, or who may be secure in the persons in the Fourth Amendment, who are assured due process by the Fifth Amendment, have the right to a jury in the Sixth, and are protected from cruel and unusual punishments by the Eight did not suddenly turn into States in the Second!

[Glassunion]

47. Loaded question...

So my question is: how many here actually support reasonable restrictions on (say) the size of a magazine, but don't think we should advocate for them at all for political/electability reasons?

You state the words "reasonable restriction", however you fail to define what is a reasonable restriction. Thereby saying that if one does not agree with the first part of your question, than they are unreasonable and an advocate of simply not passing laws so as to get re-elected.

It is not so simple on its face as there are several factors that determine what is reasonable.

But, taken on its face if it is indeed "Common Sense", "Reasonable", "Sensible" then one would have no issue passing such a law because you would not be going against the "vast majority of the country's wishes". Take the NICS system for example. Sure there were some that were vocal about how it was a restriction on the 2nd and how it was unreasonable. However, the majority(gun-owners and non gun-owners) did support and continue to support its inception and funding(see: the failure of NICS compliance and the VT shooter).

You must keep in mind that some of these introduced bills violate not just the 2nd Amendment but other civil rights as well. I don't care if you call it "Reasonable". If it violates any rights, it is not reasonable. If it has no stated purpose, is ineffective or is unenforceable than it is not reasonable no matter what you call it.

[BzaDem]

93. When I said the "vast majority of the country's wishes," I was talking about a ban on high-capacity

magazines, or an assault weapons ban. The most recent CBS/NYT poll shows that people support such legislation by a margin of about 2-1.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20029126-503544.html

In fact, even a majority of gun-owning households support both.

Even Cheney says it would make sense to start looking at magazine capacity limits.

[Glassunion]

103. That poll did not ask the question as to how Congress tries to pass laws.

Would you support a ban on high capacity gun clips that is ineffective and no studies have shown that it will reduce crime in any way?

Would you support an assault weapon ban that has been shown by the Department of Justice to have no effect on crime?

Would you support more strict gun control laws that violate the civil rights of Americans?

Your poll results may be more different. We are trying to base a law that effects 100's of millions of items owned by over 80million Americans based solely on the acts of one person with apparent severe mental issues.

Mass shootings, as rare as they are, do have a very negative impact on society and we should absolutely work to limit their occurrence not just limit the number of victims with a lot of “what ifs”. This bill to me, in an offhanded way flies in the face of being reasonable. That it is somehow ok to have mass shootings as long as we have a lower body count. I would rather get to the root of the issue and prevent the entire event.

What would have happened if the school the shooter was attending had the resources to handle someone with his mental condition? What if they could have provided or given the shooter a direct avenue to seek or be provided with the help he needed? Would he then have been able to legally purchase his firearms? Would he have been placed into an institution? Would he have been given any medication that he required? What if 100% NICS state compliance was mandatory (the funding is there, only 10% of it is being used)? If we want to play with “what ifs” perhaps we should address the root cause and prevent him from obtaining the firearm in the first place.

Everything said and done, I do not disagree entirely with the bill, however I personally feel that 10 rounds is an arbitrary number that was concluded without study or evidence.

[benEzra]

104. Part of that...

is due to the fact that the corporate media talks about bans on unusual extended magazines, but what they (and the pro-bans lobby) advocate is banning STANDARD magazines. Were the McCarthy ban to actually pass, the gun-owning households who supported the ban will find themselves committing Federal felonies when trying to transfer antique heirloom rifles, ordinary pistols, or common carbines to the next generation, and will find themselves unable to purchase replacement parts for their pistols and rifles.

As I mentioned in the other thread, you're talking about banning (and ultimately confiscating) a quarter of a billion magazines owned by ~40 million likely voters. One can only fool people as to the actual contents of a ban until the ban is passed; one it begins to be enforced, people will realize they've been had, a la 1994.

As far as Cheney, (1) he believes in censorship, warrantless surveillance, torture, and summary execution, so banning the most popular guns and/or magazines in the USA is pretty consistent for him as long as People Like Him are exempted, and (2) he may be pulling a Gingrich. In 1994, Newt Gingrich goaded Dems to pass the idiotic and extremely controversial Feinstein "ban" (and IIRC actually helped them pass it through the conference committee), then rode the inevitable backlash into the Speaker's chair. Outgoing House Speaker and ban supporter Tom Foley became the first sitting House Speaker to lose his seat since the Civil War.

[beevul]

105. Those polls...

Those polls do not take into account whether people know anything about the questions they're being asked, when the poll concerns "assault weapons".

People are mislead, by the poll question, if it is asked like this:

"do you support restrictions on high capacity magazines".

A question posed like this would give a different result:

"Do you support retrictions on standard capacity magazines"

Likewise, a poll question posed like this:

"do you support a ban on assault weapons"

Would give a different result than :

"do you support a ban on semi-automatic rifles and handguns with certain features"

"Even Cheney says it would make sense to start looking at magazine capacity limits."

Gingritch let the original AWB through for Democrats to pass into law too, and look what that led to, if were to believe President Clinton rather than those in denial, anyway.

[BzaDem]

120. Fortunately for me, I'm not talking about standard capacity magazines. I'm talking about extended

capacity magazines. Whatever strawman you can concoct that says something OTHER than what I'm saying is irrelevant. Seems like the poll is exactly on target to what I'M talking about.

[beevul]

121. I just looked at that poll a second time.

It does not say a single thing about magazines.

[BzaDem]

123. Actually, it does.

"q62 As you may know, high-capacity magazines or clips can hold many rounds of ammunition, so a shooter can fire more rounds without manually reloading. Would you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of high-capacity magazines that hold many rounds of ammunition?"

63% favor, 34% oppose. Among Republicans it is still 55-42.

[beevul]

131. I just saw the link to the full poll. I stand corrected.

I just saw the link to the full poll. I stand corrected.

However...


Its just as I said before - "high capacity magazines" is most unclearly defined.

"Assault weapons" is also most unclearly defined.


Polls are meaningless, unless people know what they're being asked.

[BzaDem]

132. Is it possible to construct a poll to satisfy you?

Without misrepresenting the question and claiming a high capacity magazine is a standard capacity magazine?

You can make the same definitional argument about most words in every poll.

[beevul]

134. Certainly.

"You can make the same definitional argument about most words in every poll."

Ask SPECIFIC questions.

Not general questions that leave it up to the person being polled to define the meanings of.

[BzaDem]

137. Regardless, it would seem you would answer no to that poll, and that most others would answer yes.

The question seems pretty specific to me, unless you wouldn't be satisfied without a numerical limit for each type of gun in the question.

[beevul]

139. Asking...

Asking people whether they support a ban on "high capacity" magazines, without defining what a high capacity magazine is, leaves it up to the peron being polled to define for themself at best, or as pushed at worst.

likewise, asking people whether they support a ban on "assault weapons" does the same thing.

How many people would answer yes thinking that machine guns are whats being referred to? Plenty.

If you'd really like, I can give you examples of people that have or would answer in just such a mistake way, including the president of the united states.

[BzaDem]

141. So for high capacity magazines

the only poll that would satisfy you is a poll that gave a list of several types of weapons and the numerical limit for each? Or is there something less than that which would satisfy you?

[beevul]

146. If one wants to accurately gauge support...

If one wants to accurately gauge support for a thing, or support for a ban on a thing, one must quantify.


For magazines, "over x rounds" would make it accurate.

For "assault weapons" the term MUST be defined.

[BzaDem]

148. But wouldn't the magazine limit depend on the type of gun?

If it just said "over x rounds," you would be all over the polling company for citing a specific limit for all guns (without taking into account the different types of guns).

[beevul]

153. No.

"But wouldn't the magazine limit depend on the type of gun?"

Yes, some guns magazines hold more than other guns magazines - if were talking about flush fit standard capacity HANDGUN magazines. Rifles are different.


I'm not sure I take your point beyond that.



"If it just said "over x rounds," you would be all over the polling company for citing a specific limit for all guns (without taking into account the different types of guns)."

The poll isn't asking about which guns, where magazine limits are concerned. That isn't the polls purpose. The purpose is to accurately represent whether respondents support or do not support magazine size limits, and specifically what the limitations they support are.

[Straw Man]

162. "High-cap" in that poll is "dozens," meaning the 30-rounder.

That's what CBS seems to think, anyway.

The survey also indicates that nearly two in three Americans favor a ban on high capacity clips that can hold dozens of rounds like the ones used in the Arizona shootings. Sixty-three percent favor a ban on such clips (including 58 percent of gun-owning households), while 34 percent oppose it.

That is a far cry from the 10-round limit McCarthy and Lautenberg are stumping for.

As for Cheney, why on Earth would you credit him with good faith? Look into those snake-eyes and say, "Yes, I'll stake the future of my party on his advice."

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

53. You say "minimal gun restriction" as if there is currently none...

You are being intellectually dishonest.
There are some 20,000+ gun laws in America which you are apparently trivializing to be "less than minimal".

There are weapon limits. The 1934 NFA is the proverbial "line in the sand". When you want to move the line in the sand - make a constitutionally sound reccomendation for where you would like to move the line which was derived at with logical quantitative reasoning. Don't simply ignore the line that already exists as if there are no current restrictions.

[pipoman]

57. Liberals should advocate for

liberal interpretation of all civil rights/liberties.

[BzaDem]

96. A Republican would say "property" is a fundamental right (i.e. the ability to keep all of it).

Similarly, they would say that people should have an unlimited ability to influence elections through boundless wealth.

The question of what is a civil liberty is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be.

[PavePusher]

108. Actually, I would say that my property that I have fairly earned...

is my right as well. If anyone tries to take it without recompense, they will be the worse for their efforts.

[BzaDem]

124. What if the government takes some every single year, whether you like it or not? n/t

[PavePusher]

174. Sure, I'll play. If you mean "taxes"...

then in theory, I get a return from that, in infrastructure, national security, personal security and protection, etc. If I don't think the deal is fair, I vote accordingly. If that doesn't change things enough, or the burden becomes unsupportable... revolt.

Does that answer your leading question?

[benEzra]

101. Outlawing standard factory magazines for the most popular civilian guns in America

is NOT "minimal gun restrictions." It is draconian, ridiculously-over-the-top harassment that goes far beyond the much-hated 1994 law and directly threatens ~40 million likely voters with Federal felonies for owning legal, mundane firearm parts.

There are around a quarter BILLION affected magazines in U.S. civilian hands. Does an ultimately-confiscatory ban on those items sound "minimal" to you?

The McCarthy bill sets the capacity limit so low that it would ban transfer of (and ultimately confiscate) lever-action cowboy guns from the 1860's and 1870's, among other things.

[beevul]

102. Well said Ben.

I wish I were able to put it as clearly and concisely as you do.

[BzaDem]

126. WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK I AM ENDORSING THE MCCARTHY BILL?

This is insane. Everyone thinks that by mentioning support for a ban on actual extended capacity magazines implies that I support (or even care about) a particular bill. Is there anyone that can converse without making ridiculous strawman arguments?

[beevul]

160. Perhaps...

Perhaps because this is a polarized debate, and we all expect posters to be on one side or the other.


Perhaps because of the intentional misrepresentation in the debate - not by you, mind you - of the "extended capacity" magazine ban being pushed, discussed, and characterized as such, while anything over ten rounds is in fact whats being attempted in legislation. Say one thing, and do another, ya know.

Theres a bunch of dishonesty on that specific issue going around, and I'm not saying its on your part, but it has muddied the waters.

[Straw Man]

164. Because that's the one on the table right now.

Part of the problem is the words "minimal" and "reasonable." For starters, that's the way the McCarthy bill is being described by its proponents. For better or for worse, these are becoming buzzwords in the controversy.

It's also very hard to stake out a position without actual numbers. Nobody can really argue against "minimal" and "reasonable," but what exactly do these mean to you in hard numbers? To me, 10 is unreasonable. You already know that I'm a slippery-sloper, so I'll argue against 30 now too, so that we'll never get to 10. Keep in mind, I firmly believe that even a ban on 30-round would have little or no effect on crime numbers. Cho killed many more with standard-capacity magazines. It's only the high-profile nature of this most recent outrage that's driving the discussion.

[benEzra]

165. What other magazine capacity bans are on the table? The ban lobby is wedded to the 10-round limit.

Not only are no other proposals even on the table, I don't see that other proposals even could be on the table. The ban lobby has painted themselves into a corner for a decade with their "standard cap magazines are WMD's" rhetoric, so hell would freeze over before they'd get behind a reasonable pistol-20/rifle-30 upper bound, even if such a bill were feasible now given the certainty that the limit would subsequently be reduced to unreasonable levels.

Also, upthread you endorsed the "assault weapon" ban (the other McCarthy/Feinstein ban), so it was reasonable to assume that you'd be in the pro-AWB, pro-magazine-ban camp. FWIW, more Americans (including me) lawfully own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt, and they dominate target shooting in this country, yet they account for fewer murders than shotguns, knives, clubs, and bare hands, so I'm not sure why you'd feel it necessary to legislate rifle stock shape and whatnot.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

Total murders...........................13,636.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,452......47.32%
Firearms (type unknown)..................1,928......14.14%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,864......13.67%
Edged weapons............................1,825......13.38%
Hands, feet, etc...........................801.......5.87%
Shotguns...................................418.......3.07%
Rifles.....................................348.......2.55%

The 5-year trend 2005-2009, again per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports:

2005: 442
2006: 436
2007: 450
2008: 375
2009: 348

I'd love to hear your proposals, and how you'd pull Feinstein/McCarthy et al off of their crusade against standard-capacity magazines and protruding rifle handgrips. But I don't see it.

[jody]

173. benEzra it's not polite to use facts to rebut speculations grounded solidly in "all guns are evil"

myths.

[Atypical Liberal]

111. No and yes.

For those who say that Democrats shouldn't advocate for minimal gun restrictions because of politics do you actually support the restrictions in question, and are just afraid of what might happen to the Democratic party if we take a position?

You have not made any suggestions of restrictions, but generally, no, I don't support any more restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, at least, I don't support restrictions that affect law-abiding citizens. I'm all for restrictions that only affect criminals or insane people.

Yes, I'm afraid of what will happen, has happened, and is happening to the Democratic party because of its anti-firearm position. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual Constitutional right incorporated by the states. The Democrats could, instantly, at zero financial expense, completely destroy one of the huge wedge issues that Republicans use to gather voters to their side. Instantly. Overnight. They could turn the NRA into a campaign engine for the progressive cause overnight.

[old mark]

113. We have much more than "minimal" restrictions in place now that are not enforced, and

are not obeyed by the criminals anyway. Kind of obvious that the people who obey laws are the good guys and those who ignore them are criminals.

I own lots of guns, and carry at least one every day...it is still illegal and morally repugnant to kill someone, or hold up a 7-11. It is the individual who is responsible for the crime, not the tool used.


mark

[HankyDubs]

143. take note

I've read though alot of this garbage, but I don't think any of the gungeon dwellers actually answered the original question.

[BzaDem]

147. To be fair, I think a few did say that they don't support such restrictions and are also worried

about electability. It would appear that some are worried about electability because they themselves wouldn't vote for a Democrat that supported those types of laws (even if the only alternative was a Republican).

You are correct that no one answered that they DO support such restrictions but are still worried about electability. That isn't really their fault though, since once this moved to the gun forum they all oppose the restrictions as a matter of policy.

[benEzra]

167. I oppose such restrictions because I would be directly affected by such bans,

as would perhaps 40 million others.

We're not talking about banning rare guns or accessories here. We're talking about banning the most popular civilian rifles and pistols in the United States and/or the magazines they use---including a whole lot of Smith & Wessons, Colts, Glocks, Rock Rivers, Berettas, Sigs, Taurus, the whole gamut. You're talking about affecting perhaps three times as many people as hunt, to use a ballpark comparison.

[beevul]

156. Answered in post 24.

I even stated under what circumstanced I might be in agreement with such a thing.

[Euromutt]

166. It's not just a matter of Realpolitik, though that does play a part

The thing is that in a (representative) democracy like the United States, it simply cannot be overlooked that a major element in determining what is "reasonable" or "the right thing to do" is the whether the electorate supports it. Such calls are, after all, a matter of subjective opinion.

Let me note that this is not without limits; a rule of thumb definition of a modern democracy is "the will of the majority, with protection for the rights of the minority" (whoever those respective sides may be in any given issue). For all the bitching (typically from the right wing of the spectrum) concerning "activist judges" "legislating from the bench," the fact is that is is, among other things, an explicit function of the judiciary to tell the legislature that it should not have passed certain laws because they infringe on the rights of a minority. The state-level laws against abortion and "sodomy" being prime examples.

Ergo, the backing of the majority of the electorate for a certain measure is arguably a necessary condition for it to be considered "reasonable," but it is not a sufficient condition. At least, where it concerns a measure that would limit the freedom of some or all members of the populace. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, for example, did not restrict anyone's legitimate freedoms, and would therefore have been "reasonable" and "the right thing to do" even if they had been opposed by a majority of the electorate.

Okay, so much for the PolSci 101 seminar. Now to get to the nitty-gritty of the specific policy question at hand, namely whether to impose a limit on firearm magazine capacities.

Frankly, BzaDem, you get off to a bad start by begging the question (http://fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html) in describing such a measure a priori as "reasonable." It may be your personal subjective opinion that it is, but as I stated, in a (representative) democracy, reasonable is determined at the ballot box. As one pundit rightly noted last week, the previous restriction on magazine capacities got through Congress because it was essentially a rider (along with the ban on so-called "assault weapons") on a massive anti-crime bill, that included sizable funds for putting more patrol cops on the street. Even so, the voters were unforgiving to those who voted for it.

For myself, I don't think there is any reasonable restriction on magazine capacity. There is zero evidence that it impedes most forms of violent crime committed with firearms (which rarely require the expenditure of more than eleven rounds anyway, if any), and not to put too fine a point on it, other mass killers have racked up larger body counts than Jared Loughner without 30-odd-round mags. Patrick Sherrill killed 14 people (not counting himself) with two M1911A1s with 7-round mags; Tomohiro Kato killed seven people without using a gun at all.

Conversely, in the incident that precipitated legislation banning so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines--the Stockton, CA schoolyard shooting--the shooter expended over 100 rounds, resulting in five deaths (again, not counting himself). The North Hollywood bank robbery shooters expended 1,100 rounds, but didn't kill anyone.

The conclusion we can draw is that volume of fire does not correlate to casualties inflicted. Hell, one would think Vietnam proved that particular point, but evidently it bears repeating. So that leads us to the question:

What good will restricting magazine capacities do?

The honest answer is "fuck all." So what's "reasonable" about imposing such a measure?

[one-eyed fat man]

172. Do not overlook the value of "theater"

There is a certain demonstrable willingness of the "government" to do something so that it appears to be responding to a perceived fear.

Laws get passed, quite cynically, to make "stupid people" feel better.

The advantage of passing ineffective laws is that when they eventually fail to control whatever problem they were ostensibly supposed to control is the shrewd politician will make the case that the reason they were ineffective is that they did not go far enough.

If, as you point out, the honest answer is "fuck all," every subsequent failure results in a call for ratcheting up restrictions.

Before anyone accuses me of exaggeration, ponder the Patriot Act the next time you are in line waiting for the blue latex gloved hand of the TSA "to boldly go where no man has gone before."

[jeepnstein]

176. The issue is toxic.

I wouldn't want any of my candidates to touch it with a ten foot pole. It can cost a candidate votes that don't need to be lost.

When you're looking to take out a Republican running on anything beyond a county level you have to damage their base of support. Three issues energize their base; God, Guns, and Gays. Since no Democrat I've known or worked for has ever been willing to toss the GLBT community under the bus then that issue is going to remain. Attacking religion generally doesn't do much good for getting elected, either. So we're left with being seen as "safe" with regards to the 2nd Amendment. So you knock one leg out of their tripod and score some votes. You wanna knock off Republicans, you have to be electable.

Why would a politician continually attack a position that a huge part of the citizenry doesn't want changed? I can do a push poll that will give you any result you want. It's plain to see from election results that American Citizens like their guns.

I personally don't see magazine limits as "reasonable" because I have yet to see a reasonable suggestion. The "reasonable" legislation we're seeing is nothing but the same old same old from the usual suspects. They want a ban. They'll re-badge their product to suit the ginned up moral outrage of the day. Everything proposed is designed to further restrict the right of future generations of Americans from having access to arms. And a Republican-funded organization is behind much of it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[spin]

178. The question may be, "Why pass a law that accomplishes nothing ...

merely because it makes some feel good.

Magazine capacity is irrelevant as magazines can be swapped quickly and a shooter can carry additional firearms. Plus since high capacity and extended magazines exist in great quantities there will never be a shortage of them and if difficult to find, they will be available on the black market.

Gun owners will simply view this as an affirmation that the Obama administration does intend to ban firearms and if Obama is reelected, he will force through at the minimum another Assault Weapons Ban or attempt to ban ALL semi-auto weapons. While this is false, it will lead many voters to head to the polls to vote for Republicans. Democrats will lose many close elections and the Republicans may once more control Congress and the White House.

True, many here would find passing a ban on high capacity magazines or extended magazines a great victory. The backlash would be disastrous and the magazine ban could easily be overturned.

One thing about the Republicans is while they are terrible leaders while in control, they know how to motivate voters to show up at the polls. Currently a growing number of people in our country view the Democratic Party as a socialist organization that hopes to overthrow or ignore the Constitution and take wealth from the hard working and distribute it to the undeserving and lazy. These people also believe that Democrats hope to ban firearms using small incremental steps in order to prevent a rebellion when people realize just how nefarious the Democrats are. The fact that many do believe this shows the power of the Republican propaganda machine.

Democrats all too often play right in the the Republicans hands and take actions that the Republicans can point to and say, "See, We told you!"

We don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot once again by proposing more useless "feel good" laws. That doesn't mean that we can't work to help stop gun violence. We can enforce existing law and we can improve the NICS background check system to better identify those who should not be able to legally purchase weapons. Perhaps we can figure a way to require the NICS background check be used for all firearm sales.

In other words we need to find REAL solutions that actually accomplish something that we can be proud of and impress voters rather than alienate them.