Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

On an adult conversation on guns

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:48 PM
Original message
On an adult conversation on guns
Now let me preface this with a few things.

1.- Nobody is going to take anybody's guns away. Not mine (we are gun owners after all), not yours.

2.- We know certain people will try to filibuster with the usual talking points. I ask, for the sake of discusion that they are fully and completely ignored. Let them scream, let them stamp, we want to have an adult conversation, it is well past time.

So here are some of the things we need to fully consider doing.

1.- Close the gun show loophole... it should have been done after columbine... it is being exploited today. Time to close it. Let's be adults about this. Any sale of any gun has to go into the registry, period.

2.- Clips (Yes pistols use clips, magazines go into rifles, I expect the filibuster crowd to correct me... alas I actually share my life with an expert shooter) that are configured for OFFENSIVE work need to be taken off the market. That also means that if a gun is designed to take a standard clip that takes ten rounds, that is what it carries, some are designed to receive fourteen rounds. that is what it carries. So you want higher capacity. buy a higher capacity gun... this is for ease mostly.

3.- It is also time to consider LICENSING gun owners, the same way we licence car owners. Both are lethal in the right conditions. Granted one was designed to be lethal. The other was not, but can be. There is something wrong when the one NOT designed from the get go to kill needs a licence, while the one that does, well does not.

4.- We need to improve the registry of people who should not be able to get them. Felons are a gimme, so are mental patients... and yes we also need to improve our access to mental health, and that is a whole different discussion.

Oh and my personal opinion... you want a weapon for home defense, get a shotgun. It goes without saying... get a safety course and be aware of a few things with these things. If you do not feel capable of using the weapon as designed in a self defense situation, get rid of it, or it will be used against you.

Now this does not mean anybody is going to come take anybody's guns away. That is sheer paranoia... but some common sense has to come to the discusion and we all need to pressure our leaders to finally take on the NRA and others in that lobby... they are RADICALS... period.

Now let me take the pin off, and hopefully the filibuster crowd will not be able to goad anybody into moving this to the guns forum. It is fraking time to have this discussion. Or how many more shootings will it take? In reality I expect this to happen in successor states, but that speaks to the power of the NRA and other filibustering organizations that are that radical... yet I will say this, we have people NOW testing the waters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Drale Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. You can't have a adult conversation about guns
its one of those topics that no matter what you say someone is going to stamp their feet and throw a fit. You could try and pass a bill that says ever gun has to be the color red and someone would probably scream and cry about it. (although I don't know why anyone would pass a bill like that seems stupid, although the repukes might try just to waist some more time.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Yes we can
and we must.

So I will simply ignore the twenty or so who will do all to prevent that.

I ask every adult to do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. No you can't
Not in the present system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
49. My dad was military
and he left me his guns when he passed. He said the only reason for registering guns was to give the govt a list of gun owners for later confiscation. I saw what happened in New Orleans after Katrina and I am inclined to think he was right. Shrug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #49
54. To answer your qustion and then I am leaving, since
obviously management does not want an adult conversation either so feel free to use the PM.

The people doing the confiscation did not use licensees or registries... they were blackwater and simply took them from PEOPLE IN THE STREETS. They didn't check a damn thing... and while acting as agents of the state... they did not use a damn thing, 'xcept they were better armed. and I suspect better drilled.


Second... one of the big myths is that this is the last way to resist tyranny and all that. This is an NRA talking point. There have been a few states, see Iraq, where our armaments look like kid's toys. Yes AK-47s were common in private hands... the real thing... full auto and everything. That was under Sadam... gun control laws and Iraq never mixed. And yes, they did have a revolt in the south and we still don't know how many people died.

But anybody who thinks that we can fight the big bad guv'ment is delusional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. What do you mean by
guv'ment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwrguy Donating Member (396 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #54
89. It wasn't Blackwater taking guns during katrina
It was cops on loan from other departments, plus national guard troops.

Real officials, in other words.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
99. There is video of Police and national guard going door to door and seizing firearms.
Blackwater.... Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
109. Wrong again.
"they were blackwater and simply took them from PEOPLE IN THE STREETS"

http://pun.org/josh/archives/Patricia%20Konie%20Gun%20Confiscation.wmv

Patricia konie was neither in the street, nor tackled by blackwater.

See the uniform?


Should we believe you or our own eyes, hmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #109
114. Come on you know facts are optional for antis.
Heat seeking bullets
Assault weapons
semi-auto vs full auto
plastic guns
rifles that shoot down airliners
danger of lawful people conceal carrying
banning extended capacity mags = 11 rounds
assault weapons ban = scary black rifle ban

The list goes on and on. They simply make up "facts" to support the current naritive.

Now the New Orleans illegal seizure of firearms is simply "Blackwater found some guns in the street. Nothing to see here. Don't believe the lies. Blackwater was just helping out picking up some unwanted guns from a pile in the middle of a street somewhere".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #114
118. Of course.
That doesn't mean we're going away though.

Sooner or later they'll see we have the facts on our side.

Sooner or later they'll see that antiguners here and there after exposure to them, cease to be antigunners.

Nobody who is exposed to them becomes an anti afterwards.

Time is our ally in this regard.

This is why brady and the vpc and the rest of them were so upset with guns not being mentioned in the SOTU.

If they can't strike while the iron is hot, they FAIL, AND LOSE GROUND.

Every time.

Doesn't stop them from attempting to rewrite and deny documented history though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #54
121. Did you see the video? They were National Guard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8

Door to door, not 'out in the streets'. It was on the evening news, on video.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #54
130. Look what they were able to do with no registry.
The people doing the confiscation did not use licensees or registries... they were blackwater and simply took them from PEOPLE IN THE STREETS. They didn't check a damn thing... and while acting as agents of the state... they did not use a damn thing, 'xcept they were better armed. and I suspect better drilled.

Imagine what they would have done, then, if they had a registry! The fact of the matter was, the government was willing, able, and did confiscate private firearms!

Second... one of the big myths is that this is the last way to resist tyranny and all that. This is an NRA talking point. There have been a few states, see Iraq, where our armaments look like kid's toys. Yes AK-47s were common in private hands... the real thing... full auto and everything. That was under Sadam... gun control laws and Iraq never mixed. And yes, they did have a revolt in the south and we still don't know how many people died.

But anybody who thinks that we can fight the big bad guv'ment is delusional.


And yet we have spent nearly a decade fighting people who have no tanks, no aircraft, and no ships. We've been fighting them for two years longer than we fought three industrialized powers with full standing military forces in WWII.

The Vietnamese drove us out with people pushing bicycles down jungle trails. The Afghans drove the Soviets out. We are currently pulling out of Iraq, and soon we too will pull out of Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #54
131. "gun control laws and Iraq never mixed"
:facepalm:

Tell that to the Shi'ites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #54
132. If you want to have an adult conversation you need to get your facts straight.
It wasn't Blackwater. They weren't anywhere around. All the videos of guns being taken are of uniformed cops taking the guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #54
141. Take a look at this video
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-11 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
151. You're absolutely right
Ignoring the issue won't make it go away. It will continue to get worse. Whether you own a gun or not, you must be engaged in an adult conversation on it.
Emotions run high on both sides of this thing, including mine. But it HAS to be addressed. And you'd be surprised to learn that there is plenty of common ground out there. We have to find it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
56. ...not in this forum, we can't
sometimes you can sneak one in other places on this site...

But thanks for giving it a, well, shot, Nadin!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #56
122. So you admit you've attempted to subvert the wishes of the administration?
"sometimes you can sneak one in other places on this site..."

Very telling, that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-30-11 04:43 AM
Response to Reply #56
150. How would you know, villager?
It's not like you've ever tried holding an adult conversation in this forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
65. If by "stamp their feet and throw a fit" you mean:
present data and evidence and reasonable explainations and ask for such in return...

You're Right!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
2. What do you mean by "the gun show loophole"?
That would be my first question; I'm not aware of any difference in laws at gun shows as opposed to anywhere else.

(You may consider that a filibuster; I get irritated by what I perceive as dishonesty in talking about a non-existent "gun-show loophole", but I want to be sure what you mean first.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Here
http://abcnews.go.com/WN/gun-show-loophole-closed/story?id=10404727

Simply put you and I can buy a gun from a private dealer without a background check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. What does that have to do with gun shows?
Private individuals (that is, people who aren't licensed dealers) can sell guns that they own. What does this have to do with gun shows? Why not call it "the garage sale loophole"?

Is there a way of "closing" this "loophole" other than preventing all firearms sales except through licensed firearms dealers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. The same theory applies at gun shows
It is called that way because most dealers say they don't have time to do the background. It is an exception, it's been there for ever... and it is time to close it.

It is heavily exploited by people who otherwise would not quality.

Here is you want to do more readying


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. False all dealers are required to do background everywhere.
Back Alley, Gun Show, retail store, online, out of truck of car. It doesn't matter.

As far as "heavily exploited" the Dept of Justice disagrees with you. 98%+ of criminals didn't get firearm from gun show.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. You should read the article you linked to
...Under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), firearm dealers with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) were prohibited from doing business at gun shows (they were only permitted to do business at the address listed on their license). That changed with the enactment of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA), which allows FFLs to transfer firearms at gun shows provided they follow the provisions of the GCA and other pertinent federal regulations....

There is no exception to the federal paperwork and background check requirements for gun show transactions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. It is being used
whether you accept this or not. That is where the two kids from Columbine got their guns.

They are just the best known examples. It should have been closed then

It needs closing. All gun sales, whether it is me selling to you, as a private citizen, or the gun mart down the road, literally... need to have a waiting period and a background check. All of them... and yes it is a hassle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. The be intellectually honest. You are talking about restricting all private sales.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 05:25 PM by Statistical
It has nothing to do with gun shows.

You want all private sales to go through an FFL (license dealer). That is fine and maybe we should do that (I don't think so but some may) but at least be honest about it.

Also neither of the Columbine shooters got a gun from a gun show. They got firearms from someone who got it from a gunshow.

Gunshow -> legal buyer -> Columbine Shooters.
Gun Store -> legal buyer -> Columbine Shooters.

If anything Columbine illustrates the danger of straw purchases not gun shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Neither of the Columbine HS shooters bought guns at a gun show
They were all transferred to Klebold and Harris in private transactions, not all of which were legal. IIRC two people were sent to prison for illegally transferring handguns to minors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indydem Donating Member (866 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. Seriously? Really?
"Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500."

EMPHASIS - the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase"

The columbine shooters used illegal means to purchase (through others and via private seller) guns as underage youth.

THEY WERE ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW.

You can put whatever law in place you want - only those who follow the laws get penalized. Those who are already intent on committing a crime will not follow the law anyway BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY INTENT ON BEING CRIMINALS.

The logic that new gun laws will make anyone safer is flawed and indicates a failure to use deduction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kudzu22 Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
66. That's where you run into jurisdiction problems
The Feds can only regulate interstate commerce. If I sell my gun to my neighbor, that is by definition NOT interstate commerce, and subject only to state regulations. This is kinda why there was a "loophole" to begin with. If they had tried to require NICS checks on all sales it might have been unconstitutional.

I think if you simply allowed private sellers to use the NICS system voluntarily, 99% of them would do it. That'd go a long way toward closing the "loophole" without running afoul of the constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #66
104. I would use PICS
our states version of NICS. Not sure why we are different but its works, whatever. I already do a background check and require photo ID, just my choice. If they object then they arent getting a gun
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
100. I think you are confusing gun "dealers" with private sales. BOTH types attend gun shows.
Ever BEEN to a gun show? There are full-on dealers AND there are private citizens who want to sell their personal guns. Private sales are the "loophole" you are referring to. Private sales take place at gun shows, at flea markets, at garage sales, in the classified ads... Opening up the NICS to EVERYONE would close that "loophole" and end the debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jenoch Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 04:30 AM
Response to Reply #12
142. You have Wikipedia as a source...
how about a liberal-leaning weekly newspaper? City Pages is a weekly paper distributed free in the Twin Cities. It is one of the most successful newspapers of it's kind in the entire country. They sent a young reporter to several gun shows to buy handguns without a permit or a background check.

http://www.citypages.com/2010-06-03/news/testing-minnesota-s-gun-show-loophole/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
134. "Garage sale loophole"! I like that. Can I steal it? N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #134
145. How about 'Newspaper Classified Section Loophole'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-11 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. While accurate, it just doesn't have the same ring to it. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Private SELLER, not private dealer, and that applies everywhere not just gun shows
Anyone who operates a business selling firearms must have a Federal Firearms License.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
23. You don't understand the issue
You need to have a FFL and do background checks if:

1. You make a living selling guns.
2. You sell guns across state lines.
3. You sell a gun to someone that lives in another state.

You do not need a FFL nor do background checks if:

1. You are a citizen sell a personally owned gun to a resident of the same state as you.


The last case is what is commonly referred to as the "gun show loop hole" - it is also a state issue as the federal government can't regulate intra-state commerce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #23
27. Good bye
now the fillibustering begins
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
32. Correcting blatantly false statements = filibustering ?
Don't make false statement and you won't get "filibustered".

Pretty simple concept. You can have your opinion and I can have my opinion but you can't simply make up fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
77. Yes, because you are doing the semantic equivalent of saying:
"Shoulder thing that goes up".

Words have meaning. If you want to talk about a specific subject, you have to use the proper words for that subject, else you will not be conveying proper meaning, or are working a hidden agenda.

If you find that annoying, or "fillibustering", then your goal may not be straighforward. Not sure how I can help you on that. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
101. Seriuosly? He is correcting your misinformation. You have gotten it totally wrong.
And yet you accuse of filibustering?

Your credibility is nearly nil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
108. Everything I said was true. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
124. Is this what you call 'an adult discussion'??
Sticking your fingers in your ears when presented with challenging facts that don't fit your view of reality, and chanting "nyah nyah nyah I can't hear you!" doesn't seem to be an 'adult' attitude to take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
79. Well . . . . stating that the federal government can't regulate intra-state commerce
is the same defense southern states used against civil rights legislation.

Now playing devils advocate (since I'm not really a huge gun control proponent), the argument the federal government used (and used successfully) was that since, for example, a restaurant used items from another state and sold such items, they were engage in interstate commerce and could not discriminate against persons based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

If the Federal Government really wanted to play hardball, they could use the same argument and state that if the gun and/or ammunition was manufactured in another state, then the transfer of that gun/and or ammunition is a form of interstate commerce.

Would it be a successful argument? I can't say one way or the other, but it would be an argument backed up by existing case law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #79
110. It would be a stretch
because by the same logic the Federal government can regulate my next yard sale because most of the stuff I am selling was not made in Rhode Island. By that logic they could regulate damn near any commerce they wanted to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ET Awful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #110
123. Very true, but it IS the same argument they used to pass legislation
prohibiting segregation in businesses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
59. ABCNEWS. Nah, they'd NEVER misrepresent anything regarding guns. Nah. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. I can't agree more...
I'll repeat my post on another thread...I work near the St. Pete shooting and my wife is a teacher in the district with one of the widowed wives:

"It is just insane. Sorry to rant, but criminals and emotionally ill people and impulsive people and thoughtless teens get guns because there is no effective control of guns!

Many years ago, I was in the NRA and I grew up on military bases in a family that hunted. I was opposed to "regulations". I am older and wiser now.

Guns should be registered and regulated. No one should have a gun without training, a background check, and a license. That permission should be renewed annually. If any gun is not in the possession of a licensed person and registered, it should be confiscated immediately.

Bullets and guns should only be purchased with a waiting period. Semi-automatic guns and non-sporting guns should be essentially banned without special permits.

Over time and with strong controls, the hunters will own and use guns for sport and practice, but the senseless deaths will be reduced - not eliminated - but there will be fewer deaths.

That is the only way to see this get better...flame all you want...it's the only way it will get better."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. In my mind the licensing requirement
will do a lot of this as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. NJ still requires a license, too damn crowded for everyone to own a gun anyway..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
60. Hunters are only 20% of gun owners. So you are saying most gun owners should be disarmed
That's a little over 1/5th of the entire poupulation of the United States

"Semi-automatic guns and non-sporting guns should be essentially banned without special permits."


Semi-automatic guns have been widely available since 1896 (the 'broomhandle' Mauser).

Semi-automatic rifles were first sold as hunting rifles in the US in 1905.

What is your definition of "non-sporting guns"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
91. "there is no effective control of guns"
"Sorry to rant, but criminals and emotionally ill people and impulsive people and thoughtless teens get guns because there is no effective control of guns!"

If thats true, then can we conclude that you'd be just fine repealing all - every last one - of the gun laws we have?

Since they're ineffective?


Somehow, I think not.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #4
93. "That permission should be renewed annually."
Rights don't need permission. If you need to seek permission each year you don't have a right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
106. you'd need to repeal the 2a for any of that
go for it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
9. I strongly agree on item #4, the rest are political non-starters
And in reference to #1, there is no real "registry". Gun sales by dealers are recorded only on paper forms, kept filed at each dealer's place of business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. For the moment partly because the conversation
has been dominated by a fairly small group in the US. It is called an interest group, and it is a powerful one. You know very well that until 1932 you could own anything. Yes, to a point that ban is silly in the modern day... but it came after how many shootings? We are entering one of those moments when what was impossible becomes possible.

As to the registry... the two guns we have in the household were entered into a registry... it is far from complete, far from efficient... one of the complaints from the store owner... but that is another discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:16 PM
Original message
Your guns are entered into a registry for one of two reasons...
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 05:16 PM by slackmaster
1. The state of California has a registry of all handguns sold in the state, new or used, since 1968. There is no national, federal equivalent.

2. One or both of your weapons fit the state's definition of "assault weapon", and was registered before the registry closed.

The federal government has a national registry of weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act, but I doubt that you own one. Not many people in our state do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
28. There is a third reason, but that is ok
good bye
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #28
36. I must have violated one of the Secret Rules
So much for "adult conversation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. They want to define the "discuss" to only their false "facts".
You can discuss anything you want as long as you take these false statements as irrefutable fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
62. They don't do so well when they can't control what is said, do they? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
87. I want to add another"F" word to this thread.
FUTILE - You cannot change a mind that is set.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
10. You are mistaken modern pistols don't use clips.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 05:27 PM by Statistical
2.- Clips (Yes pistols use clips, magazines go into rifles, I expect the filibuster crowd to correct me... alas I actually share my life with an expert shooter) that are configured for OFFENSIVE work need to be taken off the market. That also means that if a gun is designed to take a standard clip that takes ten rounds, that is what it carries, some are designed to receive fourteen rounds. that is what it carries. So you want higher capacity. buy a higher capacity gun... this is for ease mostly.


Normally I let the whole clip / magazine mistake go. The correct term is magazine but when people use the term clip it is obvious they mean magazine. However you go beyond accidental usage of the word clip. You attempt to indicate it is the correct term which is false.

In World War I pistols did use clips. Notice the firearm has an INTERNAL FIXED magazine. It is loaded by stripper clip. All modern firearms use external magazines.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eqgpgBNWs5Y/SLGy-CNcvgI/AAAAAAAAAdM/kvNNhQTxiL8/s400/Broomhandle+with+clip+of+ammo.JPG







"Expert shooter" or not clip is the wrong term.

Now as far as capacity limits. I wouldn't have a problem with a limit on extended capacity magazines BUT NOBODY HAS EVER PROPOSED THAT. McCarthy bill (and every other proposed bill including the AWB) banned 11+ round magazines. At least lets be honest in the debate. If you want to try to ban 30 rnd magazines that is one thing. If you want to ban 11 round magazines and pretend like it only affect 30 round magazines well that is BS.

As far as your other points.
#1 is a non-issue.
#2 well we discussed that above.
#3 Nope sorry. Licensing doesn't stop crime. It merely serves to infringe upon rights. VT has no licensing and very low crime. CA has high crime and restrictive licensing.
#4 Strongly Agree

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. Gun owner here. I really don't have a problem with any of this
It's mostly common sense. I don't personally think the clip size will make much of a difference, but other than that, I think this is pretty responsible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. That is why I limited to whatever the gun takes
one here takes nine, the other takes I think 16 rounds. I haven't checked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #13
64. You use "Empathy". 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: Im 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 persons 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 cant 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hangingon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #64
88. Thank you shadowrider!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheCowsCameHome Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
15. It lasted about 10 minutes.
I hoped for better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. It is still quite adult.
I expect it to go down hill from here... I ask that you ignore the barbs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
19. Agree wholeheartedly with all four of your points
And I suspect most Americans do, too. Let's hope our collective voices will prevail over the hammerfisted, fat-cat NRA lobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. We need to start putting pressure
and perhaps even... form our own lobby. This is interest group politics at it's heart. And pols are afraid of the NRA, with good reason mind you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #21
68. You have your own lobby. It's called the Brady Campaign
Donate to them, keep 'em goin. Push them for a ban on 30 rd. clips. PLEASE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #19
107. polls show
americans are pro gun
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
24. yeah but who are you gonna have it with?
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
30. There are worst case 50 people here who will filibuster
I just put one on the iggy list. I recommend you do the same.

Then we can have it... not until then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Upton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #30
45. So in other words..
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 05:34 PM by Upton
anybody who doesn't agree with your rather restrictive view of gun rights is filibustering and therefore should be put on ignore.

Your definition of "adult conversation" differs radically from mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SERIOUS DEBATE HERE
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 05:36 PM by Statistical
(only with people who completely agree with me).

They wonder why they can never pass any "sensible gun control".

Maybe it is because politicians do the exact same thing. They only discuss the issue with people who completely agree (tiny minority of the country) and then somehow the rest of the country doesn't just go along for the ride.

Maybe just maybe it would make more sense to ask gun owners what would be sensible gun control. Some will say nothing, but they might get some actual "sensible" ideas for once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #45
95. no, it's about people arguing fairly and unfairly
in good faith and not.

and manipulating statistics and obfuscating about their own positions with respect to gun control are things that are purposely used by some gun advocates to crowd out debate by sidetracking it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #95
127. Yes, it's so damned unfair to bring facts into a fath-based argument.
How dare they actually ask for a logical justification for this "MoreBetterGooder Gun Control (TM)" proposal!

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #95
137. Say, I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Say, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

"obfuscating about their own positions with respect to gun control"

Isn't that what people are doing then they say "nobody needs a 30 round magazine" or "nobody needs "a high capacity or extended capacity" magazine...

While pushing to outlaw standard capacity magazines?


Or is that OK because they support gun control?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
78. Ah yes, put on ignore that which you cannot debate
I'm gonna take my ball and go home. Facts are facts, not filibusters. Do you have the facts to support your arguement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Green Manalishi Donating Member (426 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
94. "filibuster"
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 06:50 PM by The Green Manalishi
The word does not mean what you think it means.

with all due respect, you have some good points, but decrying as a 'filibuster' the repetition of facts that weaken your case is not a very adult tactic.

Disagreement can be civil. Although I support the right of *any* mentally competent non-felon to own and carry damn near anything they want, I don't think crazy people should have guns, people who have ever used force or threat of force against another person should have guns and I would prefer that anyone who can't put 10 rounds in a 4" area at 15 yards, under stress not be in possession of one.

I'm not the only RKBA person who is willing to discuss rational limitations on who should have firearms. I am unwilling, however to countenance insults, such as being accused of 'filibustering' when i am debating in a civil manner, being accused of being a 'fetishist' when I merely correct technical inaccuracies nor as a supporter of conservative ideals when I merely point out that without ironclad reaffirmation of the right to own firearms the creation of lists of owners *HAS* served to allow the state to later confiscate firearms which were acquired legally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:16 PM
Response to Original message
25. Step 3 is already law
I don't need a license to drive a car on my property, only when I drive on the public streets.

I don't need a license to carry a gun on my property, only when I carry in public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
31. As a gun owner I don't have a problem with these but it won't stop BG's from getting handguns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. New York city is a good example, their gun related crimes
have dropped since they started enforcing...

So it will not be an insta-fix... and of course saturday night specials will still be out there. But in time it will make it a little more difficult for those too.

It will also reduce a few other issues we have with them.

Hell, I am a gun owner too...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dappleganger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. NYC is far too restrictive.
That will never, ever fly in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. It may... though the way I see it
after the end of empire some of the successor states will make the old west (the myth, not the reality) look like a well controlled place, while others will have strict controls in place.

After all, the country falls apart you will have successor state constitutions too.

Why I said we need to have an adult conversation and at the very least the gun show loophole needs to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #43
102. NYC licensing?
Nice to see you hold up New York City as a paragon of fairness and the equal protection under the law.

Only about 30,000 private licenses exist out of almost 8 million residents. All but 3,600 of these licenses are held by retired law enforcement personnel.

Charles Schumer, Robert De Niro and other New York notables, including Ronal Lauder, Harvey Keitel, Howard Stern, Donald Trump, Tommy Mottola, Paul Sorvino, Chazz Palminteri, Joan Rivers, and Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry are among the 3,600 city dwellers licensed to carry a loaded weapon, according to the NYPD. All those folks seem pretty rich, well-connected and lily white to me. Joan Rivers must the "token female."

Interesting what counts as "good cause" to be issued a permit. Like a set of tickets to an Aerosmith concert?

Aerosmith Flap Lands Cop In Hot Water
NYPD officer allegedly gave bandmembers permit in exchange for favors.

By Jon Wiederhorn

After hooking up Aerosmith's Steven Tyler and Joe Perry with licenses to carry guns, the head of the NYPD's License Division has been reassigned to a desk job in the Intelligence Division because he may have illegally provided the permits.

Inspector Bernard Petrofsky is reportedly under investigation for giving the bandmembers the licenses in exchange for a concert ticket, backstage pass and limo ride to a post-concert party. Police refused to comment on the case, and Petrofsky did not return phone calls.

The controversy stems from an incident in November 2001, when the musicians requested gun carry permits from the NYPD to protect them against stalkers. New York law requires people seeking such permits to appear at police headquarters and explain why they should be granted a license. Applicants who carry large amounts of money, work in hazardous jobs or have been subjected to credible threats are often the most credible candidates.

However, Aerosmith allegedly avoided the standard protocol by having Petrofsky and another officer travel to Madison Square Garden to fingerprint the bandmembers before a concert. Soon after, Tyler and Perry were granted the gun permits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. Crime has fallen in NYC but it has fallen nationwide.
We are in a 30+ year decline when it comes to violent crime.

Crime in NYC hasn't kept up with the national average. Strangely things are getting better in rest of the country despite not adopting draconian restrictions on the law abiding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #41
98. New York City's murder rate is below that of many states
over two decades it's dropped substantially and more than the nationwide rate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #98
138. El Paso, TX (More guns than people) had only three murders in 2010. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
33. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
40. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
42. Thank you, nad...
...for Never Giving Up.

:patriot:

NGU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Hey my iggy list is growing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #44
72. Please, *do* keep ignoring those who say things you don't want to hear
Considering how well that tactic has worked in the past, I'd encourage all gun control advocates to do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. Yup. Somethin a 2 year old would do. Cover ears and yell LA LA LA LA LA n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #44
111. Those inconvient facts messing you up? nt
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 08:00 PM by hack89
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
47. I have a question about #4. What if you own a gun and subsequently become disturbed?
That seems to be a very common problem. Stable "enough" to pass, but perpetually fragile.

Sanity dangles by the thinnest of threads as part of the human condition.

It puts us in direct conflict with your #1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. I know a few people who voluntarily divested themselves of firearms after being diagnosed...
...with clinical depression or OCD.

My grandmother voluntarily gave up driving at age 90 when she felt she could no longer do it safely.

Being "disturbed" doesn't necessarily mean you have no self-awareness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #50
84. If rage or paranoia is the problem, voluntarily disarming seems unlikely.
And impulsively acting out much more probable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #84
86. That's when people need to watch out for each other
:grouphug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nadinbrzezinski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. How often do you need to renew your drivers licence?
You should have to renew your licence at least every five years. Yes. some people will not be caught... and if we went for once a year, with a background check that will catch people far easier that should not. At that point somebody in the family should take possession of them, and remove them from the household.

The reality is that many a times (and we even had an anecdotal example here) people get a vist from SWAT... their guns are taken away while a 72 hour hold is done, and their guns are returned. This is the reality right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #51
71. I renewed my license in 2000. It expires in 2015. 15 years, yup n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:35 PM
Response to Original message
48. It's not an adult conversation if you issue edicts about what can be said.
As pointed out upthread, every challenging opinion on the topic constitutes filibustering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brickbat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
52. Could you define "mental patients," please?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
53. On item #2 of OP, magazines do go in pistols. Here is link to just one
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 06:33 PM by Obamanaut
mfg web site that offers all sorts of 'magazines'

http://glockstore.com/index/3/

Here's another http://www.cabelas.com/magazines.shtml

I could go on. Don't these people know they are wrong? They need to be informed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
57. Clips (Yes pistols use clips, magazines go into rifles,
BAN CLIPS, especially the 30 rounders. They're mean evil nasty things. Shout it from the rooftop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #57
96. Two (of many) sites that address magazines in pistols.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
58. If you can actually succeed in getting #1 accross to people
then many people understand the sane regulations you suggested.

Until then, people will react because of what they think you said as opposed to what you did say.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #58
116. In #1 she/he claimed that gun control supporters don't want to take away guns
yet the gun control groups and supporters fought for the gun bans in Chicago and DC, go ahead and tell us again that you don't want to take away anyone's guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texshelters Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-11 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #116
147. Did you read the laws in those cities?
They were specific bans on specific weapons in a specific area not an outright ban.

Besides, not all people who want gun regulation support those bans, so you can stop lumping us into one group with the same ideology.

For example, most gun owners and supporters also want sane regulation. It's the that don't want any guns or any regulation that I disagree with.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-11 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. So.. "ban" doesn't equal "ban" except when it's a "ban"?? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #148
155. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
61. That's not a discussion.
You just published a manifesto. There's no room in your statement for discussion anywhere. You claim expertise, moral authority, and courageous leadership. Anyone who fails to follow your lead is part of the problem in your world. You shut down the discussion from the beginning. That's a real problem for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guitar man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
63. I don't necessarily disagree with any of that
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 05:59 PM by guitar man
A minor point being "gun show loophole" is just a media term for private sales. Do private sales take place in the parking lot at gun shows? Probably, but the take place in a lot of other places too.

In regards to private sales, I would not mind a requirement for requiring that private sales of handguns go through the NICS check, through a dealer or whatever other means they can come up with to facilitate it. Rifles and shotguns, I don't see as big a need since they are much less used in violent crimes.

Magazines- Frankly, I don't see what the big deal about the extended pistol magazines is. I was at the range about a year ago and a friend handed me his pistol with a 30 round magazine in it. It made the pistol heavy, off balance and downright cumbersome to handle. About the only use I could see for one outside the target range would be if you were in your home at a fixed point like the end of a hallway fending off attackers because trying to move around with it would be a pain. I see no reason to ban them but if it happened it wouldn't break my heart. However, we are in agreement about standard capacity for pistols, no artificial limitations to 10 rounds.

Leave rifles and rifle magazines alone and above all, leave anything in .22 rimfire the hell alone. If there ever was a true "sporting" rifle and pistol round, it's .22 LR. Yes, it can kill a human but it's much more likely to be blasting cans, bottles, rabbits, squirrels and paper targets than anything else.

Shotguns-leave em alone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoopla Phil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
67. "sheer paranoia"? Hardly. Please see this list of quotes.
The fact is there ARE people that want to ban guns. They use any excuse to further their end goal.




We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993


"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #67
80. "Are you gonna believe me, or your lying eyes?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneTenthofOnePercent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
69. "Hey guy, lets ignore reality and talk seriously about incorporating our fantasies..."
That about sums up this thread. Great discussion. :eyes:
Can you start a thread about genetically cloning unicorns next?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
70. I don't think limiting magazines will have a noticible effect.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 06:05 PM by immoderate
I have a 30 round magazine. Bought it 30 years ago. Used it once. Shooting with a magazine that extends beyond the gun grip interferes with handling. It's awkward and unbalanced and precludes a proper shooter's grip.

In the case of Loughner, where many speculated that a regular clip might have lessened to effect, I submit that he might have killed more than six people if he had a regular 15 shot Glock magazine. Then, if he knew what he was doing he could drop a magazine, and reload in less than a second, while covering with a round in the tube. (I don't know if the Glock has a "magazine safety" like my Browning P-35, which prevents firing while the magazine is out. Many P-35 owners in the old days had them removed. Gunsmiths will no longer do this job citing liability. I find that feature superfluous.)

Loughner may have killed more people if he had used the regular magazine. My point is speculating either way is pointless.

I expect that free citizens should be allowed to have guns. Not because they would be effective against tyranny, but because if someone can tell you you can't have a gun, you are not completely free. This goes for drugs, too. That's my libertarian streak talking.

I don't expect to use my gun for defense. At home that's shotgun territory, though I don't own one. If I think someplace requires me to be armed, I don't go to those places. :) My gun is strictly a toy. Targets and plinking. I shoot strictly for fun.

I don't see that much can be done about guns used by criminals. And pre-diagnosed mentally ill -- how do we know? Though I expect most gun dealers may be more wary. I think the best way to stave off the body count is to have a national mental health initiative, and also fix the system.

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. Glocks will fire with one in chamber and no mag
Just FYI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #73
76. So will mine n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #73
83. Thanks. I think the mag-safety feature of the P-35 is uncommon, if not unique.
--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #83
97. Sadly there are some other models that have that "feature"
Some (not all) Smith & Wesson M&P series for example. They make both with and without magazine safety.

Good way to get yourself killed. Pull gun out in self defense when seconds count and you may only get one shot. If the magazine isn't full seated, click & no boom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #97
112. Yeah, I would have it removed, if I carried a gun.
I mentioned elsewhere that you have cover when switching mags if no safety. But I don't use it for combat.

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #97
113. Smith & Wesson and magazine safeties
Those who remember the flap when Andrew Cuomo and the Clinton Administration used the threat of HUD coordinated and sponsored lawsuits and the cancellation of Federal law enforcement sales to force Smith & Wesson to sign an agreement that it would make certain "safety changes" in how it built, and sold guns.

All guns were to have magazine disconnects. No magazine was to hold more than 9 rounds. All had to have loaded chamber indicators. A whole list of "features" were forced by the agreement.

Some may recall that the FBI adopted the Smith and Wesson Model 1076 pistol as a duty firearm right about that time as well. The FBI pistols are readily identifiable, the mandated magazine disconnect as absent from FBI guns. As the press release notes: https://ustreas.gov/press/releases/ls474.htm

Guns manufactured and sold to the military and law enforcement agencies will be granted an exception to the safety features mandated by the new agreement.


With only one exception, no Federal gun law has ever been applied to government agencies, the police or the military.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #97
117. Mixed emotions about the feature
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 08:31 PM by RamboLiberal
Some argue in law enforcement it is a good feature if an officer is in a struggle for his/her gun. Drop the mag & criminal can't fire. Has saved some officers. I remember reading articles in gun magazines by Massad Ayoob discussing this feature in pistols.

On edit Ayoob in the GlockTalk forum: there have indeed been several such cases. Some departments have experienced multiple "saves" due to this system. (Illinois State Police and Las Vegas Metro come to mind, back when both issued S&W 9mms, which came standard with that feature.)

John M. Browning thought the magazine disconnect feature was a pretty useful idea, back when he applied for a patent for one he designed over a hundred years ago.

S&W still makes this feature optional on its M&P auto series, and Ruger has it on the P345. There has been enough demand for it from some LE agencies that both Beretta and SIG have been known to install it on special order for them.

best,
Mas


http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16598471
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #117
125. I got my M&Ps with the mag disconnect
Not that I'm hugely in favor of magazine disconnects--I have to agree with the assessment that it's general a hardware-based attempt to address a "software" failure--but in the M&P it's integral to the internal lock mechanism, which I most definitely did want (the M&P's internal lock essentially works by engaging the magazine disconnect even when there's a magazine seated). I reckoned there might be times that I might be forced to leave my gun in my car while going into, say, a police station or the doctor's office, and even though I use a PacSafe locking mesh bag (like this one http://pacsafe.com/www/index.php?_room=3&_action=detail&id=18) to store the gun in, I reckoned it couldn't hurt to have the internal lock so that in the event it did get stolen, the thief wouldn't immediately have a functional firearm at his disposal.

Handguns are compromise weapons to begin with; there's no such thing as the perfect handgun (witness the fact that the Glock design is now into its fourth iteration, claims of "Glock perfection" notwithstanding, and any honest 1911 owner can tell what the weak spots in that design are). When you want one feature, you're pretty much always going to have make a trade-off against another, so the question becomes: which of these two is more important to you?

In my case, I traded away the ability to perform "tactical reloads" for the ability to disable the gun. The latter was more important to me. It doesn't have to be for someone else. (Similarly, I don't like Glocks, but that doesn't mean I think they can't work very well for someone other than myself.)

And when I do get round to taking up IDPA, I'll just use my CZ85.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #125
139. Ahem. Thou hast besmirched the reputation of the Prophet's weapon of perfection.
I demand satisfaction. I challange thee to pints of Ben and Jerry's at ten paces. Bring you own spoons and have your seconds call on mine. Have at thee, knave...!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #125
143. P-35 and variants
I own a couple Hi-Powers. The commercial model from the Sixties does indeed have a magazine disconnect. The WW2 production German military pistol does not. Other military versions seemed about equally divided on whether or not they had one.

"Not that I'm hugely in favor of magazine disconnects--I have to agree with the assessment that it's general a hardware-based attempt to address a "software" failure."

I did know some who claimed the "magazine disconnect" was John Browning's attempt to build a second lieutenant proof pistol.

More than one bright young officer has stood sheepishly pointing a smoking gun at the "clearing barrel" after failing to remember which step came first, drop the magazine or check for an empty chamber. As I recall, such events caused sergeants to use alliteratively descriptive excesses of bad language to list lineage, ancestry, etc., ending with a heavily emphasized, "SIR!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #117
140. Thanks for the info.
When I was thinking of buying my first gun, a friend, who was an experienced shooter, put a stack of books in front of me. "Read these first."

There were books on history, design, ballistics, legal issues, and tactics. Massad Ayoob was right on top.

--imm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #83
115. Some PD's want that feature as well as some states
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 08:21 PM by RamboLiberal
Kind of an officer safety feature. If in fight to retain gun drop the mag & gun won't fire.

I think some states are or will require as well as a safety feature for civilian ownership.

I know the M&P line which I shoot in IDPA you can get either way & is easy to disable if your gun comes with the mag disconnect.

I wanted mine without since part of the end of stage procedure is remove mag, show empty chamber. pull trigger as 2nd check gun is empty, then holster.

CA regulation: Requires that effective January 1, 2006, no semiautomatic centerfire pistol model may be added to the roster of handguns certified for sale in California unless it has a chamber load indicator or, if it has a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2005bills.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
75. some responses to the OP
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 06:17 PM by lawodevolution
I don't feel very welcome to respond, it sounds like you want to lecture to us and you want us to remain silent so you can show us the light, but unfortunately for you the first amendment guarantees my right to express myself also

"1.- Nobody is going to take anybody's guns away. Not mine (we are gun owners after all), not yours."

This is one of the best known tactics used in order for a gun hater to try to soften up gun owners to what you are about to say. I don't care if you want a ban or don't want a ban. At every step along the way to a ban there is someone like you who is willing to not only support the bill but also spread, lies, deception and sensationalism to get there. There is no shortage of little wannabe authoritarians out there. Yes, as a whole, the anti-gun group wants to ban and confiscate all firearms.

"2.- We know certain people will try to filibuster with the usual talking points. I ask, for the sake of discussion that they are fully and completely ignored. Let them scream, let them stamp, we want to have an adult conversation, it is well past time."

This is a tactic you use in order to eliminate one side of the argument. You cant delete my post therefore you call for people to ignore it. put your fingers in your ears and sing.

"1.- Close the gun show loophole... it should have been done after columbine... it is being exploited today. Time to close it. Let's be adults about this. Any sale of any gun has to go into the registry, period."

nope. you are not going to end private purchases of firearms. There is no way the feds can do this anyway, only the states can regulate this and my state will not.

"2.- Clips (Yes pistols use clips, magazines go into rifles, I expect the filibuster crowd to correct me... alas I actually share my life with an expert shooter) that are configured for OFFENSIVE work need to be taken off the market. That also means that if a gun is designed to take a standard clip that takes ten rounds, that is what it carries, some are designed to receive fourteen rounds. that is what it carries. So you want higher capacity. buy a higher capacity gun... this is for ease mostly."

ok, but they are in fact magazines, not clips, so try to educate your "expert shooter" imaginary friend please.

"3.- It is also time to consider LICENSING gun owners, the same way we license car owners. Both are lethal in the right conditions. Granted one was designed to be lethal. The other was not, but can be. There is something wrong when the one NOT designed from the get go to kill needs a license, while the one that does, well does not."

no, you will not force me to register my guns. Thanks to the fifth gun registration cannot be used in court to convict a shooter of a crime. As soon as california or other governing body tries to use registration for crime fighting, we'll have a ____ VS some city or state, which will be the next step after McDonald vs chicago.

"4.- We need to improve the registry of people who should not be able to get them. Felons are a gimme, so are mental patients... and yes we also need to improve our access to mental health, and that is a whole different discussion."

you could be getting some where with this one but you dismiss it, because after all, you can't show your hate for guns or gun owners with this point because this point doesn't punish gun owners.


"Oh and my personal opinion... you want a weapon for home defense, get a shotgun. It goes without saying... get a safety course and be aware of a few things with these things. If you do not feel capable of using the weapon as designed in a self defense situation, get rid of it, or it will be used against you."

i can use whatever weapon I want for self defense and I don't have to check in with you before I make my decision.


"Now this does not mean anybody is going to come take anybody's guns away. That is sheer paranoia... but some common sense has to come to the discussion and we all need to pressure our leaders to finally take on the NRA and others in that lobby... they are RADICALS... period."

yes you do want to ban and confiscate guns and your fellow gun ban supporters do as well. You will not take on the NRA as they represent me, you will not take my political power away from me, and no the NRA members are not radicals, you should go look at JPFO and GOA. period.


"Now let me take the pin off, and hopefully the filibuster crowd will not be able to goad anybody into moving this to the guns forum. It is fraking time to have this discussion. Or how many more shootings will it take? In reality I expect this to happen in successor states, but that speaks to the power of the NRA and other filibustering organizations that are that radical... yet I will say this, we have people NOW testing the waters. "

grandiose much? Do you also suffer from racing thoughts, pursed speech, and the desire to spend a lot of money. Are you a very important person on a very important cause?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
81. I hardly ever do this, but for you I will make an exception.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 06:21 PM by William769
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
82. This is going to be fun.
Adult conversation begins by using facts.

"1.- Close the gun show loophole... it should have been done after columbine... it is being exploited today. Time to close it. Let's be adults about this. Any sale of any gun has to go into the registry, period.


You are referring to the private sale loophole. Beyond that, a registry implies registration, which is federally unlawful per the Firearm owners Protection act of 1986. Repealing that, means opening the NFA regisrty.

Pick your poison.


2.- Clips (Yes pistols use clips, magazines go into rifles, I expect the filibuster crowd to correct me... alas I actually share my life with an expert shooter) that are configured for OFFENSIVE work need to be taken off the market. That also means that if a gun is designed to take a standard clip that takes ten rounds, that is what it carries, some are designed to receive fourteen rounds. that is what it carries. So you want higher capacity. buy a higher capacity gun... this is for ease mostly.


A "clip" is what is used to load a magazine, whether it be for a pistol or rifle.


3.- It is also time to consider LICENSING gun owners, the same way we licence car owners. Both are lethal in the right conditions. Granted one was designed to be lethal. The other was not, but can be. There is something wrong when the one NOT designed from the get go to kill needs a licence, while the one that does, well does not.


First, what you want here is already law. No license insurance or registration required to own and use a motor vehicle on ones own property. Such is required only in public. The same is true with guns, with the exception of a tiny handful of places...which themselves are living on borrowed time, and will be made right and proper in the fullness of time, but likely sooner.


Second, like it or not, owning a firearm IS a constitutionally protected right. Follett vs. Town of McCormick, MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and six other cases state explicitly that a State may not impose a charge, nor a license, for the enjoyment of a right protected by the Federal Constitution. This in fact will be used to strike down and eliminate gun licenses nationwide.



4.- We need to improve the registry of people who should not be able to get them. Felons are a gimme, so are mental patients... and yes we also need to improve our access to mental health, and that is a whole different discussion.


I couldn't agree more.

Now this does not mean anybody is going to come take anybody's guns away. That is sheer paranoia... but some common sense has to come to the discusion and we all need to pressure our leaders to finally take on the NRA and others in that lobby... they are RADICALS... period.


What do you intend to do about the extremists on the control side of the issue? They will of course attempt to hijack whatever you call reasonable, and make it more restrictive than you propose. They've stated just such intent openly and publicly.

Part of any "adult discussion" means removing them from the table. What do you propose?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
85. I can go with most of what you suggest with some trades
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 06:38 PM by ProgressiveProfessor
- I can accept the "natural" magazine for a pistol, as long as the laws are not changed to prevent the sale of a
pistol whose grip magazine holds more than 10. They would do that here in CA. Rifles are trickier, but anything used by police and the military should be allowed for civilians. Again, that would make some in Sacramento faint.

- Forcing all private transactions through an FFL is tolerable, provided the state/Fed fees are reasonable.

- Licensing owners is trickier. If it is nothing more than a pre-done NCIS check that can be instantly verified, I am good with it provided it means no waiting periods or additional check fees upon purchase. I would call it a certificate since one does not need a license to utilize rights. It needs to be life long and at minimal one time cost. No annual renewals etc. If the "license" is more than that, it starts to get stickier for me.

- There are those who do what to take guns away from people. You are not one of them, but there are certainly those who are quite strident in that belief. Clearly extremist fears need to be addressed on both sides.

There also needs to be some other changes: including the elimination of some of the nonsense laws in places like CA

My take in this adult conversation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #85
92. Great points
If they're going to ask for concessions, it's only fair our lives be made a bit easier by revising nonsensical policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Union Scribe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
90. On licensing gun owners
I don't know the particulars of every state, but in Michigan I had to visit the police station first to get tested/background checked before being allowed to buy a revolver, then I had to take it back there after I got it to register it. I'm not sure how much more licensing you can cram into that process.

But, to be honest, I'd be perfectly willing to be licensed if it meant not repeating the above steps every time to buy a gun. I only have one, but they made it quite a pain in the ass (Oh, so you are at this desk all day, but you will only do handgun permits for one hour two days a week? Okay then...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YllwFvr Donating Member (757 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:33 PM
Response to Original message
103. Biting
1. There is no registry. There is no gun show loophole. If you wanted to buy my deer rifle (I dont own one but play along) you could come to my house and buy it off me without a back ground check. Me personally? Id do a check on you myself and ask for ID, but thats my choice. So understand, this loophole is the same thing as buying a gun from me a my house, its just done in public. No difference.

2.First off

Magazines go into guns.
Other than that point im not sure what your getting at. If its saying you support "standard capacity" meaning whatever comes with that gun, then I cant agree but thats my choice. I dont own any high cap pistol mags, dont see the need. But I do enjoy my 75 round AK mag. The enjoyment I get from shooting that is well above that shooting a 30 rounder.

3. Most states license those who carry. Not all, but close to it. If you mean "all" gun owners... if my license expires then what? If I get fined, or my firearms taken until or unless I reapply for a license then its not a right. If you want to work to repeal the 2A, good luck. Really. Go for it if you want, you have the right as an American. Ill oppose you, but thats the way our system works. If you really want that I encourage you to contact your reps and senators.

4. I agree with you, the fact that mental health evaluations that show that someone shouldnt have access to firearms arent being reported to the authorities is mind boggling, and Stupid! I have opinions about other subjects but I wont drag your thread down that path. Lunatics shouldnt get guns.

I will address your side notes. I have a shotgun, it broke. I fixed it, it broke lol. I wont rely on it for home defense. Not only that, is will penetrate sheet rock way better than my pistol, so I will use that for home defense. I wouldnt want to hit my family four rooms away.

Actually if you've read some of the quotes posted by, forgive me if I get the name wrong, beevul then you've seen that plenty of those in power want us disarmed. With is happen, Katrina style? I highly doubt it. The NRA arent radicals they are a bunch of hunters, I dont hunt, im mostly anti NRA.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Katya Mullethov Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
105. Seems your advice is being well taken
Ain't a distributor one with a SAIGA 12 in stock today .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
119. Unrec for failure to post this satire in the comedy forum. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
120. You don't start an 'adult' conversation by smearing the participants. That's juvenile.
Edited on Thu Jan-27-11 08:47 PM by X_Digger
1.- Close the gun show loophole... it should have been done after columbine... it is being exploited today. Time to close it. Let's be adults about this. Any sale of any gun has to go into the registry, period.


What indication do you provide that such sales represent a problem? The last time the DOJ studied this issue, private sales accounted for a small portion of guns used in crime. (40% 'illegal / black markets', 40% 'friends / family').

2.- Clips (Yes pistols use clips, magazines go into rifles, I expect the filibuster crowd to correct me... alas I actually share my life with an expert shooter) that are configured for OFFENSIVE work need to be taken off the market. That also means that if a gun is designed to take a standard clip that takes ten rounds, that is what it carries, some are designed to receive fourteen rounds. that is what it carries. So you want higher capacity. buy a higher capacity gun... this is for ease mostly.


I share my life with a Sicilian. That doesn't make me a mobster, or mean that I speak Italian.

Are you going to remove standard magazines from law enforcement as well? If not, by what justification do you do so? What situation would a law enforcement officer need one that a civilian may also not encounter?

3.- It is also time to consider LICENSING gun owners, the same way we licence car owners. Both are lethal in the right conditions. Granted one was designed to be lethal. The other was not, but can be. There is something wrong when the one NOT designed from the get go to kill needs a licence, while the one that does, well does not.


One is a privilege, one is a right. There is no license to write a letter to the editor, or a license to stand on a street corner and protest. There's no license to start your own religion, or attend whatever church you choose.

4.- We need to improve the registry of people who should not be able to get them. Felons are a gimme, so are mental patients... and yes we also need to improve our access to mental health, and that is a whole different discussion.


Those adjudicated a danger to themselves or others? Yes. Of course, that's already the law.

Anyone who's receiving mental health services? No. I'm sorry, make that "OH HELL NO!" That would that be a disincentive to seek treatment, especially when the great majority of those who are receiving mental health care are not violent, and are more likely to be the victim of violent crime than to perpetrate it. Additionally, stripping rights without due process is usually heard on the other side of the aisle- I'm surprised to be reading it at DU. Would you also have the mentally ill forfeit the right to privacy? The right to free expression? Religion?

Oh and my personal opinion... you want a weapon for home defense, get a shotgun. It goes without saying... get a safety course and be aware of a few things with these things. If you do not feel capable of using the weapon as designed in a self defense situation, get rid of it, or it will be used against you.


Agreed to the last statement.

Now this does not mean anybody is going to come take anybody's guns away. That is sheer paranoia... but some common sense has to come to the discusion and we all need to pressure our leaders to finally take on the NRA and others in that lobby... they are RADICALS... period.


After the Katrina debacle, I'm sure no locality will try that again. But a steady chip-chip-chip? I can see that happenning- starting with >10 round magazines.

Now let me take the pin off, and hopefully the filibuster crowd will not be able to goad anybody into moving this to the guns forum. It is fraking time to have this discussion. Or how many more shootings will it take? In reality I expect this to happen in successor states, but that speaks to the power of the NRA and other filibustering organizations that are that radical... yet I will say this, we have people NOW testing the waters.


Since it was already here when I saw it..

You'll notice that we complain just as loudly when a topic is moved here that one of us started or were participating in GD, or LBN, or wherever. If you don't like it being in the Gungeon, take it up with the moderators- hit the 'ask the administrators' forum.

eta: Looks like you need to take up your question with those who are pushing to have *more* topics moved to the gungeon-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x1788
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #120
126. This is a joke, isn't it?!
Could anyone be clueless enough to assume the posture and tactics of a middleschooler while decrying a lack of maturity--and actually mean it?!

I will dictate terms. You will respect my authority! I will not explain or defend my dogmatic definitions of what is and what must be. Those who disagree with me must be ignored (since I lack the power to silence them).

This merits no response but laughter. (Unless, of course, you write for those who lurk and who are sitting on the fence. Then your pearls might not simply get trodden underfoot.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #126
128. Bingo.
Emo-tweenie twaddle couched in adult terms deserves little more than ridicule.

But for those who lurk, I attempted an adult response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atypical Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 09:37 PM
Response to Original message
129. Adult replies on guns.
1.- Nobody is going to take anybody's guns away. Not mine (we are gun owners after all), not yours.

Let me say this about that: Any kind of firearm ban is equivalent to confiscation. It is a common mantra among the anti-firearm crows that "nobody is going to take away your guns". Sure. But if they had their way they would ban the future sales of all firearms. This is just as bad as outright confiscation! I do not yet own an AR-15 style rifle. If they were banned tomorrow, I would not be able to own such a rifle. The very choice has been taken away from me. My children will never be able to own them. All future generations of Americans will not be able to own them.

It is completely disingenuous to support firearm bans on one hand and on the other claim that "nobody is going to take anybody's guns away." This argument will never placate any firearm enthusiast.

1.- Close the gun show loophole... it should have been done after columbine... it is being exploited today. Time to close it. Let's be adults about this. Any sale of any gun has to go into the registry, period.

First of all, you need to define the "gun show loophole". I assume you mean the lack of background checks for private firearm sales. I fully support any effort to require background checks for ALL firearm sales, private and commercial, so long as anonymous firearm ownership is preserved. As soon as the background check process can be used as a registry of firearm owners, it's game over.

One way I have heard it suggested this could be done is with a FOID (Firearm Owner ID) system, similar to what Illinois has. In Illinois, in order to own a firearm you must first obtain an FOID, which entails a background check. In order to sell any firearm privately in Illinois, the seller must see the buyer's FOID, and keep a record of the transaction for some period of time. Failure to do this and getting caught results in a misdemeanor. Sellers have an incentive to follow the law, because if sell to someone without an FOID there is a high probability that that firearm will be used for illegal purposes, confiscated by the authorities, and then traced back to the last legitimate owner. Unfortunately, under the Illinois system, only people who own, or are very likely to own firearms obtain an FOID. This means that the FOID system is a de facto registration system.

To fix this problem, we can make the FOID an opt-out system, rather than an opt-in system. Every person who applies for a drivers' license or state-issued ID will automatically be processed for a NICS background check to determine firearm ownership illegibility, unless they elect to opt-out of the process. By so doing, the list of FOID holders will not necessarily be an actual list of firearm owners. Anonymous firearm ownership is thus insured. For example, if the government decided to use the FOID registry as a list of people to go confiscate firearms from, when they got to John Doe he could claim that he never owned firearms, he just didn't opt out of the FOID process.

I would further modify the Illinois system so that if you are discovered to have sold a firearm to someone without a valid FOID, in addition to whatever penalties are incurred from the misdemeanor charge, you also forfeit your FOID for some period of time.

2.- Clips (Yes pistols use clips, magazines go into rifles, I expect the filibuster crowd to correct me... alas I actually share my life with an expert shooter) that are configured for OFFENSIVE work need to be taken off the market. That also means that if a gun is designed to take a standard clip that takes ten rounds, that is what it carries, some are designed to receive fourteen rounds. that is what it carries. So you want higher capacity. buy a higher capacity gun... this is for ease mostly.

This sounds like a ban on extended magazines. I don't have a problem with this at face value. For example, the Springfield Armory XDM in 9mm carries 19 rounds of ammunition inside it's usual grip.

I oppose any magazines restrictions on rifles, however. And this presents a problem - what to do about pistols that can utilize rifle magazines?

3.- It is also time to consider LICENSING gun owners, the same way we licence car owners. Both are lethal in the right conditions. Granted one was designed to be lethal. The other was not, but can be. There is something wrong when the one NOT designed from the get go to kill needs a licence, while the one that does, well does not.

Never, not ever. I will never support any registration system that destroys anonymous firearm ownership. I will also point out that you do not need a license, registration, insurance, nor any other paperwork to operate a car on private property. You only need those things if you want to use them on public roads. Firearms are already much the same way in most places. If you want to use them on private property, no paperwork is required. Only if you want to carry it in public is paperwork required.

4.- We need to improve the registry of people who should not be able to get them. Felons are a gimme, so are mental patients... and yes we also need to improve our access to mental health, and that is a whole different discussion.

I have no problem with this, so long as people are only put on the registry through due process of law, with legal recourse. I will never support an atrocity like the Bush-created "No Fly List", which is a secret list of people maintained by the government with no oversight and no procedure for finding out if you are on it nor to get off of it.

Oh and my personal opinion... you want a weapon for home defense, get a shotgun. It goes without saying... get a safety course and be aware of a few things with these things. If you do not feel capable of using the weapon as designed in a self defense situation, get rid of it, or it will be used against you.

Shotguns do make excellent home defense weapons, but I see no reason to dictate what arms a person can use to defend their homes. Not everyone can wield a shotgun. Nor are shotguns any less lethal than any other kind of long arm. Here is the new KelTec shotgun that holds 14 rounds of ammunition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuVLL5DH_Yc

Here is a fellow hitting targets at 230 rounds with a shotgun shooting slugs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNTyCcip-ks

If the idea of making people use shotguns exclusively is because you think they are less lethal than rifles, the above videos should dissuade you of that notion.

Now this does not mean anybody is going to come take anybody's guns away. That is sheer paranoia... but some common sense has to come to the discusion and we all need to pressure our leaders to finally take on the NRA and others in that lobby... they are RADICALS... period.

I've already addressed the conflict between claiming no one is going to take guns away on one hand and yet advocating bans on the other.

As for the NRA, you may be interested to know that they endorse and support DEMOCRATS. In the last election, all of my Democratic candidates received high marks from the NRA except one, who I voted against because of his stance. Three of my Democratic candidates were the endorsed candidate by the NRA. You can see my ballot in my signature. If this is radical, so be it. I'm supporting Democratic candidates who support the right to keep and bear arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DissedByBush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
133. Point by point
1. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. It is equivalent to the yard sale loophole, the classified ad loophole and the flea market loophole. In all cases they are legal sales between two individuals.

2. Define "configured for offensive work." Glocks are designed to come with 20-19 rounds, but also to accept over 30 rounds, per the manufacturer.

3. It is time to consider licensing people's ability to post on bulletin boards. You don't license a right.

4. Agreed. However, we also need to ensure the registry doesn't expand to include frivolous causes for preventing gun ownership.

Shotgun for home defense? I agree, it is the best. But is nobody's place to tell others they can't choose differently.

"Now this does not mean anybody is going to come take anybody's guns away. That is sheer paranoia."

The Armenians probably thought that prior to WWI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #133
153. Extended clips should either be banned
Edited on Tue Feb-01-11 09:43 AM by PhillySane
or more heavily regulated (eg special registration for this item, such as nfa items). No one needs them except Marines taking Iwo Jima.

But that's the tip of the iceberg and really, the least we could do to prevent more deaths, such as in Arizona.
Gun shows are nice places to go to have fun. You don't have to be able to buy the guns there. And shouldn't.
Car shows, shows where alcohol is tasted, are fun too, but they exist to promote, not to sell.

We could talk all day about what other things could be done to reign in the out-of-control abuse of firearms, and should.

We need to be just a little more sensible about it without giving up anyone's freedom, and encouraging responsible ownership.


Watch This!
http://www.gunshowundercover.org/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #153
154. But that's the tip of the iceberg and really
If that's the tip of the iceberg, what sort of regulation, exactly, comes next?

Just curious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #154
156. How to get one without a check: Gun Show Undercover Vid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #156
157. You didn't answer the question.
If this is the tip of the iceberg, what, exactly, comes next?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-01-11 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #153
158. Holy hyperbole batman.
"We could talk all day about what other things could be done to reign in the out-of-control abuse of firearms, and should."

Even 100 thousand "misuses" of firearms, is not in any way "out-of-control abuse of firearms" in a country where 300 million guns are owned by 80 million people.


.125% - thats an eighth of a percent - of gun owners "misuse" their firearms based on that 100,000 misuses.

.0033r% of the guns owned in America.


"Out-of-control abuse of firearms".

What rubbish.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
135. A shotgun takes too hands, a handgun only one.
Have both available for home-defense. Go for the shotgun if you can, but have a handgun ready if you need it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowrider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-11 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #135
144. I have a Judge for home defense. A shotgun in convenient revolver form n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-27-11 10:32 PM
Response to Original message
136. It would appear that you are too childish for an adult conversation
judging by your reaction to conflicting facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-11 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
149. The failure, it is massive, and a thing to behold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-31-11 04:25 AM
Response to Original message
152. Well, I may as well hammer another nail into this coffin
1.- Nobody is going to take anybody's guns away.

There is a difference between "nobody is going to" and "nobody wants to." And as others have correctly pointed out in this thread, when you ban sales of a particular type of firearm, you are taking away the future option of possessing it.

2.- We know certain people will try to filibuster with the usual talking points. I ask, for the sake of discusion that they are fully and completely ignored. Let them scream, let them stamp, we want to have an adult conversation, it is well past time.

And this is where you scuppered your own thread, even before you got to the meat of the OP. You cannot in good faith ask for a constructive dialogue, and then pre-emptively not only exclude the people who are going to disagree with you, but denigrate them to boot. You don't want an adult conversation; you want a circle-jerk.

1.- Close the gun show loophole... it should have been done after columbine... it is being exploited today. Time to close it. Let's be adults about this. Any sale of any gun has to go into the registry, period.

The so-called "gun show loophole" consists of the fact that sales by private parties are not (and, strictly speaking from a constitutional point of view, cannot be) required to be accompanied by a background check on the buyer. Ostensibly, the object is only to institute background checks. You're tipping your hand by revealing that, as far as you're concerned, what you really want is a de facto registry.

2.- Clips (Yes pistols use clips, magazines go into rifles, I expect the filibuster crowd to correct me... alas I actually share my life with an expert shooter) that are configured for OFFENSIVE work need to be taken off the market.

I don't particularly want to get pedantic about the whole clips/magazines issue, but when you claim expertise (on the basis of an appeal to authority at that http://fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html) and still get it wrong...

A magazine is that part/assembly of the firearm that stores the ammunition and feeds it into the action. A magazine can be either a fixed part of the firearm, or detachable. A clip is a device used to feed ammunition into the magazine.

This is a "Broomhandle" Mauser C96; it has an internal magazine that is loaded with a clip, thus:


This is an SKS (Russian abbreviation for "Simonov's self-loading carbine"); similarly to the C96, the internal magazine is loaded using a clip:


These are U.S. Marines using stripper clips to load the detachable magazines for their M16A2s:


So much for the lecture on nomenclature. By what criterium do you judge a magazine to be "configured for offensive work"? Frankly, handguns are generally not considered to be offensive weapons to begin with (too little "stopping power," too little range) except against people who are themselves completely unarmed, and then the size of the mag really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. As I've pointed out repeatedly over the past couple of weeks, Patrick Sherrill, using two pistols with 7-round magazines, killed more than double the number of people Jared Loughner did (the post office in Edmond, Oklahoma in 1986, the original "going postal"). The only real use for an extended handgun magazine I can see is defensive, namely in a home defense firearm that might be used to repel nocturnal intruders, when one isn't wearing magazine holders and thus needs as much ammunition as possible in the gun itself.

3.- It is also time to consider LICENSING gun owners, the same way we licence car owners. Both are lethal in the right conditions. Granted one was designed to be lethal. The other was not, but can be. There is something wrong when the one NOT designed from the get go to kill needs a licence, while the one that does, well does not.

Focusing on the gratuitous aside for the moment: it is entirely disingenuous to claim that a car is not designed to be lethal. Any motor vehicle is a 2,500-plus pound bludgeon, designed to travel at dozens of miles an hour; those characteristics make it lethal by dint of simple physics. Let me put it this way: would you rather be hit two or three 9x19mm bullets fired from a handgun, or by a Honda Civic going 40 miles per hour? Which do you think is more likely to kill or permanently cripple you?

In principle, however, I am sympathetic to the idea of requiring prospective gun owners to be licensed. The problem is that that particular chalice has been comprehensively poisoned in the past by licensing systems that were set up for racist and classist reasons, or were perverted to serve as de facto gun bans. New York state's Sullivan laws, to name one example, were pretty much intended to disarm Italians and eastern European Jews, as well as political opponents of certain Tammany Hall types. To this day, it's significantly easier to get any kind of firearms license, especially in urban parts of New York, if you're rich, famous and/or politically connected. Michigan's handgun "safety inspection" was instituted as an inspection of the buyer's skin color. Small wonder there's such distrust of licensing requirements.

And that's the real distinction between driving licenses and firearm licenses: it's never happened that someone tried to impose a de facto ban on driving--at least by certain people--by making it practically impossible to get a license. That has happened with firearm licensing schemes.

If you want a licensing system that will meet with acceptance, it's going to have to be ironclad against abuse. For starters, there needs to be nothing left to the "discretion" of the issuing authority. If there's any training or examination to be conducted by the issuing authority, said authority should be legally obliged to hold the trainings/examination frequently enough and at times that people can practically take them. That's just for starters.

4.- We need to improve the registry of people who should not be able to get them. Felons are a gimme, so are mental patients... and yes we also need to improve our access to mental health, and that is a whole different discussion.

I doubt anyone's going to disagree with you on that one, provided that everyone's right to not be deprived of liberty or property without due process is respected.

Oh and my personal opinion... you want a weapon for home defense, get a shotgun.

That opinion is worth just about what I had to pay for it. I'll go with Massad Ayoob's advice that if you're going to have just one home defense weapon, it should be a handgun. A handgun is harder to wrest away than a long gun, and you can operate it with one hand while you're holding the phone in your other.

Now let me take the pin off, and hopefully the filibuster crowd will not be able to goad anybody into moving this to the guns forum.

Don't be so paranoid. It's not as if the Guns forum is meant to be some kind of oubliette into which the pro-RKBAers cajole the moderators to put any attempt at reasoned discussion (which this thread was not, I will note again). The mods simply have a policy of putting any thread that involves a discussion of public policy on firearms into the Guns forum, so as not to have the same arguments being fought out again and again across the GD and LBN fora.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 18th 2024, 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC