HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Six gun regulation ideas

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:12 AM

Six gun regulation ideas


1. "Gun Shows" illegal.
2. Person to person sales illegal.
3. Very strict sales regulations and oversight on gun stores.
4. No military arms allowed...if you want to shoot one you need to go rent one at a shooting range only.
5. Anyone caught with a non-registered weapon faces a felony and jail time.
6. A 1 year grace period to turn in non-registered and military style weapons.


--

81 replies, 3712 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 81 replies Author Time Post
Reply Six gun regulation ideas (Original post)
SHRED Dec 2012 OP
Happyhippychick Dec 2012 #1
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #11
godai Dec 2012 #26
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #33
godai Dec 2012 #40
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #71
DustyJoe Dec 2012 #66
spin Dec 2012 #13
godai Dec 2012 #27
spin Dec 2012 #62
TheMastersNemesis Dec 2012 #2
morningfog Dec 2012 #3
spin Dec 2012 #16
godai Dec 2012 #28
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #38
godai Dec 2012 #41
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #50
godai Dec 2012 #51
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #55
godai Dec 2012 #61
Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #58
cherokeeprogressive Dec 2012 #67
spin Dec 2012 #57
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #73
morningfog Dec 2012 #37
spin Dec 2012 #60
morningfog Dec 2012 #65
former-republican Dec 2012 #69
spin Dec 2012 #70
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #74
morningfog Dec 2012 #75
SHRED Dec 2012 #4
Robb Dec 2012 #31
Hoyt Dec 2012 #5
SHRED Dec 2012 #6
Hoyt Dec 2012 #7
spin Dec 2012 #17
Hoyt Dec 2012 #18
spin Dec 2012 #30
Hoyt Dec 2012 #32
Mel Content Dec 2012 #8
BadgerKid Dec 2012 #12
white_wolf Dec 2012 #53
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #63
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #9
nc4bo Dec 2012 #10
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #39
DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #14
spin Dec 2012 #21
DefenseLawyer Dec 2012 #78
spin Dec 2012 #80
former-republican Dec 2012 #15
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #19
former-republican Dec 2012 #23
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #25
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #20
spin Dec 2012 #22
former-republican Dec 2012 #24
spin Dec 2012 #64
Hoyt Dec 2012 #35
godai Dec 2012 #29
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #42
godai Dec 2012 #44
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #46
godai Dec 2012 #48
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #34
Hoyt Dec 2012 #36
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #43
Hoyt Dec 2012 #52
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #47
Hoyt Dec 2012 #56
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #72
Hoyt Dec 2012 #79
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #81
godai Dec 2012 #45
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #49
godai Dec 2012 #54
SpartanDem Dec 2012 #59
BrentWil Dec 2012 #68
Recursion Dec 2012 #76
CanonRay Dec 2012 #77

Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:13 AM

1. Make the ammo prohibitively expensive and limit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:12 AM

11. "I'm a black-marketeer, and I approve of this message."

Just sayin'...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #11)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:08 PM

26. Weak.

Anytime someone tries to get a meaningful discussion going, some conclude impossible. So you think a black market couldn't be minimized or stopped?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:31 PM

33. Yes, that's precisely what I think.

Ammunition is, in terms of ease of concealment and other factors, quite similar to commodities like marijuana. Prohibition of pot has been a spectacular, expensive failure. I don't see a massive, punitive tax on ammunition (de facto prohibition for anyone not wealthy) as working any better.

If we really want to largely disarm civilian America, we'd need to take a different approach: first, repeal posse comitatus. You're going to have to forcibly disarm a huge portion of gun owners; voluntary turn-ins will NOT happen in large percentages (and essentially not at all among career criminals, the people actually causing almost all the problems with guns). The police are absurdly inadequate to that task, vastly outnumbered and with the exception of SWAT units, outgunned. It's going to take the military.

Then you'll need to spend the better part of a generation changing the military...so that it will actually obey such orders. You may have noticed that the current military leans pretty strongly toward the conservative end of things. It also leans even more strongly towards support of civilian gun ownership (trust me on that one...or look into it). Moreover, our military culture has been very deliberately set up to avoid fostering an insular, "us vs everyone else" mentality (like the police have these days). It's instead been crafted to nurture the concept of the citizen soldier, of being an integral part of overall society. This is a good thing: it helps prevent things like coups and military juntas. But it also means that as it stands, orders to forcibly disarm civilians would in many, many cases be disobeyed.

I'm assuming you see all the problems with this and may very well not support civilian disarmament anyway. What I'm trying to illustrate is that really big, broad solutions to America's gun violence problem will require big, broad steps (and in the case of taxing the shit out of ammunition, steps that won't crate a bigger problem than they solve...like a burgeoning black market run by heavily-armed people).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:46 PM

40. Generally agree but easier to grow pot than supply gunpowder.

Isn't gunpowder well regulated now? Probably some quantity limits for bullet makers. Agree that none of this is easy but time for the pendulum to swing back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #40)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:59 PM

71. True, but plenty is made overseas.

It would be more difficult (although far from impossible) for a domestic underground ammunition industry to exist than it is for weed cultivation, for sure. But gunpowder and other components, as well as compete rounds, are pretty good candidates for smuggling. Their only real drawback is weight.

My personal top choice for a first step to reducing gun violence, is to mandate reasonable security measures for private firearms...and to punish lax security that allows a gun to fall into criminal hands. Weapon security is a part of the responsibility that owning a deadly weapon confers. Theft is not the only vector by which criminals get guns, but it's a big one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:01 PM

66. black market

The Mexican pot and meth black market is a great illustration as to how it couldn't be minimized or stopped. Wouldn't take much for the next market from south of the border to be cheap Chinese AK47's and ammo. You know, a reverse fast and furious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Happyhippychick (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:15 AM

13. Many shooters make their own ammo. ...

The equipment to do so is inexpensive and simple to use. All you need is powder, primers and bullets and you can cast your own bullets.

I made .38, .357 magnum, .45 auto, .45 Long Colt and .44 magnum ammo for my handguns for probably 25 years. I still have the equipment. I found the ammo cheaper and often more actuate than factory ammo. Reloading is a hobby in itself and many shooters roll their own. I made 6 to 8 thousand rounds a year as I enjoyed target shooting at a pistol range once a week on the average.

If you are curious visit Dillon Precision Products at:
http://www.dillonprecision.com/#/

Or simply type "reloading equipment" into the search bar at Amazon.com.

Many shooters expecting an increase in the price of ammo which has already skyrocketed have bought a large amount of powder, primers and bullets. Shooters who don't reload have simply invested in factory ammo. In recent years ammo has often been difficult to obtain at gun stores as it flies off the self as fast as it comes in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:10 PM

27. The point is make that illegal or harder to do.

You can't say...this is the loophole with that... assuming everything stays the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #27)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:42 PM

62. Many drugs are illegal and we have a War on Drugs ...

yet I can walk two blocks from my home in a small rural town in Florida and buy illegal drugs without any problem.

It's simplistic to believe that all you have to do is to declare an activity illegal and it will stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:15 AM

2. All Those Measures Will Really Cause Insurrection With The State Of Mind Of Gun Owners As It Is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:17 AM

3. And insurrection is illegal. I care nothing about their fragile feeble minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:31 AM

16. There are 80 million gun owners in our nation. ...

if 10% decided to launch an insurrection you would have 8 million individuals causing a considerable amount of havoc in some form of guerrilla warfare. A high percentage of these "patriots" have military training courtesy of our armed forces and have had actual combat experience in places like Iraq and Afghanistan or even Vietnam. They would not be concerned in the least about the fact that an insurrection was illegal.

It is also possible that some red states might decide to leave the Union and while you might not miss them, the disruption to our economy might be enormous and any rational person does not wish to live through a civil war.

Many members of the gun culture have long feared that our government would eventually try to ban and confiscate firearms and this would be the beginning of a dictatorship or a tyranny. They already have stockpiled weapons and ammo in caches.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:11 PM

28. Find them and weed them out. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:39 PM

38. Would you be willing to help in endeavor? If so,

Would you persuade them or use force, to wit guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:50 PM

41. Military with much more firepower than them.

It's not like this hasn't been done, small scale, in the US.

Why do you suggest that individuals might do this? A few shootouts, where they're destroyed would change a lot of minds that this isn't a video game.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:11 PM

50. You really do see millions of fellow Americans as the enemy,

Such to be killed as necessary? Please reconsider your outlook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #50)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:14 PM

51. Just the ones described in the post.

I don't consider any of the mass murderers as my fellow Americans. Neither would I anyone hoping to overthrow the government. Clear?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #51)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:17 PM

55. I think violence rules your soul more than any gun-owner in these threads.

Yes, you are quite clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #55)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:35 PM

61. Gotta say, kind of a strange post. Buh bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:22 PM

58. Like Waco?

That was less then 100 people. It took two months to get those guns ... oh, wait. No, they killed them all.

That is what you are calling for? You think that the militias in the central us are going to be that easy? The military? What are they going to do, burn down thousands of acres of forests? Send up drones and start dropping bombs?

FFS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #41)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:09 PM

67. "A few shootouts..." I can't believe my fucking eyes today I swear to God.

Follow along here... the Servicemen and Women of this country are sworn to do one thing: Uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States of America. You get that, right? You also get that more than few would refuse the order to shoot when it's AMERICANS in their crosshairs, right?? What then? Arrest THEM? Who'll do the arresting? Law enforcement officers? And what, pray tell, about the law enforcement officers who refuse THAT order?

You're suggesting that Americans be "destroyed" in "a few shootouts".

Please take a step back into reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:18 PM

57. At what cost?

To accomplish what you suggest would lead to far more violence than we have today.

Several decades ago our nation launched a War on Drugs which seemed like a good idea at that time.

Today drugs are everywhere and easily available. Drug gangs fight over turf in our urban areas and use extremely lethal firearms purchased with the profit from dealing drugs. Innocent people and children die in the crossfire and during drive by shootings. Our violent crime rate would be far lower if we hadn't tried to prohibit drugs.

Of course you may counter and say that banning and confiscating firearms would also solve this problem. Unfortunately gangs capable of smuggling tons of drugs into our nation would have little problem smuggling firearms in for their own use and for sale.

It is quite possible that attempting to ban and confiscate firearms would cause this nation to split into several different nations. Oe on the north east coast, one on the West coast, the largest one in the center and south and a small one composed of Illinois in the north. In many states today there is a movement to secede from the Union.

36 States Want to Secede from the Federal Government: What’s the Economic Impact?
By Henry Blodget | Daily Ticker – Wed, Nov 14, 2012 12:35 PM EST

In the wake of the presidential election, a wave of petitions have been submitted to the White House in which citizens of various states are announcing their desire to "secede" from the United States.
These citizens are so fed up with the country, in other words, they want to opt out and start their own.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/36-states-want-secede-federal-government-economic-impact-173510792.html


Now at course at this time no states are actually going to take this course. However an attempt to ban and confiscate firearms would definitely fan the flames of this movement.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #57)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:49 AM

73. "Fanning flames" and violence is what he/she wants, I think.


But moral righteousness will clear up any self-doubt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:39 PM

37. This is fear based hyperbole. Most of the 80 million are reaasonable

and majority of those remaining are cowards. There may be a small minority, but would not be able to stop a nation that wants to progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #37)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:30 PM

60. Ok lets assume that 1/2 of 1% of the gun owners decided to launch an insurrection. ...

You would have 400,000 well armed and in some cases well trained individuals trying to create havoc in our nation. I would suggest that even 1000 well trained ex-soldiers could cause enormous destruction.

edited to add...

I am in no way advocating any form of insurrection but I have been a member of the gun culture for many years. I will agree that many who talk of actions against the government in case of a ban are braggarts or cowards in real life. However I have met some people who may be willing to and capable of taking serious action. Such men are dangerous if provoked although they currently are responsible and honest citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #60)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 02:07 PM

65. ThiS is fanasty bs.

They would not be organized and would be easily dealt with as terrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:50 PM

69. "Yep" very easy just like we did in Iraq

 

No problem there


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:54 PM

70. An unorganized force can be extremely dangerous. ...

I see at first small groups conducting harassment tactics. Such groups would have no organization but would operate independently and might only have two or three members or just one single individual.

In your opinion it may be fantasy but I feel that you don't understand the nature of some who consider themselves to be "patriots."

I live in Florida and I know to avoid rattlesnakes and if you do encounter one it's wisest to back off slowly before you irritate him.

But you might be right and I could be wrong. Even so the amount of problems small groups could cause would be significant and the disruption to our way of life enormous.

Let's hope and pray that we never have to live through such times. We can improve our existing laws if both sides can be forced to sit down and talk. Let's hope Obama leads the effort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:52 AM

74. What is your proposal to confiscate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #74)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:21 AM

75. I never suggested to.

The poster reacted to the reasonable proposals in the OP. The OP isn't calling for confiscation.

The poster I was responding to suggested the very sensible measures of the OP would lead to insurrection in the paranoid gun lovers. I don't doubt that, but we aren't talking about confiscation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:19 AM

4. it's how you bargain though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:23 PM

31. Precisely. Start with "no more fucking guns for you, ever."

And meet in the middle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:20 AM

5. Agree. And ban almost all public carrying, shooting of targets that resemble people, etc.


Until we change the perception of those who promote more and more guns in this country in more and more places, we will get nowhere.

Would be nice to see those here with user names and signature lines promoting more guns to change them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:22 AM

6. and what about TV and movies?


Our culture in America is backwards...we treat sexually explicit material the way we should be treating violence oriented material.


---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:54 AM

7. I agree. We really are screwed up in many, many ways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:35 AM

17. I doubt that yesterdays shooter had a carry permit. ...

I have shot at ranges that did not allow silhouette targets unless you are a police officer and I found that shooting at bullseye targets made my shooting more accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:41 AM

18. Spin, to keep you in guns, we allow f&@kers like him. His mom and dad brought him up in gun culture.


That needs to stop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:21 PM

30. Apparently he also had mental issues.

I honestly have no easy solutions to this problem of mass murders in public places and especially gun free zones.

As long as we allow the civilian ownership of firearms we will have this type of incident caused by those with extremely serious mental issues. We will also continue to have criminal misuse of firearms even if we make all firearms illegal to own.

However banning all firearms and confiscating them is impossible at this time in our nation. First considering the make up of our nation, many representatives in our Congress come from red states and the blue states do not have enough votes to pass a ban and confiscate law. Even if such a law passed the current Supreme Court would overthrow it.

Another assault weapons ban might stop the sale of newly manufactured semi-auto pistols and rifles but there is already an enormous quantity of such weapons in our nation. Since in many areas the registration of firearms is not required, the government has no idea who owns what weapon.

I know you believe that civilians should not be allowed to legally carry firearms in public. I don't see evidence to prove that this practice has led to a tremendous increase in violence in our nation. Since Florida first passed "shall issue" concealed carry in 1987 and it spread across our nation, the violent crime rate has fallen to levels last seen in the late 60s. I don't attribute the drop in crime to firearms or legal concealed carry but it is a fact that in recent years the sale of these weapons has skyrocketed and yet the crime rate has fallen. More guns may not cause less crime but more guns obviously does not cause more crime or in the last decade the crime rate would have skyrocketed along with the sale of these weapons.

Basically there are no easy fixes to stopping incidents like school shootings. The most logical idea I can come up with is to have a requirement that any area deemed gun free that houses a large number of people have adequate armed security present as a deterrent.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:31 PM

32. Many people into guns do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:57 AM

8. Don't forget video games that involve shooting things.

 

they help make the shooters much better at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:12 AM

12. IMO, it's about what players are thinking and feeling

while being engaged with games, particularly the realistic / war zone type games. It is entertainment? Escapism? Acting out? Therapy?

People I know from 10- to 40-year-olds fall into one of those categories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

53. Now that is bullshit.

I've played dozens of shooters and I'm a terrible shot with a real gun and have no desire to get better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mel Content (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:50 PM

63. No really they don't. Perhaps they make for better drone pilots.

But drone pilots are on their way out as drones go autonomous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 10:58 AM

9. Good ideas. Even offer cash payments for turning in guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:06 AM

10. If we won't ban all types of assault weapons, why isn't there any mandatory gun insurance?

In addition to the loss of life, we have medical treatment, MEs, funeral costs including grave space in cemeteries, cost of law enforcement investigations and additional cost of SWAT, ATF or any other specialized law enforcement agency, psych counseling for victims and 1st responders or any other active scene personnel.

Shit, there's a surcharge on airline flights for TSA, mandatory liability car insurance...........why isn't there any mandatory insurance on assault capable weapons? That way if the owner, owner's kid/family, friends, or if your weapon is stolen/borrowed by whomever happens to get a hold of your play toy, there's some compensation available to those effected, wounded or killed.

In addition to some of the other suggestions i.e. - universal healthcare which covers mental illness, reestablish mental illness-only hospitals and treatment centers, create a computerized database out of all the information and make it centrally available to law enforcement, DMV, employment histories, school histories, along with gun registrations and gun and ammo sales.

We have the technical capability to make this an easy and simple process that's far from impossible to implement......if that's what we as a society have the desire to do.

No one's 2nd amendment rights will be "trampled upon" but lets ask this specific group of gun owners to take a bit more responsibility if they absolutely must own weapons capable of such massive destruction.

Hell - it's not illegal to smoke cigarettes but that hasn't stopped state, local governments or the federal government or any one else from declaring war on the tobacco industry for a myriad of reasons (2nd, 3rd, 4th hand smoke, air pollution, litter, additional healthcare costs, high insurance rates, etc). Why not do something similar with a specific types of guns?

I don't even know where to begin with the illegal weaponry out here.

We really need to have a national conversation about this. This is an American society FAIL. We can do better.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nc4bo (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:44 PM

39. I support a "national conversation."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:19 AM

14. I tend to go back to a point made in Bowling For Columbine

and that is that Canada has as many guns as we do but almost none of the gun violence. I'm not a gun guy, I don't know a gun and don't want to, but I think we have to address our culture of violence in a long term way, otherwise gun laws will be no more effective than drug laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:53 AM

21. The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 residents and Canada has 30.8 ...

according to Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

Gun policy.org states the rate per 100 residents in the United states is 88.8 per 100 and there are 270,000,000 firearm in civilian hands. Canada rate is at 23.8 with 9,950,000 firearms in civilian hands.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/canada

There are also significant cultural and demographic differences between the United States and Canada.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #21)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 10:42 AM

78. "There are significant cultural differences"

That was the point. Canadians have guns and relatively easy access to guns, yet they kill each other a lot less than we do. It's those "cultural differences"we ought to be looking at as much if not more than our gun laws; things like income inequality and access to healthcare and the glorification of the vigilante in our popular culture. I'm for gun control, although I think any kind of a ban without some way to lower our societies demand for guns would be as ineffective as a ban on recreational drugs in a society that demands recreational drugs. I think it's a big and complex problem that goes way beyond access to guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DefenseLawyer (Reply #78)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:55 PM

80. I think we agree on this issue. ...

although I don't favor any gun bans. I would like to see the day when only target shooters, hunter and collectors desired to own firearms. This would be similar to the times when I grew up in the 50s and 60s and people used to leave their doors unlocked when they left their homes.

Our nation at that time was probably a lot more like Canada than it is today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:25 AM

15. If you mean full auto and burst fire for number 4 , I'm on board with that

 



Number 6 is fine if you mean illegal automatic and burst fire rifles.
Those are military weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:42 AM

19. 7. Possessing an illegal firearm is a federal felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:56 AM

23. I would go a step further ,"using one in a crime" ANY crime , armed robbery for example

 

life in prison

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:05 PM

25. with two extra words thrown in

 

mandatory minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:48 AM

20. I agree with everything except #4.

There are people who collect military firearms just because they are collectors, not because they are RW militia lunatics preparing to defend themselves from UN black helicopters. Don't ban them, just heavily restrict them via very stringent licensing requirements that would have to be renewed yearly, and such weapons would be banned from urban areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:56 AM

22. I have a military weapon ...

It's a bolt action Swedish Mauser rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:59 AM

24. You must want to be a criminal

 

Yikes !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:52 PM

64. Let me assure you that this Mauser is an extremely accurate and deadly weapon. ...

This weapon was never used for war but the fact that the Swedish military had such weapons in WW2 might have been a contributing factor for why Germany never invaded. It's is very good condition for its age but it only cost me a couple of hundred bucks.

I plan to use it for target shooting or possibly to hunt deer or hog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Odin2005 (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:34 PM

35. Why would someone "collect" a type of gun that perhaps killed millions of people?


You don't wonder about that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:18 PM

29. Add...$100 fee per year on each gun...declared on tax return.

Or some other amount. This would take some of the addiction away to owning more and more guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #29)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:52 PM

42. Courts will view this as a punitive tax to curtail 2A rights.

Taxes have been imposed on sporting goods to be explicitly used for wildlife conservation, but a tax which is clearly meant (and you make that evident) to restrict a right will not survive scrutiny. It would be like "non-denominational" prayer: Courts know what that's about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #42)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:57 PM

44. We'll never know if we don't try. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #44)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:01 PM

46. No one is stopping you. Seems like a waste of effort

When we could budget monies to provide 2or more security to American schools, and DIRECTLY address school shootings.

Don't we want to do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:06 PM

48. I don't support anything that involves more guns in schools.

Bullet proof, double doors, tear gas in there. Quick response system for police to be informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:32 PM

34. 1 and 2 are state matters, aslong as they stay within.

within the Constitution. With 3, what do you propose? With 4, please define (millions of folks have slow-shooting, mainly obsolete weapons). With 5, how will registration stop a murder/suicide? And 6 is impractical and unlikely to work at all.

Overall, I can't see how this plan will work. There is a way to get everyone on the NICS system: Open it to general access. States can then set BG standards and require the test for transfer.

I am struck by hiw so little of your proposal directly addresses the school shooting. If that is your concern, why not pass legislation and funding which states can draw on for providing trained and armed security (2 or more per school) to improve safety. States can opt out, and develop plans to train and arm school staff, or choose to maintain their "gun free" zones. Would you support this direct approach to school shootings?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:39 PM

36. Easier- when you sell your next gun, use FFL for background check. Actually be a "responsible" gun


owner, rather than just tossing that phrase around. There are reasons not to open the background checks up to just anyone. All gun sales should go through a licensed gun dealer (at least as long as we have to allow thousands of licensed gun dealers to exist).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:57 PM

43. The Interstate Commerce Clause would prevent

Federal requirements. I'm confused. Do you support "universal NICS" or not. I do, and have proposed a way to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #43)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

52. I support you using an FFL so proper paper work is maintained.


You don't support anything that negatively impacts your access to guns.

By-the-way, it's a good time to change your user name to something that doesn't promote guns and look like a right wing gun site meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:03 PM

47. I cannot legally use NICS, and the system is designed for purchases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:17 PM

56. You can go to an FFL to transfer guns, if you truly are a responsible gun owner.


Doesn't take a law to do that. Instead I suspect you, like most gun accumulators, will sell to anyone with a fistful of cash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #56)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 08:38 AM

72. Hoyt. An indy buyer cannot use NICS. THAT is the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #72)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 12:15 PM

79. Make transfer through FFL. Simple. Why the resistance.

If by some odd chance the law in your state won't allow an FFL to do that, then petition your legislature. It's not a big deal -- little controversy. You are just being the usual gun supporting cultist on this.

Please send a link that shows it is unlawful for you to use an FFL -- like a gun shop -- to do the transfer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #79)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 01:33 PM

81. Google: Who can use the NICS test...

Then to www.answerbag.com

Right there in print. My handheld is having probs with links.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #34)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:00 PM

45. More armed security? Really?

No...no...no...Easier to make the building more secure...locked double doors, like banks, perhaps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to godai (Reply #45)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:07 PM

49. No problem with more hard points, but the murderer

Broke in. If you wish to maintain your "gun free" zone, and fellow citizens agree, then do so. But some parents may wish to have trained security. Would you deny them that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #49)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:16 PM

54. Yes, I'd deny anything involving more guns.

The murderer may have broken a regular glass door. Not at all what I suggested.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:22 PM

59. #4 full auto guns are already pretty much illgeal

Civilian ownership of assault rifles or any other full-automatic firearm is tightly regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the BATFE before May 1986. Some states have enacted laws against civilian possession of automatic weapons that override NFA clearance; Kansas, on the other hand, repealed its own state law against civilian ownership of assault rifles in July 2008. Civilians may purchase semi-automatic versions of such firearms without requiring NFA clearance, although some states (including California and New Jersey) enforce their own restrictions and/or prohibitions on such weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#United_States

This includes select fire(aka burst fire) weapons as well


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 03:11 PM

68. No chance that any of that passes, so not relevant NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:26 AM

76. #4 has been on the books for 80 years

(at least depending on what you mean by "military", if you mean the actual types of weapons the military uses, then it's been on the books for nearly 80 years and has been one of the most successful gun control laws in US history.)

#5 has had some success (see "Project Exile" in Virginia)

#1 seems silly, but I don't think is unconstitutional

#2 would be hard to do Federally, but would probably be worth looking at.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SHRED (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:38 AM

77. Probably would need a buy-back on #6, but I like them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread