HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I would like to see an as...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:31 PM

 

I would like to see an assault weapons ban along with a ban on any semi automatic weapons for

civilian use.

If you can't stop the bad guy who comes into your home in the dark of night with a double barreled shotgun or a 38 police special you probably should use other deterrents. If you can't shoot your deer with a bolt action, you ain't a sportsman.

If you think you are going to fend off Abrams tanks, Apache Attack Helicopters and Drones with laser guided missiles with your AR 15s and Glocks in the event of a revolution you need to seek psychiatric help.

I really can't see any logic for a sane person to want these sort of weapons other than they've seen them in the movies or television and want them either for their coolness factor or criminal activity.

On Edit:

When the constitution was penned, people relied much more than we do on shooting their meals... WITH MUSKETS! They also had shooting competitions. With flintlocks. We fought a World War with bolt action rifles with 5-8 round clips. I think the typical American can defend his or her home without the same defensive tools as the police and military are required to use.

I understand that this might put a burden on gun manufacturers, but what the heck. Maybe they can go from guns to tillers (or plowshares as some might say)

112 replies, 5120 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 112 replies Author Time Post
Reply I would like to see an assault weapons ban along with a ban on any semi automatic weapons for (Original post)
Whovian Dec 2012 OP
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #1
Whovian Dec 2012 #2
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #3
Hoyt Dec 2012 #76
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #79
Hoyt Dec 2012 #84
a geek named Bob Dec 2012 #85
intaglio Dec 2012 #59
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #67
intaglio Dec 2012 #70
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #71
intaglio Dec 2012 #72
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #75
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #78
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #81
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #87
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #89
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #91
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #97
intaglio Dec 2012 #86
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #88
intaglio Dec 2012 #92
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #98
intaglio Dec 2012 #99
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #101
intaglio Dec 2012 #110
sasha031 Dec 2012 #4
Whovian Dec 2012 #6
sasha031 Dec 2012 #19
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #5
Whovian Dec 2012 #7
Llewlladdwr Dec 2012 #11
Whovian Dec 2012 #21
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #28
Whovian Dec 2012 #29
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #42
Whovian Dec 2012 #48
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #61
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #62
quakerboy Dec 2012 #112
mwrguy Dec 2012 #47
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #64
mwrguy Dec 2012 #65
davidn3600 Dec 2012 #8
Whovian Dec 2012 #10
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #18
Whovian Dec 2012 #20
Selatius Dec 2012 #9
davidn3600 Dec 2012 #12
Selatius Dec 2012 #16
Whovian Dec 2012 #13
Selatius Dec 2012 #14
Whovian Dec 2012 #15
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #30
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #22
theKed Dec 2012 #105
craigmatic Dec 2012 #17
KatyAnn Dec 2012 #23
Whovian Dec 2012 #25
KatyAnn Dec 2012 #27
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #31
Whovian Dec 2012 #32
KatyAnn Dec 2012 #34
Whovian Dec 2012 #35
KatyAnn Dec 2012 #37
Whovian Dec 2012 #38
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #54
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2012 #51
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #52
flvegan Dec 2012 #24
Whovian Dec 2012 #26
Rex Dec 2012 #33
former-republican Dec 2012 #40
Rex Dec 2012 #43
former-republican Dec 2012 #55
Rex Dec 2012 #69
Kennah Dec 2012 #66
Rex Dec 2012 #68
Kennah Dec 2012 #100
Rex Dec 2012 #106
sir pball Dec 2012 #107
Rex Dec 2012 #108
sir pball Dec 2012 #109
former-republican Dec 2012 #36
Whovian Dec 2012 #39
former-republican Dec 2012 #41
Rex Dec 2012 #44
Whovian Dec 2012 #45
former-republican Dec 2012 #49
Whovian Dec 2012 #53
former-republican Dec 2012 #56
former-republican Dec 2012 #57
Lurker Deluxe Dec 2012 #74
oldhippie Dec 2012 #82
former-republican Dec 2012 #96
XRubicon Dec 2012 #95
cstanleytech Dec 2012 #46
Whovian Dec 2012 #50
former-republican Dec 2012 #58
Whovian Dec 2012 #60
former-republican Dec 2012 #63
derby378 Dec 2012 #77
RantinRavin Dec 2012 #80
spanone Dec 2012 #73
krawhitham Dec 2012 #83
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #90
krawhitham Dec 2012 #93
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #94
hack89 Dec 2012 #102
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #103
skiptomaloo Dec 2012 #104
spanone Dec 2012 #111

Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:33 PM

1. What about Simo Hayha?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

He went a long way to pushing back on a repressive regime...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:45 PM

2. With a bolt action rifle.

 

And I doubt some 500 kills had much impact on the Russian army in the day.

This is what he got for his efforts:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:49 PM

3. Actually, he made divisions back off...

 

As for his looks... who cares? He had a cause and fought for it. I'm not looking to date him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:41 PM

76. But, we aren't in a war zone and not likely to be except in the paranoia of gun cultists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:57 PM

79. Merely pointing out the flaw in your arguments.

 

Mind you, as I can build laser strong enough to kill, ,and already own a 5 amp stunstick (not volts, AMPS) I don't see this effects me much.

Also, it might help your case not to demonize your projected opponents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:17 PM

84. Not deterred. Too many lethal weapon cultists in country. Not impressed by your lethal laser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #84)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:25 PM

85. cool...

 

You grab those guns, and I'll have my stun stick and my laser.

even better... no ballistics.

Cults have charismatic leaders. Where's the leader?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a geek named Bob (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:43 AM

59. And how long did he take to amass that record?

I think it may have been longer than 10 minutes

FFS Start thinking, don't let the gun industry do it for you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:56 AM

67. He did it in a little over three months. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:22 PM

70. So a lot slower than 26 every 10 minutes

H'mmm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:16 PM

71. He had Russian soldiers shooting back at him. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #71)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:24 PM

72. Actually at the times he killed he didn't

They shot back when he had killed and mostly in the wrong direction. Still, this man was a hero. You seem to want to raise the Sandy Hook killer to the same level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:34 PM

75. No. You are the one wanting to draw a parrallel.

If someone had been shooting back at the Sandy Hook killer, lots of little kids would be alive today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:45 PM

78. What percentage of shots fired in combat kill or stop the assailant?

Because I have a hard time believing it is 100% as your post implies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:00 PM

81. I never implied that. You are the one trying to draw combat parrallels.

In combat most rounds are fired at longer ranges. Return fire at a rampage killer would typically be only less than 50 feet, often much less.

In combat most fire isn't precisely aimed, and often is area fire. (Shot into an area to suppress the enemy.) Return fire at a rampage shooter who is close will be aimed. Notice that when an armed citizen has been able to engage a rampage shooter, they haven't missed yet.

Being able to shoot back is a much better option than cowering and begging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:54 PM

87. Bullshit, you said more kids would be alive

Short of having a Palantir there is no way to know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #87)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:05 PM

89. Palantirs didn't see into the future, or alternate realities.

They were a kind of videophone with only a few units in the network.

Everyday all of us make projections of events. We do that based on everyday knowledge. If a rampage shooter is killing folks and some one shoots the killer he is highly likely to stop killing. If not, shoot him some more. If you don't incapacitate him, he will continue the killing.

In Texas a state legislator is going to introduce a bill to allow for school marshalls. Those will be faculty members who will go through special training (More than required for a Concealed Handgun License) and will then have access to a gun at the school. Those faculty members will not be teachers that are in frequent contact with the kids, but will be office staff. They won't be able to stop the shooting of the first few, but they can stop it before it goes on for long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #89)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:27 PM

91. Or the kids could rush him like some paid shills for the gun industry seem to think is a good idea

I'm sure Ted Nugent would agree that the cause of the problem has nothing whatsoever to do with guns and the vast proliferation of them in our society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:46 PM

97. Or an armed guard, or school marshal, could rush in and shoot him. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:50 PM

86. Or, more likely, he'd have had another victim

The guy was wearing protective kit.

Of course you want more guns because that is the agenda you are selling. That is the vacuous nonsense being peddled by kid and cop killer gun lobbyists and which you are buying into.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:56 PM

88. Lanza wasn't wearing body armor.

That's part of the initial confusion in the new reports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:31 PM

92. Oh, thanks

Is that the same confusion that had him using a Bushmaster? Or the confusion about him leaving the Bushmaster in the car?

Whatever, you have an active shooter who was able to take down the 2 persons trying to assault him and who was reported as not feeling pain. But I forget, your aim is to sell more guns for your beloved weapons manufacturers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:49 PM

98. What is wrong with a trained person shooting a rampage killer?

That is a fast, efficient solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #98)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:35 AM

99. Ah, so everybody gets gun training

before they purchase a gun. They'll have to be certificated, which would allow for unsuitable persons to be weeded out of the certification process. The certification would have carried out at regular intervals, because people change over time and even the police and military lose their abilities to respond in crisis correctly.

Thank you for your support for gun ownership licensing. Do you think the certification should be annual or bi-annual?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #99)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:40 AM

101. Different level for different situations.

Basic level - Allows a person to legally own a gun. No violent criminal past (NICS check). Safety class of two hours. (Can be done by watching a DVD) No limits on type of gun, or size of magazine, no limit on ammo ownership. Good for ten years.

Basic concealed carry - All of above plus: No criminal past (Checked by FBI). CC class of one day. Fingerprints and photo sent to FBI. Demonstrate competance with gun by live fire on range. Good for five years.

School marsall - All of above plus: On faculty at a school, position does not have extensive contact with students, extra training with the gun including stressfire training. (gun must have laser sights) Carries concealed gun to school. Gets extra pay. Renew annually.

National Concealed Carry - One week of gun training. Gun must be laser equipped. Clean FBI record. Pass drug screen. Live fire test. Would be able to carry their gun EVERYWHERE, including airplanes, schools, courtrooms, government buildings, etc. Good for two years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #101)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:46 PM

110. What a laugh. Now I know you are a shill for the manufacturers

Safety class of 2 hours can be done on DVD - ask anybody who does safety training if a 2 hour computer class can teach safety in anything. What sort of incompetents do you want so send out there owning guns? Or are they just supposed to be cannon fodder?

No limits on gun type, H'mm so you want anybody criminal, lunatic, or just plain simple to own a weapon and then trained on a computer game (for 2 hours, WOW! you rally are a taskmaster aren't you?) be able to carry any pistol including a .224 and any long arm with a full auto option and even a chain gun.

No limits on ammo. That will be interesting when there's a house fire at one of those homes. How many firemen and neighbours do you consider an acceptable death toll?

No limits on size of magazine. Apart from the orgasmic boasting (mine's bigger than yours) for what purpose? Perhaps you want the fools to get heavy metal poisoning from inhaling toxic metals as they let off a barrage

Good for ten years. What a complete dunce you are! By this measure someone with the paranoid symptoms of tertiary syphilis or alcoholic dementia would be allowed to own weapons even as their symptoms rapidly get worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:49 PM

4. agree 100%, we need to ban these weapons

I'm probably a rarity here on DU, but I believe the only ones who should have weapons in the US are law enforcement.
There has been far too many tragedies & think we need to get away from the culture of violence in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sasha031 (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:55 PM

6. I felt the same way until recently.

 

It seems there aren't more than a handful of rabid pro gunners here that are very prolific in their posts. If they aren't paid shills for the NRA or arms lobby, they should be. If you look at recommendations on pro gun v gun control posts here in GD you will see where the general populace stands. They stand with sanity and logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:47 AM

19. It's nice to know that I'm not alone

As far as arguing & debate shills & progunners, I don't have the stomach for it.
I'm not against some having a handgun in their home, though it's not my bag.
But these weapons of mass destruction are insanity.

They took over the so called gun control forum, as most call it gungeon long ago. I don't see why they don't choose to congregate there.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:53 PM

5. Who is going to go door to door collecting the hundreds of millions of them? N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:59 PM

7. Fairly simple.

 

Make it known they are illegal, offer reasonable compensation, let people know of prison time for violations and establish a time line for turning them in.

After that, it's just attrition. People get caught with them, the gun is destroyed, the owner jailed and others get the idea that it's a no win situation to own them. It might take 5-10 years but the majority of weapons would be off the street by then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:13 AM

11. That's worked well with drugs, eh? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Llewlladdwr (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:52 AM

21. Can't grow guns. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:50 AM

28. All over the world there is a black market for everything. It is naive to think otherwise. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:52 AM

29. Gun control has kept gun violence down to a small fraction of what it is here per capita

 

and the "black market" is there as well. Thanks for the NRA talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:11 AM

42. How old are you?

NRA talking point my ass.
It is like the infernal drug war we have but I can go and by an oz anywhere in town.
The same thing would happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:20 AM

48. In my 60's, well educated, well informed. How old are you? What's your educational background

 

and prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:48 AM

61. I am pushing 60

I am a retired RN, married to a Family Doc.
I do wildlife rehab now, garden, and raise bees.
I also am very well informed.
I don't yell, "NRA talking points!!!" at everyone who disagrees with me.
It does not facilitate adult intelligent discussion.
Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:54 AM

62. Educated? Then you've probably read how well prohibition worked.

And perhaps you've read about the good old days when the Democrats controlled both houses for 50 years, until they passed the AWB...which did nothing, and is why it was allowed to expire.

Is passing legislation that does nothing worth losing both houses and the WH for the foreseeable future?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #28)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:28 AM

112. An empty implication. Next time be specific

The fact that there are black markets and illegal deals has little to do with anything.

All over the world in countries with relatively similar conditions to ours, with the existence of black markets for guns, but also with the addition of gun control laws, they have fewer guns and fewer shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:18 AM

47. The military and national guard

What are we paying them for?

They'll have plenty of free time after we bring them home from Afghanistan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:59 AM

64. Then they'll continue to have plenty of free time.

Posse Comitatus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:31 AM

65. That can be waved

It's a law made by congress. Congress can unmake it as easily as they can ban these weapons of mass destruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:01 AM

8. It wouldnt be the US Army vs average citizens

If the federal government gets bad enough, we'd have states pulling out. So it would be the National Guard vs the US army. And then the states could pull in private citizens who have weapons (they were called militias in the old days).

That's the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:11 AM

10. Do you realize the NATIONAL guard is basically a branch of the US Military?

 

The National Guard of the United States is a joint activity of the United States Department of Defense composed of reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force: the Army National Guard of the United States for the Army and the Air National Guard of the United States for the Air Force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States For your edification.

Moran

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:41 AM

18. So? In that type senario you would have entire divisions defecting.

Most of the National Guard would defect and defend their states against the Feds. And military members from effected states would sabotage their Federal units. You really should read up on your Machiavelli.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:49 AM

20. And losing their paychecks immediatly as well as support

 

for ammunition, fuel and interstate banking, etc.

Plus, since 9-11 the gov't owns the internet so all interactions, emails, VOIPS, etc would be noted and dealt with post haste. You live in a dream world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:05 AM

9. I'd actually propose using the Swiss military as a model to emulate.

I'd reimpose the military draft and restructure the military along the Swiss model. (I'd also close most military garrisons overseas and re-align the entire US military towards defense of the physical borders of the United States and a national policy of neutrality)

All able-bodied citizens will serve, and they will undergo military training as well as training in the safe use and maintenance of firearms.

Once training is complete, the citizens will be deployed in and around their communities much in the same manner as the colonial militias of old and of Switzerland today. Citizens who are on active duty are required to keep their weapons and ammunition under lock and key and will be required to store the two separately, and they will submit to random checks to ensure compliance and routine retraining from year to year. In the event of an emergency, units can be mobilized on the spot; they're already stationed in the areas they're meant to protect.

Of all nations that feature private ownership of firearms, Switzerland has one of the lowest if not the lowest rate of gun homicides per capita in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:14 AM

12. I believe the Israelis have a similar model

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:37 AM

16. Israel does have a similar model, precisely for rapid mobilization.

In the event of a major invasion or an imminent attack, Israel would likely only have hours to call up its units to defend the land. A traditional, highly centralized military would require some days to mobilize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:19 AM

13. Considering they only have appx 8 mil people there and one of the highest per capita incomes in the

 

world and nearly 0 unemployment or poverty I'm not surprised.

Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the world by per capita gross domestic product, and has the highest wealth per adult (financial and non-financial assets) of any country in the world. Zurich and Geneva have respectively been ranked as the cities with the second and eighth highest quality of life in the world. It has the world's nineteenth largest economy by nominal GDP and the thirty-sixth largest by purchasing power parity. It is the twentieth largest exporter and eighteenth largest importer of goods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

I don't think that would work here. Too many uneducated people and too much poverty due to government/business exploitation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:31 AM

14. I beg to differ.

That's an issue of national industrial policy. A jobs program would work as well as funding for public education/university. To be sure, that's a battle that needs to be fought badly in this country

However, the issue of gun ownership is being discussed, as opposed to national industrial policy.

With that in mind, the regimentation of firearm usage and the safety control mechanisms surrounding the maintenance and operation of firearms found in Switzerland is considered the ideal regulatory standard for any country that features private firearms.

I would say though that if the United States adopted a national defense posture similar to that of Switzerland, it'd free up 300 to 400 billion a year in the General Fund, which could be diverted to something such as a jobs program or health care or public education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:35 AM

15. It is often good to differ. But I feel that all the things discussed

 

in the post you are replying to are part and parcel of America's gun problem. Until we can become prosperous again something must be done to alleviate the problem we have with gun violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:52 AM

30. An interesting idea. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:54 AM

22. I don't think they have anywhere near the lowest gun homicide rate

According to the wiki entry, their gun homicide rate is .52 per 100,000. While that is significantly lower than the US, if you compare it to neighboring countries it's 8 times higher than Germany (.06), almost 3 times higher than Austria (.18), more than double for France(.22), and significantly higher than Italy (.36).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Selatius (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:35 AM

105. I see no reason

schools cannot be used to train firearm safety and usage. It would certainly be a boon to sustaining a well-regulated militia - as the 2nd amendment calls for - to have a secure, monitored site to store a cache of weapons (revolvers, bolt action hunting rifles, shotguns mainly) in case of need - a modern day 'armory' for the people. The weapons would recieve frequent maintenance and cleaning through the students, the students would be taught how to properly use and store weapons safely, and it would be a major disincentive to shooting up the place. Evening classes could be given for adults wishing to learn for their own use.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:39 AM

17. I agree only military should have assault weapons and we shouldn't let them keep them after they

leave the service either. Assault weapons aren't useful for anything but killing people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)


Response to KatyAnn (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:47 AM

25. Addictions of a physical nature are very different than a hardware addiction.

 

A moronic comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #25)


Response to KatyAnn (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:54 AM

31. And that is why there is a run on semi autos right now.

Happens with toys and everything else that is short on supply.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyAnn (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:55 AM

32. I only insulted an opinion.

 

If that opinion is the entirety of you I apologise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #32)


Response to KatyAnn (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:57 AM

35. If the shoe fits.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #35)


Response to KatyAnn (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:03 AM

38. Bye.

 

I am very anti gun and that pisses a lot of people off. I also speak my mind. That also pisses some folks off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KatyAnn (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:30 AM

54. I see you haven't posted much in three years.

 

Enjoy your short stay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:24 AM

51. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

 

At Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:13 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Addictions of a physical nature are very different than a hardware addiction. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2037167

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/? com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

No comments added by alerter

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:19 AM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Correct statement; no need for pejorative.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If you can't make a case for your alert I'm not going to speculate on it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Write an alert or piss off. The post is fine anyway.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The was post was in response to a low post count RW NRA sleeper troll. Not only do I vote not to hide, I give the post a thumbs up.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: jesus fucking christ, worst alert ever
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:25 AM

52. Duplicate jury results n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:46 AM

24. It's good to like things.

I'd love to see how your idiot premise plays out amongst reasonable folks, like in law enforcement or the military.

And then I'd love to hear about these "other deterrents" of which you speak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flvegan (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:48 AM

26. Were you speaking to me?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:55 AM

33. We don't need assault weapons or ammo made

to penetrate a police vest. We don't need a 30 round clip or a 50 round drum. Cops should always have better weapons than civilians and the military should always have better weapons then law enforcement.

You don't need an M-249 to hunt deer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:09 AM

40. Most gun owners don't buy guns to hunt deer .

 

You also think evey semi auto should be banned and confiscated?

hunting rifles , M1 garands , remingtion 7400's
semi auto shotguns ..etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:11 AM

43. Around here they do.

But I live in rural south Texas. I guess you don't understand. Nice try with putting words in my mouth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:31 AM

55. You used the typical talking point of deer hunting and gun control ........

 

Not me..... and you got called on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:20 PM

69. Backing out now that you got crushed

in an argument? How typically boring of you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:48 AM

66. A cartridge appropriate to hunt deer will easily defeat police body armor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:19 PM

68. True, but their intent is to kill deer

meanwhile, 'cop killer' bullets are...yeah you get it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #68)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:39 AM

100. The KTW, or original cop killer bullet, was invented by, of all people, cops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon-coated_bullet

Armor piercing handgun ammo is already banned, and has been for years.

Was there some point you were intending to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kennah (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:22 AM

106. Ya but you don't care to get the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:34 AM

107. Your point seemed to me to be

That nobody needs ammunition that will defeat standard police (soft) body armor. Well...I have a perfectly innocuous bolt-action hunting rifle that will go through military (hard-plate) body armor like it isn't even there. Simple question, should I be allowed to own that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #107)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:39 AM

108. Nope.

My point is the intent of the ammo, not what you two intend to do with it. Clearly you two could shoot and kill a cop, but then you would be murderers. We don't need ammo that can go through body armor and that is its sole intent. I won't speak for ammo meant to kill wildlife. I guess I was looking for responsible people.

I thought that was pretty clear, evidently it hurt some peoples feelings. Oh well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rex (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:09 PM

109. No hurt feelings

I have been told point-blank several times "deer don't wear bulletproof vests, you have absolutely no reason to own a firearm that can defeat one."

FWIW, armor-piercing ammunition (steel-jacketed, tungsten-cored, so forth) in a caliber that can be fired from a pistol is already illegal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:57 AM

36. You can't ban them

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:04 AM

39. Why not?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:09 AM

41. It doesn't make sense

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:12 AM

44. Yes it does, you just don't like the outcome.

Boo woo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:12 AM

45. Please tell me in what way?

 

Or will this be a one sentence/soundbite discussion such as in talk radio?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:22 AM

49. Because

 

Have you ever been to a skeet range?
People compete with semi autos.

People shoot national high power matches with M1 garands
It's a shooting sport across the country .

Some people hunt with a semi auto , remington , browning , they have made the same rifle for over 75 years

People also compete nation wide in handgun competitions , plate shoots , timed events.

That's the problem with most of you.

You start with assault weapons and mag bans and then now say all semi autos.


That's why nothing is going to happen now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:25 AM

53. Shooting skeet with anything other than a shotgun is not skeet shooting.

 

A 3-5 round shotgun is not a semi-auto in modern parlance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:36 AM

56. All these are used in trap and skeet

 

Beretta AL 391
Browning Silver, Gold
Remington Model 11-87 Premier
Remington Model 1100 Classic
Winchester Super X3 Field

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:36 AM

57. So you don't want to ban all semi autos

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:33 PM

74. Uhh, yea they are semi-autos

Just because you can only put 3-5 shells in it does not mean it is not semi-auto. Ever hunt any kind of bird? The ability to get off 2-3 shots quickly is surely a benefit.

I am all for reasonable gun control. Going after 12G autos is foolish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:10 PM

82. You just blew any semblance of credibility .....

3-5 round shotgun is not a semi-auto in modern parlance.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:54 PM

96. Stop , I want him to come back

 

I'm not done yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:49 PM

95. To quote Bo Burnam

You can't make cents if you don't make sense. You clearly have no cents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:12 AM

46. An outright ban might be difficult. A new approach to the issue might help though and that is

if we look at the 2nd amendment itself and what it says

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Now offhand it seems that the amendment is written for the defense of the nation so bearing that in mind how about the government setup actual militias run by either current or retired military and or police officers and only those who are part of this militia currently may legally own any weapon that is an automatic or maybe even semi automatic.
Done correctly they could use the militia to weed out the real nut cases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:22 AM

50. If you look again at the OP you will see I didn't propose an outright ban of guns.

 

Just the ones capable of mass murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:41 AM

58. No , this is what you said

 

"a ban on any semi automatic weapons for civilan use"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #58)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:47 AM

60. "a ban on any semi automatic weapons for civilan use" is not a gun ban

 

It's a ban on any semi automatic weapons for civilian use. Big difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:55 AM

63. I didn't say it was a gun ban

 

You said now you're okay with semi auto shotguns but at first you said ...All semi autos....


How about this?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:45 PM

77. Yep, that's a gun ban

Thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #60)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:00 PM

80. The .38 police special you mentioned

is a semi-automatic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:25 PM

73. agreed. no. need. for. them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:11 PM

83. I want 4 things: assault weapon ban, 10 shot max on clips, No online sales, & bg checks at Gun Shows

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:17 PM

90. Answers:

AWB: It was a feel-good law that accomplished nothing at all. It only outlawed some cosmetic features of some guns. Mechanically, the guns were unchanged.

Magazine capacity limits: Due to the ex post facto provision of the Constitution existing magazines will be grandfathered in. Between now and the enactment of the ban, the magazine manufacturers will run around the clock shifts making magazines.

Further, magazines can be changed in a couple of seconds, faster with practice. So your law accomplishes nothing. The VT killer used standard magazines and reloaded 17 times.

No online sales: There is no such thing as an online gun sale. All online orders MUST be shipped to a local FFL who will do the background check and Form 4473.

BG checks at gun shows: It is already that way. Any FFL selling at a gun show must do the NICS check and Form 4473. Private sales at a gun show are discouraged as the FFLs don't like the competition.

So the first two things you want are completely useless and the last two you already have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #90)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:39 PM

93. Bullshit, I take it you are a Gun Show Loophole denier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:46 PM

94. I have been to gun shows.

Bought guns at them. Had to go through the NICS check and fill out the form 4473.

If you can find a private seller who is NOT in the business of selling guns and is selling his personal guns, then there is not BG check. It also works that way if you meet him at his residence, or in a parking lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krawhitham (Reply #93)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:43 AM

102. Private sales are the issue

and it is a state issue if it is a purely intrastate transaction i.e. the seller and buyer are residents of the same state that the sale take place in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:53 AM

103. I can't go along with a ban or gun confiscation or semi-auto rifles.


I can go along with defining and identifying prohibited people better and related safe storage laws. Things that might have actually had a significant impact on many of the mass shootings we've seen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:02 AM

104. Vegas Baby!

I agree with you 100% if you want to shoot a semi or fully automatic weapon Vegas is the place to go, there are indoor ranges where you can shoot a thousand round a minute, the tourists eat it up. So with that in mind how about these shooting ranges open up everywhere and your assault weapon stays there for you to play with it in a safe location indoor or outdoor, and you get a six shooter and a double barrel or a bolt action for home use and hunting. And it's high time to insure all gun owners for funerals, and all medical costs just like we all do as car & truck owners. Maybe the N.R.A. can foot the bill with their 4 million plus lifetime members at $750 dollars a pop...that's $750.00 X 4 million

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:48 PM

111. kick again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread