HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The Rude Pundit - What to...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:27 PM

The Rude Pundit - What to Do: A Post on Gun Laws That Will Piss Off Guntards

If at its news conference tomorrow, the NRA says it will support some new gun laws, it will truly be a sign of the Mayan apocalypse. But who are you kidding? The NRA is gonna call for arming everyone and blame people who don't have guns for the violence because the NRA is an organization led by slimy, corporate bought-and-owned motherfuckers who are merely a lobbying arm of the gun industry with a huge financial stake in deluding the most vocal, paranoid, and depraved section of its membership. So while Senator Joe Manchin and others who are having a few doubts now about their oath of fealty to the National Rifle Association can say that the NRA should be "at the table" discussing new gun laws, the rest of us, the ones who think that ownership of military-style weaponry is nuts, will have to come up with a way forward from Newtown and the legally-purchased Lanza arsenal that was used so horribly.

The Rude Pundit begins with a sad, simple premise: shit that can be done in his lifetime. Because a total gun ban, hell, just a total handgun and assault weapon ban in this country is realistically never going to happen, and, even in the wildest utopian scenarios, it would take decades to achieve.

Countries that have banned guns have not become lawless wastelands where dictatorial Kenyan Muslims put them in forced labor concentration camps. One oft-cited statistic is that Japan only had two gun deaths last year. Let's put that in perspective. We have about 2.5 or times the number of people as Japan in the United States. That means 5-6 gun deaths for our 310 million people. Twirl that around you brain for a minute or two.

Here we go:

1. The basics - stuff that the majority of the country agrees on: Background checks for all gun sales. A ban on all assault weapons and magazines over 10 rounds. This is pretty much the stuff that President Obama called for yesterday. If you disagree with this part, you are such an extremist that we have nothing further to talk about, but, please, guntards, read on so that you have more stuff to angrily masturbate over while tickling your prostates with your pistols.

2. Beyond basics - stuff that is still easy to do but makes guntards beat their heads and scream - Every gun registered. Licenses to use guns, renewable by test every 2 years. A ban on some kinds of bullets, like hollow points. A ban on online sales of weapons. Microstamping firearms. Bullet identification systems. Massive funding of gun buybacks. Limit firearm purchases to 1 a month. Cap the number of firearms one can own unless registered as a dealer. License all dealers. Required use of safety locks and storage in homes with children.

3. Getting radical - Things that aren't especially radical, but in our hysterical nation, seem that way - A federal law against concealed carry of firearms. A ban on large purchases of ammunition. No private sales of firearms. No firearms in homes with people who would not pass a firearms purchase background check. A confiscation of all assault weapons that were previously banned. If those have to be from some people's cold, head hands, well, that's their choice to make.

To all the guntards who would read this and huff and puff and say, "Only criminals will have guns and how will we defend ourselves," the Rude Pundit has not said you can't have a pistols in your home to take down the occasional home invader, even though you're more likely to kill yourself or a family member with it than ever have to face off against anyone Straw Dogs-style.

You own a weapon. You own a thing that is meant to kill people. Respect that. Respect that society has a stake in making sure that your mechanism of death isn't used stupidly or criminally. Statistically, you will never get the chance to be a hero. You will never stop a mass shooting. In fact, pretty much everyone who ever did stop one was a trained police or security officer or ex-military.

You might hate speed limits because you know you can drive fast safely. But all it takes is one person not as skilled as you believe you are to spin out and kill a whole bunch of us. If you speed a lot and get caught, you get your license taken away. All you gotta do is respect the speed limit, and you can drive as much as you want.

Gun laws exist not to deny you anything, but to protect the rest of us.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-to-do-post-on-gun-laws-that-will.html

112 replies, 9762 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 The Rude Pundit - What to Do: A Post on Gun Laws That Will Piss Off Guntards (Original post)
meegbear Dec 2012 OP
tj_crackersnatch Dec 2012 #1
Ganja Ninja Dec 2012 #31
bluerum Dec 2012 #2
Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #5
hack89 Dec 2012 #28
Hoyt Dec 2012 #6
haikugal Dec 2012 #9
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #10
Hoyt Dec 2012 #12
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #18
rbixby Dec 2012 #38
tkmorris Dec 2012 #13
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #16
daleanime Dec 2012 #20
bluerum Dec 2012 #94
abelenkpe Dec 2012 #3
99Forever Dec 2012 #4
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #7
hack89 Dec 2012 #30
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #32
hack89 Dec 2012 #33
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #37
hack89 Dec 2012 #39
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #41
thucythucy Dec 2012 #100
hack89 Dec 2012 #106
thucythucy Dec 2012 #108
hack89 Dec 2012 #110
thucythucy Dec 2012 #111
hunter Dec 2012 #81
Hoyt Dec 2012 #98
haikugal Dec 2012 #8
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #11
Hoyt Dec 2012 #14
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #17
letemrot Dec 2012 #47
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #59
letemrot Dec 2012 #63
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #66
Skittles Dec 2012 #15
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #19
MessiahRp Dec 2012 #23
thucythucy Dec 2012 #101
SpankMe Dec 2012 #21
calimary Dec 2012 #103
Proud Public Servant Dec 2012 #22
riverbendviewgal Dec 2012 #24
randome Dec 2012 #25
Puzzledtraveller Dec 2012 #26
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #35
randome Dec 2012 #43
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #46
randome Dec 2012 #57
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #42
randome Dec 2012 #44
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #48
randome Dec 2012 #55
hifiguy Dec 2012 #27
JoeyT Dec 2012 #29
99Forever Dec 2012 #34
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #64
99Forever Dec 2012 #65
JoeyT Dec 2012 #69
bettyellen Dec 2012 #104
JoeyT Dec 2012 #105
bettyellen Dec 2012 #107
JoeyT Dec 2012 #109
JoeyT Dec 2012 #68
99Forever Dec 2012 #76
JoeyT Dec 2012 #82
sarisataka Dec 2012 #72
JoeyT Dec 2012 #74
sarisataka Dec 2012 #80
Hoyt Dec 2012 #99
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #36
genxlib Dec 2012 #45
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #56
genxlib Dec 2012 #86
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #89
Erose999 Dec 2012 #54
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #58
Erose999 Dec 2012 #112
JoeyT Dec 2012 #70
Matariki Dec 2012 #40
AllyCat Dec 2012 #62
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #67
JoeyT Dec 2012 #71
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #49
JoeyT Dec 2012 #73
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #91
JoeyT Dec 2012 #95
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #78
JDPriestly Dec 2012 #93
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #96
rivegauche Dec 2012 #50
DollarBillHines Dec 2012 #51
lastlib Dec 2012 #52
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #53
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #60
AllyCat Dec 2012 #61
Atypical Liberal Dec 2012 #77
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #85
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #75
X_Digger Dec 2012 #79
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #83
X_Digger Dec 2012 #84
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #88
X_Digger Dec 2012 #90
friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #87
happyslug Dec 2012 #92
madinmaryland Dec 2012 #97
thucythucy Dec 2012 #102

Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:28 PM

1. tax and regulate eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tj_crackersnatch (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:03 PM

31. Yup

Taxing guns means registering guns and magazines. Taxing guns means we will have a tracking system that is updated yearly. Taxing guns gives us a means to make certain weapons and accessories prohibitive to own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:32 PM

2. Hollow point ammunition is safer than "ball" or Cu plated round point ammunition. Why do you

suggest restricting it? It is an effective and safer option for self defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluerum (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:39 PM

5. Safer for whom?

Hollow point, due to bullet expansion, is more likely to cause massive wounds and damage, which is the precise reason for the banning of hollow-point and expanding ammunition in war. Apparently "safer" = "make sure whatever you shoot dies or is in no position to get up"--which seems a bit questionable considering that we are actually not discussing self-defence. We're discussing the use of weapons for reasons other than self-defence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spider Jerusalem (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:01 PM

28. It does not go through walls

and kill innocent people. That is why cops use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluerum (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:43 PM

6. Because the "guntards" use them to expand in their targets. They don't give a shit about bystanders.


I'm using "guntards" in the spirit of the Rude Pundit. The gun cultists are always researching bullets and loads looking for the most effective (that is, most deadly and likely to maim).

People don't need that kind of stopping power (assuming they really need any kind of stopping power).

Why in the heck we've coddled the gun cultists this long is beyond me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:52 PM

9. Indeed!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:54 PM

10. More bullshit amateur psychoanalysis, Hoyt?

Or maybe now your superpowers have become so advanced, so beyond mere human, that you can ACTUALLY READ MINDS! Too funny.

A bunch of stuff explaining why you are (as usual) completely wrong about hollowpoint ammunition deleted...there's simply no point in trying to reason with you on this subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:05 PM

12. Like I said, it's time to quit coddling those who think their need to hug a bunch of guns is more


important than society's needs.

You are just so steeped in your gun fanaticism that you can't see the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:17 PM

18. Oooh! Bullshit amateur psychoanalysis AND straw man!

Want to try for the triple?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:31 PM

38. So you're saying you feel like you need to be coddled?

That's how I interpret it anyway

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:05 PM

13. I see nothing groundbreaking in his post

I'm not sure where your claims of mind reading are coming from as his only arguable assertion was that certain gun owners research and purchase particular types of rounds based upon their unique characteristics. Are you really challenging that statement?

It's too bad you deleted whatever you had to support your point, as without it your post reads as taking a position but offering nothing whatever to justify it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tkmorris (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:14 PM

16. "They don't give a shit about bystanders."

That (completely bullshit) blanket statement is utterly unsupportable unless he can either read minds or perform remote, encompassing psychoanalysis on tens of millions of people. But I expect no better from that poster, frankly...he doesn't debate or discuss, he rants.

As for hollowpoint ammunition, my deleted bit most certainly recognized that the very legitimate matter of stopping power is a factor in selection of rounds. However, so is overpenetration and the risk to bystanders. That's why cops use it (along with stopping power, of course). That's why Air Marshals use fully frangible rounds, too: even hollow points are a big risk in a pressurized aircraft cabin. It's why most experts discourage use of rifles for home defense, even with hollowpoints. Military ammunition doesn't have this worry in almost any scenario of warfare (you want to harm the people around your target almost all of the time...they're enemy soldiers, too).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:31 PM

20. I'll take your word on it...

you do seem to be the expert when it comes to rants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:55 PM

94. The Newtown killer did not use hollow points.

Police and law enforcement use them almost universally. If they are good enough for them they are good enough for me.

If someone in you neighborhood had to fire on a home invader, would you want them using a bullet that could potentially pass through walls or something that will expand and slow down quickly?

Lastly, if I have to do it, I would rather fire one or two effective rounds that stay where they were meant than half a dozen that will pass through and end up who knows where.

And lastly again, you are letting your hate get the better of what common sense you have. Think about the reality of it. If someone has to defend themselves why put them and bystanders In a more dangerous position than they are already in?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:35 PM

3. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:36 PM

4. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:46 PM

7. Federal law against concealed carry

Bingo, I want to know who to avoid when I'm out in public.

See someone with a gun, walk the other way.

To an extent I even feel that way about cops, if you're not around them they can't accidentally or mistakenly shoot you.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:02 PM

30. Not a federal issue

Licensing has always been a state issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:09 PM

32. Look, you have people starting arguments in restaraunts and then ending them with a concealed gun

I want to just be able to walk away from anyone carring a gun in public, I have the right to know they are carrying a weapon specifically designed to be lethal.

Feel the same way about knives too, anything more than a pocketknife and it should be out in sight in a scabbard like a Sikh.

If the Feds can make a fucking weed totally illegal they can tell you to carry your stupid gun where everyone else can see that you are somone to stay away from.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:13 PM

33. Can states make weed totally legal? Washington and Colorado think they can.

the law is law - the Constitution gives states powers the federal government can't infringe on. It is not complicated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:28 PM

37. Law abiding gun owners will follow federal law

If they don't then they become something other than law abiding gun owners, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:35 PM

39. So all those pot smokers in Washington and Colorado are criminals? Really?

The Federal government will not pass laws banning concealed carry - they know they do not have that power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:45 PM

41. I've been needing a new hobby I'm kind of of bored with the old ones

I'm thinking agitating for gun control might be something interesting to do, I know enough about guns not to make rank amateur mistakes in terminology.

What got me thinking about it was another forum I'm on from time to time and one poster has decided to do that and a couple of others were agreeing.

If I were you I'd tell the really nutty part of of the gun culture to take the dial off eleven on the crazy generator, normal people are starting to notice they're not wrapped entirely tight. At the moment the NRA and the Republicans are the public voice of gun owners whether you like it or not, they have the M$M you'll have to do it some other way, social media perhaps.

They sure as shootin' aren't going to listen to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:33 PM

100. So you're saying the 1934 federal law banning machine guns

is unconstitutional? Last I heard, not even the NRA thinks that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #100)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:12 PM

106. They did not ban machine guns - they are perfectly legal for private citizens to own

They are just heavily taxed. The federal government also banned the import of new weapons - which is definitely a federal power. Machine guns are not illegal, merely rare and expensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 05:45 PM

108. Okay. Then the way to go would seem to be

to tax the weapons we want to see disappear from the public square, and forbid their import (and export as well?).

Sounds like a plan!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #108)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:32 PM

110. Heller has changed things somewhat

there is a recognized right to self defense and you cannot ban entire classes.of guns.

More importantly, there is no national consensus on any gun bans yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #110)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:47 PM

111. I agree it won't be easy, and that a consensus

has to be nurtured. As for the Supreme Court, President Obama, hopefully, may well have the opportunity to replace one of the more reactionary justices on the Court, maybe even two, which could tip things in a significant way.

It is all still unwinding, all still unpredictable. But I do think the horror of last week has produced a marked change in attitude. Four years ago Democrats were still being told that supporting marriage equality was a sure ticket to electoral defeat, and the change in public attitude there has been nothing less than remarkable. I haven't seen the latest polls on this, but I do know there has been concern expressed in past years by some anti-gun control people that younger people are less attached to guns--for instance less likely to be a part of hunting culture--than their elders. And so, as with marriage equality, gays openly serving in the military, and the Dream Act, demographics may also play a role in how this unfolds.

We shall see.

Best wishes to you and yours for the holidays! And isn't it nice that the world hasn't ended after all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:20 PM

81. Concealed carry? Hmmmm... I've been thinking about a new hobby...



That and welding.



The Tree of Life is a sculpture created by four artists in Mozambique. It was commissioned and then installed in the British Museum in 2005. It was built from the surrender of 600,000 weapons that were notably converted into art following an initiative started by Bishop Dinis Sengulane. (wikipedia)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hunter (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:49 PM

98. I like the Tree of Life. Nice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:50 PM

8. Nail...meet The Rude One!!

Another good blog post from Rude...Thanks for posting this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:57 PM

11. Since when is any form of "retard" okay here?

Ah, when it's used against an unpopular minority (unanimous jury decision, no less...). Gosh, how liberal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:06 PM

14. Give us a break. You are just another gun cultist trying to deflect blame from your "hobby."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:03 PM

47. Wow... "guntard" wasn't hidden

 

but the reply to Hoyt was..?
Interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:22 PM

59. The Term "guntard" Came From The Rude's Piece

Hence the quotations. The poster did not coin the term, merely quoted from another of Rude's FABULOUS rants. I do hope you understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #59)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:31 PM

63. In the OP title there are no quotes

 

and the expression has been used several times in the thread without quotes. Having a cognitively delayed nephew, I find it offensive. And it is thought provoking what posts are hidden and which aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to letemrot (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:43 PM

66. I guess you just take your chances on an internet board. It is what it is.

Juries are like a crap roll in Vegas, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:14 PM

15. as much as I detest gun enthusiasts

I too dislike the inference to mental retardation, because I believe gun nuts are willfully ignorant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:19 PM

19. Well...at least we have that in common!

I happen to think radical anti-gunners are the ones who are willfully ignorant (although I usually agree with those proposing sensible controls)...but using "retard" as an insult is caveman-level.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:54 PM

23. He's the "RUDE PUNDIT" for a reason.

He's no supposed to be safe or politically correct. He still makes damned good points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:41 PM

101. I agree, this is a term demeaning to people with developmental disabilities,

which is why I won't rec this post. We definitely agree on that.

I'm assuming, then, that you're equally as offended by all the anti-gun control posts attempting to link the shooter with Asperger's, with the automatic assumption that the worst gun criminals are by definition "mentally ill", and with the NRA call for a national registry of people with "mental illness"?

Because all of those things are intensely demeaning and prejudiced as well, don't you think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:43 PM

21. Excellent statement at the end:

Gun laws exist not to deny you anything, but to protect the rest of us.

This would make a great bumper sticker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SpankMe (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:12 PM

103. I love this! But knowing the mentality of the bad guys, that bumper sticker on your car

would probably get your tires slashed. That's what happened with my "War is Not the Answer," "Dean for America," and "bush KNEW" stickers.

And yeah. I call 'em bad guys. Because they are. Because of their agenda. Because of what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:47 PM

22. This rocks, but I'll add one more

A gun offenders registry, similar to sex offender registries, publically identifying anyone who has violated gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:55 PM

24. Sensible man and article

I believe he tamed down his profanity in it. I have passed it on to all that I know..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:55 PM

25. 'Guntards' is juvenile.

If you want people to cooperate with new regulations, you will never achieve that by insulting them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:56 PM

26. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:25 PM

35. If you let the NRA speak for you that's how others are going to think of you

The NRA is shouting (deliberately) stupid propaganda, you'll have to shout louder than they are shouting if you don't want them representing the public face of gun owners.

Tell them to shut up if you know what's good for you, all of you gun owners who don't completely agree with the NRA propganda need to turn on them and tell to just stop and let reasonable people speak.

I'm being unreasonable because I see so many unreasonable people on the other side that I'm having a really hard time keeping from thinking of them as ghouls. Only a ghoul would think first thing of his guns when hearing of an entire classroom of sixth graders mown down en masse.

Tell the damn ghouls to shut the fuck up about training six year olds to rush shooters and quit rushing out to buy child killing machines every time lots of kids are killed, that would help improve the image of gun owners at least a bit.

I can't talk to them, they wouldn't listen to me if I had a megaphone powered by Niagara Falls, you have to do the pursuasion.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:47 PM

43. So to get stupid people to behave more rationally, we need to be more stupid?

Sorry. Insults never make the other party more cooperative. I say that as someone who would gladly vote in favor of confiscating all guns in the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:01 PM

46. OK..

Let the real ghouls keep hollering out about how God is a real gentleman and doesn't go where He isn't invited.

Normal people are starting to notice that one side is horrified by what happened and the other side is unhinged by it.

I'm on the horrified side, have been for years every time I hear of this sort of thing but this massacre hits too close to home for me.

Now we have the Motor City Madman himself, Ted Nugent speaking for gun owners and telling us it is the fault of a debased society that Adam Lanza went and slaughtered twenty first graders.

Ted Fucking Nugent is telling us about morality and debased society, Jesus Wept, who's next, Charles Manson?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:21 PM

57. There is no reasoning with the likes of Nugent, that's for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:45 PM

42. We have ways to deal with people who don't "cooperate with new regulations"

If we make new laws with respect to guns, the people who don't respect those laws are what we call "criminals" and they get to go to jail, even when they explain to the judge that a blogger on the Internet wasn't nice to them and called them guntards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:48 PM

44. I agree completely with creating much more comprehensive laws for guns.

But insulting people never helps. Why give your enemy more justification to fight harder against you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:04 PM

48. If their position is unreasonable then they appear more and more unhinged the harder they fight

They need to shut up, normal people are starting to notice they are nucking futs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:19 PM

55. There is that.

But there are also reasonable gun owners who will listen to ideas. I'm not saying we need to tiptoe around the loudmouths but we should not go out of our way to alienate the others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:00 PM

27. The Rude One hits it out of the park again.

His batting average may even be higher than Professor Krugman's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:01 PM

29. I disagree with the ban on hollow points.

Hollow points won't go through a vest, FMJ will. If anything I'd think a ban on FMJ or JHP would be more useful. A ban on hollow points won't go well. A ban on FMJ would be very easy to promote: It serves absolutely no purpose but shooting people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:22 PM

34. What is it with gunheads and...

... always trying to deflect the conversation with minutia?




Don't bother answering, that was a rhetorical question and the sane people already know why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:34 PM

64. Do you want legislation?

I am guessing yes.

Do you care what it says?

One hopes so.

Thus discussing particulars hardly serves to "deflect the conversation" unless by "conversation" you mean a bunch of people chanting the same vague thing.

Hollow point bullets can do terrible damage to people. They also don't ricochet as much, however, so all things considered one might rather that police (who operate around other people and who should never be firing a gun without the intent to stop a person immediately) use softer bullets.

Does that argument extend to private ammunition? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

It's a legitimate thing for someone to have an opinion on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:41 PM

65. Well golly gee...

..I didn't realize that you folks were writing legislation here.


Excuse me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:46 PM

69. No, apparently we don't.

What we do want is to run around screaming about how awful the NRA are and how it's terrible that they've prevented any reasonable legislation.

Never mind that to the general public the NRA and right wingers are the only ones that sound like they know what the fuck they're talking about because anyone on the left that tries to point out what we really need to ban to reduce the number of mass shootings is accused of being a "gunhead".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #69)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:21 PM

104. NOT TODAY , NOT EVER --> "the NRA and right wingers are the only ones that sound like "

the NRA and right wingers are the only ones that sound like they know what the fuck they're talking about


HA HA HA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #104)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:36 PM

105. They're awesome at taking sections of a sentence out of context too.

They sound like they know what they're talking about because too many on our side immediately label anyone that disagrees with them on gun control, even if what the person is proposing is a more strict form, as a gun nut.

A winrar is you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:44 PM

107. Today, the NRA sounded like deranged moronic selfish assholes. So there's that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #107)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:11 PM

109. Yep.

Which is good, because that's what they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:44 PM

68. Yeah, trying to craft functional legislation makes me a gunhead.

"I don't need none yer book lernin!" is the best way to get shitty legislation.

Until recently I thought being proud of being pig ignorant was something only the right does. Learn something new every day I guess.

Edited to add: It's a terrible thing when someone injects reality into running around calling people "retards".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:00 PM

76. Precisely who did I call "retards."

Always just make shit up to rant about or is this a special occasion? Who you "crafting functional legislation" for? Are you a Congressional aid? Senatorial?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:20 PM

82. You didn't.

You claimed you were having a conversation. A conversation that quite a bit was people calling other people retards and guntards and trying to justify it.

I'm not crafting functional legislation for anyone. When we start trying to throw our support behind gun control laws, it'd be nice if those laws actually controlled guns instead of banning cosmetic features or things some dude on the internet told us was super-badass.

You did call me a gunhead, which was more amusing than insulting. If went to the gungeon and posted a picture of the only gun I even own ammunition for (Of which I don't remember the manufacturer's name. Whatever was cheapest.) they'd laugh me out of the place.

The other day I made an OP (Which sank like a rock because it was godawfully long ) that was proposing legislation FAR stronger than anything that's been proposed before. Shit that might actually make the NRA make good on that revolution they keep screeching about. I'm far from a gun nut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:55 PM

72. Hollow points

and JHP are two versions of the same thing.

You are quite correct, to get effective legislation you need to consult people knowledgeable on the subject. In this case, 'gun nuts'.

Those 'gun nuts' will not only help to get the definitions correct so there won't be a hole so big a bus can go through it, but they would also help sway other gun owners, who are suspicious of new control legislation, to support it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:58 PM

74. Yep.

I'm 100% behind gun control laws. I want effective laws that ban stuff that kills people, not laws that ban cosmetics.

I generally think of stuff like .22 LR when I think hollow points. I know JHP technically falls under that banner, but for some reason I never think that until I'm reminded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:16 PM

80. A very unfortunate fact is

to craft good gun control laws you have to delve into topics most people would rather ignore. Rather than bore/shock DU with details, you can look up why hollow point is better than FMJ. It is grusome reasonig but accurate.


I like to include very graphic descriptions of post-shooting scenes when I give carry classes. It has made more than one student ask to drop; I always happily refund their fee. I would like courses to include crime scene video, like the old accident videos. A reality check can eliminate those who are bluster or not suited for the responsibility

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #72)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:56 PM

99. True, but only because gunsters will always push the envelop to satisfy their need

for the most lethal weapons their money will buy. "Spirit of law" means nothing to producers, sellers, or buyers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:28 PM

36. Thoughts on the proposals...

 

1. The basics - stuff that the majority of the country agrees on: Background checks for all gun sales.

Yes, we need to make this happen. Right now, nearly anyone can buy a gun through a private sale with no background check. Universal licensing will do this.

A ban on all assault weapons and magazines over 10 rounds.

I would take this one step further. We need to restrict (not ban) all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines. Because let's face it, Friday's mass shooting could just has easily been done with a 7-round 1911 pistol. You can drop and insert fresh magazines in 3-5 seconds.

I think we should make such weapons Title III weapons that require a $200 tax to own.

Every gun registered.

No problem. For private sales, have a web site that sellers can go to to record the details of the sale and verify the buyer's license.

Licenses to use guns, renewable by test every 2 years.

No problem. However, if I have to have a background check and test to get a license, there is no reason to have firearms bought through the mail shipped through an FFL anymore for a background check. I should be able to buy guns through the mail once again delivered straight to my door.

A ban on some kinds of bullets, like hollow points.

The author doesn't know what he is talking about here. Hollow points are safer than ball ammo, which is generally just used for target practice.

Why is it safer? Because hollow points are designed to expand and stay in the person you are shooting at. Ball ammunition is more likely to pass through the person you are shooting at and hit someone else.

A ban on online sales of weapons.

Why? If I am qualified to buy one from the corner store, why not from any store in the country?

Microstamping firearms. Bullet identification systems.

I think these are wastes of time and will do nothing to deter crimes, nor aid in their prosecution. Some cities have tried the ballistic database thing and it costs far more than it achieves.

Massive funding of gun buybacks.

I agree this is a fair way to get guns out of circulation, provided that you cut off the sale of new ones.

Limit firearm purchases to 1 a month.

I've never had a problem with this. Anyone who is regularly buying more than one firearm a month is a 1 percenter.

Cap the number of firearms one can own unless registered as a dealer.

I don't think this achieves anything. A person with 12 guns is no more dangerous than a person with 2.

License all dealers.

They already are.

Required use of safety locks and storage in homes with children.

I would go farther with this. I think all firearms should be secured in a minimum-state-requirement safe such as the CDOJ-approved ones Stack-On sells for about $150. We could even offer tax refunds for people who buy them.

A federal law against concealed carry of firearms.

I do not support this. The evidence here is clear - people with CCW permits are hardly ever involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime.

A ban on large purchases of ammunition.

Define a "large purchase". I routinely shoot 200 rounds in a weekend. I like to keep at least 1000 rounds on hand so I don't have to run to the store every time I want to go shooting.

No private sales of firearms.

Nope. Can't support that one.

No firearms in homes with people who would not pass a firearms purchase background check.

I don't have a problem with this. And I would go one farther - no firearms in the homes of people on certain psychotropic medications.

A confiscation of all assault weapons that were previously banned.

Good luck with that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:01 PM

45. Forgive me if I missed something

But there seems to be something contradictory about your statements

1. License all dealers. They already are.

2. No private sales of firearms. Nope. Can't support that one.


Either all sales go through licensed professionals or they don't.

As I understand it, the real problem is the gray market of unofficial gun dealers pretending to make private sales to avoid certain kinds of legislation.

Like I say, forgive me if I missed something because I am not an expert.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genxlib (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:19 PM

56. Clarifications.

 

But there seems to be something contradictory about your statements

1. License all dealers. They already are.

2. No private sales of firearms. Nope. Can't support that one.

Either all sales go through licensed professionals or they don't.

As I understand it, the real problem is the gray market of unofficial gun dealers pretending to make private sales to avoid certain kinds of legislation.

Like I say, forgive me if I missed something because I am not an expert.


You have been misled. The problem is frequently called a "gunshow loophole" but it has nothing to do with gun shows. It is all about private sales. The federal government cannot regulate the sale of private property between two people in the same state. And most states do not regulate it, either.

Thus anyone can buy a gun from a private seller, at a gun show, or, more easily, through their local paper or online classified ads, with no background check.

To solve this problem, I would do as Illinois already does - all firearm owners must have a license. And when a private seller sells a firearm, they must record the buyer's license info and retain a record of it for 10 years. We could even have a web site where sellers could record the details of the sale and simultaneously verify the validity of the buyer's license.

Sellers are motivated to obey this law because selling to someone without a license is a very good indicator that this is a prohibited person and will likely do something bad with the gun, resulting in it getting traced back to the last legitimate owner.

The OP is suggesting disallowing all private sales, and I disagree with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:54 PM

86. With all due respect

I still agree with the OP.

The tightening of all other background checks and registrations will make it important to close off these private transfers.

the tighter the controls, the bigger this loophole becomes. It would be a target for clean record people to pass guns along to people who could not pass the check otherwise.

Perhaps licensing would curtail this practice but it seems there are enough people that would still participate to make it to big of a risk.

I understand that there are constitutional issues on regulating intrastate commerce but there must be ways around that for things like drugs and other tightly controlled substances.

It would be simple enough to have licensed dealers simply provide the brokerage for a fee. Citizen A wants to sell to Citizen B then Dealer C has to certify the transaction after doing the background check and enforcing whatever other restrictions are put in place.

It may sound inconvenient but I still believe the Authorities need to know where every gun is and who the operator is throughout its entire existence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genxlib (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:13 PM

89. On private sales.

 

The entire reason why we currently have to use a licensed dealer as a middle man in private transfers from out of state is to conduct a background check.

If I am licensed, I have already had the background check, there is no reason for a middle man anymore.

Private sellers can record the transaction themselves. They are motivated to do so because selling to someone without a license is a pretty good indicator that that gun will be used for bad things, and the police will recover it, and it will get traced back to the last known owner.

I see this is the perk that firearm owners get for compromising to be licensed in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:17 PM

54. Too much potential for fraud with online sales and online registration. I work for the state and


they can't even secure my damn E-mail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:22 PM

58. If the banks can figure out how to pass finanancial credentials, this is a solveable problem.

 

I don't see the problem here. If I want to buy a gun from a website I should just be able to upload or enter my FOID information, which will provide the address for shipping the firearm, which makes it difficult to ship it to someone else, for example. And the firearm has just become registered to my FOID - me - so I am unlikely to unlawfully transfer the gun to someone else.

With universal licensing, sellers are motivated to comply with transfer laws because otherwise the gun may well end up traced back to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #58)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 10:02 AM

112. I've had 2 instances of fraud on my bank account in the past year. Nothing online is secure. Nothing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:52 PM

70. "No private sales of firearms"

would be easier to pass and easier to enforce as "All private sales of firearms must be registered prior to transfer of the firearm."

That way if Bill sells Dave his pistol and Dave takes that pistol and kills Steve, we know exactly who shot Steve. And if Bill didn't register the transfer, then Bill and Dave shot Steve.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:36 PM

40. It's harder to buy cold and sinus medicine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:31 PM

62. Hell, it's harder to VOTE in an election!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:43 PM

67. Maybe at a cold medicine show it is, but not in a store.

I am a big fan of psudophedrine and resent the pointless government intrusion in my sinus pill purchases, but it is obviously not harder to buy Advil Allergy Sinus at Walmart than it is to buy a gun at Walmart.

It is, however, easier to buy a BB gun or a holster than it is to buy Advil Allergy Sinus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matariki (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:54 PM

71. That's because there's a

shitload of money to be made off the war on drugs. The money's on the other side in this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:04 PM

49. The gun registry should be open for public viewing.

If there were an emergency in my community that actually required the help of someone with a gun, I would at least want to know who to call.

And trust me. You do not want me using a gun. I just don't have the physical capacity to use one correctly. Neither do a lot of other people, especially small children and elderly people.

If I have to live among gun owners, I'd at least like to know where to find one of them who is trustworthy in an emergency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:57 PM

73. That would be a bad idea.

It would be a "Who you should rob" list. Guns sell for a lot of money on the black market, and it would put a lot more guns in the hands of criminals.

Other than that, I wouldn't have much of a problem being on that list. I freely admit to owning a firearm, even if I never carry one and never use one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:35 PM

91. But what kind of militia do we have if membership in it is secret?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #91)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:56 PM

95. The kind that isn't shooting someone

every other week for trying to break into their house. You think they're paranoid now? Man they'd be shooting the meter reader and the mailman if their name was on a list that was publicly available.

That and the first time a shooter admitted he got his guns by burgling someone whose name he got off the list there would be a massive push to repeal that and any other control we passed with it. I'd rather have laws we can enforce and can keep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:02 PM

78. Invitation to theft.

 

It's an invitation for theft of firearms and an easy way to find places to rob with no guns to protect them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:37 PM

93. But the Second Amendment grants the right to bear arms in order to insure we have a militia.

What kind of militia keeps the names of its members a secret?

Let's say there were an armed revolt in my area. If there is no list of people who are authorized to have guns and who are there to defend our country, how would I know who to trust? How would I know who was in the militia and who was not? Who had a legal gun and who did not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:14 PM

96. The kind that fears its government.

 

What kind of militia keeps the names of its members a secret?

The kind that fears its government.

Let's say there were an armed revolt in my area. If there is no list of people who are authorized to have guns and who are there to defend our country, how would I know who to trust? How would I know who was in the militia and who was not? Who had a legal gun and who did not?

That's simple - all able-bodied men aged 17-45 are in the militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:06 PM

50. I fucking love you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:09 PM

51. Hey, I bought sake from a sidewalk vending machine in Tokyo in the wee hours of the morning

I wonder how that would work in Oakland...

Last I checked, the US and Japan have slightly different societal mores.

I'm all for what RP is saying, but comparing the US to Japan is kinda apples and oranges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:13 PM

52. Close down gun shows!!!

All sales/transfers must be through federally-licensed gun dealers, entered on national database. Every gun titled, just like cars.

Special permits to purchase hollow-point ammo; armor-piercing ammo banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:14 PM

53. K&R for the Rude Pundit. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:26 PM

60. LOL

 

just lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:30 PM

61. And while we are at it, require gun owners to purchase liability insurance

for themselves and/or their guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:01 PM

77. No problem. It's cheap, and you will probably get it as part of your NRA membership.

 

This requirement would likely drive NRA membership up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #77)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:51 PM

85. If your gun is stolen/missing and it can be shown you were not reasonably prudent

Your insurance would then cover any damages done by your gun in that event, if someone does a mass slaughter with it your insurance pays *everything*.

That should drive the premium up a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:59 PM

75. Good ideas, rude guy, but they still won't get us to Japan's low level of gun deaths

As long as there are hundreds of millions of guns floating around America, the gun carnage will continue.

Repeal the Second Amendment NOW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:09 PM

79. Our *non*-gun homicide rate is higher than Japan's *total* rate, too.

So even if you assume that not a single murder that had been committed with a gun would not have happened absent a gun, it would *still* be more than Japan.

Of course, if you also want Japan's virtual police state, you feel free.

eta: And nevermind about Japan's suicide rate, which is leagues beyond even us. Google 'muri shinju' sometime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:43 PM

83. As I said, 'Japan's low level of gun deaths'. Gun-murder is the lazy man's way of death.

At least make the killers work for their bloodthirst.

Ubiquitous lethal killing machines make splattering human brains on walls far too easy. Time for REAL meaningful action to reduce the gun carnage.


Repeal the Second Amendment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:46 PM

84. It's only "gun carnage" that bothers you. Okay.

I mean, if you're beat to death with a bat, you're not as dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #84)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:02 PM

88. People don't have a constitutional right to own a bat. Guns are oh-so-special

I have a far better chance of fighting back against an attacker with a bat.

Sandy Hook teachers would have had a fighting chance against a bat-wielding disturbed man. No way would the death toll be 26 human lives.

Damnitall, I have the human right to live free of fear of the next Nancy Lanza's arsenal of lethal, quick, powerful, overwhelming weapons that present a horrific risk to me and my family. Time to speak up about it.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #88)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:17 PM

90. No shit, people don't have a constitional right to a bat..

.. and repealing the second amendment won't make the right to arms go away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dems to Win (Reply #83)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:57 PM

87. Article V of the US Constitution awaits your attention.

Better get busy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:35 PM

92. Lets look at your proposals

1. The basics - stuff that the majority of the country agrees on:

Background checks for all gun sales.

Present law, except for transfers among non-dealers. in fact it looks like the weapons used in the recent massacre were all purchased with a dealer and that meet the buyer went through background check

A ban on all assault weapons and magazines over 10 rounds.

This first will require to define "Assault weapons". Since 1986 ALL AUTOMATIC WEAPONS HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL TO BUY NEW, now existing automatic weapons are permitted to be owned and sold, but through Dealers and are licensed to deal with automatic weapons AND with the payment of a $200 tax. The Tax has been on the book since 1934.

Thus if you define "Assault Weapons" as being the same weapons the Military uses, they are already banned and have been since 1986. If you define "Assault Weapons" as a semi-automatic weapon able to use magazines larger the 10 rounds, that includes 22 rim-fire rifles with tubular magazines. If you add "Detachable" magazine, 22 rim-fire magazines are technically "removable" you pull them out, load the weapon one at a time, then put the spring operated tubular magazine back. This was the problem the original Assault Weapon ban kept running across, everything used in an assault rifle can also be used in a 22. Thus you ended up with the list of weapons and Characteristics that made the law a joke, for it permitted people to work around the list. For example, you had AK-47s that were semi-automatic and used a different detachable magazine from that used by other AK-47s. Thus the problem is NOT the concept but the details. Furthermore, if the Second Amendment means anything it covers such weapons and you do NOT have the votes to repeal the second (or the votes on the Supreme Court to restrict the second).

Every gun registered.

Been the law since 1938. why re-pass what is already the law?

Licenses to use guns, renewable by test every 2 years. \

And how would you enforce this? Tie up the local police collecting all the guns the owners do not renew their license for? In my home state of Pennsylvania, the State Police have the duty to collect every license plate of any car whose insurance has lapsed AND not replaced. This has been the law for almost 40 years and when it comes to Philadelphia the State Police no longer even try to pull those plates, given the rate of lack of insurance. The State Police say, yes it is their duty, but they have more important things to do. Philadelphia is the worse offender in this regard, but it is a state wide problem. The same with your proposed license to use guns, what happens when the gun owner does NOT renew the license AND the Police refuse to do anything for they have other priories? Given this is a license to own, and the Bill of Rights is still the law of the land, the Police can NOT even enter a house UNLESS they have probably Cause that the weapon is still in that house. Having a license does NOT give probably cause, if you left the license lapse because you destroyed the weapon. Plus if someone obtain the weapon, but had to have a license before he did so, if there is NOT amnesty provision, any requirement to get a license would be self incrimination and thus unconstitutional. i.e. the owner of the weapon would NOT have tot get a license, if he can be charged with merely having an unlicensed weapon. This is unlike a license to drive, for you do NOT need it if you drive only on your property, if you are on the public road the Police have the right to stop you and ask for your license to drive, but if the police only see you drive on your property they have NO right to ask for such a license.

The key is the license has to be tied in with some PUBLIC USE, for example to shoot at a local shooting range. Remember I am NOT talking about a license to carry in a public area (that is similar to a driver's license, which is a license to drive on a public road) or to operate a vehicle on a public road (Such as the license plate on your car) but what you are asking for, a license to own, even if the firearm is ONLY used on my property. That requires a lot more effort to enforce, for unlike operation in public areas, a license to own includes use even on private property and with that distinction all of the Bill of Rights kick in.

A ban on some kinds of bullets, like hollow points.

This makes no sense, soft points and hollow points are REQUIRED if you are hunting deer in most states. Thus you are asking the Government to ban what is required to be used. The problem is what the bullet HITS not the bullets itself.

A ban on online sales of weapons. Been banned since 1968, except for weapons designed AND built before 1898 (Or designed NOT to use modern ammunition), why re-pass what is already the law?

Micro-stamping firearms. I assume you want to have the weapon put some sort of unique mark on any bullets it fires. The problem here is barrels is where such a mark would have to be install, and barrels wear, thus changing the mark. Ballistics are a good source, but only if the rounds fired are within a few fired rounds of each other, if more then a few, the ballistic marks would have changed due to firing more rounds OR even just cleaning the barrel

Bullet identification systems. You understand we are talking about millions of rounds fired in the US. Given the number of rounds fired, you will quickly out run whatever system you devised to do such Bullet ID, unless you go with huge badges with the same ID, but then you are back where we are today, often we know the Make and Model of the weapon use, but can NOT tell if one particular weapon fired that round. With a bullet ID involving a large batch of bullets we will know the round was fired out of a batch of a million rounds, which in most cases will be useless.

Massive funding of gun buybacks.

Most gun buybacks have produce some very old weapons and thus provides a method to collect such weapons from people who no longer want them. The problem is, it is rare for such weapons to be used by criminals. Most criminals get their weapons either by theft OR by buying them from drug dealers (another profit center for them). Will do some good, by removing some weapons no one wants anymore, but minimal effect on criminal use of firearms.

Limit firearm purchases to 1 a month.

This has been kicked around for years, mostly because of the fear that people are buying pistols to resell to criminals. Some collectors may want to buy more then one weapon in a month, but it is rare, thus not much of problem for people who want a firearm. In almost none of the cases of mass murder would this have had any effect, for the simple reason most mass murders plan for months ahead and thus one weapon per month is more then sufficient for them. For those buying more then one weapon, given that weapons are registered and have been since 1938, with modern computers easy to track and see where the weapons end up. If in the hands of a criminal, then the buyer should be questioned, if more then one show up in the hands of a criminals, prosecuted unless the buyer can clearly show the buyer had nothing to do with the weapon getting into the hands of a criminal.

Cap the number of firearms one can own unless registered as a dealer.

Again, a solution looking for a problem. It is rare for someone who owns a lot of weapons to use then illegally, and when they do it is generally just one weapon used. In the recent shooting the shooter carried three weapons, but ended up using just one. Most farmers want at least three weapons, a shotgun for general use, a 22 for small pests and a rifle for larger animal control (and if they do actual hunting another weapon for that game). Thus I can see a farmer have a 12 gauge Shotgun, a 22, a 30-30 Winchester, a 30-06 for harder to get close to targets, and if they do hunting of larger animals, a 375 Magnum. In the case of 22s, many farmers end up with 2 to 3, just as they adjust what pest they are after. Thus you are looking at five rounds as a minimum, with many farmers (and other rural residents) having more and using them sometime during the year. Thus sooner or later any cap because an arbitrary number, often just encouraging people to work around that number. Thus law enforcement will be tied up with such "work arounds" instead of going after people who maybe actually doing some crime. As I pointed out you only need one weapon to do a lot of damage, in the recent killing the killer only used one weapon (the other weapons were on him, but he did not fire them).

License all dealers. This has been the law since 1968.

Required use of safety locks and storage in homes with children.

The makers of Safety Locks actually discourage the use of such locks on loaded guns, on the grounds the lock being locked or unlocked may actually fire the weapon.
Thus safe storage of weapons is storage WITHOUT a lock. The best way to store a weapon is the Guns on one place minus their bolts, with the Ammunition in a third place and the bolts in some secure location. The National Guard does this all the time, store the bolts to their weapons at a local police station, while keeping their weapons in their own armory. At present this is the law in all states, but it is NOT criminal to violate this law, the parents are held liable when a child ends up with a weapon and someone gets hurt. A safe is an expensive and useless effort when compared to just keeping the above three things apart EXCEPT when the weapon is to be used.

A federal law against concealed carry of firearms. Congress can do this, on the grounds carry a weapon affects interstate commerce. On the other hand, passing such a bill must also includes the exceptions to the bill, for no one wants their TAX PAYER PAID POLICE PROTECTING BANKS and other business, when the Police are busy doing other law enforcement duties. Thus you have to make an exception for bank guards and other Security Guards. You have to make exception for people, who can convince congress, they need a firearm. Even when most states ban concealed weapons, exceptions existed for certain groups of people so they can perform they function (often having to do with large bank amounts). Private Security forces will also have to be given an exception, unless you want your tax dollars paying for the protection of the rich, who may be afraid of being kidnapped. These are the type of decisions State Legislatures do all the time, we may disagree with them, but someone has to make those decisions. If you issue a Federal Ban on Concealed carry, then Congress has to make those decisions, and do you want Congress to make such decisions. We may hate how the NRA has lobbied the States to expand the exceptions, but transferring the decision making from the States to Congress does NOT sound like a good idea to me.

A ban on large purchases of ammunition.

This is another solution looking for a problem to solve. The recent shooters were all known to buy a lot of ammunition, but if you capped them, they would have purchased at the cap level for they had months to plan for their attack. A lot of people fire a lot of ammunition when they go shooting, so whatever number you pick as a cap, is going to have to be more then the 26 dead people in the latest shooting. What is going to be the cap? In Archery, archers shoot 60 arrows, this was also the standard combat load, in regard to musket and later rifle ammunition. for most armies till after the US Civil War. Thus to meet the standard of the US Civil War, you have to leave people carry at least 60 rounds, which is over TWICE the number of people killed in the recent shooting. Most modern firearms have higher rates of fire, the Model 1903 Springfield fires 14 rounds per minute, 1 to 3 times the Civil War rate, thus the combat load in WWI was 50 rounds in 10 five round stripper clips (With additional clips available for generally a total of 200 rounds). During WWII, the M1 Rifle fires 20-30 rounds per minutes, and a ammunition belt of 80 rounds (With additional ammunition carried elsewhere total of about 200-300 rounds).

To "qualify" on a weapon, you end of firing 20-50 rounds (depending on what skill level is demanded) with additional ammunition fired so to get the shooter up to standard. Thus most shooters, will go through anywhere from 20-200 bullets at the range (with some doing a lot more). Thus, once you decide that you have to work around such shooters, you are looking at a cap of no less then 200 rounds, and more likely 1000 rounds and at that level you are already above what the shooters had on them in almost all of the mass shootings over the last 20 years.

My point is just because someone orders a lot of ammunition does NOT mean he will kill anyone. In many ways restricting ammunition sales may cause such shooters to conserve they ammunition and order in the largest lot and save it for whatever mass shooting they are planning. In effect you are self defeating your self by, again, wasting time tracking something that in most cases will NOT be involved in any criminal activity AND be destroyed by its use.

No private sales of firearms.

95% of all crimes involving weapons involve pistols, and in most states those MUST be sold through dealers or police agencies (including Sheriff department, which is how pistols sales In Pennsylvania are handled between private parties). When it comes to pistols, may have some merit, but most rifles and shotgun sales (which are still 60% of the fire arms market) will produce a lot of paperwork, tie up police resources, for data that will probably never be used. Making Pistol sales through dealers or police makes sense, but it is a waste of resources to do so for rifles and shotguns given the disparity between how pistols and Rifles and Shotguns are used in crime in the US.

No firearms in homes with people who would not pass a firearms purchase background check.

This is a real problem, you have an equal protection of the law issue here. How can the law treat two people different based on who they are living with? If the firearm owner, lives with someone who can not own a firearm, but the firearm owner can secure the weapon from that person, how is that different from someone who does the same thing, but living in a house with everyone able to buy a firearm? This is equal protection of the law, people in similar situations must be treated the same UNLESS there is a good reason to treat them differently. In my theoretical situation, the ability of ANYONE but the owner of the weapon, getting their hands on the weapon is nil, thus no need for different treatment and thus such a law fails under the Equal Protection of the Laws concept of the 14th Amendment.

This is similar to your desire for a ban on weapons in homes with children, if the weapon is secure, not a problem, the issue is security of the weapon and such security is the law today, through it only is a Civil Law violation (you can sue for money IF you are harmed) not a criminal law violation. The law today is that it does NOT matter whether you lived in a house with someone who could NOT own a weapon, or on a house where everyone can own a weapon, IF a weapon you own is used to harm someone AND it can be shown you are at fault, you are liable even if everyone in your home were legally able to own a weapon.

A confiscation of all assault weapons that were previously banned.

If the weapon was banned it was NOT imported (or imported prior to the ban and under the law NOT banned for they were "Grandfathered" into the law). Thus we get back to my statement as to what is an "Assault Weapon" and that depends on how you define it. We run into the same problem Congress did in 1994 with the Assault Weapon ban, in their effort to ban such weapons but not other weapons, you ended up with a mess of a law, a law that was easy to work around and such work arounds made the law useless. Go to the top for the rest of this argument for that fits here to.

Now, lets talk about EFFECTIVE laws.

1. Centralized tracking of large sales of Ammunition, 1000 or more at a time. The reason for the tracking is with modern computers you can see if someone is a long time buyer of such ammunition and thus to be ignored, or a recent buyer of a large amount and thus needs to be check out to see what is up (Most check up would be check up on other such transactions listed below)/

2. Centralized tracking of sales of detachable magazines. Magazines wear out, thus people who buy them will buy a couple here and there to replace what no longer works. If someone buys more then lets say five AND purchased a lot of Ammunition, time for a closer look.

3. Establishment of Shooting ranges run by the Police, these should be free to the public, but they have to register. The purpose of these ranges is to see who is shooting, someone who comes in shoot once AND does NOT meet the above two tests, not a concern, but someone who comes once AND meets the above two test, someone to check up on. Please note, in many ways this is a key part of this plan, for if gives shooters a free place to shoot and thus a list of people who shoot BUT are NOT that sociable to join a shooting club. Local Law Enforcement could ask local shooting clubs if they want to join into the system, but also tell them they do NOT have to (Thus get around those people who are radical about privacy and who have join such clubs).

The above, will permit the tracking of people with high capacity weapons (and pistols) and how they use them. This data, once it runs through a computer, can show trends and who to check up on and who is just someone who shoots a lot of ammunition. A tie in with mental health records would be a big plus (I am assuming that no one with a criminal record will show up, for it is illegal for felons to have firearms, but if they do they can be arrested).

Yes, the Federal Government will have to spend some money to make the above system work, but given today's computers it is NOT impossible. Do NOT track every round of Ammunition or every Ammo Magazine, that would be a waste of money, but record them and every so often run the program to see what drops out. This is similar to the IRS program, which looks for certain features of tax fraud and when the computer picks such indicators up, they send the return to an agent to look at.

Other factors would have to be part of the program, for example age (most shooters are young, i.e. in their teens or 20s), Sex (most shooters are male), work status (Most shooters do NOT have a job), education (Most shooters have a spotty school record, finish high school but have problems in collage), married or lives with someone (most Shooters were single and lived alone or with their parents). Purchasing of other items, including more then normal amount of gasoline, fertilizers and other items should be in the program (again based on the base history of such shooters, based on research on such shooters).

The actual check should be passive, if possible (i.e. check up on the person whose name dropped out of the program for other factors, including relationship with other people, teachers and Law Enforcement officers who had dealings with the person in question. If that does not resolve all the issues, then a personal check and finally an interview. If mental health issues come up, look into providing such mental health care.

The above will provide the data needed to, hopefully, catch these shooters before they do a shooting. These proposals are NOT cheap, for it requires people to load the data (which can be done at point of sale, by requiring any computerized cash register to send such data AND to require such computerized cash registered at all stores, the vast majority of cash registered can do so now, they send their own data to central computers all the time). On the other hand, the above will give law enforcement the data to prevent such shootings. Bans tend to force such people to illegal means to do the same, but the above will NOT do so, thus we can see them operate.

Yes, I know the above will put a lot of innocent people's data into the same data base, but that happens today with the IRS AND every time you use a Credit Card, thus NOT a big concern of mine. Use of that data is a Concern, but that best can be handled by making sure the law setting up the above, restricts who has use of it. Given that Credit Card Companies already have this data, I can NOT see any harm in permitting the Federal Government to use that information for law enforcement purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:14 PM

97. Kicked and FUCKING recommended for the RUDE PUNDIT!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meegbear (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:06 PM

102. While I agree with much of this OP, "guntard" is a demeaning slur

to people with developmental disabilities.

I've spent the past week calling out pro-gun advocates for making demeaning statements about people with mental illness in general, and people with Asperger's in particular, in their efforts to deflect the discussion away from the role guns played in the horror at Newtown. Many of the comments made about Asperger's and mental illness have reflected an appalling disregard for the rights and sensibilities of people with disabilities.

I feel therefore that it would be hypocritical of me not to call out the use of a term such as "guntard" simply because I agree with the gist of the OP.

I understand the Rude Pundit specializes in being, well, rude, but there's a line that separates "rude" from "abusive" and I think the RP crosses it here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread