HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Everyone saying the NRA &...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:44 PM

 

Everyone saying the NRA "solution" won't work because Columbine had armed gaurds too...

For, everyone saying that the NRA's proposal is bullshit and can't work because the 1999 Columbine shooting had armed security guards (which clearly didn't work) so obviously it's a poor solution...

What do you propose? An Assault Weapons Ban? Well, I hate to shit in your cornflakes, but Connecticut has an AWB in effect (since 1993) along with registration of any Assault Weapons. That's right, the legal .223 Bushmaster murder weapon owned by Lanza's Mother was 100% compliant with the CT AWB. The rifle used in the CT school shootings was NOT an "Assault Weapon". An assault weapon ban would not have disarmed Lanza.

So by the logic of Columbine had armed guards and they failed, so the NRA 'armed guards' proposal will fail too... I guess we can rule out an Assault Weapon Ban from stopping these kinds of school shootings as well. Not only that, but lets not forget that the 1999 Columbine shooting occurred during the 1994-2004 Federal AWB as well.

Given that the rifle was categorically NOT an assault weapon, the only other especially destructive thing about it was the 30 round mag. Even using a few 10 round magazines in that weapon, do you think the outcome would have been drastic different or acceptable in any regard? Reloading takes only a second or two. Cho @ VT used low capacity pistol magazines and reloaded dozens of times. Harris used 10 round magazines in his weapon @ columbine. Given the logic against the NRA proposal... I guess 30 round magazines bans are worthless too.

Just sayin.

218 replies, 10555 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 218 replies Author Time Post
Reply Everyone saying the NRA "solution" won't work because Columbine had armed gaurds too... (Original post)
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 OP
valerief Dec 2012 #1
Walk away Dec 2012 #11
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #45
Walk away Dec 2012 #106
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #114
Walk away Dec 2012 #123
Tumbulu Dec 2012 #150
Scootaloo Dec 2012 #154
piratefish08 Dec 2012 #176
HiPointDem Dec 2012 #178
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #181
Ed Suspicious Dec 2012 #203
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #115
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #169
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #183
Democracyinkind Dec 2012 #185
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #195
valerief Dec 2012 #74
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #97
Walk away Dec 2012 #105
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #125
Marr Dec 2012 #162
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #104
Walk away Dec 2012 #129
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #158
krispos42 Dec 2012 #107
graham4anything Dec 2012 #2
Recursion Dec 2012 #4
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #13
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #21
graham4anything Dec 2012 #24
spin Dec 2012 #80
graham4anything Dec 2012 #84
spin Dec 2012 #91
NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #184
spin Dec 2012 #196
NNN0LHI Dec 2012 #198
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #100
spin Dec 2012 #197
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #206
caraher Dec 2012 #30
former-republican Dec 2012 #34
Skip Intro Dec 2012 #49
Care Acutely Dec 2012 #152
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #59
graham4anything Dec 2012 #81
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #92
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #108
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #103
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #190
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #199
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #201
DisgustipatedinCA Dec 2012 #212
BainsBane Dec 2012 #173
countryjake Dec 2012 #174
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #191
countryjake Dec 2012 #213
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #218
wercal Dec 2012 #142
rl6214 Dec 2012 #159
upaloopa Dec 2012 #3
pkdu Dec 2012 #5
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #6
barnabas63 Dec 2012 #9
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #14
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #27
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #47
Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #65
Confusious Dec 2012 #157
rl6214 Dec 2012 #160
Confusious Dec 2012 #171
beevul Dec 2012 #208
Confusious Dec 2012 #211
rl6214 Dec 2012 #214
Confusious Dec 2012 #217
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #102
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #111
morningfog Dec 2012 #119
Skittles Dec 2012 #31
madinmaryland Dec 2012 #122
JaneyVee Dec 2012 #7
Hoyt Dec 2012 #10
Recursion Dec 2012 #23
Hoyt Dec 2012 #53
Hoyt Dec 2012 #8
hack89 Dec 2012 #60
Hoyt Dec 2012 #61
hack89 Dec 2012 #70
Hoyt Dec 2012 #82
hack89 Dec 2012 #86
Hoyt Dec 2012 #89
hack89 Dec 2012 #90
Hoyt Dec 2012 #94
hack89 Dec 2012 #96
rl6214 Dec 2012 #161
Hoyt Dec 2012 #186
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #12
former-republican Dec 2012 #19
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #20
Recursion Dec 2012 #26
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #37
Recursion Dec 2012 #41
former-republican Dec 2012 #44
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #51
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #56
former-republican Dec 2012 #72
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #182
former-republican Dec 2012 #58
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #62
former-republican Dec 2012 #75
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #112
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #117
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #124
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #127
rl6214 Dec 2012 #163
Historic NY Dec 2012 #15
spanone Dec 2012 #16
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #113
bettyellen Dec 2012 #131
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #135
bettyellen Dec 2012 #137
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #145
bettyellen Dec 2012 #153
rl6214 Dec 2012 #164
bettyellen Dec 2012 #168
rl6214 Dec 2012 #215
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #200
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #205
Thinkingabout Dec 2012 #210
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #17
Recursion Dec 2012 #28
rl6214 Dec 2012 #165
treestar Dec 2012 #18
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #116
jmg257 Dec 2012 #22
rustydog Dec 2012 #25
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #33
jmg257 Dec 2012 #38
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #50
rustydog Dec 2012 #141
Recursion Dec 2012 #39
jmg257 Dec 2012 #43
Recursion Dec 2012 #52
jmg257 Dec 2012 #63
former-republican Dec 2012 #83
naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #42
elehhhhna Dec 2012 #29
XRubicon Dec 2012 #32
BeyondGeography Dec 2012 #46
XRubicon Dec 2012 #71
Algebra Palin Dec 2012 #35
Downwinder Dec 2012 #36
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #40
Downwinder Dec 2012 #48
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #54
immoderate Dec 2012 #76
rl6214 Dec 2012 #166
Downwinder Dec 2012 #175
rl6214 Dec 2012 #216
LostInAnomie Dec 2012 #55
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #118
MichiganVote Dec 2012 #57
randome Dec 2012 #64
Recursion Dec 2012 #67
randome Dec 2012 #180
green for victory Dec 2012 #155
Aerows Dec 2012 #66
Recursion Dec 2012 #69
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #121
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #68
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #73
Livluvgrow Dec 2012 #85
HangOnKids Dec 2012 #98
Livluvgrow Dec 2012 #128
NYC_SKP Dec 2012 #207
morningfog Dec 2012 #120
VOX Dec 2012 #77
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #78
jeff47 Dec 2012 #79
atreides1 Dec 2012 #87
yewberry Dec 2012 #88
renie408 Dec 2012 #93
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #99
renie408 Dec 2012 #110
Glassunion Dec 2012 #138
rustydog Dec 2012 #144
Glassunion Dec 2012 #149
OneGrassRoot Dec 2012 #172
TheCowsCameHome Dec 2012 #95
Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #101
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #109
Kaleva Dec 2012 #139
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #126
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #140
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #148
Agnosticsherbet Dec 2012 #130
Kennah Dec 2012 #132
Kennah Dec 2012 #133
doc03 Dec 2012 #134
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #143
bettyellen Dec 2012 #167
99Forever Dec 2012 #136
countryjake Dec 2012 #146
NashvilleLefty Dec 2012 #147
raquel69 Dec 2012 #151
DainBramaged Dec 2012 #156
BainsBane Dec 2012 #170
B Calm Dec 2012 #177
The Straight Story Dec 2012 #187
Whovian Dec 2012 #189
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #194
Kolesar Dec 2012 #179
JoeyT Dec 2012 #188
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #192
OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #193
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #202
bowens43 Dec 2012 #204
loyalkydem Dec 2012 #209

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:46 PM

1. I know! Let's do what the countries with low gun death rates do!!!! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:52 PM

11. Yes, look at England. They would make a great model.

Let's start with assault weapons and anything that can be used with all semi-automatic gun that enable them to fire more than 10 shots at a time. Close the "Gun Shows" and make it illegal to buy guns or ammunition on line. Then, institute strict background checks and standards (like Canada) for everyone who owns a gun.

That would really begin to help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:15 PM

45. Whats the problem with buying ammo online?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:02 PM

106. I believe you should have to buy your ammo in person with a....

government photo ID

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:16 PM

114. well, since ammo is protected under the 2nd Amendment

 

and you want people to have to show Government ID to obtain it...
How about having to show Government ID for other constitutionally protected thing like, say... voting. ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #114)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:44 PM

123. I'm sure you aren't making it up....

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.
Is there another part that mentions bullets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:12 AM

150. Where does the second amendment say that!

Better forget about this whole thread- it is off the cliff along with all the other republican ideas.

Guns are over. Civilization is rising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:28 AM

154. Actually, it's not; the 2nd amendment specifies no particular forms of arms

Only that the right to bear arms is not infringed.

You have zero right to own a gun. You have zero right to bullets. You have zero right to ANY particular weapon you can imagine. You simply have a right to be armed, according to the 2nd amendment.

Have fun with your board-with-a-nail-in-it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:34 AM

176. or cold medicine!

oh.

shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to piratefish08 (Reply #176)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:50 AM

178. and i'm really noticing the decrease in meth around here. not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:36 AM

181. Oh man

It's so odd to see DU'ers carry on like rw nut jobs. Nothing brings out the stupid in this country like guns.

If it's any comfort, you've got too much company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #114)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:11 PM

203. I think you might be right. Voting has killed thousands of people just in the last twelve years.

I definitely see the equivalency now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:17 PM

115. How does that solve anything

Are you going to run a background check on every person that buys ammo? What does somebody showing a government ID accomplish. Most of these people in these shootings would have been allowed to buy ammo. Do you really think you can keep ammo out of the hands of criminals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #115)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:23 AM

169. Switzerland registers any purchase of ammo.

Seems to mildly dissuade criminals from using guns for many crimes. Whatever it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #169)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:30 AM

183. So your think that if a criminal is going to go on a murder spree, then having to register ammo . .

would stop them?

Also, even if somebody was not able to legally buy ammo, it would be readily available for them on the black market. How easy is it for a criminal to get drugs, I bet ammo would be even easier to get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #183)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:09 AM

185. Non-compliance is a weak argument for non-restriction.

By that logic, legislating anything is futile. Laws aren't (solely) written for preventive purposes.

Anyway, I said registering all ammo sales mildly dissuades some crimes - nowhere in my post did I claim that it would prevent a spree killer or mass murderer. If that is the bar then any legislation is futile. It would make some crimes (including spree and mass, since purchasing on the the black market is inconvenient) harder to and more quarrelsome to commit, which in itself is already much for a law to achieve.

My post was simply to point out that other countries do it and it they don't perceive the measure as particularly problematic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Democracyinkind (Reply #185)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:20 PM

195. Other countries not only register gun and ammo sales

They produce the ammo, it's not sold for profit, just enough to cover the cost of the ammo, personnel and administrative cost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Walk away (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:48 PM

97. As long as we're pretending to be England

 

I think that we should make sure that we disarm the police as well, like England. Of course, if we're just going to pretend to be England, that raises the question as to why we bothered to fight them in the War for Independence to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #97)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:01 PM

105. Not all of the police in GB are unarmed and they have an armed Military.

What they don't have is an excess of paranoid, dangerous gun nuts who are terrified that their government is coming to get them. Those folks are the ones who need mental illness screenings and have their guns taken away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #105)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:47 PM

125. So your answer to people thinking that their government is coming to get them

 

is to actually have their government come to get them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #125)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:40 AM

162. No, to get their private arsenal.

There is no reason a civilian should have these things. There's no reason the rest of society should have to put up with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:01 PM

104. England's gun crime rate went up for over a decade after they passed their laws

It has only started to decline. The knife crime went way up. Easily googled. It is like anything else. The lawful followed the laws and the criminals did not. I researched this last year. Here is one article about four years after. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #104)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:58 PM

129. The US and GB have the same knife murder rate. The US gun murder rate is 150 times that of GB.

The population of the US is about five times that of GB. The amount of knife murders in the US in 2011 was 1646. about five time that of GB's 322 knife murders. In knife murders per capita we are the same.

The US had over 9000 gun murders in 2011. GB?.....58. That more than 150 time the Great Britain gun death rate.

I had to go research all of the numbers myself but your (mis) information is flooding the internet. Aren't you ashamed for pushing this stuff? You don't lie but you omit the most important and damning information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #129)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:19 AM

158. I am posting the information that is out there

and it is correct. Their gun crime rate increased after they changed the laws and is only now starting to come down. I am not counting percentages as they don't have the culture we do. " Police recorded 550 homicides in 2011-12, 88 fewer than the previous year and the lowest number since 1983." From the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900384 Their overall crime rate has fallen as I believe has ours.



Here are the numbers
In 98 after gun laws changed
excluding air weapons
in 98 4903
in 11 7024

Here is the pdf with charts and graphs which I cannot pull and post from Parliament.
You can see the increase and then the slow drop in time.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940.pdf


Knife crime in London has increased by almost 10% in the past year as local authorities cut youth services. Photograph: Katie Collins/PA
UK cities should brace themselves for a summer of gang and knife violence as the impact of cuts to youth services takes hold, experts are warning.

Youth violence is already increasing in London. Figures given to the Guardian reveal that serious youth violence increased by 4% year on year across the capital, with a 9.6% hike in knife crime.
Knife crime in London has increased by almost 10% in the past year as local authorities cut youth services. Photograph: Katie Collins/PA
UK cities should brace themselves for a summer of gang and knife violence as the impact of cuts to youth services takes hold, experts are warning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/29/gang-violence-rises-as-councils-cut-youth-services

These are numbers from the UK papers and the UK Parliament



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:03 PM

107. Have a high non-gun death rate?

I don't know about you, but what's most important to me is the total number of bodies, not just those with bullet holes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:47 PM

2. A ban of ALL guns from the streets of the United States. ALL of them. NO tolerance

 

by street- means- out of the private home

NO EXCEPTIONS AND ZERO TOLERANCE TO ANY VIOLATIONS

and reclassify guns as WMD's and include on the war on terror

and freeze the asset of any terror organization like the NRA

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:48 PM

4. Can I link to this the next time somebody says "nobody wants to ban all guns"? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:53 PM

13. If gun "enthusiasts" won't support reasonable regulations gun nuts will get unreasonable ones.

its your choice. Time to decide. Time to choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:01 PM

21. No, they wont.

 

See: 2nd Amendment. Realize: The importance of the Heller SCOTUS decision. Unreasonable regulations to which you refer will be tossed out the window, and the NRA lawyers will just get another phat settlement check.

You can argue until you're blue in the face about what is protected by and the original intent of the 2nd Ammendment. Doesn't matter. All that matter's is the SCOTUS understanding and precedence. And currently, they say it's an individual right. And currently, the AR15 is one of the most (if not the most) popular/common rifle in America. Getting the SCOTUS to re-rule on a case so recently would be a waste of time.

Short of repealing the 2nd Amendment (not happening), you're pretty much stuck with semi-automatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:03 PM

24. Al Gore once said there are some issues where there are not two answers. Guns are one of them

 

nothing will stop violence with someone carrying a gun onto the street and into a public place,
as long as ONE gun is in the street that isn't carried by law enforcement

it is a sad fact.

there is no middle ground, becuase it don't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:54 PM

80. Some experts say that Al Gore lost his race for the Presidency because of gun control. ...

Any candidate for the office of Presidency who proposed doing away with honest licensed citizens carrying concealed firearms would lose 800,000 votes in Florida as that's the number of Florida residents who have carry permits.

Obama beat Romney by only 74,000 votes in Florida.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #80)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:02 PM

84. Al Gore lost because of the 4 electoral votes in NH that Ralph Nader took away from him

 

Florida was irrelvant to 2000.

It was the 4 electoral votes in NH that Nader gave to bush

Most people say Kerry lost because he like Dukakis, let the Bush family define him without arguing against the swiftboating til it was too late.

President Obama defined Mitt Romney.

A good President knows how to win.

winning means being seated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:22 PM

91. Mitt Romney was a very weak candidate. ...

He was also a very rich person defending low taxes for the very rich.

During his political career Romney had been on every side of every issue at one time or another. It was impossible to know exactly what he stood for as he was a shape shifter.

I was actually surprised that the election was so close.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #80)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:56 AM

184. Got a list of those experts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #184)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:34 PM

196. If Al Gore would have won his home state of Tennessee he would have won the election ...

despite Florida.

THE 2000 ELECTIONS: TENNESSEE; Loss In Home State Leaves Gore Depending on Florida
By RICHARD PEREZ-PENA
Published: November 09, 2000


The cliffhanger in Florida could have been irrelevant had it not been for the disappointment in Tennessee.

If Vice President Al Gore had carried his home state, with its 11 electoral votes, on Tuesday, Florida alone would not have been decisive for Gov. George W. Bush of Texas.

***snip***

''Tennessee is a state that is reasonably conservative,'' said John G. Geer, a professor of political science at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. ''If somebody like Bill Bradley had been the Democratic nominee, Tennessee wouldn't even have been in play. So Gore almost surely got a boost from being the hometown boy.''

***snip***

While Tennessee has moved to the right in national politics, Mr. Gore has moved to the left since his days as a congressman, particularly on issues like abortion and gun control that have put him at odds with many Southern voters. If he had not, Professor Geer said, ''He could still have carried Tennessee, but he would never have gotten the Democratic nomination.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/the-2000-elections-tennessee-loss-in-home-state-leaves-gore-depending-on-florida.html


Al Gore was a strong supporter of gun control.


Al Gore on Gun Control

2000 Democratic Nominee for President; Former Vice President


***snip***

Gore has a checkered history when it comes to guns. As a Congressman in rural Tennessee, he was not against them As a senator and Vice president, he changed tack completely, working hard for the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons. It is perhaps his proudest association with the president, after the economy. Gore would:
introduce mandatory photo licenses for handgun purchases
limit gun sales to one per person per month
crack down on gun shows
ban “junk guns” (cheap handguns often used in violent crimes)
increase penalties for knowingly selling a gun to someone ineligible to purchase one
require gun manufacturers and federally-licensed sellers to report gun sales to a state authority
oppose efforts to provide special legal protection for gun manufacturers, or to loosen existing limits on concealed weapons ...emphasis added
increase penalties for gun-trafficking and gun-related crimes

Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” special , Sep 30, 2000


I highlighted the above portion as I also wish to point out that Al Gore would not have faced the vote recount in Florida had he not strongly supported gun control.

Firearms are very popular in Florida. Florida has had "shall issue" concealed carry since 1987. Currently over 800,000 Florida residents have a concealed weapons permit. In 2000 it would be reasonable to assume that perhaps 400,000 residents had a carry permit. Also the Assault Weapons Ban had passed in 1994 and was very unpopular with gun owners in the Sunshine State. If only 10% of gun owners had voted for Gore there would have never been a vote recount. Gore would have won Florida and consequently would have been president. (I have lived in Florida for 43 years and enjoyed target shooting during that period. I witnesssed the animosity of gun owners toward Al Gore.)

Now I am not trying to say that gun owners make the difference in all elections, however they can easily tip a close election.

It's fair to ask, "Why did Obama win over Romney if gun owners are such an important voting block?"

Despite the over the top propaganda by the NRA, Obama was actually very friendly to gun owners during his first term. Romney has waffled on this issue during his political career and was distrusted by gun owners who felt he was pandering to them.

During recent years the Democratic Party has largely ignored the gun control issue. However the recent tragedy has led to many Democratic politicans demanding another assualt weapons ban or even more extreme gun control. I fear the result may be a backlash that will threaten many good Democrats in local, state and national elections.

Of course I might be wrong. Time will tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #196)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:11 PM

198. Thanks for responding

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:51 PM

100. Why should law enforcement have them?

 

Especially if no one else does...why would they need them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #100)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:37 PM

197. Mainly because confiscating all these weapons is impossible. ...

Criminals will not willing turn their semi-auto weapons in even if honest citizens do (which is unlikely).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #197)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:53 PM

206. Seems like a good argument for why non-law enforcement should own then n/t

 

What have you really accomplished by only taking guns from the people who are unlikely to use them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:04 PM

30. Yep

Step up or shut up. We've had enough, and we know we don't have to live like this because every other advanced democracy in the world has figured out how not to have as much killing go on as we do.

I'm fine with hunting and target shooting and such. I'm not fine with guns in mass circulation, and I don't care about the minutiae of magazine sizes, semi-automatic action, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:06 PM

34. "gun nuts will get unreasonable ones"

 

You didn't finish your sentence.


gun nuts will get unreasonable ones that will never pass congress.


So who actually wins here ?

The gun nuts or the gun grab nuts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:20 PM

49. +100. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:20 AM

152. I think you should. A link to one random guy on the internet is SO POWERFUL.

It will make a hugh difference and you will look quite credible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:26 PM

59. Does that include cops and the military?

That is, absolutely everyone?

Guess what? I'd still oppose it. I'm a 5/4, 110lb woman. Who do yo propose I defend myself against a 6'2". 240'b male intent on harming me? With pepper spray? By sucking up to some other big, strong man?

Fuck that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:55 PM

81. Only Feds/State/Local police, with the Feds supervising everything should have weapons

 

and they have to leave theirs in the office when they sign out for the day

like people do when they play mini-golf


zereo tolerance=zero tolerance

I for one want more cameras and more security and the streets free of guns

I read right on this board, that the chance of one needing a gun is less than being hit by lightning multiple times

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #81)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:27 PM

92. Yay! Police state!

Enjoy if, should it comes to pass. I will unquestionably be dead resisting it...and happily so.

That'll probably get me tombstoned...given the sorry state this forum has descended to...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #92)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:04 PM

108. I know right. Creepy statements. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #59)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:59 PM

103. You living life in fear is making this county unsafe for my kids

This is unacceptable. Your attitude is unacceptable. You're a gun freak, and I don't care at all about what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #103)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:44 AM

190. Your gratuitous personal insult aside, you're simply wrong.

Hate to disappoint you, I don't live life in fear...but thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis. Worth every penny I paid for it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #190)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:53 PM

199. Your love of guns belies your claim

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #199)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:05 PM

201. Gosh, thanks, doctor!

You must have attended one hell of a school of Psychiatry...to be able to perform a diagnosis online, on the basis of a few posts to a message board.

Your inability to frame a cogent argument and ready resort to insipid insults duly noted. Not worth another moment of my time...welcome to ignore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #201)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:11 PM

212. I see you're still looking for a way to delete your account

Promises, promises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:34 AM

173. Your mind

It works for me. I've never had a problem looking after myself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #59)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:58 AM

174. Ever heard of learning a little practical self-defense?

When I hear a woman claim that she's helpless to defend herself without a weapon, Taekwondo almost always comes to my mind. Not only will you learn good physical discipline, but it will also help wipe away those fears you've got of big bad men.

Developing your own innate skills of protection can give you confidence that no gun ever could.

I'm smaller than you, studied the art many years ago, and I can still deliver a front snap that will bring any unsuspecting lout to his knees in a flash.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #174)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 10:49 AM

191. Of course I have.

I also know enough about it to understand that with anything less than years and years of committed practice, martial arts are not going to place the odds in my favor in a conflict with that much of a size/strength mismatch. Even with that level of training, the smart money's on the larger person if they too have much in the way of training or (more importantly) experience. I'm sure you can deliver a debilitating kick...but in an actual fight, would you be able to? That's no more certain than that I would be able to draw and fire.

As for physical discipline, I'm a Cat 1 bike racer. Trust me, I understand physical discipline.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #191)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:30 AM

213. So you feel safer keeping a gun around...

knowing that, due to your size, chances are it could just as easily be used against you?

I used to pack a big old gun around, plenty of power and a sure shot, too, but when a time came that I really needed it, it did me no good, whatsoever. My own self-defense knowledge and ability is what saved both my and my baby's life, not any weapon.

I disposed of the gun, after that experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #213)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 09:48 AM

218. Chances are?

Well, I believe those chances not to be all that high in my case. Yes, it's a possibility, but I consider it an unlikely one. I understand weapon retention principles, I practice shooting (a lot), and most importantly, I'm something of a "cold fish" with pretty fair situational awareness. The latter, I'd say, is the real weapon, not the gun. None of that is a 100% guarantee...but I think it offers me my best chance.

I realize that if I end up in close quarters with someone bigger and stronger than I am, my gun could be taken away.. But at that point, it really doesn't matter if they use my weapon, their weapon, or just their bare hands. I've very probably already lost either way. Which they decide to kill me with is irrelevant to me.

Firearms aren't everyone's best self-defense choice, I agree. I make that point to people quite frequently. I'm very glad your experience turned out for the best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:15 AM

142. Impossible to ban guns

Last week two police officers were murdered in Topeka. The guy who did it had been arrested eighteen months ago for possession of a sawed off shotgun, and illegal possession of a handgun (a previous conviction made having any gun illegal).

What was his punishment?

Probation for twelve months.

You see, there isn't enough room in the prisons for violent repeat offenders. There is no effective way to enforce a gun ban...uess there are plans in the works to build a few thousand extra prisons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:30 AM

159. As soon as you turn in your computer and start writing out your posts

 

Using a quill pen and mail them in to the forum to be type set and the text mailed back to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:48 PM

3. More of the we need more guns and gun control won't work.

You can classify all gunner talking points under one of those two main headings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:49 PM

5. A "whatever you wish to call those weapons of rapid murder" ban.

Ban them , demand they be surrendered to local Police , and make it a crime to possess one .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:49 PM

6. another NRA supporter on DU. WTF!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:51 PM

9. no shit....

Guns must make you stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:55 PM

14. Has nothing to do with "NRA supporter"...

 

People need to be honest with WHY they are saying the NRA "solution" is bullshit. It's either bullshit because it won't work or they're calling Bullshit because the NRA said it.

If the former, then I guess an AWB and magazine ban are also bullshit solutions.
If the latter then I guess those people will have to live with being logical-fallacy laden hypocrites.

About the only valid reason to discount the NRA solution, from what I can see, is that it would be pretty costly. Then again, I think that $5B school defense budget can be split among 80M gun owners pretty easily (about $60/yr).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:04 PM

27. oh bullshit. at least be honest.

The solution to gun violence is more guns and a database of mentally ill people? militarization of our schools? You are promoting the NRA program and defending one of the most outrageous events since this massacre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:16 PM

47. Well, then good luck promoting a semi-auto or complete ban.

 

Because by the logic of the detractors of the NRA's proposed solution, AWBs or Armed Security Guards or High Cap Mags evidently aren't solutions.

Or, could the whole purpose of this thread be that just because something had failed in one instance, it doesn't mean it won't work for many other instances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:30 PM

65. One cop = militarization?

First off, I'm not saying we need a cop in every school, but people are making it sound like a cops are something to be terrified of. We had a cop in our high school, he was a nice guy, we would chat with him a lot.

Even if there was an assault weapon ban, even if 10 round mags were the largest you could get, even if we required every gun owner to get a safe, there would still be school shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #65)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:49 AM

157. Small arms industry is worth 1.8 billion in the US

The proposal of cops in every school is $20 billion, unless you want to pay shit wages.

Guns are a drag on the economy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #157)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:36 AM

160. Actually guns are really giving the economy a huge boost right now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #160)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:38 AM

171. The US economy is like 15 trillion GDP

Unless they sell in a month what they usually sell in a year, (they're worth $1.8 billion, a drop in the bucket)

it's not a "huge boost," it's worth less then spit.

The video game industry, in a regular year is worth 10 times as much, at 20 billion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #171)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:27 PM

208. "Brownell's sells 3.5 years of high-cap magazines in 5 days."

This happens every time someone starts talking of bans:

"To shed some more light on the magazine situation at present, it really has been unprecedented in the last 5 days. During a roughly the 36 hour period from Sunday afternoon to Monday evening we sold the "average demand" equivalent of about 3 1/2 years worth of PMAGS, and and an even greater amount of our Brownells magazines. We're working like crazy to get these orders to you as quickly as possible."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/117295819

Gun sales are also breaking records.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #208)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:39 PM

211. 3 years of magazines is a piss in the bucket

I don't think it matters how many or who, massacres are just something that we're going to put up with. Just hope you're not in the wrong place at the wrong time. CC ain't gonna save the hobby warriors, nor will it save the victims.

The gun lobby and gun nuts will blame everything but guns, and around and around we go. Spending hundreds of billions to protect people from an industry that's only worth 2 billion.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #171)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:49 AM

214. Actually some of them are selling this month what they normally sell in a year

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #214)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:07 AM

217. "some" is the operative word

The industry TOTAL is 1.8 billion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:58 PM

102. Look, this really isn't very complicated

 

I believe that recent events have shown us that we ARE going to have armed individuals in our schools. Now, we get to decide WHICH armed individuals we have in the schools:

1) Crazy people intent on murder of children
2) Teachers and Principals
or
3) Police or other security personel

Which one do you choose? If you say none of the above, I think that history has shown that you're apparently living in a fantasy land.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #102)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:08 PM

111. +1. Even with 100% bans and confiscations tomorrow, you'd still have school shootings.

 

The near future would still be littered with mass shootings even if you could legally pass a complete gun ban and have confiscations. 300,000,000 guns out there, people. Even if you confiscated 75% of then, that's still 75 MILLION guns floating in the hands of people unwilling to comply with the laws (criminals).

I'm not saying "do nothing" about especially dangerous guns in the hands of public. However, whatever you do there are simply so many guns out there that if you want to truly protect somewhere, you're going to post an armed guard and hope he can contain a situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:26 PM

119. You are only fooling the other lead poisoned gunners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:06 PM

31. cowards are a dime a dozen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:35 PM

122. ^^^^ THIS!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:50 PM

7. Follow Australia's lead. Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:51 PM

10. Agree. If the tough Aussies did it in 1996, why not us ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:02 PM

23. Gun ownership in Australia hasn't gone down since 1996

There was a lot of noise, but it hasn't actually affected gun ownership down under.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:20 PM

53. People aren't walking around with them, and there are few assault weapons working.

Last edited Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:50 PM

8. They need to redefine. Maybe ban all semi-autos, including handguns.

The NRA is just trying to keep the pipeline open for more friggin guns in more places, and those who covet lethal weapons will support them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:26 PM

60. Can't ban handguns - read Heller. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #60)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:28 PM

61. I like the rationale from 4 dissenting justices, not scalia's BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #61)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:40 PM

70. So? Dissent means they lost the argument. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:55 PM

82. Yeah, you see Chicago and DC rushing to change things. Besides the court mix will change and you


can kiss your "more guns in more places" meme goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #82)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:07 PM

86. Chicago and DC have had their asses handed to themselves.

they will continue to lose.

Don't get to excited there - if a conservative court was unwilling to overturn Rowe v Wade then don't be so certain that Heller will go away any time soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #86)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:13 PM

89. Chicago/DC have not changed one law, and guns aren't as popular now that you guys got irresponsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:21 PM

90. You would be wrong about DC

did you miss that entire Washington Times series on registering a handgun in DC?

The law is the law. Public sentiment is irrelevant. Nothing will change until the SC changes their mind - and there are no gun control cases on their docket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:32 PM

94. So you don't think judges take public sentiment into account?


Enjoy your guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #94)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:40 PM

96. Do you think Roberts and Scalia give a damn about the public? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #61)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:39 AM

161. Doesn't matter what YOU like, it matters what the decision is

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #161)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:13 AM

186. Chit happens, and decisions change, not to mention society's view of you "hobby."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:53 PM

12. So ban based upon muzzle velocity and rate of fire. Plus, ban the AR-15 and AK-47 lower receivers.

 

Make it a federal felony to even possess an AR-15 or AK-47 or similar lower receiver with a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for each count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:00 PM

19. not going to happen

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:01 PM

20. "I hope it's not going to happen"

 

Fixed it for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:03 PM

26. Why on earth do you care about a lower receiver? It has *nothing* to do with the weapon's abilities

Seriously, why do those bother people so much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:08 PM

37. Ban the lower receiver and who gives a shit about the rest.

 

The weapon cannot function without a lower receiver.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:11 PM

41. Oh, ha. I like the way you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:14 PM

44. What is your cut off point for muzzle velocity?

 

Do you know that semi auto's are not rated or classified by rates of fire.

Automatics are..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:20 PM

51. Start rating them

 

and do it based upon a combination.

If that's too tough, reclassify all semi-automatics (including semi-automatic pistols) to be covered under the NFA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:23 PM

56. The latter solution is what is going to happen if the gun extremists continue to block other reforms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #56)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:43 PM

72. Details would have to be worked out but I'm fine with it

 

I don't care about a government agency knowing that I own a firearm. Or having them know when one is transfered.
Most gun owners are law abiding citizens not outlaws as some crazy unhinged posters
seem to think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #72)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:40 AM

182. The "crazy unhinged" are those who won't accept any limits to their bloated sense of "freedom"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #51)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:25 PM

58. Was that so hard ? , I guess you're NOT part of the gun grabber nuts

 

"to be covered under the NFA"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #58)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:29 PM

62. Yep, you can still own 'em under the NFA

 

I'm glad you agree.

Let's go simple and reclassify every semi-automatic firearm to be covered under the NFA.

Problem solved.

Now, about the debt ceiling....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #62)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:47 PM

75. I wouldn't care if every firearm was not just semi autos

 

I'm not trying to hide . I believe in being a lawful and responsible gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:10 PM

112. Do you know what happens when you make stupid things a felony?

 

My prediction is that people stop caring about committing felonies. Ever accidentally open a letter in your mailbox without realizing that it wasn't addressed to your name? Felony. Do you think a gun owner without a concealed-carry license has ever driven within 1000 ft. of the property line of a school with a loaded gun? Felony. With over 4,000 federal crimes (the exact number is apparently unknown), what do you really think establishing one more law with a felony penalty is going to accomplish when so many gun owners are already committing felonies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #112)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:25 PM

117. So then why make anything illegal?

 

You make a completely stupid argument.

Fine, place all semi-automatic weapons into the same category as automatic weapons under the NFA.

Problem solved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #117)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:46 PM

124. Maybe that would solve the problem.

 

It certainly seems that it would keep the poor and lower-middle-class from owning them.

Concerning making more laws, when people have a chance to be a law abiding citizen, I believe that most of them choose to follow the rules. However, when there are so many laws that everyone is guaranteed to have broken one at some point, then I think that people stop caring. If being law-abiding is impossible, what motivation is there to try?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #124)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:57 PM

127. The NFA is simple

 

So that fits your criteria.

Fine, I have no problems with that.

Heavy background checks and registration for ALL revolver, bolt action, lever action, or pump action weapons.

Everything else has the same requirements as a Thompson submachinegun.

I can get behind that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:41 AM

163. Yeah, good luck with that Romney

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:55 PM

15. If the NRA is a gun lobbying group then they should pay for it..

You can't get the Congress to raise taxes because they pledge to that other asshole Norquist, just what makes you think they will with this. A 100% tax & duty would help fund it.

That is possible Israel charges people that for automobiles imported from some countries. 128%-144% tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:56 PM

16. assault weapons ban is a good start. semi automatics too. armed guards = really stupid idea.

adios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:10 PM

113. If armed guards for our children is such a stupid idea

 

then why does the president use them for his children?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #113)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:02 PM

131. because racist RW gun nuts threaten his family weekly, they're not your average kids.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #131)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:27 PM

135. That doesn't really answer the question

 

If armed security is effective for protecting the president's highly-threatened children, wouldn't similar security be effective at protecting our children? Obviously a child doesn't need to be threatened on a weekly basis in order to end up the victim of a madman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #135)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:34 PM

137. "similar security" would be more than one guard per student/ school day , LOL. and same at the malls

and parks and on their busses and car pools. That is IDIOTIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #137)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:33 AM

145. Car pools, parks, malls, etc.

 

aren't federally mandated "gun free safe zones" to the best of my knowledge, ergo the parents could theoretically carry their own guns in those locations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #145)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:22 AM

153. Like I said - IDIOTIC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #131)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:47 AM

164. His kids are not any better than or worth any more than my kids

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #164)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:20 AM

168. So go hire fucking guards, genius!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bettyellen (Reply #168)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:50 AM

215. I don't need to, they have me

 

Fucking genius

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #113)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:04 PM

200. Maybe to make stupid people ask stupid questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #200)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:51 PM

205. Stupid questions such as, why did Bill Clinton propose the idea?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #205)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:53 PM

210. Like I said, now if the shoe fits you need to wear it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:58 PM

17. You know where else you find the bushmaster regularly?

Combat zones around the word.

Chew on that one for a second.

With all the deficiencies, it is found in actual combat zones.

So delicate flower that you are, yes, we need a ban, or for all these to come under the umbrella of the 1934 Weapons Control Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:04 PM

28. The Bushmaster is not used by any military I know of, and militias prefer the AK-47

So, no, I honestly don't think you'd see a Bushmaster in any war zone, anywhere.

And actually, I like your second idea: reschedule semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines under the NFA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:51 AM

165. You CANNOT find a Bushmaster in any combat zone anywhere in the world

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:59 PM

18. The definition of assault weapon should be expanded then

Who needs a gun who can kill that many people that fast? That's the point. They defined it too stringently - probably with the NRA behind it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:18 PM

116. Don't think you a pump action shotgun can kill a lot of people pretty fast as well? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:02 PM

22. The one thing about defining phrases like "Assault Weapon"? You can alter the definition!

To include just about any thing you want!

With the NRA & so many gun owners pointing out how useless the 1994 ban was, why would anyone think the next weapons ban will be limited to that same feeble description?

In fact, the recent bills the last few years were already greatly expanded. Semi-autos in general were being demonized during the fast & furious hearings.

Next time it won't be your father's "AWB".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:03 PM

25. YES!!! Maybe you got it now! YES ban the goddamn assaualt weapons

There is no legitimite purpose for semi and automatic weapons. Ther eis no need for a homeowner to have high-capacity magazines. Ban the goddamn things. now.

You can try to argue semantics, but the attacker had an assault rifle modeled after a military assault rifle. he was aple to shoot as many rounds as fast as he could pull the goddamn trigger.

HE SHOT SOME KIDS (6 and 7 year olds) 11 FUCKING TIMES WITH THAT WEAPON. IT WAS AN ASSAULT RIFLE AND IT NEEDS TO BE BANNED.

If lanza had a .357revolver, would he have been able to shoot his way through the glass doors, re load, kill two in the principals office then go to classrooms and kill 20 children? I think not.

Any questions? Am I clear enough for you?

"Just sayin'"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:06 PM

33. One of the points in the OP is that the rifle Lanza had was NOT an Assault Weapon.

 

Period. Hypothetical: If CT had banned assault rifle nearly twenty years ago, this still would have happened because the rifle was NOT affected by the ban. It was not an assault rifle.

Oh, wait... CT did enact an AWB in 1993... and this DID happen with a legally owned weapon.

To answer your .357 question: Depends on how fast he could reload. I personally know a few people that can fully reload a revolver in about 2-5 seconds. Google/Youtube "fast revolver reloading" and get back to us if you still think a revolver can't be quickl reloaded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:09 PM

38. SO, are you arguing for a greatly expanded weapons ban then? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:20 PM

50. I'm going to argue for a solution that will BOTH have a chance of working and a chance of passing.

 

A solution has to make a difference AND be able to be implemented. Anything else is wasting your time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #33)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:09 AM

141. In a gun range without someone shooting back, or screaming and running back and forth

Yes...but in the real world where people are dying, and maybe rushing the shooter, he will be able to reload six more rounds with a speedloader and then fire off six more rounds, stop reload again. Yes, the shooter could kill as many with a 6-shooter as someone in a movie theater with a fucking 100 shot drum or a 30-round magazine...righttttt

When does the insanity end?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:10 PM

39. Stop

Am I clear enough for you?

No.

Any questions?

Yes: why don't you bother to learn about things that you are so interested in passing laws about?

The Bushmaster was not modelled after military weapons; it's modelled after low-power hunting rifles and has a military-looking shell that doesn't affect what it does.

It's legal under the assault weapons ban. It's not an assault rifle. It's exactly the same as the vast majority of rifles out there, so you will have to ban pretty much all rifles on the market today to really ban it. That's fine as a goal, but you shouldn't think you're talking about some extreme or rare or fringe type of weapon: you're talking about most rifles in most gun owners' homes.

If lanza had a .357revolver, would he have been able to shoot his way through the glass doors

The .357 magnum has comparable muzzle energy to the .223, so he could definitely have gotten through the door.

kill two in the principals office then go to classrooms and kill 20 children? I think not.

Let's say for the sake of argument no, that this sort of thing is impossible without a semi-automatic. Do you have any idea the number of guns currently out there you're talking about that you want to get rid of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:13 PM

43. Whoa - the Bushmaster AR-15 is modeled after Armalites/Stoners AR-10 & AR-15 series.

Which were designed after Johnson's 1941 line.

Certainly were and are lightweight battle rifles/firearms designed specifically for military usage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:20 PM

52. No. You're talking about the shell. I'm talking about the actual weapon: the upper receiver and bolt

These are not "stripped down M16's" inside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:29 PM

63. I'm talking about the weapon...

And the design was for a battle rifle. Select fire, yes, but battle rifle none the less.
A narrow slot where the trigger group goes? Some other modifications to be semi only? Ok, but those are a slight change.

After all, we both know Bushmaster LOVES claiming mil-spec for their ARs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #52)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:56 PM

83. You are getting way to technical for these guys

 

They will not understand the difference in bolt carrier groups , disconnecter's ,third pin hole etc...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:12 PM

42. Quick point:

 

I am a lifetime NRA member (although that was from years ago, I think they are douches). And I'm a gun owner. I also own "assault rifles" as defined by the media, and I support gun control.

Here is a model for looking at his:

FULL AUTO MACHINE GUNS ARE LEGAL TO OWN. Yet, we never hear about them being used in crimes. Why? There is a complex registration scheme for them, so it would be difficult for a crazy dude to get one.

I propose basically the same thing for all guns. National registration tied to criminal and mental health records.

I think you would cut down on a huge number of non-drug war shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:04 PM

29. oh, fuck it then. never mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:06 PM

32. I propose taxing all guns

Traditional guns a small fee and scale up to cut demand. I would tax an AR15 at 200%. Demand would drop and production would drop, the gun makers would raise prices even more with low demand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to XRubicon (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:16 PM

46. Agree...tax the living hell out of them

These arguments about what constitutes an assault weapon...ffs, you want to play semantics, fine, we're going to do to guns what has been done to tobacco. Deal with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #46)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:41 PM

71. Chris Rock on bullet control


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:07 PM

35. it won't work.

but Lapierre isn't really trying to prevent school shootings, he's trying to sell some guns.
his solution is a sales pitch.
meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:07 PM

36. Why did Lanza wear a bullet proof vest?

Think it might have been in case someone else was armed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:11 PM

40. Did he? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:20 PM

48. ABC News:

According to sources, Lanza shot his mother in the face, then left his house armed with at least two semi-automatic handguns, a Glock and a Sig Sauer, and a semi-automatic rifle. He was also wearing a bulletproof vest.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/twenty-children-died-newtown-connecticut-school-shooting/story?id=17973836#.UNUJ2ncbRio

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #48)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:21 PM

54. thx. did not know that. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:47 PM

76. Curious. Did the vest belong to his mother?

Or did he buy it? If so, from whom, and when?

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #36)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:07 AM

166. And as soon as he heard sirens he shot himself in the head

 

As soon as these cowards are to be confronted by someone with a gun they shoot themselves

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #166)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:21 AM

175. Don't depend on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #175)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:51 AM

216. It's happened every time except for the Colorado movie theater murderer

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:21 PM

55. Why wouldn't someone that wants to kill a high number of kids just go somewhere w/o guards?

Why wouldn't a killer just shoot up a Sunday school, a stopped school bus, a Chuck E Cheese, a day care, or a movie theater during a Disney premier? Are they all supposed to provide armed guards?

For that matter, why are we only concerned about children? I sure as hell dont want to be killed by some asshole that decides to shoot up where I work or publicly frequent. Should these places have to provide armed guards too? Should I have to buy a gun because were too scared of the NRA and gun nuts to do any serious reforms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LostInAnomie (Reply #55)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:26 PM

118. A lot of those places aren't "gun free safe zones"

 

so they would have worry about someone with a legally owned concealed gun putting an end to their mayhem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:24 PM

57. So ban that shit too. Fine with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:29 PM

64. State-wide bans are useless since crossing state lines is so easy.

A federal ban would be much more effective.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:38 PM

67. He didn't have to sneak it into CT. It's legal under the AWB

The AWB doesn't do what you think it does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117296360

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #67)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:33 AM

180. Then obviously it needs to be strengthened and applied to the entire country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:38 AM

155. like with drugs...

 

wait---

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:36 PM

66. Considering that he had

two 30 round magazines strapped together which amounts to 60 bullets, yes, I do think it might help. I also think we need to rethink how fast we allow commercial guns to fire. Rate of fire is as big of a problem as having a ton of bullets to fire. The one in Aurora had a 100 round drum.

Can you explain why you think civilians need any of that for self-defense or hunting? Because I can't think of a single reason. And don't throw out the "it won't help" argument, because Jared Loughner had a high capacity clip in his handgun, and we know how that turned out.

It's worth trying. We need to look at other countries that don't have the level of violence that we have and figure out what gun laws work for them and can be implemented in our nation. 100 people have died of gun violence in just this week post Sandy Hook in our country. 100 people in one week.

If that's not worthy of a damn conversation AND taking action, I don't know what does. If you need a link for that statistic? Click on the front page of Huffington Post. They have them all listed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:40 PM

69. 100 round drums could probably be banned pretty easily

There aren't that many of them, they don't work all that well, and they'd be pretty easy to get out of people's hands. I don't think the gun owners of the country would care all that much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #66)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:35 PM

121. If things are worth trying, would you support a sunset clause on any legislation?

 

Like the first AWB had. If it's worth trying, and it works, it wont be allowed to die/expire in a few years. If it doesn't work, then it will probably die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:39 PM

68. Repeal 2nd Amendment and enact Australia style gun laws. That is meaningful action.

Hard? Very.

Worthwhile? Absolutely.

Let's get started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:43 PM

73. "I hate to shit in your cornflakes"

You gun defenders have been shitting in our cornflakes and on America for too long.



Maybe in my lifetime you'll lose the weapons you so cherish. I never thought in my lifetime I'd see pot legalized or Gay marriage, SO THERE'S HOPE WE CAN SHIT IN YOUR CORNFLAKES FOR ONCE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:02 PM

85. You cant shit

in my cornflakes because I dont own a gun, but 300 million are owned. Republicans (dont need to explain that), the second amendment, the supreme court will probably keep you from shitting in other peoples cornflakes. We need to think realistically, and I doubt a complete ban will ever be realistic. Lets say we were miraculously able to pull 10 million guns a year from people. It would still take 30 years and that is if they quit manufacturing them right this second

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Livluvgrow (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:49 PM

98. Didn't You Post This Same Thing A Few Hours Ago?

 

You know the thread where Skittles told you to stop with the NRA points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HangOnKids (Reply #98)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:57 PM

128. right

Skittles told me to shut up so I must......... not stop expressing my opinion that you are living in a fantasy land if you think guns will be banned in this country anytime soon. Be realistic you can try, but I will bet your efforts will be fruitless. 300 million 300 million good luck with that. By the way skittles or life savers or starbursts or whoever can scream NRA all they want and they couldn't be farther from the truth. I am a realist and realistically there are 300 million guns and unfortunately they aren't going anywhere anytime soon . That is a reality. Everybody could kick their feet, scream, holler, and insult and that wont change the fact that there are 300 million guns, a gerrymandered republican congress, and the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Livluvgrow (Reply #128)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:53 PM

207. It's a nutty place, and logic and reality need not apply.

I saw your post that was hidden. Don't give up, but do know your limitations.

You will not change anyone's mind, but that doesn't change reality.

Gun control isn't going to happen, they aren't going ever to be able to register 300000000 guns, no way.

They'll be lucky if they can expand California law to the other fifty states, much less the idea that all guns will ever need to be registered and re-approved yearly, as suggested by some here.

Peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Livluvgrow (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:28 PM

120. Sounds like a start. I am down with 10 million melted down a year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:50 PM

77. You did indeed shit in my cornflakes, and the turds magically spell "N.R.A."...

The sad truth is that if every single gun -- all 300 million of them -- were banned this very second, there'd still be much gun violence. It'd take at least a generation or two to flush this abysmal toxic crap out of the American consciousness.

But BANNING these fetishsized death-tools would be a start... a healthy start. The fact that these things are everywhere is totally insane. Any loon or two-bit hood can get one on a moment's notice. But I'm not going to give into the insanity and arm myself -- because that very weapon has a significantly greater chance of harming me or a loved one, rather than heroically neutralizing any malefactors that cross my path with some murderous intent.

Ban 'em -- military-style weapons, high-cap mags, all of it. Make it out to be the twisted death-porn that it is, and begin to change the consciousness of most Americans, so that there's nothing manly or cool or positive about possessing what amounts to a huge public health problem in this country.

Now, clean up and pour me some more cornflakes. Without shit this time. "Just sayin'."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:51 PM

78. the NRA said it. it is without a doubt BS

The rifle used in the CT school shootings was NOT an "Assault Weapon". An assault weapon ban would not have disarmed Lanza.

sure it would have. if that weapon was included in the ban.

also, a Not Keeping Guns in A House with People Who are Mentally Ill law might have worked in the lanza case

or a You Can Have That Silly Gun If You Really Think You Need it but You Have to Keep it At a Range law might have worked.

or a You Only Get Two Guns For Self-Defense Because You Only Have Two Hands law

or, if all of those sensible laws were passed, they'd work even better together

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:53 PM

79. I realize that this is going to be difficult for someone like you to understand

But you might want to actually read what people are proposing. It's not something dumb like an "assault weapons ban", since that's a meaningless term.

They're talking about things like limits on clip sizes, background check on all gun sales, and requiring guns be stored in gun safes.

I'm sure torching your straw man felt really, really good, but it's really just you jerking off over the thought of your awesome weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:08 PM

87. Don't forget Virginia Tech

They had an entire campus police force as well as the local police...and yet the gunman was able to kill two people in one building and then walk across the campus to the engineering school to kill even more people.

And then LaPierre didn't bother to mention who is going to pay for this little idea of his, and I don't recall him offering. Since it's his idea maybe the NRA should pay for it, of course it'll be under state/county law enforcement control...the estimated cost, taking in the number of schools in the United States would be about 18 billion dollars a year.

The up side is that with having to pay the bill, the NRA will not have enough money to bribe politicians...Wayne can forget his million dollar a year paycheck and members will of course have to pay more in dues...which I'm sure they won't mind, because this plan will keep children safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:09 PM

88. So, you're arguing for doing nothing, then?

Okay, so the armed guard thing isn't going to fly as a policy. You know that.

And you're not willing to offer any other ideas or make any compromises.

Okay, this is why people are furious and want to tear the NRA apart. This utter insistence that your right to have a fucking hobby trumps the rights of everybody else (and oh-by-the-way, the right of 20 little children to live) is not gaining any sympathy. But, as Wayne said, this is an important dialogue, and we will not be taking any questions.

Just sayin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:30 PM

93. LOL..gun nuts don't seem to understand that when they think they are

shooting our arguments down, you are really just making a total gun ban look good, you idget.

Hey! FORT HOOD had plenty of armed, trained people and look what happened there. So, you are right all the way around and the only solution is to take ALL of your guns away. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #93)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:49 PM

99. If that's your only option... I'm elated.

 

Good luck repealing the Second Amendment. If not that, then good luck overturning the SCOTUS Heller decision and then establishing a SCOTUS decision defining a collective right.

Short of one of those two things happening, guns can't be taken away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #99)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:06 PM

110. Oh, of course that is not our only option.

I imagine there are all kinds of ways we could make gun ownership less attractive than it currently is. And the more you fight, the more we want to do that. Because the harder you fight to keep the guns, the crazier you look to us.

I am not all that worried about gun owners. I figure you are far more likely to die in a violent confrontation than I am, far more likely to commit suicide or accidentally kill yourself or a loved one than I am and therefore the gun nut gene pool will thin itself out. Besides, gun ownership is in decline and has been for the past thirty years. Maybe because of the reasons I mentioned. We get spurts around events like last Friday, but over all the trend for gun ownership is downward. .

If gun owners would make any sincere contribution to the discussion of the problem of gun violence, it would go a long way to mollifying most anti-gun nuts. But instead you say things like "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." See, that just sounds BAT SHIT to normal people. And stupid. It is so easily disproven. Or you offer to stick an armed guard in every school. Right. All of your solutions to gun violence include GUNS.

(I don't mean YOU 'you', I mean a more generalized-other-side-of-the-argument 'you')

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #93)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:39 PM

138. A minor quibble about Fort Hood.

Fort Hood did not have plenty of armed, trained people.

On that base military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.

No one was armed except for the Department of the Army Civilian Police (Department of Defence - Not Army Personelle), who were the ones who eventually stopped the shooter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #138)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:26 AM

144. If others aren't allowed to be armed, how did the officer come in armed?

And again, you support the claim that more guns do not stop shootings, the MP's on Base are armed 24-7 and the shooting still occurred, on a military base with firearms present to deter/stop the shooter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #144)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:06 AM

149. My statements support nothing.

I was answering a misconception about the shooting. People think that are armed Soldiers/Marines/Airmen/Sailors running around military bases. This is not accurate and a big misconception. In fact in a lot of cases even the MPs are not armed as was the case in Fort Hood. The only folks armed were as I stated the Army Civilian Police. This refers to any any civilian engaged in police duties for the Department of Defense. They are not Soldiers/Marines/Airmen/Sailors they are civilian police for the Department of Defense.

The shooting started in a medical building and continued for about 10 minutes before the shooter was confronted by the civilian police outside of the building where he was stopped after being shot by those civilian police.

Again, all I'm doing is correcting a misconception about the shooting.

"If others aren't allowed to be armed, how did the officer come in armed?" - He broke the law and took the firearms into an area where firearms are not allowed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #149)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:52 AM

172. I think you make a great point...

and it's one other military personnel have made.

The military is obviously immersed in weaponry, yet they are SO VERY, VERY CAREFUL with them. Forgive me, as I don't know the proper terminology and can't find what I read before, but essentially the weapons are heavily fortified themselves, not easy to access, and the guns are locked (?) even when someone is carrying them, to prevent misfires.

The point is, the segment of our society -- the military -- which is the epitome of gun culture and assault weaponry takes it very, very, very seriously and recognizes how dangerous guns are. The Ft. Hood example is a good one. People assume that all military on base carry a weapon, but they don't.

And there's a damn good reason for it.

I want to see a poll of military and law enforcement, active and veterans, and what they think about this armed guard at every school thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:33 PM

95. Stupid post.

Perfect gungeon material, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:06 PM

109. Ban semi-automatics, automatics, and handguns.

Allow a single shotgun for home defense. And allow non automatic hunting rifles. Any semi-automatics or automatics would need to be turned in.

Thanks for pointing out that the "assault weapon ban" was woefully ineffective, and that we need something a lot tougher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #109)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:00 AM

139. I don't go that far but agree in principle

The old AWB was ineffective in my opinion because it was too easy to get around it. One big loophole was that while detachable magazines for long guns that held more then 10 rounds were illegal, those made before the ban went into effect. This included the millions of such magazines that had been made overseas before the ban went into effect remained legal and could be imported. This there was no shortage of high capacity magazines.

The AWB focused primarily on cosmetic features which when removed, did nothing to decrease the killing power of the gun itself. Features such as a bayonet lug, grenade launcher, pistol grip, folding stock and flash suppressor. A semi-automatic with none of the features I mentioned and loaded with with legal pre-ban high capacity magazines was just as dangerous as ever.

In my opinion, the following ought to be adopted:

Increase the minimum barrel length of semi-automatic long guns to 20". Bad guys prefer the guns with the shorter barrels as they are easier to to maneuver with.

Restrict the capacity of long gun detachable magazines to a maximum of 5 rounds.

Ban all semi-automatic handguns.

Prohibit detachable magazines for semi-automatic handguns that extend past the bottom of the grip.

All the above would only apply to the manufacture or importing of such. Those already owned or in gun shop inventory would remain legal. But because no new or imported items could be purchased, those owned would greatly increase in value or cost. Owners may be more likely to ensure their guns and/or mags were safe because of their increased value and they may be less likely to sell as they would would be increasing in value every year.


Another idea is instead of banning the guns, ban the ammo that goes to certain guns like the Bushmaster, AR-15, semi-auto AK-47s, SKSs and semi-auto handguns.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:52 PM

126. So you can't stop every mass killing with an assault weapon ban

So fucking what. It still would make enough of a difference, it would show that people actually give a shit enough about a schoolhouse full of dead children to make one small step in the direction of limiting the availability of military-grade weaponry, and it has my vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #126)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:06 AM

140. You missed the intent of the Original Post...

 

The intent was to tell the hoards of posters chastizing the NRA "armed guard solution" to use a different excuse besides "Well XYZ shooting had armed guards around and it didn't help, so whats the point." The OP intent was to point out, by that logic, that proposing a renewed AWB or high-cap magazine ban is bunk too (since XYZ tradgedy also happened without those items).

That as the intent of the OP... To point out hypocrisy and flimsy arguments and to tell posters to argue against the NRA armed guard solution from a different perspective or simply be honest and argue against it because it was the NRA that suggested it.

If so many feathers were ruffled, well then I guess the post hit close to home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #140)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:50 AM

148. I got the intent, but its the same old argument

You can't stop all killings, so why bother? Its not the last few mass killings that any gun legislation is directed towards, its the next few. The proliferation of military-style high capacity weaponry is a nightmare we are in the midst of, and what has happened lately is far from the worst that could happen, which we are currently not lifting a finger to avoid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:58 PM

130. Wayne, is that you?

n't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:16 PM

132. It was not a ban, so the name really should change.

The 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" was an order to manufacturers to stop producing certain products for sale to the public. It did not ban any of the millions, possibly 10s of millions, semiautomatic firearms with certain cosmetic features, designated "Assault Weapons". Same with the magazine "ban". It merely prohibited manufacturers to sell any new ones to the public.

I believe there was a provision in which an owner could return a damaged or destroyed magazine or "assault weapon" to the manufacturer and purchase a new replacement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:18 PM

133. Columbine had a Deputy Sheriff outside ...

... and law enforcement doctrine at the time was to wait for SWAT before going into a "hostage situation".

That changed after Columbine, and police response with active shooters is much more pro-active.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:19 PM

134. Well if we need armed guards in the schools we will also need them in

every shopping area, movie theater, park, bowling alley, skating rink, church, civic arena,
ball park, flea market, etc. That's going to cost one hell of a lot of money, what will we cut SS to pay for it we can't raise taxes? It doesn't do any good to outlaw a gun in one state when a neighboring state still has them and it doesn't do any good to have a ban on any weapon that only covers new guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to doc03 (Reply #134)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:17 AM

143. Welcome to the basis behind the theory of qualified concealed carry permit holders.

 

That one of the NRA's end goals --> concealed carry pretty much everywhere. It's EXCATLY what LaPierre meant when he blamed "Gun-free zones." He could have just we need more cops since cops can go into schools currently... that's not a problem. And people trust cops... the only real opposition to more beat cops in schools is money. But it's qualified teachers and administrators with permits to carry/have concealed weapons that is his goal.

Nickel's worth of free advice: "Gun Free Zone" is NRA code word for "Places gun toters can't legally go (yet)"

LaPierre basically doubled-down on expanding the USA's current tidal-wave of concealed carry laws and it want over the heads of most of the opposition. Hundreds of thousands of people were subliminally mind-screwed by LaPierre yesterday and didn't even know it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #143)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:16 AM

167. No, hundreds of thousands of people saw LP's mind is screwed up.

He didn't fool anyone with his more guns make you safer bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:28 PM

136. Derp

Derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp derp





(Thanks Mr Pitt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:33 AM

146. Tax the shit right outta your cornflakes...

First off, crank up the tax on selling any firearms, make the gun dealers pay thru the nose for making a living off of arming people.

Make ammo a luxury... 25% or higher tax on every single purchase of bullets, powder, brass, or any other reloading gear, and require business license, registration, and detailed inventory and income reports for any DIY who thinks that squirreling away in their cellar, producing reloads for their buddies is gonna make him a mint.

Crank up the sales tax on the purchase of any semi-automatic firearm, including pistols, with annual registration requiring yearly ownership taxes, and proper proof-of-weapons-transfer filed in person at county auditor offices, if re-sold.

That would be a sensible start to solving the problem of the proliferation of guns here, I believe. And the result would eventually lead to a safer American public, not just in schoolhouses, but all over the country.

Just sayin'.

Oh yeah, my senator has had such recommendations on her agenda for the past twenty years and nobody's voted her out yet. Finally maybe we'll see some nationwide support for a common sense approach to reasonable gun regulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:46 AM

147. Ya missed a few things.

For one thing, we don't know that the weapons used were "100%" legal because the enforcements officers themselves said that you can't know with a State-only ban: it's easy for illegal weapons to be imported from out of state.

Further, you're missing the most important part - the magazine size. There was no limitation under CT law, whereas there was under the defeated National Law.

Try again. Right now, you're just showing your own ignorance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:16 AM

151. It works at airports, courts, Congress, etc,

but heaven forbid we spend $ on protecting kids at schools. :/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:41 AM

156. NOTHING we propose will work, WE don't make the laws so quit the bullshit

The people with the power will make or break gun control, in the meantime, start buying heavily, make those gun manufacturers richer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:34 AM

170. CT is tiny

How hard do you think it is to get weapons from another state? Besides, the Bushmassacre is legal in CT. Pure NRA BS. Give it up. The vast majority of the nation wants a ban. So stop carrying the gun industry's water. Must profit always come before human life? Human decency needs to play a role at some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:43 AM

177. I blame his right wing deceased mother.

She was the one who bought the guns, and took her mentally disturbed son to the gun range. . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Calm (Reply #177)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:15 AM

187. I Blame the shooter, but everyone seems to think he is innocent

And the guns did the shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #187)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:29 AM

189. The gun, in fact did do the shooting.

 

The killer made it so. If he had used a bat, hammer, or knife the death toll would most assuredly been much lower and have allowed defensive action that was not available to those presented with the armaments the killer possessed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #187)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:18 PM

194. None that I can see is not blaming the shooter

Nice NRA inspired talking point you got going there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:30 AM

179. Republican/NRA talking points designed to disrupt our progressive forum

"there's no such thing as an assault weapon"

Did you get this from an email blast from Ted Nugent's mailing list?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:22 AM

188. Easy.

Stop banning cosmetic features. Ban magazines with a capacity higher than five for rifles, eight for handguns, and require screws holding the clip in place that are the only thing holding the clip in. If the screw isn't all the way in, the clip falls out. Make it a felony to possess a device to bypass this, and a minimum of twenty years prison time for selling or mass manufacturing a device that bypasses it.

Hiding a dozen guns for a mass shooting is going to be a lot harder than hiding three clips.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:05 AM

192. We need a national assault weapons ban

A one-state ban is much less effective b/c it's very easy to get the guns from other states. Harder to do when you have to get them from outside the country (though certainly not impossible).

But if the NRA wants to foot the bill for armed police officers in schools, I wouldn't turn them down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #192)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:49 AM

193. That doesn't even make sense regarding the CT school shooting.

 

The particular weapon used (Bushmaster .223) was not a migrant gun from another state. It was legal under the CT ban. Ergo, it would also have been legal under the Federal 1994 AWB (which ultimately expired). Hell, the CT ban was in effect BEFORE the Federal ban that was both subsequently enacted and had expired.

That rifle was immune from the 1993 CT & 1994 Fed assault weapon bans. Such a ban in ALL 50 neighboring states would not have prevented possession/use of that rifle, or many "military-style rifles, for that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:10 PM

202. Love talking points

FYI, that inferior weapon...is found around the world in actual...combat zones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 05:30 PM

204. only an idiot thinbks the solution to gun violence is more guns

I hate to shit in your cornflakes but a total ban on assault weapons (any gun that can be used to assault someone, yes all guns) and ALL ammunition would do very nicely thank you very much....

Seriously, stop defending the death merchants and those who grovel at thier blood stained feet..


and yes it sure as fuck was an assault weapon. It was used to assault MANY people so by definition it was an assault weapon....


just sayin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:28 PM

209. NRA talking point if I ever seen one. Gun nuts don't care

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread