Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:18 AM Jan 2013

The sad part is that all my friends who oppose gun control are not those we seek to regulate.

They are mostly guys with military backgrounds or LEO or otherwise sane people. Almost to a man (or person) they believe that stopping crazies is a good thing, but that the government won't do that well. I'm not sure what to tell them, but for many of them the government gets the check to them by the 3rd of the month. I think that should give them a hint.

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The sad part is that all my friends who oppose gun control are not those we seek to regulate. (Original Post) catnhatnh Jan 2013 OP
This message was self-deleted by its author Hoyt Jan 2013 #1
There also a bunch of wannabes too. Yeah, they need to be well regulated too when Hoyt Jan 2013 #1
lookin' forward to restarting the old business? SQUEE Jan 2013 #20
It's similar to taxes on upper income. They think they fall into the category. Viking12 Jan 2013 #3
Hmm.. People with experience in government think it won't do a good job Fumesucker Jan 2013 #4
As a current federal employee... Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #6
Working for corporations is no different nt abelenkpe Jan 2013 #12
The current call is to ban semi-automatic weapons. Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #5
Bullshit... catnhatnh Jan 2013 #7
So you do *not* support a ban on semi-automatic weapons? Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #8
No need for apologies... catnhatnh Jan 2013 #9
I'm not certain how one could implement such a thing though. Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #10
No real problem... catnhatnh Jan 2013 #11
I'm guessing there will never be 7 round magazines indie9197 Jan 2013 #13
But here's the deal... Llewlladdwr Jan 2013 #14
They will never be illegal pipoman Jan 2013 #15
You guys are a fucking riot.... catnhatnh Jan 2013 #16
I didn't comment on any of this pipoman Jan 2013 #17
You don't get to decide how many rounds I need indie9197 Jan 2013 #21
No. No no no. The current call is to regulate what they look like. Recursion Jan 2013 #19
You'll have to tell them that as long as they all have unfettered access to them, jmg257 Jan 2013 #18

Response to catnhatnh (Original post)

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
1. There also a bunch of wannabes too. Yeah, they need to be well regulated too when
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:27 AM
Jan 2013

walking around in public off duty, preferably unarmed.

SQUEE

(1,315 posts)
20. lookin' forward to restarting the old business?
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:56 AM
Jan 2013

I bet the whole armed Southerner dilemna has put a crimp on your job oppurtunities.

Viking12

(6,012 posts)
3. It's similar to taxes on upper income. They think they fall into the category.
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:31 AM
Jan 2013

I don't want to look for the exact pol, but something 22% of Americans think they're in the Top 1%. It's likely your friends similally think they're in the category of gun owners that may fall under the umbrella of reasonable regulations (NRA disinformation is likely a contributing factor).

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
4. Hmm.. People with experience in government think it won't do a good job
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:36 AM
Jan 2013

Could it be that they are thinking of their own performance and extrapolating that to all government employees?

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
6. As a current federal employee...
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:49 AM
Jan 2013

...and having worked as a Government contractor also, I can tell you that it's often extremely frustrating to try and work across department or organizational boundries. Managers invariably seem more concerned with protecting their turf than in providing support to other sections. This can lead to a sense of cynicism regarding the ability of the Government to function efficiently.

Not to mention that being able to complain about each other is one of the main perks of Government service.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
5. The current call is to ban semi-automatic weapons.
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 12:40 AM
Jan 2013

Semi-autos account for the majority of handguns, rifles and shotguns in the country. Odds are good that your friends who own guns have a semi-automatic. So yes, they are in fact the people you want to regulate.

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
7. Bullshit...
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:16 AM
Jan 2013

I might like to limit their magazines but my folk would take their chances were all magazines limited.

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
9. No need for apologies...
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:28 AM
Jan 2013

...though I appreciate the offer. Semis are here to stay, but a magazine limit of 7 or less does not strike me as onerous...

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
10. I'm not certain how one could implement such a thing though.
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:40 AM
Jan 2013

There are millions of 10+ round capacity magazines in the hands of American citizens. How do you, realistically, put that genie back in the bottle? Especially now that 10+ capacity magazines can be printed using 3D printers? I think these are real issues that we'll have to face. I appreciate that you seem willing to do so calmly!

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
11. No real problem...
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 01:53 AM
Jan 2013

7 is the deal. 8 is illegal, 9 is illegal, 10 is illegal, etc....Any overcapacity magazine is exchangeable for a 7 round magazine and if found in possession of an overcapacity magazine after an established exchange date-FELONY. Go ahead and print as many as you like-I'm betting the government already tracks who downloaded the files and surprise-FELONY.Easy example-Ruger 10-22...mostly harmless but guess what-exchange the magazine or do a nickle. The real issue is what are 5 years of your life worth?

indie9197

(509 posts)
13. I'm guessing there will never be 7 round magazines
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:11 AM
Jan 2013

The new law says you can have 10 round magazines but you can only put 7 rounds in it! Next step is telling people they can only put 3 rounds in their revolvers. Stupid law and people won't obey stupid laws.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
14. But here's the deal...
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:14 AM
Jan 2013

...if I'm planning on commiting a massacre (a felony, by the way) then I have already most likely accepted that I will not be a survivor. Do you really think fear of a felony conviction for magazine size will stop me? And consider this: possesion of marijuana is a felony under federal law, yet millions of people continue to buy, sell and use it every single day. Tons of it is smuggled into the country each year, and it's much easier to detect than magazines for firearms. As far as tracking file downloads, what would be the authority? These files aren't illegal so the Government has *zero* legitimate interest in keeping track of them.

I guess where I'm going here is that it's easy to say "lock 'em up!", but how many of your fellow citizens are you willing to incarcerate in order to impose your agenda on the public? A thousand? A million? These are hard questions and simple answers aren't going to work.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
15. They will never be illegal
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:23 AM
Jan 2013

they may get pushed into the NFA.. maybe,,machine guns aren't illegal, howitzers aren't illegal, nor will any capacity magazine be illegal..

Oh and cheers for cheering the prison industrial complex...keep feeding them prisons..silliness..

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
16. You guys are a fucking riot....
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:34 AM
Jan 2013

7 is SOOO disappointingly small? You get 3 for a duck or a deer and 7 is too few? FOR FUCKING WHAT??? Are 8 people heading for your door to kill you? Or more likely do you need drug to calm the demons in your head??

indie9197

(509 posts)
21. You don't get to decide how many rounds I need
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 02:05 PM
Jan 2013

Maybe there are two or three guys and I do need more than 7. My 9mm holds 16 because that is just the size of the grip. Why should I put in less? Why should I have to worry about changing out a magazine when I don't have to.

Not really a huge issue if you use .45 or .40 but that is not the point. It is a stupid law and makes nobody safer from crazy mass murderers. Isn't that the supposed reason for all this new executive orders?


Recursion

(56,582 posts)
19. No. No no no. The current call is to regulate what they look like.
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:36 AM
Jan 2013

Feinstein has not introduced a ban on semi-automatics. She has introduced regulations about what semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines can look like. It infuriates me that so much of the base has been completely misled about this.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
18. You'll have to tell them that as long as they all have unfettered access to them,
Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:34 AM
Jan 2013

so do 'the crazies'. They'll have to just deal with the inconvenience of diminishing their perceived needs & wants so we can have a better chance of 'stopping crazies'.

NY has attempted to use a multi-facted approach, and some damn clever legislation (i.e. 7 vs 10 etc.).
It isn't ALL about guns, though they are certainly the driving object.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The sad part is that all ...