HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Guess what, liberals? We ...

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:40 AM

Guess what, liberals? We will NEVER know enough about guns to be "qualified" to write gun laws!

Staffs of liberal lawmakers and Congressional committees will study guns in preparation for the upcoming writing of gun safety legislation. But I will bet you that no matter how much our side studies gun technology, we will be deemed still to be "ignorant" about guns to "do the job right."

Enter the EXPERTS who "can do the job right." Who are they?

My guess -- and I fervently hope I am wrong -- is that those experts will be NRA or NRA backers. They will mock us and demand more minutia than would ever be necessary, then laugh and call us clueless about guns and we should leave the lawmaking to the experts like themselves ("step aside and let us do it!"). I fear this is what is in store.

Today, in my home town newspaper, the NRA narrative of how ignorant we liberals are about guns, was in full display in a front page story/interview of a gun store owner (with, oh yes, a pic of him manfully displaying one of his guns!). Here is the piece: http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2013/01/20/news/doc50fb73a138047945043836.txt

We here on DU have heard this worn out routine time and time again in full hue and cry. And of course this gun store owner, Imperati (aptly named!), is only trying to sell his product and make a buck off of it. He even shamelessly blames US for exploiting the tragedy of the dead children at Newtown!

As I say, I want to be wrong. I hope I am wrong. I like to believe that at long last people will do the right thing. But I am very wary and those of us who support strong gun safety laws should pay careful attention to the process of legislating this issue going forward. We need a watchful media reporting on the issue and we need to be watchful, too.

I will be watching.

198 replies, 13008 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 198 replies Author Time Post
Reply Guess what, liberals? We will NEVER know enough about guns to be "qualified" to write gun laws! (Original post)
CTyankee Jan 2013 OP
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #1
CTyankee Jan 2013 #4
Recursion Jan 2013 #9
CTyankee Jan 2013 #15
Recursion Jan 2013 #16
CTyankee Jan 2013 #26
Recursion Jan 2013 #37
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #43
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #168
Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #170
CTyankee Jan 2013 #64
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #118
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #123
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #124
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #126
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #128
Recursion Jan 2013 #129
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #130
Recursion Jan 2013 #131
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #134
Recursion Jan 2013 #136
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #138
Recursion Jan 2013 #140
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #142
Recursion Jan 2013 #143
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #145
Recursion Jan 2013 #146
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #148
Recursion Jan 2013 #151
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #135
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #147
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #133
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #137
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #139
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #144
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #149
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #150
Recursion Jan 2013 #152
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #154
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #155
Recursion Jan 2013 #169
TxRider Jan 2013 #153
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #156
jmowreader Jan 2013 #127
Limey202 Jan 2013 #132
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #157
caraher Jan 2013 #2
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #3
etherealtruth Jan 2013 #13
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #31
Cirque du So-What Jan 2013 #33
Recursion Jan 2013 #35
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #54
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #60
CTyankee Jan 2013 #65
Deep13 Jan 2013 #108
treestar Jan 2013 #87
Deep13 Jan 2013 #105
Limey202 Jan 2013 #141
caraher Jan 2013 #159
baldguy Jan 2013 #5
IDemo Jan 2013 #6
petronius Jan 2013 #45
Recursion Jan 2013 #49
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #7
Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #8
etherealtruth Jan 2013 #18
Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #19
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #25
Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #40
CTyankee Jan 2013 #66
Walk away Jan 2013 #78
Recursion Jan 2013 #10
CTyankee Jan 2013 #22
Recursion Jan 2013 #27
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #38
Recursion Jan 2013 #39
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #50
The Magistrate Jan 2013 #61
Robyn66 Jan 2013 #63
bongbong Jan 2013 #177
CTyankee Jan 2013 #68
Paladin Jan 2013 #67
Recursion Jan 2013 #73
Paladin Jan 2013 #85
Cerridwen Jan 2013 #11
Recursion Jan 2013 #12
Cerridwen Jan 2013 #17
Recursion Jan 2013 #20
CTyankee Jan 2013 #23
Recursion Jan 2013 #28
CTyankee Jan 2013 #69
Recursion Jan 2013 #74
Paladin Jan 2013 #88
CTyankee Jan 2013 #97
Recursion Jan 2013 #104
CTyankee Jan 2013 #109
Recursion Jan 2013 #111
CTyankee Jan 2013 #162
Cerridwen Jan 2013 #24
Recursion Jan 2013 #29
Cerridwen Jan 2013 #32
spanone Jan 2013 #21
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #158
Kolesar Jan 2013 #14
Mass Jan 2013 #30
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #34
CTyankee Jan 2013 #70
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #71
CTyankee Jan 2013 #72
Recursion Jan 2013 #75
CTyankee Jan 2013 #76
Recursion Jan 2013 #77
CTyankee Jan 2013 #83
Recursion Jan 2013 #84
CTyankee Jan 2013 #90
Recursion Jan 2013 #91
CTyankee Jan 2013 #92
Recursion Jan 2013 #125
CTyankee Jan 2013 #165
Recursion Jan 2013 #166
CTyankee Jan 2013 #167
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #36
ellisonz Jan 2013 #42
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #44
ellisonz Jan 2013 #47
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #51
ellisonz Jan 2013 #53
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #57
ellisonz Jan 2013 #62
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #80
ellisonz Jan 2013 #81
Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #82
ellisonz Jan 2013 #89
regjoe Jan 2013 #175
ellisonz Jan 2013 #41
Recursion Jan 2013 #46
left coaster Jan 2013 #48
Recursion Jan 2013 #52
ThomThom Jan 2013 #55
gulliver Jan 2013 #56
HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #58
Major Nikon Jan 2013 #121
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #59
Politicalboi Jan 2013 #79
treestar Jan 2013 #86
kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #93
Recursion Jan 2013 #94
CTyankee Jan 2013 #96
Recursion Jan 2013 #107
CTyankee Jan 2013 #110
Recursion Jan 2013 #114
CTyankee Jan 2013 #161
Recursion Jan 2013 #163
CTyankee Jan 2013 #164
samsingh Jan 2013 #95
Recursion Jan 2013 #120
JI7 Jan 2013 #98
CTyankee Jan 2013 #100
JI7 Jan 2013 #99
CTyankee Jan 2013 #101
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #102
CTyankee Jan 2013 #106
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #113
JI7 Jan 2013 #112
ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #115
Recursion Jan 2013 #116
Recursion Jan 2013 #117
Deep13 Jan 2013 #103
rrneck Jan 2013 #119
CTyankee Jan 2013 #160
rrneck Jan 2013 #171
CTyankee Jan 2013 #172
rrneck Jan 2013 #173
CTyankee Jan 2013 #174
rrneck Jan 2013 #178
CTyankee Jan 2013 #179
rrneck Jan 2013 #180
CTyankee Jan 2013 #181
rrneck Jan 2013 #182
CTyankee Jan 2013 #183
rrneck Jan 2013 #184
CTyankee Jan 2013 #185
rrneck Jan 2013 #186
CTyankee Jan 2013 #187
rrneck Jan 2013 #188
CTyankee Jan 2013 #189
rrneck Jan 2013 #190
CTyankee Jan 2013 #191
rrneck Jan 2013 #192
CTyankee Jan 2013 #193
rrneck Jan 2013 #194
CTyankee Jan 2013 #195
Bay Boy Jan 2013 #122
bongbong Jan 2013 #176
krispos42 Jan 2013 #196
CTyankee Jan 2013 #197
AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #198

Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:52 AM

1. I know I will be flamed

That is why the last AWB failed. legislating cosmetic features of a gun. Maybe some people learned but on here it seems some have not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:07 AM

4. well, from what I am learning, since that time gun technology has rapidly advanced in a way that

really works against us and therefore a whole new look at legislation must be made. I think the intelligent lawmakers know this and will act accordingly. It's not exactly a big secret.

My point is NOT that anyone should be writing legislation without a grounding in the subject matter. My point is that there will be an attempt to discredit our side no matter how much grounding we have!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:14 AM

9. Gun technology hasn't significantly changed in 60 years

Polymer bodies were the last big thing, and that was the 1950s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:26 AM

15. well, there you go. I am obviously not qualified...I must have gotten false information...hmmm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #15)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:27 AM

16. I wasn't trying to shut you up

Like I say further down thread, we're stuck in minutiae because our party chose to go this way, rather than basing gun regulation on the actual capabilities of firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:42 AM

26. but from what I am reading in the liberal press, we ARE talking about "capabilities" this time.

I don't know if you've been reading what I have, but that's exactly what is being discussed and it's discussed A LOT! there was a great deal of discussion about it after Tucson and even more so after Newtown. It is being done deliberately to make distinct differences in what hunters or a homeowner may need in a gun, and what the gun used in mass shootings are capable of. And it is a crucial distinction to the political aspects of the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:02 AM

37. What are you seeing discussed about capabilities? I've only seen the extended magazine ban...

... which I've always supported anyways.

What proposal are you talking about, because I definitely haven't seen one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:24 AM

43. i believe new jersey has a 2002 law requiring new pistols to be smart guns

 

but youre right there's not enough legislation being fielded to regulate manufacture. we can and should design and build safety into commercial weapons. osha regulates industrial hazards and cars are required to have seat belts its the same idea. prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #43)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:53 AM

168. And all cars should get 1000 mpg and be able to levitate.

It makes no sense to legislate beyond what's been invented.

And of course police will be exempt from this law, because it's important that their guns not malfunction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #168)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:02 AM

170. technology *is* already there.

 

it's the *will* that's missing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:45 PM

64. I've seen mostly discussion around the extended magazine ban. My governor, Dan Malloy, was

talking about it (and also about the evolution of the gun debate over the years, another topic I've seen discussed more and more) today on Chris Hayes show. You should watch the video of that segment on the Up with Chris Hayes page on msnbc.com. Chris has a very smart, liberal show.

But this ban is what is pretty critical right now, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:34 PM

118. I'm not sure if you read the AWB law

Dozens of guns were specified by name, including their variants. The cosmetic features that were mentioned were only a small part of the law.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr1022/text

Most every piece of major legislation is updated by congress throughout the years to keep it current. The AWB was never updated to keep pace with manufacturer loopholes and was allowed to expire because of the mythology perpetuated by the NRA and other assorted gun proliferates. The law didn't fail because of some small segment of text contained within the law, it failed because the billion dollar per year gun industry, the NRA, and other assorted gun proliferation interests invested millions perpetuation the exact same misinformation campaign you are perpetuating still. Some people have known this all along.

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:47 PM

123. Banning by name does not work.

Start with the "banned" rifle.
Remove/change the needed cosmetic parts.
Change the name.
Sell the same rifle now as "not banned".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #123)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:53 PM

124. Works in California

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #124)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:59 PM

126. How do you define "works"?

All the California-legal AR-15-based rifles would suggest otherwise.

Or do I not understand the nature of CA's laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #126)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:10 PM

128. You can own an AR-15 that doesn't have a detachable magazine

Which kinda sorta doesn't make it an "assault weapon". If it has a detachable magazine, it can't have the other features which make it an AR-15. Even those who have built workaround models (that all require a tool of some sort to drop the magazine) still can't sell or distribute high capacity magazines.

So yeah, I suppose it depends on how you define "works".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #128)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:12 PM

129. Did CA go to a one-feature ban?

So your semi-automatic with detachable magazines has to look like a hunting rifle. Well done, CA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #129)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:13 PM

130. No

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #130)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:16 PM

131. Why the bullet button then?

I know very little about CA gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #131)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:24 PM

134. The work around creates something that is no longer an "assault weapon"

The law specifies that if the rifle includes assault weapons features, it must have a fixed magazine that can't be removed without a tool. The bullet button requires the tip of a bullet to actuate the device that releases the magazine, which means you can't just release it with your finger. So you can certainly buy something that looks like an AR-15, but it's not going to work like an AR-15.

Furthermore if California was all that concerned about the "bullet button" they could easily close that loophole by amending the law. I suspect they aren't all that concerned about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #134)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:26 PM

136. So they did go to a one-feature ban

That was what I meant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #136)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:35 PM

138. Not exactly

You can still buy a rifle with a detachable magazine, but people who want something that looks and shoots like an AR-15 must go with either a fixed magazine or one that requires a tool to drop the mag which increases the reloading time which was the whole point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #138)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:40 PM

140. Right. Detachable magazine isn't a "feature"

Just the pre-req for feature counts applying.

That was what I meant by saying a semi-auto with detachable magazines has to look like a hunting rifle, which I question the point of mandating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #140)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:02 PM

142. The point never was to restrict hunting rifles

The point was to restrict the lethality of what someone could buy and use with very little training or experience. To that end the California legislation works. Personally I would go a lot farther, but due to the large number of vocal gun proliferates we will probably never achieve the gun homicite rate that the rest of the advanced world has because people will still be questioning the point of mandates.

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #142)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:04 PM

143. Huh? You can still buy semi-autos with detachable magazines

They're equally deadly as an AR-15; they just look more traditional. What has that accomplished?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #143)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:08 PM

145. Sure they're equally as deadly

That's why the military still uses hunting rifles.

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #145)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:10 PM

146. I'm confused

Are you aware that as a factual question none of the features CA bans make a gun fire faster?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #146)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:17 PM

148. Which is why I didn't mention fire rate

There's more to lethality than fire rate. If you want to argue a deer rifle is just as lethal as an AR-15, then be my guest. I'm just not going to go there with you.

Cheers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #148)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:52 PM

151. I'm not talking about deer rifles

I'm talking about an AR-15 with a deer rifle form factor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #131)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:25 PM

135. Without the "tool" to remove the magazine,

the magazine is not removable, i.e. it is a "fixed magazine". Meets the definition according to the law.

While you can buy the tool needed to remove the magazine, a bullet works just as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #135)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:15 PM

147. Which would be a tool

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #128)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:22 PM

133. My point exactly.

Start with a normal "ar-15".
Remove the flash hider.
Remove the bayonet lug.
Change the shape of the stock and grip to a single piece.
Give it a new name "CA-15b".
All is legal now.
It is the same rifle, just looks different.

This easily-customized, modular design of the ar-15 platform is one of the selling points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #133)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:28 PM

137. And you wind up with something that is no longer an assault weapon

Which was and is the point of the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #137)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:36 PM

139. Thus the problem with the law.

All that changed was the looks of the rifle.

It is the same rifle! Same working parts. Shoots the same ammo. Uses the same magazines.

> Which was and is the point of the law.

That would be up for debate, but is not the current topic of this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #139)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:05 PM

144. That's not all that changed

Take a California legal AR-15 and see how many rounds you can get off compared to one that is legal in other states and then tell me again how it's just the looks that changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #144)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:26 PM

149. I thought it was the

new and improved CA-15b that he was talking about not the AR-15

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #149)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:33 PM

150. Same receiver

I have no idea if a CA-15b is something that's real or made up, but he was talking about a gun that has the same basic design as an AR-15. It might look similar, but it sure ain't the same.

A CA legal AR-15 type rifle requires a tool to change magazines and the capacity can't exceed 10. In terms of lethality that doesn't compare with a Bushmaster capable of quick 30 round magazine swaps you can buy here in TX, at least within the realm most would call reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #150)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:54 PM

152. So something that looks like an AR-15 can't be used for mass shootings

It has to look like a Mini-14. Great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #150)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:56 PM

154. I think it was made to not include any

of the assault type weapon features thus able to have a detachable magazine. and the function would be identical to the AR-15.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #154)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:21 AM

155. That was the whole purpose of the law

There are two ways you can make an AR-15 type receiver design CA legal. You can either turn it into a deer rifle, or you can turn it into a non-detachable magazine style weapon that mimics the other features of the AR-15. Either way the rifle is not as lethal which serves the purposes of the law, and the legitimate purposes of those who want to own this type of weapon.

The other poster keeps wanting to claim a deer rifle is as lethal as an AR-15. It ain't. The AR-15 is designed to easily hold the weapon with one hand, release the magazine with one finger, and load a fresh magazine with the other hand. That's why pretty much every military in the world uses this design for their primary infantry rifle. You can't do that with a CA legal weapon.

The other poster keeps wanting to claim a CA legal deer rifle type design is just as lethal as an AR-15. It ain't. If it was, the military wouldn't have radically changed the design of the infantry rifle some 40 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #155)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:54 AM

169. The grip change had nothing to do with reloading speed

I like your optimism but that's just wrong. The grip design was changed to reduce drops, increase muzzle control, and enforce shoulder firing. It's no slower or faster to reload with than a traditional grip.

It was adopted in the 1950's because polymers were available, and the shape doesn't work in wood (you'd either need a joint, which would be weak, or the grip would have to be cut against bias so the whole thing would be weak).

It's an interesting idea, but it's just not true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #128)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:55 PM

153. In this case..

In this case "works" means you can kill just as many people, exactly as quickly, as you could before the law.

I bought my first "assault weapon" under the old assault weapons ban. It didn't in practice actually accomplish anything. Sure I can't attach a bayonette to it, it doesn't have the scary looking flash suppressor on the end of the barrel, but it is every bit as capable as it was before those cosmetics were changed.

Reality is that there is no technical difference between an assault weapon as they are called and any other semi auto weapon built in the last 100 years. So the only way to differentiate and not have to ban the majority of guns made in the last 100 years is to use the only difference that exists, which is cosmetics.. how it looks.. which is useless in accomplishing the stated goal of the law as looks are so simply changed.

You really do need at least some knowledge of the weapons to make any informed law that could stand up in court, knowledge I could teach anyone in under ten minutes would suffice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TxRider (Reply #153)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:40 AM

156. I was speaking to the CA law and not the federal AWB

The problem with all of these laws is they are nothing more than a half-fast middle ground solution that won't work as effectively as they should whether or not they hold up in court. The answer has already been found and is to do like most other advanced countries and ban most types of guns and highly regulate the rest. That's why the UK had 58 gun homicides in 2010 when the US had around 12,000. Even by the time you factor in a 4-5 times greater population in the US, you still aren't even in the same ballpark.

So yeah, we can talk about what will actually work, but I don't think the gun proliferates want to go there and the public goes along so long as the white gun homicide rate is nowhere near the black gun homicide rate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:04 PM

127. Go over to my thread on this and you'll see

I recommended banning semiauto rifles with detachable mags, and pistol mags that protrude past the bottom of the mag well more than a bullet's diameter. People have asked things like "well, what about this hunting rifle?" or "why should my carbine that uses Beretta 92 mags be regulated differently than a Beretta 92?"

It's so simple: If you can replace an empty rifle magazine with a full one, which means you could have seven or eight full ones in an ammo pouch on your belt, the gun should not be legal to make any more of. But instead we're going to get into semantics and wind up with "sporter stock" AK-47s like the last time we tried this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:17 PM

132. gun types

 

Hello from the UK.

Now then. I came on the US boards for all sorts of reasons. One of them was to explore this whole gun control thing.

Here's my credentials:

1. Combat veteran soldier
2. Left wing (generally)
3. used to work in UK as gun licensing officer for police
4. Shooter
5. former Magistrate.
6. heavy drinker
7. good looking with the lights off

Right, so, this gun control thing.... seems you Americans get all mixed up about several issues. I want to come back to that.

In UK, and I don't pretend we have it perfect, nor that our solution would work there where you are, we do this:

1. Anyone can have a gun
2. Unless they are convicts for certain crimes (violence etc.)
3. You have a gun, you are responsible for keeping it safe
4. You need two upstanding persons (i.e. no convictions see (2)) to reference you
5. You pay the cops £55 every 5 years
6. you only get guns that are useful for sport or vermin or hunting. That is, small magazine no military loads.

7. Oh, we knee jerk banned pistols after the Dunblane massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre

I say this because a lot of the Conservative and pro gun argument in US seems to be scare tactics saying that countries like mine are some sort of gun desert... and that, therefore, we are in thrall to Obamanazi socialist evil government monsters.

A full baker's dozen of my points above are perfectly accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:44 AM

157. I agree. If one wants to really ban them then

it is important to know just what you are banning or there will be another usless law that does not really ban "assault weapons" like the last one. I am amazed at seeing people here say that definitions do not matter. That is something I usually associate with the right wing. They most certainly do matter when legislation is written.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:52 AM

2. If I'm "qualified" to be killed by a bullet...

then I have a right to a voice in the discussion. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:01 AM

3. agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:24 AM

13. Best reply

... definitely the most meaningful!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:53 AM

31. You certainly do.

 

But if you want others to heed that voice, you should know what you're talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:59 AM

33. If the nutters have their way

the entire discussion will be nothing except the minutae of gun lore & technology. Any slip-up in terminology will be greeted with 'you don't know what you're talking about.' Do you apply the same standard to thermonuclear weaponry? Is everyone who decries the proliferation of these weapons to be dismissed out-of-hand because they haven't memorized the millisecond-by-millisecond mechanism of the fusion reaction?

Nice try, but your not-so-subtle admonition to STFU is obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:01 AM

35. So let's stop going there

Let's stop proposing and advocating laws that are based on silly minutiae

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cirque du So-What (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:34 AM

54. Nanoseconds.

 

You're off by six orders of magnitude there.

If you insist on making glaring mistakes, why wouldn't your opponents seize on them? That said, there's a great deal more to this debate than technology. There's also the market, the ecology of crime, and statutory and constitutional implications of both gun rights and restrictions. I would hope you'd have some interest in being knowledgeable in those areas at least, even if your familiarity with the actual firearm mechanism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:03 PM

60. But why voice something that would infringe on legitmate rights while failing to find real solutions

The passengers in a sinking boat have a right to voice their proposals for keeping themelves afloat but nobody wants to listen to the guy who says they should drill a hole in the bottom to let the water out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:52 PM

65. I am not hearing anybody "voicing something" that would infringe on legitimate rights.

That's a very vague statement. What is that "something" to which you refer?

The demand for more specificity works both ways, you know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:25 PM

108. Not following you. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:46 PM

87. +100000000000000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:24 PM

105. While I agree you have a right to be heard...

...I don't know that it is an apt analogy. Being susceptible to disease does not mean most people know how to treat it. Being stranded by an auto transmission failure does not mean most of us know how to fix it.

In this case, however, the information we need is pretty widely available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caraher (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:42 PM

141. qualified

 

yeah but if you are qualified to discuss it from one point of view, perhaps it logically follows that you need to be qualified from other relevant points of view too. As well.

You not think?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Limey202 (Reply #141)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:27 AM

159. There's a lot more "if you don't know (insert arcane detail about guns) STFU" out there...

than truly ignorant solutions proposed by gun control advocates.

Sure, expertise is very important, and I personally have no endorsed any particular solution. (Interesting that so many who have weighed in presume from my statement that I and others who agree will tend to blindly endorse proposals that have not been vetted by firearms experts. Who said that?)

It's no different from, say, tax law. I am no expert on tax codes and am not qualified to draft tax legislation. But my views on what a fair tax system looks like are not even remotely invalidated by this lack of expertise. Those who do have expertise need to craft proposals responsive to the rights and desires of the citizenry, rather than use their secret knowledge as a rhetorical bludgeon to dismiss their legitimate needs and concerns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:10 AM

5. The trivial technical minutia of firearms design doesn't really matter.

The problems come when laws try to accommodate supposedly lawful uses of firearms, which results in loopholes which the weapons manufacturers use to sell guns which are assault weapons by any reasonable standard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:11 AM

6. Rather like making shade-tree mechanics the experts on vehicle laws

If you don't understand fully how the camshaft is controlled by the crankshaft, how could you ever be expected to have a valid opinion on speed limits?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IDemo (Reply #6)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:24 AM

45. The issue, though, is when that opinion on speed limits leads one to suggest

regulations on the design of cam shafts, it's natural to ask what the relationship is, and whether the proposer of the cam shaft regulation clearly knows what a cam shaft does and doesn't do. I don't think I've ever seen an actual attempt to shut anyone out of the conversation, and I'd reject it if I did - what I see when people bring up firearm technology are attempts to have a conversation...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:26 AM

49. ^^^ This

I think a lot of gun-control advocates don't actually realize that these "technical details" are actually the basis of the law they are advocating. And that we're trying to point out that these details are a kind of silly thing to regulate guns based on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:13 AM

7. And ode to the experts....Only An Expert by Laurie Anderson

Now only an expert can deal with the problem
Because half the problem is seeing the problem
And only an expert can deal with the problem
Only an expert can deal with the problem

Now in America we like solutions
We like solutions to problems
And there's so many companies that offer solutions
Companies with names like Pet Solution
The Hair Solution. The Debt Solution. The World Solution. The Sushi Solution.
Companies with experts ready to solve the problems.
Cause only an expert can see there's a problem
And only an expert can deal with the problem
Only and expert can deal with the problem



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:14 AM

8. Those who know all about the technical specs of a gun often know very little about gun violence

Those who believe knives and hammers have the same deadly potential as a gun are the people who are ignorant about guns. The people who think people carrying guns in public and engaging in shoot outs any time they feel threatened will make our nation safer are extremely ignorant.

It seems that many of the people who are experts on the makes and models and technical aspects of guns are extremely ignorant about the dangers guns pose to our society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bjorn Against (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:31 AM

18. I would only change your statement in one way

Those who know all about the technical specs of a gun often CARE very little about gun violence.

If one is capable of understanding the minutiae of armaments and ammunition... one is capable of understanding the role guns play in violence and murder in the US ... to not understand (or purport to not understand) is willful ignorance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:32 AM

19. Can't disagree with you there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to etherealtruth (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:42 AM

25. I would have to disagree

We care and want something that will reduce it. So called assault weapons, even though lately have been in the spotlight with these terrible tragedies, actually account for very few deaths. Handguns much more and most people are not even talking about that. We need to talk about what may actually work. Full background checks, better cooperation between states and feds. Better mental health treatment. I like the idea of voluntary weapons licensing to help on the background check. Crack down on existing laws and have stiff penalties as with straw purchasers. A bayonet lug is not the problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:09 AM

40. I do agree that we should be talking more about handgun regulation

It is absolutely crazy that we allow people to carry handguns with them in public places, greater restrictions on handguns are needed even more than an assault weapons ban is. I support an assault weapons ban, but I acknowledge that in order to really tackle the problem of gun violence we need to do something about handguns as they kill far more people than assault rifles do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:57 PM

66. "voluntary" weapons licensing? Yeah, that'll work fine...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:55 PM

78. Don't you think that new laws regarding background checks will have...

any impact on handguns? Shutting down the "Gun Show Loophole" doesn't effect hand guns? Not being able to buy ammunition on line? I am surprised. I thought they were guns too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:18 AM

10. Feinstein (and Sugarmann) caused this by writing a bad law

The only reason this discussion gets bogged down in minutiae is because some Democratic party leaders have insisted on trying to write laws based on technical minutiae.

If the push were to ban semi-automatics, that's all there would be to talk about. If the party wanted to limit guns based on their ability to fire a lot of bullets in a short period of time, there would be no particular details to talk about. However, since the party has instead been committed for over twenty years now to regulating the technical minutiae of how semi-automatics can look, those details are inevitably a part of the discussion.

The fault, dear CTyankee, is not in our stars but in ourselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:34 AM

22. well, we haven't really tried recently have we? I think we come better armed (sorry for the pun)

for this battle. Your point about what Feinstein did (how many years ago?) was made in a great op ed piece today in the NYT. That piece also pointed out how existing gun laws were weakened considerably by lax enforcement and that was deliberate and not by our side, except that our side pretty much gave up in the face of fierce lobbying and lying by the NRA and their enablers.

Meanwhile we'll see how determined we are this time. the administration has put a lot of chips on the table with this issue and if they follow thru, we'll see how it goes.

As I said, I am watching. Everybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:43 AM

27. If we follow Feinstein's new AWB it's only going to get worse, I'm afraid

If the goal is to make mass random shootings much more difficult (and I question whether that rather than "normal" shootings should be our primary prevention goal), there's a very simple law we could pass:

Ban semi-automatic weapons with detached magazines.

That's it. It's that simple. No technical details to discuss. This is a class of weapons that can fire a lot of bullets very quickly (so it's what mass shooters tend to use). If we decide as a society that that is too much firepower for a civilian, there's no reason we can't schedule them under the NFA like we did machineguns back in the 1930's.

But there's not (or hasn't been in the past) the political will to do that (mostly because nobody knows what to do with the ones that are already out there). Instead, we invented a class of weapons called "assault weapons" that is a subset of semi-automatics, and defined that based on a few dozen technical details of how those weapons look. None of the details people throw around to your chagrin are about how quickly a weapon can fire, or how deadly it is, or anything like that. They're all about how it looks because that's what we have been and still are trying to regulate. We want to outlaw the weapon Lanza used in Newtown while still keeping legal an exactly equally-capable weapon as long as it looks like a hunting rifle. There's a definition of insanity that is often misattributed to Einstein, and I think it applies here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:03 AM

38. The vast majority of firearms in circulation are semi-autos with detachable box magazines.

 

We can pretty much forget about having the ban fairy take care of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:07 AM

39. As a practical matter, I'm skeptical of bans, but...

... would you agree that a ban on semi-autos with detachable mags at least does what people are trying to accomplish?

(That is, the practicality of bans aside, the AWB doesn't do what its supporters think it does.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:27 AM

50. Since their goal is to dramatically reduce firearms ownership...

 

...then yes. I would agree. It does exactly what they set out to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:27 PM

61. Ya Know, Fella....

"If you seriously think the President is coming to take away your guns --- it's high time somebody did."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Magistrate (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:36 PM

63. I wish I could rec your post!!!

Exactly! I want these preppers to make themselves known as the psycho's they are. These people want to shoot American soldiers. That is what these Patriots believe in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #50)


Response to Recursion (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:04 PM

68. Good! Now I want you to sit down and write exactly what you said to your Congressperson and

Senators. Be part of the debate. And don't let up. They need to hear from you!

You are, however, incorrect that there isn't already discussion of how quickly a weapon can fire and how deadly it is. I've certainly heard it many times over the past few weeks. It's out there and it's part of the dialog on this subject. Really it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:01 PM

67. Yeah, Yeah, It's All The Democrats' Fault. And About Those "Technical Minutiae":


Google up a photo of a Remington Model 750 Woodsmaster rifle and take a good look. Then, do the same with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, and take another good, hard look. I invite the rest of you DU onlookers to do the same.

Now, both of those firearms are semi-automatic, center-fire rifles, chambered for a variety of powerful calibers, but as you can see, there are a hell of a lot of contrasting "technical minutiae" at play, here. So, pop quiz time: Which of these two guns do you think is flying off the gun shop shelves at a quicker rate, which of these two guns is the subject of more lustful, gotta-have-it commentary in online gun discussion groups (including DU's very own Gun Control/RKBA group), and which of these two guns is more likely to be ending up in exactly the wrong hands right now?

Those "technical minutiae," those "cosmetic features" which the gun militancy movement is so frantically attempting to minimize at the moment, are, in fact, very important. Pretending they aren't just isn't realistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:40 PM

73. The one that we are trying to ban is selling more

You have the cause and effect confused.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #73)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:44 PM

85. No, I Have A Clear Understanding Of Which Guns Appeal The Most To Psychopaths.


There's a small chance that Remington hunting rifle I referred to, with its traditional wooden stock and 5-shot magazine capacity, will be used in the next mass execution at a school, shopping mall, or movie house. But it's much more likely that yet another Bushmaster AR-15 (or an assault rifle just like it), with its military/violent video game/Rambo styling, its sleek plastic stock, and most importantly, its 30-round magazine, will be recovered at the scene of yet another inevitable tragedy. The Remington is designed for hunting game animals; the Bushmaster's design slavishly copies weapons intended to kill human beings. The fantasies engendered by the two sorts of guns are radically different. Once again, I refer folks to online sites dedicated to discussions of AR-15's and AK-47's if they want abundant proof of my claims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:19 AM

11. Does this need for expertise apply to abortion,

contraception, taxes, teaching science in schools, making budgets for a nation, medicine and health care?

Yeah. I didn't think so.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:21 AM

12. Really? I complain about Republicans legislating from a position of ignorance all the time

Whether it's the medically invalid nonsense about "partial birth abortions", or writing laws about teaching evolution when they can't even accurately describe the theory, or what have you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:28 AM

17. That was my point.

Selectively demanding expertise based on personal ideology is dishonest, at least.

Many of the same people on the right who demand "expertise" in writing gun laws are the same ones who have no problem with anti-science legislation based on "faith" and other "ideologies."

I'm tired of liars and I'm tired of the media creating a safe haven for lies as having equal value as facts. I'm also tired of those who continue to support and catapult the media spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:32 AM

20. Well, we're the ones who went there

If for the past 20 years our party had been pushing for a ban on semi-automatics, we wouldn't get lost in these discussions. Unfortunately, for 20 years our signature piece of gun legislation has been a very minutiae-oriented regulation of what semi-automatics can look like (that's what the "assault weapons ban" is; despite its name it's not a ban, it's a set of rules about what the fastest-firing class of guns can look like). Not only is this a kind of silly thing to be pushing for, it inevitably drags us down into talk of barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs, because that's what the law is about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:37 AM

23. You know what? It's the dawn of a new day. Read the NYT piece. You will appreciate it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:47 AM

28. Are you talking about "The Diversionary Tactics of the Gun Lobby"?

I liked that piece; a lot of it is what the "gun" side of things here has been saying for a long time: why is nobody who lied on a background check form prosecuted? etc.

That said, it still talks about banning assault weapons, and that's going to drag us right back into this mud because it's not a capabilities-based law. (Banning large magazines is, and has a lot more support.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:09 PM

69. Promptly respond to the article with your LTTE, saying exactly what you said here. Perhaps the

author of the piece doesn't know this and perhaps lots of NYT readers don't either. You could do them a service by contributing what you know. And I'm not being snarky here...I think you should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:42 PM

74. Of course they know. They just bet their readers don't

That's why a newspaper that is otherwise ruthless on issues of usage still allows reporters to use "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" interchangeably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:47 PM

88. Better The NYT Use Of Terms Than Ted Nugent's (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #74)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:11 PM

97. So, can a rifle be an assault weapon?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #97)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:23 PM

104. Yes. But "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive

Though this bit of usage isn't really worth trying to police anymore. The floodgates are open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #104)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:26 PM

109. If we truly characterize any weapon as "assault" then it would logically follow that we would

question it, in terms of capability (as you have suggested). Correct?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:27 PM

111. Sure, or just take "assault" out of the whole thing.

And look at all weapons based on capabilities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #111)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:10 AM

162. I would characterize it as a "weapon capable of assaulting people in high numbers and rapidly."

Granted, any gun can be an assault weapon, so we need to refine the meaning of "assault." but I think most Americans have an idea of what that means. In hearings we can hear expert testimony on exactly HOW MUCH and HOW QUICKLY. I think the American people want to hear about the public safety issue at stake here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:39 AM

24. Then your argument is with the party leadership

who wrote and debated those laws.

Me? I'm just pointing out the cynical hypocrisy of double standards being used by the repubs.


(and writing some sloppy sentences while doing so. Eek! as evidenced by my edit. *sigh*)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:48 AM

29. It definitely is

However, I don't like seeing wool pulled over democrats' eyes, so I do what I can here. The AWB doesn't do what you think it does, and it's a pretty bad law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:54 AM

32. What do I think the AWB does?

You see, I was pointing out double standards; you're talking about a specific law. We've some cross-talk going on. You're having a debate about AWB; I was pointing out a tactic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:34 AM

21. yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cerridwen (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:59 AM

158. I think it does and here is why

Look at the asshole congressmen making comments about women's bodies being able to take care of pregnancies from "real" rape. These idiots are voting on laws that affect women with this ignorance. Or the state senator who was in the news the other day having no idea what evolution was. http://www.democraticunderground.com/11245415
It should be a rule that people making laws or writing legislation have a clue about what they are writing about in all areas. It isn't like they can't hire staff to research the subjects for them. The country would be a better place if this was a rule for governing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:26 AM

14. The asshole Republicans in Ohio took away law enforcement's ability to maintain safety in the cities

So that some fat pasty suburbanite doesn't have to leave his pistol at home when he goes to the big city full of "those people".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:51 AM

30. Some of us have been victims from guns. Is it not enough to qualify them?

Or is it only those who hold the guns who are expert enough. In this case, this is called extortion, which is a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:01 AM

34. I wouldn't say that, but being knowledgeable really does help.

Its helps make the laws better and it helps persuade people that one is really after reducing gun violence as opposed to engaging in culture war.

Here are two videos of people who are strong AWB advocates.

Right after Rep McCarthy proposed reinstating the AWB after teh VA Tech shooting she couldn't answer Tucker's question about the law.


This one is more recent with Mayor Bloomberg conflating weapons to be banned in a new AWB with fully automatic firearms.


As a Democrat gun owner, I want the people who propose to ban the things I own to understand those things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:12 PM

70. I am sure you have written to both Rep. McCarthy and Mayor Bloomberg, haven't you?

If they have made a mistake, you will be doing a public service by letting them know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:35 PM

71. As it turns out most her contact form won't accept my comments because I don't live in her district

I think this is true of most or if not all legislators.

And following your suggestion I just wrote to Bloomberg. I wonder however if he wasn't being purposely deceptive because later in the interview he seems to completely understand the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #71)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:38 PM

72. Then write to your own congressperson pointing out what you feel is a mistake. I don't see that

there is anything wrong with that as long as you are respectful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:43 PM

75. You're giving way too much benefit of the doubt here. Sugarmann *said he was being dishonest*

in his book. That the whole reason for banning "assault weapons" is because people won't understand what we're really doing. This is in ink.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:46 PM

76. I'd appreciate any link you can provide...thanks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:48 PM

77. Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, his 1998 book

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #77)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:38 PM

83. I don't see anything in that quote other than the fact that he obviously wants to impose

restrictions on "assault weapons," both fully automatic and semi-automatic. So...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #83)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:40 PM

84. Full auto has been *ridigly* controlled for 80 years

Nobody has been talking about changing any law regarding fully automatic weapons.

His point is that if you take the sem-automatics that look fully automatic to people who don't know much about guns, support for banning those will increase.

His goal is to ban semi-automatic weapons. That may or may not be a laudable goal, but his methods are dishonest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:55 PM

90. but you are ascribing a bit more gloss to his statement than I find in his words.

He is also saying something that is plausibly true. If these weapons were designed to look like a fully automatic weapon, whose fault is that? Sugarmann had nothing to do with the design. And there must be a reason the gun manufacturers wanted them to look that way. So it looks like he is just saying what is pretty obvious: the guns look dangerous and the public will not see how they have any application to their lives.

This begs the question: why does he want to ban semi-automatic weapons?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #90)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:59 PM

91. Presumably because they're used in mass shootings

I've said before I'm open to banning semi-autos, particularly with detachable magazines, because as rare as mass shootings are they are spectacular (in the original sense of the word) enough to demand some kind of response. The downside is that this is the majority of firearms currently owned, so that's a huge amount of lifting.

But I think we'll save a lot more lives if we focus on non-mass shootings, which are thousands of deaths a year rather than dozens, and almost entirely committed with handguns.

EDIT: also, in case you're not familiar with him, Sugarmann founded the VPC, and his stated ultimate goal is complete civilian disarmament, though he has no illusions about getting there any time soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:14 PM

92. Were those his words "complete civilian disarmament"?*

Is this what was done in Australia after their mass killing that made them change their laws? Were civilians stripped of all of their guns? And if such a dire thing did not actually happen, did they nonetheless reduce their gun crimes?

*I myself would probably be ok with going back to the 1950s when I was growing up in Texas (that's right, I'm a 3rd generation Texan). I had a mentally unstable aunt who was notorious in our family for carrying around a pistol in her purse. While visiting another of my aunts, in little old Brownwood TX where my uncle was a judge, the gun was taken from her and "put up" for the duration of her visit. My uncle and cousin hunted as I recall but we never saw guns anywhere when we visited. My mother had seen enough shooting in El Paso when she was growing up there so the very idea of carrying a weapon around would have been completely out of the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #92)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:58 PM

125. Gun laws in the 50s were much more lax

Assault weapons weren't popular, but were available.

Australia banned and bought back semi-autos. Total firearm ownership rate is actually higher now than before Port Arthur.

Australia's drop in gun crime in the intervening two decades is essentially the same as ours, which is to say mysteriously huge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #125)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:38 AM

165. And yet we have our Newtowns and VA Techs, etc and Austrailia doesn't.

Are you shrugging and saying "it doesn't matter"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #165)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:44 AM

166. Compared to overall gun violence, bluntly, yes

I am saying that dozens of deaths a year (mass shootings) really are insignificant compared to nearly ten thousand (all other gun homicides; that doesn't even get into suicides and accidents).

Any time we spend on something other than availability of handguns is time wasted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #166)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:52 AM

167. I would agree since my family experienced handgun violence. But in thisi instance, a man

got angry and drunk and got his gun (which he left loaded next to his bed) and began shooting. One dead, two wounded and he shot and killed himself. He had no criminal record. He legally possessed his gun according to Texas law.

How do we get anywhere spending time on a situation like this?

It seems to me that since politics in the art of the possible, you try to do something about these mass shootings that put large numbers of people in public places at risk. If we can dramatically reduce THAT, it would be something. There is no defensible argument otherwise, IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:01 AM

36. Know-nothingism is a dead end.

 

The last time Democrats wrote laws without any knowledge of how firearms work or are made, we ended up the with the 1994 ban that:

1) was trivially easy to circumvent by the primary market, and
2) bred contempt for the law as citizens ignored it anyway.

The same pattern emerges after some coastal states adopted their own AWBs. If you can't even get Californians to turn in firearms rendered illegal by legislative fiat, how are you going to get people from Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, and the like to comply?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:21 AM

42. Who is proposing confiscation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:24 AM

44. Presumably the people behind these AWBs

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:25 AM

47. So you're admitting that part of your post is complete fabrication?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:27 AM

51. No.

 

But curious, what part are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:32 AM

53. Really?

The same pattern emerges after some coastal states adopted their own AWBs. If you can't even get Californians to turn in firearms rendered illegal by legislative fiat, how are you going to get people from Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, and the like to comply?


You're not even reading what you write? Tell me, what member of Congress or major lobbying organization has proposed turning in "firearms rendered illegal by legislative fiat"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:51 AM

57. Senator Feinstein, the Brady Campaign, and VPC have all criticized grandfather clauses.

 

Feinstein's current proposal trades scrapping a grandfather clause in favor of NFA registration, on the theory that you can defer confiscation while trying to choke the existing market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 12:31 PM

62. Links?

And serious proposals, not off the cuff remarks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:21 PM

80. Why not?

 

We don't even have Senator Feinstein's AWB yet, so what else do we have except that she's seeking a ban, NFA registration and a buyback program (13:14)?

Which brings us back to my point; California utterly failed to secure compliance. How do you get people in states that are considerably more hostile to your program to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:31 PM

81. That's not definitely: "to turn in firearms rendered illegal by legislative fiat"

So hypothetical: what would you do if the Federal government told you that you had to give up your precious assault rifle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #81)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:37 PM

82. Any qualifying firearm not registered is rendered illegal.

 

To answer your hypothetical, I would seek relief from the courts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pete Cortez (Reply #82)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:47 PM

89. So register your gun - but even you can't say for sure...

...whether she was talking about voluntary or mandatory buyback based on that clip. And as you've provided no other source besides making unspecified references...

And when the Courts deny you relief as they will most likely do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #81)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:56 PM

175. Nothing

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:21 AM

41. "Wartime memorabilia from both Axis and Allied powers fills the entire shop."

I'd like to see this fucker prove that he knows shit about World War II before fetishsizing the Nazis. Where's his PhD?

I bet he trolls DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:25 AM

46. There's a description of what the AWB actually does towards the end of this article

Can anybody read that and tell me this is a law worth passing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:25 AM

48. Republicans are always writing laws that attempt to govern women's reproductive rights...

..when, time after time, they clearly know nothing about basic female A&P, so really, this NRA argument is a fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left coaster (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:29 AM

52. Umm... you just made his point, actually

We're writing laws about guns the way Republicans write them about uteri. Don't do that.

I'd also be surprised if the guy in the article is a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:40 AM

55. also the people at gun shows don't seem to know enough either

5 shot

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:46 AM

56. We have as much expertise on our side as they do.

Hell, we have the cops on our side.

The NRA and Wayne LaPierre are also on our side. They just don't know it. They keep advancing these stupid, insane, weak-ass arguments. Their funny boy "educators" walk through department stores with assault weapons to instruct the public. And the public is instructed by it. It really is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:51 AM

58. Are men qualified to write women's reproductive health legislation?

I think bad legislation results when it's written by one side, ignoring the knowledge and input of the side it affects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:41 PM

121. They are unless you believe such topics are beyond the scope of reason

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 11:56 AM

59. The ON-GOING AGENDA is to "brand" Democrats as ignorant. Recall the "Obama voters in least-educated

states" bilge.

This is to continue to get college-age/educated males as well as ATTRACT college-age/educated females.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:17 PM

79. Just like men are qualified

To write abortion laws. This is how we need to go after them. Just like the kooks who are against abortion in this country. Who would have thought they would have come so far even in the 21st Century. And sadly enough, most of the new laws were written in the 21st Century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 02:45 PM

86. That they can kill people

Is all we need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:15 PM

93. I think a tipping point is pretty damned close. The

MAJORITY of Americans do not support assault weapons ownership. We are sick to death of being bullied,, threatened, and terrorized by gun nutters. And we WILL be heard now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:29 PM

94. The majority of Americans also have no idea what that means

And the majority of Americans will be very surprised when AR-15's with differently shaped grips fly off the shelves as soon as the new ban passes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:04 PM

96. Hey, you've given me a great talking point for my rep. Rosa deLauro! "differently shaped grips."

Excellent! I can let her know what to expect (if she won't already know from her staff or committee staff). I am hoping that she and other liberal Dems will NOT be taken in by the NRA and will act accordingly...

thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #96)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:25 PM

107. Please go for it

I'd rather we hitch our wagon to just about any bill but this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #107)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:27 PM

110. "this" meaning the old AWB?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #110)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:30 PM

114. Right, or the new one as it's currently being shopped

Which is an even more inane version of the old one.

I love DiFi, but she staked her credibility on this decades ago, and she can't seem to let go. Get a new face and voice in there, to push a law that actually does something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #114)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:04 AM

161. Why don't you ask her if you can testify at upcoming Congressional hearings?

sounds like you have done a careful analysis and can make your points to lawmakers, not just a group on DU...

I know I am going to be watching the hearings...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #161)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:10 AM

163. Because "dude with good ideas" is not a qualification

And my ideas don't align with either party's platform.

And anyways, it's not that Feinstein doesn't already know all this; it's that she thinks this has the best chance of passing because the guns scare suburban people and nobody reads bills.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #163)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:17 AM

164. Well, then make suggestions to chairs of committees where the bills will be considered.

Send them your analysis. It won't do any harm and might do some good from your point of view.

I doubt, however, that your side will not get someone to present what you have basically presented here. It's not like there aren't any gun right supporters in the Democratic Party (Joe Manchin, e.g.) and the Republicans control the House, so there are plenty of gun supporters who will be able and willing to take up these arguments, it seems to me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 03:41 PM

95. it's better to understand the intent of a law than the mechanics of how guns fire

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #95)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:40 PM

120. I think you're right; supporters' ignorance of the law is the problem

For the most part, whenever I've gotten a supporter to read the actual law, their reaction is something like "why the fuck are we trying to do THAT?"

It's not about knowing guns, it's about reading the legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:12 PM

98. and qualified is that guy who went to JC penney with the gun

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:14 PM

100. I'm guessing (I really don't know) that he is an exhibitionist of the gun variety...

Perhaps his regular life is unbearable. Who knows? Whatever, it is sad, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:13 PM

99. McChyrstal and WEs Clark would not be qualified ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:15 PM

101. well, of course not! they don't agree with the NRA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:16 PM

102. Maybe, maybe not.

The nature of their jobs will make their working knowledge of firearms quite rusty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #102)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:24 PM

106. well, we don't know that for sure, do we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #106)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:28 PM

113. Hence, the "maybe, maybe not"


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #102)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:28 PM

112. what kind of jobs would the nature of it make people qualified ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #112)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:31 PM

115. If you want to limit the qualifications to jobs,

then any job where he is actively using the guns would be on the list. However, just because the job has him using the tool, does not necessarily make him an expert on the tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #112)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:32 PM

116. It's not about knowing guns, it's about reading the bill

Which nobody does anymore.

It doesn't take much knowledge about guns to see through the AWB, it just takes actually reading it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:33 PM

117. It would surprise me if they had read the bill

In general, people who have read it don't support it.

And I'm not being snarky; nobody really reads bills anymore and it's a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:22 PM

103. Well, perhaps if the NRA would give us some real information...

...instead of shutting their eyes and putting their fingers in their ears, why might find out what we need to know. Until then, we will have to make due with actual facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:36 PM

119. The internet is a wonderful thing.

You can learn everything you need to know about whether gun regulations will work with about a half hour of internet surfing. Firearm technology isn't that complicated and it's been around a long time. Plus, guns are very versatile, popular and ubiquitous. That's what makes them hard to regulate.

If everybody understood how a magazine worked nobody would propose a magazine capacity limit. There's a boatload of political capital saved right there. If everybody understood the basic function of a gun, information that can be had on Wikipedia or youtube in about five minutes, they would know what kind of legislation to support and get the most out of their elected representatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #119)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:53 AM

160. As I have said before, we will having hearings on this legislation where experts will testify and

no doubt your side will have a chance to clear up any misunderstandings about what is actually being considered. And the press will report it. I would expect a vigorous debate where all sides will debate. As a people in a constitutional democracy, we have a right to have a decent regard for public safety. What is wrong with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #160)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 10:25 AM

171. "As a people in a constitutional democracy..."

we have an obligation to understand the reality of the world around us. Politicians do what we demand of them (if everything is working right). If we demand self serving short sighted laws designed to satisfy our self image, that's what we will get.

"My side" will be taking the oath of office today. He and many others have already gotten the message and the legislation will go forward. The only thing keeping bad legislation from being enacted will be "the other side". When portions of that legislation are so patently unworkable they can be debunked by a youtube video the "other side" winds up looking good and stands a better chance of taking the oath of office next term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #171)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 12:51 PM

172. If the opponents oppose just for the sake of their ideology, not based on actual problems in the

legislation then they don't look good at all. If you are saying that, then we will still be in office.

It does not make sense to me that people in favor of sensible gun safety laws are doing so to satisfy their self image. I would hope that if you have concrete evidence of proposed legislation that is merely self serving and short sighted (that will not be effective) AND that is being presented dishonestly, that you will reveal it. But if are asserting bad faith, the burden of proof is on you. And frankly, it doesn't make any sense to me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #172)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 01:42 PM

173. Mag capacity limits are an exercise in futility.

Magazine fed firearms are designed to ne related quickly. That's the whole point. One thirty mag equals three ten round mags. Ten rouun mags won't slow anybody down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #173)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 02:05 PM

174. I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #174)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 08:49 PM

178. Sorry about that. Sometimes I hate my phone.

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:18 PM - Edit history (1)

Magazine capacity limits are an exercise in futility.

Magazine fed firearms are designed to be reloaded quickly. That's the whole point. One thirty round magazine equals three ten round magazines. It takes about two seconds to switch magazines. Ten round magazine won't slow anybody down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #178)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 01:22 PM

179. All right, then how do we limit the capability of these to inflict so much death and destruction?

How would you craft a law that would make it very difficult for anyone to get their hands on a gun that could do so much? Or make it slow and cumbersome to reload and limit how many bullets can be loaded with?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #179)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:37 PM

180. Crafting the legislation is easy. Getting it passed and making it work is the problem.

Nuts and Bolts Gun stuff

Average everyday single person small arms come in four basic rates of fire:

1. Full automatic or burst fire. That means one trigger pull fires more than once.

2. Semi automatic fire. That means one trigger pull makes the gun shoot one time, eject the spent case and chamber another round.
.
3. "Manual" fire. That means the operator has to manually cycle the action to eject the spent shell case and chamber another round.

4. Single shot. That means the gun will only hold one bullet, which has to be inserted in the chamber by hand each time.

There are videos at the end of this post if you want to check them out.

Public Policy Stuff

It's pretty easy to legislate a bright line between auto and semi auto fire. One trigger pull shoots a lot or one trigger pull shoots once. If you want to legislatively regulate rate of fire downward from there it gets very complicated. It's hard to establish a bright line that will define just how fast the gun will shoot. In bolt, lever, or pump action guns the rate of fire is slowed by the need for the operator to do the work of cycling the action, but with practice any of those guns can be fired at a rate that would be just as devastating as any other for whoever is on the wrong end of one.

The term you just used is the most accurate to describe the legislative objectives surrounding regulating the rate of fire between "manual" and single shot firearms. Cumbersome. You will have to somehow find a way to legislatively mandate the physical manipulation of a gun by the person owning it to slow its rate of fire. How can we possibly write a law to make people move slowly? How can we possibly design a firearm that is designed to be hard to use and expect anyone to buy it?

Now, you may be thinking at this point, "Fine, make them hard to use, we don't need them anyway." It is often said here that guns are made to kill. That is true. That's what they are for. The next question to ask is who are they made to kill? Anybody who owns a gun for self defense, whether they will ever use it or not, expects it to be easy to use. If you're fighting for your life you don't want to have to fight the gun too.

At this point you might be thinking, "But does anyone really need gun x,y,z?" Probably not much right now here in the wealthiest most powerful country in the world, although any Google search will show that people defend themselves with guns every day. But laws stay on the books for a long time. We don't compare a difficult task to an act of congress for nothing. Any law that gets enacted directs the course a culture will take and affects peoples lives, most of which will never cause a media frenzy if the worst happens. Nobody knows what the future may hold for this country or for themselves personally. Unless our legislators can offer each and every voter some guarantee that if they get in trouble someone will be there to save them, nobody is going to sit still for mandating difficult to use safety equipment.

So to answer your first question last - Easy, ban auto-loading firearms and confiscate those already in private hands. What do you think the chances are of that actually happening? What do you think will happen to the career of the politician who proposes such a thing? That's why Feinstein's legislative proposals and all the others like it appear to be so complicated. They're trying to ban guns without admitting it. Unfortunately, everyone's watching so regulating guns out of existence to my mind is a very remote possibility. Unfortunately, there are enough urbanites who never so much as held a firearm who demand something be done. And there are enough legislators who will cook up some sort of byzantine regulation that will look like they're doing anything but feeding red meat to their constituents to get reelected without having to work too hard at it. And even more unfortunately there are enough people who do know enough about guns to make the legislation and the politicians that propose it look blisteringly craven and stupid.

Knowledge is power. The more you know about the issues of the day, the more able you will be to demand intelligent legislation. If we fail to support good legislation our legislators will get voted out of office for being the idiots we demanded they be.




I'm actually a little faster than this, and I haven't been to the range in years.



Fast bolt actions can be designed if there is a market for them.



If you think this guy's skill is beyond a normal person's capability, go to the skate park sometime and watch those kids practice. Anybody can do it if they want to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #180)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:51 PM

181. Some of your suggestons sound fine. But I don't agree with you that making a gun less capable

of spewing bullets quickly is what most people think of in terms of protecting their homes and families. The home invader is not typically a group of marauders with fire power so intense that you have to match it. And, of course, hunting doesn't require that either. But those are the mainstays of the argument over the 2nd amendment and Heller. Sports shooting is a bit different, but can't guns that fire more rapidly be limited to gun ranges where shooters can keep them under lock and key?

I think we have to remember that all of the richer, better developed countries that limit access to what we would refer to as "assault weapons" have more safety and lower homicide and suicide rates. Let's look at Norway where they have a gun loving population for starters.

As for the politics, it looks like the Administration is going full bore (sorry about the pun) on rallying the general public who want some sensible regulation. It won't be easy and it won't be fast. But that is no reason to throw up our hands and give up. Back in the 1950s I didn't think we'd get as far as we got on civil rights, and a lot of people were beaten up and murdered in that struggle. I've lived thru change in my lifetime...it can happen...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #181)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:06 PM

182. The point is

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:25 PM - Edit history (1)

that we are talking about a distinction without a difference. Of the four options listed above numbers 1 (full auto) and 4 (single shot) are useless and unnecessary for anything but esoteric activities that are not really germane to the debate. Items 2 (semi auto) and 3 (manual) are almost indistinguishable when it comes to lethality. A guy with a shotgun like the one in the first video would be perfectly capable of killing a number of people with ease. Twenty dead children is a horrible tragedy. How many fewer dead children would it take to make it not a tragedy?

Given the realities of how guns work, legislation to carefully parse their function any more than it already is will be a failure. Legislation is expensive. It costs money. It costs people a measure of their civil liberties. It costs political capital. We can't afford to support legislation that won't work just because we don't like guns. We have to support laws that will actually serve people, not our own ideology. And when it comes to guns we have to be extra careful because conservatives like them as much as we hate them. We're screwing around with their totem, and that will surely energize them to our disadvantage. They won't hesitate to make us look like idiots to every centrist voter out there because we don't understand two hundred year old technology.

Granted, Americans do seem to be more violent that almost anybody else in the world with indoor plumbing. Our national character is the result of our history, which is as unique to us as other countries cultures are unique to them. Comparing the United States to other countries is an exercise in futility. We have to work with the culture we have, not simply graft the laws we like from other countries on top of it.

Current gun control legislation is a consumer solution to a cultural problem. Americans seem to think that if we can just get the right stuff our lives will be properly adjusted. The corollary to that idea is that if we can just keep people from getting the wrong stuff they won't do the wrong thing. We can't simply shop for just the right legislation the way we shop for just the right carpet. Cultures don't work that way.

Our current cultural problems are more related to the Gilded Age than anything else. The response to those problems was significantly different from the means and methods of identity politics in postwar America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #182)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 07:56 PM

183. We have to get with the 21st century in this country. The fact is that other countries DO "get

people from getting the wrong stuff." They heavily regulate guns. We don't. It may not cure us, but it WILL work.

I don't think that we are intrinsically (and therefore, according to you, always) incurable of our violence problem. Look at Western Europe in the last 100 years! Two world wars of unbelievable violence and destruction, on a level never before known to mankind (and the Holocaust is testament to that)! We had to practically destroy Germany to completely silence its war machine!
So it turns out we CAN "keep people from getting the wrong stuff..."
We have the power. We just need the will to shut down, or at least limit significantly, the power of the gun lobby to help promote the violence we have in our society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #183)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:42 PM

184. The same world wars that shaped Europe's attitude toward violence

catapulted us to world superpower status and made us rich. And we can thank arms manufacturing for a large part of that success. Guns made our culture and we won't give them up without something to replace them. That's what art is for - to inspire people. Telling people they can't have guns is the same mistake the other side is making. We can't change culture by telling people they can't have something whether it's guns or abortion or booze or religion or Christmas or same sex marriage. And that's doubly true if the something in question is a product in a consumer obsessed society like ours. And that's triply true if the legislation proposed to deny people that popular something won't actually regulate anything but instead just piss them off.

The martial impulse runs through our culture so completely we hardly notice it, and it comes from both sides of the aisle. We're constantly talking about the war on something. If we aren't talking about the war on drugs it's the war on women. Look at what you just wrote.

We had to practically destroy Germany to completely silence its war machine!

That wasn't regulation, that was a war. There are those who would say that it was won by "good guys with guns".

If we want to change our culture, and dog knows this one needs it, we won't do it by telling people to stop. We have to offer them somewhere to go. If we do it right, they will just leave the guns behind and forget about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #184)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:13 AM

185. Interesting that you bring up booze. I have seen the comparison with laws against drunk

driving compared to laws curbing guns. The fact is that those laws worked. And they weren't "prohibition," which nobody was talking about, but driving drunk. Since enforcement of those laws the cultural norm has changed, where once it was very different. So cultures can be successfully challenged and changed. So we can successfully change behavior that we at one time just accepted.

My point about Europe is that after centuries of violence on that continent there has been a desire to break themselves of the habit of war after so many centuries, with the formation of the European Union. It won't last unless the people there want it to so badly they are willing to put aside and stifle their worst tendencies for a greater good. The habit of war had to change. I recall how dismal I found Europe when I traveled there with my mother in the late 50s compared with how it looks today. I hope they keep their peace, but it looks like they realize what is as stake and want change. They were offered somewhere to go and it resulted in prosperity. As my parents always said "Nothing succeeds like success," a wise nostrum...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #185)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:39 PM

186. Nobody has ever

Last edited Fri Jan 25, 2013, 02:27 PM - Edit history (1)

had to defend their life with booze outside of a Jackie Chan movie. And I'm not aware of any national debate on how to further parse the alcoholic content of booze. One can certainly transport alcohol as long as they don't drink and drive. Teaching people to not drink and drive is very like concealed carry laws that teach them how to carry a gun and use it responsibly. Both are attempts to integrate something that is almost as old as the species into the changing reality of modern culture. "Demon rum" is still readily available and those with a propensity to misuse such things have a much wider variety of life destroying substances to choose from today.

It's true that Europe is pretty much "over it" right now when it comes to war. And you're right that it took centuries of conflict for them to reach that point. The twentieth century was arguably the most barbaric hundred years in human history. In that context the mass shootings in the United States, while horrific, aren't even a blip in the cultural forces that would prompt Americans to abandon firearms. And remember, every European power that indulged in the orgy of destruction that was the second world war still has a standing army. And their current economic difficulties may yet see the dissolution of the EU. There is one reality that is as old as the human species - when people get hungry they fight.

But if we stay with the booze analogy (hey, it's beats cars I guess), how would we regulate the alcoholic content of booze so that its effects as a gentle social lubricant still be enjoyed while at the same time disallowing its abuse? Should the alcoholic content of beer be 3.2% or can we allow it to go as high as 7%? It's about time we figured this out since beer may be the worlds oldest fermented beverage. Does that make tequila the assault weapon of booze?

The examples I listed above (guns or abortion or booze or religion or Christmas or same sex marriage) are burning issues not because of their nature but how various groups of people feel about them. They are a few of the current battle lines in the culture wars and have less to do with biology, physics, or chemistry and everything to do with emotion. They are wedge issues that fracture political coalitions on both sides of the aisle to their mutual damage. We may or may not like or dislike one thing or another, but in the end whatever laws we enact to govern them have to make sense in the physical world or they just won't work. You can't tell people how they feel, nor can you legislate their feelings. It's certainly foolish to try to enact laws that are designed to assuage our own feelings. That never works, and history is replete with attempts to do so that resulted in horrible injustices.

This post reminds me of a song just for fun.



The lyrics of the George Thorogood version are especially appropriate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #186)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:31 PM

187. your final paragraph brought to mind something that was said by George Wallace:

"Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation FOREVER!"

Sometimes when people "don't feel like it" they get the Alabama National Guard brought down on their asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #187)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 06:26 PM

188. Be careful what you wish for.

Forced integration didn't change the way people felt one whit. But it did force people to interact, especially children. And when people interact together they find out how wrong their preconceptions about others actually are, which was the whole point. Nobody's feelings got changed, all the old bigots are just dying off. I'm from the south, I know what I'm talking about.

Those on the "anti gun" side of the argument want the guns to go away, and if not go away at least stay out of sight. In fact, the current legislation has as much to do with the appearance of guns as their actual function. That's the nature not only of the desire to ban them but also at the root of the "anti carry a gun in public" attitude. Of course the spread of concealed carry is almost complete (48 states I believe) and there is no blood running in the streets yet because people can get a permit to carry a gun. The crime rate in fact has been dropping in spite of all those guns no doubt for reasons that have nothing to do with them one way or the other.

Every one of the states that relaxed gun laws did so without the help of the National Guard. Nobody is forcing you to own or carry a gun, but you seem to want to make them go away as much as possible. Which emotional side of the issue do you think you're on? Whose feelings are being assuaged by the desire for new legislation?

If you like the new legislation, fine. Prove it will work. That proof should include something besides how you feel about guns or the people that own them.

Of course, comparing the history of racial bigotry and the gun issue is a poor analogy. Bigotry has no social or personal utility, while guns are just as useful for self defense as offense. Nobody ever had to defend themselves against assault using bigotry, although it was certainly the motivation for a lot of violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #188)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:09 PM

189. "guns are just as useful for self defense as offense."

this has been exaggerated in the extreme. Again, we hear that a handgun or a rifle or shotgun is what people consider weapons of self defense, not guns equipped to spew a lot of bullets quickly because self defense at home is NOT typically against a horde of invaders where you would need a spray of bullets! C'mon now! You know this!

on update: see http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022254398

My use of racial bigotry was more to the point of how people who SAY they will NEVER do something and then they DO IT because they 'effin have to! You know this to be true, as long as it is ENFORCED.

Just like drunk driving and desegregation, once we force people to accept reality, they will. Wake up to reality. When you got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow...sorry, I guess this is the only way...but it will be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #189)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:22 PM

190. Well okay...

Here is Diane Feinstein's bill.

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;
Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action; (ed. Remember post 180?)
Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and
Antique weapons.


If you plan to make anybody do anything you have to pass a law that will accomplish that goal. An unenforceable law is worse than useless. It makes the legislators that endorse it look like idiots and damages their chances of reelection. Plus, any law that gets passed will inconvenience somebody. If they are inconvenienced unnecessarily, that just pisses them off and they are more likely to vote for whoever opposed the stupid useless law.

Now, if you knew anything about guns you would know that this shotgun, which is allowed by the proposed legislation (remember that video)...



Is significantly more powerful than this scary military looking rifle...



And to top it off, this sorta kinda scary looking rifle is more powerful too, and it's exempted by the legislation as well.



The proposed legislation unveiled with such fanfare and media buzz is useless and if enacted into law will be unenforceable. It's not legislation, it's a shopping list. She's trying to ban 150 specific guns and guns that look a certain way. I have already shown that there is no real difference between semi automatic guns (the ones she wants to ban) and manual guns (the ones she wants to allow). There is no real difference. And I have posted videos to prove it.

Now, at this point I could demand you produce some sort of policy proposal that would be better than that proposed by the Senator from California, but I have already provided it. The only way to get rid of those guns is to ban autoloading firearms. Picking and choosing between ergonomic and aesthetic features or among certain specific firearms in production is a waste of time and quite frankly just plain stupid. It's stupid because it wastes the people's time and money. It's stupid because it wastes political capital. And it's stupid because it puts lives at risk. That's right, if that legislation is passed into law it will endanger the public. Here's why.

If by some miracle that legislation gets passed into law millions of people will think that the problem of spree shootings has been solved. Public attention will turn to more important matters like Snooki's boobs or something. And between now and the next election somebody will take either a grandfathered firearm or a non ban firearm and shoot a bunch of people with it. The law will not inhibit that shooter at all. Not one little bit. And more people will die.

So why is Feinstein pushing such obviously bad legislation? Well, look at it from the politician's point of view. The oldest and most powerful natural resource on earth is human emotion. That's what drives political will. It's what gets politicians elected. But as with any other natural resource, people's emotions must be exploited judiciously to extract the most political capital from the will of the people. She knows there is no way in hell she could possibly ban all autoloading firearms. So what does she do? She says she wants to "dry up the supply of assault weapons". I have already shown that her proposed "supply side gun ban" actually does nothing of the sort. She's a United States senator. There isn't a CEO at any gun manufacturer that won't return her calls. Nor is there a military officer that won't show up in her office and salute her doing it. She has a staff. There is no reason she shouldn't have the information I just found for you in five minutes. She is ginning up political support off the deaths of those children and when her legislation fails and more people die she will trot out another shopping list and do exactly the same thing. Assuming she doesn't get thrown out of office along with a whole bunch of other Democrats.

I could go on about AR15 lowers and uppers, caliber, shot size and quantity, and a bunch of other stuff that would turn this post into more gun porn than it already is, but suffice it to say that in the end there are only three kinds of guns: Machine guns, autoloading guns, and single shot guns. The vast overwhelming majority of guns in private hands today are autoloading guns. But if you don't like them, by all means support banning them and good luck with that. About half the voting public owns one of them, and they will hear anything like "dry up supply" as a gun ban, which is exactly what it is. And if they let it happen, it won't be for long and with disastrous consequences for this country.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #190)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:55 AM

191. I still can't understand why she would deliberately pass something totally ineffective, tho.

when she could presumably pass something that would withstand your scrutiny. She could just as easily stir emotions by passing the law that works, if as you say that is the case.

And I still don't understand how gun loving populations, such as those of Norway, Australia and Switzerland, can have their individual ownership of guns but not the constant gun violence that we have. Norway has ONE crazed gun man who devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to amassing his arsenal, ONE, and we have what looks to me like "garden variety" of mostly white males slaughtering people on a daily basis in this country. Doesn't it seem to you like our gun violence is, uh, a bit "excessive" when compared to other countries (not counting Somalia and other "edens" for guns)? At what point do you have to stop and say "What the hell are we doing here?"

Really, I am beginning to believe I am through the looking glass here like Alice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #191)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 12:42 PM

192. When it comes to vote harvesting

guns are low hanging fruit. Democrats play politics too, it's the nature of the beast. She's able to get away with it because lots of people don't know anything about guns. Those people tend to be urban dwellers and urban dwellers tend to be Democrats.

Contrary to popular belief around here I'm not a gun nut. My knowledge of guns is actually very basic. I hadn't given "assault weapons" a second thought until I started fooling around with DU. I saw an article in Alternet about that idiot that shot those burglars in Texas and noticed all the pro gun comments from people who claimed to be Democrats, so I came here to look at it further. What I know about assault weapons I learned right here and at Wikipedia. Of course it doesn't hurt that I've always owned guns, got my first gun when I was six years old. Heck, I had one of these (image at the end of the post) when I was nineteen years old. It's a pump action magazine fed big game rifle accurate to a thousand yards. It's made for deer and it will turn a groundhog literally inside out. It makes an AR15 look like a toy. And I could shoot it just as fast as that guy in that video could shoot that shotgun.

I heard on Diane Rehm this morning that Feinstein thinks the passage of the bill will be an "uphill battle" (note the war metaphor). No shit. She can't propose any gun control legislation (short of an outright ban on autoloading firearms) that will withstand anyone's scrutiny because it isn't possible. The technology simply cannot be effectively controlled to that degree. If the bill passed today, sales of M1A's and "pump action AR's" will spike tomorrow. The gun genie is out of the bottle, and he ain't going back.

When it comes to the difference between us and Norway and all the rest it seems to me the answer is simple. We're assholes. We are a great hulking materialistic youth obsessed greedy shallow empire in decline. Libertarian ideology isn't a proposal for the future, it's apologetics for what has already happened. We're all libertarians whether we know it or not. I live in a very liberal community and you know what? The people here are just as greedy, shallow and materialistic as any other in the conservative south where I was born. It's a little disconcerting. Feinstein's legislation is just another example of one group of people having a problem with another group of people's stuff. The politics of affectation don't build functional societies, they destroy them. When legislation is designed to support ideology instead of people the stage is being set for political oppression. And the only way to avoid it is if people work to be good people and help others to do the same.


A note on images and videos. I am putting them at the end of posts because they seem to work better there. I know a lot of people don't like seeing "gun porn", but visual aids help people understand what is being discussed. A simple image works a whole lot better than a string of esoteric nomenclature and acronyms. The truth is that a gun is a gun is a gun. They're all the same. I can reduce the whole debate into four basic axioms:

1. There is no such thing as a benign bullet.
2. It is always wrong to kill, no matter why.
3. Never judge a man with a gun in your hand.
4. The cops can't jump through a rip in the fabric of time.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #192)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 04:29 PM

193. A distopic picture of the U.S. but I'm afraid you are right. If we can't do any better than this

then we deserve to go down the drain as a country. However, I don't care about another person's "stuff." I'd like to have not lost my niece to a bullet. It sure wrecked my brother's life.

I hope my grandchildren will travel and perhaps settle down in another country where people respect life a little more. If I were a little younger I'd do it, or at least I'd spend half of my time in Europe and half here visiting family.

That we "can't" (won't) do anything about it is pretty lame and utterly disgraceful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #193)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:48 PM

194. Aw, it's not so bad.

Look what just happened. We've had a nice chat and actually listened to each other. I made you think and you made me think. That's what being civilized is all about. It doesn't get any better than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #194)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 08:06 PM

195. You know what, rrneck, it ain't that great, even if we have some meeting points...

I love that we are not yelling at each other but I am depressed at how depressed each of us is about getting anywhere to solve our problems.

As you say, we can't. Not possible. Too many problems. Never happen.

Ya know what, that's fine. It just reinforces what I have sensed for a long time. This country is in a real slump due to lack of EVERYTHING that makes a country great these days and we don't even know it! We REFUSE to do anything about basic gun violence (won't work, can't work, no can do, even if we could). I'm so goddamned tired of hearing about it...NO MORE...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 09:41 PM

122. It's not liberals who don't understand guns...

...it's anti-gun people. There are lots of liberal gun owners. (like myself)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Mon Jan 21, 2013, 03:01 PM

176. It's not a question of IQ

 

The question is one of EQ - Emotional Quotient.

Are you frightened & so paranoid that you need a Precious to keep yourself "safe", or are you well-adjusted enough to not need imaginary friends to save you from "thugs"/the gov't/brown people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 01:13 AM

196. If the perceived problem you are trying to solve with your ban on assault weapons...

...is that a person with one can fire many rounds quickly, reload quickly, then fire many more rounds quickly...


Then banning the future sale of those rifles only if they have protruding pistol grips is not an answer. Remember, the rifle used at Newtown was NOT an assault weapon under current Connecticut law, or the former federal AWB.


If you think it's an answer, then you're badly informed.

Feinstein's current proposal is full of minutia: a list of weapons banned by name, a list of weapons exempted by name, a list of "military style features" that are not allowed on semi-automatic rifles... and it's all useless.


If the perceived problem is as I described above, then you need to either a blanket ban on semi-auto rifles, a blanket ban on rifles fed from detachable magazines, or a ban on both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #196)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:30 AM

197. Ban? Well not only or not really. Let's just do something along the lines of what Australia

did. Our gun violence puts us to shame in the rest of the world. If some cannot face the fact that the world is not all out of step with US, we should look at our gun violence stats as opposed to every other civilized nation and think again and think harder. The rest of the world thinks we have a low respect for life and I believe that to be utterly true.

I wish we had the sense and the moral courage as a nation to do what the rest of the world does, sensibly, with guns in their societies, esp. those who are gun loving.

We are the laughing stock of civilized societies everywhere. And rightly so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 06:28 AM

198. Even though there's plenty of liberals who have guns.....

....even if it's just a 9mm or .357 Magnum, and not a fucking AR15 direct from your local military surplus store....

I find that conservative logic really doesn't make ANY sense, AT ALL, sometimes; and it usually doesn't make much at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread