HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "This Is What a Gun ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:11 PM

"This Is What a Gun Control March on Washington Looks Like"

This Is What a Gun Control March on Washington Looks Like

the Atlantic Wire

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/what-gun-control-march-washington-looks/61450/

147 replies, 11504 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 147 replies Author Time Post
Reply "This Is What a Gun Control March on Washington Looks Like" (Original post)
applegrove Jan 2013 OP
Tx4obama Jan 2013 #1
longship Jan 2013 #2
cherokeeprogressive Jan 2013 #3
longship Jan 2013 #5
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #4
longship Jan 2013 #6
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #7
longship Jan 2013 #8
LineReply I
Heimer Jan 2013 #9
drynberg Jan 2013 #87
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #10
BainsBane Jan 2013 #13
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #14
BainsBane Jan 2013 #17
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #18
BainsBane Jan 2013 #22
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #35
BainsBane Jan 2013 #43
legaleagle_45 Jan 2013 #50
aikoaiko Jan 2013 #75
BainsBane Jan 2013 #90
iiibbb Jan 2013 #114
BainsBane Jan 2013 #115
iiibbb Jan 2013 #118
Straw Man Jan 2013 #119
iiibbb Jan 2013 #120
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #142
harmonicon Jan 2013 #130
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #20
BainsBane Jan 2013 #23
NBachers Jan 2013 #25
Squinch Jan 2013 #31
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #32
Squinch Jan 2013 #34
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #36
Squinch Jan 2013 #38
Jenoch Jan 2013 #60
BainsBane Jan 2013 #68
Jenoch Jan 2013 #72
BainsBane Jan 2013 #74
WHEN CRABS ROAR Jan 2013 #98
Jenoch Jan 2013 #112
Squinch Jan 2013 #76
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #80
Squinch Jan 2013 #82
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #133
LanternWaste Jan 2013 #145
Jenoch Jan 2013 #111
BainsBane Jan 2013 #70
harmonicon Jan 2013 #131
legaleagle_45 Jan 2013 #139
harmonicon Jan 2013 #140
legaleagle_45 Jan 2013 #141
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #55
BainsBane Jan 2013 #57
Recursion Jan 2013 #59
BainsBane Jan 2013 #64
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #61
BainsBane Jan 2013 #62
Recursion Jan 2013 #66
BainsBane Jan 2013 #67
Recursion Jan 2013 #69
BainsBane Jan 2013 #73
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #143
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #94
BainsBane Jan 2013 #95
GreenStormCloud Jan 2013 #99
BainsBane Jan 2013 #100
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #101
BainsBane Jan 2013 #103
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #106
BainsBane Jan 2013 #108
Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #127
BainsBane Jan 2013 #132
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #144
BainsBane Jan 2013 #146
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #147
NYC Liberal Jan 2013 #81
Christopfer7 Jan 2013 #11
BainsBane Jan 2013 #12
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #15
Straw Man Jan 2013 #19
BainsBane Jan 2013 #21
Straw Man Jan 2013 #24
BainsBane Jan 2013 #26
Straw Man Jan 2013 #79
BainsBane Jan 2013 #89
Straw Man Jan 2013 #117
BainsBane Jan 2013 #134
Straw Man Jan 2013 #138
spin Jan 2013 #28
BainsBane Jan 2013 #30
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #16
graham4anything Jan 2013 #63
Spryguy Jan 2013 #83
valerief Jan 2013 #116
spin Jan 2013 #27
Jenoch Jan 2013 #71
Scuba Jan 2013 #29
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #33
Scuba Jan 2013 #41
Recursion Jan 2013 #45
Scuba Jan 2013 #49
Recursion Jan 2013 #51
Scuba Jan 2013 #53
Recursion Jan 2013 #54
Scuba Jan 2013 #56
SQUEE Jan 2013 #104
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #48
Scuba Jan 2013 #52
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #58
Scuba Jan 2013 #65
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #85
Scuba Jan 2013 #86
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #91
Scuba Jan 2013 #102
bobclark86 Jan 2013 #109
Scuba Jan 2013 #113
Recursion Jan 2013 #37
Scuba Jan 2013 #42
Recursion Jan 2013 #44
Scuba Jan 2013 #46
Recursion Jan 2013 #47
hack89 Jan 2013 #39
BainsBane Jan 2013 #93
hack89 Jan 2013 #96
BainsBane Jan 2013 #97
Decoy of Fenris Jan 2013 #40
BainsBane Jan 2013 #77
Paladin Jan 2013 #78
Spryguy Jan 2013 #84
hack89 Jan 2013 #92
SQUEE Jan 2013 #107
iiibbb Jan 2013 #121
Cha Jan 2013 #88
DainBramaged Jan 2013 #105
derby378 Jan 2013 #110
iiibbb Jan 2013 #122
DainBramaged Jan 2013 #124
iiibbb Jan 2013 #125
SQUEE Jan 2013 #137
samsingh Jan 2013 #123
Robb Jan 2013 #126
Chorophyll Jan 2013 #128
harmonicon Jan 2013 #129
Useless Eater Jan 2013 #135
spicegal Jan 2013 #136

Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:18 PM

1. Great photos. Thanks for posting. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:33 PM

2. But not one here for us bandwidth limited DUers.

Who pay dearly for click-throughs.

Please post an example.

Thank you very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:42 PM

3. Pic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:46 PM

5. Thanks much. Looks good.

Us bandwidth challenged don't often get much sympathy from the bandwidth blessed. That's why I can always depend on DU.

My Democratic blessings to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:46 PM

4. More:








More at OP link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #4)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 10:54 PM

6. It's cheap to reload on DU!

It's expensive to click through, which dumps your Web cache and gobbles up your bandwidth limit.

When one has bandwidth restrictions, and one is a computer geek, one learns how to make maximum use. For me, that means staying on DU, whose code some how makes maximum use of its cached content.

I can surf DU all month, but if I go off site, my usage goes through the roof. And, I can only do very few videos a month. I know them when the DU poster gives context and it's short.

Thank you very much for your pic posts. Much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:04 PM

7. Happy to help

If I could bless you with more bandwidth, I'd happily do that, too.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #7)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:07 PM

8. Well, bless you back!



(My sacrament)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:11 PM

9. I

Would have expected a larger turn out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:46 PM

87. IT'S GROWING, JUST WATCH

AntiVietnam War march of Jan. 20, '69 (Nixon's first inaug.) was 35K, by Nov. 1969 it was about a MILLION, a growth of about 30 fold in ten months. Oh, hell yeah, it's growing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 11:15 PM

10. Another demonstration of the importance of the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties they protect.


The first among others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:02 AM

13. the right to life

and indeed the Bill of Rights, which protects a "well regulated militia," which even Scalia has interpreted to allow banning of certain types of weapons. No where in the Bill of Rights does it say the right of some to play soldier trumps everyone else's right to life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:20 AM

14. Sure, but merely keeping and bearing arms is not the same as committing unlawful homicides.



As far as Scalia goes:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.


We have yet to really decipher that paragraph. Is an AR15 "dangerous and unusual" or "in common use at the time"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #14)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:49 AM

17. most of these people were law abiding

Last edited Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:15 PM - Edit history (1)

before they killed someone. That argument about law abiding gun owners is increasingly specious. The fact that some are so vocally voicing their intent to break the law if an AWB is put in place shows that they are anything but law abiding. Moreover, no law abiding person needs to be prepared to massacre dozens of people within 60 seconds.

It's for the courts to determine if the laws exceed constitutional authority. The last ban wasn't overturned. I see no reason this one should be.

I fully resent the incredible level of entitlement that makes some think theirs are the only rights that matter. NO right is absolute. Rights must be balanced, and guns are far too exalted. The gun lobby has encroached seriously on first amendment rights, The role of guns in our society is a symptom of cultural insanity, a sickness that astounds the civilized world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:54 AM

18. I don't see anyone in DU talking about absolute rights to keep and bear arms


Do you?

And there is room for civil disobedience in you world view, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:23 AM

22. by disobedience do you mean treason?

Killing ATF agents and overthrowing the government? That's what these people are talking about. That's not civil disobedience.

Yes, I do see people here talking about an absolute right to bear arms, at least one that denies the government has a right to exact additional gun control. One person even equates gun control with torture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:20 PM

35. Civil disobedience does not involve harming others


I suppose there are some verbal bomb throwers around.

I promise not to define you by those who want to ban and confiscate all firearms if you don't define me by gun extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #35)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:04 PM

43. So what were you referring to?

You replied to a post where I mentioned some have said they plan to violate the law. I didn't go on to explain what I meant, but the press has been full of accounts of their threats to rise up against the government and kill anyone who "tries to take their guns," which of course no one is proposing.

So what did you mean by civil disobedience?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:19 PM

50. Civil disobedience

Is civil. Not violent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:51 PM

75. Some may violate the law without harming anyone.

I really don't endorse it, but it is an American tradition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:07 PM

90. for example?

I realize I did in fact say, in a previous post, that some had threatened to rise up against the government. You responded by saying civil disobedience was acceptable. So what specifically did you have in mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #90)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:08 PM

114. not turn in a gun or magazine

 

disassemble, and hide it.

That's civil disobedience. "I lost those guns in a boat accident."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #114)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:14 PM

115. how could that be disobedience?

When there is no law or bill requiring you to turn in a gun or magazine? How is it that none of you can bother to acquaint yourself with what is actually being proposed? Given you all care so much about guns, I would think you'd want to rely on actual proposed policies rather than RW hysteria about what might happen if the black helicopters swoop in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #115)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:39 PM

118. In NY they just banned detachable magazines over 10 rounds

 

If you own them you must sell out of state, permanently modify, or destroy.

How many will wind up in a box marked "aunt sue" in the attic?

Also, they require all defined Assault Weapons be registered. Due to a loophole in the hastily written law, people have already figured out if they disassemble the rifle it won't meet the one-feature threshold... put it in the attic and walk away. Cuomo ha initially mentioned confiscation... These guns will likely never turn up.

Civil disobedience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #118)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:43 PM

119. Correction: over SEVEN.

Ten-rounders are grandfathered. Over-ten magazines used to be grandfathered, but that has been removed. Starting April 15th, nothing over seven can be sold or transferred. Ten-round magazines that were owned by that date can be kept, but not sold or transferred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #119)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:49 PM

120. Yes... but you can still have a 10, and only load them to 7 (like that makes sense)

 

There is no grandfather clause for the ones 11+. That's what I mean by "ban"

The other irony here is that being in NY, I have 2 offending guns. One is just a .22 LR, one is my brothers. One is a pistol that will be legal I guess.

I'm probably going to sell those 3, and buy 3 new non-offending guns so that I don't have to deal with minimal state's bureaucracy should they go into confiscation mode 5 years from now.

So these gun control measures have increased the gun count in the US by 3 at least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #115)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:37 PM

142. There is in california.

There has been some talk here of doing it nationwide, which it sounds like you do not personally rate it as being likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #18)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:29 AM

130. You'll see me write about it.

I think we have a problem in the US not with the bill of rights, and not with gun control, or lack thereof, but of a culture where people feel a need to possess personal killing devices. People make very many false justifications for the possession of personal killing devices, but I have never seen one of them provide an actual analysis of their desire to satisfy such a dangerous, macabre fetish.

Much as I think the right of free speech must include the right for people to engage in speech and written works as vile as racist screeds and fictionalized child pornography, I think that if we really do have a right to bear arms, it must include all possible armaments. However, much as we condemn and ostracize certain types of legal speech, we should condemn and ostracize the possession of certain killing devices.

Someone should be made to feel no more comfortable for owning a bomb, grenade, gun, etc. than they would be for going to KKK rallies and publishing their desire to rape children. We must stop the perception that something is not harmful to ourselves, our families, our communities, and our government simply because we possess a legal right to cause such harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:05 AM

20. So if a maniac runs down a bunch of people with a car...

..do you consider all drivers to be potential psycho murderers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:23 AM

23. can't you get a new talking point

billions of dollars to the gun lobby and they can't feed you new material? That's weak.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:40 AM

25. Dude that shit doesn't work anymore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #20)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:43 AM

31. Don't forget the spoons and the pool noodles, david. If you're going to be taken seriously with

that car analogy, you have to include the spoons, the pool noodles and the guppies. Because, dammit, they all kill too!

(Haven't you heard: even the NRA has realized that that is a ridiculous argument. You have to move on now.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:50 AM

32. And it's ever dumber for the op to claim all people who own guns are potential killers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:17 PM

34. The OP doesn't say anything even remotely resembling that.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #34)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:27 PM

36. "most of these people were law abiding before they killed someone"

That's what was said.

Which means the poster is trying to make a claim that everyone that owns a gun is a potential killer.

It's a stupid argument. Isn't EVERY criminal law abiding before committing their crime? Nobody is born guilty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:43 PM

38. The OP did not say that.

The person who DID say "most of these people were law abiding before they killed someone" was not making a slur against your hobby.

It is simply a fact that "law abiding citizens" who own guns are far more likely to kill or die by gunshot than those who don't own guns. So, by the way, are the children of gun hobbyists much more likely to kill or die by gunshot.

If you own a gun, you are statistically far more likely to kill someone than a non-gun owner.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #38)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:32 PM

60. Actually, you are mistaken.

You might be right if you said a handgun owner might be more likely to kill someone. More people are killed by non-gun appliances than are killed by rifles, including assault weapons, each year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:40 PM

68. what is a "non-gun appliance"?

A woodchipper?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #68)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:46 PM

72. A bat, a knife, a fist a foot. You name it.

Many more Americans are killed each year through assault with things other than rifles than they are with rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:48 PM

74. handguns are number 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:51 PM

98. So is that something to be proud of?

I view it as a defect in our culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #98)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:55 PM

112. Such a question would not occur to me.

I was just stating facts. All this talk about banning rifles when rifles are not used in crime statistically all that often.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:59 PM

76. Actually I am not mistaken

given that I said:

"It is simply a fact that "law abiding citizens" who own guns are far more likely to kill or die by gunshot than those who don't own guns. So, by the way, are the children of gun hobbyists much more likely to kill or die by gunshot.

If you own a gun, you are statistically far more likely to kill someone than a non-gun owner."

This is a fact.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:37 PM

80. and

people who drive cars are more likely to die in car accidents than say the Amish who do not own or drive cars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #80)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:46 PM

82. Honestly, aren't you embarassed to repeat that NRA nonsense? Is the purpose of a car to kill?

Does a car have other uses besides killing?

And as I have said countless times before, if you are going to use the assinine car analogy, you need to be thorough. The NRA also uses spoons in that argument. Because, they say, spoons kill too. By that token, why not bathtubs? Because bathtubs kill too. Another DUer told me he was told pool noodles kill, too, so they should be outlawed.

It is a specious, stupid argument. It doesn't help your case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #80)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:53 AM

133. and

people who own guns are more likely to die by gunshot that say anyone who doesn't own guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #80)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:57 PM

145. I suppose I'd bring up the Amish too...

I suppose I'd bring up the Amish too if my sacred cow were being advertised for what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Squinch (Reply #76)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:47 PM

111. More people are beaten to death

annually in the U.S. than are killed with rifles. My point is that rifles are statistically (and while you did not provide statistics, that is the basis of your claim) used to kill people less often than are hands and feet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:43 PM

70. yes, that's why your argument about gunowners being law abiding

means little. Everyone starts somewhere. A gun makes it far more likely that start will result in death. And it may not be a felony if a gunowners child plays with a gun and kills herself, but it damn well should be for the gunowner.

And that was me. The OP simply linked to pictures from the march.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #32)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:35 AM

131. Sorry, but do you know what guns are made for?

Are you maybe confusing words? A gun is a device designed and manufactured for the purpose of killing human beings. A cupcake is a personal-sized cake, often frosted. Is that maybe what you were thinking of?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #131)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:04 AM

139. Tasty Critters

Many guns are designed to kill tasty critters. Some guns are specifically designed to punch holes in pieces of paper (to which I refer to competition arms specially manufactured for shooting events at the olympics for example)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to legaleagle_45 (Reply #139)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 03:56 PM

140. Some, but not most.

Just as people don't use the kind of guns designed for killing people to do those activities, people don't usually use the kind of guns designed for those activities to kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #140)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:02 PM

141. Rifles and shotguns

About 40% of all firearms in private hands are either hunting rifles or shotguns used in hunting. Of the remaining 60%, many are handguns which are designed for self defense purposes (ok killing people) with about 5%-10% being sporting models designed for competition or to fend off rather large animals (not the human variety--- thus the largest caliber handgun was specifically designed for use by persons working in the wilds of Alaska to fend off bears). But that is a small amount of the market. Most are smaller caliber 9mm or .38 which are also employed as standard issue for police.

Most firearm homicides are of the handgun variety. Rifles and shotguns, including the sub-class of assault weapons, account for fewer homicides than are committed with knives annually in the USA... at least according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:24 PM

55. Almost all murderers have prior convictions and a police record for violence.

Please note that "almost all" does not equal "absolutely all". There will be a very few who commit murder as their first crime, but they are extremely rare.

Criminology is a well studied field, begun about 200 years ago, yet many of the findings haven't made it to common knowlege. A violent criminal has to build themselves up in insensitivity to the point where they can murder.

Furthermore, most murder victims are themselves criminals.

The idea that you are promoting, that law-abiding people suddenly become killers, is pure myth. It comes from watching too much bad TV and reading too much Agatha Christie. In murder mysteries the dead person and the murderer are never common criminals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #55)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:26 PM

57. most murders are committed with handguns

There is no proposed handgun ban. The proposal is for an assault weapons ban, the guns of choice for mass murders--most of whom do not appear to have prior felony convictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:28 PM

59. Actually even mass shooters prefer handguns

Though they do use rifles at a higher rate than "normal" shooters, the majority of mass shootings are still committed with handguns.

That Mother Jones article you've posted before breaks down the numbers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:35 PM

64. It wasn't I who posted the Mother Jones article

Or if I did, I don't recall it. I'll look for it though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:32 PM

61. Most mass murders are committed with handguns. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:34 PM

62. really? With or without detachable magazines?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:37 PM

66. Pistols generally have detachable magazines

Unless it's a revolver (which actually isn't a "pistol", legally) that's basically a given. Cho at Virginia Tech used two handguns with (a whole lot of) standard-sized magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:38 PM

67. so what were you talking about that needed banning?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:42 PM

69. Semi-automatics with detachable magazines. I never said it would be easy

And, yes, that would include basically every pistol made in the past 100 years or so. And it would bring with it all the problems of trying to prohibit something that people want to have. But I also think the Constitutional argument for a right to handgun ownership is much weaker than for rifle and shotgun ownership.

I see that as a way to greatly reduce the number of handguns out there, with an added benefit of making mass shootings less likely (I know this sounds horrible, but I don't really think mass shootings should be what we try to address with laws; that's a few dozen people a year vs. nearly 10,000 in "normal" shootings).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:47 PM

73. that answers the question we discussed the other night

Of why Feinstein won't ban all semiautomatics with detachable magazines. If they are nearly every pistol made in the past 100 years, there is no way that gets through congress. Is there another way of framing the legislation that you think would be effective?

For the time being, banning handguns is not possible. Heller ruled as much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #73)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:40 PM

143. Banning mags that extend past the end of the grip on a pistol might fly.

That would target the 33 round Glock 18 mag that loughner used on Giffords, and bystanders.

A statute worded in that manner would still allow my pistol to function as intended: 15+1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:27 PM

94. With. The VT killer switched mags 17 times.

Until the recent Batman and Newtown killers, almost all were with handguns. The Luby's killer, Ft. Hood killer, VT killer, all used handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #94)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:36 PM

95. the AWB

does extend to certain handguns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #95)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:54 PM

99. The more guns you include in the ban, the greater the opposition.

Right now, even the old AWB would not be able to pass. The new, broader AWB has generated intense opposition. It won't get by either the House or the Senate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #99)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:59 PM

100. firstly, it's not me

but if you want to see the outline of the proposed legislation, go to Diane Feinstein's website.

I find it ironic that one one hand gun bunnies say the bill won't do anything because it doesn't address the most commonly used guns and on the other, it goes too far. Is it too much to ask that you be honest in stating your views?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #100)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:21 PM

101. I see your what mean

However that is the wrong interpretation.

Most here that support gun rights think it restricts the wrong thing and will make little difference and just empower the other side. Just making laws to feel good does not help. The legislation would ban a mini 14 tactical rifle but would not ban that same weapon with a standard grip-stock. FUNCTIONALLY identical but one looks scary. It bans all AR type weapons even though you can have it chambered in 22LR and that is a very small and low power round. It looks bad. To really take on handguns you would have to ban all semi-automatics and that is not the case here. They ban more scary looking guns. Handguns are used in many more shootings than a rifle, all you have to do is look at FBI statistics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #101)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:40 PM

103. the truth is

They want no restrictions, period. Isn't that right? As the other poster said, the more aggressive the restriction and the more guns covered, they oppose it more. So they create excuses to oppose the AB, but in reality they want to stockpile any type of weapon at will. A more effective bill that addressed the issues you list would incur even greater opposition. Why not just say: we don't care what what you think, how many children die, or that the US has the highest homicide rate in the industrialized world. Our guns are more important. At least that would be honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #103)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:57 PM

106. that is not what I have seen here

Actually I see most have no issues with the Presidents orders. I have not seen anybody say universal background check are out. Even magazine restrictions have not had a lot of people against, most think it will have little effect. The more progressive have called for a ban on semi-automatic rifles, however that would never pass muster as that is probably 90% of all modern rifles. Both sides have their extremes. 1. ban everything. 2. no restrictions at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #106)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:17 PM

108. but they do object to any law that restricts

any kinds of guns. Right? Background checks are great, important. As is a database for guns. But why must every gun a manufacturer can dream up be on the market?

Perhaps if victims families had the right to sue gun manufacturers--who are now uniquely protected by congress--manufacturers would be more responsible in the types of guns they sell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #108)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:42 PM

127. Sorry I must have lost you

Who is they? The problem in weapons restrictions become some only work on the features of a weapon, like combinations of grips, flash suppressors or hiders, bayonet lugs, telescoping stocks and others. That has nothing to do with how the weapon operates or how many rounds it can fire. This also does not take into account the size of a bullet. A 22LR is a very small bullet and has very little power. This is being treated the same as 50 caliber bullet under the proposed legislation. To really have legislation with teeth would be the functional operation of the weapon. Since we have been talking about weapons that can fire many rounds in a short time this is all semi-automatic weapons, pistols or rifles. This also happens to be most weapons developed and sold in the last 75-100 years. This may be why it will be so hard to get meaningful legislation that will also pass 2nd amendment test as these weapons are in common use and have been for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duckhunter935 (Reply #127)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:39 AM

132. they meaning gungeoneers

Among the proposed changes is banning magazines over ten rounds, which will require murderers to stop to reload. It also proposes some bullets, like those that can pierce armor, be banned.

I hear a lot of excuses why you all don't want anything done. Your concerns may indeed be legitimate, but if you don't suggest alternatives the only conclusion we can reach is what I have proposed throughout this subthread--you all don't want any changes in the availability of guns.

I was talking with one member who initially convinced me that any meaningful legislation would need to ban all semi-automatics with detachable magazines. He had said he didn't support the existing law because the bans were purely cosmetic and therefore meaningless, but he would support one that banned all semiautomatics with detachable magazines. When I asked him why he thought Feinstein's legislation didn't do that, he said he didn't know but suspected sinister political motives. Then in a subsequent conversation with him I learned that virtually all pistols manufactured in recent decades are semi-automatics with detachable magazines. I said that answered his question about why Feinstein wouldn't propose such a ban: it would encompass too many guns to be a viable proposal. I asked him what he suggested as an alternate way to frame the legislation. He disappeared and didn't answer my question. My conclusion is that he may have been dissembling in an effort to spread false information to undermine the ban. I suspect he doesn't really want any ban at all.

I understand that not every gun proponent on this site is the same, but I do hear the same arguments from many of you.

The fact is something has to be done. If a compromise can't be reached, we are going to continue to have unacceptable levels of gun carnage in this country. If gun activists don't cooperate in reform, people are going to grow increasingly impatient as more and more children die. You may find subsequent proposals far more draconian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #132)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:45 PM

144. Cho, at Virginia Tech demonstrated the flaw in the 'reload' issue.

Nobody has said for certain, regards to the case, but it appears that Loughner in Arizona may have been thwarted by his own choice of that 33 round mag. They are notoriously unreliable, and may have prevented him from reloading. There is only one military in the world that uses that device, and only for one specific purpose.

The armor piercing thing is nonsense. Armor piercing pistol ammo is still banned even with the sunset of the 1994 comprehensive assault weapons bill. That provision did not sunset.
For rifles, all rounds are armor-piercing. A soft-point 180 grain deer hunting round for my .30-06 will go right through both sides of a IIIa vest. Like butter. If you're not wearing a ceramic of steel plate in that armor, it doesn't stop rifle rounds, period. Whether it's milsurp steel core, or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #144)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:51 AM

146. the point is not that reloading isn't possible

but that it makes the mass murderers task a bit more difficult. It's a minor compromise that could save some lives. Surely you people aren't so lazy that you object to taking a few seconds to reload while practice shooting? There has to be some point as which someone else's life means more than your convenience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #146)

Tue Jan 29, 2013, 11:31 AM

147. That's not demonstrated in real life.

The ONLY example I can think of where the bad guy reloading caused him a problem, was Loughner, and that appears to be because his weapon jammed. A typical problem with those 33 round magazines. The spring in the mag has to lift that entire 33 round stack of cartridges into the feed ramp of the pistol. That means it has an oversized spring. Two problems, either it fails to feed or jams at the action end, or the floorplate breaks and the spring, and ammo, dump out all over the floor. The mag is typically only used by one nation's special forces in certain conditions, and not with the pistol Loughner used. They put it in the Glock 18, which is actually a fully automatic pistol. They use it like an uzi, close quarters, hostage type stuff.

I'm willing to reload 10 round mags, fine. 7 even. I can live with the 'inconvenience'.

However, I am not convinced this will save anyone's life. Six people died in Tuscon. 13 wounded. If he'd been using 10 round mags that reloaded properly without jamming (actually, that gun would have come with 15 rounds, but just speculating) could anyone have tackled him? Didn't happen at Virginia Tech. Cho reloaded a LOT. Searching for 'shooter tackled reloading' comes up with pretty much one hit: Tuscon Az. There's a strip club shooter that was actually out of ammo entirely, and another where the state troopers tackled the shooter, again, out of ammo. Very rare you get people nabbing the bad guy reloading. Not until the police arrive and can deliver suppression fire.

(this account suggests Loughner wasn't even reloading, maybe tried to reload, failed, and then ran, but he was running when he got hit with a chair, and then tackled http://newsitem.com/news/man-with-ties-to-schuylkill-county-said-he-is-one-of-two-who-tackled-arizona-gunman-1.1087931 )

Does it actually make the mass murderer's 'task' more difficult? I am not so certain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:41 PM

81. Owning slaves was once ruled by SCOTUS to be a "right" that

the federal government had even less authority to interfere with than they do with the "right" to bear arms.

I am glad that "right" is no longer recognized.

Just because something is in the Constitution doesn't make it sacrosanct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:36 AM

11. Why are these people asknig for more gun laws?

Connecticut already has an assault rifle ban but it did not stop the Sandy Hook killings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Christopfer7 (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:00 AM

12. the AR-15 wasn't banned

and the answer is 20 dead 6 year olds. People are tired of mass slaughter and selfish people who believe the only thing that matters is their so-called "right" to stockpile WMD.
Connecticut is also a tiny state. They could have banned every single gun and still have truckloads coming over from NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:23 AM

15. Yep. It amazes me that people don't realize that guns can be carried from one state

to another. We have porous borders, people. And no checkpoints.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #12)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:58 AM

19. Well, that will make it better.

the AR-15 wasn't banned

and the answer is 20 dead 6 year olds.

If they had only banned AR-15s, this never would have happened. Can't be done with any other kind of firearm.

This fixation on the AR-15 is truly bizarre. You do realize that the only significant difference between banned and not-banned rifles is a pistol grip? We're talking about ergonomics here, not lethality. Magazine capacity is a factor, but not the be-all-end-all. The killings in Newtown could have been accomplished with just about any rifle produced after the advent of repeaters in the latter part of the 19th century. There was no one there who could have stopped him in the 10 minutes that it took the police to arrive.

The fact that ARs figure in so many of these incidents speaks more to the fact that they are the single most popular rifle in the country now than to the fallacious notion that they are many times more lethal than a wide variety of other firearms that are legally available in Connecticut and every other state in the Union, not to mention many of the supposedly enlightened European nations.

Guns can kill people. Any guns. This is not news or a surprise to anyone. If your goal is the total elimination of private ownership of firearms, why don't you just say so? Then the real discussion can begin. All this chatter about "reasonable restrictions" and demonization of scary-looking guns is just a smokescreen to get the vast middle on board, right? Start with the low-hanging fruit and work your way up. If you manage to get everything banned, then in an generation or two you might start to see an impact on the frequency of shooting sprees, which are actually a very small part of the overall homicide rate. Or maybe not. Charles Whitman did his awful work without benefit of an AR-15, and Andrew Kehoe murdered 38 children and six adults without using any firearms at all.

You will also have destroyed any possibility of armed self-defense (I know, I know, you don't believe it actually exists anyway), completely alienated the rural population, shredded the Constitution, and further infantilized the American public, who eventually will not even be trusted with pointy scissors. The only people who will have a working familiarity with firearms will be the military and the police, which will take on the character of separate and distinct warrior classes.

The notion that tragedy can be managed out of existence through gun control is a hubristic delusion. Do you really believe that the children of America are in imminent danger of being murdered at school on any given day? If you do, what possible reason could you have for opposing armed guards in every school? And if you don't, then where does all this urgency and high moral dudgeon come from?

I submit that is a transference, a form of scapegoating springing from the inability to cope with the enormity of what happened in Connecticut. It must be someone's fault. The perpetrator is dead, as is his enabler. Someone must be blamed. Something must be done. It doesn't matter what. Let's pin it all on our political enemies. They're less than human anyway. Welcome to American tribal politics in the 21st Century.

OK, it's your turn. Tell me about how I don't care about dead children.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #19)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:19 AM

21. It has been the gun of choice for many mass murderers

and that isn't the only weapon being banned. A key to the legislation is banning magazines over 10 rounds.

It's not going to get rid of homicide, but it intends to make mass murder a bit more challenging. Sure, I'd like to get rid of most guns, but I can't. So the legislation focuses on AW. I get that it should ban all weapons with detachable magazines, and I would like to see that included. No normal human being needs to have the capacity to murder dozens of people within a minute. If they want to play soldier, they should join the military. These people need to do something productive with their lives instead of practicing to kill. There is no need for that. And it sure as hell doesn't trump the rest of our rights to live. So spare me your whining. Take it up with your pals in the NRA. I really don't care if your feelings are hurt because you can't buy every deadly weapon some twisted company dreams up to sell.

You picked a perfect screen name, because your argument is absurd. No one is taking away any of your murder machines. Read the newspaper and stop with the RW conspiracy theories. A desire to rise up against the government is not a reason for guns. It's called TREASON. Again, thanks for showing the law abiding meme is complete fiction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:34 AM

24. Please show me where ...

... I advocated taking up arms against the government. I did no such thing. My point about a warrior class was made to emphasize further divisions in our society and the alienation of the general public from the actual practice of wielding power. The citizen-soldier model, with compulsory national service, is a far healthier one than the current professional-soldier-Praetorian-Guard model, IMO. Your suggestion is the actual "straw man," a term with which you are obviously less than conversant.

In one breath you tell me that you would like to "get rid of most guns," and then you mock me for taking you at your word. I have no "murder machines." If you mean guns, you have just said you wanted to take them away. Why should I not believe you? This is not a straw man of my own making: it is your own professed desire.

I break no laws. I have committed no treason. Your hate-filled and hyperbolic rhetoric is a perfect case-in-point of the transference I was talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:24 AM

26. what I want hypothetically is irrelevant

What matters is what the law provides, and existing law does not permit banning all guns. So imagining that the government is going to take away your guns is indeed creating a straw man argument because it is entirely hypothetical. You are arguing against something that does not exist. I'm not interested in your lectures on the English language.

Here is your post: "You will also have destroyed any possibility of armed self-defense (I know, I know, you don't believe it actually exists anyway), completely alienated the rural population, shredded the Constitution, and further infantilized the American public, who eventually will not even be trusted with pointy scissors. The only people who will have a working familiarity with firearms will be the military and the police, which will take on the character of separate and distinct warrior classes."

This is bizarre on so many levels. Prohibiting you from buying additional assault weapons with detachable magazines does not take away your right to self defense. And it hardly shreds the constitution. Extensive legal precedent establishes the government's right to carry out gun control. (While the gun lobby has itself undermined the First Amendment in a myriad of ways). "Infantalize the American public"? So I take it you subscribe to Bushmaster's notion that you can't be a man without an assault rifle? Well, I'm sorry you feel so insecure. Being a man or a woman does not rest on the capacity to kill dozens of people within sixty seconds. it is about behaving responsibly in society. The rest of that paragraph is right-wing conspiracy nonsense. Again, I direct you to recent news coverage of the President's ACTUAL proposals.

If you want to change the nature of military service in this country, lobby congress. If you indeed were in the national guard or a state militia, they would provide you with guns. You don't get to reform the military by creating your own backyard militia. Each excuse you create for owning assault rifles is more dangerous than the last.

Guns are killing machines. They kill. That is what they are designed for and they do it very efficiently. When you say defense, you imagine killing someone. That is what your idea of defense depends on. It may be legally justifiable, but it is killing. Murder requires intent, which perpetrators like those in the recent mass shootings demonstrated. There is no legal purpose for an AW of the sort banned in the legislation. You can't hunt with them and you don't need them for self defense. They are designed for war and are extremely handy in slaughtering large numbers of people in movie theaters and children in schools.

Here's what it comes down to. You and guys like you who stockpile WMD are not the only people in this country who count. The rest of us have rights too. I realize you take this very suggestion as "hate-filled rhetoric" because society has catered to you and the gun lobby for so long, but we hope to change that now so our children have the chance to reach age 7. Yes, an AWB isn't going to change the fact that more preschool age children in this country die from gunshot wounds than police die in active duty. But it may save 50-100 lives a year, which may not matter to you but it does to most people, including a majority of gun owners who support an AWB. (See the Daily Kos SEIU poll on gun control). Instituting universal background checks and allowing law enforcement to maintain a database of guns will also help. Those are measures the gun lobby opposes because of their relentless determination to protect criminals, some of their best customers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:22 PM

79. It is very relevant.

what I want hypothetically is irrelevant

What matters is what the law provides, and existing law does not permit banning all guns. So imagining that the government is going to take away your guns is indeed creating a straw man argument because it is entirely hypothetical. You are arguing against something that does not exist.

The fact that you can make that statement in the same thread where you are calling for changes in those very laws indicates to me a cognitive dissonance of massive proportions. How many times have I read on this very site that "the Second Amendment is obsolete and needs to be repealed"? How many times have people on this site said "Ban 'em all"? When the New York Assembly voted on Governor Cuomo's new AW ban, more than one speaker from the floor said "This is just the beginning." Am I supposed to believe that they're just kidding?

A "straw man" argument is not one that is hypothetical. It is one that is counterfactual: it argues against a position that does not exist. The position I am arguing against clearly exists. Perhaps you yourself are not that extreme, but I'm not arguing against you alone. I'm arguing against the entire mindset that thinks that hardware bans will solve the problem, and will solve it without some unintended consequences.

If you want to change the nature of military service in this country, lobby congress. If you indeed were in the national guard or a state militia, they would provide you with guns. You don't get to reform the military by creating your own backyard militia. Each excuse you create for owning assault rifles is more dangerous than the last.

"Backyard militias" is a straw man entirely of your own making. I mentioned compulsory national service -- a citizen army, such as existed before the draft was abolished and the military became a world unto itself. How you get backyard militias from that is baffling.

There is no legal purpose for an AW of the sort banned in the legislation. You can't hunt with them and you don't need them for self defense. They are designed for war and are extremely handy in slaughtering large numbers of people in movie theaters and children in schools.

You certainly can hunt with them, and people frequently do. Please do some research on this. As for their utility in self-defense, the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with your assessment:

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

-- https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc24416b752b57294a17b3

"Select-fire" means either full-auto or semi-auto, so already beyond the capabilities of civilian versions, yet still recognized as a defensive weapon.

You and guys like you who stockpile WMD are not the only people in this country who count.

I don't own an AR. I have no intention of getting one. I have no desire to shoot anyone -- in fact, the thought makes me sick. I use firearms for sport. Nevertheless, I see the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, both in defense of one's person and in defense of one's country. And for your own sake, please don't call civilian firearms "WMD" -- that term has a specific meaning that does not apply here. You undermine your own credibility.

Yes, an AWB isn't going to change the fact that more preschool age children in this country die from gunshot wounds than police die in active duty. But it may save 50-100 lives a year, which may not matter to you but it does to most people, including a majority of gun owners who support an AWB.

And it may save no lives at all. Most of the children who die from gunshot wounds are victims of stray rounds fired in gang wars, mostly from handguns. An AWB does nothing to prevent this. It misdirects attention away from the real problem, which is the plight of inner cities and the traffic in illegal guns.

Instituting universal background checks and allowing law enforcement to maintain a database of guns will also help. Those are measures the gun lobby opposes because of their relentless determination to protect criminals, some of their best customers.

Nowhere have I stated opposition to universal background checks: that is another straw man of your own making. "Relentless determination to protect criminals"? Do you actually know any gun people? Most of the ones I know are law-and-order types: active or retired law enforcement, retired military, etc. They know that criminals are the ones who are ruining it for the rest of us. Sorry, no sale there.

Yes, I would characterize accusing people of having blood on their hands as "hate-filled rhetoric," especially when your accusations are based on things they haven't done and words they haven't said. And again I ask you: If you feel that your children are in imminent danger, why do you oppose armed guards in schools?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #79)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:04 PM

89. You are arguing against a position that doesn't exist

No one is confiscating your guns. That is right wing paranoia. There are concrete proposals the President has announced. THAT is what is up for discussion. That people write things on a site is really irrelevant. I understand you like to argue in extremes, but it's pointless. I'm not interested in debating what someone else on DU writes. There are real policy positions proposed and actual legislation. My position is in support of that legislation. If you insist on arguing something else, you will need to do it with someone else.

My point in saying I might personally like to see a more comprehensive ban was that the AWB is an attempt to strike a compromise between the rights of gun owners and an effort to get the most dangerous weapons off the street. But it's increasingly clear that people like you aren't interested in compromise. The AWB was a no go after Sandyhook, but the responses of the NRA and zealots like you have pushed more and more Americans into supporting it. You people are the best proponents for gun control out there. The more unreasonable you are, the fewer people care about what you want.

"Most children do not die from stray gang bullets." What racist nonsense. Is it really necessary that every single sentence you write reek of white male privilege? Most people are harmed by guns owned from someone inside their own home. You and every other gun owner are 7x more likely to see that gun used on yourself or a member of your household than against an intruder.

I mentioned the background checks because that is among the changes being proposed. Again, there are specific changes being proposed. Discussing anything else is pointless. I live in a state where hunting is part of its culture. My brother-in-law is a Republican who hunts regularly, as does the entire side of that family. He also supports an assault weapons ban. If I am ever able to buy a cabin near the North Shore of Lake Superior, I would also have a shotgun in case I need to scare away wolves and bears. I don't have a problem with people owning guns for hunting and self defense. My problem is with widespread gun proliferation and the power the gun lobby wields over politics, including infringing on the First Amendment.

You are the one who insisted you needed assault weapons as part of forming some citizen military. If you did not mean forming a militia on your own, your very excuse for having the weapons is moot. You just nullified your own argument.

Okay, so you maintain some hunters need AW with extended magazines. Why? Do they get off on shooting a deer past the point where it's edible? Are they too lazy to bother reaching in their bag to reload? Do they have to be airlifted onto their hunting spot because they can't bear to walk either? In Minnesota, hunters eat their kill. They don't riddle them with bullets past the point of recognition. Some even hunt with--God forbid--bows and arrows. I didn't realize the goal was to protect budding serial killers who like to see animals mutilated for kicks rather than assuring the Second Amendment rights of hunters.

I find it ironic that you lecture me about "researching" the capacity of certain weapons when you can't be bothered to read news coverage of the policy positions you are debating.

I did not accuse you of having blood on your hands. No where.

I'm not sure why you refuse to stick to actual proposals. Whether it's because you prefer to create a strawman argument, you can't be bothered to read a newspaper, or your paranoia keeps you from understanding reality. At any rate, it does you no good. You're obviously extremely agitated over something that does not exist as actual proposed legislation or Democratic Party policy position. Stop watching Fox and listening to Rush and start reading a legitimate news source. It will do you worlds of good.

If your real concern is only maintaining Second Amendment rights, you have nothing to fear from anything the President has put forward. What some DUers in their pajamas post online about repealing the Second Amendment amounts to squat. There is nothing more difficult than changing the constitution. So calm yourself down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #89)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:28 PM

117. Calm myself down?

"Most children do not die from stray gang bullets." What racist nonsense. Is it really necessary that every single sentence you write reek of white male privilege?

"Race, unfortunately and tragically, factors into gun death at the metro level. The share of the population that is black is positively related to both the overall rate of gun death (.56) and even more so with gun-related homicides (.72). The pattern is similar for the share of the population that is comprised of young black males which is also positively related to the overall rate of gun death (.55) and murder by gun (.70)."

--http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2012/12/geography-us-gun-violence/4171/

Why does it "reek of white male privilege" to be as concerned for young people of color in the inner city as I am for the children of Sandy Hook? Their death toll is a daily tragedy, and its cumulative numbers dwarf the Aurora and Sandy Hook murders. But it's one that is essentially ignored.

You are the one who insisted you needed assault weapons as part of forming some citizen military.

I said no such thing. My reference was to a conscript army, such as we had up through the Vietnam War era. Such an army benefits from a citizenry that is familiar with the use of firearms. Such an army also helps deflect excessive militarism in the exercise of foreign policy, since it represents a broad cross-section of the entire population. If the sons and daughters of our elected officials were in uniform alongside our own sons and daughters, there would in most cases be less of a rush to war.

Okay, so you maintain some hunters need AW with extended magazines.

No -- I said nothing about extended magazines. Reduced-capacity magazines are used in order to comply with game regulations. In cases where rifles are used for pest eradication, such restrictions do not apply and full-capacity magazines may be used.

I didn't realize the goal was to protect budding serial killers who like to see animals mutilated for kicks rather than assuring the Second Amendment rights of hunters.

I have no idea what you're talking about. This is incoherent hate-spew.

We clearly have nothing more to say to each other. You are not addressing me or anything that I have said. You are raging against some monstrous image of your own creation. Go in peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #117)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 02:31 AM

134. You continue to stray from the subject in bizarre ways

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:55 AM - Edit history (1)

My entire point from the beginning of this conversation has about the AW ban for semi automatics with extended magazines, the bill currently proposed by Diane Feinstein that is in keeping with President Obama's efforts to curb gun violence. If you aren't talking about that, we aren't having the same conversation.

The point about African-American homicides does not in fact prove that most children are killed by "gangs." You do not provide statistics for pre-school children but instead for young black males. It's apples and avocados. You reference to "gangs" is what is racist, not an observation that black males are disproportionately victims of gun violence. My point was about pre-school children. You turned to a racist trope about gang violence in an effort to deligitimate my point about the deaths of pre-school children by guns.

The army trains people how to use weapons. That point does not advance your argument in the slightest. Any military you imagine would replace our existing system would do the same. That entire justification is preposterous.

You do not address my points. You argue something in your own mind, and as a result you make it impossible to have a logical discussion. I talk about the AWB, you talk about guns being taken from you. You insist the guns banned by that law are used in hunting and then claim that's not what you were talking about. I have made it repeatedly clear from the outset that I'm arguing about the proposed AWB. You are unable to stick to the point, and then take offense when I try to figure out where your mind is wandering. What else do you suppose happens when someone uses an AR-15 with a 100 round drum to hunt other than destroy an animal's carcass beyond use? You can't expect me to read your mind. I can only operate from what you write.

You are so determined to play victim that you refuse to pay attention to what I'm saying. You've got issues, dude. You began this discussion by trying to goad me into saying you don't care about children. Then you accuse me of saying you have blood on your hands, which I never did. I don't know what your problem is, but you make it impossible to have a rational discussion. You clearly want to make enemies rather than have a logical discussion, and I have no doubt you succeed in that endeavor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #134)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 09:02 AM

138. Nope. Fundamentally wrong.

Feinstein wants to ban the AR-15 by name and institute a one-feature definition for "assault weapon." This will do absolutely nothing to prevent or reduce violence.

Gangs come in all colors. They are mainly responsible for the gun violence in cities. To deny this is to deny reality. Gang members kill each other on purpose and kill small children inadvertently. It happens all the time. If you don't know that, then you're not paying attention. I suspect that you're not.

Why are you still trying to pretend that I advocated hunting with 100-round magazines? This is offensively dishonest.

You jump to your preconceptions about what you think I'm saying and then blame me for your misapprehension. You ignore every stat and piece of information I provide. You make baseless accusations of racism while continuing to ignore the death toll of inner-city youth.

How is it that I'm supposed to respect your opinion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #21)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:15 AM

28. Is it possible that I since have heard numerous times on MSNBC and CNN that an AR-15 is ...

a "mass murder machine" that all this publicity has led to people with severe mental issues to chose one for their mass murder?

Is it possible that 24/7 coverage of any mass murder lasts until all the victims are buried might influence some mentally ill person who felt that society had rejected him to chose to gain fame by trying to set a record for the number of people he murdered before he committed suicide?

You are not hurting my feelings in the least. However I enjoy enjoy target shooting handguns and own two .22 caliber target pistols that have 10 round magazines that are detachable.

What exactly do you mean by "ban." Should I be required to turn my target pistols in or face a fine or imprisonment? What would that accomplish? Would it stop some person with a severe mental problem from killing a large number of people? All my firearms are properly secured and I held a government security clearance for 40 years before I retired. I also have a Florida concealed weapons permit. I am totally sane and have have a spotless criminal record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #28)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 11:37 AM

30. I suggest you read the newspaper

Then you won't need to ask what the ban covers.

You know who else had a spotless record: Lanza, his mother, and James Holmes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Christopfer7 (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:26 AM

16. Go away and think about it for a while. Come back with an answer. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Christopfer7 (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:35 PM

63. that is why legal guns need to be removed from the street as do the Zimmerman's.

 

all guns should be banned from the street
keep them in your private home with a neon sticker and if you go to shooting gallery, they can give you a gun like I get a ball and club when I go to minigolf

you can protect your home

with zero tolerance for any guns in the street, one isn't needed

Look what Zimmerman did.

Only law enforcement federal/state/local should have a gun, and they too at end of shift need to leave them in the office.

again, Look what the Paul Blart Zimmerman's do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:24 PM

83. I would go farther.

 

Why do you need a gun in the home in the first place? A good bat will deter intruders, with the added benefit you can't use your WMD to mass murder school children.

I also question why cops really need guns. Once we go post-ban, they should be like Britain and have to check them out from the station for emergencies, like a SWAT raid or something. Going about their day to day business, all they do is murder black people anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Christopfer7 (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:16 PM

116. Why don't you post that crap on iloveguns dot com? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:45 AM

27. At the same time gun shows had record attendance across our nation. ...

Costa Mesa Gun Show Draws Long Lines, Demand for Ammunition
After a long wait, buyers found "no deals" amid a reported ammunition shortage
By Melissa Pamer and Michelle Valles | Saturday, Jan 26, 2013 | Updated 6:59 PM PSTView


Long lines of firearms aficionados waited outside a gun show in Costa Mesa Saturday that was expected to draw a crowd in part because ammunition is reportedly in short supply at Southern California retail outlets.

The event, held at the OC Fair and Event Center and slated for Saturday and Sunday, was expected to draw some 25,000 attendees.

***snip***

On Saturday morning, thousands waited for hours in get in, and then waited again to purchase ammunition. Some attendees said items went quickly and were overpriced.

***snip***

I'd be the first to confirm that we've been told there's no ammunition available in Los Angeles area," Templeton added.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/OC-Gun-Show-Draws-Long-Lines-Demand-for-Ammunition-188499261.html


Long lines at Marlborough gun show don't deter gun enthusiasts

By Scott O'Connell/Daily News staff
The MetroWest Daily News
Posted Jan 27, 2013 @ 12:10 AM


By noon on Saturday, the line to get into the Best Western Royal Plaza Trade Center snaked out the door and nearly into the parking lot. But even a reported hour-long wait wasn't enough to discourage thousands of residents from getting inside.


MARLBOROUGH —
By noon on Saturday, the line to get into the Best Western Royal Plaza Trade Center snaked out the door and nearly into the parking lot. But even a reported hour-long wait wasn't enough to discourage thousands of residents from getting inside.

"This is the biggest crowd I've ever seen at the Marlborough gun show," said vendor Frank Summers, who estimated his company's sales would far eclipse anything it had done in the past there.

Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1631910622/Long-lines-at-Marlborough-gun-show-dont-deter-gun-enthusiasts#ixzz2JAJJCpxX


Albany gun show draws big crowds

Posted at: 01/26/2013 7:45 PM | Updated at: 01/27/2013 3:16 AM
By: Dan Bazile


ALBANY - Gun enthusiasts packed the Empire State Plaza Convention Center in Albany for the annual gun show.

Organizers say it's a bigger crowd than they expected, and that it's because of the recent gun control law in New York State.

Doug Roberts, one of the organizers says, "This interest in Washington and certainly in Albany, has awakened a lot of people. Now they're thinking let's buy that new shotgun before something else chttp://wnyt.com/article/stories/S2910367.shtml?cat=300
hanges."

Gun show sees record crowd
Uncertainty about regulation increases first-day numbers


By John Ingle
Posted January 27, 2013 at midnight

Whether it's people looking to buy firearms or a coincidental pancake feed, the first day of the Wichita Falls Gun and Knife Show was one of the largest ever, an organizer said Saturday afternoon.

Joe Tom White, event promoter, said a line wrapped around the corner of the entrance to the gun show on the west side of the Ray Clymer Exhibit Hall. He said it's one of the largest crowds he has seen on the first day of the two-day event.

"The biggest factor that kicked it over the top," he said, "is they are concerned with the unknown with the current administration and gun control. These folks here are getting ready for it."
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2013/jan/27/gun-show-sees-record-crowd/


So while you are touting a fairly large number of people with signs showing up in Washington DC to show support for strong gun control, across our nation people are showing up at gun shows and gun stores and buying everything in sight.

If I actually wished to buy a AR-15 I can. I just have to sign up on a waiting list at my local store which has sold out of every AR-15 they had. My son in law who I lived with tried to convince me to do so yesterday, but at this time I have absolutely no reason at this time to own one.

What distresses me is that millions of "assault weapons" and all firearms are being bought by people who have little or no use for them. Some people do actually use an AR-15 for target shooting and for hunting feral hogs and similar rifles in a larger caliber are used for deer hunting in many sates with limited magazine capacity. An AR-15 might be a reasonable choice for self defense in a rural area while a handgun or shotgun might be he better choice in an urban area.

But most people have little use for such weapons as they don't target shoot, hunt or live in a rural area that has feral hogs. They will buy these firearms because they fear gun confiscations or that they will not be ale to buy them in the future. Many will fail to store their weapons securely and consequently tragedies will result or the weapons will be stolen and end up in criminal hands.

It is true that the gun laws in our nation need improvement. I would suggest that those who support gun control stop talking about "bans" and instead push for better regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:43 PM

71. Just think of how many assault weapons

that will be sold and in general circulation only because of the talk of 'banning' them. I know the talk of a new ban is increasing demand exponentially, just like the last 'ban' did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:37 AM

29. Hard for me to believe that honest-to-god Liberal/Progressive/Democrats here on DU ...

... are arguing against gun controls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:01 PM

33. Some people don't swallow the whole platform...

Some people make up their own minds.

I think the AWB is a fallacy, targeting only a fraction of murders in this country which is aimed at making some suburban people feel better. If I lived in a major city, I would be obscenely more worried about handguns, which kill more people by about 21 times.

Gangs and drug dealers don't use semi-auto AR-15 clones. They use handguns because they can be carried and hidden easily in broad daylight, are small enough to steal in a burglary, and can be bought illegally very easily (straw purchasing and buying from family are very common and nearly impossible to regulate until after a crime has been committed).

The murder weapons of choice in my area (rural) for the past decade? Beer and liquor bottles, followed by knives and then handguns (we don't have many murders, and all are either drunk frat boys, drug dealing or the one-off loony guy shooting his neighbor over parking).

All that said, I have no real problem with NYS's new gun law (the 7-round ban is kinda silly, because you can keep 10-round mags and load them full at a gun club, but not at home on the "back 40"). Also, I support every other position on the Democratic platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #33)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:00 PM

41. The argument that we shouldn't ban some weapons because it won't stop murder with all weapons ...

... or even most weapons, is very short-sighted.

Using that logic, we shouldn't set the speed limit at 70 because it won't stop traffic deaths that occur at slower speeds.

A ban on high-firepower arms makes sense for a whole bunch of reasons. But it will take several steps to rein in the gun violence in America. But to oppose banning the AR-15 (for example) because it won't stop killing done with revolvers is pretty lame.

Perfection is the enemy of progress. So are "slippery slope" arguments and other red herrings the gun lobby uses to stop any meaningful legislation from being passed.

I don't doubt that there are left-wing gun-owners. I am one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:09 PM

45. The problem may be that you think the AR-15 is "high power"

What some of us keep trying to point out is that it's not, it's actually one of the lower-powered rifles out there, and it doesn't shoot any faster than any other semi-automatic rifle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:18 PM

49. I didn't write "high power", I wrote "high fire-power"....

This is, in my humble (and evolving) opinion, a combination of magazine capacity, rate-of-fire, muzzle velocity and projectile design/construction.

Here's more ...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2213258

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:19 PM

51. I'd definitely be on board with something like that

Though I think it could be much simpler: ban semi-autos with detachable magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:21 PM

53. Wouldn't the manufacturers just design high-capacity built-in mags?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:23 PM

54. That's still a much different world

Reloading an internal magazine takes orders of magnitude longer than replacing a detachable one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:25 PM

56. Good point. Thanks for your contribution to the dialogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:54 PM

104. I can reload 10 rounds into an SKS in about 4 seconds

and I am far from proficient on that platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:16 PM

48. It's not focusing on the problem...

Banning a few guns will lead the people who would have used them to get DIFFERENT guns. Look at the last AWB. A few quick changes and they got around it. The AWB did nothing to stem the tide of handgun deaths which peaked in the early 90s and then started coming down -- which coincidentally came 18-20 years after Roe V. Wade.

"Using that logic, we shouldn't set the speed limit at 70 because it won't stop traffic deaths that occur at slower speeds."

Speeding is one of the leading causes of fatal accidents, not 2% of the total. Besides, the national speed limit law was put in place to stem oil consumption.

"Perfection is the enemy of progress."

No, focusing on feel-good piece of crap legislation while ignoring the 800-pound gorilla in the room which kills 20 times more people is the enemy of progress. You use up any good will and political capital to put something in place which will not only do NOTHING to solve the problem but will energize the GOP base going into a midterm election. Just like the ACA, which didn't address single-payer health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:20 PM

52. Please see my post #49.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:27 PM

58. Umm...I think you responded to the wrong post...

because 49 has nothing to do with my comment, which you completely ignored...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #58)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:36 PM

65. Sorry, I should have written a bit more.

I agree that banning a weapon based on cosmetic features is dumb, ergo my suggestion of a "high-firepower weapons ban" as proposed here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2213258

But to say "it does not focus on the problem" is correct only in that such a ban doesn't solve the entire problem. No single component of any new law will. Calling an as-yet-unwritten law a "feel good piece of legislation" is not helpful.

That said, I can see us ending up with a ban on any firearm with a detachable magazine, as per Recursion's suggestion.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:35 PM

85. It is written...

"Calling an as-yet-unwritten law a "feel good piece of legislation" is not helpful."

Check Feinstein's office. It's written. Guess what? It does nothing for handgun violence, which is higher than all rifles by a factor of 20 and higher than "assault weapons" by a factor of 100 or so. I'd say that qualifies as "FEEL good" rather than "DO good."

"But to say "it does not focus on the problem" is correct only in that such a ban doesn't solve the entire problem."

It attempts to solve a minuscule part of the problem, albeit a high-profile part as it's about 20 rich suburban children (all white, btw), rather than the 6,000 people shot with handguns every year. Yeah, I'd say that's not focusing on the bigger problem. Why do you think we (as in Democrats) focused on getting the 47 million uninsured Americans on the rolls with the ACA, rather than focusing on tort reform? Simple: One is a bigger problem than the other.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I'd rather we work on the bigger problems first, leaving the smaller ones with the worse political capital-to-results ratios for later. Besides, if we're going to piss off the GOP, let's get something good first, not a glorified "Romneycare" bill.

"That said, I can see us ending up with a ban on any firearm with a detachable magazine, as per Recursion's suggestion."

Yeah, that's not going to happen. Why? A) Not enough Dems support an AWB to get it passed, let alone anything harsher at this time. B) We can't pay our teachers a decent wage, but we (as a government of the people kind of we) can buy hundreds of millions of firearms, as per the Fifth Amendment?

BTW, most guns with detachable magazines cost between $400 to $2,000 a piece. We're talking about $200 billion, easy. How will we pay for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #85)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:39 PM

86. Link to the "it is written" legislation? I keep hearing that it has not been written.

Regarding paying the $200 billion. I'm not aware of any proposals to take existing firearms out of the hands of their owners, only to prevent further proliferation.

What are you referring to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #86)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:19 PM

91. Try Google...

The bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.150:

It's been written for months, and now it's been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It focuses on "assault weapons" and not handguns.

On to your other point... You said: "I'm not aware of any proposals to take existing firearms out of the hands of their owners, only to prevent further proliferation."

You also said this two posts ago: "That said, I can see us ending up with a ban on any firearm with a detachable magazine, as per Recursion's suggestion."

While no "official" has made a proposal, people still need to think about the repercussions of their ideas. The "ban on any firearms with a detachable magazine" is either a) going to seize several hundred million firearms at a cost in the 12-figure range, or b) leave them in circulation, as there is no way to trace them now, and give the legislation no teeth. Which is it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #91)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:33 PM

102. I went to the link you provided. Here's what's listed under "Text of Legislation" ...

"The text of S.150 has not yet been received from GPO"


Now why don't you try to help solve this problem instead of complaining about the specifics of a bill that hasn't been written?

And nobody, nobody, is talking about seizing firearms already in circulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #102)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:41 PM

109. LOTS of people are "talking about seizing firearms already in circulation."

Take a look around here for starters.

Oh, and here we go... because you can't use Google...
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5dffbf07-d8e5-42aa-9f22-0743368dd754

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #109)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:04 PM

113. I can google better than you can read ....

From the link you provided: "The Assault Weapons Ban includes a grandfather clause that specifically exempts all assault weapons lawfully possessed at the date of enactment from the ban."

Stop spreading misinformation!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:37 PM

37. Most of the pushback is against specific provisions we find pointless or counterproductive

It infuriates me that our party's response to Sandy Hook is to say "if you want to buy the rifle he used in the future, it will have to look different", and that the most outspoken advocates of that law can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that that's what it does.

Magazine capacity limits, universal background checks, safe storage laws: I don't think I've seen much argument against those here (though some people say there are too many magazines out there for the limits to do much good). Remember: except for the AWB, basically everybody on DU from both sides agreed with Obama's proposals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:03 PM

42. I don't hear anyone arguing that we should ban weapons due to cosmetic features ...

...either here on DU or in Washington DC.

I do hear a lot of people saying "that's not an assault weapon" (despite gun stores marketing it as one) when it muddies the water and slows the dialogue.

I agree that parts of the old AWB that was allowed to sunset were "cosmetic". That doesn't mean every future law has to be as dumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:06 PM

44. That's because nobody seems to bother to read the bill

We know what's in the proposed bill: whereas Lanza's rifle was legal under the '94 ban, it would be illegal under the proposed 2013 ban until it was given a new brand name and differently shaped grip. We keep bringing up the grip because that is the aspect of the rifle he used that the new law bans: not the rate of fire, not the capability of taking extended magazines, not the lethality of its ammunition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:13 PM

46. Do you have language from the proposed 2013 ban? I've not seen that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 01:16 PM

47. Yes, it's online

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4

Page 2, line 22 is the relevant change (this is the same language as the '94 ban, but with "two features" replaced with "one feature"). So the rifle he used will need a differently shaped grip. What an awesome accomplishment!

(The part farther down, "with all the capabilities of" was in the '94 ban, too, but that turned out to not actually legally mean anything, because rebranded identical guns were judged to be legal.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:43 PM

39. We don't have to accept every proposal

I support the President's EOs, universal background checks and limits on magazine size. I oppose the AWB and national registration.

What does that put me on your Liberal/Progressive/Democrats continuum?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:25 PM

93. the OP posted pictures of the march

That's it. S/he didn't lay out a continuum. Why so defensive? Is it really necessary to respond to every mention of gun control as a personal assault against you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #93)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:37 PM

96. Go read the post that I was responding to.

please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #96)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:49 PM

97. I stand corrected

I did try to follow the lines before I replied, but I read it incorrectly because the post you were replying to was so far up thread. I apologize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 12:47 PM

40. Liberalism is not on the "gun control" side.

Liberalism would be the belief that everyone -can- own a gun, and that no one would ever have a need to use it outside of personal enjoyment.

(If you're talking political spectrum, it's a sad but true statement that gun control is directly "conservative" in nature, by definition.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:18 PM

77. liberalism as in the Tea Party?

Then you're right. But the Democratic Party doesn't believe that the right to kill trumps the right to live. We're picky that way.

Whatever word games come up with, you're with the Teabaggers on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Decoy of Fenris (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 02:19 PM

78. Bullshit.


Tell you what: you get the likes of Wayne LaPierre, Ted Nugent, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Jim Yeager, Larry Pratt, Glen Beck, and every other hyper-conservative politico and spokesman who's been expressing rabid support for the gun militancy movement in this country for decades to walk away from that support and start espousing gun control, and then we'll talk about your goofy-assed notion that guns-for-everybody is somehow a "liberal" stance. You're just embarrassing yourself by posting "thoughts" like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 03:25 PM

84. That is because they aren't real Progressives Scuba.

 

There needs to be an official DU policy on acceptable positions in gun control policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 05:24 PM

92. The Democratic party can't even agree on "acceptable positions in gun control policy."

Go talk to Harry Reid if you have any questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spryguy (Reply #84)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 07:06 PM

107. So, youd throw away my support on GLBTQ equality, free speech,

Single payer health care, pro choice and sane environmental and pro people / anti corporate policies due to me disagreeing with you on the 2A?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #107)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:57 PM

121. He's like the right wingers tell moderates that it's better to keep the Republican brand pure than

 

compromise positions and win elections.

Speaking as a pro-health care reform, pro-choice, pro-environment, nail-the-bankers, anti-unfunded-war moderate who is lead to believe from the DU community standards that I'm welcome to participate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 04:51 PM

88. Thanks applegrove~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 06:56 PM

105. Ponder this gunnies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #105)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 08:47 PM

110. Why?

I'm all in favor of freedom for the vagina and the gun. Don't be too shocked by this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #105)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 09:58 PM

122. Well... except that I am pro gay marriage, and pro choice I'm not sure what you mean.

 

I guess it would be a fine zinger if the picture was accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #122)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:20 PM

124. Right, as if you didn't understand.........

if you are what you say you are then it suould've meant nothing to you, but you reacted, so offense was taken, so sad.......


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #124)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:24 PM

125. It was your post title that grouped everyone together...

 

... you're right that the cartoon is basically innocuous... except I have to wonder whether the artist believes that all "gunnies" are anti-choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DainBramaged (Reply #105)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:58 AM

137. Ok, I pondered

I want marriage equality for all, I believe woman have control of their bodies and support their ability to safely and without pressure make the best choices for themselves. Next litmus test.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:10 PM

123. beautiful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:27 PM

126. Why did this make the gun nutters nervous?

They're so upset!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Sun Jan 27, 2013, 10:51 PM

128. Kick.

Just 'cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:11 AM

129. How many of them were shot...

stabbed, mugged, raped, etc.? I imagine the number must be incredibly high, since I assume none of them had guns to protect themselves from the "bad guys."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:14 AM

135. Looks like a Right to Chose march

 

Gun owners think of restrictions on law abiding gun owners the same way as Abortion activists think restrictions on partial birth abortions. The problem every side has is there is no compromise. Every compromise is an assault on rights.It never ends with both sides saying the other opinions are radical. What a bunch of hypocrites! More kids are killed in there bathtubs and pools than by guns and rifles. No good crisis can go to waste. Gun ownership has been rising over the last decade as gun crime has decreased. While this debate has become a distraction, A hole is being dug by the people elected to serve the people. Unemployment, 16.5 trillion deficit, world economic crisis, We are selling Major military aircraft to Egypt. A country who claims that the Jewish people descended from pigs and dogs and should be destroyed. We are all being led like sheep to the slaughter by unaccountable agency and bureaucracies. Biden said you can do more damage with a shotgun. He is right, There would have been way more victims if The Newtown shooter had a shotgun. Every shot would have hit someone, Every shot would have counted! Wake up and make your elected official accountable.
Maybe protesting the fact that the people who let the Affordable Healthcare act are exempt from it! Nope that makes to much sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to applegrove (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:47 AM

136. Wow, Geraldo making sense. Have the other Fox clowns even looked at the president's proposals???

There's NOTHING about taking guns away, other than military style assault rifles, which I think most can agree are unnecessary for hunting, sport, target shooting, or self defense. It's interesting how the pro gun folks love to talk over and interrupt, refusing to listen to Geraldo's position. And to accuse Biden and Obama of hypocrisy when neither have advocated taking guns away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread