HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Is anyone truly intereste...

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:08 PM

Is anyone truly interested in having a civil and productive conversation?

Our nation has been the victim of an indescribable act of horror that has left us all in shock. While it is a very emotionally charged topic, I think that most of us would agree that good decisions and policies are seldom arrived at through emotional responses. I propose that we try to act together to find common ground to stand on.

While emotions flared and various groups and individuals lashed out at each other, I have remained silent, waiting for a time when people are willing to speak and act in a civil manner with regard to the atrocity committed this past Friday. I'm hoping that those whose views differ from mine will be willing to work cooperatively to find some real solutions to some of the problems that our nation faces. This is an open invitation to civil discussion and an offer to help resolve problems, rather than simply cast insults. Any takers?


I am, in many ways, the common firearms owner. and in others, not so common. My background in firearms goes back my entire life. I was raised on a working ranch, fathered and loved by a lawman. My brothers and I were introduced to firearms at a young age and they have been a near constant part of my adult life. I began shooting competitively when I was about fourteen years old, and continue to enjoy it to this day. After serving six years in the military, I came home and followed my fathers footsteps in law enforcement, where I have served for the past 17 years. My law enforcement career includes almost twelve years active service with our SWAT team, and almost 9 years as an instructor for both new recruits and seasoned officers. During my adult life, I have witnessed the very best and the very worst of mankind.

I am a supporter of the second amendment, but I, as well as the vast majority of gun owners, understand that this is not an unlimited right. Many, if not the vast majority, strongly favor laws that restrict access to firearms by those that pretty much all of us agree should not have access to them. Restrictions are needed. The question of the limits of that right is frequently what is at question for both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, one of the major failings in the parties of the debate is reasonable and honest discussion. The proponents of 2A rights are often accused of simply blocking any legislation put forth, then they accuse the opposing participants of wanting to dismantle the 2nd amendment. Neither is true. Very often, supporters of 2A oppose laws because they are poorly written due to the fact that many of the people involved in writing the laws are woefully uninformed or misinformed. The 1994 AWB is a great example of this. Unfortunately, if you intend to regulate any item in a meaningful way, a certain amount of technical knowledge is pretty much a requirement. Lack of information or understanding just doesn't make for good policy.

As another poster in a different thread pointed out, the word compromise is often misused in this discussion. One side seems to be expected to do all the giving, with nothing offered in return. So, here is my offer; let's talk about real solutions. Things that actually have a good chance of making a difference, and that have some chance of making things better, rather than paying lip service only.

A few things to consider;
While the numbers are hotly contested, it is possible that half or more of our nation are either gun owners, or at least supporters of 2A rights to some extent.

Gun owners are politically active and tend to be very wary of politicians in general, and Democrats in particular. Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is a reality in this case. Because of this, I think the best way to approach the issue is to enlist our help in crafting laws that are both effective and within the constraints of the Constitution. If you are willing to talk without accusing, and actually discuss options beyond legislation that does little more than waste time and money, many of us are waiting and willing to have that conversation.

Any legislation that bans any firearm of ammunition magazine is not likely to be effective in the near future. What I mean by this is that there are simply so many of them out there, that waiting for them to go away by attrition will be a decades (if not longer) process. This does nothing to address the concerns of another Newtown, Ct. next week, next month or next year. Even if legislation is passed banning their possession outright, the odds of collecting any large percentage of them in current circulation is pretty slim in my estimation. This does not mean that I am taking this off the table for negotiation, only that it will be something that I consider to be of very tiny significance in addressing the problem.

Both sides want something, and both sides want a reduction in not only gun violence, but violence as a whole. Wiling to work together?


I'll start with one of the ideas that has been put forth by several posters. Registration of all guns. I chose this one specifically because it is such a poison pill to many gun owners. This is actually one idea that I think has merit in reducing straw purchases and addresses illegal possession. However, there are some real concerns. One of the better ideas that I have seen put forth on this forum is the equivalent of a Firearms Owners Identification Card that is simply an endorsement on your sate issued ID, with the provision that it be an "opt out" system. I'm sorry, but I don't recall the name of the poster that first put this idea forward. Everyone gets the background check done when they get their ID unless they specifically request otherwise. Anyone without an ID with an endorsement may not own or even temporarily posses a firearm of any kind. I would extend that and say that any person that sells a firearm must record the ID information of the buyer and keep that information for a period of five years.

For those that insist on a non-anonymous registration plan, I ask this. Are you willing to include within that legislation a clause the specifically forbids the use of such a registry as a means of confiscating firearms from owners without due process for violation of law? The penalty for such infractions being severe. I'm thinking minimum sentence of 20 years, 10 million dollar fine, and loss of any and all employment benefits if the guilty party is a government employee or elected official. his would include any release of information for publication and the same penalties would apply to any party that participated in publishing such information.

Let's hear your ideas!

JW



























40 replies, 2339 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 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Is anyone truly interested in having a civil and productive conversation? (Original post)
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 OP
ThatPoetGuy Dec 2012 #1
beevul Dec 2012 #2
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #14
beevul Dec 2012 #16
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #18
beevul Dec 2012 #19
fightthegoodfightnow Dec 2012 #20
Starboard Tack Dec 2012 #15
beevul Dec 2012 #17
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #3
rrneck Dec 2012 #4
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #5
petronius Dec 2012 #6
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #7
thucythucy Dec 2012 #9
HALO141 Dec 2012 #32
upaloopa Dec 2012 #8
oldhippie Dec 2012 #10
HALO141 Dec 2012 #33
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #11
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #12
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #13
lastlib Dec 2012 #21
gejohnston Dec 2012 #22
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #23
jeepnstein Dec 2012 #24
Flyboy_451 Dec 2012 #25
jeepnstein Dec 2012 #26
chibajoe Dec 2012 #28
HALO141 Dec 2012 #35
jeepnstein Dec 2012 #36
billh58 Dec 2012 #38
gejohnston Dec 2012 #39
DanTex Dec 2012 #27
chibajoe Dec 2012 #29
DanTex Dec 2012 #30
gejohnston Dec 2012 #37
OmahaBlueDog Dec 2012 #31
spin Dec 2012 #34
spin Dec 2012 #40

Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:19 PM

1. I used to be truly interested in it,

and I guess, in my own way, I still am.

A long time ago it became clear that there were a number of absolutists here, who consider even raising the question of restricting guns an assault upon liberty, and such assaults are to be responded against with lethal force.

I would love to see a constructive discussion, but I don't see any way a constructive argument can occur when participants believe such things.

Personally my main focus, if I could choose, would be to un-cool the gun, as the cigarette was un-cooled: restrictions were placed upon smoking in restaurants, cigarette sales were taxed to finance anti-cigarette marketing. Now there are far fewer smokers, and far fewer people starting to smoke, and far fewer people dying of smoking-related illnesses, and far fewer non-smokers forced to tolerate other people's decisions.

If I try to discuss that here, I'll be called a gun-grabber and an enemy of liberty. People will tell me I'm the reason women get raped. They'll say that if I had my way, we'd be a totalitarian society, where only the cops are armed, and lowlifes who don't respect public opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:28 PM

2. About those "absolutists".

I'm very tired of the disingenuous way in which that term is used.

Basically, anyone that disagrees with the "gun control de jour" is an "absolutist" and spouting "nra talking points", in the eyes of just about every anti-gun and pro-control poster on this board.

The great majority of the "absolutists" in the gun debate, are on your side of the issue, not mine. Thats a fact. If you doubt it, we could definitely do a search of "ban then all" and "no guns for anyone" posts and posters, versus "no gun laws" and "repeal them all" posts and posters.

I'll be interested in having this discussion just as soon as I'm sure that the "absolutists" on YOUR side of this issue are removed from the discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:22 PM

14. Bull

Not every or even most gun control advocates are 'absolutists.' THAT's a fact...as you say.

Sell that some place else.

And removing anyone from the discussion is more BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:13 PM

16. Really?

"Not every or even most gun control advocates are 'absolutists.' THAT's a fact...as you say."

Did someone say they were?


"And removing anyone from the discussion is more BS."

Oh, so you think those who want absolutely no gun regulations at all need a seat at the table as well?

Or did you really not mean "removing anyone from the discussion is more BS."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:20 PM

18. Answers


You ask: 'Did someone say they were? '

Yes...you implied that.

You ask 'Oh, so you think those who want absolutely no gun regulations at all need a seat at the table as well? '

Yes.

You ask 'Or do you really not mean "removing anyone from the discussion is more BS."

No (assuming I understand all your double negatives).

Look, I welcome ALL to the table. Do a Google search on this site. I support the First Amendment, which is followed by the Second.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fightthegoodfightnow (Reply #18)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:31 PM

19. No, I really didn't.

"Yes...you implied that."

Heres what I said:

"The great majority of the "absolutists" in the gun debate, are on your side of the issue, not mine."

That doesn't mean or imply in any way, that the majority of "gun control supporters" are absolutists.

It simply means that the majority of "absolutists" are on the "more controls" side of the argument.

Which is the truth.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #19)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:52 PM

20. LOL

Ok...have a conversation with yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:10 PM

15. How absolutely absolute of you!

We can see how ready you are for a conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:18 PM

17. I'm not against all regulations.

But I have trouble trusting self described "reasonable" gun law supporters who are unwilling to distance themselves from the banners and from bans, while they expect people like myself that do believe in some gun laws, to distance themselves from true "no gun laws of any kind" absolutists.



Real absolute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:30 PM

3. hanks for stepping in, but please don't back out so easily

I know exactly what you are saying and agree 100%, and the sword cuts both ways. I have been called everything from an enabler to a murderer right here on this forum. Please help me begin a civil discussion. I promise you that our viewpoints are not as different as many would believe. Maybe the two of us could start an epidemic of civil discussion here one DU (where it is horribly absent).

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:34 PM

4. I agree. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:39 PM

5. As a pro-gun Duer who supports extensive gun rights,

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)

I think your position is valid and worth hearing, even if I disagree with it. You have as much right to have your say as I do, and you have the right to place your ideas on the table without being shouted down. The enemies of liberty are the ones who would break the law to get their way, and the reason women get raped is because criminals rape them.

I don't agree that guns should be "un-cooled," but I think there are reasonable measures that can be taken to both reduce gun violence and guarantee the RKBA for defense, hunting, and recreation. One of the two measures I'd like to see advanced to reduce violence are ending the War on Drugs. It's done enormous harm to society (militarization of police, prison profiteering, discriminatory sentencing, creating a lucrative and extremely violent black market, &c.) and needs to be put to bed. The other is concentrating on increasing access to and legal acceptability of mental health treatment. Few mentally ill people will ever be violent, but untreated or poorly-treated illness can lead to completely preventable violence (including gun violence). Both of these would put water on the base of the fire, and increase our regard for each other as human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThatPoetGuy (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:44 PM

6. A word that I think is related to your verb "un-cool" is demystify

It's not uncommon in this Group to see suggestions that basic gun safety should be taught in schools (at an age-appropriate level). The main focus and value of that instruction would be to give young people appropriate tools to deal with unexpected exposure to a firearm (e.g. finding one, or a friend having one).

But a very valid additional component of that instruction could be a realistic understanding of what guns are capable of (even Red Asphalt style), the vast difference between TV/movie guns and real life, and what it actually takes to even start considering whether a person can be a responsible gun owner.

It's unlikely that Hollywood will do anything to remove the 'cool' any time soon, but I agree that guns really aren't and shouldn't be cool in that shallow mass-media-trendy sort of way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:46 PM

7. Here are some

Things I support

NICS checks or equivalent on all transactions, even private party transaction and gifts. My approach would be a Federal FOID that you would automatically get at 18yo so they are not a "firearms ownership licenses", a common objection to that approach. The check is then if the FOID is still valid for the sale to proceed. This is easy from the IT perspective. Note the NRA rejects the FOID approach.

Limitation of pistol magazines to what fits inside the grip of the gun. Require that new designs not support magazines that extend beneath the handle (BATF already has authority to force design changes). This is readily demonstrated by the Ruger line of .22LR handguns and the Astra 400/600. Grandfather or buy back at retail price non-conforming magazines. This approach also slows down magazine changes. Note that the NRA has rejected magazine limitations

All firearms must be secured when not in use, being cleaned, transported, etc. While California got stupid on parts of this, its the right thing to do. Some will miss their old time glass front display cases or wall rack, but proper security is a must. Would consider an exemption for non-functional devices. I believe the NRA has fought mandatory safes.

Somethings I have mixed feelings about/no definitive solution

Mandatory owner training. It is not required to exercise any other enumerated right, but I have seen some very scary stuff over the years. Not sure what the standards should be, but I come down on the side of some training being required. The NRA has fought this.

Mandatory safety training for children. Enough for them to overcome their natural curiosity and get an adult should they find an unsecured firearm. While some would find that more offensive than the fundies find sex ed, until things change, its basic safety and needs to be done. Not sure the best way, but it is clearly called for. NRA has not taken a stand on this but does offer such classes. I still don't see it as a talking point.

Waiting periods. For someone who already has firearms, not sure what purpose they serve. For first time owners I support them. Overall I think they are a good idea. Not sure what the right time length should be. 1 weeks seems good. There are reports that Lanza tried to buy a rifle but was stopped by the mandated waiting period (if the media reports are to be believed). NRA opposes waiting periods

Better mental health reporting and supervision. Seen a number of posts on that here. Clearly something is called for, but how to do it is not clear. Loughner never should have been allowed to have a gun. The NRA has fought additional reporting of some types of problems.

===============================================
That's my current working list. Still thinking about long guns, and have some thoughts, but not enough to post yet. There are other issues as well but this is what I have worked up so far. Some are clearly more ready than others. Open for comment and discussion.
===============================================

Some background:
My focus is in most of this is protecting the ability of those who need it to have access to effective self defense, and today that means a semi automatic handgun. There was a time I was much more pro gun control, not surprising given my background. What changed my mind was when my late wife was part of the shelter movement after she retired. She started teaching women only classes without any sanction or insurance. It was and remains controversial in the shelter movement. Later I became deeply concerned about GLBTs being bashed and killed. T*s are getting killed in our cities and damn few seem to give a damn, including the police. I have skin in that game. These are not people going into bad areas and doing questionable things, these are just people living their lives under threat. Sometimes it even follows them home. That is why they arm themselves and they will gladly disarm when the threat goes away. That is why I support handguns for self defense. Its not for the rude toters, it is for those facing real threats of violence that the police cannot abate and sometimes do not ever care about. Those who would disarm those under threat need to consider how they would tell someone lying there bleeding and bashed, tortured or shot that somehow that is better than if they had the ability to defend themselves and used it. I for one think it is the liberal and progressive approach to help them, not leave them to the predators, YMMV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:58 PM

9. Thank you for this post.

I agree with much if not most of it, and will have to give what I don't agree with some carefl thought before I try to weigh in. But clearly the controls you call for are reasonable, thoughtful, and hopefully will be implemented in the not too distant future.

Again, thank you for this post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:11 PM

32. While I agree with the sentiment behind much of your post

I think much of it fails on the philosophical side.

NICS Checks - OK. Open up the NICS system to private transfers (currently available only to FFL's) and I think we can deal here.

Mag limits - Impractical. There are already so many in circulation you'll never get a significant number of them. Aside from that, magazines are not difficult to make. Yes, it does take some metal working skill but it's not terribly complicated. Maintenance kits containing springs, followers and base pads are all over the place. Try to ban those as well and it'll end up being a poison pill that will torpedo any legislation. A ban will drive the price up and that will encourage illegal manufacturing and distribution.

Safe Storage - Expensive. While I'm a big believer in safes, they are at least as expensive as a decent quality firearm. Part of the nature of a right is that there should be no price for admission. Requiring someone purchase a safe raises the price considerably, if not doubling it. Start doing that and it starts to smell like a poll tax. There are certainly less expensive ways to secure a firearm or render it temporarily inoperable. The bolt carrier in an AR-15, for instance, can be removed in seconds. There are also relatively cheap (< 25$) action locks that will certainly prevent a stolen weapon from being used.

Mandatory training - Again, smells like a poll tax. As one who has taught defensive firearms use in the past I absolutely do wish that everyone would learn to properly use, manipulate and care for their weapons. I just have a problem when it comes to prerequisites for exercising a right. Also, it acts as a barrier to ownership for someone who is facing a credible, immediate threat.

Kids safety training - I think we can find consensus here.

Waiting periods - Like you, I fail to see the efficacy for someone who already owns a firearm and, again, prevents someone facing that immediate threat from having access to a means of effective self defense.

Better mental health - I agree in principal. I have concerns, though, that more stringent reporting requirements might deter many from seeking help who need it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 07:47 PM

8. I doubt it can be done. I tried a couple of different

way the last few weeks.
That old saying, walk a mile in my shoes seems to be a good idea here.
If each side would politely ask the other why they feel as they do then once that is known each side should assume the others position. In that way some positions would not be assumed by the other for various reasons. Those are the ones that require compromise meaning you have to give up something to gain an agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:09 PM

10. Not really .....

Does anyone really think there could be such a conversation with the nuts on the other side? Really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:12 PM

33. "Transference" much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:14 PM

11. None of those give us gun owners anything..

All of the "let's have a discussion" thread have the gun owners giving up some of our rights in return for nothing. The gun banners will simply be back for another so-called compromise, until we have nothing left. What will the gun-controllers give up?

How about a Federal concealed/open carry permit? It would be good in all states and cities, and could be carried in any gun-free zones. Training for it would be much more extensive than for a CCW, but far less than for an LEO. After all, CCWers don't need to study search and seizure, warrants, Miranda warnings, traffic laws, interrogation techniques, arrest procedures, etc.

Re-open the machinegun registry. Same rules as before. Legal in all states and cities.

Allow suppressors to be sold over-the-counter, no special permits needed.

Do away with Chicago and DC style oppression of gun owners. Let people have guns for self-protection in their homes and businesses without having to jump through all the hoops that those cities require.

Do away with NJ style ammo restrictions on hollow point bullets.

Do away with NY style restrictions of human silhouette targets.

National reciprocity in all states for state-level CCW permits.

That's enough for now. I will probably think of some more after I hit "post".

When the gun-controllers are ready to talk about giving in a some of those things, then I will be willing to talk about giving in on some of the things they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:27 PM

12. I agree that all of those are valid points of discussion

and there are none that I have issue with. This is why we need both parties to come to the table rather than cast insults.

I am a strong proponent of firearms ownership, concealed carry and the natural right to self defense, both in the home and in public. Unfortunately, it seems that the opposition is not willing to come forward and discuss any compromises. The real downside is that if they insist on an all or nothing game plan, the result will be useless legislation that accomplishes nothing, cost money and uses up political capitol. The frenzy of talk about this latest massacre will fade in a short time, and the proponents of more controls will find that their momentum is lost until the next tragedy. This is the time for all of us to come to the table and find solutions. Let's not wait for another horror story to be written.

I still believe that the best solution is to be found only through open and civil conversation.

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:49 PM

13. Regarding school rampage shootings:

A Texas legislator has an idea. School marshals. Those would be faculty members who aren't in frequent contact with children who would go though more extensive training than for a CHL, and would have immediate access to a gun at school. Possibly on their person, maybe locked in an office. (I favor on the person, concealed. Make the rampage shooter guess.) Each school would have several. They would be paid extra for the additional responsibility, but the pay would still be much less than for several armed security guards.

The guns should be equipped with laser sights. They would be a huge aid in accuracy in a critical situation, if shooting were needed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:00 AM

21. not really, no.

The window for calm, rational reflection/discussion is now closed. The gun fanatics had their chance, they rejected every measure that anybody proposed that would help, and rammed through every obnoxious pro-gun law they could get away with, without the faintest consideration to the other side's viewpoint. They bought, bullied, and harassed legislators to enact their visions. So, with an opportunity to swing the pendulum the other way, no--I am not interested in compromise at this time. We're done trying to reason with fanatics who will oppose every idea, no matter its merit.

But thank you for asking. It's just twenty-six murders too late.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:11 AM

22. gee, that sounds kind of hypocrictical,

since that has been the SOP of anti gun fanatics for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:14 AM

23. Thanks for being honest about your unwillingness to be rationall

I think it's a short sighted and stupid viewpoint, but that is your right. Here's my thoughts on why you are also part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.

You will need at least some support from gun owners to get any kind of legislation passed that stands a chance of having a positive impact. Unfortunately our congress critters and their advisors and friends are too technically ignorant to craft a bill that will be both effective and able to pass through the house and senate. Instead, what you are likely to get is poorly written, junk legislation that will accomplish nothing. If they try to overreach to any degree it will be challenged in court, lower courts will likely approve an injunction and the Supreme Court has already said that any legislation will have to be narrowly tailored and very specific. Any bill that gets any traction will start out poorly written, and will likely be watered down as time goes on in an effort to get ANYTHING done, whether it works or not. In the mean time, you will have failed to address the problem in any constructive way and at the same time, you give the opposition credibility in the idea that gun legislation seldom works for reducing crime, and more people will become the victims.

Sounds like a pretty piss poor way of addressing a problem to me, but what do I know? I'm just a dumb old cop...

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:45 AM

24. Well there's your problem right there...

"I'm just a dumb old cop..." You've been walking in reality land for too long. You know, living in the realm of the possible rather than the ideal?

I'll toss one out there for you. The prohibitionists are foaming at the mouth for a ban on AR15's and similar modern firearms. I would suggest that we classify them as NFA items and make them subject to the same paperwork requirements as full-auto. If this is done there would have to be some compromise on the cost of the tax stamp. Elmer Fudd isn't going to go the NFA route but serious shooters don't give it much of a second thought. I would hate to see it come to that but it is an existing system that has protected our gun rights in a way I never thought possible. The only sticking point would be the cost of the stamp. It would be a tough sell but one that might possibly work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:56 AM

25. Hey Jeep, correct me if I'm wrong...

But aren't you just a dumb cop too? (Not sure about your age. 😜

I could almost get behind what you are saying, but I'm of the opinion that the other side needs to make concessions as well. With that in mind, expand the privileges of the NFA system to include national concealed carry after meeting training requirements that are in line with what most states currently mandate, and also include the ability to buy and sell directly to other NFA participants with no middleman or further restrictions.

Just a note, not all states require that a FFL be possessed for NFA weapons.

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:06 AM

26. You got the dumb part right.

I'm just tossing that NFA bone out there to see who wants to gnaw on it for a while. I'm looking for a way to continue to guarantee access to arms that are suitable for the intent of the 2nd Amendment while not creating a bureaucracy that hinders the entire shooting community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:32 AM

28. What you're suggesting is federal registration of guns that look scary

This is specifically prohibited in the 1968 GCA. You could amend the law to allow it, but you will be hard pressed to find many gun owners who would be willing to go along with you. Even Fudds have no interest in anything that hints at any type of expanded gun registration. Regardless, gun registration doesn't do anything to deter crime or help police investigate crime, or else the eminently (un)successful Canadian gun registry would not have been abolished.

I think the one concession that you can get almost all gun owners to agree with is to open up the NICS check for everybody. Nobody wants to sell a gun to a prohibited person, but they're not going to want to drive 40 miles to a gun store just to sell uncle Lou's shotgun to cousin Bobby, either.

You might be able to get people to agree to a magazine capacity limitation. It won't actually do anything to stop these kinds of killings (Cho had no problems killing 32 people with pistols using 10 round magazines), but it might placate some of the sheep at the expense of pissing off some gun owners.

Beyond that, I don't think gun owners are going to be willing to give up anything without a knock down, drag out fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:20 PM

35. Local LEO approval

for every AR-15ish weapon transferred? Pretty sure you'll never get broad support for that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:26 PM

36. Or a trust.

I'm hearing they're going to do away with the LEO sign off anyway. Don't know the status of that right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:27 PM

38. So tell us why are you

just now asking for "civil discussions?" Could it be because the NRA worshiping "I luv my gun" crowd are about to have their ass handed to them? You are correct that millions of gun owners are in favor of more gun control, and realize that it is NOT a scheme to confiscate their guns. If you are one of them, good on you, but this call for "civil discussions" in the DU Gungeon is too little, too late. There is a petition before the Admins at this time to form a new Group or Forum for just such discussions, and it is way overdue.

As other posters have stated, Gungeoneers have missed the fucking boat on trying to have a rational conversation about gun control. We have been trying to have that conversation for years, but noooo, they had to back the fucking NRA and insist that they needed more guns in order to "protect" themselves and their fucking "rights." They shouted down those of us who attempted to reason with them. Fuck them.

No one wants to take anyone's fucking guns away, but it's now the grownups' turn to decide what toys are acceptable, and where they can play with them. Semi-automatic, high-capacity bullet dispensing machines are a menace to society, and there can be no rational discussion about their "value" to the 2nd Amendment, or to anything or anyone else. They are mass killing devices period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to billh58 (Reply #38)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 04:34 PM

39. after being here for awhile

most of the gun control advocates in the past have hardly been civil. Come to think of it. Come to think of it, you are one of four I can think of. The rest range from amusingly banal to the condescending and profane. That was until I read your last paragraph, which kind of contradicted yourself and became less "grownup" and profane.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:13 AM

27. Handguns and semi-autos should be registered, and should require a license.

Of all the policies under discussion, that would make the most difference. It would lessen the flow of guns over to the illegal market, and it would discourage irresponsible gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:34 AM

29. Because, you know, registering guns worked so well in Canada

That they have now dismantled their gun registry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chibajoe (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:42 AM

30. That was long guns. Handguns are still registered.

The long gun registry was disbanded by the conservative government. It's not just the US where right-wingers are pushing for lax gun laws.

And, yes, Canada's gun laws work well. They have much less homicide and gun violence than the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:31 PM

37. it was disbanded in 1946 also

after being passed in 1940. It was never fully enforced because of moving deadlines, which people ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 10:49 AM

31. Some thoughts

1) It is rarely a good idea to form public policy after such an emotionally charged event. That said: Newtown; Aurora; the mall in Oregon; Tuscon -- it's all piling up in the public consciousness.

2) If we're going to have any kind of workable background check (criminal/mental health), common sense tells us that the "gun show loophole" needs to be closed.

3) The vast majority of gun owners are responsible and use their firearms for entirely lawful purposes.

4) I've observed that urban and suburban folks (by and large) view firearms as weapons, while exurban and rural folks (by and large) view them as tools.

5) Very little of what I've seen proposed by either side would have changed this outcome. Mrs. Lanza was a firearms enthusiast who -- oh, by the way -- had a dependent in the home on anti-psychotic medication. Common sense tells me that she should have either given up shooting sports and taken the weapons out of the house, or secured them in a way in which Adam had no access to them.

6) I frequently see situations in which parents who wouldn't dream of letting their kid go to an R-rated movie will let their kids play extremely violent video games.

7) I'm not for banning guns, but I think everyone needs to know the statistics on firearms. For example, for the vast majority of Americans, they are a statistically poor choice for home-defense. Most would be better off taking the money they's invest in a firearm and buying a state-of-the-art alarm and video monitoring system. You can't shoot intruders when you aren't home, and you're more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one in a gun accident than to ever shoot an intruder. But every situation is unique, and you may truly feel a firearm is for you. If that's what you decide, you can't just buy-it-and-forget-it. Be prepared to take lessons in its proper care and use, and set aside time at least once a month to go to a range and practice. In vest in a gun safe or trigger guards.

8) I don't see arming teachers or principals as a good option. Their focus and background are in education, not anti-terror security. It's not like aircraft pilots; many of them are ex-mil and are well trained in handgun use. Armed police or security guards could be an option. However, statistically, school is a very safe place. Once the memories of Newtown begin to fade, people will quickly see this expense as a waste of taxpayer money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:17 PM

34. Good post. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flyboy_451 (Original post)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:30 PM

40. Excellent post. However, I dosage with your idea on registering all firearms. ...

I live in Florida and I agree with the Statutes and Constitution of my state which forbids registration.


The Legislature finds and declares that:
1. The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3. A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4. Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.335.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread