Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:34 AM

jpak (26,953 posts)

So, what would you do if Congress banned possession of high cap clips?

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:34 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

not grandfathered.

banned.

193 replies, 5659 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

193 replies	Author	Time	Post
So, what would you do if Congress banned possession of high cap clips? (Original post)	jpak	Dec 2012	OP
celebrate	tk2kewl	Dec 2012	#1
I would celebrate, too.	SharonAnn	Dec 2012	#151
Ditto.	Jackpine Radical	Dec 2012	#176
Heave a sigh of relief and visit friends stateside a bit more often.	PDJane	Dec 2012	#2
I'd still stay away if I were you,	spin	Dec 2012	#24
No - it would be a "feel bad law" for the nutters	jpak	Dec 2012	#27
The best reason to oppose	sarisataka	Dec 2012	#52
Mainly because I oppose useless laws which accomplish nothing.	spin	Dec 2012	#56
Register all "black guns" and tax them.	jpak	Dec 2012	#73
Juvenile response...as usual	rl6214	Dec 2012	#118
How does this help?	Hudjes	Dec 2012	#137
So you would burden the state with policing laws effective only in spiting the nutters?	Howzit	Dec 2012	#189
I've been shot at twice, once here during hunting season	PDJane	Dec 2012	#91
Give it up hoss, you're not going anywhere with that anymore.	AAO	Dec 2012	#139
What I said was factual and accurate. ...	spin	Dec 2012	#142
Nobody cares anymore. You gun nuts have gone far enough. Live with it.	AAO	Dec 2012	#146
That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. ...	spin	Dec 2012	#147
I don't hate gun owners. I try not to hate anyone.	AAO	Dec 2012	#160
Thanks for the apology. ...	spin	Dec 2012	#165
Hey, I agree with pretty close to 100% of what you said.	AAO	Dec 2012	#182
Hopefully those who are in power can find some common ground. (n/t)	spin	Dec 2012	#187
Yeah, but don't hold your breath waiting for it! n/t	AAO	Dec 2012	#192
Applaud.	sinkingfeeling	Dec 2012	#3
one thing	CountAllVotes	Dec 2012	#4
This message was hidden by jury decision.	Hudjes	Dec 2012	#140
Define high cap.	Common Sense Party	Dec 2012	#5
Because "law abiding" gun owners would abide the law and surrender them to the BATFE	jpak	Dec 2012	#8
Well obviously passage of a law that millions of people find onerous...	Lizzie Poppet	Dec 2012	#14
Yup. Prohibition does that. That is the raison d'etre for prohibition...	Eleanors38	Dec 2012	#163
Do you abide EVERY law?	Common Sense Party	Dec 2012	#82
Tell that to...	bobclark86	Dec 2012	#129
Hey! I resemble that remark :)	Inkfreak	Dec 2012	#134
I reassembled mine.	Eleanors38	Dec 2012	#164
Good one. nt	Mojorabbit	Dec 2012	#159
+1	Lizzie Poppet	Dec 2012	#166
According to you and others, mags are easy to change out.	Kaleva	Dec 2012	#12
I don't see why I should have to change mags. I have two perfectly	Common Sense Party	Dec 2012	#84
Under what circumstances	quakerboy	Dec 2012	#143
You honestly can't think of any circumstances?	Common Sense Party	Dec 2012	#152
I honestly think thats blowing smoke.	quakerboy	Dec 2012	#158
How many rounds are needed to kill a man with a Hi-cap mag?	intaglio	Dec 2012	#179
Nothing. I don't own any... (nt)	petronius	Dec 2012	#6
I worry more about this guy	BeyondGeography	Dec 2012	#7
In addition to high cap clips, they should ban Gun Porn too.	jpak	Dec 2012	#9
You don't like the First Amendment any more than you like the Second. N/T	GreenStormCloud	Dec 2012	#13
I don't want to ban them but could you tell me why it is necessary to show them?	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#16
It excites Mr. Woodrow	jpak	Dec 2012	#21
who is mr. woodrow?	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#25
Mr. Willy Johnson	jpak	Dec 2012	#28
Oh. I guess I should have known that. But what is THEIR explanation?	CTyankee	Dec 2012	#80
Both have their limits	jpak	Dec 2012	#19
I'd keep all the ones I already have and just buy a few legal mags for public range use.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Dec 2012	#115
Sell	BeyondGeography	Dec 2012	#123
I doubt magazines will ever be worth too much on the black market.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Dec 2012	#124
My God! The Dukes are going to corner the entire hi-capcity magazine market!	-..__...	Dec 2012	#136
Get rid of them. nt	jmg257	Dec 2012	#10
I'd shrug.	Lizzie Poppet	Dec 2012	#11
They won't.	GreenStormCloud	Dec 2012	#15
Yes, the vast majority of gun nut republicans would oppose this	jpak	Dec 2012	#17
You forgot to mention Harry Reid.	Jenoch	Dec 2012	#130
Join the lawsuit.	clffrdjk	Dec 2012	#18
And if that failed - would you abide - or not?	jpak	Dec 2012	#23
People would probably "Abide" to the same extent that they "Abide" pot prohibition.	dairydog91	Dec 2012	#33
If no one gets hurt - then it will be a success	jpak	Dec 2012	#37
Much in the sense that the war on pot is a success.	dairydog91	Dec 2012	#39
Again, make it a felony and confiscate their guns - for life	jpak	Dec 2012	#43
Which, if the war on drugs is any indication, won't work.	dairydog91	Dec 2012	#46
The harshest sentence would be charge them with a felony & confiscate their guns for life	jpak	Dec 2012	#50
The answer is marshmallow	slackmaster	Dec 2012	#20
"you'll put your eye out kid"	jpak	Dec 2012	#22
How can a ban on a box with a spring be effective??	virginia mountainman	Dec 2012	#26
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time	jpak	Dec 2012	#30
How do you find them?	Glaug-Eldare	Dec 2012	#34
Citizen reports rapid sustained gunfire - police respond - find offending clips.	jpak	Dec 2012	#35
I'm sure the police in rural America are going to love this plan.	dairydog91	Dec 2012	#38
All stupid criminals think they can't be caught - the law breakers will be apprehended	jpak	Dec 2012	#42
Hence the 2 second breaks every 10 rounds. Indistinguishable from changing out 10-round mags.	dairydog91	Dec 2012	#44
If they create a racket - then someone will call the cops	jpak	Dec 2012	#47
I shoot in the desert in far west Texas	rl6214	Dec 2012	#120
Yeah, can just imagine that 911 call	sylvi	Dec 2012	#174
Just like with cannabis, eh?	friendly_iconoclast	Dec 2012	#104
Make it a felony and take their guns away - that will get their attention	jpak	Dec 2012	#106
So who's going to do that taking?	Lizzie Poppet	Dec 2012	#167
Indeed, they will.	Lizzie Poppet	Dec 2012	#60
LOL! Think of those long stringers of Black Cats.	Eleanors38	Dec 2012	#168
Trunk checks?	Glaug-Eldare	Dec 2012	#48
As long as we feel like trashing one amendment	sarisataka	Dec 2012	#55
Unchecked gun ownership kills lots of people in the US each year.	jpak	Dec 2012	#66
I was not refering to any ban	sarisataka	Dec 2012	#90
The same way game wardens can check your trunk at road blocks.	jpak	Dec 2012	#64
Clearly, you're just baiting us.	HALO141	Dec 2012	#101
If it accepts a banned clip - yes it does	jpak	Dec 2012	#102
No, it doesn't.	HALO141	Dec 2012	#109
Yes it does	jpak	Dec 2012	#111
Whatever	HALO141	Dec 2012	#113
Third grade argument at best	rl6214	Dec 2012	#121
Every firearm which accepts a detachable magazine	Glaug-Eldare	Dec 2012	#119
jpak is a Master	Common Sense Party	Dec 2012	#132
who is the Master?	gejohnston	Dec 2012	#133
Nope	sylvi	Dec 2012	#170
^^^^This	sylvi	Dec 2012	#173
Getting around the 4A is easy in that regard	bakpakr	Dec 2012	#178
Thats ridiculous.	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#53
Oh yes they do!	jpak	Dec 2012	#67
Look, that's not common.	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#75
Those are the total yahoo gun nuts you mentioned, though...	Glaug-Eldare	Dec 2012	#81
Apparently you dont go to the range	quakerboy	Dec 2012	#145
No, I've never been to a range.	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#148
Perhaps you missed the new	quakerboy	Dec 2012	#149
News reports said Lanza mother got half of husbands guns in divorce.	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#150
How about	quakerboy	Dec 2012	#157
Just mass -shooting, or mass-murder in general?	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#162
So	quakerboy	Dec 2012	#180
We don't have unlimited political capital.	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#181
Democrats get pounded	quakerboy	Dec 2012	#183
The one we won?	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#184
won on the economy, tax policy, Wall Street regulation,	gejohnston	Dec 2012	#185
Exactly!	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#186
Ask the NRA and its supporters	quakerboy	Dec 2012	#188
What if they are sneaky and pause a few seconds every five rounds?	Howzit	Dec 2012	#190
Then you won't mind such a ban at all!	villager	Dec 2012	#31
Five years in prison would probably convince most normal people that restricted magazines are fine.	Warren Stupidity	Dec 2012	#32
Apparently nobody learned anything from the drug war.	dairydog91	Dec 2012	#36
Make it a felony and confiscate the law breaker's guns - and fine them big time.	jpak	Dec 2012	#40
Stimulus: Harsh Sentences aren't discouraging crime.	dairydog91	Dec 2012	#50
So, if the gov't took your guns and said you could never possess another one	jpak	Dec 2012	#54
Well, considering that I don't own anything, that's not a problem.	dairydog91	Dec 2012	#59
What makes you think such laws will	Jenoch	Dec 2012	#131
If pot killed random strangers you might have a point.	Warren Stupidity	Dec 2012	#95
applaud?	villager	Dec 2012	#29
Shrug my shoulders and roll my eyes, most likely.	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#41
Then you would not oppose this?	jpak	Dec 2012	#45
I don't own a gun, it doesn't affect me.	HooptieWagon	Dec 2012	#57
I'd put a block of wood inside them.	Atypical Liberal	Dec 2012	#49
But with a duck gun - the max number of shells you can load is 5	jpak	Dec 2012	#62
Havn't been duck hunting in years	Atypical Liberal	Dec 2012	#68
It would still be a banned high cap clip - and you would not be a "law abider"	jpak	Dec 2012	#70
I'd be a civil disobedient.	Atypical Liberal	Dec 2012	#78
and a felon	jpak	Dec 2012	#86
We'll see.	Atypical Liberal	Dec 2012	#89
blocking a 30 round magazine with a removable block would not solve the problem	HALO141	Dec 2012	#107
All high cap clips would be banned - no alterations to evade allowed	jpak	Dec 2012	#110
Again - Whatever	HALO141	Dec 2012	#114
He loves changing the goalposts	rl6214	Dec 2012	#122
I think he really	HALO141	Dec 2012	#125
Applaud.	catbyte	Dec 2012	#58
What high-cap "clips"	-..__...	Dec 2012	#61
Why "clips" - because I do not abide by the gun nut lexicon for magazines	jpak	Dec 2012	#63
I prefer...	discntnt_irny_srcsm	Dec 2012	#71
And that right there ....	oldhippie	Dec 2012	#72
I would welcome any ban bill if its authors were as wilfully ignorent this time around.	-..__...	Dec 2012	#74
I use the term clip as a rhetorical tool - and it works	jpak	Dec 2012	#76
No... it doesn't. Not even rhetorically.	-..__...	Dec 2012	#79
Again - the Gun Nut Conceit Fallacy	jpak	Dec 2012	#87
If you want to agitate against hydraulic fracturing,	Glaug-Eldare	Dec 2012	#92
Sorry - I could care less about bump firing or what percent of a receiver you need to circumvent	jpak	Dec 2012	#93
Not a requirement to discuss it,	Glaug-Eldare	Dec 2012	#97
Who ever thought jpak wanted to be taken seriously?	Common Sense Party	Dec 2012	#98
I do not take the gun nuts seriously	jpak	Dec 2012	#99
But if you want to take legislation seriously, you need to get serious about specifics.	OneTenthofOnePercent	Dec 2012	#117
The requirement for a prohibitionist: Studied stupidity.	Eleanors38	Dec 2012	#169
Then again	sylvi	Dec 2012	#175
We'll be eating stale chips then.	Remmah2	Dec 2012	#65
Celebrate!	LeftTurnOnly	Dec 2012	#69
An instructive post...	Eleanors38	Dec 2012	#171
There is a difference.	LeftTurnOnly	Dec 2012	#193
I follow gun laws, but some civil disobedience might be in order.	aikoaiko	Dec 2012	#77
I don't agree with banning anything	tularetom	Dec 2012	#83
This would be a good thing. Nobody in civilian life has a need for these Classroom Clips. (nt)	ehrenfeucht games	Dec 2012	#85
Finish lunch. nt	rrneck	Dec 2012	#88
I swore an oath that says, in part	sarisataka	Dec 2012	#94
Consteetooshunalist vigilantes are the worst of the bunch	jpak	Dec 2012	#100
Vigilantes and paranoid racists...	sarisataka	Dec 2012	#108
Laugh	HALO141	Dec 2012	#96
Clever.	Hudjes	Dec 2012	#141
CHEER!	marew	Dec 2012	#103
I'd be fine with that.	ileus	Dec 2012	#105
All the gun nuts would have to back to playing with themselves instead of their guns.	OregonBlue	Dec 2012	#112
Not a thing	rl6214	Dec 2012	#116
What a coincidence	Hudjes	Dec 2012	#135
Applaud that decision, and hope it's just the first of many to increase gun control laws.	MindandSoul	Dec 2012	#126
Note #171 above. There ARE good proposals out there...	Eleanors38	Dec 2012	#172
Applaud. n/t	cui bono	Dec 2012	#127
Wait for the inevitable legal challenges...	krispos42	Dec 2012	#128
I'd throw all of mine away imediately. What else would a "law abiding" citizen do?	AAO	Dec 2012	#138
Where are the 'law-abiding' gun owners who will abide the laws we choose to create? n/t	Dems to Win	Dec 2012	#155
Hanging out with the pot smokers? I dunno. n/t	Glaug-Eldare	Dec 2012	#156
I never said I had the details worked out! Sheesh	AAO	Dec 2012	#161
Wait for the large check	ProgressiveProfessor	Dec 2012	#144
Look at it as a good first step.	RetroGamer1971	Dec 2012	#153
Read a Magazine	wercal	Dec 2012	#154
Sit back and watch the black market	sylvi	Dec 2012	#177
General criminal violence is OK as It cannot be prevented, as long as the nutters are stopped	Howzit	Dec 2012	#191

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:34 AM

tk2kewl (12,686 posts)

1. celebrate

Reply to this post

Response to tk2kewl (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:29 AM

SharonAnn (9,698 posts)

151. I would celebrate, too.

Reply to this post

Response to tk2kewl (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:12 PM

Jackpine Radical (36,687 posts)

176. Ditto.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

PDJane (8,918 posts)

2. Heave a sigh of relief and visit friends stateside a bit more often.

Reply to this post

Response to PDJane (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:11 PM

spin (14,763 posts)

24. I'd still stay away if I were you,

as magazines can be changed in a second or less by a marginally trained shooter.

Or you might simply realize that you chances of actually being shot by someone with an assault style rifle and a hi-cap magazine is almost as high as the world ending tomorrow.

The ban on hi-cap magazines would be what is know as a "feel good" law. It will accomplish nothing but make the politicians look like they actually accomplished something. People will then put them back in office which to a politician in the United States is all that counts.

Reply to this post

Response to spin (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:19 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

27. No - it would be a "feel bad law" for the nutters

and if it isn't "effective", why bother to oppose it?

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:52 PM

sarisataka (2,296 posts)

52. The best reason to oppose

any legislation is that it would not achieve its purpose; whether or not it involves guns

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:57 PM

spin (14,763 posts)

56. Mainly because I oppose useless laws which accomplish nothing.

I look for REAL solutions that can make a difference.

Why waste the time and effort necessary to pass stupid legislation? Why not use it to pass meaningful legislation like a requirement for a background check on ALL sales of firearms in our nation. Why not improve our mental health care system to enable those who need care to obtain it for a reasonable fee?

The big push right now is the ban "black rifles." This attempt has already failed as these weapons are flying off the shelves at every gun store. If the last AWB had never passed there would be only a few of these firearms in civilian hands today. Prior to the ban few shooters felt any need to own one. Just before the ban and during it was the time frame when they became popular.

Today the politicians we elect are not really as interested in solving problems as they are in getting reelected.

Reply to this post

Response to spin (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:44 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

73. Register all "black guns" and tax them.

No registration = felony = loss of The Precious.

Pay no tax = loss of The Precious.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #73)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:12 PM

rl6214 (7,536 posts)

118. Juvenile response...as usual

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #73)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:43 PM

Hudjes (10 posts)

137. How does this help?

"Assault Weapons" and "High-Capacity" magazines are not used in crime all that often. "Assault Weapons" are used in ~2.5% of crimes involving guns, and "High-Capacity" magazines in abound 25%. (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf). Even if a law banning them actually had an effect on their availability to criminals, this would not prevent crime - firearms crime is entirely possible without them. Such a ban is a nuisance to non-criminals, and would likely not be all that big a problem for criminals. It didn't work last time, and things have not changed enough that it would work again.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:42 AM

Howzit (967 posts)

189. So you would burden the state with policing laws effective only in spiting the nutters?

You would be wasting resources that could be spent on something important, like education.

Reply to this post

Response to spin (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:46 PM

PDJane (8,918 posts)

91. I've been shot at twice, once here during hunting season

And once there during an altercation I wasn't involved in. Ban the damn things except in certain circumstances. That would be much better.

Reply to this post

Response to spin (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:49 PM

AAO (1,586 posts)

139. Give it up hoss, you're not going anywhere with that anymore.

Reply to this post

Response to AAO (Reply #139)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:09 PM

spin (14,763 posts)

142. What I said was factual and accurate. ...

The reality is that with 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation firearms are not going to be banned and confiscated anytime soon.

I can foresee that some improvements to our current gun laws will be passed and I support those that might make it harder for criminals and people with severe mental issues to obtain firearms.

Reply to this post

Response to spin (Reply #142)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:40 PM

AAO (1,586 posts)

146. Nobody cares anymore. You gun nuts have gone far enough. Live with it.

Reply to this post

Response to AAO (Reply #146)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:24 PM

spin (14,763 posts)

147. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. ...

Being a polite individual I will give you far more respect than you give me.

I can understand your hatred of gun owners because of the tragedy that just occurred.

Reply to this post

Response to spin (Reply #147)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:59 AM

AAO (1,586 posts)

160. I don't hate gun owners. I try not to hate anyone.

And it was wrong for me to lump you in with "gun nuts", which is an inflammatory term, and I know nothing about you. I just think something has to change. I'd be open to rational suggestions.

Reply to this post

Response to AAO (Reply #160)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:03 PM

spin (14,763 posts)

165. Thanks for the apology. ...

I feel that we need to improve existing laws. I favor requiring an NICS background check for all sales or transfers of a firearm.

When I sell one of my firearms (which is rare) I insist that the buyer is someone I know well and he/she has to have a valid concealed weapons permit. I do my best to insure that my firearms end up in responsible hands.

We also need to increase the penalties for anyone caught straw purchasing a firearm or smuggling one to another nation or to the streets of our inner cities.

Perhaps we could require anyone who buys a firearm or ammunition to have a card proving that they have had firearm safety training.

I favor having armed security at areas that are "gun free" and hold a large number of people. This would mainly be a deterrent to some who plan a massacre and are looking for a shooting gallery where they can run amok before going out in a final "blaze of glory." It is true that an armed guard may not be able to stop a shooter wearing a bullet proof vest but the possibility that he may be shot just as he starts his mission might discourage the plan.

I feel that the media should not cover a shooting 24/7 for an entire week. This many cause a seriously disturbed individual to carry out a similar attack hoping to get an even higher number of "kills." History often remembers truly evil people far longer than it remembers the good people who work to improve our society.

Obviously we need to examine our mental health care system. We have to be very careful that we do not change the system in a manner that causes those who need treatment to avoid getting it, but I feel we can provide better treatment than we currently do.

I feel we can find many reasonable solutions if we have a courteous national debate.

Reply to this post

Response to spin (Reply #165)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:10 PM

AAO (1,586 posts)

182. Hey, I agree with pretty close to 100% of what you said.

We're all human beings that have been shocked back into a reality we really didn't want to have to deal with.

Surely, as you just proved. there are many things that gun enthusiasts, and people that don't like to be in the same room with a gun, can readily agree to.

We all just want a reasonably safe society, neighborhood, and home. So I guess we've made some great progress tonight!

Reply to this post

Response to AAO (Reply #182)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 12:11 AM

spin (14,763 posts)

187. Hopefully those who are in power can find some common ground. (n/t)

Reply to this post

Response to spin (Reply #187)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 07:06 AM

AAO (1,586 posts)

192. Yeah, but don't hold your breath waiting for it! n/t

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

sinkingfeeling (28,087 posts)

3. Applaud.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

CountAllVotes (11,928 posts)

4. one thing

Reply to this post

Response to CountAllVotes (Reply #4)

Hudjes This message was hidden by Jury decision.

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:38 AM

Common Sense Party (13,091 posts)

5. Define high cap.

According to you and others, no one needs more than six bullets, ever.

My Springfield 9mm has standard issue 19-round magazines.

I imagine I'll hang on to them. Why would I do anything else?

Reply to this post

Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:42 AM

jpak (26,953 posts)

8. Because "law abiding" gun owners would abide the law and surrender them to the BATFE

otherwise - they would not be "law abiders".

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:59 AM

Lizzie Poppet (2,467 posts)

14. Well obviously passage of a law that millions of people find onerous...

...is going to result in a big chunk of those people becoming other than "law-abiding." Welcome to the entire history of human civilization...

Reply to this post

Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:53 PM

Eleanors38 (3,827 posts)

163. Yup. Prohibition does that. That is the raison d'etre for prohibition...

to get at the Hated Other, and punish them.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:09 PM

Common Sense Party (13,091 posts)

82. Do you abide EVERY law?

Do you, really?

I see no reason to reduce my family's safety just so you can feel better.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:08 PM

bobclark86 (511 posts)

129. Tell that to...

the hundreds of DUers who smoke weed.

Reply to this post

Response to bobclark86 (Reply #129)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 09:46 AM

Inkfreak (293 posts)

134. Hey! I resemble that remark :)

Reply to this post

Response to Inkfreak (Reply #134)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:00 PM

Eleanors38 (3,827 posts)

164. I reassembled mine.

Reply to this post

Response to bobclark86 (Reply #129)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:04 AM

Mojorabbit (12,885 posts)

159. Good one. nt

Reply to this post

Response to bobclark86 (Reply #129)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:03 PM

Lizzie Poppet (2,467 posts)

166. +1

Anyone who thinks an outright ban on guns (or even some types of guns, magazines, etc.) would receive widespread compliance is living in a dream world.

Reply to this post

Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:57 AM

Kaleva (11,406 posts)

12. According to you and others, mags are easy to change out.

But on the other hand, you say you'll keep your 19 round mags even though you supposedly could quickly change out mags that are blocked to hold 10 rounds or less.

Reply to this post

Response to Kaleva (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:12 PM

Common Sense Party (13,091 posts)

84. I don't see why I should have to change mags. I have two perfectly

good magazines that hold 19. They are completely legal. I highly doubt that's going to change. This gun is for target shooting (because it's fun) and for home defense. I doubt I'll ever have to use it for home defense, but if I ever do, I would much prefer not having to change magazines more often than is necessary.

Reply to this post

Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #84)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:10 PM

quakerboy (10,630 posts)

143. Under what circumstances

would you need 19 shots for home defense? Under what circumstances would 19 shots be better for home defense than 10, or 6?

Reply to this post

Response to quakerboy (Reply #143)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:33 AM

Common Sense Party (13,091 posts)

152. You honestly can't think of any circumstances?

Home defense could involve any number of scenarios where more would definitely be better. What if 6 or 10 wouldn't be enough? e.g., multiple home invaders?

I'm curious--why do you think most law enforcement officers routinely carry semi-automatics with more than 6 or 10 shots?

Reply to this post

Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #152)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:54 AM

quakerboy (10,630 posts)

158. I honestly think thats blowing smoke.

No, I don't see any realistic scenario where I would need more than 6 shots for home defense. Well, I can see two, I suppose. 1 involves shooting irresponsibly. And the other involves an army invading my home.

What are the numbers on full on roving gangs of 10+ people breaking into homes? And then, what are the numbers on a single armed person stopping them? I'm pretty sure at the point you have enough attackers in your home to need 19 shots, you are in a spot where you will need far more than a 19 shot magazine. Unless you think they are going to stand in a row and get hit, your in deeper trouble than your gun can get you out of.

As to police, in theory they put themselves into situations where they are more likely to be in a dangerous scenario. But even there, I find it somewhat troubling. I wouldn't be overly upset if the levels of police weaponry were reduced as well. As recent history has shown, they are fairly dangerous to the public at large as well.

Reply to this post

Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:12 PM

intaglio (4,745 posts)

179. How many rounds are needed to kill a man with a Hi-cap mag?

one

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:39 AM

petronius (19,798 posts)

6. Nothing. I don't own any... (nt)

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:40 AM

BeyondGeography (21,527 posts)

7. I worry more about this guy

Reply to this post

Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:50 AM

jpak (26,953 posts)

9. In addition to high cap clips, they should ban Gun Porn too.

This is a perfect example why they call them "Gun Nuts"

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #9)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:58 AM

GreenStormCloud (10,368 posts)

13. You don't like the First Amendment any more than you like the Second. N/T

Reply to this post

Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:04 PM

CTyankee (35,255 posts)

16. I don't want to ban them but could you tell me why it is necessary to show them?

I think we all have a pretty good idea of what we are talking about here and if not, there is Google, and we can handle it on our own. Certainly, if someone asks to see one, that is fine. but what is the purpose of thrusting them, unbidden, in our faces?

Reply to this post

Response to CTyankee (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:09 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

21. It excites Mr. Woodrow

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:18 PM

CTyankee (35,255 posts)

25. who is mr. woodrow?

Reply to this post

Response to CTyankee (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:21 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

28. Mr. Willy Johnson

ugh

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #28)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:05 PM

CTyankee (35,255 posts)

80. Oh. I guess I should have known that. But what is THEIR explanation?

I like to talk about art and have a little challenge every Friday where I display art but it seems like every other post from the pro-gun folks is a photo or drawing of a piece of gun hardware or guns themselves. I'm sure it's normal for people to want to show off their new car or maybe their house or pics of their kids but this seems a bit excessive and kind of unwarranted. Don't they understand that we just don't care?

Reply to this post

Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:06 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

19. Both have their limits

yup

Reply to this post

Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:03 PM

OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)

115. I'd keep all the ones I already have and just buy a few legal mags for public range use.

If the black market yields some truly high prices for illegal magazines, I'll probably sell them to whomever is paying alot and make some decent money. If selling them discreetly isn't a good option I'll just load them up full of the most unsavory bullets I can find and keep them hidden away with the other illegal firearms.

Reply to this post

Response to OneTenthofOnePercent (Reply #115)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:55 PM

BeyondGeography (21,527 posts)

123. Sell

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:55 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

There will be a moment when you can make some very good money, I'm sure. I love selling stuff that's just lying around. It's a great feeling, for whatever reason.

Reply to this post

Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #123)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:05 PM

OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)

124. I doubt magazines will ever be worth too much on the black market.

There's probably over 100 million of them.

Reply to this post

Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #123)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:43 PM

-..__... (7,776 posts)

136. My God! The Dukes are going to corner the entire hi-capcity magazine market!

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:55 AM

jmg257 (4,838 posts)

10. Get rid of them. nt

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:57 AM

Lizzie Poppet (2,467 posts)

11. I'd shrug.

Then I'd go on record predicting that it wouldn't cause even a blip in gun crime rates.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:03 PM

GreenStormCloud (10,368 posts)

15. They won't.

Over half of the House and almost half of the Senate has NRA "A" ratings.

Reply to this post

Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:05 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

17. Yes, the vast majority of gun nut republicans would oppose this

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:07 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:27 PM

Jenoch (1,785 posts)

130. You forgot to mention Harry Reid.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:05 PM

clffrdjk (153 posts)

18. Join the lawsuit.

Join the lawsuit to get such a law overturned.

Reply to this post

Response to clffrdjk (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:11 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

23. And if that failed - would you abide - or not?

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:26 PM

dairydog91 (779 posts)

33. People would probably "Abide" to the same extent that they "Abide" pot prohibition.

Don't get caught, don't hurt anybody with it, and nobody will care. Actually, I suspect magazines would be even harder to control then weed, since they can be stored almost indefinitely.

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #33)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:34 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

37. If no one gets hurt - then it will be a success

hooray!

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:37 PM

dairydog91 (779 posts)

39. Much in the sense that the war on pot is a success.

People who hate the offending item can pat themselves on the back that its illegal, and anyone who wants one can obtain one within an hour.

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #39)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:43 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

43. Again, make it a felony and confiscate their guns - for life

worse than jail time for the nutters.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:47 PM

dairydog91 (779 posts)

46. Which, if the war on drugs is any indication, won't work.

If the probability of getting caught with a mag is low, harsh sentencing just serves that nice old Medieval craving for stringing up the occasional social deviant.

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #46)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:50 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

50. The harshest sentence would be charge them with a felony & confiscate their guns for life

They would also have to deal with being a felon for life - no prison time required.

and repeat offenders get massive fines.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:07 PM

slackmaster (60,567 posts)

20. The answer is marshmallow

Reply to this post

Response to slackmaster (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:10 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

22. "you'll put your eye out kid"

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:18 PM

virginia mountainman (4,146 posts)

26. How can a ban on a box with a spring be effective??

So simple to make, and millions are already in circulation?

Reply to this post

Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:22 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

30. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time

Law abiding gun owners would surrender them.

Court dates for the rest.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:27 PM

Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)

34. How do you find them?

Reply to this post

Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #34)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:33 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

35. Citizen reports rapid sustained gunfire - police respond - find offending clips.

Law breaker gets cuffed.

Law enforcement does trunk checks at gun ranges and gun shows.

Law breakers get cuffed.

pretty easy actually.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:36 PM

dairydog91 (779 posts)

38. I'm sure the police in rural America are going to love this plan.

So basically all a shooter does to avoid this is:
1. Shoot in the woods behind his house
2. Take a 2 second break in between 10 rounds cycles.

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:41 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

42. All stupid criminals think they can't be caught - the law breakers will be apprehended

The sound of rapid gunfire carries a long way.

Ban silencers too.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:44 PM

dairydog91 (779 posts)

44. Hence the 2 second breaks every 10 rounds. Indistinguishable from changing out 10-round mags.

Or are you going to propose flying drones over everyone's houses to maintain 24 hour surveillance? You know, just so we know what everyone's up to.

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #44)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:47 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

47. If they create a racket - then someone will call the cops

The times they are a-changin'

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #47)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:18 PM

rl6214 (7,536 posts)

120. I shoot in the desert in far west Texas

Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #47)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:56 PM

sylvi (813 posts)

174. Yeah, can just imagine that 911 call

911 operator: 911, what's your emergency?

Caller: I hear gunfire

911 operator: Okay, where are the shots coming from?

Caller: The gun range down the road.

911 operator: Umm...okay. Is there an adult there in your home I can speak to?

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #42)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:56 PM

friendly_iconoclast (8,986 posts)

104. Just like with cannabis, eh?

Reply to this post

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #104)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:00 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

106. Make it a felony and take their guns away - that will get their attention

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #106)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:04 PM

Lizzie Poppet (2,467 posts)

167. So who's going to do that taking?

The cops? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:02 PM

Lizzie Poppet (2,467 posts)

60. Indeed, they will.

For very "I'm going to completely fucking ignore this" values of "love."

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #38)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:09 PM

Eleanors38 (3,827 posts)

168. LOL! Think of those long stringers of Black Cats.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:48 PM

Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)

48. Trunk checks?

This squares with the 4A how?

As for reporting gunfire -- in the event of such a ban, I wouldn't be using my standard mags at the range -- I'd go along as far as buying the new restricted capacity ones, and keeping the real ones loaded at home for use when needed.

Reply to this post

Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:56 PM

sarisataka (2,296 posts)

55. As long as we feel like trashing one amendment

why not trash the lot of them...

I am having trouble squaring how many people who claim to be 'liberal' and 'progressive' and do not trust the government and police to respect rights seem to be perfectly ok with allowing those same entities the unchecked power of a police state as long as it is for a 'good cause'. Somehow these random searches of person and property will magically only be limited to the 'bad people'

Reply to this post

Response to sarisataka (Reply #55)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:49 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

66. Unchecked gun ownership kills lots of people in the US each year.

I want protection from the gun nuts.

and stand your ground murderers

and castle law killers

etc.

Banning hi cap clips does not = police state - anymore than liberal democracies with strict gun laws are "police states".

Extremest rhetoric fail.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #66)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:40 PM

sarisataka (2,296 posts)

90. I was not refering to any ban

but to the idea of police being to allowed to search you and your possessions, looking for contraband. And I do mean YOU because how does officer Friendly know you are not one of those gun carriers and so might have some of those illegal magazines...

As for your point below, by purchasing a hunting license you have agreed to waive your rights and allow your car to be searched to prove compliance with hunting regulations. I can drive my car all over during hunting season and the game warden has no right to stop and search me...

Reply to this post

Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #48)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:42 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

64. The same way game wardens can check your trunk at road blocks.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:49 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

If you are wearing flame orange and have a gun in the vehicle - they will ask you to open the trunk.

If you go to a gun show or a gun range and carry an assault weapon around, there is probable cause to search for high cap clips.

Just like reeking of alcohol at a New Year's Eve police roadblock.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #64)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:52 PM

HALO141 (833 posts)

101. Clearly, you're just baiting us.

Warrantless searches = police state.

Possession of a legal item (semi-auto firearm) does not create just cause.

Reply to this post

Response to HALO141 (Reply #101)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:54 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

102. If it accepts a banned clip - yes it does

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #102)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:01 PM

HALO141 (833 posts)

109. No, it doesn't.

Feel free to delude yourself as much as you want but don't expect everyone else to go along with it.

Reply to this post

Response to HALO141 (Reply #109)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:04 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

111. Yes it does

I win

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:14 PM

HALO141 (833 posts)

113. Whatever

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #111)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:21 PM

rl6214 (7,536 posts)

121. Third grade argument at best

"I win".

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #102)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:14 PM

Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)

119. Every firearm which accepts a detachable magazine

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:27 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

can accept a high-capacity one. Every single one. It's a matter of geometry. That's like trying to ban any passenger car which accepts untaxed farm fuel.

Unless you mean ones for which there are commercially-available high-capacity magazines. Then again, if ALL high-cap mags are banned, then there won't be ANY firearms capable of accepting a commercially-available high-capacity magazines, since they won't be commercially-available... so the...and the magazines would...but the gun itself...I think...

Reply to this post

Response to HALO141 (Reply #101)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:37 PM

Common Sense Party (13,091 posts)

132. jpak is a Master

baiter

Reply to this post

Response to Common Sense Party (Reply #132)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 11:43 PM

gejohnston (12,847 posts)

133. who is the Master?

https://

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #64)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:25 PM

sylvi (813 posts)

170. Nope

The mere possession of a legal object being used legally does not, absent any other evidence, rise to the standards of either reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a search.

Wearing flame orange and having a gun in the vehicle = legal activity

Going to a gun show or a gun range and carrying an assault weapon around = legal activity

Driving under the influence = illegal activity

See the difference? Unless you're planning on curtailing the 4th Amendment, you're living in a wet dream.

Reply to this post

Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:45 PM

sylvi (813 posts)

173. ^^^^This

As for reporting gunfire -- in the event of such a ban, I wouldn't be using my standard mags at the range -- I'd go along as far as buying the new restricted capacity ones, and keeping the real ones loaded at home for use when needed.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #48)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 03:19 PM

bakpakr (150 posts)

178. Getting around the 4A is easy in that regard

All they have to do is for all ranges have signage posted that states; Persons entering this property consent to an inspection of all packages, luggage, containers, and vehicles at anytime as directed by management and law enforcement personnel. Refusal to consent to search is basis for denial of admittance.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:54 PM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

53. Thats ridiculous.

Even a total yahoo gun nut isn't going to empty an entire high-capacity magazine at one time.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:50 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

67. Oh yes they do!

That is why they have them - to bump fire, mad minute etc.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #67)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:46 PM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

75. Look, that's not common.

It's a few yahoos showing off on YouTube to their buddies. I'm not going to waste time defending them, I think they're being idiotic. However, they aren't the people committing mass-shootings or homicides in general. And I don't think techniques like that are being used by mass-shooters. Very few of the mass-shooters in the past several decades were experienced. Yes, there was Whitman in Texas, and the Ft Hood shooter, who had military backgrounds. But most of the shooters had only acquired their guns recently, probably had only limited practice. They were deadly because they gain access into a confined enviroment, and were shooting at near point blank range. They would have been just as deadly with handguns or sawn-off shotguns.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:05 PM

Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)

81. Those are the total yahoo gun nuts you mentioned, though...

But I kind of agree -- in the event of a blanket ban, they are going to become much more discreet.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #53)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:23 PM

quakerboy (10,630 posts)

145. Apparently you dont go to the range

People shoot what they have. And except for the real super crazies, they buy these things because they want to use them. Ive seen plenty of people empty large magazines, reload, and do it again. It gets expensive, depending on the caliber, but its not at all rare.

Reply to this post

Response to quakerboy (Reply #145)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:15 PM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

148. No, I've never been to a range.

Agreed, I would think it would be expensive to empty a large magazine. Kind of silly and pointless, too. But I haven't seen any evidence that people like that are murdering people.
It's like the hoopties jacked way up and sporting huge chrome rims. Silly and pointless exhibitionism, but there's no evidence to suggest they're causing traffic deaths. But I'm sure they have detractors who want them banned for no other reason than they don't like them.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #148)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:25 PM

quakerboy (10,630 posts)

149. Perhaps you missed the new

There was a shooting... and it was exactly "people like that" that done it. Barring evidence otherwise, I am going to assume that Adam Lanzas mother didn't buy the specific guns that she had because she thought they matched her favorite couch. She bought them because of what they can do.

As with many hobbies, having fun is worth the money to many people. Ive seen people pop off $50+ in ammo per trip to the range. One trip, I watched a guy with an AR15 pop in clip after clip. He went through a box he said he'd spent $115 on. He put a lot of holes in that target. I put nearly as many in another target, with greater accuracy, but mine was under $10, I was only shooting 22's.

Big rims may annoy some. But I haven't seen any proof they are more dangerous. I have seen ample proof that a semi auto with a large clip is more dangerous than a singe shot or revolver.

Reply to this post

Response to quakerboy (Reply #149)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:24 AM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

150. News reports said Lanza mother got half of husbands guns in divorce.

That was reportedly when she took up shooting. I believe she added a gun or two after she began shooting, but I don't know which ones. Anyway, that was what news said, and there's been a lot which was misreported, so who knows.
Statistically, it remains a fact that semi-automatic rifles are responsible for far fewer deaths than their proportionate numbers. That is FBI data. High-capacity magazines even far less. 75% of gun homicides are by handguns. A sizable majority occur in the commission of another crime, by a previously convicted felon. By law, they aren't permitted to own a firearm, so I don't see them obeying any new laws. Other means should be taken to restrict their access to guns, such as registration and private sale bans...which would reduce the numbers of guns trading hands on the street.
And then there also is the fact that 60% of gun deaths are suicide...I presume almost all by handgun. I fail to see where a semi-auto ban or high capacity magazine ban would reduce this number one iota...unless you can make the case that suicides are firing multiple shots. I'm not sure any gun restrictions would prevent suicides, since they would use other means. I've known 5 suicides in the past 40 years...2 jumpers, 2 ODs, and one by hanging. However, if they had less access to guns, perhaps an attempt by alternate means would have a higher survival rate. A longer waiting period would help, but increased mental health care might make a bigger difference.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #150)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:37 AM

quakerboy (10,630 posts)

157. How about

The numbers for mass shootings?

Because that's what I am looking at wanting to reduce, right at the moment. I agree we need registration and some other steps to try and get a handle on the mass of guns available to criminals and potential criminals. But the issue right at hand is the mass shooting.

Reply to this post

Response to quakerboy (Reply #157)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:30 AM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

162. Just mass -shooting, or mass-murder in general?

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 11:39 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

The biggest mass-murder was a bombing. The biggest school massacre was a bombing. Columbine was an attempted bombing. The mass-murder of gays at the Upstairs Lounge was arson. You're giving them a pass, because guns weren't used? Why not try to reduce all mass-murder, no matter the weapon?
And there's still the point that mass-shootings are far less than 1% of gun homicides, and even less of all gun deaths. Even if eliminated, you've barely made a nick. And if a political price is paid for legislation aimed at reducing mass-shootings (and there will be), then there's zero chance of legislation that would reduce the remaining 99+% of gun homicides.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #162)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 06:34 PM

quakerboy (10,630 posts)

180. So

if a solution does not fix 100% of all problems that are in any way similar to the problem you are working on, they are not worth doing?

I believe that is faulty. Seat belts do not prevent all auto related fatalities. But we still ask people to wear them. Car insurance does not take care of every accident related cost, but we still require people to obtain it. I see no reason not to pursue legislation that can reduce mass shootings. Regardless of the fact that will not fix every ill in the entire world immediately.

Reply to this post

Response to quakerboy (Reply #180)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 07:20 PM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

181. We don't have unlimited political capital.

Democrats are gonna get pounded in '14 and '16 over gun control legislation...you can count on it. So since that's the case, we might as well make it count...it's going to be the only lasting legacy - you can write off gay marriage, blocking limits on reproductive health, blocking austerity measures, election reform, or preventing a hard RW SCOTUS.
Assault weapon legislation is going to face a lot of opposition, any legislation that finally gets passed through both houses is going to be so watered down, might as well call it AWB II. Minor cosmetic changes to the guns will render them unaffected by the ban, and they'll fly off the shelves. And even if successfully banned, AW are involved in so few gun deaths, it'll hardly be a make dent.
If gun control is an issue that is worth taking up and giving up on a Dem WH, Dem Senate, and liberal SCOTUS for, then at least make it worthwhile. Go for a private sale ban, which will reduce ALL gun deaths. Go for longer waiting period, and stronger background checks.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #181)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:34 PM

quakerboy (10,630 posts)

183. Democrats get pounded

over guns every time. Whether we do a damn thing or not. Did you not pay attention to the most recent election?

Reply to this post

Response to quakerboy (Reply #183)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:45 PM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

184. The one we won?

Yep, I did pay attention. Dems didn't touch the third-rail. Won WH, kept the Senate, gained seats in the House, and gained seats in many State Legislatures. It will be a shame to piss all that away over gun-control legislation that will have little impact.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #184)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 08:51 PM

gejohnston (12,847 posts)

185. won on the economy, tax policy, Wall Street regulation,

environment,
no guns there.

Reply to this post

Response to gejohnston (Reply #185)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 09:05 PM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

186. Exactly!

Glad you got my point. If Dems are gonna touch the third-rail of gun-control, it damn well better be worth it...because its gonna cost us a lot.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #184)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:32 AM

quakerboy (10,630 posts)

188. Ask the NRA and its supporters

If democrats touched the third rail. Because I got the emails. Dozens of them. All about how Obama and dems were plotting against our guns.

It doesn't matter if democrats do something or do nothing. We could repeal every single gun law on the books in every state. And the next election, 47 % of the voters would vote r and believe it was a conspiracy against gun rights.

Might as well do something beneficial since were gonna get blamed for it anyway. We have to count on 51% of voters to be sane, either way.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:47 AM

Howzit (967 posts)

190. What if they are sneaky and pause a few seconds every five rounds?

What if they don't load them to capacity - you simply won't know.

Reply to this post

Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:23 PM

villager (19,190 posts)

31. Then you won't mind such a ban at all!

Great to know!

Reply to this post

Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:23 PM

Warren Stupidity (32,399 posts)

32. Five years in prison would probably convince most normal people that restricted magazines are fine.

I agree that the lunatics would go to the mattresses over this, all 12 of them after the first dozen get wiped out.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:33 PM

dairydog91 (779 posts)

36. Apparently nobody learned anything from the drug war.

Mandatory harsh sentencing is not much of a discouragement if the per-offense probability of getting caught is very low.

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:38 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

40. Make it a felony and confiscate the law breaker's guns - and fine them big time.

Life without The Precious would be Hell on Earth for the gun nut law breakers.

No prison required.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:50 PM

dairydog91 (779 posts)

50. Stimulus: Harsh Sentences aren't discouraging crime.

Response: Increase the sentences!

It's nice to see that the Clueless, Angry Conservative School of Criminal Sentencing is still in operation, even if the Drug War department is looking a bit shabby these days.

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #50)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:55 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

54. So, if the gov't took your guns and said you could never possess another one

that would not be an effective "stimulus" to abide by the law??

I think it would.

Most true gun nuts would rather be drawn and quartered than lose their precious guns for life.

Yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #54)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:02 PM

dairydog91 (779 posts)

59. Well, considering that I don't own anything, that's not a problem.

And the probability of actually catching someone who's out in the woods, taking a 2 second break every 10 rounds, in a backwoods country where gunfire is omnipresent, is probably only slightly better than your odds of getting blown by a Turkish unicorn.

Again, as the Drug War repeatedly demonstrated, though apparently to deaf ears, is that people do subconscious risk analysis. A .01% chance of getting busted doing X is effectively a 0% chance of getting busted as far as risk analysis goes for most people, and hence the sentencing level is near irrelevant. Fear does not keep people in line if the chances of the frightful event are tiny.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #40)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:34 PM

Jenoch (1,785 posts)

131. What makes you think such laws will

soon be passed?

Reply to this post

Response to dairydog91 (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:28 PM

Warren Stupidity (32,399 posts)

95. If pot killed random strangers you might have a point.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:21 PM

villager (19,190 posts)

29. applaud?

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:40 PM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

41. Shrug my shoulders and roll my eyes, most likely.

There is no need for high-capacity magazines, so a ban would have little effect on gun owner's use of their firearms. However, high-capacity clips are seldom involved in gun related deaths, so banning them would have little effect on homicide numbers. In essence, it would be a lot of brouhaha over nothing.
To make an analogy, suppose the public became fed up with injuries in football, and demands Congress to take action. Congress's action is to ban kneel-down plays at the end of the game, since it isn't essential to the game. Everybody's happy. Except that injuries seldom occur during kneel-downs, so it has little effect on reducing the number of injuries.

Reply to this post

Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #41)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:45 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

45. Then you would not oppose this?

Hooray!

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #45)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:00 PM

HooptieWagon (6,642 posts)

57. I don't own a gun, it doesn't affect me.

I'm not against it. I just don't think it will have any effect on gun deaths, so isn't worth the political price.
Any gun legislation is going to have a political price. If a price is to be paid, I'd rather it be paid for enacting legislation that would have a beneficial effect in reducing gun-related deaths.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 12:49 PM

Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)

49. I'd put a block of wood inside them.

To limit the number of bullets they can carry.

It's the same way shotguns work for duck hunting. You have to have a plug in the magazine that limits you to 3 shots.

Reply to this post

Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:33 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

62. But with a duck gun - the max number of shells you can load is 5

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:56 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

4 in the tube - 1 in the chamber

blocking a 30 round magazine with a removable block would not solve the problem.

nope

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:00 PM

Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)

68. Havn't been duck hunting in years

I just know one of my shotguns has a removable plug to limit the number of shells it can hold to make it legal for hunting ducks.

blocking a 30 round magazine with a removable block would not solve the problem.

You asked what I'd do. That's what I'd do. Either that or have a boating accident.

Reply to this post

Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #68)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:24 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

70. It would still be a banned high cap clip - and you would not be a "law abider"

nope

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #70)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:48 PM

Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)

78. I'd be a civil disobedient.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #78)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:16 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

86. and a felon

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #86)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:30 PM

Atypical Liberal (5,412 posts)

89. We'll see.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:00 PM

HALO141 (833 posts)

107. blocking a 30 round magazine with a removable block would not solve the problem

Really? That's funny because it's essentially what the manufacturers did during the previous AWB.

Reply to this post

Response to HALO141 (Reply #107)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:02 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

110. All high cap clips would be banned - no alterations to evade allowed

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Fines doubled.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #110)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 06:16 PM

HALO141 (833 posts)

114. Again - Whatever

Reply to this post

Response to HALO141 (Reply #114)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:26 PM

rl6214 (7,536 posts)

122. He loves changing the goalposts

Reply to this post

Response to rl6214 (Reply #122)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:21 PM

HALO141 (833 posts)

125. I think he really

just likes pulling stupid "what-if's" out of his butt to try to piss people off when he can't win in a fact based debate.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:01 PM

catbyte (4,010 posts)

58. Applaud.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:15 PM

-..__... (7,776 posts)

61. What high-cap "clips"

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:19 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3)

I don't own any.

For that matter, I don't own any high-cap magazines either.

Nor do I own any "assault rilfes", or semi-automatic rifles..

Hell... I don't even own any firearms or ammo.

All was lost in a tragic boating accident.

Reply to this post

Response to -..__... (Reply #61)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:37 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

63. Why "clips" - because I do not abide by the gun nut lexicon for magazines

It's just another way for them to obfuscate debate.

A magazine is something you read on a plane.

I don't play their stupid word games anymore.

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:30 PM

discntnt_irny_srcsm (5,880 posts)

71. I prefer...

...reading my magazine in the plane. AFAIK only Evel Knievel rides on planes.

Oops, was that a stupid word game?

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:39 PM

oldhippie (1,530 posts)

72. And that right there ....

... is a perfect example of the decline and fall of the English language and education in America.

Magazine and clip have specific meanings among the educated.

"I don't like the word's meaning, so I will change its meaning to what I wish." I'm trying to decide if that concept is ignorance or elitism.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:44 PM

-..__... (7,776 posts)

74. I would welcome any ban bill if its authors were as wilfully ignorent this time around.

As it would still leave the targeted firearms untouched, and it would create a LCFD (Large Capacity Feeding Device)/magazine loophole.

From the 94 AWB...

b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable ~~magazine~~ clip and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable ~~magazine~~ clip and has at least 2 of--

`(i) an ammunition ~~magazine~~ clip that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed ~~magazine~~ clip capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable ~~magazine~~ clip.'.

(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--

`(A) means a ~~magazine~~, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but

`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.

(c) PENALTY- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(c)(1), is amended by striking `or (v)' and inserting `(v), or (w)'.

(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(d) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.'.

Reply to this post

Response to -..__... (Reply #74)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:48 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

76. I use the term clip as a rhetorical tool - and it works

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #76)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:02 PM

-..__... (7,776 posts)

79. No... it doesn't. Not even rhetorically.

Maybe it works for the same people who who think that a "barrel shroud" is the shoulder thing that goes up"...

Reply to this post

Response to -..__... (Reply #79)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:21 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

87. Again - the Gun Nut Conceit Fallacy

Only they know about guns - and anybody who doesn't indulge in their insane idolatry of guns cannot discuss gun issues.

Fail

yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #87)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:59 PM

Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)

92. If you want to agitate against hydraulic fracturing,

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:00 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

you ought to learn what it is, how it's done, what its benefits are, in addition to what you read in an animated gif on a blog once.

Same with guns. Ignorance is not strength for an activist.

Reply to this post

Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #92)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:07 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

93. Sorry - I could care less about bump firing or what percent of a receiver you need to circumvent

gun laws etc.

That is the realm of the Gun Nut - and not a requirement to discuss gun control.

Yup

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #93)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:42 PM

Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)

97. Not a requirement to discuss it,

but a requirement to be taken seriously when you start talking about specifics.

Reply to this post

Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:44 PM

Common Sense Party (13,091 posts)

98. Who ever thought jpak wanted to be taken seriously?

Reply to this post

Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #97)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:45 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

99. I do not take the gun nuts seriously

sorry

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #99)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:11 PM

OneTenthofOnePercent (6,268 posts)

117. But if you want to take legislation seriously, you need to get serious about specifics.

Legislation is about defining legal boundaries clearly. The only way to be definitive and clear is to use technical delineation.

When this round of gun control fails, even after 20 school children have been murdered, it will be the fault of people like you. People like you with your nonchalant attitude towards process and lack of conviction for technical specifics and understanding will be to blame for the lack of change and when the next shooting that could have prevented happens - it will be on your shoulders and their blood will be on your hands.

20 dead first graders might be enough to tip the scales and move the country to want to pursue a real solution... but how many dead first graders will it take YOU to actually get serious about the specifics of real gun control?

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:19 PM

Eleanors38 (3,827 posts)

169. The requirement for a prohibitionist: Studied stupidity.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #63)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:07 PM

sylvi (813 posts)

175. Then again

Then again, being proud of your ignorance to the point of purposely enshrining it in your posts does little to enhance your credibility in any argument, let alone those restricted to guns.

It's like a child who is corrected on their grammar and then goes on to repeat the same mistake over and over out of spite. The mentality at work is about the same.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 01:44 PM

Remmah2 (3,291 posts)

65. We'll be eating stale chips then.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:07 PM

LeftTurnOnly (36 posts)

69. Celebrate!

And continue until every gun is gone and burned.

Reply to this post

Response to LeftTurnOnly (Reply #69)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:28 PM

Eleanors38 (3,827 posts)

171. An instructive post...

The other day, an exasperated poster asked if there was a difference between "gun-controllers" on the one hand and "gun banners" on the other. The consensus?

No.

Thank you for illustrating this.

Reply to this post

Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #171)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 02:46 PM

LeftTurnOnly (36 posts)

193. There is a difference.

However, I'm a gun banner.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:48 PM

aikoaiko (16,629 posts)

77. I follow gun laws, but some civil disobedience might be in order.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:12 PM

tularetom (17,488 posts)

83. I don't agree with banning anything

It doesn't. work and it creates a black market in the banned commodity.

Look how well the war on drugs has succeeded.

Or prohibition.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:14 PM

ehrenfeucht games (139 posts)

85. This would be a good thing. Nobody in civilian life has a need for these Classroom Clips. (nt)

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 03:24 PM

rrneck (14,007 posts)

88. Finish lunch. nt

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:16 PM

sarisataka (2,296 posts)

94. I swore an oath that says, in part

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

That pretty much covers it

Reply to this post

Response to sarisataka (Reply #94)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:47 PM

jpak (26,953 posts)

100. Consteetooshunalist vigilantes are the worst of the bunch

don't you agree?

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Reply #100)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:01 PM

sarisataka (2,296 posts)

108. Vigilantes and paranoid racists...

yes are a major issue, much like the mean dog in the neighborhood. When I watch those shows on A&E about the KKK and Neo-Nazis I wonder how many of those loons realize that 1930's and 40's era Nazis would have sent them to the Russian Front as cannon fodder since they are a waste of resources?

However respect for the Constitution is not a bad thing...

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:29 PM

HALO141 (833 posts)

96. Laugh

I don't know of a modern firearm that uses a clip that holds more than 10 rounds. M1 Garand holds 8.

Reply to this post

Response to HALO141 (Reply #96)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:53 PM

Hudjes (10 posts)

141. Clever.

10/10 would take a minute to realize the joke and then laugh again.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:56 PM

marew (1,078 posts)

103. CHEER!

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 04:58 PM

ileus (9,315 posts)

105. I'd be fine with that.

I have no clip fed firearms.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 05:15 PM

OregonBlue (4,033 posts)

112. All the gun nuts would have to back to playing with themselves instead of their guns.

What a hoot!!

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 07:08 PM

rl6214 (7,536 posts)

116. Not a thing

All of mine were lost in a boating accident.

Reply to this post

Response to rl6214 (Reply #116)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:32 PM

Hudjes (10 posts)

135. What a coincidence

I was also on that boat. We were testing a new floating target. And Whoops, hit a buried piling.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:22 PM

MindandSoul (1,817 posts)

126. Applaud that decision, and hope it's just the first of many to increase gun control laws.

Reply to this post

Response to MindandSoul (Reply #126)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:43 PM

Eleanors38 (3,827 posts)

172. Note #171 above. There ARE good proposals out there...

...they won'tt see the light of day. Nearly all the folks in this debate know that "common sense gun control" is a vulgar billboard in a culture war.

Worthy of discussion: Why, after all of American history, growth of tolerance, expansion of civil rights, and the estab. of a top-rate university system, we still glance over our shoulders to that Sodom of prohibition.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:25 PM

cui bono (7,531 posts)

127. Applaud. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Thu Dec 20, 2012, 08:43 PM

krispos42 (45,273 posts)

128. Wait for the inevitable legal challenges...

...to work their way through the Supreme Court.

Then, if it goes into effect, wait for my just compensation. By then, the retail price should be so high I'll turn a pretty profit.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:47 PM

AAO (1,586 posts)

138. I'd throw all of mine away imediately. What else would a "law abiding" citizen do?

Aren't gun owners "good law-abiding citizens"?

Reply to this post

Response to AAO (Reply #138)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:55 AM

Dems to Win (523 posts)

155. Where are the 'law-abiding' gun owners who will abide the laws we choose to create? n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Dems to Win (Reply #155)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:07 AM

Glaug-Eldare (1,018 posts)

156. Hanging out with the pot smokers? I dunno. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Dems to Win (Reply #155)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:01 AM

AAO (1,586 posts)

161. I never said I had the details worked out! Sheesh

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:13 PM

ProgressiveProfessor (22,144 posts)

144. Wait for the large check

and since it would be compensation, it would not be taxed

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:43 AM

RetroGamer1971 (176 posts)

153. Look at it as a good first step.

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:50 AM

wercal (389 posts)

154. Read a Magazine

Reply to this post

Response to jpak (Original post)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 02:23 PM

sylvi (813 posts)

177. Sit back and watch the black market

Sit back and watch the black market, that nearly always follows prohibition-style laws, come into full flower, with the concomitant spike in violence and gun crime that develops around black markets. Violence which I'm sure would outstrip any current level of violence associated "high cap clips".

Reply to this post

Response to sylvi (Reply #177)

Sun Dec 23, 2012, 03:53 AM

Howzit (967 posts)

191. General criminal violence is OK as It cannot be prevented, as long as the nutters are stopped

Or so it seems after reading post after post written by the most prolific poster in this thread.

Reply to this post

Gun Control & RKBA (Group)