HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Discussion between me and...

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:28 AM

Discussion between me and my conservative, gun collecting father

I was recently in Las Vegas, NV with my family, and my father and I were talking. For those of you who don't know, I'm pretty liberal. My father is very conservative, but is always tries to keep an open mind. Both of us are open to having our opinions changed if the facts support it, we just generally have different opinions of what is good for the country at large, how laws should be interpreted, whatever.

So, on a drive down the Strip, the subject of guns came up. Las Vegas has gun clubs that are apparently very big among the Japanese that visit the city. Most Japanese will never hold a gun, much less fire a fully automatic Thompson, Uzi or similar. The gun laws in Japan are some of the most restrictive of all First World countries, and firing a pistol or rifle would be considered no less than 3 felonies, depending on what you were shooting at, at a sentence starting at 10 years.

So, here's what we discussed; things that a conservative could live with, and make a liberal feel like something was being done to help curb gun violence.

1) Every gun needs to be registered, except for collectors or museum pieces, which are handled separately. Every registered gun must be presented once every two years to prove the gun is still owned by the registered owner.
2) No more private party sales, or gun show loop holes. If you sell a gun, it's sold through a registered, licensed dealer that files the appropriate paperwork showing the transfer of the weapon.
3) There is no limit on magazine or clip size, however there is a progressive tax, paid annually, on clips of a larger capacity of 10-12. You can own a 200 round drum, but it will cost you. Call it a bullet guzzler tax.
4) A person may have a total of 30 rounds of ammunition in magazines, clips, speed loaders, or similar devices, either in or out of their weapon any time they are carrying their weapon. They can have more on their person, but it cannot be loaded in a magazine. After 30 shots, you have to stop and put bullets in the feed device and reload the gun. If that's 10 in your gun plus 2 magazines for a Glock, great. If it's 30 rounds in a banana clip for your AK-47, cool. But 30 shots is all you get before you have to put more bullets in a device to load the gun.
5) Gun owners must be of legal age to own them
6) Owners must pass a licensing test, including mental competency once every 4 years.
7) Firearms for the military and law enforcement are regulated separately (duh, but it makes sure some hillbilly can't say “Yer takin' stuff away from our soldiers!”)
8) Any weapon you can't prove you own is confiscated and destroyed.
9) If you follow the rules, you can own any damn thing you want as long as it doesn't qualify as a Class 3 weapon. Open carry or concealed carry permits would be handled separately from the registration of the actual weapon.

The standard argument of “criminals will still carry guns” or “they'll take away are guns!” don't hold water. Yes, people that break the law will still break the law. None of this prevents a lawful citizen from having / owning / carrying a firearm. For the second point, no one will ever take America's guns away. They couldn't do it. There are 300 million people in America, and 280 million plus estimated guns. Your car is registered and they haven't ever taken those away. Your pet is probably registered (or it should be), yet no one has confiscated Spot and Mr. Foofels. This just ensures that as many people as possible are mentally competent to handle fire arms responsibly.

24 replies, 2246 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 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Discussion between me and my conservative, gun collecting father (Original post)
TexasPaganDem Dec 2012 OP
clffrdjk Dec 2012 #1
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #2
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #4
Comatose Sphagetti Dec 2012 #3
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #5
spin Dec 2012 #6
Comatose Sphagetti Dec 2012 #7
spin Dec 2012 #8
Comatose Sphagetti Dec 2012 #10
gejohnston Dec 2012 #11
rl6214 Dec 2012 #14
Comatose Sphagetti Dec 2012 #17
gejohnston Dec 2012 #19
spin Dec 2012 #12
Comatose Sphagetti Dec 2012 #18
beevul Dec 2012 #9
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #24
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #15
spin Dec 2012 #16
rl6214 Dec 2012 #13
TexasPaganDem Dec 2012 #20
gejohnston Dec 2012 #21
HALO141 Dec 2012 #22
DookieMonster Dec 2012 #23

Response to TexasPaganDem (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:00 AM

1. I don't think you will find much support for that.

1) Registration is hard enough with the 5th amendment exempting any actual criminal from complying. Add in me having to load every gun I own and take it to the police every two years, good luck with that.

2)Workable

3)How do you tax something that is uncearialized and that no one knows how many are out there? I would pay the tax on a hand full and just rotate the rest in.

4) So what's the point of complying with the tax if I can't even use the mags? Why is it that every patrolman in the nation carries at least 45 rounds ready to go with mace with a baton with a taser all for their personal defense? And a rifle or shotgun in the car and a radio on their belt for backup any time they think they will need it? But I without any backup have to make due with limits?

5) what are you implying with that? a toddler can buy one now?

6) I will already be registered and monitored but now you want me to find the one shrink in the nation willing to take on that kind of liability?

7) I can understand leaving out the military but if the police don't have to meet the same high standards I do when they are already more likely to commit a crime than I am, well how does that make any sense?

8) well I like that better than the way the ATF does it now. Any weapon they lose track of gets destroyed when they find it even if the owner has all of the required paperwork.

9) I can do that now don't toss it in as if you are some how giving me something in return.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasPaganDem (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 09:21 AM

2. Responses:

1. Exactly what do you expect registration to accomplish?

2. Open the NICS system to private individuals, make it and the forms available online. Require a person who privately sells a gun to keep the record for ten years.

3. No.

4. No. You won't gain anything as criminals (Those are the folks you have to worry about) will ignore it. If some nutball decides to shoot up someplace in a rampage shooting, he won't be concerned with a limit of how much ammo he can have on him. You are pushing for a feel-good law that would accomplish nothing.

5. Already law. I do remember when there was no age restriction. I remember as an 11 year old buying shells for my .410 bore shotgun.

6. I would go for this, as long as the requirements where set within reach of the average person. I have known people who should not have had a gun due to not knowing what they were doing.

7. OK.

8. Since I am against registration I am against this.

-------------
In all of that you are requiring gunners to give up ground that we already hold. What will you, as a pro-control person willing to give to us gunners. Compromise doesn't mean we do all the giving and you do all the taking. What are you willing to give?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:23 AM

4. Responses:

1. I infer registered guns hurt much less when you're shot with them.
2. As Carlin's character Biff Barf said, "I call 'em like I see 'em and if I don't see 'em, I make 'em up." Record? What's a record?
3. Taxes on stuff that's bigger than similar stuff that you bought from someone who won't be recording a sale of something he never owned.
4. Damn! I can't CC my belt-fed anymore.
5. Now there's some progress. A law that makes something illegal even more illegal.
6. Those who can pass the test can own guns, those who can't can still vote on the laws, design, administer and grade the tests.
7. Them folks is more equal.
8. If I write a note that says "I really do own all my guns" and have it notarized, does that count?
9. All that will be handled by law enforcement. There will be new offices with lots of windows and special fast lanes for those with less than 3 guns or criminals without any receipts or IDs.

Bah, humbug!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasPaganDem (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:22 AM

3. "For the second point, no one will ever take America's guns away."

With all respect, I grow weary of the "it'll never happen" crowd because it shuts down any rational discourse for or against before it is even started.

It can be done. It wouldn't be liked and there would be tons of kicking and screaming, but it can be done. Other democracies have done it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:24 AM

5. good one!

"...kicking and screaming..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:35 PM

6. Other democracies do not have our gun culture or the 2nd Amendment. ...

It is also possible that if the 2nd was repealed (extremely unlikely) our nation might spit right down the middle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #6)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:14 PM

7. It's already fractious.

And, single-shot, hand loaded weapons only, does not mean repeal of the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:43 PM

8. So what you wish is that honest citizens to have single shot firearms ...

while the criminals have semi-auto firearms. You probably also believe the crime rate will fall if your plan is implemented.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #8)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:50 PM

10. single shot firearms only

You get caught with anything other it's an automatic five years. And I've owned firearms.

If I have to give up my "right" to own WMD's for the common good, then so be it, it's been done before. It will take time but a beginning has to made.

"the criminals?" Everyone reading these words is a criminal. "Honest" citizens kill every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 11:58 PM

11. a .25 is a WMD?

That is newspeak like I have never seen before. I'm not a criminal. I have never committed a crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:42 AM

14. I honk he's already comatose

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:12 PM

17. With all respect

Everyone has broken the law, but it's usually rationalized or minimized with, "I didn't know. I was young. Everyone else does it, etc..".


And in an elementary school a .25 can cause mass casualties. Depends on your definition of mass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:24 PM

19. I never have

at least a US law. I may have unknowingly violated a Korean or Japanese law.

In the case of a .25 it would depend more on the definition of causality. I don't believe in terms that don't have specific definitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 01:19 AM

12. Now "Everyone reading these words is a criminal." ...

Perhaps we should lock everyone who read you post up.

I will say that reading your posts is entertaining at the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:14 PM

18. Thank you, my friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:57 PM

9. And only being allowed to own/print one kind of book...

And only being allowed to own/print one kind of book, does not mean repeal of the 1st amendment...right?


Good grief lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comatose Sphagetti (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:05 PM

24. How's that printing Press working?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 04:58 PM

15. Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to bear arms in their constitutions.

Article 10 of Mexican Constitution of 1917 states the following:
"Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms."
more at link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all enshrine the right to pack heat in their constitutions. Guatemala's Article 38 is the only one that's as broad as our Second Amendment (it guarantees "the right of possession of arms for personal use"). Article 10 of the Mexican constitution and Article 268-1 of Haiti's constitution limit the right to the confines of the home and allow the government to pass laws significantly restricting ownership. Mexicans, for example, are supposed to get a permit, renewable every year, from the military, and all firearms must be registered. (The law is widely ignored. Only 4,300 licenses have been issued for Mexico's 105 million people.) Handguns must be .380 caliber or less, shotguns can't be greater than 12 gauge, and rifles must be .30 caliber or smaller.
more at link:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/12/have_gun_want_to_travel.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tuesday Afternoon (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:13 PM

16. It is my opinion that a lot of the firearms smuggled from our nation into Mexico ...

are sold to civilians. The limitation of .380 caliber or less for a handgun means that Mexicans are legally limited to what many gun owners in the states would refer to as "mouse guns."

I would bet a Mexican gun smuggler can sell a S&W .357 magnum revolver or a .40 caliber Glock for a premium price on the black market. Considering the level of violence in Mexico, I would bet that many good citizens would love to have a black rifle for home defense.


Law-Abiding Mexicans Taking Up Illegal Guns


by John Burnett

In Mexico, where criminals are armed to the teeth with high-powered weapons smuggled from the United States, it may come as a surprise that the country has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world.

Law-abiding Mexicans who want a gun to defend themselves have no good options. Either they fight government red tape to get a legal permit, or they buy one on the black market.

***snip***

"In the black market, it's very easy to acquire mostly American-made weapons here in our country, but through the legal process it's ... very complex and expensive," Alex LeBaron says.

***snip***

The director of a pro-gun website called Mexico Armado said there is no popular movement at the moment to liberalize the nation's gun laws. Perhaps, he added, that's because anybody who wants a weapon in Mexico — be they a good guy or a bad guy — has no problem getting one.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/145996427/mexican-community-takes-taboo-stance-on-guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasPaganDem (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 02:39 AM

13. Every one of those ideas is just nucking futs and would never be agreed to

 

By any conservative gun owner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasPaganDem (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:38 PM

20. So, what would your recommendation be?

There were a few posts of "This will never pass" or "No conservative gun owner would agree to any of this." Really? What is wrong with ensuring that gun owners are of age of majority? What's the issue with only carrying 30 rounds that are in magazines and ready to fire? It doesn't limit you from loading a drum at home, at the range or your final destination, just while you are carrying in public? And I would think that all of the conservative gun owners would agree with #9, if you made it that far down the list.

And to those that ask "What do we get in return?" You don't get your guns taken away by more restrictive laws. All of these are reasonable, and implementable. They don't present an undue burden. Sometimes when you are that far at an edge, you can't go more in the give-me category, you have already gotten everything there is to give.

What alternatives would you offer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasPaganDem (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:53 PM

21. dealing with the root problems

like wealth inequality and mental health. This is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Making rules about where you can load a magazine is nice theater I can live with. Problem is, it is theater.
And to those that ask "What do we get in return?" You don't get your guns taken away by more restrictive laws. All of these are reasonable, and implementable. They don't present an undue burden. Sometimes when you are that far at an edge, you can't go more in the give-me category, you have already gotten everything there is to give.
That is the goal of Brady and VPC. VPC wants to ban archery too, at least according to Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with crime control. It is about culture. Some people genuinely believe it will make a difference, but criminologist James Wright described them best as "barking up the wrong tree."

Many scholars have suggested that Americans' positions on gun control are the product of culture conflicts. This assertion has been largely based on associations of gun control opinion with membership in social groups believed to be hostile, or favorable, towards gun ownership, rather than with direct measures of the cultural traits thought to mediate the effects of group membership on gun control opinion. Data from a 2005 national telephone survey were analyzed to test competing theories of why people support handgun bans. Instrumental explanations, which stress belief in a policy's likely effectiveness, accounted for less than 25 percent of the variation in support. The results supported the culture conflict perspective. Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners, and who did not believe in the need to defend their own homes against crime (versus relying on the police) were more likely to support handgun bans.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932

As for number nine, I have never seen any evidence that registration does anything other than provide a couple of jobs maintaining a list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasPaganDem (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:47 PM

22. Nothing.

I offer you nothing and I am willing to give up nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HALO141 (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:43 PM

23. I agree

 

Look at what happened in NY with the newspaper releasing pistol permit information. The gun laws in NY are very strict and you have to jump through hoops to obtain a pistol permit. Those people had to have training, background checks, fingerprinted, and have their local law enforcement endorse them in order to get the permit. This licensing process is what the gun grabbers wanted and yet they attack the gun owners who were deem responsible enough by the state of NY to own a handgun. Even licensing is not enough to the gun grabbers, after they institute a licensing process they're going to publish all our information for the crooks to see.

It might explode some heads here, but some people actually have a legitimate reason to have a handgun. There are many women who are hiding from their abusive ex-partners, parole officers who might need protection from the felons they deal with, or ex police officers that still worry about reprisals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread