HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can we talk about gun con...

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:52 PM

Can we talk about gun control yet? No? NRA won’t allow it? Alrighty then.

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by UnrepentantLiberal (a host of the General Discussion forum).


Can we talk about gun control yet?
No? NRA won’t allow it?
Alrighty then.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Multiple-people-shot--166004076.html

62 replies, 5763 views

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 62 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can we talk about gun control yet? No? NRA won’t allow it? Alrighty then. (Original post)
kpete Aug 2012 OP
Shadowflash Aug 2012 #1
appal_jack Aug 2012 #15
DanTex Aug 2012 #20
appal_jack Aug 2012 #23
DanTex Aug 2012 #24
cleanhippie Aug 2012 #32
DanTex Aug 2012 #36
ellisonz Aug 2012 #2
Fumesucker Aug 2012 #5
ellisonz Aug 2012 #7
hack89 Aug 2012 #9
rrneck Aug 2012 #18
Fumesucker Aug 2012 #22
DanTex Aug 2012 #40
ellisonz Aug 2012 #58
AtomicKitten Aug 2012 #3
patrice Aug 2012 #4
TheKentuckian Aug 2012 #27
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #28
hack89 Aug 2012 #6
Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #11
rrneck Aug 2012 #19
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #30
99Forever Aug 2012 #8
cleanhippie Aug 2012 #35
99Forever Aug 2012 #54
xchrom Aug 2012 #10
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #31
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #42
DisgustipatedinCA Aug 2012 #12
Tommy_Carcetti Aug 2012 #21
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #33
DanTex Aug 2012 #45
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #47
DanTex Aug 2012 #52
Pacafishmate Aug 2012 #56
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #50
Scuba Aug 2012 #13
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #14
appal_jack Aug 2012 #16
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #29
DanTex Aug 2012 #26
Kaleva Aug 2012 #39
Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #41
Kaleva Aug 2012 #51
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #43
Kaleva Aug 2012 #49
DanTex Aug 2012 #55
Kaleva Aug 2012 #57
DanTex Aug 2012 #60
-..__... Aug 2012 #17
virginia mountainman Aug 2012 #25
maxsolomon Aug 2012 #34
madinmaryland Aug 2012 #37
jody Aug 2012 #38
DanTex Aug 2012 #44
derby378 Aug 2012 #46
jody Aug 2012 #53
DanTex Aug 2012 #61
oldhippie Aug 2012 #48
davidpdx Aug 2012 #59
UnrepentantLiberal Aug 2012 #62

Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:57 PM

1. Maybe

there is some sort of number of victims/per week ratio we have to hit first?

I'm not sure.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shadowflash (Reply #1)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:18 PM

15. So, what should we ban?

 

Guns can play a role in horrible crimes: I get that. But is the problem the criminal or the gun? I say it's the criminal, and that the solutions lie in the areas of providing better, universally-accessible mental health care, ending the war on (some) drugs so that police have more resources to fight truly violent crime, and creating tax and monetary policies that push the nation toward full employment and reduced income inequality. Do you really think the problem is more in the gun itself? If so, what should we ban?

With criminal intent, a common hunting rifle or old S&W revolver could cause unspeakable tragedy in five or more peoples' lives.

Used properly for recreation or target shooting, one of those 'evil black rifles' with the 75 or 100 round drums will cause no harm at all. And yes, such weapons do also have valid, lawful, self-defense applications as well.

Semi-automatic pistols and rifles are not problems in themselves. Large ammunition collections do not cause murders. Violent criminals are the problem, and we already have laws against them.

-app

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #15)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:39 PM

20. The problem is both the criminal and the gun.

There are criminals and crazy people in all societies. The US doesn't have a monopoly on crime. But, compared to the rest of the industrialized world, what we do have a monopoly in is gun violence and homicide. And this is because, in the US, it's really easy for criminals and crazy people to get hold of lethal weapons. Make it more difficult, and less people will die.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #20)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:56 PM

23. If 'lethality' is your threshold, you've got a long row to hoe.

 

If 'lethality' is your threshold, you've got a long row to hoe. Like I said above, the least sophisticated firearms on the market today (other than single shots) can cause multiple deaths if criminally misused. Knives, machetes, iron pipes, and thousands of other items are also lethal enough to kill several people in short order. Are you proposing to ban a class of items which are already possessed by Americans in the tens of millions? Who, exactly, will be doing the confiscations?

-app

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #23)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:03 PM

24. It is possible to kill people with a knife or a pipe. But it's a lot easier with a handgun.

The statistics are pretty clear on this. Also, I'm not proposing a ban on anything. I'm just pointing out that lax gun laws do result in more death. It's not that guns are banned in the rest of the world. Some guns are banned in some countries, but in a lot of places they just have reasonable restrictions (e.g. licensing, registration, safe storage, etc.). What obviously doesn't work is the laws we have now in the US.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #24)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:55 PM

32. "I'm just pointing out that lax gun laws do result in more death."

If that is the case, what accounts for the lowest crime rates in decades. Considering that more Americans own more guns than ever in history, and crime has been dropping steadily for 30+ years, just how does "lax gun laws do result in more death."?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #32)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:00 PM

36. Crime has been dropping for a number of reasons.

The US continues to have far more gun violence and far more homicide than any other industrialized nation. The statistical evidence indicates that gun availability doesn't increase crime across the board, what it does is increase lethal crime.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:57 PM

2. And if you try...

...you will be badgered that you just don't understand the details of the death spewers enough to have a proper appreciation for their essential good (even on DU! )

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #2)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:09 PM

5. It's not impossible to learn enough about the details of guns..

They really aren't all that complicated and the nomenclature is not particularly esoteric.

It really is good to know at least the basics of what you are talking about when you discuss an issue.

DU is by and large populated with smart people and yet we hear the same errors repeated time after time.

The biggest mistake is using "automatic" when "semi-automatic" is the correct term, there really is a major difference and it's a huge n00b mistake to confuse the two. Automatic means the gun continues to fire repeatedly while the trigger is pulled until it either jams or runs out of ammunition, a machine gun if you will. Semi-automatic on the other hand means one shot per trigger pull.

FWIW I'm a neutral on guns, starting to lean anti though..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #5)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:14 PM

7. "there really is a major difference and it's a huge n00b mistake to confuse the two"

No one really gives a fuck besides the gun trolls - try tell the families of Aurora that we can't have a debate about gun control because of such rubbish.

This isn't a "pro-anti" issue - this is about basic compassion for others. We have a gun violence problem in this country, either we do something about it or accept that we will continue to have a gun homicide rate that dwarfs those of other Westernized nations. Shit or get off the pot.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:29 PM

9. There are lots of things we can do.

other than banning guns.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:37 PM

18. Shake those partisan pom poms!

Got that posse put together yet?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #7)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:51 PM

22. It makes you sound ignorant and gives your opponents an excuse to ignore your opinion.

The number of automatic handguns is all but infinitesimal and handguns are by far the largest killers of human beings in the USA, long guns such as rifles, shotguns and "assault weapons" are seldom used in murders.

To those who know what they're talking about making that mistake approaches the level of "Get government out of my Medicare" for sheer ignorance.



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #22)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:13 PM

40. I agree that more knowledge is better.

But, at a big picture level, you don't need to know the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine" in order to realize that we have a gun violence problem and need tighter gun control laws. In the same way that you don't need to know what over-the-counter derivatives are in order to understand that we need tighter regulations on Wall Street banks.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #40)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:23 PM

58. Thank you DanTex. n/t

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:58 PM

3. I guess we haven't achieved the target body count yet.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:02 PM

4. I'd say such events inhibit "A well regulated Militia ..." by causing the anarchic spread of all

types of weapons, ergo, the NRA in its support of that chaotic, un-regulated, effect, which mitigates against "A well regulated Militia ..." is anti-Constitutional.

The NRA is a traitorous organization because it supports and contributes to armed anarchy.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:39 PM

27. The right to keep and bear arms is not conditioned upon participation in the militia.

It is a right specifically enumerated to the people and is an individual right.

It is the militia that should be well regulated, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms as that right is not to be infringed which means the present level of of restrictions on the individual are unconstitutional.

The NRA is traitorous because it acts as the arm of the number #1 domestic terror organization, the Republican party, not for supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms and opposing infringement essentially on the right to self defense, a natural right that no government should ever attempt to supersede.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #4)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:43 PM

28. I'm not anti-government, but if I had to frame it in light of your post,

 

I'd prefer armed anarchy over a disarmed public and an armed, oppressive government.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:12 PM

6. Why don't we ask the voters directly?

make it an election issue and bypass the NRA?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:52 PM

11. Simple answer

 

It would mobilize the republican base and the conservative dems to come out and shoot it down. While the base was there they'd vote "R" right down the ticket and many democrats would lose their seat. If you want a repeat of '94 then go right ahead with your proposal, personally I don't. See, the NRA didn't just spring out of the ether to throw money at politics. It's backed up by millions of voting members and is assisted by millions more gun owners who vote with the NRA but aren't members.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:39 PM

19. Well,

just over four million people, and the bulk of their friends and family, agree with you.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:48 PM

30. Ever hear of tyranny of the majority?

 

If we banned every thing that was dangerous, we might just start to look like the UK. Ban dangerous things and dangerous thoughts. That's not how I envision my country. Fuck safety, I want freedom of expression and freedom to live how I see fit as long as I do not harm others. Key word "I". Punish infractions on an individual, not societal level.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:22 PM

8. Just yesterday, I had a DU Gun Cult Member...

... put me on his "clueless list" (whatever the fuck that is) for saying that mentally ill persons shouldn't be allowed to have guns.


I'm so fucking unreasonable sometimes.





Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #8)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:57 PM

35. Really?

Can you link to that?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #35)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:52 PM

54. As a matter of fact..

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:40 PM

10. There's no body count high enough for many, many americans

To talk reasonably about gun con control, manufacture restrictions, taxing guns & ammo, etc.

We are a bloody people - w/ gun owners some of the most committed to our bloodiness.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Reply #10)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:52 PM

31. The number could be a hundred times higher and I'd still be against any of the things you listed.

 

The problem lies with the person, not the inanimate object. "We" are not a bloody people. I've never killed or physically harmed anyone (and I have no intention of doing so). Speak for yourself.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #31)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:19 PM

42. Compared to the rest of "Western Civilization"

"we" most certainly are a bloody, violent people. you are not everyone, neither am i. PER CAPITA, America has more firearm deaths than any other "western" nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

we're 12th on this list, at 12/100,000. the next "western" nation is France, at 4/100,000. 1/3 the rate, and it's mostly suicides.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:03 PM

12. Alrighty then....can we talk about car deaths instead?

 

In 2009, the last year for which full data is available, there were 31,236 nonmilitary gun deaths in the US. I believe this includes murder, suicide, and accidents.

During the same period, there were 36361 motor vehicle deaths, and this figure includes pedestrians killed by cars.

From a public health perspective, both gun deaths and car deaths are considered preventable. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent on government studies aimed to find out how to reduce car deaths, to good effect. 2006 saw more than 45000 car deaths. Firearm deaths, on the other hand, have been slowly inching up since 1999. And of course, almost no government public health money is spent on finding ways to prevent those preventable firearms deaths.

The NRA is largely responsible for creating a climate hostile to public health when it comes to firearms deaths. If it weren't for the NRA, and groups like them, a lot of people who are dead would still be alive. This is inexcusable.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars.pdf


Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:50 PM

21. Wow. Interesting stuff.

Certainly puts a dent in the whole "Guns equals cars and should be treated as such" argument thrown out there by the gun enthusiasts.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #12)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:56 PM

33. For some reason the calls for the prevention of firearms deaths always include the word ban.

 

When people talk about preventing motor vehicle deaths, nobody says, " let's ban ( or tax to the point of unavailability) cars". So then why is it logical for people to do so with guns? I think the prevailing thought is " I don't use guns, I don't need guns, therefore nobody needs guns". Many people use cars, so any plan that makes them more expensive or difficult to acquire is obviously tossed out. This selfish thought process is disgusting and has no place in any society.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #33)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:30 PM

45. Actually, that's not true. The people who use the word "ban" the most are the gun fanatics.

In any case, the reason that guns should be regulated much more tightly than cars is because cars are an integral part of our society -- without cars, society would grind to a halt. Guns really don't matter much. Sure, they are fun to shoot, but, really, if guns suddenly vanished, people would just have to take up some other hobby, but it wouldn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things. That's why it's simply insane that we tolerate almost as many deaths from guns as from cars. And that cars are actually more heavily regulated than guns.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #45)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:34 PM

47. Driving a car is a privilege while owning a gun is a right, remember that.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #47)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:45 PM

52. Spoken like a true Scaliaphile...

Do you also believe that corporations are people?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #52)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:22 PM

56. No, both good and bad rulings can come from the same court.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pacafishmate (Reply #33)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:42 PM

50. you're right, the word "ban" really makes owners defensive.

and very few advocates of greater regulation think that a "ban" is in any way realistic. i think it's a normal fight/flight black/white on/off emotional reaction to a specifc tragedy like aurora or cafe racer or virginia tech. "we need to get rid of all guns!" is absurd on it's face. as Steve Earle once said, "it's WAY too late for gun control in America".

perhaps you can understand why non-gun owners, those who don't "need" firearms, could react that way? after all, we walk around every day with the sword of damocles dangling over our heads, the threat of random gun violence always lurking, however abstractly. and no, carrying our own handgun would not provide a feeling of safety to us.

would the word "reduce" calm the debate down - a focus on harm reduction? as in "how can we reduce the ease with which homicidal schizophrenics amass arsenals?"

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:05 PM

13. It's not about the guns, it's about the... oh, wait. It's about the guns.

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:06 PM

14. The reason is we're talking about 2 different problems.

"Controllers" (I learned this term on DU, apparently I am one) talk about the need to prevent Amoklauf shootings; mass killings by the mentally ill, distraught fathers, etc. They are by and large not gun owners, they often misuse terminology (calling semi-autos "assault weapons" or call for an outright ban on all guns (which the poster usually knows is not realistic).

"2nd Amendment Absolutists" & "Gun Nuts" are focused on their fear of being assaulted, raped, robbed, having their home invaded, though they may also just love shooting stuff because it's fun. When the topic is the mentally ill & their unfettered ability to amass an arsenal, their usual response is to post anecdotes of homeowners who shot intruders (there's a doozy of a post on another thread right now with a dozen or more vids of these brave self-defenders), or point out that Chicago has a gang shooting problem, or tell us that crime is at an all-time low, or delve into false analogies involving cars and knives and swimming pools.

Yes, CRIME is at an all-time low, but not Amoklauf shootings. They're steady if not increasing in number and frequency, and the body count seems as if it's going up. If gun owners are so adamant about their unfettered access to weapons, it is their knowledge that's essential in designing gun regulations (we already have plenty, such as no automatics) to keep schizophrenics from obtaining arsenals. There has to be a way to do it and preserve a well-regulated militia.

I don't want your stupid guns. I just don't want crazy fucks to have them and kill their whole families, or dozens of strangers. I can only assume that Gun Owners are rational people and recognize that this is not an absurd desire. We're now at the point where the NRA, the firearm manufacturers, their political allies, & the SCOTUS have cemented their interpretation of "well-regulated" and "militia" into law. Nothing happens for decades unless the idea comes from this side of the debate.

Gun enthusiasts, please give us "Controllers" ONE idea to REDUCE these shootings. ONE IDEA.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:20 PM

16. See my response # 15 above for three ideas. n/t

 

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #16)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:47 PM

29. Are these the 3?

1. providing better, universally-accessible mental health care,
2. ending the war on (some) drugs so that police have more resources to fight truly violent crime
3. creating tax and monetary policies that push the nation toward full employment and reduced income inequality.

my responses:
1. in terms of reducing the incidence of amoklauf shootings, that's a long-term solution, and the main obstacle is: who's going to pay for that? certainly not a GOP-led congress.
2. i would concur, as that would certainly reduce gang shootings almost immediately, but "truly violent crime" also seems to miss the mark. i assume you're talking about robbery, rape and murder, not familycides or amoklauf shootings, which are largely not premeditated.
3. again, an admirable goal, but a long-term, abstract solution that is not going to address amoklauf shootings directly.

i think more immediate, practical solutions are needed - like you can buy any gun you want, anywhere, anytime, but every time you do, you need to go down to the police station to pick it up, and sit for a interview with some combo of a detective and a psychologist. won't work every time, but if it could sort out the schizophrenics it would be worth the inconvenience.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:20 PM

26. Exactly. Good post.

The gun enthusiasts have no answers. They think we should just have to endure all of the gun violence all for the sake of "gun rights". Or else they think it's "not that bad".

But it is that bad. The rest of the industrialized world doesn't have tens of thousands people shot to death every year. That's because they have sane gun laws.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #14)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:12 PM

39. I've posted about increasing the minimum legal barrel length on all semi-automatics to 20"

and for prohibiting the production and importation of detachable magazines that hold more then 20 rounds.

I've posted about this in the gungeon and so far, not a single "controller" has expressed an opinion on that.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:18 PM

41. True

 

But you were also told how pointless and ridiculous it would be.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #41)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:44 PM

51. No "controller" has said that. At least any I'm aware of.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:22 PM

43. i have to admit that i don't understand how that would change things

would it make it more difficult to hide the weapon?

why would 20 rounds be the cut off?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #43)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:41 PM

49. Well, no semi-automatic handgun has a barrel length anywhere close to 20"

Many of the so called assault weapons have barrel lengths of less then 20".

A limit of 20 rounds to a detachable magazine would eliminate all new and imported so called "high capacity magazines" and drive up the price on those already owned by civilians or already in gun dealer inventory.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #39)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:56 PM

55. 20" minimum barrel length... so basically a ban on semi-auto handguns?

If I am understanding correctly, it seems like this almost makes you a "controller".

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #55)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:23 PM

57. And yet a number here put me in the "gun nut" camp.

I use labels often as it makes things simple but they can also be very inaccurate.

For those who wish greater control on guns, I offer my opinion on what would actually be effective. I believe the AWB was ineffective because it just danced around the issue of civilian owned semi-automatics and also had a major loophole in allowing the importation of high capacity magazines manufactured prior to the ban going into effect but there were millions of such magazines.

Edit: I read you other post about AR-15s. They are available with a 20" barrel and by placing a limit on magazine capacity, they then become just another common semi-automatic hunting rifle.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #57)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:51 PM

60. Fair enough. So what about revolvers?

I agree that a handgun ban would be effective, that AWB had lots of loopholes, and that handguns are the real issue. I also think that, short of a ban, licensing and registration of handguns could go a long way.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 05:32 PM

17. Q: What's there to discuss?

 

A: Not a damn thing... not unless it involves enacting new laws that benefit gun owners and/or repealing existing gun control laws.

The NRA/gun owners/2nd amendment advocates have put up with too much shit in the past, and enough is enough.

We've had a number of significant victories in Congress, the courts and State legislatures, and hopefully, will continue to do so.

OTOH... The Brady Campaign/VPC/MMM have been having their collective asses handed to them time, after time, after time... to the point that they no longer have any relevancy or significance.

So... if the NRA really is preventing any further discussion or enactment of gun control laws.. I say "more power to them".

End of discussion.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:13 PM

25. Agreed...

We should be talking about the which will be the next bullshit gun control law to be discarded to the dust bin of failed policy will be? Because as a general rule, once a law is targeted, they fall.....

A not so gentle reminder to gun control supporters of exactly which side is winning...and winning big...

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 06:56 PM

34. but specifically to the issue of Amoklauf shootings?

is there nothing at all that can be done to reduce the ability of schizophrenics to amass arsenals? i concede all the flaws in existing regulations that gun owners object to, and the constitutionality of the 2nd amendment, but is this simply not a significant problem to gun owners?

i'm not talking about violent crime (robberies) or urban youth shootings (which typically, but not always, kill other urban youths). i'm specifically asking about mental illness and gun violence - suicides, familycides, aurora, virginia tech, cafe racer, etc.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to -..__... (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:05 PM

37. Wow! This is worthy of a DUzy!!!



Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:09 PM

38. Our Constitution does not give or grant rights; they are natural, inherent, unalienable/inalienable

 

attributes of sovereign individuals. They pre-exist the Constitution and do not depend upon it for legitimacy.

Our Constitution requires government to protect all such rights whether enumerated or un-enumerated for a majority or a minority.

To restate the facts mere words on paper do not give or grant unalienable/inalienable rights nor can mere words on paper take them away.

Only the brute power of a totalitarian government can take away unalienable/inalienable rights of sovereign citizens.

It’s difficult to see how those who support government using its power to take away unalienable/inalienable rights of sovereign citizens are not themselves supporting totalitarianism, e.g. the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and property

Recent shooting tragedies are being used by many to again try to infringe on the right to keep and bears for defense of self and property. It’s important therefore to review a bit of history to get at the truth.

The Supreme Court said in D.C. v. Heller (2008) “the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. . . . ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence’”.

Five justices supported Justice Scalia’s opinion that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home”.

Four justices dissented, supporting statements written by Justices Stevens and Breyer that the Second Amendment protected a militia right, not an individual right. They cited Pennsylvania and Vermont in their dissents and that’s very important.

Pennsylvania was the first state to clearly define the right to defend self, property, and state saying, “A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776 . . . That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." PA said "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Vermont changed the word “inalienable” to “unalienable” and adopted the same statements in its constitution with “A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT- July 8, 1777”

PA ratified the Bill of Rights (BOR) on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, it modified its constitution on 2 Sept. 1790, five months later, to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

So what does inalienable and unalienable mean? Legal Dictionaries define them as “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”, e.g. it can never be legal for a person to become a slave to another.

It is indisputable that PA and VT acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the “natural, inherent and inalienable/unalienable rights” regardless of what modern day politicians or adjunct constitutional instructors might spout. As an inalienable/unalienable right, it is impossible for PA and VT citizens to have given their right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, property, and state away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR.

Presumably since “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government”, what’s correct for PA and VT is correct for the other 48 states and what’s correct for the right to keep and bear arms is also correct for every other enumerated unalienable/inalienable right and every un-enumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Our Constitution and BOR were written so they could be read to crowds of illiterate patriots, not tweeted on cell phones. Their authors possessed writing and oratory skills rare among modern academics, journalist, and politicians. Consequently the audience in circa 1790 knew precisely what our Constitution and Bill of Rights meant and so do I and other patriots.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #38)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:22 PM

44. So you think that owning an AR-15 is a "natural, inherent attribute of sovereign individuals"?

Here's a question. If this right doesn't depend on the constitution for its legitimacy, where exactly does its legitimacy come from? Because, I gotta say, it sounds pretty nutty to me. I get that, as a practical matter, Scalia and the rest of the right-wingers are forcing some strange interpretations of the Constitution on the American people, decisions which you apparently agree with, but you're saying that gun ownership is some kind of natural right, even before Scalia and Thomas said so.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:34 PM

46. I see it as a right to freedom and dignity

AR-15s do not grow on trees. Eugene Stoner had to invent the first one, we all realize that. But the notion that you have the right to defend yourself and your loved ones is rooted in the idea that we all have a certain inherent dignity. "Original sin" does not apply here.

You have a right to be secure in your own person, and so does the guy next to you. If he tries to violate your security, he's crossed a line. There are various ways to deal with such a violation, and resorting to arms is the least desirable path, but it remains a path when all else fails.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:51 PM

53. Either you intentionally distort my statement or you don't understand what I said. What is correct

 

for one right is correct for all rights.

Shall I put you down as a supporter of totalitarianism?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #53)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:54 PM

61. Dodging the question: what makes you think gun ownership is a natural right?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 07:38 PM

48. Talk about it all you want ........

 

Wear yourself out. All you're gonna get is a repeat of 1994. NRA will be happy to talk to you about it.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:25 PM

59. I hate to say this, but I think it may take some massive shooting which ends up happening

(as in much worse then we've seen). Before enough people get fed up with the BS being fed by the NRA. I think people have to a certain degree become desensitized to these types of shootings. It's becoming a very nasty cycle.

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kpete (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 08:56 PM

62. Locking.

 

Sorry to be a stick in the mud. Can you continue this melee in Gun Control & RKBA?

Cannot reply in locked threads

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink