Some common sense gun control.

[MadHound]

Somewhere between banning all guns, and allowing guns to freely proliferate, there lies a place where common sense gun control to take place.

Face it, we're not going to get rid of all guns, as some here wish. But neither is the issue of gun control going to go away. So we need to do what we can, and take this moment of national reflection and sorrow to enact common sense gun control.

The first place we can start is reinstating the ban on assault weapons. They are not designed for hunting, or that great at home defense. They are, for the most part, eye candy for the gun lover, a weapon that civilians can have that is as close to an AK-47 as is legally possible. We can reinstate the ban on them with little or no problem, given the events of the past six months.

Further, we can instate a ban on high capacity clips and magazines. This makes practical sense, and should be done. The public is in favor of this, especially in light of recent events.

Tougher to do, but still probably doable are closing the gunshow loopholes and beefing up background checks, especially mental health checks. We can also get more support in order to actually apply the gun control measures that are already out there.

However, we can only ban these certain items. Public sentiment would quickly turn south if we started demanding that people turn in their assault weapons or high capacity magazines. If we start demanding that, then the worst specter of the NRA is going to be unleashed, namely federal agents coming to get your guns. Not going to happen, now or in the far future.

These are the doable, common sense gun control policies that can be enacted at this point. Rather than demanding the impossible, I suggest that we set our sights on doing the achievable. Otherwise we will simply be spinning our wheels and tossing away a great opportunity.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. If a goal for DU is to elect more Democrats, repeating the events leading to the 1994 losses is

not going to help.

[samsingh]

2. 1994 loses were due to the health care debate

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. In Bill Clinton's autobiography, he attributes the 1994 losses to the AWB.

In his book, he also refers to other top level Democrats by name who reached the same conclusion.

[samsingh]

7. i'll look that up

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Here's some of Clinton's words. For any anti-gunners, what is wrong with Bill Clinton's analysis?

Last edited Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:00 AM - Edit history (1)

In his book "My Life," in which he analyzed the loss of Congress to the Republicans in 1994, he wrote:

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

http://www.gunshopfinder.com/legislativenews/clinton8_1_04.html

Why, exactly, are anti-gunners crusading for a revival of the 1994 issue?

[Mojorabbit]

13. I don't get it either

The ban did nothing except subject us to a long time under republican policies.

[samsingh]

17. in light of this, we might need to reconsider

[Xithras]

45. People have been calling that an "NRA Talking Point"

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

I guess Bill is in the NRA now.

Facts here are simple. The Democratic Party can't hold onto its Senate majority without the purple states, and needs as many purple House districts as it can get. Many purple districts are rural and have a large number of gun owning independents. The original AWB demonstrated that these voters can, AND WILL, move right in response to any perceived "gun grabbing". This shift gave the Republicans effective control of the Senate from 1994 until 2006 (except for one short interruption after Sanders aligned himself with the Democrats, which functionally tied things up). Democratic Senators like Max Baucus maintain their representation in their purple states by actively advocating for gun rights and doing everything possible to assuage their purple voters fears (Baucus himself actually promised to fight for the expiration of the AWB as one of his campaign legs years ago).

People who think that confiscatory gun laws won't impact our control of the Senate are living in a surreal dreamworld. A loss of control of the Senate MAY be an acceptable price to some in order to get stricter gun control legislation on the books, but both history and current voting patterns completely undermine the notion that our party can implement those laws and not suffer at all for it.

Then again, what do I know. Apparently any position that isn't 100% pro-seizure is just an NRA talking point to some.

Old adage: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

[BlueCaliDem]

76. Yeah, but that was BEFORE 20 6-year-olds were massacred.

All the Democrats have to do is make HUGE posters of the twenty faces of the tiny murdered victims with the caption: "Remember Them", and people will be reminded why we need common sense gun control, starting with assault firearms.

But yes, if they refuse to do it, they'll suffer losses because Americans suffer from ADD especially when it comes to unnecessary gun violence.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

79. Yeah, and if Clinton says that again we can just say that he's an NRA lobbyist repeating

NRA talking points.

/sarcasm off

[BlueCaliDem]

87. Yeah, well, I don't do hyperbolic predictions.

I'll keep it at what it is based on the facts of the events and the timeline.

Like I said, his words were BEFORE twenty 6-year-old babies were slaughtered behind their desks in a classroom. You'd have to suspend all reason and common sense to think he would have said those words, let alone written them, had Newtown happened before he penned them.

Do you understand that? Twenty innocent babies who went to school that morning thinking about the next toy they were going to find under the Christmas tree on Christmas morning, would never see their gifts, never unwrap their presents, and would never know another Christmas, were SLAUGHTERED, mercilessly gunned down in cold blood, by a legally bought and registered Bushmaster. You need to remember that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

88. You say that you are opposed to hyperbole, yet you dishonor the memories of the children who were

killed by using hyperbolic langugage while referring to the children as "babies."

Those that were killed were children. Live, breathing, active children who were more aware of their surroundings and their futures than "babies" ever can be. You dishonor the memories of the children who died by engaging in an emotional rant and justifying your emotional rant by calling them "babies." They were more than that. If you want something to be remembered, you should remember that.

[morningfog]

19. Check your calendar. It is 2013.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. What's wrong with Bill Clinton's analysis? #9

Why are the anti-gunners disregarding this? Why are you doing so?

Why are the anti-gunners disregarding the 1994 election results? Why are you doing so?

Since it is 2013, all of us should be aware of the events leading to the 1994 losses. All of us should learn from experience.

Einstein is credited with providing a definition of insanity as

doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

[morningfog]

23. Check the calendar.

I think Clinton's analysis was partially correct for 1994. It does not hold for 2013. Times change, my friend. Get on board or get out of the way.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

48. GARRISON KEILLOR also expressed his views on more than one occasion. See, e.g., #47.

Prior to the Supreme Court's overturning of Chicago's gun ban, he also said:
We were planning to cancel the show today to protest Chicago’s tough gun control law but then the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, ...
http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2010/07/03/scripts/male.shtml

[GreenStormCloud]

59. You should be aware of what has happened since 1994.

Since then tens of millions of so-called assault weapons have been sold. That's a lot of voters.

Hi-cap magazine bans are useless. With only a little practice you can learn to swap magazines on a pistol in one second and on a rifle in less than three seconds.

NRA membership has been growing lately at about 8,000 new members per day. A serious push for gun control will swell that to a flood.

[morningfog]

60. The purchase of a gun does not necessarily mean a vote against anyone who

passes legislation banning the sell of that gun. Nor does that reflect how it would shift the balance. In other words, you would have to show me the number of Democratic voters who have purchased an assault weapon since 1994 and that those Democratic voters will switch parties or stay home because of it.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Wedge politics don't need huge numbers.

many of our districts and states are tightly contested. A shift of only a few thousand votes in an off-year elections can swing the race.

People have hundreds, usually thousands of dollars spent on their guns. Give them reason to be afraid that you will want them to surrender that value and they will turn against you.

[morningfog]

63. A risk we must take.

[bettyellen]

27. that was a generation ago. the NRA is not what it used to be, people dislike them now....

their own members disapprove of their stance on gun control laws. That wasn't true 20 years ago.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Maybe most voters make decisions without relying upon the "NRA" boogeyman.

We all have to accept another AWB and repeat the 1994 elections? Somehow, even if many or even all of us are afraid of the "NRA" boogeyman, that many not convice firearm-owning Democrats and firearm-owning Independents.

If you are afraid of the NRA, you should be more afraid of the next Republicans who voters will elect to replace Democrats that will go along with the next AWB.

[morningfog]

55. Boogey boogey boo! The NRA fear tactics will not stop us this time.

No matter how often you and the NRA employ them.

[overthehillvet]

53. Really???

That is why there have been long and slow lines of people waiting to join the NRA at all the gun shows lately. NRA membership is growing. Most gun owners are more fanatical about being a member of the NRA than workers are abut their unions.
The NRA has not been expending a lot of funds in the last few elections and I would bet they have a pretty big war chest already filled and waiting for the next big gun control/ban push.
I am very sure that the Republicans and conservative Democrats in the House have already decided that there will be no gun ban.
They want to be reelected and that will not happen if they support a gun ban of any kind.
We need to push real nationwide background checks on every single gun sale. Every gun sale must be done via a FFL holder and all checks must be done every time. We must establish a data base of people who have mental health issues and have been found to be a danger to themselves or others. This must be a mandatory check too.

[bettyellen]

64. Really. Your fantasies are based on 20- 30 years ago, LOL. Grow up- it's not the 80's anymore!

[GreenStormCloud]

71. Then why is NRA membership growing if people don't like them? N/T

[bettyellen]

75. You trust the NRA to give us real #s, and I do not, LOL. It's because of a lot of racist paranoia

over having a black Dem in the oval office. Same as those long lines of morons lining up to buy guns "before they are banned". As if that's even remotely possible. But they think the antichrist is upon us, so anything is possible with super low info voters like these.
Someone should tell these idiots it's NOT the end of the world, but too many are profiting from stoking the flames of their paranoia.

And the NRA membership that does exist, is NOT aligned with the NRAs goal of no increased regulation. So if you are aligned with NRAs goals, then YOU are an extremist within NRA membership. Are you against all new regulations?

[TheMightyFavog]

77. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Truer words have never been spoken.

[morningfog]

81. So true. Next time it could be 40 babies killed.

[Scuba]

39. Nor will ignoring the massive national outcry for ending the gun violence.

Is this the NRA's latest strategy? To scare liberals into thinking they can't win elections if they take on the gun issue?

I would argue that ignoring the issue will cost far more votes than tackling it. There's only 4 million NRA members, and only a tiny fraction of those who support Democratic candidates anyway.

There're 300 million people outraged at what's happening in our Country. Take your bullshit fear-mongering elsewhere.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. I know of no one who is ignoring violence. And if you are an expert on "NRA" strategy, then you

know more about the NRA than I do.

And your reference to "bullshit fear-mongering" seems to apply to those who are ignoring the events leading to the 1994 Congressional losses and are falsely labeling everying "NRA talking points."

You want to take away guns from firearm-owning Democrats and firearm-owing Independents. That's clear. Got it.

And you want to do so without having bona fide discussions. Got that as well.

Your clearly insulting language, I suggest, isn't persuading anyone.

[Scuba]

42. Oh, I know I won't persuade you. I just want to see you gone. You don't represent ...

... Democratic values.

As a gun owner, I'm concerned that the gun lobby's refusal to allow a national discussion on the topic will result in a backlash of laws that will go far beyond what is reasonable and necessary.

I see you didn't even try to defend your claim that taking on the gun issue would undermine Democratic chances at election time. The few thousand crazy assault rifle owners don't vote Democratic anyway.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. Ad hominem attacks are juvenile.

If you really want to have a national discussion on the topic, begin the process of doing so.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

47. Do you consider GARRISON KEILLOR to be someone who doesn't represent Democratic values?

Here's his words:

“I think gun control is an issue that we can no longer afford to be seen as standing in favor of,” Keillor says. “Gun control means something so different in Manhattan than it means in the country. There’s no way for the Party to take just one stance. It’s way down the list of important issues, and I think that we Democrats are too emotional about this. We get all dizzy at the thought of people buying assault weapons for example. I don't think assault weapons should be legal, but I don't think it's anything to lose sleep over. There are a few thousand gun fetishists who like to put on camo (XXXL) and stand around holding guns and get their pictures taken, and they're fairly harmless for the most part, and in our revulsion at them we piss off twenty million hunters. Gun control laws tend to reflect an urban point of view — in the big city, somebody with a gun is weird and dangerous — and as liberals we ought to be reluctant to let city people lord it over rural people. If Uncle Elmer wants to keep a machine gun on his farm west of Yankton, let him keep it. There are bigger problems.”

When bank robbers roamed the streets of my old neighborhood of North Hollywood with semi-automatic weapons, gun control seemed like a gigantic problem. But given a choice between gun control and a living wage, I think I’d opt for economic justice over passing laws to deprive Uncle Elmer of his firearms fetish — especially if losing Uncle Elmer’s vote meant losing another election to a GOP/Halliburton conglomerate.

http://www.nathancallahan.com/garrison2print.html

Prior to the Supreme Court's overturning of Chicago's gun ban, he also said:

We were planning to cancel the show today to protest Chicago’s tough gun control law but then the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, ...
http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2010/07/03/scripts/male.shtml

[Scuba]

49. I know nothing about Keillor's politics. I do know that if Democrats are afraid to stand up ...

... to the gun lobby, they will lose a lot of support.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

50. Garrison Keillor is a well-known liberal.

You're not familiar with his politics? Why am I not surprised?

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. "no TRUE Scotsman"...

[Kolesar]

51. Your position sucks, so you choose to hijack the thread

You cannot address the points in the original post.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

54. Your ad hominem attacks are juvenile.

In contrast, as said in a germain manner in post #1,

If a goal for DU is to elect more Democrats, repeating the events leading to the 1994 losses is not going to help.

That's directly related to the points in the OP.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Common sense, no doubt.

NRA sez no.

Thankfully, the NRA has no political sway whatsoever and exist only as a discussion group and not as an entity who writes laws.







That would be Marion Hammer (a fine specimen of a human being, don't you agree!), top lobbyist for the NRA and the past three governors of Florida.

I'll caption them:

1) Stand Your Ground, George Zimmerman!
2) Go ahead and take your guns to work, it's perfectly okay, right?
and
3)But doctors don't you dare ask parents if they have a gun in the house!

[jody]

5. What specific changes do you propose Congress make to 18 USC Chapter 44 and 26 USC Chapter 53

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

18 USC Chapter 44 - FIREARMS

26 USC Chapter 53 - MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS

H.R.3355 TITLE XI—FIREARMS Subtitle A--Assault Weapons 103rd Congress (1993-1994) expired on September 13, 2004.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?&n=BillText&c=103

[99Forever]

6. Making concessions before the...

... the negotiations even begin is the best way to insure nothing substantial gets done.

No thanks.

[Dkc05]

8. They should be banned or limit one per family

Owning multiple guns is bad policy. They either should be banned or limited one per family. Nothing that shoots more then 6 rounds at a time. Enough is enough. We need a President that has a spine to just enact policy that gets them off the street and shuts down the gun lobby from lying to America.

[MadHound]

10. And you're not going to get guns limited to one per family.

Nor are you going to get them all banned. This isn't a matter of the president's spine, this is a matter of political reality in this country.

Hell, I wouldn't support a ban, or even a limit of one per family. You know why, because you do indeed need different kinds of guns for different activities. For instance, if you are a hunter, you need something like a 30-06, single jacketed shell for hunting deer. If you are hunting geese or quail, you need a shotgun with birdshot.

Limiting guns to one per family simply isn't going to fly, not only will 'Pugs and NRA not support such a notion, but a lot of liberals and Democrats won't support it either, including myself.

Try and achieve what is actually doable, not waste time and energy going for the unachievable.

[Dkc05]

11. We have insanity by not banning all guns

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and getting the same results. gun need to only be in the hands of Law enforcement and Military. Nobody needs a machine gun . Maybe a rifle for hunting or a pistol for a range but its insanity when you hear and see what is being bought and sold at weekend gun shows.

[MadHound]

12. Wait, you're contradicting yourself. Which is it, ban all guns,

Or let people keep a rifle or pistol.

[former-republican]

14. Common sense gun control discussion in GD

That's not going to happen.

[Dkc05]

26. Prefer to ban all weapons.

ONly law enforcement to have them.

[MadHound]

28. That's not going to happen,

Plain and simple, there is simply not the support in this country to ban all guns. Not just the NRA and the 'Pugs would oppose that, but so would Democrats and liberals, including myself.

Guns have legitimate uses, and while they should be regulated and controlled, they shouldn't be banned.

[c1kabar]

21. I'll do one better, and give another example you may not have thought about.

Say I live in a rural area, and have cattle and crops - but I have a feral hog problem. The hogs are reeking havoc on my crops and harming my cattle. In order to eradicate them, I have to shoot them. I take the hogs to my local meat processor and donate the meat to those who are less fortunate.

What difference does it make what kind of gun I use in this case?

So, I can't have a gun again... why?

[Recursion]

15. Closing the gun show loophole (I really hate that term) is easier than an AWB

Also, I know your eyes glaze over when you read this, but I can't overemphasize the fact that an assault weapons ban doesn't do what you think it does, because an assault weapon isn't what you think it is, and if you did know what it actually did you would spend political capital on something more useful.

Now, for the gun show loophole: if we could get people to stop calling it that (it has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows) we could probably get some traction here. A lot of people would like to see private intrastate sales have some kind of background check system. Stop pretending this has anything to do with gun shows, and we'll get people on board.

The high-capacity magazine ban is doable, I think without too much political cost even, but there's the problem that the horse has already left the barn and there are a few hundred million of them out there in private hands already. I'm all for trying a buyback, though.

[former173rd]

16. chest pounding

The apes in DC are running a muck in the trees again, all big-eyed and screaming the sky is falling. Now its the politically correct term "GUN CONTROL!!".
Hello? Maybe try enforcing the current laws, ranging from purchase and transfer of firearms, to stopping early releases for criminals.

"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson

[jmg257]

43. You volunteering to have your blood spilled? nt

[former173rd]

67. ??

Of course I would (again)..wouldn't you?

[jmg257]

68. Shit no. I like my blood right where it is. nt

[reteachinwi]

18. Marketing

Instead of "gun control" it should be called "Ronald Reagan Child Safety and School Protection Act." Maybe the tea party wouldn't read it and just reflexively vote yes.

[c1kabar]

25. That's a perfect solution -

Just another piece of legislation that criminals can ignore.

Let us know how that works for you.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

20. Limit federally-licensed firearms dealers

There are something like 130000 FFL's and only about 2000 ATF agents to supervise them. Of the total license holders, only about 60000 represent bricks-and-mortar sporting goods stores and other firearms merchants.

Let's drain the swamp, so that the only way to legally acquire I firearm is through a reputable (and regulated) merchant.

[c1kabar]

24. That's all good, except...

Of the remaining FFL holders, they have to pay taxes on their transactions. The fed gov't isn't going to give up so easily on a cash cow that brings in big bucks. You can't mess with the gov't revenue.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. It won't limit the volume of legal transactions

Just creates a "choke point" so that all transactions can be regulated.

[RC]

38. Look at what happened with cigarettes.

[rrneck]

31. I just don't think it will work.

The first place we can start is reinstating the ban on assault weapons. They are not designed for hunting, or that great at home defense. They are, for the most part, eye candy for the gun lover, a weapon that civilians can have that is as close to an AK-47 as is legally possible. We can reinstate the ban on them with little or no problem, given the events of the past six months.

A semi automatic rifle is a semi automatic rifle whether it looks like an M16 or your uncle George's deer rifle. They're all the same. The bullets go in the bottom and out the front. Laws designed to regulate the way something looks are just fodder for the culture wars and burn political capital that could be put to better use elsewhere.

Further, we can instate a ban on high capacity clips and magazines. This makes practical sense, and should be done. The public is in favor of this, especially in light of recent events.

Changing mags is easy, so regulating magazine capacity is a waste of time unless you want to require non detachable magazines. I'm not enough of a gunsmith to know, but I don't think you can effectively load most semi auto rifles from the top like the old Garand. That means you will be outlawing the most popular rifles and pistols in use today. And if you do get it done, M1A's with new stripper clips that don't bite you on the thumb will become furiously popular.

Tougher to do, but still probably doable are closing the gunshow loopholes and beefing up background checks, especially mental health checks. We can also get more support in order to actually apply the gun control measures that are already out there.

"Closing the gunshow loophole" is supposed to stop straw purchases for people who should not own guns. So in actuality, you're not regulating guns, but relationships. A straw purchaser is just somebody who knows somebody. Sales from FFL's are regulated relationships between a dealer and a customer. They occur in a brick and mortar facility and the dealer has to record every firearms transaction he makes in a "bound book". That facility and that book have to be available to the BATF for examination. Chain of custody has to be documented for any registration scheme to work. That documentation has to bring with it penalties and the possibility of prosecution in court for it to mean anything.

Do you think you could walk into a gun store and borrow a gun? Do you think the owner will ever give you one as a gift? Not likely. You don't have that kind of relationship with him. Outside the confines of that store, the range of human relationships is beyond anything that should or could be regulated by the government. If you husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/buddy/date/cousin/acquaintance wants to loan/give you a gun, and you make a cash donation right back to him earmarked for his favorite charity, there really isn't much way for the government to regulate that. I don't see how it can be done anyway, even if the political will were there to do it.

If you want to regulate private transfers of firearms, you will have to use something like the FFL licencing and regulation system for private individuals. That means you will have to turn every gun owner in the United States (about eighty million of them) into firearms dealers with all the rights, responsibilities and liabilities that go along with it. And their homes will be the brick and mortar facilities that will have to be opened to inspection by the ATF. Do you really think people will sit still for that? Do you think our political opponents will ignore the opportunity to tell them about the ramifications of that legislation?

Regulation assumes enforcement. I don't know of any way to enforce the regulation of firearms transfers between private individuals that is not a burdensome intrusion on thier privacy or simply impossible for the agency tasked to implement and enforce that regulation.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Semi-automatic Definition

I take your point. Perhaps the ban (and it's really more of a severe restriction than a ban) should be for all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines.

[rrneck]

35. That's pretty much it.

Which is fine. At least it establishes a meaningful criteria instead of "looks scary". But I think banning semi auto firearms would be a political impossibility. It's not new technology (think Colt M1911) and it's very popular. There's a ton of them out there, and the voters aren't going to take kindly to banning something so popular.

I think that's why legislators shift attention to cosmetics. Trading on the culture wars may get votes, but it doesn't produce good legislation.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. That's true...

Everybody's worried about the rifles, with its the handguns that do the most damage. But I really don't see how you ban something like the 1911 -- I don't have statistics, but I'm sure the majority of handguns these days are modeled on it.

[Recursion]

52. Yes, that would do what you're trying to do

It would be a huge political hit, but that would actually accomplish what you want.

[KittyWampus]

34. I agree, and before going any further then your OP in gun control, I'd rather diminish the NRA first

I don't know how.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. How, exactly, would you "diminish the NRA first". The NRA is a boogeyman needed by anti-gunners.

There are millions, and perhaps hundreds of millions, of firearm-owning Democrats and firearm-owning Independents. Many of those millions never see DU posts. They don't belong to the NRA and don't know that they are supposed to be afraid of the NRA and the so-called "NRA talking points."

The anti-gunners who want to motivate people by fear instead of rational discussions, however, need the NRA boogeyman as a tool to try to put fear into other people.

[derby378]

36. Maybe we should focus on what could prevent another school shooting

The state of Connecticult has a semi-auto ban, and yet some punk-ass kid manages to grab a Stoner rifle and shoot up Sandy Hook.

Columbine happened when the entire nation was under a semi-auto ban, and the campus even had armed security. The NRA's push for more pistol-packing folks on campus isn't going to help, either.

Improving the NICS check may help screen out the next Seung-hui Cho, but that might not have helped stop Adam Lanza, who stole guns and used them to shoot the rightful owner before heading off to Sandy Hook.

I wish there was more talk on Capitol Hill of civilian armories, secure facilities where civilian guns could be stored so that one didn't have to keep a weapon at home. It could have saved Nancy Lanza's life. It could have prevented the massacre.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

46. Michael Moore seems to think that Big Pharma and their pharmaceuticals should be investigated.

He, of course, produced and directed Bowling for Columbine.

The following (and the heading) is from UTube:

It's also worth noting that the first AWB did not prevent or reduce the Columbine High School shooting.

[Rebelgeneral]

56. Some common sense gun control.

Where in the Constitution does it say, Government has any right to regulate the people's right to keep and bear arms? I have looked and looked, I have found no place in the Constitution where it says that. On the contrary, I have found just the opposite. According to the 2nd Amendment, my right to keep and bear arms, "shall not be infringed". It doesn't say what type of weapon I can, nor the caliber. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say I have to get a gun permit, nor does it restrict the type of ammunition or big the clip can be. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say I have to endure a background check, or any check for that matter.

I am reminded of a picture, that was e-mailed to me a few months ago. It shows Hitler, Stalin, Castro and Obama standing together. Under the picture was a caption, "All those in favor of gun control, raise your right hand." The latest one also shows, California Senator Dianne Feinstein in the picture. I also have read a FBI report on murder, I am more likely to killed with a Baseball Bat or a Hammer, than a Pistol. Why aren't the Liberals trying to ban them, it is only logical since more people are murdered by these items than a gun.

This Legislation is not only un-Constitutional, but it is prelude to a dictatorship like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia. I think we all remember what happened then, over 35,000,000 people were murdered.

[MadHound]

58. Umm, over two hundred years of various Supreme Court decisions and interpretations,

That's what leads to the logical fact that guns in this country, much like cars, dogs, and fireworks, can be controlled and legislated.

That's why you can't own a functioning tank, at least not without going through a hell of a lot of paperwork and background checks.

The rest of your screed is nothing more than the mewlings of the rabid pro gun stance, and is no more conducive to thoughtful conversation and debate on this issue than those who insist that the only thing to do is ban all guns now. There is a happy middle that can be agreed on.

You do realize that you are in a severe minority here, don't you. I just don't mean here, as on DU, but also here, as in living in the US. Most people, including most members of the NRA, are in favor of better gun control legislation.

Enjoy your most likely short stay on DU.

[jmg257]

65. In your short stay here, at least try to get your 'man card'

Talking points right.

You compare hammers to rifles, not pistols.

[BWC]

57. 1994 AWB was determined to be useless

The DOJ published a study saying it was a useless exercise. Gun control in US is tilting at windmills

[jmg257]

66. Aahhh..you're saying it needs to be greatly expanded to be effective?

Agree.

[derby378]

72. Derp derp derp derp derp derp derp

Next time you want to put words in someone else's mouth, expect more of the same.

[jmg257]

74. See that little thing at the end? ? That is a question mark.

Its OK, if you don't want to respond to the question you don't have to.

Or if you do want to answer the question, do so and say why.

If derping is really the best you can do, better off not.

You said: "1994 AWB was determined to be useless", and "The DOJ published a study saying it was a useless exercise"

Which leads many many people to think if it was greatly expanded it would be more effective.

You don't agree? IF so, why? If not, why?

[derby378]

83. You might want to take another look at that post

If you have an issue with my "depring," that's one thing, but I didn't write the earlier post. Just sayin'...

[jmg257]

85. Ha - Now THAT's a VERY good point! Hmm..now I may never know...

I guess derping IS all I'll get! Weird why YOU would do it, but at least it's something!

[madville]

80. The 94 ban was ineffective and had tons of loopholes

Anything more strict doesn't stand much of a chance of passing the House, the weak 94 law wouldn't have much of a chance at passing as is.

[jmg257]

82. Agreed. Is there really that much of a resistance in the Congress

to getting new federal laws passed? Obviously the more strict the more resistance. Certainly something to be keep in mind. I guess we'll find out soon!

Then there are the states....

[madville]

86. Congress will be thinking about the 2014 midterms

Especially the House. Many will view successfully passing gun control legislation as benefiting Republicans for 2014.

I don't think much of anything gets throuhh the House except maybe restrictions on private sales and some background investigation changes. They also know the Tea Party and NRA will attempt to primary any Republicans that vote for anything they view unfavorably.

[NutmegYankee]

61. I actually agree with MadHound.

The Assault weapons ban would need to be strengthened over the 1994 version though. Conn. has a similar ban and it wasn't powerful enough to stop the AR-15 that was used in the shooting here.

[derby378]

73. Mexico has an even stronger semi-auto ban

Let's ask them how well it's been working for curtailing armed violence from narcoterrorists.

[theHandpuppet]

84. Well of course they have plenty of guns

After all, their neighbors have enough to supply the world and are so willing to share.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

69. We need to determine a real and quantifiable problem, and then pass legislation against it.

And the legislation will have to be all above-the-table and be able to pass constitutional muster. The NRA has been playing a legal chess match the past 10 years setting up every conceivable legal roadblock and they will meticulously pick apart any constitutionally unsound laws.

Addressing specific OP topics:

IMO, assault weapons are easy targets for gun bans, but will solve very little. Most mass shootings in the past 25 years utilized handguns. Looking outside of mass shootings at total gun deaths, ALL rifles (of which assault weapons comprise only a fraction) only for about 3% of incidents. I have no problem with people supporting an AWB, I understand that AWs are pretty fringe weapons without much social use and some people feel their lack of existence outweighs their current benefits. I would however, urge those people to redefine the REASON for proposing such a ban - To offer an AWB under the umbrella of reducing gun violence just doesn't agree with verifiable statistics. I think any ban should have a legitimate reason for support (which is the primary why I oppose a ban on pot/weed despite not being a user).

I am on the fence about a hicap magazine ban. On one hand, I admit, there is little use for 30 round magazines. On the other hand, the raw firepower of any semiauto comes from it's ability to swap magazines in as little as 1-2 seconds. If Lanza had AWB-allowed 10 round mags, I don't believe the CT school shooting outcome would have been significantly different, if at all. I shoot competitively, and people generally use all sorts of weapons... and some have higher capacity than others' gun. Direct competition between revolvers, and semiautos of various capacities. It's not uncommon for people shooting 7-8 round .45 pistols to shoot WAY better and score way higher hits/kills than others using Glocks or other hicap guns. I've even seen very good revolver shooters outshoot (speed & accuracy) semiauto shooters.
---> I think I would absolutely support an "extended magazine" ban... no guns can have magazines that protrude from the frame of the firearm. No massive magazines hanging out from the bottom of pistols. No drum magazines. For firearms whose original design incorporate inherent external magazines, I think a 15-20 round mag is reasonable (seeing as most of the standard mags for those guns were 30rnds). I think that would be a fairly common sense compromise from today's unlimited proliferation of hicap magazines.

"Gun show loophole" - that phrase makes me cringe. I would reframe that gun control effort since the nomenclature is a red herring in and of itself since there are no rules unique to gunshows that aren't in effect everywhere else - ergo, there is no gunshow loophole. Calling it the gunshow loophole makes about as much sense as calling it the "McDonald's Parking Lot loophole" or "Garage Loophole". Perhaps call it "universal background check" and don't even mention the phrase "gun show"... that would be more technically accurate and sounds better and won't invite all the techinical objections to the nomenclature. Alternatively, open access to calling into NICS background checks for private citizens and require that a call be made before a private transfer. I would support either measure (either have FFL dealers handle all private local sales or allow/require private sellers to call in the check themselves). Very common sense there. I agree with your statement on tightening the checks in addition to making sure we use laws we aready have.

When changing the status-quo, a supermajority of public support is vital. I also agree that calling for poeple to turn in items of interest (or actual confiscations) would create more counter-support than desirable. Just grandfather the old ones, restrict the new ones, and eventually they'll fade into obscurity over time. it took about 30+ years of NRA powerhouse to build up to this point... trying to tear it all down in one congressional session, let alone one big law, is delusional.

Even as a staunch gun rights supporter and a self admitted major gun-nut, I have no problem supporting legislation that has a sound reasoning behind the need with the scope of the legislation effectively suitable to meet that need.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

89. "We need to determine a real and quantifiable problem, and then ..." That will slow things down.

That would require democracy and democratic participation in the legislation creation process, something that gun-legislation-stampeders are opposed to.

[madville]

78. Those proposed change are mostly ineffective and will be costly

The Assault Weapons Ban as we know it was a joke. You could still buy an AR-15 or AK clone, they just had a different name or different cosmetic features or lack thereof. When someone calls for reinstating the 1994 ban that's a good indication they are not very knowledgable about the gun control debate.

There are billions of high capacity magazines in circulation, the last ban made them go up in price a bit because there were no new ones allowed but used ones were available for an inflated price. The proposed bill in Congress would also ban sale or transfer of existing magazines, that's not going to gain any traction in my opinion.

Banning private sales could be doable, many states already require transactions to go through a FFL and background checks, costs $20-50 usually.

More in depth background checks is the most likely action but won't prevent most cases like Newtown or the NY firefighter shooting, one was a family member's firearms and the other was already a felon that had a straw purchaser buy them.