Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWhat Do We Mean by Proper Gun Control?
1. Licensing of all gun owners which would include a penal background check, a mental health background check, an eye exam, a written and practical test and approval by the local authorities.
2. Registration of all newly bought firearms which would need to be renewed after three months and yearly thereafter by presenting the paperwork and the weapon to the police.
3. Background checks on all purchases including private ones. This can be done at the local FFL dealer for a nominal fee.
4. Three day waiting period for all first purchases.
5. "May Issue" policy for concealed carry permits managed federally - same rules in every state.
6. Assault Weapons Ban using the California model which would include restrictions on extended magazines.
Cross posted at Mikeb302000
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... allow ME to say, "No, thank you"
I don't accept your control on my rights.
bluerum
(6,109 posts)
MrYikes
(720 posts)NO THANK YOU.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)We all know that your goal is an eventual ban on all handguns and severe restrictions on long guns. It will NEVER happen, for every one of your ilk, there's a hundred of us fighting your idiotic proposals, and we have the momentum and we're using it.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... how to make the trains run on time as well.
Europeans have always had a soft-spot for Fascism.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)
Response to glacierbay (Reply #12)
Post removed
mikeb302000
(1,065 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I know that draconian measures like yours will never fly in this country, maybe in Italy, but not here. As I said, for every one of your type, there are a hundred of my type.
mikeb302000
(1,065 posts)Keep deluding yourself. Even you agree with background checks on private sales, yet you divide us into my type and your type. My type wants gun owners to be qualified and responsible. Your type is contentious, belligerent, bullying, insecure, defensive and carries a gun every day. I don't think it's a 100 to 1.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)your type wants to keep adding more and more and more restrictions until eventually handgun ownership is banned, you're already on record as saying so.
Maybe not 100 to 1, let's say 68 to 1, I like that number. Fact is Mikey, you're proposals are draconian and your kind will be opposed at every step and level.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Do you support background checks on private sales?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I've made that quite clear, but the majority of his proposals are unreasonable and probably won't pass constitutional muster.
He is on record as saying that he wants more and more restrictions on hand guns to the point where they will be banned, he said so, he can't hide from it and this is just a way for him to achieve his goal.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)perhaps someone here can repost it for me.
I'm on my last day of vacation, then it's back to the streets tomorrow, so I'm going to take a break and spend time with my lovely wife.
You have a wonderful day. 
Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)
Post removed
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)You may want to add mandatory drug testing to the list.
Government employees and agencies should also be mandated to comply as well. Every last bullet and firearm to be accounted for. Criminal prosecution and mandatory jail time for public employees/police who fail to walk the walk.
We should also have public executions for people who commit violent crimes, execute them twice if they do it with a firearm. We should also cut the hands off of people who steal firearms and ammunition.
If the rules are going to be strict, make them strict enough to discourage criminals and not enable them.
Under your rules, would you qualify? Or are you a hidden criminal?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Well he was at one time a self admitted legal and illegal gun owner.
Remmah2
(3,291 posts)nt
hack89
(39,171 posts)I can understand the need for one as you stood there and saw the smoking and ruined wreck that is presently the gun control movement in America.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Item 3 could be accomplished without involving an FFL-holding dealer simply by opening up NICS for use by non-licensees.
Item 4 makes some rational sense - If making a person wait a few days prior to owning his or her FIRST firearm could be shown to reduce the incidence of suicides or crimes of passion. Making a person who already owns one or more firearms to wait - In California it's 10 days - is illogical and couldn't possibly have any beneficial effect on public safety.
Item 1 is clearly unconstitutional because it would put the exercise of a civil right at the arbitrary discretion by "local authorities." That opens up the door to political cronyism and every kind of discrimination imaginable.
Item 2 is unconstitutional as well. Forcing people to produce paperwork (and of course pay a fee) for the exercise of a basic civil right is in the same league as poll taxes.
Item 5 has the same problem with arbitrary discrimination as item 1. Both would violate the 14th Amendment's requirement for equal protection.
Item 6 is just a pointless restriction on personal choice, and one that has been demonstrated to have no offsetting benefit to public safety.
Db Owen97
(40 posts)The whole thing is about restricting a right.
Would you feel the same should be applied to free speech or freedom of religion,or any other right in the B.O.R. (Bill Of Rights) ?
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... these are incremental steps to serfdom.
We need to be removing restrictions on private firearm possession, not discussing those on which we might be willing to compromise. Because they will NEVER end at the compromise.
Db Owen97
(40 posts)One inch was given,a mile was taken.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Any REDUCTION in restrictions looks like a benefit from my point of view.
Db Owen97
(40 posts)and I know what you are saying about Cali. laws
I hope we can get things evened out and back to normal out there.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...was one of the best decisions I ever made. I can have C&R long guns shipped directly to me from out of state, without having to wait or fill out paperwork or prove that I own a safe every time. No 10-day wait, no retail mark-up, and often no sales tax.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)What a sheltered life. If that is harassment, you live in a bubble.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)What RATIONAL purpose is served by that restriction?
If there is none, it can only be honestly called an inconvenience that has been imposed for capricious reasons.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Get mad, buy a gun, shoot someone.
Minimizes the risk of that happening.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Get mad, buy a gun, shoot someone.
Minimizes the risk of that happening.
So... said person already had a gun, but wanted a different one to commit said crime? Why? The gun he had didn't match his tie?
Waiting periods only make sense for first-time buyers. For everyone else, it's just petty harassment.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...the stock piling of guns isn't done by the majority.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Not sure what you mean or how this is relevant. Is this supposed to be a defense of waiting periods for those who already own guns?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)The argument was made that because so many who buy guns already have guns diminishes the need or reasoning for a waiting period. I whole hardily reject that argument as the vast majority do not stock pile guns. Are you saying the 'crazies' who might impulse buy and shoot someone already have guns? If that is your best argument, then it's a pretty bad one and reason enough to prevent it with future gun owners.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...in a fit of rage, while simultaneously not using one immediately to hand."
Meh. Steely Dan dit it better.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I stated a cooling off period does no harm.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)The argument is against waiting periods FOR PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE GUNS. Capisici? Are you being deliberately obtuse on this point? What is the relevance of your repeated reference to "stockpiling" guns? We're talking about someone who may own only one gun and is purchasing a second. How is that "stockpiling"?
There is no value in enforcing a cooling-off period on someone who already owns a gun. If you think there is, please explain.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)That's YOUR argument. I don't think we need to distinguish the two types of owners and you have already pointed put there is no need as well since you already have a gun.
Capisici?
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)You don't think we need to distinguish between the two types of owners? Please explain your belief. Their situations are clearly different, and the stated intent of the law clearly doesn't apply to one of them, that being the current firearm owner.
Please explain the need for waiting periods to be imposed on those who already own firearms. The fact that you haven't yet been able to do so indicates to me that you can't, because there really is no need. You are simply in favor of any type of legislation that places any kind of restriction on the ownership of firearms, regardless of how frivolous and fruitless that restriction may be.
Capisici?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You Write
Both are law abiding. What is the state interest in distinguishing?
You write
No, you seem to presume that a law abiding first time gun owner is not entitled to the same rights you have....YOU treat them different....I don't.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)To avoid unnecessarily infringing on the rights of the one who isn't at risk, the one who isn't the intended target of the legislation.
No. I don't favor the waiting periods at all. I think the premise is specious and that a few rare incidents of a person legally purchasing a firearm with which to commit a crime don't justify an overall pattern of infringement. You seem to love to deny rights, even in cases where it can't be shown to have any practical purpose.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)He’s saying if you already have a gun it won’t harm you to wait 10 days for another one. It’s not like you’ll be defenseless in the interim. So He's saying since that's the case why not impose a waiting period on everyone.
That said, I live in a state that doesn’t require a waiting period and I don’t here many (in fact I haven’t heard any) news stories about some one who went out and bough a gun that day and killed someone with it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 26, 2012, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)
A 'cooling off period' in such a case is utterly useless, since the postulated angry person has absolutely nothing stopping them from using a gun they already own .
I'll hazard a guess here and presume you supported the now-expired ban on bayonet lugs...
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...there isn't any point in a "cooling off" period for buying ANOTHER firearm.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts).
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)What is the logic behind Florida's waiting period on handguns?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...read thread.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)What is the point of waiting periods for those who already own guns? The "cooling-off" rationale doesn't apply in their case. You've been asked for some other justification and have been unable to provide one.
The current laws don't exempt those who already own firearms. They should do so. Agreed?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...in many cases. Sorry to inconvenience you. Too bad you reject it. You may not like my answer but then again you can't reject it if I didn't answer it. So yes, I did answer it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...that it will save lives, which is in no wise differs from the claim that DC's draconian gun laws reduced crime.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...and guns save lives. 1984 lives.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)That's always the argument with the gun crazies. Prove what? Guns kill. Good grief.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)...in many cases. Sorry to inconvenience you. Too bad you reject it. You may not like my answer but then again you can't reject it if I didn't answer it. So yes, I did answer it.
No. You did not.
You invoked "cooling off" as the reason for waiting periods. If a person already owns a gun, what is the purpose of such a period? That person can commit a crime without purchasing another gun.
If there is a another reason for waiting periods, please present it. Don't pretend that you already have. You haven't.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)What is your reasoning for an immediate need for a gun if you already own one? Protection? No. Safety? No.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the burden is on whomever wants to make the restriction, any restriction. IIRC, the phrase is "compelling state interest".
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You speak of a state interest as if it's different from the interest of the people. It is ot in a liberal democracy.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts).
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)we are back to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
of course self serving politicians, moral crusaders and the media can convince people into all kinds of stupid shit. Just look at federal alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and pot prohibition from the 1930s to present. A couple of movies (specifically Rebel Without a Cause and High School Confidential) convinced enough 1950s folks that switchblade wielding drug dealers ran the schools, which lead to knife control laws aimed at switchblades.
During World War Two, people still believed in the "evils of Mary Jane" while Ted and Sally grew pot plants at school in 4-H (hemp was a strategic resource. While rope and parachute cord is made of nylon today, it was made from hemp then. After the 1937 ban, we imported hemp fibers from our colony in the Philippines. Since the Japanese bombed Clark Field at the same time they bombed Pear Harbor and invaded, that became a problem.) The government provided the seeds to farmers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_for_Victory
If you got the tax stamp, the War Department gave you the seeds and instructions including the movie.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Right.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)I don't have an "immediate need for a gun" if I already own one. Nor does the state have any reason to make me wait for one. You're arguing in favor of an arbitrary restriction that does nothing for the greater good. You have yet to show any reason whatsoever to impose waiting periods on anyone except first-time buyers.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You write
"I don't have an "immediate need for a gun" if I already own one."
EXACTLY
You write
"You're arguing in favor of an arbitrary restriction that does nothing for the greater good. You have yet to show any reason whatsoever to impose waiting periods on anyone except first-time buyers."
YOU MEAN LIKE DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN LAW ABIDING FIRST TIME BUYERS AND LAW ABIDING PREVIOUS BUYERS. No, I"ll leave You to make that distinction. I believe the equal protection clause makes no such distinction.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)So you admit that the restriction is arbitrary. Now tell me why you think it's a good thing, in practical terms. Please be specific.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Asked and answered. Read.
I don't believe the restriction is arbitrary. I believe telling one class of law abiding citizens they have to live by a different rule, like a waiting period, while a different class of law abiding citizens don't have to IS arbitrary!
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Let's just say that since drivers under 17 in my state can't drive after dark, we just apply the same law to all drivers. After all, we wouldn't want to arbitrarily distinguish between two classes of law-abiding citizens, would we?
While we're at it, let's routinely drug-test all drivers, since we already do it for bus drivers and hazmat transporters. We wouldn't want to discriminate, would we?
See how this works?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)The State begins with the presumption that laws are enacted for the purpose of promoting the public good. A certain group may be seen as presenting a greater-than-usual risk to that good. Legislation is enacted to address that risk. In the interest of minimal interference with people's rights and freedoms, the laws are (or should be) crafted so as to apply only to the "risky" segment of the population while leaving everyone else relatively unmolested.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts).
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Post 179 is about cars. Here we're talking about compelling state interest.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)That would be you.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Please try to keep up.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...and Cars.....something you brought up.
Keep up indeed. LOL.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)You -- repeat you -- put guns and cars in the same post for the first time in this thread. I used car restrictions as an example of arbitrary and useless law. Once you had made your analogy -- repeat, your analogy -- I responded to it while continuing the discussion of meaningless and arbitrary legislation. There were two balls in the air, but you dropped them both.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You brought up cars to support what you think is an argument and then attributed an analogy you made to me.
Got it.......and a three letter word comes to mind and it's not a car.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)An analogy between guns and cars would require both of those words to be used, would it not? You won't find the word "guns" in Post 176. The analogy was between one hypothetical piece of pointless legislation and one actual one.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Let the marbles keep rattling. You brought up cars on a board about guns.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)So every noun that is used on this board constitutes an analogy to guns? I don't think you know what the word "analogy" means.
BTW, as you so aptly pointed out below, I never used the word "cars" either. I talked about drivers and licenses. It was you who claimed that I made an analogy between guns and cars. In fact, I did nothing of the kind.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Straw man indeed.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)... of terms that you don't really understand.
So here's the thing, OK? My analogy was to illustrate a point about capricious laws that are overly broad in their application. It didn't have to be cars. It could have been liquor laws, or porn laws, or the tax code, or anything. I chose cars because they're easy to relate to.
You jumped to the huge conclusion that I was making an analogy between guns and cars. I wasn't. Once you threw it on the table, I played with it for a little while. But you never really addressed the point I made about laws. Instead, you started to pretend that it was all about guns and cars. It wasn't. It still isn't.
I don't want to be insulting, but since you started cracking about the "marbles rattling around," let me observe that you seem only to operate on the level of the grossest generalizations and don't really understand anything about rhetoric, including things like "example," "analogy," and "straw man."
While we've been having this little wrangle, you've managed to successfully evade the original question, which is how the public good is served by having someone who already owns a gun wait 10 days to purchase another. I don't want to hear the "no harm" nonsense, because there must be compelling reasons for laws that limit rights. "It wouldn't hurt" doesn't fly.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)You write
Of course you weren't! Now why did you bring up driving and cars?
Oh, seriously, never mind!!!!!!!!
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)... of banging your head against the wall?
To illustrate a point about capricious laws. You, in your infinite wisdom, said "Oh, it's about cars; he's making an analogy between guns and cars." You may have seen this analogy somewhere else. I don't know. What I do know is that you either totally missed my point about capricious and arbitrary laws or are deliberately avoiding it. I will say it again, and if you don't address it directly, I can only conclude that it is because you can't.
What compelling public good requires us to force a person who already owns a gun to wait 10 days to purchase another one?
Don't say "Already answered," because you haven't.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I don't get your point and stopped reading your post at that acknowledgment.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)....you are happy with putting the same restrictions on using a gun as driving a car?
Like requiring a license, waiting until 16, or 17, or 18 to start, requiring a trainer's permit and insurance or better yet...waiting until 18 to claim a property right....how about a vision test.....
PS...some might call a trainer's license a waiting period.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Sure. It would be better than the status quo. My carry permit would be honored equally in all 50 states. I would be able to carry on the grounds of a school or federal building. People could get a CCW (albeit a limited one) at 16 rather than waiting until 21.
But then there's that pesky Constitutional issue. There is no amendment about the right to drive.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Let's Recap
I wrote
You write
Let's recap:
You support a license for all gun owners.
You support the registration of all guns brought outside private property.
You support waiting until someone is 16 until they handle a gun.
You support that they have a vision test before they get a gun permit.
You support the idea that no one under 18 should own a gun
You support requiring insurance to use a gun on a firing range.
You support a supervised trainer's permit for 6-24 months prior to having a gun permit.
That's a good start!
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Not really, but I could live with it.
That restriction exists only for cars on public roads. So let's say 16 for CCW: check.
Not a problem -- most people want to be able to hit what they shoot at anyway.
Again, this restriction does not exist for cars. Only to register them for use on public roads.
Ranges already have their own insurance. If I fire on private property, no insurance is required, just as with cars. Insurance for CCW would at best be a minor and inexpensive inconvenience, since the risk is statistically low.
For a CCW, perhaps. However, at least in my state there is no time limit on the transition from learner's permit to full-fledged license. One can make the road test appointment on the same day one receives the learner's permit. The license itself would have restriction until the bearer reached the age of 18.
Additionally, ...
I could buy a gun with no background check, and sell it to whomever I want.
I could take the gun anywhere I go, including federal installations and schools.
I could travel freely to any state of the Union as well as to foreign countries with my gun.
Is that what you want?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...but I'm not the one comparing guns to cars. I know the difference.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Oh.....that's right....it was YOU. LOL.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)My car examples were to illustrate a point about arbitrary and pointless legislation based on an overly broad application of a law:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=82456
Who suggested comparing guns to cars? Why ... I believe it was you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=82462
Once more, I say please try to keep up.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)See your post 174 bringing up cars came before my response in post 176.
Good try.
NOW...who brought up cars....that's right.....YOU!!!!!!!
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)You said this:
Find the word "guns" in Post 176. Go ahead. I dare you.
Not there? Didn't think so. You fail the Miller Analogies test.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Find The Word ....CAR!
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)So your assertion that I made an analogy between guns and cars is completely false.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts). Right....because drivers have more to do with guns than cars
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)Good night, Gracie.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you have to be 21 to buy a handgun and 18 for a rifle. Of course the permits and insurance is about operating on public roadways. If we continue the car/gun comparison, we can break big oil. Just think:
convicted felons, convicted domestic abuse, adjudicated as mentally incompetent, anyone with a restraining order against them, not allowed to buy, possess, or even ride in a car or bus. Mandatory minimum of five years in federal prison for riding in a cab. That includes Tom DeLay and Martha Stewart.
Make it a felony to buy a car in a different state than the one you are a resident of. For example, you would not be able to buy a car in Maryland. You would have to have the car dealer in, say, College Park tow your car to the licensed dealer in DC to carry out the federal background check.
All car dealers must have a federal license and have record keeping requirements. Any clerical error can revoke your license and send you to prison.
We can go even further and regulate sports cars, like the Ford Mustang, and Hummers as Title 2 (NFA) vehicles.
Straw Man
(6,622 posts)I wouldn't. A waiting period would be something along the lines of your car dealer saying, "I know you want that car, but you're going to have to wait 10 days just in case you might be in the throes of a powerful passion that will lead you to do something irresponsible and illegal with it."
mikeb302000
(1,065 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)Use what passes for a brain man!
After 8 years of abuses by Bush/Cheney can't you project the kind of abuses that could result from giving the Federal government that kind of unconstitutional power?
Three words: FAT-FUCKING-CHANCE
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Tell me....did they having guns or all the gun toting Americans in this country prevent those abuses by the Bush administration because they were armed?
Defies logic and reality.
sarisataka
(18,574 posts)As to your points:
I can agree with the background check, the rest would be found unconstitutional. The abuse allowed by the arbitrary 'local authority approval' (still seen in NYC and CA) is what really fueled the shall issue push.
No go- too many times registration has led to confiscation despite all promises that would never happen. Too bad since this would be the best way to trace guns used in crimes. That chain of trust is irrevocably broken.
An idea with merit. The fee could become an issue: who sets it, is there a max limit, exception for financial hardship, what if no FFL is local...
Also has merit, however if the purchaser is already vetted as above, why would the wait be needed? There purchaser would have spent much time preparing to purchase.
Similar to the last point. If have passed all approvals to purchase, why is "may issue" needed? Are some people more important than others? Permits would not need to be Federal, like DLs and marriage licenses the states would issue them and the others states would recognize them as set in the Constitution.
Why keep going back to the same empty well? The whole premise is based on a fictitious category and has proven to be ineffective when implemented.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Managed federally. Same rules every state. Bans
Last word says it all.
Seems to be a lurid fascination with government control, and the prospects for ever more control.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 25, 2012, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)
In no particular order:
1. NICS system open to private sales.
2. National Carry License. A person would take a one week course to include live fire, and then would be able to carry, open or concealed, absolutely anywhere. Anywhere would include all gun-free zones including airplanes, schools, hospitals, etc. Of course, they would have to pass an FBI background check, be photographed and fingerprinted. System would be shall-issue.
3. National reciprocity for those who have only a state carry permit.
4. Open carry for those who have concealed carry permits.
5. Open the federal registry for new entries of full-auto. Same rules as pre-86. Legal full-auto wasn't a problem before then.
6. National pre-emption. No state may have gun laws more restrictive than a national standard. Vermont would be a good model for the national standard, or Arizona or Alaska.
7. Suppresors would be treated like scopes and lights. as routine accesories. No special permits needed.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)make SBS, SBRs, pistols with shoulder stocks Title one. While we are at it, we can do something really French, treat suppressors as accessories like scopes and magazines.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)-..__...
(7,776 posts)1) Repeal the "sporting purposes" clause.
2) Repeal the "Lautenberg amendment".
3) Removal of "silencers" and SBR's (short barreled rifles), from the NFA.
4) Removal of CLEO approval for NFA/full-auto firearms.
5) Repeal of the "barrel ban" (would be eliminated by default if the conditions of #1 occurred).
6) No gun control laws at the State and local level.
Glaug-Eldare
(1,089 posts)That steps too hard on the authority of the GA. Minimum standards for law? Sure. Forbidding an entire class of legislation? That's not acceptable to me.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)6. "Assault Weapons" is a term based on a figment of someone's imagination. These firearms have few differences from other firearms not targeted for restrictions. This imaginary "definition" is entirely unscientific and capricious.
5. Violations of the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments along with an unconstitutional restriction on those exercising the rights to bear arms while peaceably assembling as protected in the 1st. If these are your desire, sign yourself into some prison somewhere and leave us in peace.
4. Bullshit!
3. Kind of makes them no longer "private" doesn't it. No justification exists under any law. The non-private sales already do this.
2. Violations of the 2nd, 4th and 5thAmendments. Unload; kissoff; find yourself a new home.
1. If we licensed rights, I might not have to read this miserable fascist crap. Get over it.
I think it would be easier to find a compatible fascist tyranny than fighting against the rights of free people in country founded on liberty. Save money, time and effort; just move.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)Please be more specific. 
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...it's a point of pride to be reserved and calm. 
I've been known to let loose a bit among friends, though.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Sounds like gun control fantasy rather than fact. Then again Mikey has admitted that the laws he advocates will not be enough and eventual outlaw of all privately owned firearms is the real goal. Not. Happening.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Fiction.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)what is your goal, and how do these methods achieve that goal?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Bring it.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Because that is all that your list is, a fantasy.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)with the rest of the developed world.
About number 5. Municipalities should have the right to impose additional restrictions about who has the right to carry around a concealed gun. For example, NYC has every right to impose very restrictive conditions on who gets to carry around concealed weapons because of the unique risks involved with guns in dense metropolitan areas.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Canada's gun laws were, on balance, the same or laxer than ours, why was their murder rate still 1/4 ours?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...the capital of stop and fondle...err frisk. Hell no, you can't carry there but little mikey can have his "army".
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Not going to happen. I for one will never register myself with the government as a firearm owner.
2. Registration of all newly bought firearms which would need to be renewed after three months and yearly thereafter by presenting the paperwork and the weapon to the police.
Again, not going to happen. I will not comply. And because of firearm ownership anonymity, there is no way for the government to know whether I am complying or not.
3. Background checks on all purchases including private ones. This can be done at the local FFL dealer for a nominal fee.
I don't mind this as long as it preserves firearm ownership anonymity, as with an opt-out FOID system. And for the trouble, I get to buy firearms through the mail direct to my door, since I've already passed a background check.
4. Three day waiting period for all first purchases.
Since the government will have no way of knowing how many firearms I own, this will not fly either.
5. "May Issue" policy for concealed carry permits managed federally - same rules in every state.
Good luck reversing 20 years of success in this area.
6. Assault Weapons Ban using the California model which would include restrictions on extended magazines.
Nope. Not gonna ban the most popular center-fire target rifle in the United States.
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...But then again the vast majority do not support our Party Platform. Heck, the vase majority of Democrats disagree with the gun clutching crowd here.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The gungeon trolls are not just a minority among Democrats, they are a minority of Americans.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)annual re registration? Not even UK does that. Mike's list of "people who should be barred" is extreme. They include anyone who occasionally drinks alcohol, anyone who ever smoked a joint, and the obese.
The only poll I have seen, after reading the questions, supported the status quo. (should dealers be required to keep records of gun sales, federal law since 1938) as an example.
Have the pollsters explained what an "assault weapon" is? Most of those respondents probably thought they were machine guns or real assault rifles.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/Bloompoll.pdf
Registration polls 66-32 in favor.
Closing the gun show loophole polls 86-13 in favor.
And so on.
Basically, even though the "generic question" on gun control is pretty evenly split, when you ask about specifics, most people are supportive of stricter laws.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)random telephone surveys are bullshit? BTW, at least two are already federal law. Of course, that has nothing to do with the crime fighting value, or lack of. If you rewrite the other BoR in modern language, many people would be willing to oppose them, especially if you make it a push poll. BTW, the AK-47 isn't semi-automatic.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/bandwagon/
DanTex
(20,709 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Next time the Starbucks roundtable meets, you should try iced coffee without ice.
Clames
(2,038 posts)..on this topic. Must like being proven wrong again and again.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)So the f what? Most people think that without registration a background check hasn't taken place. So it's just another example of a poll that produces worthless results because the folks being polled don't have the slightest clue w/regard to the subject. The completely false threat of the "gun show loophole" is another perfect example of people responding on the basis of indoctrination. As usual, your best "evidence" is no evidence at all.
mikeb302000
(1,065 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)The gungeon group on this board doesn't represent anyone other than themselves......they certainly don't represent the views of the majority of Americans.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)that the hardcore pro-gun advocates are among the looniest of right-wing crazies. We're talking Grover Norquist, Ted Nugent, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich. Even many centrists and "moderate Republicans" often have reasonable views on guns.
The problem is that, like a lot of things in our current political system (e.g. the public option in healthcare, higher taxes for the top 1%, stronger environmental laws), a well-organized and well-funded minority can override the will of the people.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's just unpossible for the "will of the people" not to be aligned with yours? Only "the looniest of right-wing crazies" would disagree?
I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_consensus_effect
Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why-we-all-stink-as-intuitive.php
To put it a little crassly: people tend to assume that those who don't agree with them have something wrong with them! It might seem like a joke, but it is a real bias that people demonstrate.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002210317790049X
Lee Ross, David Greene, Pamela House
Stanford University
Abstract
Evidence from four studies demonstrates that social observers tend to perceive a “false consensus” with respect to the relative commonness of their own responses. A related bias was shown to exist in the observers' social inferences. Thus, raters estimated particular responses to be relatively common and relatively unrevealing concerning the actors' distinguishing personal dispositions when the responses in question were similar to the raters' own responses; responses differing from those of the rater, by contrast, were perceived to be relatively uncommon and revealing of the actor. These results were obtained both in questionnaire studies presenting subjects with hypothetical situations and choices and in authentic conflict situations. The implications of these findings for our understanding of social perception phenomena and for our analysis of the divergent perceptions of actors and observers are discussed. Finally, cognitive and perceptual mechanisms are proposed which might account for distortions in perceived consensus and for corresponding biases in social inference and attributional processes
I described it as 'pronoia' before I knew there was an actual clinical term for it. Prohibitionists of all stripes tend to share the same mentality.
Strange to see DUers acting like Romney fans and teabaggers...
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)They funny thing is that they're so far right they think they've made it back to the extreme left (while criticizing the extreme left)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Stevens was a Republican who supported a law against flag burning, among other right wing thins.
Actually, and decision only says those are constitutional, which is not the same as showing compelling state interest.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Even the NRA supports regulations- just not the ones you want.
Frankly, your argument is a mannequin fashioned from Trinitum aestivum stalks...
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Certainly agree with the first paragraph.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and does it really matter?
http://logical-critical-thinking.com/logical-fallacy/bandwagon-fallacy/
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Yes.
That has nothing to do with logic and everything to do with reality.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I merely stated that my views on guns mirror the Democratic Party.
Yours and the vast majority on this board do not.
Keep voicing your opinion ....it's no less worthy of consideration than mine. But it's logical to conclude the reality is the majority of the Democratic Party reject your arguments.
So from that perspective, maybe I have answered your question.
hack89
(39,171 posts)do you understand why you claiming to represent the majority of Americans rings a little hollow?
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)LOL. Does the Democratic Party platform represent my views or yours?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I agree that the RKBA is an individual right. I view the AWB portion as a sop to the anti-gun wing of the party - everyone knows it is window dressing and nothing more.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)...the RKBAs? Oh.....you think the AWB is window dressing.....in other words you think the Democratic Party platform is lying. I don't.
hack89
(39,171 posts)by the President and Congress is it clear that that particular part of the platform is there merely to placate folks like you. If they were serious about it why haven't they done anything in the past four years?
Not a lie - just a recognition that gun control is important to a portion of the party. They threw you a bone - you should be happy.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts).
hack89
(39,171 posts)remember how he allowed guns to be carried in national parks? He understands that there are many pro-gun Democrats.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Disagree on the Second
hack89
(39,171 posts)fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I do know the Democratic Party has affirmed the second amendment and the need for reasonable gun control laws, including the AWB.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what other conclusion is there other than they view gun control as political poison and have only put the AWB in the platform to placate that portion of the party that thinks it is a good idea.
I agree with all but a tiny portion of the Democratic platform - that still makes me a good Democrat.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)it is his inaction on gun control that pleases me the most.
mikeb302000
(1,065 posts)Straw Man
(6,622 posts)I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican. I was canvassing for Eugene McCarthy before I was old enough to vote. I'm guessing you weren't even born yet.
Don't think for a second that you get to define what it means to be a Democrat.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)which would be none of course.
why would we agree to any of that BS when we have been winning the 2A battle all over the place? You're like the Japanese foreign minister standing on the deck of the USS Missouri back in 1945 and making demands of General MacArthur. Fucking laughable. I have a reasonable recommendation for you.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)Fucking Laughable indeed.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)
Response to mikeb302000 (Original post)
aikoaiko This message was self-deleted by its author.
aikoaiko
(34,165 posts)It might happen in a country not the USA.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)Tell him/her your five step plan.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)That's a real knee slapper.
Spryguy
(120 posts)Totally reasonable gun control laws, AND in-line with the president and the Democratic Party.
not totally reasonable gun control laws. Idiotic laws like Mikey and you seem to like are the reason we lose elections.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it is overly complex written by people who have no clue what they are talking about. It has done nothing for public safety. It also created problems with the US Olympic team because pistols commonly used in the Olympics and ISSF competitions are defined as "assault weapons" simply because of the location of the magazine.
May issue is also unreasonable, because it gives functionaries arbitrary power, which has no place in a liberal democracy. Making it a national CCW, may issue or shall issue, is contrary to our federal system. Yes I disagree with fellow pro gunners and Mike on this. If it falls under the full faith and credit clause, fine.
Annual registration is absurd. There is a reason car registration started renewals by mail and online. Before Wyoming started that, they used to issue a different color plate each year, a trip to the county courthouse during a three month grace period always had long lines. That was in a county of 25K people at the time. I don't know of any other state or country that has such a renewal scheme. One more thing:
anyone who drinks on occasion
anyone who smoked a joint
anyone over age 60
obese people
BTW, until 1977 Canadian federal gun laws were, on balance, not stricter than ours. Maybe laxer. Either way, their murder rate was still 1/4 ours even then. The difference is that handguns are more commonly used now.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)And it's dishonest reference to "reasonableness:" It never ends.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...what you think it means". Gun control advocates use "reasonable" as a synonym for "what I want".
Pacafishmate
(249 posts)I'll keep my "assault weapons" thank you very much.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)WE, don't agree but I'm glad to see you have finally broken down and posted your ideas here for all to see instead of hiding it in your blog.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)we need to reexamine ALL the prior gun control, toss it, and make new and better FULL gun control.
without a legal gun in the streets, then we can rid all illegal ones, by a quick two step
more security
the knowledge of which will allow ANY gun to be known immediate, and the possessor of a gun will then not be able to enter any building with said gun
The NRA folks always said guns were needed for security in the house
Then they got a corrupt court to allow them outside the house in bars/restaurants/movie theatres, wherever.
Inane insanity if you ask me (and the NRA folks sure don't want my opinion...I see 3 or 4 will retort this almost instantly.)
Rid a town of all guns, legal or not(except for law enforcement of course), and there will be no mass shootings and far more important- NO accidental shootings.
Why were guns and live bullets made?
To kill something or someone
People stopped smoking
Same can happen with guns
and with my meek mayor mike(MMMM) starting his super funding of candidates who agree with issues he does, finally the NRA has met a formidable foe with more money than they have to duel with.(proverbially.)
Thank you MMMM.He proves a brain outsmarts the gun each time.
the Brady Bill? Unenforceable as long as there are legal guns in the streets. That is the sad little secret of the NRA. But now that secret, that curtain has been opened and revealed.
Watching Mitt this year showed me the exact technique gun people use in their faux straw man arguments.
What MMMM does is it becomes THE EQUALIZER against the tyrant NRA
it's a change in thinking, an enlightenment so to say. A way out of the jail the NRA mindset leads to
(remember folks- only 4.3 million NRA members. Just 1.4% of all 320 Americans (the 97.6%)
4.3 is the same number at its height, that Fox and Rush had as viewers.
Odd coinky dinky no?
anti-guns in the stret people are the 99%
to a safe and free of WMD America.
(I can recite for you the followups to this...but the voices against guns are getting louder and louder and louder...
it was the tea party town hall people parading their guns that put it into focus
and the lies of who was shooting whom during Katrina.
(hint-it was not the blacks who were doing it)
imagine if you will -back a decade or so again, if the "Million Man March" had all those great Americans stroking their guns like the people outside Town Halls did.
Imagine that.
Who (except for maybe the pro-gun people and the NRA people) would even think that remotely would have been allowed to happen???
and the times, they are a-changing. (c) bob dylan.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts).
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Cheerleading for a guy who is essentially a Republican with the serial numbers filed off? Fuck that noise.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117275768
"On gun control, Bloomberg's money does battle with his words"
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/09/6537549/gun-control-bloombergs-money-does-battle-his-words
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444180004578018910577401972.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
September 25, 2012, 10:21 p.m. ET
Bloomberg Gives GOP Record Gift
BY JACOB GERSHMAN
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has given New York state Senate Republicans a $1 million contribution, believed to be the largest single donation ever given to the legislative conference, a party official said.
The billionaire mayor's seven-figure gift comes at a crucial time for the New York GOP. Senate Republicans are trying to hang on to power, which they control by a slender 33 to 29 margin. Several seats are up ...
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/07/6300337/bloomberg-explains-his-endorsement-scott-brown-even-though-hes-not-
By Dana Rubinstein
10:15 am Jul. 27, 2012
Mayor Michael Bloomberg this morning defended his endorsement of Senator Scott Brown, citing Brown's opposition to one particularly controversial piece of N.R.A.-backed legislation, though Bloomberg also noted that Brown is ''not good on guns generally."
Bloomberg will host a fund-raiser in August for Brown in New York City.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you do see the logic
and he is a life time liberal from Boston
getting rid of guns is a bi-partisan issue. Politics should not be in it
MMMM is not running for aynthing, but is backing anyone who goes against the NRA
he would back all dem senators if they would stop being bullied by the nra
it's quite simple.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)like banning booze and birth control. Anti gun and anti choice bullies have the same mind set and same propaganda techniques. BTW, it is not the NRA, it is the other 76 million gun owners.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)A stamp collector doesn't come loaded with stamps when eating out
A coin collector doesn't pack when going to the movies
A comic book collector don't protect himself with comics chasing Zimmermans
you can collect guns and keep them in the house
you can go to a shooting gallery and shoot
no right of yours is broken keeping your gun in your house
amazing how the gun lovers broadened the scope of their oddball addication to guns
proving the NRA and anti-abortion people deal the same way
guns are like prescription drugs, seems some are addicted to them. There are rehabs for that.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and it isn't about what you think is right/left. It is about authoritarian/moral crusader vs live and let live.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)The NRA isn't for death anymore than the Brady Campaign is for criminals. Wait, I take that back. While under Brady's previous name, HCI and NCBH, in the 1970s, gun control advocates said that you should not resist violent crime, including rape. They dropped that from their propaganda over the past 35 years.
I remember watching Rachel Maddow interviewing various womens health clinics in the Kansas area after Dr. Tiller's murder. One doc open carries, and maybe others in the office too, in the clinic. She said "I support the second amendment and I will defend my clinic and patients." The look on Rachel's face was priceless. Yeah Rachel views them as toys, rents them at a shooting range in Manhattan etc. In fact, her and Susan's first date was at a shooting range (Susan's sister is an NRA member.)
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Not only is he betraying your stated position, he's hurting the Democratic Party.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/07/27/brown_warren_mostly_divided_on_gun_control/
Senate rivals divided on guns
Brown opposes, Warren supports renewal of assault weapons ban
By Noah Bierman
Globe Staff / July 27, 2012
The deadly shooting in Colorado has thrust the debate about gun control into the Massachusetts Senate race between Senator Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren, exposing areas of deep division and some surprising agreement between the Republican and Democratic candidates.
Warren’s positions are largely in line with those of gun-control advocates, while Brown had long been endorsed by gun rights groups until he recently broke rank on a high-profile issue.
The candidates are most sharply divided about whether to renew the federal assault weapons ban, with Warren supporting an extension of the ban that expired in 2004 and Brown saying it is an issue best left to the states.
Class, let's review:
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2012/07/6300337/bloomberg-explains-his-endorsement-scott-brown-even-though-hes-not-
(note: emphasis added)
By Dana Rubinstein
10:15 am Jul. 27, 2012
Mayor Michael Bloomberg this morning defended his endorsement of Senator Scott Brown, citing Brown's opposition to one particularly controversial piece of N.R.A.-backed legislation, though Bloomberg also noted that Brown is ''not good on guns generally."
Bloomberg will host a fund-raiser in August for Brown in New York City.
Ignorance is one thing. Neutronium-grade obtuseness is something else entirely...
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)consider that over half of the House is NRA A rated, the Senate is just about 50% A rated, and guess who elected those Congresscritters? We the People, that's who. Not the NRA, but THE PEOPLE.
The 2A is most certainly a political issue when someone like you trys to restrict or abolish it. Back in 1994, a sleeping giant was awakened and we said, never again will the wool be pulled over our eyes.
What's funny is that people like you are what has made the modern NRA and why the 2A is such a huge issue in the country, so, in that vein, keep up the good work.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)and you guys know that finally there is a worthy opponent to the NRA
nodody wants to take your gun from your home
it is outside where the street crime is (d'uh...street get it. No one has a street inside.)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)As Nixon said and Clinton learned, it isn't the NRA. It is the 76 million other people who don't appreciate being the scapegoats for urban problems. Fact is, Chicago city government doesn't give a shit about gang violence, because the aldermen use the gangs for their political purposes. The gangs have a seat at the table.
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/January-2012/Gangs-and-Politicians-An-Unholy-Alliance/
New York was the same way 100 years ago, I doubt much has changed since.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)that routinely violates citizens RKBA, that mafia?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)unless of course
oh sheet, you must mean the Irish in NYC in the olden days
I think Daniel Day Lewis had a movie about them. (or was it Leo?)
you sure though must like to stereotype don't you?
lions and tigers and bears, oh my
btw was it an Alias or a Sheriff perfect world?
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)You're babbling again, and talking to yourself.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)that is more than Words can Say
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Talk about a faux pas.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)those are the street gangs. I really don't care for the modern "gang banger" term.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And endorsed, as well as raised money for, Republican Senator Scott Brown?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)And he is a liberal democrat from Mass.
He is genuinely concerned about the harm guns do. And has put his money where his mouth is.
He is telling Democrats, he will back them, and they don't have to be scared of the NRA any longer.
You have to look at the mindset of this.
Almost all democrats are scared of the NRA and don't open their mouths on this wedge issue.
(in the Northeast, one would think all democrats would be for a total overhaul of the laws, especially with regard to concealing and carrying in public legal guns.
It might be somewhat different in the middle of nowhere USA in the wild wild west, but in the city with milions of people it is different.
And there was a method and very good reason for his soda ban, and in actuality, all these things help the poor who do not have health insurance or a good plan, without having to wait for change in that respect.(and it's working and helping.) The poor need more health care than any group, due to their not affording to go to the doctor in the first place..
It's a wellness program, and again, it is working in ways those that belittle it do not see.
And, your argument, my friend is one, well in the 1960s when LBJ became (IMHO the #3 president of all time) by signing the civil rights/voting rights acts, damn right he needed and got the support of republicans to help pass it.
The key fact is-IT PASSED and finally, we were on our way to seeing the 1st Amendment so wonderfully written(but so horrible was Thomas Jefferson himself, as he did not believe in his own 1st Amendment as he owned people and abused the females he owned) actually start to happen. (the we are all equal part, and life LIBERTY and the individual right to their pursuit of happiness and their right to assemble),yada yada yada.
The object is to get things accomplished.
This issue I agree with Mayor Mike and whomever and whatever agrees with him.
DO NOTUSE THE STRAW MAN HERE- I am not supporting that candidate in any way, nor voting for Scott. But you and I both know Warren cannot say that and hope to win.
(We can hope though that she doesn't say it, wins, and then VOILA signs on.)
as the months pass, and we get closer to 2014, and 2016 and 2018, I think (esp.2018) we are going to see a big difference in attitude as the NRA now has The Equalizer to go against it.
And $$$$$ is the great equalizer.
(a winner does what a loser won't, and the NRA keeps winning because no one takes it on.
We here are not suppose to like big money, however, we must win to enact change, so we must spend to equalize to get my/our change we want.
Then after that, we can reduce all super pac lobby groups that blackmail the politicians(influence them if you will) but only after the change is put forth.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)because he doesn't want Warren taking on Wall Street. That goes against the very core of what a Democrat is. Guns are not the defining issue, look at Ted Strickland, Howard Dean and Brian Schweitzer. Hell, look at Bernie Sanders for that matter. What defines a Democrat is:
standing up against the economic royalists
individual freedom
putting people and planet over profit
Your beloved Mike is not for at least two of those.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)almost missed this sleight of hand you are using
your wedge issue is banking
banking is secondary if someone is killed by a legal handgun losing their life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
so tell me about it.
Guns and national security perils trump all other issues.
Guns and ammo are a matter of life and death and its time to get all of them off the street, starting with the legal ones, then the illegal ones are easy to pick off afterward
(as no guns allowed make it easier to find any gun)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)never have, never will.
not a wedge issue, economics is the issue.
Guns are easy to make. Did you bother to look at the links of guns being made in illegal factories in Australia and occupied Europe? I'm guessing not.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)it's real easy to deal with the illegal ones
like' how you asked for the nth time?
by having the perimeter(outside streets) more secure by having machines that can tell when a gun is ON THE STREET
as the only thing that stops it now is legal guns, get rid of the legal and its easy to get rid of the illegal
now, I do understand why you keep trying not to understand that so easy term.
occupied Europe? earth to you-there is NO occupied Europe in 2012.
obtuse, huh?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)you don't have a grasp on reality.
No, guns can be, and are, easily made in illegal factories or in a basement. If you take away all of the legal guns, illegal guns will still be made and available.
The year doesn't matter. The fact remains Australian biker gangs make the same machine guns the French and Danish resistance did. All you need is the same technology found in a 1940s bike shop. There is nothing obtuse about it.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)make all you want in your basement, then keep it IN YOUR HOUSE
no guns on the street.
get rid of ALL guns on the street
(you do know the difference between street and home, don't you? Last I looked, no one has a fire hydrant with a dog peeping in ones basement).
but once all guns are off the street
anyone caught with one on the street can and will be dealt with by the criminal system.
NO EXCEPTIONS, same as everyone wants the rich to pay taxes
it is such a stunningly simple end to the travesty of guns
and yes, you are correct, current gun laws don't work because until you get rid of LEGAL GUNS FROM THE STREET, you cannot get rid of illegal ones
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)making machine guns in your basement is illegal in Australia.
No, there are no legal guns on Chicago or DC streets other than cops and a couple of rich people. There are no legal guns in Jamaican streets. All three has more gun violence than Texas. Jamaica's murder rate is over ten times ours.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)in that you must be speaking satire as what you are saying has nothing to do with anything
why is there gun violence in those places-BECAUSE THE GUNS ARE IN THE STREET
you are manufacturing strawmen quicker than gun dealers(who should be abolished) sell guns
so my take is you are joking
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and you need to look up the term straw man.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Obviously, this would be beyond the TSA's mandate. Another poster came up with a good name for an organization which would
operate such things: "Protective Squad"...
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)but funny how the few complaints there were had newcrews with them
99% of the TSA are hard working 9 to 5 workers.
funny how you have no concern of regular workers doing their job
again- NO incidents on the planes=job well done
and nobody cares about your goodies, don't be so full of oneselves to think they give a spit
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I'm beginning to see the point of the guy on Fark who said "There are no terrorists. Why haven't there been any attacks upon the unguarded parts of airports,
or at shopping malls?"
And here I had thought it was the demonstrated willingness of passengers to curb-stomp anyone who acts up on a plane.
The TSA is like my magic tiger repelling rock. It does a good job as well.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You are not just going against a good Democrat, you're contradicting yourself.
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/27/163711475/tale-of-the-tape-brown-vs-warren-in-massachusetts
Brown: Supports the right to carry a concealed firearm, but thinks licenses and background checks should be required.
Warren: Supports background checks to purchase firearms; also supports reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons.
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/massachusetts/brown-warren-disagree-on-weapons-ban
Greater focus on issue since Colorado shooting
Updated: Tuesday, 24 Jul 2012, 10:06 AM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 24 Jul 2012, 10:02 AM EDT
Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press
BOSTON (AP) - U.S. Sen. Scott Brown said Monday that it should be left up to lawmakers in individual states to decide whether to approve new bans on assault weapons...
..."Scott Brown supports the state assault weapons ban here in Massachusetts, and believes that the states are the appropriate venue for making these types of decisions," a spokeswoman for Brown said in a statement.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You really are on the wrong board.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)Wash, rinse, repeat. Get it? Here, let me help you, no matter how many times you repeat something, that doesn't make it true.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)just bully style ganging up one after another
rat-a-tat-tat
(by the way the union post you all didn't get was a pun on rat-a-tat-tat but it went over your head.
puns can go over ones heads
unfortunately bullets through ones head.
glacierbay
(2,477 posts)I'm mocking you for your oft long winded, incoherent, authoritarian posts.
fightthegoodfightnow
(7,042 posts)I completely agree.
hack89
(39,171 posts)backed up by constant and pervasive surveillance too?
It kills me how gun control brings out the little dictator in so called progressives.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)I pay nothing in cash.
100% credit
If they want to know what toilet paper I use, it's Charmen with Aloe or Cottenelle with Aloe.
What are you hiding if you put your secrecy ahead of the public safety?
long as it is 100% equal to all and not used against blacks
hack89
(39,171 posts)so you can feel safe? Do you understand why most Americans will vehemently reject your solution?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)though on this part of the board of course most agree with you
vast majority of posters won't waste their time arguing guns, it's irrelevant in this hidden section anyhow
The question is
on the one hand your gun is for your safety
then on the other hand you don't seem to care about my safety
very odd.
indeed.
What toilet paper do you use? I use charmin when I can find it
I own NO guns, never will
and I'm still standing better than I ever was as Elton sang. without a gun or bullet.
hack89
(39,171 posts)I think your fears are simply irrational. I refuse to surrender my civil rights to your irrational fear.
hack89
(39,171 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)they are not controlled nor ever have been by the Mayor
they have their own power & their 96 hour grace period after they fire their gun to concoct a story proves that.
I would have a civilian lead the police department, not another copper
hack89
(39,171 posts)with no probable cause? Can they search my car without a warrant? How about my house?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)If you attempted to stop a corrupt cop with your own gun, in what planet do you think you would be alive when
the trail for that crooked cop came?
ain't no way.
hack89
(39,171 posts)are you saying we can't stop cops from violating our civil rights? Or are you saying you don't care if they do?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the mayor has deputy mayors over each area, including the police and fire departments. So yes, NYPD is controlled by the mayor. He is ultimately responsible. BTW, when did MAIG become a government agency?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City#Mayor
http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.a7457a08f5001607a62fa24601c789a0/
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)glacierbay
(2,477 posts)
