General Discussion

Recursion

(56,582 posts)

117. It would surprise me if they had read the bill

Sun Jan 20, 2013, 10:33 PM

Jan 2013

In general, people who have read it don't support it.

And I'm not being snarky; nobody really reads bills anymore and it's a problem.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

198 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Guess what, liberals? We will NEVER know enough about guns to be "qualified" to write gun laws! [View all] CTyankee Jan 2013 OP

I know I will be flamed Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #1

well, from what I am learning, since that time gun technology has rapidly advanced in a way that CTyankee Jan 2013 #4

Gun technology hasn't significantly changed in 60 years Recursion Jan 2013 #9

well, there you go. I am obviously not qualified...I must have gotten false information...hmmm CTyankee Jan 2013 #15

I wasn't trying to shut you up Recursion Jan 2013 #16

but from what I am reading in the liberal press, we ARE talking about "capabilities" this time. CTyankee Jan 2013 #26

What are you seeing discussed about capabilities? I've only seen the extended magazine ban... Recursion Jan 2013 #37

i believe new jersey has a 2002 law requiring new pistols to be smart guns Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #43

And all cars should get 1000 mpg and be able to levitate. JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #168

technology *is* already there. Phillip McCleod Jan 2013 #170

I've seen mostly discussion around the extended magazine ban. My governor, Dan Malloy, was CTyankee Jan 2013 #64

I'm not sure if you read the AWB law Major Nikon Jan 2013 #118

Banning by name does not work. ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #123

Works in California Major Nikon Jan 2013 #124

How do you define "works"? ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #126

You can own an AR-15 that doesn't have a detachable magazine Major Nikon Jan 2013 #128

Did CA go to a one-feature ban? Recursion Jan 2013 #129

No Major Nikon Jan 2013 #130

Why the bullet button then? Recursion Jan 2013 #131

The work around creates something that is no longer an "assault weapon" Major Nikon Jan 2013 #134

So they did go to a one-feature ban Recursion Jan 2013 #136

Not exactly Major Nikon Jan 2013 #138

Right. Detachable magazine isn't a "feature" Recursion Jan 2013 #140

The point never was to restrict hunting rifles Major Nikon Jan 2013 #142

Huh? You can still buy semi-autos with detachable magazines Recursion Jan 2013 #143

Sure they're equally as deadly Major Nikon Jan 2013 #145

I'm confused Recursion Jan 2013 #146

Which is why I didn't mention fire rate Major Nikon Jan 2013 #148

I'm not talking about deer rifles Recursion Jan 2013 #151

Without the "tool" to remove the magazine, ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #135

Which would be a tool Major Nikon Jan 2013 #147

My point exactly. ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #133

And you wind up with something that is no longer an assault weapon Major Nikon Jan 2013 #137

Thus the problem with the law. ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #139

That's not all that changed Major Nikon Jan 2013 #144

I thought it was the Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #149

Same receiver Major Nikon Jan 2013 #150

So something that looks like an AR-15 can't be used for mass shootings Recursion Jan 2013 #152

I think it was made to not include any Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #154

That was the whole purpose of the law Major Nikon Jan 2013 #155

The grip change had nothing to do with reloading speed Recursion Jan 2013 #169

In this case.. TxRider Jan 2013 #153

I was speaking to the CA law and not the federal AWB Major Nikon Jan 2013 #156

Go over to my thread on this and you'll see jmowreader Jan 2013 #127

gun types Limey202 Jan 2013 #132

I agree. If one wants to really ban them then Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #157

If I'm "qualified" to be killed by a bullet... caraher Jan 2013 #2

agreed Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #3

Best reply etherealtruth Jan 2013 #13

You certainly do. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #31

If the nutters have their way Cirque du So-What Jan 2013 #33

So let's stop going there Recursion Jan 2013 #35

Nanoseconds. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #54

But why voice something that would infringe on legitmate rights while failing to find real solutions Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #60

I am not hearing anybody "voicing something" that would infringe on legitimate rights. CTyankee Jan 2013 #65

Not following you. nt Deep13 Jan 2013 #108

+100000000000000000 treestar Jan 2013 #87

While I agree you have a right to be heard... Deep13 Jan 2013 #105

qualified Limey202 Jan 2013 #141

There's a lot more "if you don't know (insert arcane detail about guns) STFU" out there... caraher Jan 2013 #159

The trivial technical minutia of firearms design doesn't really matter. baldguy Jan 2013 #5

Rather like making shade-tree mechanics the experts on vehicle laws IDemo Jan 2013 #6

The issue, though, is when that opinion on speed limits leads one to suggest petronius Jan 2013 #45

^^^ This Recursion Jan 2013 #49

And ode to the experts....Only An Expert by Laurie Anderson Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #7

Those who know all about the technical specs of a gun often know very little about gun violence Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #8

I would only change your statement in one way etherealtruth Jan 2013 #18

Can't disagree with you there. Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #19

I would have to disagree Duckhunter935 Jan 2013 #25

I do agree that we should be talking more about handgun regulation Bjorn Against Jan 2013 #40

"voluntary" weapons licensing? Yeah, that'll work fine... CTyankee Jan 2013 #66

Don't you think that new laws regarding background checks will have... Walk away Jan 2013 #78

Feinstein (and Sugarmann) caused this by writing a bad law Recursion Jan 2013 #10

well, we haven't really tried recently have we? I think we come better armed (sorry for the pun) CTyankee Jan 2013 #22

If we follow Feinstein's new AWB it's only going to get worse, I'm afraid Recursion Jan 2013 #27

The vast majority of firearms in circulation are semi-autos with detachable box magazines. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #38

As a practical matter, I'm skeptical of bans, but... Recursion Jan 2013 #39

Since their goal is to dramatically reduce firearms ownership... Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #50

Ya Know, Fella.... The Magistrate Jan 2013 #61

I wish I could rec your post!!! Robyn66 Jan 2013 #63

Post removed Post removed Jan 2013 #177

Good! Now I want you to sit down and write exactly what you said to your Congressperson and CTyankee Jan 2013 #68

Yeah, Yeah, It's All The Democrats' Fault. And About Those "Technical Minutiae": Paladin Jan 2013 #67

The one that we are trying to ban is selling more Recursion Jan 2013 #73

No, I Have A Clear Understanding Of Which Guns Appeal The Most To Psychopaths. Paladin Jan 2013 #85

Does this need for expertise apply to abortion, Cerridwen Jan 2013 #11

Really? I complain about Republicans legislating from a position of ignorance all the time Recursion Jan 2013 #12

That was my point. Cerridwen Jan 2013 #17

Well, we're the ones who went there Recursion Jan 2013 #20

You know what? It's the dawn of a new day. Read the NYT piece. You will appreciate it. CTyankee Jan 2013 #23

Are you talking about "The Diversionary Tactics of the Gun Lobby"? Recursion Jan 2013 #28

Promptly respond to the article with your LTTE, saying exactly what you said here. Perhaps the CTyankee Jan 2013 #69

Of course they know. They just bet their readers don't Recursion Jan 2013 #74

Better The NYT Use Of Terms Than Ted Nugent's (nt) Paladin Jan 2013 #88

So, can a rifle be an assault weapon? CTyankee Jan 2013 #97

Yes. But "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" are mutually exclusive Recursion Jan 2013 #104

If we truly characterize any weapon as "assault" then it would logically follow that we would CTyankee Jan 2013 #109

Sure, or just take "assault" out of the whole thing. Recursion Jan 2013 #111

I would characterize it as a "weapon capable of assaulting people in high numbers and rapidly." CTyankee Jan 2013 #162

Then your argument is with the party leadership Cerridwen Jan 2013 #24

It definitely is Recursion Jan 2013 #29

What do I think the AWB does? Cerridwen Jan 2013 #32

yep. spanone Jan 2013 #21

I think it does and here is why Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #158

The asshole Republicans in Ohio took away law enforcement's ability to maintain safety in the cities Kolesar Jan 2013 #14

Some of us have been victims from guns. Is it not enough to qualify them? Mass Jan 2013 #30

I wouldn't say that, but being knowledgeable really does help. aikoaiko Jan 2013 #34

I am sure you have written to both Rep. McCarthy and Mayor Bloomberg, haven't you? CTyankee Jan 2013 #70

As it turns out most her contact form won't accept my comments because I don't live in her district aikoaiko Jan 2013 #71

Then write to your own congressperson pointing out what you feel is a mistake. I don't see that CTyankee Jan 2013 #72

You're giving way too much benefit of the doubt here. Sugarmann *said he was being dishonest* Recursion Jan 2013 #75

I'd appreciate any link you can provide...thanks... CTyankee Jan 2013 #76

Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, his 1998 book Recursion Jan 2013 #77

I don't see anything in that quote other than the fact that he obviously wants to impose CTyankee Jan 2013 #83

Full auto has been *ridigly* controlled for 80 years Recursion Jan 2013 #84

but you are ascribing a bit more gloss to his statement than I find in his words. CTyankee Jan 2013 #90

Presumably because they're used in mass shootings Recursion Jan 2013 #91

Were those his words "complete civilian disarmament"?* CTyankee Jan 2013 #92

Gun laws in the 50s were much more lax Recursion Jan 2013 #125

And yet we have our Newtowns and VA Techs, etc and Austrailia doesn't. CTyankee Jan 2013 #165

Compared to overall gun violence, bluntly, yes Recursion Jan 2013 #166

I would agree since my family experienced handgun violence. But in thisi instance, a man CTyankee Jan 2013 #167

Know-nothingism is a dead end. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #36

Who is proposing confiscation? ellisonz Jan 2013 #42

Presumably the people behind these AWBs Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #44

So you're admitting that part of your post is complete fabrication? ellisonz Jan 2013 #47

No. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #51

Really? ellisonz Jan 2013 #53

Senator Feinstein, the Brady Campaign, and VPC have all criticized grandfather clauses. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #57

Links? ellisonz Jan 2013 #62

Why not? Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #80

That's not definitely: "to turn in firearms rendered illegal by legislative fiat" ellisonz Jan 2013 #81

Any qualifying firearm not registered is rendered illegal. Pete Cortez Jan 2013 #82

So register your gun - but even you can't say for sure... ellisonz Jan 2013 #89

Nothing regjoe Jan 2013 #175

"Wartime memorabilia from both Axis and Allied powers fills the entire shop." ellisonz Jan 2013 #41

There's a description of what the AWB actually does towards the end of this article Recursion Jan 2013 #46

Republicans are always writing laws that attempt to govern women's reproductive rights... left coaster Jan 2013 #48

Umm... you just made his point, actually Recursion Jan 2013 #52

also the people at gun shows don't seem to know enough either ThomThom Jan 2013 #55

We have as much expertise on our side as they do. gulliver Jan 2013 #56

Are men qualified to write women's reproductive health legislation? HooptieWagon Jan 2013 #58

They are unless you believe such topics are beyond the scope of reason Major Nikon Jan 2013 #121

The ON-GOING AGENDA is to "brand" Democrats as ignorant. Recall the "Obama voters in least-educated WinkyDink Jan 2013 #59

Just like men are qualified Politicalboi Jan 2013 #79

That they can kill people treestar Jan 2013 #86

I think a tipping point is pretty damned close. The kestrel91316 Jan 2013 #93

The majority of Americans also have no idea what that means Recursion Jan 2013 #94

Hey, you've given me a great talking point for my rep. Rosa deLauro! "differently shaped grips." CTyankee Jan 2013 #96

Please go for it Recursion Jan 2013 #107

"this" meaning the old AWB? CTyankee Jan 2013 #110

Right, or the new one as it's currently being shopped Recursion Jan 2013 #114

Why don't you ask her if you can testify at upcoming Congressional hearings? CTyankee Jan 2013 #161

Because "dude with good ideas" is not a qualification Recursion Jan 2013 #163

Well, then make suggestions to chairs of committees where the bills will be considered. CTyankee Jan 2013 #164

it's better to understand the intent of a law than the mechanics of how guns fire samsingh Jan 2013 #95

I think you're right; supporters' ignorance of the law is the problem Recursion Jan 2013 #120

and qualified is that guy who went to JC penney with the gun JI7 Jan 2013 #98

I'm guessing (I really don't know) that he is an exhibitionist of the gun variety... CTyankee Jan 2013 #100

McChyrstal and WEs Clark would not be qualified ? JI7 Jan 2013 #99

well, of course not! they don't agree with the NRA! CTyankee Jan 2013 #101

Maybe, maybe not. ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #102

well, we don't know that for sure, do we? CTyankee Jan 2013 #106

Hence, the "maybe, maybe not" ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #113

what kind of jobs would the nature of it make people qualified ? JI7 Jan 2013 #112

If you want to limit the qualifications to jobs, ManiacJoe Jan 2013 #115

It's not about knowing guns, it's about reading the bill Recursion Jan 2013 #116

It would surprise me if they had read the bill Recursion Jan 2013 #117

Well, perhaps if the NRA would give us some real information... Deep13 Jan 2013 #103

The internet is a wonderful thing. rrneck Jan 2013 #119

As I have said before, we will having hearings on this legislation where experts will testify and CTyankee Jan 2013 #160

"As a people in a constitutional democracy..." rrneck Jan 2013 #171

If the opponents oppose just for the sake of their ideology, not based on actual problems in the CTyankee Jan 2013 #172

Mag capacity limits are an exercise in futility. rrneck Jan 2013 #173

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are saying... CTyankee Jan 2013 #174

Sorry about that. Sometimes I hate my phone. rrneck Jan 2013 #178

All right, then how do we limit the capability of these to inflict so much death and destruction? CTyankee Jan 2013 #179

Crafting the legislation is easy. Getting it passed and making it work is the problem. rrneck Jan 2013 #180

Some of your suggestons sound fine. But I don't agree with you that making a gun less capable CTyankee Jan 2013 #181

The point is rrneck Jan 2013 #182

We have to get with the 21st century in this country. The fact is that other countries DO "get CTyankee Jan 2013 #183

The same world wars that shaped Europe's attitude toward violence rrneck Jan 2013 #184

Interesting that you bring up booze. I have seen the comparison with laws against drunk CTyankee Jan 2013 #185

Nobody has ever rrneck Jan 2013 #186

your final paragraph brought to mind something that was said by George Wallace: CTyankee Jan 2013 #187

Be careful what you wish for. rrneck Jan 2013 #188

"guns are just as useful for self defense as offense." CTyankee Jan 2013 #189

Well okay... rrneck Jan 2013 #190

I still can't understand why she would deliberately pass something totally ineffective, tho. CTyankee Jan 2013 #191

When it comes to vote harvesting rrneck Jan 2013 #192

A distopic picture of the U.S. but I'm afraid you are right. If we can't do any better than this CTyankee Jan 2013 #193

Aw, it's not so bad. rrneck Jan 2013 #194

You know what, rrneck, it ain't that great, even if we have some meeting points... CTyankee Jan 2013 #195

It's not liberals who don't understand guns... Bay Boy Jan 2013 #122

It's not a question of IQ bongbong Jan 2013 #176

If the perceived problem you are trying to solve with your ban on assault weapons... krispos42 Jan 2013 #196

Ban? Well not only or not really. Let's just do something along the lines of what Australia CTyankee Jan 2013 #197

Even though there's plenty of liberals who have guns..... AverageJoe90 Jan 2013 #198