Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Feinstein: Not The Time For Gun Control

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:39 PM
Original message
Feinstein: Not The Time For Gun Control
Source: CBS Broadcasting Inc.

The California senator who authored the nation's now-lapsed 1994 ban on assault weapons says she will hold off trying to renew that ban.

Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) tells 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl that the political timing isn't right and she will move to renew the ban at a future time of her own choosing. Feinstein appears in Stahl's report on the increase in gun sales taking place in America to be broadcast this Sunday, April 12, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

Asked by Stahl if trying to renew the assault weapons ban would start a culture war and pose a distraction for an already overburdened Obama Administration, Feinstein replies, "I agree with you." "So you are going to hold off?" asks Stahl. "That's correct. I'll pick the time and the place, no question about it," Feinstein tells Stahl.

But even if she pursued the renewal, the votes may not be there today in either the Senate or the House. Both Houses of Congress gained pro-gun Democrats this past election, some of whom won the support of the National Rifle Association. "I am not going to disagree with that at all," says Feinstein. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60minutes/mai...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. If Queen Gun Grabber says this, then gun control is truly a non-starter
Democrats in the heartland (who would like to get reelected) thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. Exactly- many, many more families will have to lose a loved one before the Red States go mainstream.
Until then, anyone who doesnt care to become part of the gun culture is essentially held hostage by people who take checks from the NRA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
130. OK
I am tired of this issue. We need to start addressing the socio-economic roots of crime and violence and stop trying to treat the silly symptoms.

It is easy for Feinstein, a pro corporate DLC loving democrat to talk about the stranglehold of the NRA, but she rarely does anything to offend the corporate bosses and she was a god damned coward when it came to standing up to the Bushies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knixphan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #130
180. Hear, hear!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #9
131. Gee, if a majority of americans..
.. are against more gun control, I guess that makes _them_ the mainstream, not you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TEmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #131
179. i guess it depends if you look at the NRA's false studies or not
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #179
187. I was thinking of..
..the recent Gallup poll as well as the proliferation of Concealed Carry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #131
224. Who says a majority of Americans are against "gun control?' Did someone take a vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #224
230. Thinking of the Gallup poll
"A Gallup Poll out this morning shows support for a ban on private hand gun ownership at an all time low, with 29 percent of respondents saying they support such a law. It's the smallest percentage since Gallup started asking this question 50 years ago. Interestingly, gun control advocacy hit its all time high in 1959, according to this poll. It's important to note that the poll was taken before the massacre in Binghamton, but other mass shootings have been in the news for a few weeks."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-L...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #230
253. There are two issues there
The 29% figure you cite oppose banning handguns outright. With all of the massacres going on in the country these days and all of the movies gullible Americans watch in which the hero defeats the bad guys with a gun, more Americans want to have guns for self-defense, so that's misguided, but not surprising.

The more meaningful second issue though is how many people support stricter gun control laws, which is what most gun control proponents are advocating for, and, in that measure, the division is about 50-50. Which is, admittedly, a much lower figure than it has been historically, in which a solid and substantial majority have favored stricter gun control laws. I don't really know why that's changed, but 50% does not a majority mandate make for either side of this debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #253
255. *nod* I was looking more at that graph, too.
Seems to be trending down, which to me, allies pretty closely with the overall decrease in violent crime since the peak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 03:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
221. So we should just abolish the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, right?
What other parts of the Constitution should we abolish?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scribble Donating Member (129 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. This is an abusive post
I don't like Feinstein at all and will never vote for her again; but this post is a rude, abusive post that is just plain wrong on the facts.

The affect that guns have on society is an important issue. The NRA is an irresponsible participant in this debate. NRA owners should stop being afraid and frankly confront what they've been told by their leaders, who have pretended to be their friends for so many years. If you want guns, then you have to deal with the social consequences and stop depending on your own self-righteous and abusive responses to anyone else who isn't afraid to speak out. If you don't want to be addressed as "gun nuts," then you should stop acting like gun nuts.

Feinstein has a serious personal history involving guns that should be respected. She has a permit to carry, although I doubt that she does any more. While she is dispicable on economic and Civil Rights issues generally, she never advocated "grabbing" guns from lawful owners, no matter what the NRA says.

sc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
205. You are claiming she didn't say this, then?
Edited on Fri Apr-10-09 03:26 PM by friendly_iconoclast
Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."


Oh, she still wants to- she just realizes she doesn't have the votes at the moment.

We'll just have to make sure that those votes never appear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #205
248. Dittos
I think her statement is pretty clear. And by what authority does she say she will be the one to decide the right time and place??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
184. You gun nuts can take resposibilty for these deaths then.
It is your fucking fault we do not have adequate gun control. Little whiny baby paranoid freaks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #184
185. I own MANY guns
does that make me a whiny paranoid freak?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blandocyte Donating Member (830 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #185
212. I'd think one or two guns would be enough
unless one is planning a rampage. Are you so scared that you need so many guns, or do they all shoot targets in a uniquely interesting way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #212
217. Thats just ignorant..
if you watch south park, that's even better..

Shotgun. pump cheap upland bird hunting, in rain / defense
shotgun Italian over under, $2-3k, upland bird nice weather..
shotgun semi Italian trap.

rifle 17hmr plinking
rifle 308 hunting
rifle 243 ack improved target

sidearm 40 cal ccw
sidearm 40 cal ccw wife

All serve a separate functions. none scarry commie or black rifles. over under cost more than my first car.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VermeerLives Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #217
249. Thank you!
"One or two guns" should be enough for?? What? Owning guns is not "paranoid". I'd like to ask the gun-haters how they think this country would have defeated King George if the citizens had not been armed? With sling shots and knives? Good grief.

I just took certification to get my conceal carry permit here in VA. Being a responsible gun owner means you understand the safety issues and practice them. You learn how to PROPERLY handle a gun.

Gun-haters have no reason to fear the law-abiding citizen. We're not banning knives because people kill with knives. And we're not cutting off hands because people murder with their hands. Guns just don't get up and start shooting people.

And law-abiding citizens don't commit crimes -- with or without guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
awoke_in_2003 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #217
259. Would the Italian over under
be a Baretta? Unbelievable craftmanship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #212
232. the "fear/scared" canard
1 of the holy trio

didn't take long

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gtar100 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 01:17 AM
Response to Reply #185
219. Owning guns doesn't. It all depends on your attitude towards them,
your sense of both personal and social responsibilities. Not knowing you, or any of the gun owners on DU, it's foolish to get in a name-calling match. There are many sides to this arguments with good points and sound reasons, coupled with fears that can cloud judgment. But frankly, as far as I can tell, until gun owners themselves en masse determine to hold responsible the gun lobby and weapons manufacturers for the irresponsible actions these groups have taken in this world, more people will die senselessly and needlessly in shootings. Be it wars, cruel genocides, or just crimes of passion or neighborhood disputes. How much do you want to stop the violence that causes so much misery in this world?

When one person is shot and killed, a whole circle of people feel the pain and anguish which lasts a lifetime for everyone. There is no justice that can erase that feeling when you lose someone you love.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #184
199. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #199
225. What B.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doctor jazz Donating Member (474 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #184
203. Funny how gun grabbers never say nasty shit like that to anyone's face.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #184
231. and by your logic us civil rights nuts
are responsible for all these murders too. after all, we support a right to remain silent, right to an attorney, right to a fair trial, all of which help those accused of murder.

of course they also help those WRONGLY accused of murder.

and set a fair playing field.

much as gun rights do.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taverner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #184
333. Um, did the "gun nuts" as you called them cause these deaths?
Just by keeping a firearm in the house?

Don't get me wrong. I own no guns. I don't WANT to own a gun.

But the right is as fundamental is that to freedom of speech.

And someone who owns a gun is not a killer, nor are they a "gun nut"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bdamomma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. so Feinstein would like to see more Americans taking their lives???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. So how many mass killings does it take?
How many dead cops?

Just out of curiosity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cant trust em Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Which of these were done by assault rifles?
I'm not a gun guy so I'm not sure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Well, the killer of the three cops in Pittsburgh had an AK-47.
The killer in Binghamton was able to unload 98 shots in a minute (don't know what weapons he had).

The guy from the Alabama massacre last month had an assault rifle of some sort (an SKS, I believe) that he had reportedly modified somehow.

When cops don't have a chance against these guys, what does that mean for the rest of us?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. And where exactly can I go to pick up my AK-47?
I'm looking for an Easter present.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. Try the gunbroker.com. That's where Poplawski seems to have gotten his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. You'd need a class 3 weapons license which is next to
impossible to get. Something very illegal was going on there. I guess we need to make it SUPER illegal though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. I'm all for stricter enforcement of current gun laws.
But if we can't count on gun merchants to follow the rules, then maybe they can't be trusted to sell these weapons?

If the government vows to crack down on these individuals and charge them with felonies for illegally selling these weapons, that will be enough for me...for now. But if the government and court systems can't get a handle on this, I'm sorry but I think those weapons need to go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #36
40. Your logic is faulty...
If a dealer is selling specialized weapons to illegal patrons now, why will making the weapons completely illegal stop them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
52. Can't sell something you don't have.
If the dealers can't get the weapons, how can they sell them?

That sounds like decent logic to me.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Like cocaine, heroin, MJ, crack?
There all illegal so they must not be sold anywhere. :).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #54
65. If your average gun dealers have the same ethics as drug dealers...
Then there's nothing that can be done. God help those going into law enforcement. Like lambs to the slaughter.

What do you propose we do to save cops lives?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WriteDown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #65
72. Not average...
But you don't here of many AK-47 shooting with guns bought from actual legitimate gun dealers so this is nothing close to average. This in itself is a very unusual case.

You would be better off with better inspections of shipments into the US. Tons of illegal weapons. That's where you have to stem the tide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. I fully support that. Fully.
I also fully support allowing municipalities to decide their own gun laws. What works for rural communities is wholly inadequate for the inner cities (and vice versa). If you want these illegal guns off the streets, you have to let the cities crack down, they're awash in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #76
237. cities aren't exempt from the constitutional protections
we afford our citizens.

period.

and inner city residents are MORE likely to be victimized by violent, armed thugs. they, if anybody, deserve concealed carry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #76
329. big city bullshit
I am just tired of the high and mighty attitude from city-dwellers on how enlightened they are and how much they need extra laws hicks can't possibly understand.

What this hick can't understand why city folks tolerate catch and release prosecutors. It's not not like they have a shortage of shitheads and they need to let them out so the cops have someone to catch. They get some predator who has been robbing and carrying illegal weapons for years; arrest him, bail him countless times and are surprised he is still robbing and shooting people.

Their civic leaders are screaming for new gun laws when they let the scumbags walk on the carloads of gun violations. Think about it, what could be easier? All you have to prove is the thug is a crook and was carrying a gun. The asshole has a 23 page rap sheet, the cops took a Glock from his pants pocket. Send the bastard away for 20 years, "NEXT!"

You smugly announce,"If you want these illegal guns off the streets, you have to let the cities crack down, they're awash in them." Philadelphia certainly qualifies as big city, look at how the big city handled the three assholes that killed Sgt. Liczbinski.

Howard Cain was the trigger man. You can see his fifteen page criminal record here.Howard Cain
Look at all the violations of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act that Cain has been arrested for. Keep in mind, these are only gun charges. Over Cains criminal career he had thirteen arrests for unlawfully carrying a firearm, that were listed "Nolle Prossed," meaning the prosecutor chose not to bring charges. In a further eleven arrests for violations of Pennsylvanias firearms laws, the charges were either withdrawn or dismissed. In only three cases was he prosecuted and either plead guilty or was found guilty. On weapons charges alone, he could have done 12 years in prison, in which case he would not have been on the streets to kill a police officer.

You can find Levon Warners criminal record here. Levon Warner
His is only six pages. Warner is facing three charges for being a felon in possession of a firearm, and for unlawfully carrying firearms, in his latest arrest for conspiring to murder a police officer. Do you think Ms. Abrahams office will make them stick this time? Previously, the Philadelphia DAs office thrice declined to prosecute Warner for gun law violations. The Philadelphia judicial system chose not to try him for six other violations of Pennsylvanias gun laws.

And last, but certainly not least, Eric Floyd.Eric Floyd
Again, hopefully this time, hell actually face weapons charges, in addition to the murder charges. But again, in 1994, he was arrested for robbery, and the prosecutors declined to prosecute him for carrying firearms illegally in two counts. Also in 1994, the courts declined to try him for two counts of carrying firearms illegally.

Now keep in mind, this is only weapons charges. The rap sheets of these scumbags total twenty six pages, and contains all manner of things that should have kept them off the streets for good. Maybe you should look at about how absolutely and utterly broken the City of Philadelphias criminal justice system is.

So now Governor Rendell is grandstanding to deflect attention from a system that is currently not using the laws already in the books in prosecutions. Don't you think you deserve better from your political leaders? You going to chime in with the chorus of witless supporters fighting hard to pass more gun "restrictions" the crooks won't obey and your prosecutors WON'T ENFORCE?

While in this particular case it was Philly, the same song and dance happens in Detroit, DC, Chicago, and New York. You repeatedly turn coyotes loose in the henhouse and wonder why you have dead chickens. Pathetic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #65
236. lots of things
1) mandatory physical fitness standards for cops (our unions consistently fight this)
2) punish violent criminals (and contrarily stop wasting time with silly nannystate drug laws against nonviolent offenders)
3) every officer gets a taser
4) promote concealed carry for citizens
5) make wearing of vests mandatory (some agencies still don't require them)
6) better training
7) better staffing levels

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:55 PM
Original message
hell I have heard dealers in chicago calling out
weed rock blows pistols, yes get a joint, some crack, some heroin (not blow, blows in chicago) and a gun to go rob someone so you can come back and get more drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. No gun merchant sells "real" AK-47s.
They're collectors items in the US, and even if you can find one for sale it'll cost you around $20,000 because they're so rare. That's on top of getting the federal Class 3 license.

There are, however, lots of semi-automatic lookalikes on the market. Functionally identical to any hunting rifle, but made to resemble an AK-47, a lot of people refer to them that way. That's probably what the guy in Pittsburgh had. Think of it as the difference between a genuine Rolex and a $20 imitation sold on a streetcorner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Seemed to work just fine in killing those cops.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. So did the shotgun.
Would you like to ban all shotguns too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #49
222. As would any standard hunting rifle - whether semi-auto or bolt action.
Edited on Sat Apr-11-09 03:41 AM by SlowDownFast
An AK-47, AR-15 or any other look-alike variant of these two does not make them "machine guns". You have to have a Class 3 license in order to own a fully automatic firearm - and they are very, very difficult to obtain and very, very expensive (the license AND the firearm). Fully-auto firearm ownership is VERY rare among US citizenry. Think ex-military brass and licensed dealers/collectors/historians who have collections going back to the early muskets.

The gunman who shot those cops in PA did not have a "machine gun". Neither did the gunman in New York at the immigration center.

OTOH, semi-auto rifles for sport, target and hunting are everywhere, require a federal background check and waiting period and can be relatively cheap. All as it should be. The only difference between any run-of-the-mill semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto "assault" rifle is a handgrip and some black plastic.

Folks should learn what they're talking about before spouting knee-jerk opinions and demanding blanket laws. That's the road to fascist thinking.

While we're at it, what other part of the Constitution would you like struck down?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:39 PM
Original message
*sigh*
Which is the more likely scenario? That the cop said AK-47 as a generic term, or that a paranoid mook living in his mother's basement who got drummed out of boot camp could afford a $17,000 rifle, pass an FBI background check, get local LEO to sign off on the purchase, and wait four months?

Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
55. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
If it looks like an AK-47 and kills like one...

I'm not understanding the distinction of why it matters if it was a *real* AK-47 or a knockoff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #55
64. What's the difference? About 10 years in prison
It doesn't 'kill like one'- it fires one round per pull of the trigger- just like hunting rifles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #55
79. Maybe I can help here
I have no problem referring to an AK as an AK, the same way I would refer to any Remington rifle or shotgun as a Remington.

AK-47 is a catch-all term to refer to any Kalashnikov that fires a 7.62x39mm round. This distinguishes it from the AK-74, which is a Kalashnikov that uses the smaller 5.45x39mm round.

But the vast majority of AKs in private hands in America are semi-auto. I do not have an NFA license for full-auto, nor do I have the money to try to purchase a full-auto version. Besides, my wife would probably have something to say about that...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #55
172. Because the knock-offs are semi-automatic
And functionally identical to any semi-auto .30 caliber rifle, the most popular rifles in the country, used in less than 3% of murders, nationwide.

If you want to ban them, you would need to ban about 80 million firearms in this country, because why would you ban one by name, and leave alone millions more, that function IDENTICALLY to this rifle?

80 MILLION firearms. How many people bothered to show up for the last election? 50 million total? The president won by what, about 10% in the most costly, divisive, painfully long election ever? I'd like to see us accomplish some real important legislation, like UHC, before we cut our own throats over a trivial, feel good piece of legislation that probably isn't going to save any lives anyway, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrightKnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #172
218. All AK-47s are essentially cigarette lighters.
It is a cigarette lighter:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=22a_1191084721&p=1

---

Civilian AK-47s are not "knock-offs" or "replicas".

The civilian versions have a slightly modified mechanism that will only fire semi-automatic but the rest of the weapon is the same. It is possible to replace, modify , or circumvent the mechanism.


One could make a case for limiting the availability of neutered machine gun based military assault weapons. I agree that the political costs would be too high..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 02:48 AM
Response to Reply #218
220. Not true.
The civillian knock-offs are not easily converted to fully automatic. Any weapon that is, is regulated AS a machine gun, whether it's been converted or not, post 1986.

You would have to not only make machinist modifications to the receiver, but you would also have to introduce metal that is not currently there, such as the auto sear, and parts that are missing catches, and part of the bolt carrier. You would need all the same metal fabrication one would need to manufacture a brand new, real AK-47 from scratch, as you would to convert one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #55
238. because
ANY semi-auto rifle would have been as effective, and many much more so.

ak-47's LOOK scary. that's the only difference between them and your average deer rifle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. That's not accurate.
One, the guy in Binghamton was NOT able to unload 98 shots in a minute. You can't realistically do that with any semi-auto weapon, and all he had was two pistols.

An SKS is not an "assault rifle." It's not even an "assault weapon." It's a carbine (short rifle) similar to the M1 Garand that US troops used in World War II.

The reason those three cops died was not because they were outgunned, it's because the dispatcher had failed to warn them that there were guns in the residence. They were ambushed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Guns don't kill people, police dispatchers kill people. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. NY gunman fired 98 shots in about a minute, police chief says
NY gunman fired 98 shots in about a minute, police chief says
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/08/ny.shooting /

But what the hell does the police chief know, eh?


http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090...

On March 10 in Alabama, 11 people, including the shooter, died after a barrage of bullets from a Bushmaster AR-15-style assault rifle and an SKS assault rifle. The shooter reportedly fired in excess of 200 rounds during the assault. He used high-capacity magazines taped together so when one was spent, it would be easier to reload.


Also, the third police officer to respond in Pittsburgh knew what he was walking into, as he was responding to help the first two. Didn't help him. Furthermore, all three laid there bleeding and dying while fellow cops were unable to reach them due to the gunfire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Maybe we should call it a "Sport utility Rifle" or something like that.
After all- semantics, tortured metaphors and logic games are what this debate is about, not ways to reduce gun violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. Yeah, I WOULD ask what the hell the police chief knows.
Take two pistols to a shooting range. Try to fire 98 rounds through them in one minute. You simply can't.

Second, don't cite grossly inaccurate news stories to back up the opinions that are formed by grossly inaccurate news stories. The media is famous getting information about guns completely wrong. For starters, the dictionary definition of "assault rifle" is a FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPON. Those are only available as collectors items in the US. And this is an SKS:



Could you please point out to me what makes it an "assault weapon"?

Try reading the FBI statistics. You'll find out that "assault weapons" are used in less than 3% of all gun deaths. The paranoia about them is completely unjustified by facts. Most gun deaths, including most mass shootings like the one in Binghamton, are committed using pistols.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Got it. Experts are not experts unless they say what you want them to say.
And I quite frankly don't care what the current dictionary defintion of "assault rifle" is. Unfortunately, the definition of "death" doesn't change.

With the damage these guns caused, if they're not already characterized as "assault rifles", maybe they should be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #28
34. Gun guys love to argue semantics- but they can't tell you how they will reduce gun violence.
At least they wont tell you about any solutions that the NRA and the majority of gun absolutists would actually support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. There's really only one long-term solution.
90% of criminals using a firearm obtained the gun illegally, so short-term you can go after illegal weapons sellers in order to reduce the available supply. However, long term there's only one solution to reducing gun violence, and that's to reduce poverty. Poverty feeds all of the major drivers of violence: gangs, petty theft, drug abuse, and hopelessness. Canada has nearly as many guns per capita as the US does, but only a tiny fraction of our gun death rate because they take poverty seriously. In England, though, guns of any kind are virtually illegal and you've still got to worry about getting knifed on the street.

Study after study has shown that poverty and violence track directly together. To minimize the latter, we've got to minimize the former, because it's also long since been proven that just attacking the symptoms with "feel good" laws like mandatory minimums for drug offenses, gun bans, anti-gang laws, etcetera, have not worked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Too bad the NRA conservatives dont give a damn about poverty.
I agree with you- but 99% of your allies in the conservative gun culture and lobby does not.

As a result- I get the guns but not the social justice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #41
50. Don't trash talk about "allies."
If you want to talk about the constitution you've got to respect all of it. People here talking about wanting to ban all guns because the public can't be trusted with them is, to my mind, little different then the wingnuts on the right going on about how people shouldn't be allowed to speak out against the war because they're getting troops killed.

And, as I noted, gun control is an ineffective exercise in "feel good" law, which is something we should always avoid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #50
73. So my argument stands- or at least you didn't refute it.
The NRA is the greatest, most important, most well funded ally a gun absolutist has- in fact- I see NRA talking points on every thread that involves guns at DU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #73
81. Fine. Have fun playing with your strawman.
I'm not responsible for defending whoever you want to pin the problem on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #81
84. So looking for ways to reduce gun violence is not worth disussing? I'm not suprised.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 03:19 PM by Dr Fate
Better to split hairs over what we should call guns, say that cars kill people too, etc.

You are not responsible for defending the positions of gun absolutists? My bad- I thought you were already doing that in this very thread.

When it comes to the tough question- ie actual solutions to gun violence, the gun absolutists have nothing viable to add. That is no suprise here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeadEyeDyck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #84
227. It is a matter of proportionality
On any given day, more people die in auto accidents than are killed in 10 years by guns. I am a gun owner. I target shoot but also own for defence of my home.

We might save lives if we confiscated all the guns in the country but the Centers for Disease Control disgrees. They did a study that resulted where the results showed that crime was less in communities which allowed gun ownership and carry. That is simply the facts.

To me, it is not so important that you know I have a gun. It is important that you don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #41
61. You keep repeating that as though it makes sense..

What does the NRA have to do with poverty? They are an advocacy group for the safe exercise of their members second amendment rights.

That makes about as much sense as asking why the ACLU isn't addressing pedophilia control legislation because some people are abusing their first amendment rights by posting child pornography.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #61
71. So people who dont want to be part of the gun culture are responsible for advocating non-violence.
While the majority of conservatives who argue against gun control oppose such efforts 100%.

It would be benefical if the gun advocates would work with everyone else on ways to reduce gun violence, as opposed to spending their time learning "gotcha" debate tactics and semantics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #71
77. "Semantics" is the favorite word of people confronted with inconvenient facts.
I've had that same line thrown at me when pointing out the holes and myths in the Bush administration's spying programs elsewhere.

It's not "semantics" to point out that there's a huge difference between a machine gun and a semi-auto rifle. Or the fact that you can't wave a magic wand and turn one into the other. Nor is it "semantics" to point out that media sensationalism aside, the use of rifles in crime is practically non-existant. Twice as many people are killed every year with hands and feet than are killed by rifles. Yet some people obsess on the subject to the detriment of anything else, and to the loss of Democratic seats.

Imagine for a second if all the lobbying effort that's gone into ineffectual bans on weapons not used in crime had been put into hard-core anti-poverty efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #77
87. Semantics as found in NRA literature are designed to drag out the argument and confuse the public.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 03:24 PM by Dr Fate
What "inconvenient facts" did you present us with?

My point is it doesnt really matter what kind of gun was used. It certainly doesnt matter to the victim's family or the average guy.

My point is that your semantics over what gun is what does nothing to solve the problem after the smoke clears.

We agree that DEMS will lose seats if they dont bow down to the NRA- banning guns is not my position.

For most people, the major point worth discussing is viable ways to reduce gun violence. No one really cares about all gun culture fasiciantion with cataloging guns and the "gotcha" arguing games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #87
117. That there's a difference between a hunting rifle and a machine gun.
That pistols account for infinitely more deaths than "assault weapons."

And the fact that when you strip away the polish, it's not really about banning "more dangerous weapons," it's just about scoring points. All the effort expended over scary looking guns that are rarely used in crimes, how much of that could have been dedicated to actually fixing the underlying problems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #117
137. I'm sure there is. But no one outside of the gun culture gives a crap.
"dedicated to actually fixing the underlying problems?"

That is where we could agree- but shouldnt the gun absolutists share as much blame for avoiding this topic as anyone else- if not more?

For instance, you seem to be avoiding the topic in this very thread.

For instance, the NRA and the top gun lobbists in the U.S. are diamertically opposed to any viable solutions as to the underlying problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #137
147. You seem unwilling to confront my actual arguments.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 06:27 PM by TheWraith
You can only try to tie what I'm saying to some bogeyman of the NRA, which has nothing to do with the real world arguments why gun control doesn't work, and personal attacks against everyone who's ever owned a gun or who supports people who own guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #137
157. Such bullshit.
"but shouldnt the gun absolutists share as much blame"

Who are these absolutists?

I see not a single poster calling for an end to ALL gun control. And we have a ton of it already.


Calling/characterizing posters that disagree with you such a thing, is deliberately misleading, and downright disingenuous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #77
91. The number of people and cops dead is also an "inconvenient fact"...
that y'all seem to be dancing around.

What's your solution to solve this problem that does not impinge on people's right to NOT bear arms?

I'm honestly curious.

I may sound hardline here, but I come from a family of sportsmen and I do understand the other side of the issue. However, I've also spent most of my life living in inner cities, so I have that perspective too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #91
94. But -but- they could have drowned those cops in a bath tub!!!
Or slipped them a mickey and pushed their car over a cliff!!!

Or stabbed them with knives- like they do in England!

Everyone is going to die anyway- I have statisitics to prove it!!!!

These are the real points that Americans are concerned about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #94
156. Or burned them when the gas tank on a crown vic bursts
in a rear end hit. You guys are done, your approach is done. If she calls you done you are truly dead.

Start thinking of real world solutions. The days of bullshit feel good law is over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #91
121. Then not to be rude, but you should understand better.
"What's your solution to solve this problem that does not impinge on people's right to NOT bear arms?"

Your sentence has too many negatives in it--I'm not sure what you're driving at. But as far as cops go, why not ask one? Most of them will tell you that they're a lot more worried about a shotgun, or someone getting the drop on them with a pistol, then they are about rifles.

Look, three things about the situation that anyone needs to recognize.

Fact one: there's a constitutionally protected right to own guns.

Fact two: as long as guns exist there will be gun deaths. You can't eliminate that, you can only reduce it.

Fact three: media sensationalism leads people to believe that it's a lot worse than it actually is.

If you check the stats, you'll find that gun violence is a lot better today than it was 15 years ago. It's not because we've banned guns, but a combination of more cops and other factors helped. If you want it to keep going down, we need to deal with poverty. Civilian deaths are down, police deaths are down. This is like the situation with child abductions: the media terrorizes people with wall to wall coverage of a handful of cases, but never mentions that there's only about 130 abductions by strangers a year in the US.

In 1999, there were 130 police officers killed in the line of duty. That number has been consistently going down for decades, from the 1970s when it averaged 218 per year. The murder rate has dropped by a third since 1992-93. The perception that violence keeps getting worse is just that--a perception, fueled by the media plastering a few spectacular incidents all over the airwaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lanlady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #121
314. No! it's a constitutional right to bear arms
Not restricted to guns -- which, taken to its logical conclusion, means I should have the right to be the proud owner of an ICBM or two.

Ah, but you say: they did not have nuclear weapons in the 18th century, therefore no such right is implied.

And neither did they have assault weapons, machine guns, and other such shit -- yet the right to own these arms IS asserted by the gun lobby. WTF?

I agree with the other posters in this thread that the gun lobby strives to get the issue all tangled up in obscurantist semantics and slice-and-dice distinctions and constantly moving the goal post -- anything to avoid a discussion about ending gun violence.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #314
319. My what a pretty strawman you have there!

We like the goal post exactly where it is now. Those proposing a new AWB seem to be the ones wishing to move it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #91
127. No dancing here..
(Too chubby to do more than 'the twist'.)

I can't see a short-term quick fix actually helping.

Here's why:
-I attribute a lot of the craziness to the general level of anxiety / stress .
-Truly mentally ill people with a tendency to harm others don't have many treatment options right now.
-Those suffering from drug addiction are still not being helped, and any new program will take time to be effective.
-Paranoid RW hate-filled types aren't going to be mollified before 2016 at the earliest (assuming Obama is re-elected).

However, I do think Obama should take his mandate and expand / create programs that would not only stop spree killers, but also raise the general level of welfare in this country. I grew up in dirt poor rural Virginia (Grundy, to be precise.) When I take people who have never seen true poverty there, they're incredulous- that in the center of the country, amongst all that natural beauty- to see kids starving and going barefoot due to lack of opportunity- gobsmacks them. Mental illness and drug addiction / abuse are rampant. Many are one step away from hopelessness. Many have given up on any kind of meaningful life, and can only focus on 'getting by'. Every time I read about one of these murder / suicides I fully expect them to be in my home town.

Sorry to ramble on, one thought just led to another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #71
115. No, but don't expect an advocacy group to tackle a root cause outside their baliwick
I wouldn't expect GM to address global warming as a whole, just as it relates to cars and car emissions. To that point, the NRA _helped draft_ both the NICS legislation as well as the 1934 NFA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #115
141. I fully expect the NRA and their gun-advocating allies to AVOID and OPPOSE solutions to root cause.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 06:05 PM by Dr Fate
Also- you are incorrect- the NRA has advocated harsher jail sentences as their "solution" to gun violence- so you are incorrect to say it is outside of their realm of interest. The problem is their "solution" is a quick fix that doesnt seem to be preventive at all.

The top gun advocates in the US are part of the problem, and dont give a tinkers damn about any actual solutions that might work.

In that case, if there are to be proposed solutions to gun violence, I guess it will come from people who dont care about and perhaps don't even understand guns. You might not like what you get. I dont know how long you think people are going to keep shrugging their shoulders over this...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #141
154. Intentionally obtuse, or dodge?
When pressed on legislative gun issues, they'll respond by supporting their memberships' concerns. Gee, imagine that. An advocacy group focusing on their core issue and constituency.

I don't expect the NHRA (National Hot Rod Association) to solve the drunk driving issue, either.

I don't expect PFLAAG to cure AIDS.

I don't expect the Lighthouse Foundation to cure blindness.

It's a complete false flag to set up the NRA as someone who should work on this issue, then cry foul when they fail to meet a goal they never agreed to. The fact that the NRA has worked at all to suggest means of keeping guns out of the hands of prohibited persons is a bonus, not a failure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backwoodsbob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #41
186. how do you conclude nra members dont care about poverty?
I'm not an nra member btw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #39
163. Mental issues have a lot to do with it
The people that do these mass killings almost always have mental issues. Something clearly needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of those people who are too nuts. Merely asking on a registration form whether or not someone is a nut is obviously not doing any good. Maybe mental health background checks need to be done on everyone who wants to buy a gun and they have to agree to allow their medical records checked. I don't know what the solution is, but clearly there isn't enough being done to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. No, experts who don't know what they're talking about aren't experts.
Police chiefs are chosen mostly for their management and political skills, not for their field cred.

Again, I invite you: go to a firing range with two pistols. See if you can put 98 rounds through them in 60 seconds. You'll find that it's physically impossible. The small capacity of a pistol magazine and the need to reload makes the maximum rate of fire is around 30 rounds per minute for a .45, and that you need both hands to reload.

"With the damage these guns caused, if they're not already characterized as "assault rifles", maybe they should be."

This is why some people get paranoid about gun control. Because those who don't understand weapons start talking about banning everything even when there's no possible justification for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
46. So where, praytell, did those 98 bullets come from?
And please, I'm not talking about "banning everything". Either that guy's Bushmaster or SKS was apparently converted into an automatic weapon, an easy thing to do as some pointed out on DU (something about it being an older model). Knowing this, would it be too much to ask if that type of gun be better regulated?

I have to buy my fucking Sudafed from behind the counter nowdays because of the remote chance I might make meth out of it. So is it too much to ask for this sort of scrutiny to apply to semi-automatic weapons that can be converted to automatic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #46
63. Again, you're talking about myths.
It is NOT easy to convert a semi-auto weapon into an automatic one. If someone tells you it is, they're either lying or misinformed. Any weapon which can be easily converted to automatic is considered by the ATF to ALREADY be automatic, and therefore subject to the 1934 National Firearms Act.

No semi-automatic weapons converted into fully automatic are known to have even been seized by police, let alone used in a crime, in at least 15 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. Regardless, the Alabama shooter did use assault weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #66
70. No, he used one "assault weapon" and several other guns.
Making clear, of course, that "assault weapon" means "a scary looking but otherwise ordinary gun."

He also used a shotgun and a pistol, probably a revolver. The people he chose to shoot would have been equally dead no matter which weapon he'd used. So instead of there being an uproar over the fact that nobody noticed this guy's plight and tried to get him help before he snapped, people are having a hernia over the fact that he used a scarier looking gun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #46
113. Any weapon that can be easily converted to full auto, is regulated AS a full auto, since 1986.
Period. If all you have to do is file down a tab, or something stupid like that, the BATFE requires you register it, background check, $200 fee, and everything else. It IS a machine gun, even if it's not converted.

And the SKS only holds 10 rounds, so converting it to full auto is of questionable utility. I have seen NO reliable report that Bushmaster AR was converted to fully auto. Since 1986, that is extremely difficult to do, and requires the same machining and fabrication tools you would need to build the entire rifle from stock metal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #35
97. Oh yeah you can put 98 rounds out in about a minute
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 03:44 PM by RamboLiberal
He shot 11 shots out of the 45 and the rest from a 9mm. A couple of stick mags with 30+ round capacity or even a few high cap mags he could've made that many shots. Apparently this guy practiced a lot at the range so he may have been very proficient at changing his mags which a skilled shooter can do extremely quick. He had a lot of misses so he probably was firing very fast.

The police chief's time period estimate may be a bit exagerated, I don't know. But I know it is possible.

I've shot USPSA and IDPA competitively for about 10 years now so I know how many rounds can go down range in what time period with magazine changes.

On edit go count how many aimed shots this USPSA shooter put out in 15 seconds with 2 magazine changes. I counted at near 25 - 30. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DVuQL_M6sA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #97
114. Let's play "Which is more likely."
Which is more likely: An acknowledged madman having access to several rare (and in New York, illegal) 30 round pistol magazines, and pulling the trigger as fast as he possibly could just to set a speed record.

Or...

A police chief grossly exaggerating the speed involved, to make a better quote for the paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #114
145. Go back and look at the video I posted
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 06:21 PM by RamboLiberal
That shooter shot about 10 rounds out of each mag. 25-30 aimed shots in 15 seconds. So shooter could've done with legal mags in 1 minute. BTW, chief said a minute to a minute and a half. So we can give him 30 seconds more.

But who knows - unless the shooter was carrying a shot timer.

But what chief said is very possible if the shooter was skilled.

But I guess you know more than the police range officer.

The man who gunned down 13 people at an upstate New York immigration center fired 98 shots from two handguns in a little more than a minute, police said Wednesday.

Ballistics reports showed Jiverly Wong fired 87 times from a 9mm Beretta and 11 times from a .45-caliber handgun.

Police said almost all 13 victims died instantly. Four others were wounded but survived. Wong killed himself as police were rushing to the scene. He was found with a satchel containing several full ammunition clips.

"I asked our range officer and he said easily in a minute you could rip off 98 rounds," said Police Chief Joseph Zikuski. "Our range people tell us it was over in a minute, a minute and a half. It doesn't take long. Especially, it's our understanding that he was an accomplished marksman."


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10...

Oh and he had at least 1 30 round mag.

Police found an empty clip that had the capacity for 30 bullets. A laser sight was also found at the scene.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090408/ap_on_re_us/bingham...

To be fair to you another expert in above story doesn't think he could do it in a minute to minute and a half.

I don't know, but I have seen plenty of individuals at competitions who practice a lot who could accomplish this and even have aimed shots, including moving while shooting.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrightKnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #25
105. An AK47 is a pure bred submachine gun based military assault weapon.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 03:46 PM by BrightKnight
You can put a scope and lipstick on it but it is what it is. If it really were possible to effectively neuter them I would help you defend them.

A few very quick and basic conversions.

An electric motor with a cam (modified gat trigger):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g841KVVXcc

A rubber-band:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVfwFP_RwTQ

You can also buy books on Amazon that will walk you through modifying or changing the mechanism.

You can do this with any semiautomatic weapon. When you do it with a full blooded submachine gun based military assault weapon you are not left with a civilian weapon.

I am generally strongly in favor of gun rights but I draw the line at easily converted military assault weapons.

Given that "not easily converted" is part of the original language of the law perhaps the could be restricted now.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #105
116. What in the hell are you talking about? That's not an AK-47.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 04:24 PM by TheWraith
The SKS is older than an AK-47, and does not nor has it ever had an automatic version. The original didn't even have a detachable clip.

And no, the AK knockoffs manufactured for civilian use are NOT machine guns, nor can you make them so. Please people, look up the National Firearms Act of 1934. Or ask a police officer. They will tell you the idea that you can easily convert a semi-auto into a machine gun is a COMPLETE MYTH. No gun which is legal to sell in the US can be converted into full auto without basically a complete machine shop and a high degree of skill. No police agency in the US has seized a converted semi-automatic weapon in over a decade.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #116
119. So this is bullshit?
http://www.keepshooting.com/booksandvideos/firearmmanua...

http://www.amazon.com/Full-Auto-Conversion-Rifle-Powder...

Please note the above is available for purchase from amazon.com

http://www.weaponryonline.com/Reviews-req-showcontent-i...

http://www.hackcanada.com/ice3/misc/ak47mod.txt

Please note the urgency of the above method...do it before the "fascist hags" get ur gun!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #119
124. Yes, it's bullshit.
From the same sort of people who sell herbal cancer cures. Anywhere that people are gullible there's conmen. And anywhere there's conmen there's morons who think they're giving away some big secret for free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrightKnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #124
139. A motorized cam in the trigger housing (modified gat trigger) works great.
You can only legally buy the hand crank version but it doesn't take much to replace the hand crank with a motor and a fire button.

Any solution that works well is highly illegal but not does not mean that it is not easy to do.

I only have a problem with submachine gun based military assault weapons. That is where I choose to draw the line. Almost anything else is fine with me.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #139
148. There's all sorts of ways to get around it. They're all illegal.
And completely retrofitting the trigger mechanism on a gun is a hell of a lot easier said than done.

By the way, the AK-47 is not a submachine gun. It's an automatic rifle. And earlier you were classifying virtually every semi-auto weapon ever made, including stuff like the SKS that has never been made in an automatic version, as a "machine gun." So your "line" basically includes almost all guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #116
241. i've been a cop for 20 yrs and i have NEVER
seen a converted auto from a semi-auto

i have seen flare guns (quite a nasty wound fwiw), zip guns (on rare occasions), all sorts of rifles, sawed off shotguns

but the VAST majority of criminals carry a garden variety pistol. that's it.

mac-10's etc. were kind of cool for a while right after the movie "colors" came out, but that didn't last.

i have seen several hundred guns in the field, i have been IN shootouts. i have never faced a full auto weapon or seen one, let alone a conversion
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #105
155. You guys just keep getting dumber.
it is easier to mill the parts from a block of metal. Put that crack pipe down son. You can blow you hands off with the chemicals under your sink.

I assume you have some sort of job. Even if that job is picking up garbage cans, I assure you the experience you have doing that is worth more than the internet commentary on said subject.

You cant turn the replicas into the real thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corruptmewithpower Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #105
166. Do we have a problem with people being machine gunned to death?
I must have missed something in the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #25
181. Ok
Quibbling point here


The M-16 A2 is not a fully automatic weapon. It is only capable of a three round burst. By that meeasure is the M-16 A2 NOT an assault rifle?


But that aside I think that the gun/anti-gun argument is a waste of time. The Democrats gain nothing by puruing this and it derails real issues dealing with the socio-economic roots of crime and violence. By deferring or ignoring the gun argument we defang the right and wipe out one of their supposed populist issues.

Shifting the debate on this forces the NRA to change its name to the NMGA or National Machine Gun Association.

Again I say stomp this issue out of existence and destroy the GOP's pseudo-populism once and for all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #181
189. The 1934 NFA doesn't really make that distinction..
If it fires more than one round per pull of the trigger, it falls under the definition of 'machinegun'. Doesn't matter if it's 3 round burst, or fires until the magazine is empty. (I guess the salient point being that even with a 3 round burst, the recoil from bullet #1 is going to make #2,3 go somewhere that you don't aim at as precisely.)

There are all kinds of 'interpreted' definitions established by the BATFE, that make it very unclear to even the average gun guy what constitutes a pistol vs 'AOW' vs 'SBR'. There are even decisions made by the BATFE that apply only to one brand / model of gun but not others (Thompson Contender comes to mind.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #189
194. right
but if you look the term wasn't 'machine gun' it was 'fully automatic.' The terms 'semi-automatic' and 'automatic' make sense to me.

But a bow to your knowledge of that particular arcane code of lay.


Again, I am not a gun-person though I do have a shot gun up north for hunting. I am not a fan of handguns or people keeping arsenals in their home. That said I believe this issue is a complete waste of time and it is long past time to drop it and focus on economic issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #194
195. *nod*
Even 'gun guys' go round and round trying to interpret BATFE arcana, sometimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
240. yes you can
i am a police firearms instructor

you most definitely CAN fire 98 rounds in a minute with ONE pistol.

i've done it myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #25
299. You can't argue with these sheep
They are clueless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #15
239. so fricking what?
i can fire 98 rounds in a minute from my glock pistol.

is this supposed to be significant?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. 2 of the cops were killed with a shotgun, not the AK.
He had the shotgun in hand when the cops busted in & used it to kill two of the three he murdered.


http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cit...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Thank God it was a shot gun and not some more dangerous type of gun.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Well, the shotgun is about as deadly as small arms get at close quarters
And Poplawski knew that. That's why he had the 12 gauge in his hands, and the AK stashed in another room as backup. The shotgun was the more certain man stopper. (That, along with less penetration risk, is why it is the best choice for home defense.)

I'm opposed to an AWB because I plan to buy an AR15 for service rifle competition (it's a bulleye target sport) and because I know friends who use them for hunting and recreational shooting. But as far as weapons go, the shotgun is definitely more deadly when its up close and personal.

I only pointed that out about the shogun being Poplawski's primary weapon because most people seem to be under the impression he was only using an AK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. Shotguns are used for hunting birds, skeet shooting and general sporting activities as well.
Not that it makes a damn bit of difference to the average guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. What're you getting at?
I'm sorry, I don't see your point. Yes, shotguns are the ideal tool for bird hunting, and of course skeet shooting which is a simulation of that form of hunting.

They are also they most immediately lethal small arm at close range.

Which just illustrates the fact that the person who commits the crime is to blame. If I bash a coworkers skull in with a stapler, is the stapler to be blamed? It is moronic to blame an inanimate object, but that seems to be a popular argument for further gun control.

Of course, the comeback is 'but a gun is designed specifically to kill'

damned right. so don't fuck with me, or my family. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
75. What are you getting at? Certainly not ways to reduce gun violecne, that is for sure.
All I see is splitting hairs and semantics over what gun was used.

I fail to see how this gets us closer to a solution. Maybe we would agree that some strict gun control advocates dont get us much closer either, but that is an argument for you to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #75
85. see #67 nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #85
90. See post 41. Your conservative gun absolutist allies don't have your back on that one.
If anything like that was ever to happen, it would be an action by citizens outside of the conservative gun culture.

Why cant you show us a solution that is actively supported by a majortiy of gun absolutists- as opposed to hypothetical solutions that few people are advocating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #90
95. I don't know what you're speaking of, but #67 is about US homicide rates
The US homicide rate in 2007, per capita, was not substantially different than it was in 1960. But in 1993 it was much, much worse. Although there is always room for improvement and I welcome a safer society (which we are getting, gradually, if you would actually look at the big picture rather than just the last months' headlines), I do not accept safety if it involves a tradeoff of liberty. Ben Franklin taught me that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #95
138. So you can't present a viable solution to gun violence that a majority of NRA types would support.
I'm glad that you "welcome a safer society" and that you can post BF quotes that are hard to disagree with- but you nor anyone else in the gun culture has presented single solitary viable counterbalance to or solution to gun violence.

I mean a solution/counterbalance that would recieve just as much support & cash as the pro-gun movement does- or one supported by the pro-gun movement itself.

I'm not arguing for a tradeoff in liberties at all- I'm pointing out that the gun culture as a whole is part of the problem, not part of any solution. If the people who hold the cards wont work towards a solution, things will get worse, and someday they will regret it when others hold the cards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #138
169. I can't say NRA would 'en masse' support it, but my solution is simple
end the drug war. that's it. would it eliminate all murder in this country? not at all. But I do believe it would significantly decrease it, simply because the black market and drug money that supports the gangs and cartels would dry up. The government, through taxation, would have ample money on hand for treatment of chronic addicts, meanwhile potheads could just be left alone to eat their snack and watch Blade Runner again in peace.

Urban gang violence, mostly drug related directly or indirectly, is a big part of the problem you seek to cure. It may disturb some to hear it, and by stating it I intend to imply nothing, but the government statistics will bear me out that of the 12,352 persons murdered with a firearm in the USA in 2005 (strictly homicide - not including suicides or law enforcement), over 6,700 were black. That's damned significant, since blacks make up about 13.5% of the US population. Unfortuately, the majority of those murders were likely gang/drug related (and if they were not, then that's a topic for another thread). You can confirm that statistic by running the appropriate reports here:

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Eradicating poverty, as mentioned above, would improve things to a great extent. I'm sure our President is working on that now, but the office of POTUS doesn't come with a magic wand. But eliminating the drug war, and removing the stigma of a felony conviction and prison sentence from the criminal record of millions of non-violent casualties of drug prohibition would go just as far in removing a major underlying cause of the extent of gun violence in the USA. Just my opinion of course.

That's me talking though, not the NRA. The NRA is a single-issue lobby group, and they do the job they are established to do rather well. If you don't like them have political clout in Washington, then be prepared to become an enemy of the 1st amendment as well as the 2nd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #138
215. It's not our job- and your posts on this thread are an attempt at forced teaming.
Edited on Fri Apr-10-09 10:01 PM by friendly_iconoclast
As well as typecasting. Straight out of the "Gift of Fear"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_Fear

http://www.kidpower.org/ARTICLES/boundary-lowering-tact...

Forced teaming...It is important to notice when someone with whom you have not chosen to be connected with talks as if you are together. Be careful when people try to connect by identifying you with them as an us and to separate you from others who are them. Remember what your relationship with this person truly is and is not.

Typecasting. Understandably, most people don't like to be labeled as being uncaring, unkind, thoughtless, selfish, paranoid, unfair, misusing their power, or ignorant. Someone might deliberately use negative labels to get you to react in the opposite direction. Watch out for comments like, You dont care, do you?....


"...but you nor anyone else in the gun culture has presented single solitary viable counterbalance to or solution to gun violence.

I mean a solution/counterbalance that would recieve just as much support & cash as the pro-gun movement does- or one supported by the pro-gun movement itself.

I'm not arguing for a tradeoff in liberties at all- I'm pointing out that the gun culture as a whole is part of the problem, not part of any solution...."


Since it's *not* axiomatic "that the gun culture as a whole is part of the problem", there's no
moral onus upon it.

You can't get what you want, so you suggest it's the duty of *someone you oppose* to fix it?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #29
242. i'd rather confront a guy with an ar.sks, or ak
than a frigging shotgun at close range.

shotgun is WAY easier to hit the target, chances are you are going to be hit by several rounds PER trigger pull, or if the guy is using deer slugs, you are totally fucked if you get hit.

shotguns are NASTY.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
59. I should remind you of HR 1022 (from 2007)
Introduced on the House floor by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, within the fine print of the legislation text, it effectively defined an "assault weapon" as whatever the Attorney General said an "assault weapon" was. Which meant that any rifle or shotgun could be reclassifed as "banned" with the stroke of a pen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TorchTheWitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
162. I don't think it would have mattered
Having guns in the house doesn't mean you're going to be ambushed. The information the cops had was that no guns were involved in the incident. No violence of any kind was involved in the incident. If they knew there were guns in the house, as the police rep said, the house woul dhave been approached differently, but regardless of that I don't think it would have made a difference or not much of one. They were called because the mother wanted her son removed from the house. She wasn't being threatened, and she wasn't scared. There was no abusive or violent disturbance in which guns would have been thought to have been involved even though there were guns in the house. Regardless if the 911 worker said there were guns in the house, I still don't see how they could possibly expected what occurred nor been prepared for it. They would have to have entered the house at some point anyway, and the shooter would still have layed in wait. Police had been to the house before on domestic calls and there wasn't any gun confrontations.

More than guns being said to be in the house what is more important is that the mother should have told the 911 worker that her son was a violent cop hating nut that was afraid his guns were going to be taken away and slept in his personal arsenal wearing a bulletproof vest. THAT info would have gone a long way in preparing the police for what they may have to deal with.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
48. two pistols
Both semi-automatic, a 9mm and a .45 caliber!

Got some other news for you, with gang bangers, skinheads, and criminals that the military was able to enlist, the cops on the street don't have any chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
112. The SKS isn't an assault rifle.
Nor is it an Assault Weapon, seeing as you can buy it in California, a state where Assault Weapons are not legal.

But you knew that, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #112
165. Yes, I corrected myself in a subsequent post.
I was confusing the terms "assault rifle", which these were not with "assault weapon", which they are. (He had both the SKS and a Bushmaster A-15.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #165
170. The AR-15 probably does qualify as an Assault Weapon, depending on how it's configured.
The SKS does not qualify.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
234. he had a SEMI-AUTO
version of an ak-47 type weapon.

not an actual fully auto ak-47

iow, his gun was no more effective than your average deer rifle.

actually less so considering the calibers used to shoot deer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
33. Possibly three
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 02:32 PM by X_Digger
If I recall, three of the recent spate of shootings were perpetrated with guns that may or may not have been different during the ban. They could have been ban compliant depending on the appearance- whether or not it had a telescoping stock, a flash supressor, bayonet mounting lug, etc (the '94 AWB didn't 'ban' many guns, rather it made manufacturers change the design of their guns slightly.)

Mixon: Fixed mag SKS (not covered by '94 AWB, unsure re Ca law)
Wong: 2 handguns
Poplawski: Shotgun, AK-47 pattern (might be covered depending on 'features')
Harrison: Rifle (not AW)
Kalathat: 2 handguns
Stewart: Rifle (not sure), shotgun, handgun
McLendon: SKS (not covered), AR-15 (might be covered depending on 'features')
Labeet: AK-47 pattern (might be covered depending on 'features')
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
233. i know plenty of dead cops
including my best friend.

shot in the head by a piece of shit convicted felon.

here's a hint. i still support civil rights, though

911 didn't justify throwing out civil rights. neither does dead cops.

also, i *know* that those with CCW's are a help, not a hindrance to law enforcement, and have a lower crime rate than practically any other demographic apart from married mormon grandmothers

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geomon666 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. The check must have cleared. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."
I'm glad she is framing it this way.

I think this might be the best route for DEMS:

"Hey- I'd love to do something, but the NRA just has too much power over us. You need to go after the NRA if you want more action on this..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. That's a smart way of putting it. "Sick and tired of dead cops? Tell the NRA!"
"Afraid you might get slaughtered in your workplace? Why don't you voice those concerns to the NRA."

etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #30
243. the NRA helps cops
i am a cop and a firearms instructor.

the NRA has done great things with promoting firearms safety.

unintentional shooting rates are at historical lows.

the NRA support concealed carry. this also helps cops. check out the crime stats of CCW holders.

i have been only helped not hindered by those with CCW's

one of my partners is only alive because a CCW'er shot a robber in the head while she and the robber were fighting over her gun

and the NRA supports the families of slain cops, and has helped raise money etc. for widows.

the VAST majority of cops i know support the NRA.

we know who the enemy is, and it aint the NRA

our enemies are scumbag violent criminals, and their apologists.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue97keet Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #7
32. Do the free-traders have a stranglehold on congress too?
There may be some more serious strangleholds out there than the gun lobby.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #32
38. Could be- why not start a topic on that?
Unless you are arguing that the free trade lobby is a counterbalance to the NRA, which I dont think you are doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doctor jazz Donating Member (474 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
204. She is an idiot and that statement is completely batshit nuts.
...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No More Bushbots Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message
11. Feinstein is a realist
She understands that the majority of the American public do not support more gun controls.
How about we start focusing on enforcing the laws that are currently on the books, first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. The majority of Americans do favor reasonable gun regualtions- but who can fight the NRA?
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 02:17 PM by Dr Fate
Most of the pro-NRA voters are concentrated in several key states- that is the issue. The gun issue will essentially be held hostage by these voters for as long as they want to hold out- or until public opinion finally jump starts a viable counter balance to the NRA.

As it stands-who has the power to "out gun" the NRA as to cash and influence? Nobody, that's who.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No More Bushbots Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
47. Except the NRA does not represent the majority of Americans
The majority of Americans support the Constitution, not the knee-jerk reactionaries that make up the anti-gun crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #47
80. Yet they have more influecne than any lobby's that would represent the majority of Americans.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 03:06 PM by Dr Fate
I'm not even sure most Americans have even read the constitution, much less support it.

We agree as to knee-jerk reactionaries- and I see them on both sides of this debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #13
99. We already have reasonable gun regulations.
1934 National Firearms Act, 1968 Gun Control Act - that's enough.

US homicide rate now, per capita, is about the same as it was in 1960. It's only about 2/3 what it was in 1993, when it was at its worst.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
12. THAT'S TOO BAD. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pfitz59 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
19. Feinstein has profited from gun violence!
She should be advocating tighter conrols on guns and harsher sentences for gun violance. If Milk and Moscone had lived she would have been a NOBODY! Shut up Dianne!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corruptmewithpower Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. Feinstein should talk to Pelosi before Pelosi starts a civil war.
Pelosi made it official to ABC: We want registration.

the Supreme Court has ruled in a very- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We dont want them crossing state lines...

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Exami...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShareTheWoods Donating Member (210 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
23. She finally admits gun control is a political tool only.
It's about time gun control and truth were in the same framework.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I agree- I think the DEMS should be very matter of fact about this. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I believe that they're holding funerals in Pittsburgh and Binghamtom today.
So, no, I would argue that this is not just about politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
31. Question: What is the Gun Lobby's plan to reduce gun violence?
I don't really care about what we are supposed call certain guns, or statistics for why communities can't be allowed to make their own choices as to reasonable gun laws- all I want to know is the PLAN for reducing gun violence.

I invent any poster in this thread who is siding with the NRA to tell us what the plan is to reduce gun violence. Make sure it is something that the conservatives who dominate the NRA and the gun lobby are actually trying to implement.

Oh yeah- and make sure it's something besides "buy a gun to protect yourself" or building more prisons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No More Bushbots Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #31
51. So you are against enforcing the law?
I hope that Anarchy thing works out well for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
67. Homicide by firearm in the USA is about 2/3 what it was in 1992-93
You're focusing on the media sensationalism of the past month to make the case that it's more dangerous now than ever. In fact, it's been getting much better, gradually, for over 15 years now.

Look at this chart and check out the murder rates:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

1960 US population 179 million .. Murders 9 thousand

1993 US population 258 million .. Murders 24.5 thousand

2007 US population 301.5 million .. Murders 17 thousand


per capita, the murder rate now is roughly equivalent to where it was in 1960. But in 1993, it was much worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #67
122. This should have it's own thread. People would be surprised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #67
175. Due to the aging of the (late) baby boomers
Having fewer men in their teens and twenties caused a decrease in all crimes, including murder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
74. Madatory yearly psychological evaluation for anyone purchasing semi-automatic weapons.
I'll just throw that out there to chew on.

The more powerful the weapons you own, the more closely you should be monitored.

How's that for a compromise between people who want to own guns and the people who don't want guns, but want to be safe from the people who own guns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #74
83. Aside from being wildly, astronomicly unconstitutional?
It's fine. :sarcasm: I'm sure also you'll be lining up for your government-mandated psych evaluation before using your freedom of speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. How so? Particularly, how is shooting a gun "freedom of speech"?
There are many so-called "rights" that we have to clear hurdles to achieve, particularly when it comes to receiving "permits" or "licenses" from the government in order to do so. Driving immediately comes to mind.

I'm just throwing this out there for discussion's sake. Why must firearms be forced on people in order to protect themselves from other people with firearms? That's the gun violence "solution" that is always suggested by gun advocates, but it's a solution that violates my right to NOT bear arms and is therefore invalid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #86
88. Actually, you might not have the right to 'not' bear arms.
According to the US Code, if you're an able-bodied male between 17 and 45, you are in the unorganized militia and in theory, the government can require you to take a gun and fight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #88
92. Nope, I'm a chick.
The right NOT to bear arms stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #86
89. Driving is a privilege, not a right.
You should've learned that when you got your license. Page one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #89
93. And felons are not allowed to own firearms.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 03:31 PM by Barack_America
So it looks to me like owning firearms is a bit of a privilege as well.

And you'll notice that I did not propose this for ALL firearms, just semi-automatics. Police and military recruits go through screening before they're given these weapons, why don't citizens?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #93
101. US Supreme Ct. disagrees with you. So does the Constitution.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 03:38 PM by FudaFuda
Perhaps you should try somewhere the constitution doesn't give its citizens the right to keep and bear arms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. The felons must be rejoicing.
They can have guns again.

Yay!

Where do I send them so they can thank you personally?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #102
103. not re: felons. I meant your assertion that firearms are a privilege.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #103
106. If everyone is not allowed to have them, how could they be considered a "right"?
If you can be denied a permit, how can it be a "right"?

Many states already have it on the books that mentally ill people are not allowed to have firearms, so it becomes just a minor *tweak* to the law that mental status must be ascertained prior to purchase of firearms.

My idea is crazy, but not as crazy as you might think. It's doable.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/17/6
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #106
136. It's as much of a right as voting
You can lose it by getting convicted of certain crimes.

Many states already have it on the books that mentally ill people are not allowed to have firearms, so it becomes just a minor *tweak* to the law that mental status must be ascertained prior to purchase of firearms.

Federal law already bars people who have been adjucated as mentally incompetent from buying firearms. It takes more than a medical opinion to deny someone that right, and that is as it should be IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #136
142. States have their own regulations too.
And the definitions they have for "mentally ill" or "mentally incompetent" vary.

That was the point of the link I provided.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/41/17/6
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #106
168. You don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater I guess that's a privilege too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #106
171. Actually, Felons and the Mentally Ill have a process by which
they can have their full rights restored. Not just around firearms either, Felons have processes by which they can have their voting rights restored as well.

So I don't see how this analogy holds up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #171
177. "Rights" are not always absolute.
The right to freedom of speech, the right to vote, the right to bear arms...all have their limitations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #93
244. felons aren;'t allowed to vote either
in some jurisdictions.

that doesn't make voting a privilege

hth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #86
126. Did you read my message?
Ownership of firearms is a constitutionally protected right, right beneath freedom of speech. And nobody is forcing anybody to own anything. If you're really feeling that put upon, I suggest that you look at the statistics which show gun violence has been going down for decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #126
129. Yes I did. But many states already prevent mentally ill persons from owning firearms.
So a mental health examination to comply with those laws is not as far-fetched as you may think.

Owning guns is a "right" according to the Constitution, but it is not a "right" available to all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #129
150. What I'm pointing out is that there's a slippery slope.
Yes, it's illegal for people who have in the past been considered not mentally competant to own a gun. And it's a good rule. But requiring someone to actively prove their sanity in order to exercise a constitutional right is a very dangerous precedent.

Assume you require psych tests for anyone who owns a gun. Then somebody who owns one, and seemed stable enough at the time snaps and kills somebody. So the reaction is, "Let's tighten the test, make it more active about screening people and disqualifying anyone who doesn't meet the criteria." Rinse and repeat. How far is that from allowing only people who meet a government approved definition of "sanity"? Okay, maybe it sounds good when you're denying gun ownership to, say, the militia types and neo-Nazis. What happens when somebody like Bush gets in office, and they start legally disqualifying people they don't like as not being sane enough?

Or apply it to speech. I can't count the number of times I've seen someone on here suggesting Hannity and Beck should be considered guilty of something for inciting their sheep to revolt. How about a sanity test for free speech?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #150
160. That's a very good point.
And yes, I definitely see there's a slippery slope there. That's why I'm not necessarily advocating it myself. I very much don't like the idea of having to "prove their sanity" as you wisely put it.

If I had to come up with a "solution" it would be a combination of combating poverty, addressing the mental health crisis in this country and allowing greater autonomy for municipalities to better tailor gun regulations to their individual community's needs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrightKnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #74
110. Almost all guns are semi-automatic and perhaps you need an evaluation. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #110
134. Personally, I think we all do.
Mental health awareness is a larger problem in this country than is gun violence (though there's a tremendous overlap).

The semi-automatic distinction was just for argument's sake.

Though it is a fact that many states have it in the books that persons with mental health issues cannot own firearms. And I am waiting (though not necessarily advocating) for the argument that people's mental health status should be evaluated before purchasing a firearm. All it's going to take is for someone exhibiting symptoms of a psychotic break, though with no documented history of mental illness, to be sold a weapon that is subsequently used in a mass killing. We came close with the Virginia Tech massacre, but that kid was still able to pass as sane when he purchased the weapons. It will happen though, and with the way the Right is riling up the wingnuts, it might happen very soon. Hell, it may have happened in Pittsburgh, we'll have to see how that plays out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #134
159. I think your POV is interesting and has some merit
A lot of crimes could be pervented by early identification of... ...Hey, wasn't there a movie about that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #74
173. extend that to mandatory drug/acohol tests
for anyone who buys a car?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #31
176. You stumped the panel with that one! ... eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #31
216. Why should the 'gun lobby' need come up with a plan?
Besides your assertion that it's morally incumbent upon them?

DeBecker's "Forced Teaming" and "Typecasting", yet again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NV Whino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
42. Wonder how much money she got from the NRA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xolodno Donating Member (310 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
43. Advocating gun control right now....
-Makes Glen Beck sound like he knew what he was talking about.

-Makes Sean Hannity sound like he knew what he was talking about.

-Gives a rallying point for Republicans.

-Won't effectively solve the problem. You can have all the damn laws on the books you want, but if its not enforced, doesn't do jack shit. How about enforcing the laws already on the books.

-Every republican in Congress is praying the Dem's will take up gun control....this poll may have something to do with it:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll /

You can discount it as a tool of the corporate media, but if you do that, I would assume no poll will satisfy anyone unless it says people are more pro gun control.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No More Bushbots Donating Member (192 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #43
56. By all means, put truth to the lie that Obama wants to take your guns
And be prepared to return to the times before the 2006 elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xolodno Donating Member (310 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #56
69. Precisely....
...It would set the stage for Jeb Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
57. The old ban was completely ineffective at reducing violent crime
That's why it wasn't renewed. It didn't even succeed at stopping the sale of things like semiautomatic AK-style rifles.

Renewing the old ban would be completely pointless. An expanded one would be political suicide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The abyss Donating Member (930 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
58. 
If Feinstein is making this comment to the press right now then she will probably be introducing the legislation within the next 60 days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jennicut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
60. I used to be for gun control back in the 90's but I am no so sure it really worked
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 02:48 PM by Jennicut
and I also get that its politically never going to fly in 2009. I was young back then in the early 90's, in my late teens and thought it was the right thing to do. I am not sure that banning certain types of guns work. The gun companies found ways around the laws and gun violence still did not really decrease. Many gun control advocates don't push it any more. I also think the problem is the culture of worshiping the gun and individual rights over caring about communities as a whole. There is not really a law that can address that. One more issue is this nutso fear that Obama will take all the guns away can be shoved back in the Rethugs faces with "see, he did not take your guns away and you and your followers are still acting crazy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
62. Feinstein should be voted out. She is a conservative Dem and...................
................especially in a state like California when her term expires, adios. She is against EFCA and there were a couple of other things that I can't remember off hand that really bother me about her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xolodno Donating Member (310 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. I'm expecting...
She might run for Governor next....and guess who will run for Senator.

Oh and this is California....anything can happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pattmarty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #68
140. Jesus, the whole fucking country is going nuts. I lived In Ill for 54 yrs.................
.................up until 2001 and there were some good ones there WAY before Blago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apr09 Donating Member (33 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
78. I think Feinstein favors gun control
What she argues is that many House Democrats are from pro-gun districts (unfortunately) and if they vote in favor of gun control they might risk losing votes from those gun-loving people.

And if that happens we might lose representatives to the Republican Party.

That is what I understood by her words in the cbs article.

At least she admitted that the NRA has a stranglehold on congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #78
82. It's her personal "mission"
She'll never let it go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #82
111. Should she?
Should we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #111
125. It's not a rational basis for public policy
I want a system of laws based on sound reason, not someone's personal emotional issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
96. When is the time dipshit Diane?
Such a sack of crap you've turned into.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #96
107. She's probably right on this one
Americans need to see MUCH MORE senseless violence- including more law enforcement deaths and a public official or two before thay're ready to admit just how dysfunctional their gun culture is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #107
164. Yup-- nothing like being the last fatality before folks wake the hell up...
May it not come to that, but with folks like this miscreant sicko around...it will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
98. "I'll pick the time and the place, no question about it"
Thanks for keeping the conspiracy alive for the wingnuts that Obama and the Democrats are going to grab their guns.

You just gave them another quote for their talking points Senator Feinstein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. Well if now is not the "time and place" after all the mass murders and cop killings...
we've experienced, I don't think that the wingnuts have much to fear. They'll all be raptured before we see anything done about gun violence in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #100
108. Especially when liberal gun owners like myself will join
them if any attempt is made to enact any gun laws like the do nothing AWB of 94. That law was mostly worthless in controlling gun violence. Why don't you go count the number of spree killings that occured while that law was in effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #108
109. You're assuming that I think that ban was the solution.
I do not.

My #1 issue regarding guns is that local municipalities should have the right to enact their own gun laws. I'm sick of seeing cops in Philadelphia get slaughtered because people in rural PA are afraid about stricter gun laws affecting their ability to be sportsmen. Different environments call for different gun restrictions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
appal_jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #109
118. How many other civil rights should depend on geography?
How many other civil rights should depend on geography?

I live in the rural south, and I sure am glad that the 14th (as well as the 1st, 4th, etc.) Amendment is just as valid and applicable here as it is in Philadelphia. Likewise, Philadelphians are going to need to work on their problems of violence and poverty without violating the 2nd Amendment. That's the deal we all get when we are part of a Federal Republic which has a Bill of Rights as a cornerstone of its system.

-app
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #118
120. Lol. Come up here and put on a badge and a uniform.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 04:38 PM by Barack_America
Then we'll talk.

FYI, if the theater is empty, you can yell "fire" all you freaking want. So, yes, your surroundings do affect what is interpreted as a "constitutional right". Courts have also upheld bans on firing guns within their city limits. Is that "unconstitutional"?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #118
146. Certain First Amendment rights do depend on geography. Ever heard of "Community Standards"?
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 06:18 PM by Dr Fate
It allows a community to determine what speech or expression is obscene/prohibitive or not. San Fransico has different community standards than Lexington South Carolina does, for instance.

I'm not saying this about you- but it is interesting that "states rights" conservatives are not very open to letting communities set their own fire-arm standards.

The problem with the poverty connection is that the conservatives who dominate and control the gun issue are opposed to doing anything about poverty in PA or anywhere else-in fact, they counter act and OPPOSE any such efforts- so it's not fair for you to place the burden on one side. If gun absolutists and their powerful lobbies would get on board with some SOLUTIONS to gun violence, there might be less gun violence and less talk about banning guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrCory Donating Member (862 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #146
161. Do You Also...
Respect the rights of states to prohibit gay marriage?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
104. No, instead we need a few thousand more unnecessary deaths.
We wouldn't want to jump the gun before enough people have died.

So, why does the NRA have a strangle hold? Or is it not a strangle hold, rather Democratic choking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #104
144. That is true- and the gun advocates will do nothing to prevent those deaths either.
Edited on Thu Apr-09-09 06:22 PM by Dr Fate
They are "shooting themselves in the foot" so to speak.

If the gun violence stories keep up for a few more years, I doubt the NRA will be as viable as they are now. Even red staters are going to stop listening to their arguments and statistics and will be able to implement short term proposals that gun advocates wont like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Celeborn Skywalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #144
153. There's less murder per capita now
than there was in last 35 years. There is probably more mass shootings, but that reveals more the collective psychology of this nation, not that we have too many guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
123. Maybe the panic buying will ease up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reggie the dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
128. in light of last years supreme court decision
what else can really be done at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
csibona Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #128
135. It is not so clear that NOTHING can be done
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smiley_glad_hands Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
132. We dont need gun control, we need THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
133. Anti-gun nut anyone? You'd think we would have learned about knee jerk reacting by now.
Do any of you ever check out the peoples lives that have been saved because of guns or is everyone who owns a gun crazy? Some of you lump all gun owners in the same basket as the crazies ...yea that's real balanced ...just as fair and balanced as Fox news. I know you won't bother to actually check out the news about people defending themselves with a legally owned gun. All you are doing is dividing the Dems here over your knee jerk reactions. Google "gun defense" and see who all has avoided death, rape and property loss with the use of a defense gun. You only see the national news about these killings but what you don't bother to look at are the local news stories.

This link should keep you busy unless you just want to stay ignorant.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.htm...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #133
143. So your solution to gun violence is more guns. What about people who have no interest in guns?
Seems like that is a knee-jerk reaction in itself- to say "Just buy a gun yourself, and then you have nothing to worry about."

Seems like the tactic is to give everyone no choice but to join the gun culture if they want to be safe- and I'm not sure that is what most people have in mind.

I'm seeing knee-kerk, reactionary arguments on both sides if you ask me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #143
151. Did I say that everyone should buy a gun for self defense? NO!
Can you keep it straight please. No point in reading into something that isn't there. I guess you'd rather everyone here who decided to own a gun for self defense should just say nothing as the other half turns this site into an anti-gun forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #143
152. Fair enough.
Do you have any ideas? Personally, I think it would be correct to somehow make NICS available to everybody, and mandatory to purchase a gun. Felons and mentally dangerous people would no longer be able to buy a gun out of the paper or at a garage sale. There still would be no registration side effect. I don't see why this hasn't been done already.

You offer good arguments against stuff. Do you have ideas how to fix stuff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:53 AM
Response to Reply #152
174. fix the wealth gap
or at least make it not so utterly obscene, stop making profit from crime with privatised prisons, end the drug wars - just for starters.

The US needs to look at why you kill each other at much higher rates than other countries, even those with comparable gun ownership rates. There is something DEEPLY wrong with your culture and it goes much further than gun availability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #174
251. Yep, that's a big part of the problem
But, like most problems, gun violence has many facets, each of which needs to be addressed, not just one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PittPoliSci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #133
188. citizens shouldn't be able to outgun police officers.
i don't think that was ever the intent of the founding fathers. it's time for you to get over your gun hard-on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #188
190. Actually, that's the intent.. or part of it.
Jefferson especially, saw civilian ownership of arms as a last resort means of keeping government in check. In Jefferson's day, civilian merchants even carried cannons on their ships.

I'm not advocating repealing the 1934 NFA that made those items highly regulated, just pointing out what was the prevalent thinking / situation at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PittPoliSci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #190
209. jefferson was also relatively alone in that opinion.
i'm not entirely sure it was prevalent. washington, and especially hamilton, valued order and stability over a state of permanent violence. think of the early rebellions that were quashed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #209
214. Point.. but
Hamilton was always a strong federalist (duh, I just realized how silly that sounded- wrote a majority of the federalist papers) in favor of a strong central government, and was always dubious to some extent about the militia- "What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen..". But even he saw a use for the average citizen in opposition to tyranny (along with insurrections and rebellions, to be sure)- "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

I read a good book a couple of years ago about the Whiskey Rebellion, I'll see if I can find the title.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PittPoliSci Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #214
229. cool. let me know if you find it.
i think a lot of this argument is just going to be open to interpretation anyway, but i wouldn't mind reading the book. hamilton is one of my favorite american figures, and i've always found lots of those early rebellions (Whiskey, Shay's, etc...) fascinating.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #188
257. We can't. Police officers have ready access to automatic weapons; non-LEO's don't.
Police departments have access to all U.S. legal civilian weapons AND restricted police/military only weapons that non-LEO civilians do not have legal access to.

If officers find themselves "outgunned," it is because the department restricts the use of civilian patrol rifles for PR or budgetary reasons, and most police SWAT teams could "outgun" a lot of military units in terms of equipment and training.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
149. That's correct. I'll pick the time and the place, no question about it," Feinstein tells Stahl.
Noted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 08:09 PM
Response to Original message
158. Not the time?
Given the news lately, I would think this is the time. Long past time, as a matter of fact...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-09-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #158
167. Let's see your plan
So we can shred it to little pieces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #167
210. If I was in charge, I would put it
to a fair vote. But I'm not in charge, unfortunately. If the people were in charge, I don't think special interests groups like the NRA would have a chance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #210
260. I'm fine with a truly fair vote
A vote by people who understand exactly what they are voting on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TEmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (356 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 10:09 AM
Response to Original message
178. the "right to bear arms" doesn't have to mean semiautomatics.....
I guess gun control falls in the same category as Gay marriage....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #178
191. Right. And free speech doesn't have to mean anything other than face-to-face speech.
But it does.

The Supreme Court ruled that the scope of the Second Amendment is "arms in common use for lawful purposes." If that covers ANY civilian guns, it covers semiautomatics, which constitute the vast majority of firearms sold in the United States annually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr. Hyde Donating Member (314 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #178
208. but "shall not be infringed upon" pretty much means "shall not be infringed upon". nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scrinmaster Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
182. Just as the 1st and 4th amendments shouldn't have been restricted after 9/11
The 2nd shouldn't be restricted now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
183. Over 50 fucking people have died in the last month.
Now IS the time for more gun control but the fucking piece of shit gun nuts won't let us.

How many more people have to die because of paranoid gun nuts? All you NRA apologists- THESE DEATHS ARE YOUR FAULT. Fuck you and your paranoid survivalist fantasies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scrinmaster Donating Member (563 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #183
192. 3000 people died on 9/11.
Therefore we need the Patriot Act, warrant less wiretapping, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #183
193. And about 1400 are killed each month by drunk drivers.
Wanna do something about that?

Do you think the murder rate in the USA today is as bad as its ever been?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #193
196. Yes. I would like to do something about that.
You don't?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #196
197. Yes, I do every day, by not driving drunk. I would also support ...
a law to modify existing automobiles, and to require all new automobiles, to have a tamper-proof breathalyzer installed to prevent ignition of the engine by a drunk. If the R&D cost is absorbed within the price of cars, it won't cost that much. Sure, there'll be some people who find a way around it and still manage to drive drunk. But we'd reduce drunk driving to a minimal percentage of current levels, and save 15,000 lives a year.

Sure, I'm all for that. That's a realistic life saving law we could actually accomplish.


Confiscating guns from millions of private citizens who live in a country with a Constitution that guarantees the right to own firearms - that'd get ugly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #197
198. You don't think that breathalyzer ignitions intrude upon our rights too much?
What do you think of "stop and frisk" policies inner cities use to find and confiscate illegally owned firearms? Or of officials stopping by homes with firearms to make sure all permits are in order?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #198
200. Driving isn't a right.
Owning firearms is. I know that's an oversimplification of the issue, but at the core, it IS an important distinction.

As for your 'stop and frisk' scenario, if I recall correctly a Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. So random stops on the street to seach for firearms are unconstitutional IMHO.

As for police stopping by homes to make sure permits are in order ... what permits? :rofl: My state requires no such thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack_America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #200
201. Both are regulated by the government.
Edited on Fri Apr-10-09 03:06 PM by Barack_America
And remind me which state you live in so I can avoid it.

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #201
202. West Virginia. Relatively low crime rate here.
We've got crime, but there are plenty of states doing worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #196
245. We did do something about it, we enforced drunk driving laws. The rate has been dropping.
And it will continue to do so. Likewise if gun laws are enforced or marginially strengthened (such as not allowing criminals access to guns and having stricter punishment for being caught with a gun), the same will happen.

It is no surprise that most killers are criminals to begin with.

It is impossible to stop "seemingly normal" people from doing something insane, however. Short of some sort of thought crime law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #196
332. if you handle the
drunk driving problem the same way you want to handle the gun problem you'll just pass laws to take car keys away from sober people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doctor jazz Donating Member (474 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #183
206. What's your proposal? I see a lot of breast-beating from gun grabbers but other than
let's just ban guns nothing of any value.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #183
213. In case you haven't noticed, the "typecasting" isn't working...
From Gavin De Becker's "The Gift of Fear"

http://www.kidpower.org/ARTICLES/boundary-lowering-tact...

TYPECASTING. Understandably, most people don't like to be labeled as being uncaring, unkind, thoughtless, selfish, paranoid, unfair, misusing their power, or ignorant. Someone might deliberately use negative labels to get you to react in the opposite direction. Watch out for comments like, You dont care, do you?...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
207. The response to this shows the mindset behind the Patriot Act's approval
Fear, hatred, untruths, and blaming the law-abiding for the actions of criminals, all in
support of infringing Constitutional rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blandocyte Donating Member (830 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-10-09 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
211. Eff guns. If we had 75% of them off the street
then a bunch of lives would be saved and we wouldn't seem like such a wild west "culture" to the rest of the world. Guns are a deadly embarrassment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #211
247. Even the Old West got it right . . ."Check your guns with the bartender" . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SlowDownFast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 04:02 AM
Response to Original message
223. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed"
is so hard for some DU'rs to understand?

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Un...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #223
226. What part of 'No Constitutional right is absolute" do you not understand? And what part of
Militia did the Roberts Court not understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #226
235. Settled law now, you'll just have to get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-11-09 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
228. Very good. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
246. When Democrats are in power, the NRA brings out the full moon . . .
Edited on Sun Apr-12-09 12:20 AM by defendandprotect
and dog-whistles to arouse the gun fanatics --

Remember Bill Clinton's first year in office?

How many gun nuts were outside the White House trying to shoot in --

Finally, some guy got a plane and flew it into WH nearby Clinton's bedroom--!!!

Remember Sen. Jesse Helms threat to Pres. Clinton ....

Helms said Clinton was so unpopular he would need a bodyguard on North Carolina military bases. Helms said he hadn't meant it as a threat.

It's always a full moon for the GOP and the NRA -- !!!




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primavera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
250. No, apparently it's never the right time for gun control in this country
And 80 Americans a day just go right on dying. Sigh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
252. It's also not the time for getting out of Iraq, or Universal health care,
or arresting BushCo for war crimes, or election reform, or reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, or breaking up monopolies, or National high speed rail, or real energy Independence through massive solar projects,or real education reform, or much of anything that would make any of our lives better, healthier, happier, longer, or more sane. Maintain the status quo at all costs! Keep the people scared and clinging to the delusional belief that their metal penis will keep them safe from "them", that way they won't act up like the French or Spanish who DEMAND better from their governments!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #252
265. Feinstein just realized that the DLC/Third Way program for gun control is a loser
Edited on Mon Apr-13-09 01:12 AM by friendly_iconoclast
A note for those unfamiliar with Sen. Feinstein's record:

She helped stifle most of those desirable things Lorien mentioned.
I would say it shows that someone who tells you something want to hear isn't necessarily your friend.

A question for readers: How much of Feinstein's corporatism did you tolerate because she
had the "correct" line on gun control?

And BTW, insulting 35-40% of the electorate in a representative democracy via sophomoric Freudian references is also an excellent way to make desirable things not happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cottonseed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
254. Good. I love guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
256. It's time to abandon the Democratic Party.
If they can't support the interests of normal, rational Americans, let them see if they can win without us. How long will they have their abortion and gay marriage if we find someone who will work for what we want?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #256
261. You're really saying that anyone who disagrees with you is abnormal and/or irrational
It's an ad hominem argument, devoid of meaningful content.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #261
266. So?
You're really saying that anyone who disagrees with you is abnormal and/or irrational


Politics ain't beanbag.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #261
268. On second thought...
You're really saying that anyone who disagrees with you is abnormal and/or irrational

It's an ad hominem argument, devoid of meaningful content.Text


On second thought, yes. I'm saying anyone who disagrees with me is abnormal and/or irrational. And, it's not "an ad hominem argument, devoid of meaningful content."

The rest of the First World, Western Europe and Japan, has strict controls on gun possession and do not allow military weapons to be freely distributed to the general population. Assuming the overwhelming mass of similarly situated humans to be normal and rational, anyone who isn't like them is, by definition, "abnormal and/or irrational."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #268
274. You still don't get it - The US doesn't allow unregulated sales of military weapons either
Educate yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #256
262. You were doing fine until you . . .
got into what looks like anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage area --

Why are you supporting Democratic Party if you support GOP issues?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #262
267. There's more to the Democratic Party than gay rights and abortion...
There's more to the Democratic party than gay rights and abortion and plenty of Democrats, me for instance, only support the Democrats on gay rights and abortion to maintain Party unity. If the Party abandons my interests, my sense of duty to the Party begins to wane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #267
270. So what you're saying is you're not an anti-abortion or anti-gay rights fanatic . . .?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #270
271. I'm not.
Edited on Mon Apr-13-09 12:18 PM by Joe Steel
I'm not.

What's your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #271
272. My point is that many who are anti-choice and anti-gay rights are fanatical . . .
enough to not vote for Democrats.

Do you disagree?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Steel Donating Member (337 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #272
273. I agree with what you said but...
Yes. I agree with what you said but it doesn't apply to me.

I would not vote against a Democrat because of a pro-Choice or pro-gay rights stance. I would withhold my vote if the Democrat was wrong on guns regardless of any other position. In fact, I have.

One year I had to choose between a Republican and pro-gun Democrat for Congress so I didn't vote for that office. The election before that, the choice was a pro-gun Democrat, a Republican and a Green. I voted for the Green.

Should I face that situation again, I wouldn't vote for the Democrat and would advise anyone who asked me for a suggestion to do the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #273
275. When you say . . . .
"pro gun," I presume you mean someone who votes an NRA agenda?

If so -- good for you!

Oddly enough, DU has quite a few pro-gun zealots here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #275
276. Half of gun owners are Dems and indies...
and we'd like to keep them, thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-14-09 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #276
277. And you think regulating guns means taking them away from you . . . ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #277
278. If by regulation you mean background checks and prohibition on possession by criminals, no.
If you mean banning the most popular civilian guns in America, including half the Title 1 civilian guns my wife and I own, yes.

If you mean outlawing magazines and spare parts for the guns we own, or the ability to legally purchase similar guns in the future, yes.

The problem is, the gun-control lobby isn't talking about regulation; we already have regulation. They want bans. Bans on the lawful purchase and responsible use of magazines with post-1861 capacities; bans on protruding rifle handgrips and flame dampers; bans on rifles that look too modern.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I am OK with most gun regulation in place (and I suspect you aren't fully aware just how much regulation does exist). I am not OK with new bans on currently legal civilian guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #278
279. So there is regulation you are not opposed to . . . ???
Edited on Wed Apr-15-09 12:43 PM by defendandprotect
If by regulation you mean background checks and prohibition on possession by criminals, no.

and, re this . . .

If you mean banning the most popular civilian guns in America, including half the Title 1 civilian guns my wife and I own, yes.

what about having a purpose for gun ownership -- ?
Should we permit people like David Koresh to stockpile weapons?
Should we permit guns which spray bullets or which are capable of machine-gun like action
in civilian society?

First, as far as I'm aware, this isn't true . . .

The problem is, the gun-control lobby isn't talking about regulation; we already have regulation. They want bans. Bans on the lawful purchase and responsible use of magazines with post-1861 capacities; bans on protruding rifle handgrips and flame dampers; bans on rifles that look too modern.

There are no regulations covering gun manufacture -- no regulations for locks on guns.
And, largely no penalties for guns which misfire, etal.
No penalties for corporations which make these "benign" weapons when states/cities have
to pay the costs for gun-woundings -- last I heard $35,000 per wounding.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I am OK with most gun regulation in place (and I suspect you aren't fully aware just how much regulation does exist). I am not OK with new bans on currently legal civilian guns.

As we learned long ago, we are not all safer when all of society is armed with weapons.
That's why we try to keep them out of schools.

Many new cases of shootings reported at DU which I haven't even had the stomach to catch up
with yet!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #279
280. Yes, there is.
So there is regulation you are not opposed to . . . ???

Yes, there is.

what about having a purpose for gun ownership -- ?

Meaning?

My purposes for owning guns are (1) defensive purposes and (2) recreational and competitive target shooting, just like the majority of U.S. gun owners. Would that disqualify me in your eyes?

Should we permit people like David Koresh to stockpile weapons?

Not if they've committed a crime or been adjudicated mentally incompetent. But there's such a thing as due process in this country.

Had, in fact, Texas law enforcement walked up to the door of that SDA commune with a warrant and asked Koresh to come downtown, as they had successfully in the past, they might well have arrested him and revoked his gun rights. Instead, the BATFE staged a paramilitary raid for the cameras (do you know that the BATF codename for the operation was "Showtime"?), somebody on one side or the other panicked, and it went downhill from there.

Should we permit guns which spray bullets or which are capable of machine-gun like action in civilian society?

We don't. Possession of the above outside of police/military duty or their suppliers is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #280
282. OKay . . . so regulation doesn't automatically mean taking away guns . . .
Re this . . .

what about having a purpose for gun ownership -- ?

Meaning?

My purposes for owning guns are (1) defensive purposes and (2) recreational and competitive target shooting, just like the majority of U.S. gun owners. Would that disqualify me in your eyes?


We are more than 320 million people -- I don't think we should judge this by what either you or
I personally deem qualified or disqualified -- I think we have to look at all of society and
what does harm.

Most American recreation/sport is based on BALLS -- baseballs, footballs, soccer balls, softballs,
bowling, ping pong, racket ball, tennis -- and unfortunately, even baseball bats have been used
to assault/murder people.

However, I think we should all be concerned when citizens feel the need for guns for "defensive
purposes." Whether those citizens fear government or fellow citizens suggests to me that we
need to do something about corrupt authority and criminal behavior rather than arming everyone.

Should we permit people like David Koresh to stockpile weapons?

Not if they've committed a crime or been adjudicated mentally incompetent. But there's such a thing as due process in this country.

Had, in fact, Texas law enforcement walked up to the door of that SDA commune with a warrant and asked Koresh to come downtown, as they had successfully in the past, they might well have arrested him and revoked his gun rights. Instead, the BATFE staged a paramilitary raid for the cameras (do you know that the BATF codename for the operation was "Showtime"?), somebody on one side or the other panicked, and it went downhill from there.<'/i>

Unfortunately, as poverty and insecurity increase in society, there is and will be more crime -
both first time criminals and those behaving incompetently and insanely.

While I agree with much of your second paragraph -- IMO, much of this goes on to increase fear
in society. These days it takes two or more police cars to issue a parking ticket.
However, my question was really about stockpiling.

Should we permit guns which spray bullets or which are capable of machine-gun like action in civilian society?

We don't. Possession of the above outside of police/military duty or their suppliers is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

Presume you mean these were banned in the last ten years or so and you don't have a problem
with that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #282
283. Thoughts...
Edited on Wed Apr-15-09 02:33 PM by benEzra
However, I think we should all be concerned when citizens feel the need for guns for "defensive
purposes." Whether those citizens fear government or fellow citizens suggests to me that we
need to do something about corrupt authority and criminal behavior rather than arming everyone.

It is not necessary to disarm the law-abiding in order to address corrupt authority and criminal behavior. I would point out that the states with the lowest murder rates in the nation (New Hampshire, among them) have high rates of gun ownership, yet low crime. Gun ownership by the lawful and responsible is not the problem, and never has been, IMO.

Address corrupt authority, the root causes of crime, and the fraying of the social safety net, and crime will go down. FWIW, the current murder rate is roughly half what it was circa 1980, so we're making progress, and the gun-accident rate has declined similarly.

Unfortunately, as poverty and insecurity increase in society, there is and will be more crime -
both first time criminals and those behaving incompetently and insanely.

While I agree with much of your second paragraph -- IMO, much of this goes on to increase fear
in society. These days it takes two or more police cars to issue a parking ticket.
However, my question was really about stockpiling.

Then we need to address poverty and insecurity. I think we can all agree on that.

Regarding stockpiling, the SDA's that lived with Koresh owned fewer guns per capita than the average Texan. Koresh himself was a gun dealer of sorts (I assume he must have been Federally licensed, or else he would have been charged with unlicensed dealing long before 1993), but other than that I don't think he had much of a "stockpile" to speak of.

(defendandprotect)
Should we permit guns which spray bullets or which are capable of machine-gun like action in civilian society?

(benEzra)
We don't. Possession of the above outside of police/military duty or their suppliers is a 10-year Federal felony, unless you obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4).

(defendandprotect)
Presume you mean these were banned in the last ten years or so and you don't have a problem with that?

No, they were placed under very strict controls 75 years ago (by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934) and banned 23 years ago (by the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986). I have no problem with them being Title 2 under the NFA, and while I think the Hughes Amendment was unjustified (only 2 lawfully owned automatic weapons had been used in a murder between 1934 and 1986, and one was by a police officer), I am not trying to repeal it.

All NFA Title 1 civilian-legal guns in the United States do not fire any faster than an ordinary pistol or revolver, i.e. they fire one and only one shot when the trigger is pulled, and will not fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. Guns that spray bullets when the trigger is held down, or that are easily convertible to do so, are Title 2 restricted under the NFA, and possession outside of police/military duty without Federal authorization is a 10-year Federal felony under the NFA.

You are probably thinking of the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, which didn't affect fast-firing Title 2 guns. The 1994 law affected only Title 1 non-automatic civilian guns, by requiring cosmetic alterations to post-1994 rifles using detachable magazines (e.g., civilian AR-15's or civilian AK lookalikes manufactured after 9/1994 had to have smooth muzzles and fixed stocks), but that law banned no guns, and had no effect whatsoever on rate of fire. My own civilian AK is a 2002 model.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #283
285. Rapid fire "recreation" . . . ?
However, I think we should all be concerned when citizens feel the need for guns for "defensive
purposes." Whether those citizens fear government or fellow citizens suggests to me that we
need to do something about corrupt authority and criminal behavior rather than arming everyone.


It is not necessary to disarm the law-abiding in order to address corrupt authority and criminal behavior. I would point out that the states with the lowest murder rates in the nation (New Hampshire, among them) have high rates of gun ownership, yet low crime. Gun ownership by the lawful and responsible is not the problem, and never has been, IMO.

Address corrupt authority, the root causes of crime, and the fraying of the social safety net, and crime will go down. FWIW, the current murder rate is roughly half what it was circa 1980, so we're making progress, and the gun-accident rate has declined similarly.


Why are you talking about "disarming citizens" when we are talking about regulating guns NOT
amounting to "taking guns away" . . . ?

Nor did I suggest that was what should be done --
What I suggested is that we should look at the sources of these fears -- often orchestrated --
and reduce fearmongering, crime and corruption in government.

Granted, poverty -- as I've also stated -- plays a large role in crime.
So does the fake drug war.

However, from what I constantly read, guns are the cause of much domestic havoc -- by purpose
or accident.

And constantly we read of children being killed because an adult close to them left a loaded gun
where they could get at it.


Regarding stockpiling, the SDA's that lived with Koresh owned fewer guns per capita than the average Texan. Koresh himself was a gun dealer of sorts (I assume he must have been Federally licensed, or else he would have been charged with unlicensed dealing long before 1993), but other than that I don't think he had much of a "stockpile" to speak of.


Again -- who knows what the overall purpose was -- ?? Simply to create fear?
Was everyone in the Koresh compound personally issued a gun, personally buying a gun?
Or was this Koresh stockpiling as was suggested.

You are probably thinking of the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, which didn't affect fast-firing Title 2 guns. The 1994 law affected only Title 1 non-automatic civilian guns, by requiring cosmetic alterations to post-1994 rifles using detachable magazines (e.g., civilian AR-15's or civilian AK lookalikes manufactured after 9/1994 had to have smooth muzzles and fixed stocks), but that law banned no guns, and had no effect whatsoever on rate of fire. My own civilian AK is a 2002 model.


Colin Ferguson certainly did a lot of damage --

Why wouldn't we want to get such weapons out of circulation?

What possible "recreation" or "self-defense" could possibly require these guns?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #285
286. Ferguson used a handgun..
Edited on Wed Apr-15-09 06:38 PM by X_Digger
I know, I know, McCarthy got up and waved around a lot of weapons in the wake of her personal tragedy, but the rifles you're talking about aren't involved in the Long Island shooting. Police officers and CCW holders most often carry a similar weapon every day.

Colin Ferguson certainly did a lot of damage --

Why wouldn't we want to get such weapons out of circulation?

What possible "recreation" or "self-defense" could possibly require these guns?


There is no need to justify what a particular firearm is useful, it's up to those who wish to move the line to justify why it should be moved. To that end, ALL rifles (scary looking or not) are used in <3% of homicides. They fire the same rounds as less utilitarian hunting rifles, have the same 'action' as older hunting rifles- ie, one pull of the trigger, one round fired. To move a line based purely on emotion, not on fact seems arbitrary, condescending, and/or dangerous.

Again, in reference to your title: these weapons fire no faster than any other semi-automatic hunting rifle- one finger pull at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #286
288. You wouldn't be trying to be evasive, would you? Because that would
Edited on Wed Apr-15-09 07:59 PM by defendandprotect
make your debate look bad ---

Whatever Ferguson used was more than a pistol -- and enabled him fire repeatedly without

reloading -- presumably a clip?

And, yeah, we are all fooled by McCarthy -- !!!???

And, why would gun control concern itself with what police officers are using or not?

In fact, when the population is less armed, then police can be less armed.

Firearms are't "useful" except for killing unless you're kidding yourself!

I certainly neither asked for "justification" -- I asked an honest question about "recreation" --!!!

And why we would want such weapons as used by Ferguson in circulation among the public?

Unfortunately, I think you have to face the fact that many of us are "emotional" about killing

and murder!

Thanks --- nice talking with you . . . I think!















Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #288
289. All pistols and revolvers "fire repeatedly without reloading."
Whatever Ferguson used was more than a pistol -- and enabled him fire repeatedly without reloading -- presumably a clip?

Pistols and revolvers "fire repeatedly without reloading." That's how guns work.

Here is the model of gun that Colin Ferguson used:



Ruger P-89 9mm, at the time one of the most popular civilian pistols in America, and used by plenty of police departments as well.

Like practically all pistols, it uses a magazine. (BTW, a clip is a device sometimes used for inserting ammunition into a magazine or into the cylinder of a revolver.)



Left, clip; right, magazine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #289
292. Whatever gun Ferguson had gave him the ability to create a great deal of damage . . .
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 10:39 AM by defendandprotect

Whatever Ferguson had gave him the ability to not have to reload and to create a great

deal of damage. That's clear.

Again, we constantly hear about the "sport" of shooting -- where is the sport?

If the animal had a gun, maybe it would be a sport?

There is no benefit to society in putting weapons like this on the market.


Just a thought on "sport" --- and "recreation" --

LBJ used to take male guests out on his Texas ranch to hunt --

But he took them out in the middle of the night -- up into a tower he had built --

and when everyone was ready, he would flip on floodlights -- and the deer caught in

those floodlights would be their "sport" for the day!


Again, I think we need more discussion here of sport and recreation with guns.

And certainly the Ferguson type gun should be "controlled" unless someone has a specific

reason for owning one.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #292
294. You own the chemicals used to blow up the london transit
system. Now are you making bombs with them? If yes then you should not have them. If no, then carry on.

The vast majority of law abiding gun owners are happy with reasonable regulations.

Stupid shit like the above "give cause" is what kills majority positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #292
298. The same as any other civilian gun, though. It was not some super-weapon, merely identical
to what your local police officer carries on her hip.

Whatever Ferguson had gave him the ability to not have to reload and to create a great

deal of damage. That's clear.

Again, we constantly hear about the "sport" of shooting -- where is the sport?

If the animal had a gun, maybe it would be a sport?

There is no benefit to society in putting weapons like this on the market.

How do you propose to take them from 50 to 70 million people, many of whom would actively resist confiscation?

Instead of the Don Quixote routine, one could instead focus on the root causes of crime and violence. People who are socially connected and feel they have a stake in society don't do what Ferguson or the VT shooter did.

Just a thought on "sport" --- and "recreation" --

LBJ used to take male guests out on his Texas ranch to hunt --

But he took them out in the middle of the night -- up into a tower he had built --

and when everyone was ready, he would flip on floodlights -- and the deer caught in

those floodlights would be their "sport" for the day!

Again, I think we need more discussion here of sport and recreation with guns.

John F. Kennedy didn't, and JFK was far more of a gun enthusiast than LBJ was (Kennedy owned an AR-15, among other guns).

The majority of gun owners don't own guns primarily for sport or recreation. Those things are a side benefit.

And certainly the Ferguson type gun should be "controlled" unless someone has a specific

reason for owning one.

The "Ferguson type gun" is called an ordinary 9mm pistol. My wife has a specific reason for owning one, as do I and 40-50 million others.

BTW, a 12-gauge (.729) shotgun will fire eight 9mm projectiles, or a dozen .33 caliber projectiles, with every single pull of the trigger. What do you think about the legality of those?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #288
290. Maybe I misunderstood you..
Edited on Wed Apr-15-09 10:30 PM by X_Digger
I thought you were responding to benEzra's quote..

You are probably thinking of the 1994 "assault weapon" ban, which didn't affect fast-firing Title 2 guns. The 1994 law affected only Title 1 non-automatic civilian guns, by requiring cosmetic alterations to post-1994 rifles using detachable magazines (e.g., civilian AR-15's or civilian AK lookalikes manufactured after 9/1994 had to have smooth muzzles and fixed stocks), but that law banned no guns, and had no effect whatsoever on rate of fire. My own civilian AK is a 2002 model.


when you said..

Colin Ferguson certainly did a lot of damage --

Why wouldn't we want to get such weapons out of circulation?

What possible "recreation" or "self-defense" could possibly require these guns?


benEzra was definitely talking about rifles, so by mentioning Ferguson I thought you were _also_ talking about a rifle.

The '94 AWB didn't affect handguns too much (limited magazine capacity, not quantity of magazines. A competent shooter can change magazines in about 2.5 seconds, the fastest in <1s.

Whatever Ferguson used was more than a pistol -- and enabled him fire repeatedly without

reloading -- presumably a clip?


A magazine, actually- the handgun that Ferguson used had either a 10 or 15 round magazine. The 15 round magazine would have been prohibited from sale (at least new stock was) during the ban. But Ferguson had time to reload in the panic, so I'm not sure what bullets #11-15 could have done that bullets #1-5 from the next magazine wouldn't have accomplished, 2-3s later.

And, yeah, we are all fooled by McCarthy -- !!!???

And, why would gun control concern itself with what police officers are using or not?


The point is that police offers and most folks who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon use a pistol very similar in function to this one. What Ferguson used was not exotic or especially dangerous compared to what others (including cops) use.

In fact, when the population is less armed, then police can be less armed.


Agreed. Now how does that happen? Certainly not via legislation on magazine size or cosmetic features on rifles.

Firearms aren't "useful" except for killing unless you're kidding yourself!


Killing (people) is one use, yes. Killing (animals) is another. Killing (paper / tin cans / plastic soda bottles) is another, and is probably the most popular by sheer numbers. Only 20% of gun owners hunt, and most people who carry concealed will never have to actually use them. Does not having to use one to defend one's own life make it not useful for that purpose? No more so than not hauling furniture in the back of a pick up truck makes it not useful for that purpose.

I certainly neither asked for "justification" -- I asked an honest question about "recreation" --!!!

And why we would want such weapons as used by Ferguson in circulation among the public?


You asked:

What possible "recreation" or "self-defense" could possibly require these guns?


and I responded that thinking like that is not logical when it comes to government decision about the legality of one weapon versus another. The government, or state, has to show a compelling interest in why a particular weapon is unsuited to legal use.

But since you asked nicely, for rifles, I use my AR-15:


to hunt- last year I hunted javelinas in Arizona. The light weight makes it easier to carry with lots of other gear, the low recoil makes it easy to get a follow-up shot in case I only wound, and the adjustable stock means I can use the rifle from multiple positions (sitting, prone, standing, etc.) That same rifle is used in target shooting. With the scope removed and the stock collapsed, that same rifle is good for home defense- shorter length is useful in a house, and the .223 caliber round is less likely to penetrate more walls in my house than other rounds.

For pistols, I use my 1911:


mostly to kill a lot of paper. I've participated in local competitions, but I'm not as good as some of those guys. When I'm driving the back roads of Texas with loooooong stretches of empty road, it's part of my emergency preparedness kit.

And why we would want such weapons as used by Ferguson in circulation among the public?

Unfortunately, I think you have to face the fact that many of us are "emotional" about killing and murder!


The biggest reason to have weapon such as those used by Ferguson in circulation is because-- people like Ferguson have them. I'm not aware of a way to put that genie back in the bottle, unfortunately.

I agree that we're all emotional about murder. I just don't like legislation based on emotion instead of facts. That's how we got the patriot act, warrantless wiretaps, and Iraq.

Thanks --- nice talking with you . . . I think!


Always fun to talk about important subjects! Thanks.

eta: fix picture link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #290
291. Actually, over-10-round pistol magazines were readily available during the non-ban...
since manufacturers produced a several-years supply prior to the law's enactment. So the effect of the law was to raise prices on full-capacity pistol magazines, but not curtail their availability. My wife bought a 15-round magazine for her Glock in 1996 or 1997.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #285
287. Here's the type of gun that Colin Ferguson used:
Colin Ferguson certainly did a lot of damage --

Why wouldn't we want to get such weapons out of circulation?

What possible "recreation" or "self-defense" could possibly require these guns?

Here's the gun Colin Ferguson used:


http://guns4u.info/?p=1136

It fires no faster than any other civilian pistol or revolver.

The self-defense application should be obvious (after all, plenty of police departments issue them for that purpose). As far as recreation, shooting paper or steel targets with handguns is just about tied with shooting paper/steel targets with rifles as the most popular shooting sport.

As to why we wouldn't want to get these guns out of circulation? Well, because 40 or 50 million of us own them, and would like to keep them. The only circulation I'd be interested in getting them out of is the criminal black market, and you most assuredly won't accomplish that by driving the legitimate, regulated gun market underground.

BTW, just in case you thought Colin Ferguson used a modern-looking rifle instead of a pistol, here's the answer as to what "recreation" applications involve so-called "assault weapons", as I've posted elsewhere. Remember, these rifles are NON-automatic and fire no faster than a regular pistol or revolver.

F-class (long range) precision competition, 300 to 1200 yards:



...for which the AR-15 platform's excellent accuracy and very light recoil make it well suited.


Camp Perry style target competition (restricted to iron sights only):




IPSC/USPSA carbine and 3-gun (the circle I compete in, FWIW):




And hunting (with a Remington R25 in .308 Winchester, since a .223 AR-15 isn't powerful enough for deer):




Or me just plinking playing cards at 150 feet with my AK at the range:




For defensive purposes, a small-caliber carbine is a very good alternative to the traditional home shotgun; more precision, far less recoil, and better capacity, while still offering less penetration in building materials than typical handgun rounds.


What they are not commonly used for is murder:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html


or to attack police officers:

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/artic...


though you'd never know it from the way the MSM presents the rare outlier as the norm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #287
300. I must be mistaken then . . . Colin Ferguson murdered no one . . . I'm corrected.
What they are not commonly used for is murder:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html


or to attack police officers:

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/training/artic ...


though you'd never know it from the way the MSM presents the rare outlier as the norm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #300
306. I was talking about so-called "assault weapons" (modern-looking non-automatic rifles)
which you seemed to think Ferguson used, and which the media paint as very commonly misused (but they're not).

Ferguson didn't use an "assault weapon"; he used an ordinary civilian pistol, and one that was neither large caliber nor high capacity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #306
308. It was perfectly clear what I was saying . . .. that what Ferguson used . . .
gave him the chance to slaughter many.

And whatever that weapon was is no benefit to society.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #308
317. "That weapon" was a 9mm pistol, like most police USED to carry
before many departments decided they weren't powerful enough for police work and upgraded to .40 S&W.

ANY civilian firearm can be used for the purpose for which Ferguson used his. And if you want to take weapons like that out of society, you are indeed talking about taking people's guns. From ~50 million people, at that.

You don't seem to quite grasp that Ferguson didn't use an unusual firearm; he used one of the most common firearms of all. You don't get much more mainstream than a 9mm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #308
335. what gave him the opportunity
was he picked a place where he was sure to find a plethora of defenseless victims. They had no where to run and no way to fight back. It was like clubbing baby seals.

Ferguson wasn't anywhere near as effective as Julio Gonzalez who killed 87 folks or Jack Gilbert Graham who killed 44 and neither of them fired a shot.

Cuban born Gonzalez came to the United States in the 1980 Mariel boat lift. Ten years later, in a fit of jealousy, he killed eighty-seven partiers. Pissed off at his ex-girlfriend, Lydia Feliciano, who was dancing with someone else, Julio bought a buck's worth of gasoline and torched the Bronx's Happy Land Social Club killing nearly everyone inside. Only six survived. As luck would have it, one of them was lucky Lydia, his ex-girlfriend.

Jack, a petty criminal, was always annoyed by his doting mother. In 1955, when she came to visit him in Denver, Jack gave her a Christmas present to take back home with her on the plane. The present, fourteen pounds of dynamite with a timer in a box, blew up shortly after takeoff. This, he said, made him feel freer than he had ever felt before. It also got him gassed in 1957.

Gasoline and kitchen timers are arguably not useful to society either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #279
281. show "purpose" for gun ownership?
Edited on Wed Apr-15-09 01:24 PM by X_Digger
what about having a purpose for gun ownership -- ?
Should we permit people like David Koresh to stockpile weapons?


Do you need to show why you shouldn't be arbitrarily searched any time a cop feels like it? No.. Do you need to show a purpose for a jury trial? No..

If "people like David Koresh" stockpile weapons _legally_, then yes, have at it. (You do remember that the initial problem with Koresh was that he broke laws concerning firearms, ya?) That's the thing about rights. They apply to everyone, even those you don't like.

Should we permit guns which spray bullets or which are capable of machine-gun like action in civilian society?


Explain how 'machine-gun like action' works. Would that mean one pull of the trigger, one bullet? You mean like all the semi-automatic hunting rifles, pistols, and shotguns? Cause otherwise, full auto weapons are already highly regulated and almost non-existent in crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #281
293. The concept of a stated purpose/or need for a weapon -- i.e., license . . .
As far as I'm aware -- pre the right wing politization of the NRA --

people were issued licenses to carry guns.

People are regularly being searched -- at airports, down to their shoes.

Cars are now open to search just about any time at check points.

This concept of "enemies" and creating fear and panic in the public has been

going on for decades.

Ignored however is the reality that one of the first things that happened in

New Orleans was that guns were confiscated!

There is no benefit to society in any individual or group being permitted to

stockpile weapons. In fact the founders well understood the threat of a standing

army to democracy.


What guns do ordinary citizens need for "sport" or "recreation" -- ?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #293
296. Any 22 rifle can be used to create a mass casualty
A single shot bolt action rifle can hit a target at 500m. A shotgun can be made from a piece of pipe. You start banning legal weapons and you will find that people will begin to manufacture real "assault rifles" ie machine guns. They are not complex to make and there are millions in circulation outside the us. Right now the demand for them is low. Do some dumb shit and that will change.

Do you plan to make criminals of millions of people and have a successful outcome. Prohibition was a wonderful success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #296
301. Again, the NRA insanity prevails . . . REGULATION is not taking guns away . . .
we've already had that admitted above . . . by another poster.

Also the bullying is very NRA-familiar -- !!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #301
304. You want proof of need for "furgeson" gun
who makes that call? What defines need and types of weapons? Again your approach is a round about ban.

What EXACT regulation do you propose. Please give a reasonable example.

You cant label everything you dont like "NRA" and expect to be treated like an adult.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #304
309. WE ALL MAKE THAT CALL ....not the right-wing NRA .....
We all make that call as I said above -- based on a benefit or a detriment to society.

NOT what benefits the NRA and its insane agenda -- and NOT what benefits right-wing
fanatics.

If anyone answers the question honestly as to whether or not they want to be the next
citizen at the mercy of someone with a gun with the same capability as that used by
Ferguson, I think any sane human being would say "NO."

The NRA is based on well-financed hatred, ignorance and fear -- and like all right-wing
propaganda ... it works. It has also worked as a well-financed machine to take out
progressives and liberals over the last decades.

And -- I presume that's what you're supporting?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #309
316. I presume you read the constitution
maybe not yet in social studies class? Once you finish up your drug ban, I mean get rid of every illegal drug in the US. You feel free to follow up with guns.

Until then you are smoking a big fatty crack rock if you think you can ban legal firearm ownership. Handguns are not going to be banned any time soon. 100 year old technology.

Get off the nra bullshit, put you bible down and quit fuckin preaching son.

I am an adult and appreciate a certain level of snark and condescension. You are missing the low water mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #309
321. You're right, we all make that call. And the overwhelming majority
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 09:40 PM by benEzra
believe we have an individual right to own handguns, although it may be revoked if one commits a felony (just like your voting rights or your right to peaceably assemble may be revoked if you commit a felony).

BTW, you might find it easier to have civil discussions with people who hold the majority view if you didn't use the terms "insane," "fanatical", and "right wing" to describe those who support the right to choose with regard to handgun ownership. Even the (repub) head of the Brady Campaign doesn't support a handgun ban, although I suspect he probably would if he thought he could get away with it politically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #301
307. What if my "need" for a "Ferguson gun" (aka ordinary pistol) doesn't pass your criteria?
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 06:20 PM by benEzra
Do I keep it, or do you take it?

This is my 9mm, FWIW, which I chose because of its accuracy, reliability, safety features, and small size:



Yes, that is a Ladysmith. Higher quality pistol than the regular S&W 3913's, and slimmer to boot due to the single-side safety.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #307
310. It should be up to the public to decide and Congress -- not the right-wing NRA . . .!!!
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 07:53 PM by defendandprotect
Let's hear what your "need" is for a FERGUSON GUN . . .
Where you are planning to take it?

Can you take it on an airplane after telling the Pilot why you "need" it?

And . . . .

This is my 9mm, FWIW, which I chose because of its accuracy, reliability, safety features, and small size:

this kind of display which quite frequently happens in threads like this also needs commenting upon.
Like the "teabagging" that went over the Repugs heads . . .
I'd suggest to you that this is just another "look at my penis" contest.


:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #310
313. Umm, my 9mm would be a clitoris, not a penis, but I understand your desire to frame it sexually.
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 09:33 PM by benEzra
(benEzra)
This is my 9mm, FWIW, which I chose because of its accuracy, reliability, safety features, and small size:



(defendandprotect)
this kind of display which quite frequently happens in threads like this also needs commenting upon.
Like the "teabagging" that went over the Repugs heads . . .

I'd suggest to you that this is just another "look at my penis" contest.

Umm, my 9mm would be a clitoris, not a penis, but I understand your desire to frame my choice to own it as psychosexual rather than rational. It allows you to avoid the cognitive dissonance that would result from accepting that someone can actually look at the issue of gun ownership and choose differently than you do. But, in doing so, you skipped right over the fact that my 9mm is a "lady's gun" and I chose it, among other attributes, for its small size. But nice try.

Let's hear what your "need" is for a FERGUSON GUN . . . Where you are planning to take it?

I keep it a home for defensive purposes, I am licensed to carry it out and about (and do), I take it with me on long road trips, and I shoot competitively with it (USPSA, Limited 10 class). Which is pretty much covers what most civilian pistols are used for.

What does your local police officer need a "Ferguson gun" for? Because that's what she/he carries, too. What you are calling a "Ferguson gun," most rational adults call "pistols" or "handguns."

Can you take it on an airplane after telling the Pilot why you "need" it?

Yes, I can take it on an airplane (and have), and I didn't have to tell the pilot. I just have to unload it, place it in a hardside case per FAA regulations, declare it at the ticket counter, attach the FAA required tag, the ticket agent and/or TSA person verify all is as it should be, and it goes in my luggage in the baggage compartment, with ammunition for use at my destination. People fly with handguns and ammunition all the time.

It should be up to the public to decide and Congress -- not the right-wing NRA . . .!!!

It is. The public, and Congress, have decided. The fact that they have chosen differently than you would does not invalidate the choice.

In excess of 70% of Americans, AND the U.S. Supreme Court, AND the majority of Congress, hold that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of law-abiding adults with clean records to own handguns, rifles, and shotguns for defensive purposes. You may not like it, and you do not have to agree with it, but that is the overwhelming majority opinion and it is consistent with American practice since the 1600's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #310
331. prior to 1986
pilots flying the mail were REQUIRED to be armed. All through the 50's and 60's many airline captains routinely kept a gun in their Jepp bag. The FAA did not take away the authority from an airline certificate holder to arm its crews until after 1986.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #293
297. A few responses..
As far as I'm aware -- pre the right wing politization of the NRA -- people were issued licenses to carry guns.


People are licensed to carry guns concealed. In many states, it's perfectly legal to carry one on your hip openly.

People are regularly being searched -- at airports, down to their shoes. Cars are now open to search just about any time at check points.


I can choose not to fly- they're not out randomly searching people on the pretext that they might fly someday.

At road checkpoints, police must have probable cause, or at least reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, is about to be committed, or is being committed.

Ignored however is the reality that one of the first things that happened in New Orleans was that guns were confiscated!


That's making my argument for me- they went door to door confiscating weapons from residents- yet they missed the weapons that many of the looters carried. How'd that work out for them, eh? In the wake of that, many states passed laws prohibit police from doing the same again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #297
302. NRA is pushing "concealed" weapons for everyone . . . good for the nation???
Right and the NRA is evidently pushing "concealed" weapons for everyone--!!!

That's, of course, not what I'm talking about --

Licensing was based on a firm need previously.


Checkpoints are very Homeland Security -- and drunk driving laws now make checkpoints

common. As I said previously, it's common now for there to be two police cars for a

traffic ticket! Nor do they need "suspicion" to ask to search your car.


What looters? As far as I saw it was police doing the looting.

And if you were "black" your gun was going to be taken immediately -- after they shot you!

This is the kind of insanity which continues to build fear in those who turn to guns.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #302
303. Not sure of the point you're making, can you clarify?
The NRA isn't pushing for everyone to carry concealed, but they are pushing to make sure that everyone who wants to (and has a clean record, no history of mental committment, etc) can.

Open carry (openly carrying on your hip) was _never_ made illegal in many states, it's not a new phenomenon, either.

Nor do they need "suspicion" to ask to search your car.


ASK? No, they can ask. They can't FORCE you to comply to a search without reason. Last time I was stopped in a DUI / insurance check, I declined a search and the officer handed back my documents and waved me on. Fancy that!

re Nola, a friend of mine from college went back to grad school at LSU and had family in Nola. His mother was robbed at gun point in the aftermath, and both his and his mother's cars were broken into repeatedly. If you really want to know what happened there, don't rely on the media, talk to some of the refugees who resettled elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #303
311. You're saying the NRA is ensuring that EVERYONE who wants a concealed weapon can have one . . .
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 08:08 PM by defendandprotect
but that the NRA agenda isn't to move legislation for concealed weapons!

The NRA isn't pushing for everyone to carry concealed, but they are pushing to make sure that everyone who wants to (and has a clean record, no history of mental committment, etc) can.


A thinking interlude is required there, IMO.

"Open carry" was limited even in the Old West -- "Check you gun with the bartender."

Open carry (openly carrying on your hip) was _never_ made illegal in many states, it's not a new phenomenon, either.


And in many circumstances in modern times the gun had to be declared or turned over --
Certainly on airlines, for one -- and presume courthouses, for another. We don't permit
today guns in schools or courthouses and in most government buildings. Why?


Nor do they need "suspicion" to ask to search your car.

ASK? No, they can ask. They can't FORCE you to comply to a search without reason. Last time I was stopped in a DUI / insurance check, I declined a search and the officer handed back my documents and waved me on. Fancy that!

re Nola, a friend of mine from college went back to grad school at LSU and had family in Nola. His mother was robbed at gun point in the aftermath, and both his and his mother's cars were broken into repeatedly. If you really want to know what happened there, don't rely on the media, talk to some of the refugees who resettled elsewhere.


First, I responded to counter your suggestion that they need "suspicion" to search your car --
And I stated that they first must "ask" . . .

Yet, obviously, many feel intimidated enough to give them permission when asked.
For many police officers, merely denying permission would be "suspicion."

I don't think you can suggest established policy by your one experience. Rather, we have
much evidence to the contrary. For instance, are you "white". . . and/or female?

We have KKK type law enforcement across the nation -- in many of our states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #311
318. It's about choice.. you wish to limit them to what you say I 'need'.

When it was pointed out that you don't get to choose what rights I _need_ to justify, you went off in another direction.

"Open carry" was limited even in the Old West -- "Check you gun with the bartender."


As a private property right, sure. When you come in my house, I can regulate your behavior to a degree that the government can't, or ask you to leave. Your point?

And in many circumstances in modern times the gun had to be declared or turned over -- Certainly on airlines, for one -- and presume courthouses, for another. We don't permit today guns in schools or courthouses and in most government buildings. Why?


The cynic in me answers: "So that crazies intent on doing the most harm know exactly where to go to make sure nobody will be able to stop them from killing many people." The rational in me, though, says that buildings that screen entrances with metal detectors and limit access are fine to be 'gun free'- you know that if security is 100%, _nobody_ will have a gun. Until you can wave your magic wand and make that happen at every school and college, I'll still argue that it's a false sense of security (as demonstrated by Columbine, the nursing home in NC, Virginia Tech, etc.)

First, I responded to counter your suggestion that they need "suspicion" to search your car --
And I stated that they first must "ask" . . .

Yet, obviously, many feel intimidated enough to give them permission when asked.
For many police officers, merely denying permission would be "suspicion."


Are you being disingenuous, or do you not remember what you said upthread?

People are regularly being searched -- at airports, down to their shoes. Cars are now open to search just about any time at check points.


The assertion that I read from that is that the 4th amendment isn't relevant because you can be searched just about any time at check points. (Remember, this subthread started with me asking whether or not you'd be happy with other protected rights being subject to you having to 'justify' them.)

Apparently you're cool with that. Me? Not so much.

For many police officers, merely denying permission would be "suspicion."


They'd have to go before a judge and say so- and have tried that- and failed- and been sued-

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705274012,00....

Which leads to the next point-

We have KKK type law enforcement across the nation -- in many of our states.


And the best way to stop them is NOT to let them get away with it. Know your rights and exercise them (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,..). I was stopped for speeding many times in my youth, and never consented to a search. A few times it pissed off a cop who _might not_ have written me a ticket, but by standing up to them, I let them know that at least one person that day understood their rights and refused to be intimidated.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #318
323. I want the public and Congress to decide on gun control . . . as they have---!!!
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 10:13 PM by defendandprotect
You continue to try to make this YOU and ME --

It's not . . . it's about the nation. It's about the public deciding. It's about Congress
deciding. And, again -- they have decided that gun control is the way to go!
I'm for that!


And states can "regulate" your behavior in regard to guns, just as the Federal government can.

And in many circumstances in modern times the gun had to be declared or turned over -- Certainly on airlines, for one -- and presume courthouses, for another. We don't permit today guns in schools or courthouses and in most government buildings. Why?


The cynic in me answers: "So that crazies intent on doing the most harm know exactly where to go to make sure nobody will be able to stop them from killing many people." The rational in me, though, says that buildings that screen entrances with metal detectors and limit access are fine to be 'gun free'- you know that if security is 100%, _nobody_ will have a gun. Until you can wave your magic wand and make that happen at every school and college, I'll still argue that it's a false sense of security (as demonstrated by Columbine, the nursing home in NC, Virginia Tech, etc.)

So you are saying that YOU, yourself, fear people with guns??????????????

Aha ---


Go check what I said about CARS . . . .

What I am saying is that your paranoia is misplaced! That your confidence is misplaced!
That your trust in law enforcement as always being just is misplaced -- and naive!

What other "protected rights" . . . give me something specific.



For many police officers, merely denying permission would be "suspicion."


They'd have to go before a judge and say so- and have tried that- and failed- and been sued-

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705274012,00 ....


I don't think you know much about police enforcement as it is usually carried out.

We have women being strip searched and held in prison for a traffic violation!

We have women being raped after being stopped by police officers!

We have people of color not only in fear of being stopped on our highways but in fear

of police brutality!

And, I think if you reflect on our FISA laws and the Geneva Accords you will come up with the

understanding that not all things happen as they are supposed to!!!


We have KKK type law enforcement across the nation -- in many of our states.

And the best way to stop them is NOT to let them get away with it. Know your rights and exercise them (1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th,..). I was stopped for speeding many times in my youth, and never consented to a search. A few times it pissed off a cop who _might not_ have written me a ticket, but by standing up to them, I let them know that at least one person that day understood their rights and refused to be intimidated.

Maybe you want to give that advice to anti-war protesters and whistleblowers?
Police are being told that anyone citing their Constitutional rights should be looked at with
suspicion!

Now how might it be that so many across the nation are facing violence from police --
and you seem to be totally unaware of it?

If you are driving while "white" ... if you are driving while "male" . . . you're probably
fairly well OK. But who knows? Officer Volpe in NYC was snorting crack from off of his
dashboard on the night he sodomized Abner Louima with a broken stick/broom handle.

And, let's face it, it's impossible to have what's going on in drug running without corruption
of high officials and police enforcement.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-17-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #323
327. Yes, the public have..
Recent Gallup polls show:

70+% agree that an individual has a right to own a firearm
70+% are against banning handguns
51% think that gun regulation should be kept as is or made less strict

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-L...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-S...

It really amazes me how you can be 'oh noes, the fergusons!' in one sentence, then 'oh noes, the copz!' the next, yet in neither case do you think that being armed is an appropriate response. If you don't want to fight tyrannical cops or crazies, at least have the courtesy to step aside for those who will.

And just so you know, I was 'driving while poor'- I grew up in rural appalachia, a strong union supporter in coal mining country. My grandfather was a UMWA organizer at Maetwan and War Eagle, my father was a union captain in Hurley, Va. I grep up walking a picket line, handing out sandwiches & coffee, and helping my mother the nurse patch up those miners that cops decided had 'looked at them funny.' Confrontations with state troopers wasn't strange to me or my peers. Go ahead and tell me how being white and male makes my experience useless some more.

This is the house my grandparents lived in until 1996 when my grandfather died from 'black lung':


And this was the coke oven where my dad spent many of his productive years giving his health for just enough money to get by:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #302
305. I hold a North Carolina carry license.
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 05:55 PM by benEzra
To obtain it, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, mental health records check, have my fingerprints run by the FBI, take a class on self-defense law, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range (live fire), and spend a considerable amount of time at the sheriff's office.

Licensing was based on a firm need previously.

No, previously licensing was based on your wealth/status, political connections, and/or donations to the reelection campaigns of local officials.

Now, in most states, it is based on whether or not you qualify under the objective criteria set forth by state law, not whether or not you are the sheriff's fishing buddy or the have more zeroes in your net worth or can tell a good story.

it's common now for there to be two police cars for a traffic ticket! Nor do they need "suspicion" to ask to search your car.

Not around here in eastern NC. The last time my wife and I were stopped (2004), the officer knew I was a CHL holder before he approached the vehicle, because my vehicle is flagged as such in the NC license plate database. Hence, he knew I was an FBI and NC SBI Certified Good Guy, and not a felon-on-the-run a la Lovelle Mixon, and was totally nonchalant.

He walks casually up to the driver's side window and asks for my wife's driver's license/registration (she was driving).

I pipe up with: "Excuse me, I'm required by law to inform you that I am a carry license holder and have a firearm."

Officer (not looking up from license and registration): "OK, where?"

Me: "There."

Officer (glances up to see where I'm pointing, then back to checking the vehicle registration): "OK, thanks for letting me know."

Officer turns his back, walks back to his car to run my wife's license, came back and gave her the license, reminded her to come to a full and complete stop next time, and wished us a good day.

BTW, an officer can ask you to consent to a search anytime, but they have to have probable cause to search without your consent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #305
312. And if Ferguson had a license everything would have been OK?
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 08:28 PM by defendandprotect
I hold a North Carolina carry license.
To obtain it, I had to pass a Federal background check, state background check, mental health records check, have my fingerprints run by the FBI, take a class on self-defense law, pass a written test on same administered by the sheriff's office, demonstrate competence with a handgun on a shooting range (live fire), and spend a considerable amount of time at the sheriff's office.


What does all of that mean . . . ? That you'd never kill anyone? That you never become
emotional? Never lose your head? Never drink too much? Never argue with your spouse?

The question is . . . how does your having a gun benefit society?




Licensing was based on a firm need previously.

No, previously licensing was based on your wealth/status, political connections, and/or donations to the reelection campaigns of local officials.

Now, in most states, it is based on whether or not you qualify under the objective criteria set forth by state law, not whether or not you are the sheriff's fishing buddy or the have more zeroes in your net worth or can tell a good story.


Very few people were licensed to carry guns -- were all diamond district workers wealthy? No.
Were all private detectives wealthy? No. Were all plain clothese detectives wealthy? No.


it's common now for there to be two police cars for a traffic ticket! Nor do they need "suspicion" to ask to search your car.

Not around here in eastern NC. The last time my wife and I were stopped (2004), the officer knew I was a CHL holder before he approached the vehicle, because my vehicle is flagged as such in the NC license plate database. Hence, he knew I was an FBI and NC SBI Certified Good Guy, and not a felon-on-the-run a la Lovelle Mixon, and was totally nonchalant.

He walks casually up to the driver's side window and asks for my wife's driver's license/registration (she was driving).

I pipe up with: "Excuse me, I'm required by law to inform you that I am a carry license holder and have a firearm."

Officer (not looking up from license and registration): "OK, where?"

Me: "There."

Officer (glances up to see where I'm pointing, then back to checking the vehicle registration): "OK, thanks for letting me know."

Officer turns his back, walks back to his car to run my wife's license, came back and gave her the license, reminded her to come to a full and complete stop next time, and wished us a good day.

BTW, an officer can ask you to consent to a search anytime, but they have to have probable cause to search without your consent.


Don't want to be unkind, but evidently you don't see yourself as an "insider" . . .

and perhaps bragging about it? :eyes:

Ever wonder how many people don't get tickets when they are stopped for failing to properly
STOP at a stop sign?

And what if someone else had been driving your car? Would the officer's "nonchalance" have
paid off?

Unfortunately, the Drug War has given police enforcement both new avenues for corruption and
new excuses to invade privacy. There's a lot of money these days for police departments in
confiscating assets. It is presumption of guilt which is largely causing TWO police cars to
respond in a small NJ town to a traffic violation stop.

And, again, for many . . . saying NO to a request for permission for the car to be searched
can create suspicion in the mind of an officer. Unfortunately, in many states police harassment
and police brutality are facts of life!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #312
320. More thoughts...
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 09:22 PM by benEzra
And if Ferguson had a license everything would have been OK?

Ferguson didn't care about licensure, because he didn't give a flying crap about whether it was legal to carry a gun without a license. He carried one anyway.

Those who do bother to obtain carry licenses statistically have a lower rate of gun crime than even the police do---not because having a carry license makes you nonviolent and law-abiding, but because generally only the nonviolent and law-abiding would bother (e.g., selection bias due to self-selection). There are a few bad apples, but statistically CHL holders are among the most law-abiding and nonviolent segments of society.

What does all of that mean . . . ? That you'd never kill anyone? That you never become emotional? Never lose your head? Never drink too much? Never argue with your spouse?

No, I'd never kill anyone unless it was to stop them from hurting me or my family.

Yes, I've been emotional on occasion. No, I have never "lost my head," if by that you mean become violent (I'm 38 and have so far avoided so much as a fistfight, outside of Isshinryu classes). Drink a Mike's Lemonade on occasion, but have never been drunk; otherwise, my wife wouldn't have married me, as her anti-gun father was an abusive alcoholic. And yes, my wife and I have argued, but we have never hit or threatened each other, much less grabbed something to use as a weapon.

If you think violent, abusive behavior is normal for post-adolescents to engage in, then I don't know what to say. But I would point out that most people with severe impulse-control disorders have done enough to bar themselves from getting a carry license.

The question is . . . how does your having a gun benefit society?

From the standpoint of society, my ownership of my firearms, or my wife's ownership of hers, neither harms nor helps. From the standpoint of my family, it helps (since I am not in a risk group for suicide, have a safe, and train with the firearm, it provides a net safety benefit).

One could argue the merits of having an armed populace vs. a disarmed one with regard to relations with the government (see The Federalist No. 46 for Madison's thoughts on that), but I will point out that the "us vs. them" attitude such as was exhibited by your local police seems to be worse, in my experience, in jurisdictions in which they are expected to "keep the 'civilians' in line" than in jurisdictions in which they are expected to protect and serve their fellow citizens. One cannot lay all that at the feet of NJ's draconian gun restrictions, but they certainly do add to the mentality of dividing civilians into a warrior class (police) and a subservient class, instead of realizing that we're all civilians, that we're all equal before the law, and there is no class regardless of occupation that should be "more equal than others."

The encounter I had with a police officer was polite not because I am an "insider" (I'm assuredly not, I'm a technical writer and a geek), but because most police in my area are like that with people they see as productive citizens. I'm sure there are exceptions, and I'm sure that there are some police who might treat a person of color less well than I was treated, but in general the police-public relationship here is a lot less adversarial, and a lot more "we're in this together/all on the same side."

BTW, a friendly warning for a first traffic offense is not uncommon here. I take it from your poste that the New Jersey State Police are less forbearing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #320
322. The question is . . . why permit these guns . . . . ?
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 09:52 PM by defendandprotect
they are a danger to society.

It doesn't matter whether Ferguson cared or not -- what matters is the gun is being
manufactured and he had access to it.

And now that you mention it, how many police officers have shot themselves accidently?
How many have used their guns to commit suicide? How many have killed their wives?

You're evoking a Catch 22 reasoning here --
Let me suggest that what we need to do is stop producing guns like this.
If someone wants to make one, fine.
We also have to have to have stronger controls in every state -- so that no state is
a stopping off place to buy guns, legally or illegally.

Again, it is costing Americans $35,000 or more per gun wounding!
Many children are losing their lives to guns left around by supposedly responsible adults!

No, I'd never kill anyone unless it was to stop them from hurting me or my family.

And, you mightn't make a mistake about someone's intent?

The idea isn't to cross-examine you, personally. It's to get you thinking about these
questions in regard to other gun holders. Can you really vouch for ALL of them?

First, despite the continuing attempt to make juveniles a great threat to the nation,
the fact is that they are more peaceful a population than adults -- especially MALES who
are the most violent among us.
Am I wrong in supposing that they are also the majority of gun lovers?

Further, people with mental illnesses have no greater impulse to violence than the rest
of the population --- about 5%.

The question is . . . how does your having a gun benefit society?

That's just the point . . . TODAY, you have no impulse to suicide. Today you and your
spouse are loving. And you are at the moment gainfully employed. I presume you have the
combination to your own safe? Again -- these questions should be asked in general of ALL
gun owners.

If the owners had seen a value in an "armed populace" . . . they wouldn't have put the opening
clause in the second amendment!

Meanwhile, it does still say "protect and serve" on the sides of our police cars --
but NJ is one of the states which went under Federal monitoring for racial profiling on our
highways.

In fact, anywhere you look these days, our national police enforcement looks more like Gestapo
than "public servants" . . . !

I have never felt personally threatened by our police enforcement in my town or on our
highways. However, most of us are aware that racial profiling was rampant -- and very
violent at one point, while we hope that it is ebbing out. At one time, every car I noticed
stopped on the Garden State Parkway had a driver "of color." And their treatment was always
visibly harsh.

And, no, these days -- especially near the end of the month when the towns/counties need
money -- there are a lot of police stops visible on the GSP.

Friendly warnings used to be common everywhere. There is certainly often a push to get
local and state police to ticket. In fact, we have a situation like that in our town simply
with parking tickets to the point where the numbers are mind-boggling given the population.
Plus all the parking costs have been greatly increased. This followed the town rising up
to stop a corporate plan for multi-deck parking!!! They spent $100,000 and more on this idea
over a two year period, pushing it. Finally the Republican Mayor decided to move to another
town!

They've also just had to settle a law suit with a female officer who had been sexually
harassed by the Captain!!!! Almost $400,000 there!!! And, who knows how much in lawyers
fees!? She also happened to be a person "of color." And he "white" and married!

I'm not a prude about this at all, but reflecting how humorous it is on the one hand.
The Captain has moved on to a good position in a nearby town!
And we're left with the expenses!





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #322
324. Thankfully I do not live in NJ.
most of my neighbors are refugees however..

I design and sell high end machine tools. The equipment I sell can be used to make wing components and control surfaces for Brazilian jets, cut impeller parts for petro industry. Machines can scan a part and reproduce it, any where in the world.

Making an AKM, M4, or a SIG is a very easy thing. Right now there is no demand for illegal machine guns.

If some moronic ban comes online there will be. So now normal people who have replicas will have military issue weapons.

Amend the constitution or stop this silliness. The folks who decided to ban alcohol were not lazy jerks, they actually followed the rules. They paid the price in epic failure.

There are plenty of laws on the books that prevent all the shit you list. Some people just choose to ignore those laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #324
325. There are lots of things wrong with law/police enforcement everywhere . .. espeically DC--!!!
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 10:25 PM by defendandprotect
So NJ isn't exceptional --

Airlines are going to be threatened -- and are now -- by peak oil which is pretty much
upon us now.

Obama is building high speed railroads -- which will obviously need machine work/parts.

How disappointed would you be if the Ferguson gun was no longer available?

However, I'm sure people are working on atom bombs -- the underlying problem is making
the world a safer place. Most of us don't want violence or war. But those who profit
from it do.

Prohibition isn't a good idea on any issue --- regulation and control however do work.

Unfortunately, the people who chose to ignore some of our most important laws are in
DC and in police enforcement!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #322
326. It's not a question of "permitting" them; we already own them.
Edited on Thu Apr-16-09 11:19 PM by benEzra
The question is . . . why permit (handguns). . . . ? they are a danger to society

It's not a question of "permitting" them; we already own them. You seem to be suggesting taking some or most of them away, which is a different matter entirely. We will keep them, Congress has spoken, the Democratic Party platform recognizes the right to own them, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that banning them is unconstitutional.

(benezra)
No, I'd never kill anyone unless it was to stop them from hurting me or my family.

(defendandprotect)
And, you mightn't make a mistake about someone's intent?

Possible, but not all that likely. Unlike police, we non-LEO's are not required to interject ourselves into the middle of other people's interpersonal conflicts without knowing the circumstances. If someone pulls a knife or a claw hammer on you, points a gun at you, or kicks in the door of your home in the middle of the night and confronts you instead of leaving when he/they find the home is occupied, their intentions are clear enough.

FWIW, here are the criteria under which the use of potentially lethal force constitutes justifiable self-defense (quoting from Steve Johnson, Concealed Carry Handgun Training, North Carolina Justice Academy, 1995, pp. 3-4), and these criteria would apply in pretty much every state.

(1) Justified Self-Defense

A citizen is legally justified in using deadly force against another if and only if:

(a) The citizen actually believes deadly force is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(b) The facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault, AND

(c) The citizen using deadly force was not an instigator or aggressor who voluntarily provoked, entered, or continued the conflict leading to deadly force, AND

(d) Force used was not excessive -- greater than reasonably needed to overcome the threat posed by a hostile aggressor."


(Emphasis added.)

Note that ALL FOUR conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable. Most states also allow the use of potentially lethal force to stop a "forcible felony" as defined by statute, i.e. rape, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc.

First, despite the continuing attempt to make juveniles a great threat to the nation, the fact is that they are more peaceful a population than adults -- especially MALES who
are the most violent among us.

The most violent demographic in society are males aged 17-24, particularly those who have not been socialized into adult roles and have prior criminal records.

The majority of gun violence in this country is committed by people who already may not legally possess a gun, not by those who own guns legally.

Am I wrong in supposing that they are also the majority of gun lovers?

If you want a civil discussion, please ease up on the pejorative terms. If you were debating someone who is pro-choice on abortion, would you call them an "abortion lover"? I have not once called you a "gun-o-phobe", a "gun grabber", or a "zealot"; please return the favor.

To answer your question, about two-thirds of lawful U.S. gun owners are male, and one third are female. Roughly half are repub, and the other half are Dems and indies. Those over 25 own guns at higher rates than those younger, and those with higher education are more likely to own guns than those who have not attended college; disposable income is probably a factor there.

The question is . . . how does your having a gun benefit society?

That's just the point . . . TODAY, you have no impulse to suicide. Today you and your
spouse are loving. And you are at the moment gainfully employed. I presume you have the
combination to your own safe? Again -- these questions should be asked in general of ALL
gun owners.

No, I don't have to speculate; I know. My wife and I have been through some pretty serious trials, I think. Our 10 y.o. son is chronically ill and we have almost lost him twice, and believe me, we have faced the abyss, both in our marriage, economically, spiritually, and our personal lives, came very close to both bankruptcy and divorce, and have come through it a little scarred but more or less on top. Our indomitable son not only survived but is doing well in spite of daily challenges, we finally were able to get Medicaid for him (the fact that Medicaid is denied to sick children if their parents have jobs is ridiculous, and don't get me started on insurance companies), we avoided bankruptcy by the slimmest of margins (I even had to pawn a rifle once to pay for gas to take my son to an appointment at Duke Children's Hospital), and yet the guns in our gun safe didn't kill us or whisper in our ears to turn violent. To the contrary, the zen of going to the range when we could afford to was a stress reducer, and still is.

BTW, I would point out that the U.S. suicide rate is lower than that of the UK, Canada, most of Europe, and Japan, despite our abysmal mental health care, rich-poor gap, and lack of a social safety net. Restricting guns, even near-absolutely as in Japan or the UK, does not reduce overall suicides; our rate would have to increase to match that of gun-banning nations.

If the owners had seen a value in an "armed populace" . . . they wouldn't have put the opening clause in the second amendment!

Who, exactly, do you think constitutes the "militia"? That's the populace. The entire male populace between adolescence and old age, if you run the numbers Madison gave in The Federalist No. 46, and modern jurisprudence would extend that to include women as well. Also, who owns "the right to keep and bear arms"? The militia, or the same people as in the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment? Read the 2ndA again...

You are correct in that the Founders wanted a well-drilled militia as a counter to the military power of the government. A necessary prerequisite to that, of course, is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed by said government, and that right predated the Bill of Rights.

I would suggest reading D.C. v. Heller, and also acquaint yourself with Federalist No. 46, the Militia Act of 1792, and Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.

Meanwhile, it does still say "protect and serve" on the sides of our police cars --
but NJ is one of the states which went under Federal monitoring for racial profiling on our
highways.

It's wierd that I've only traveled through NJ a few times, usually on the way to or from Boston Children's, and I got that vibe a little even though all I've ever seen of your state are the Jersey Turnpike, the Newark Airport, a couple of Days Inns, and the highway rest stops. The people we met there were all friendly, however (contrary to popular stereotype).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FudaFuda Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #302
330. US homicide rate is down sharply since CCW started, so yeah
I don't know what else you could look at to reach a different conclusion. The number of criminal offenses committed by concealed carry permit holders is exceptionally low. Maybe their lawfulness is only motivated by a desire to keep their CCW permit, but what difference does it make so long as they contribute to a lowered crime rate? The murder rate in the USA has been declining sharply since the early 90's when the CCW movement began. Compared to the peak in 1980, the homicide rate in the USA now is less than 60% of what it once was, and is nearly as low as it was over 40 years ago.

I don't agree with you that the NRA is 'pushing concealed weapons for everyone.' But even if it was, the stats don't show how that is creating any problems - in fact just the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
258. "The National Rifle Association essentially has a stranglehold on the Congress."
WOW. :wow: That says it all. So fucking break the stranglehold, Congress, and cut your puppetmaster's strings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-12-09 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #258
263. NRA has a lot of right wing money to target elected officials . . .
and they have long been doing just that --!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benEzra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-15-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #263
284. I would point out that 80 million concerned voters probably weigh much more
than any NRA donations. I think the election of pro-gun Dem Jim Webb over NRA-endorsed George Macacawitz Allen in 2006 is a case in point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
armodem08 Donating Member (186 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
264. I have an idea...
How about we stop saying what we can't do, and start WORKING on what we can get done. While Diane Feinstein may be correct that the political atmosphere precludes reintroducing the ban, why is she wasting time talking about it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-13-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #264
269. She won't let go
It's her personal mission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-18-09 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #269
328. She didn't care about the Democratic party in 1994, and could care less now.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knixphan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
295. I'll be backing her primary opponent-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
315. I don't agree but understand the strategery
GOP would love for Dems to step on a culture war landmine to draw attention away from economic apocalypse their ideas created.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steven johnson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-22-09 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
334. Don't disarm citizens- the road to tyrrany
Edited on Wed Apr-22-09 05:48 PM by steven johnson
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed; and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Noah Webster. 'An Examination of Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution.' 1787
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 17th 2019, 03:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC