To all Gun Control Advocates: Let's say you get your wish on an extended magazine ban .......

[Pullo]

Poll question: To all Gun Control Advocates: Let's say you get your wish on an extended magazine ban .......

..... and maybe the closing of the so-called "gun show loophole" too.

That's it, right? We pro-RKBA supporters shouldn't be concerned with more restrictions on our 2A rights being imposed. Correct???


Do we have a deal?

[RandomThoughts]

1. I dont make deals

[customerserviceguy]

5. Unless they involve beer and travel money. n/t

[RandomThoughts]

11. that is not a deal nor a request

it is a statement of fact of a debt due. no strings, no deals.
Why would I deal for it, it is due.

[Callisto32]

42. WHOAH!?

Debt due?

How the hell do gun owners owe anybody anything?

[customerserviceguy]

86. Don't worry, it's "RandomThoughts"

He doesn't make sense to me most of the time, either. But I do find him entertaining.

[RandomThoughts]

92. I wasn't talking about gun owners specifically

I was talking about the beer and travel money due to me, and people keep posting thread topics that are off topic.

I am due beer and travel money, and many experiences.


Blinded by the Light by Manfred Mann's Earth Band
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg8cDmi7-U8

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. I'm thinking less beer may be in order. n/t

[RandomThoughts]

100. I am literally talking about beer and travel money.

You would have to be metaphorically speaking about that in some form you are not explaining.

Your statement has no meaning. Once I have the beer and travel money that is due to me, then I will decide if I should have more or less beer.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

119. I'm thinking you've had too much beer, or something, already.

And why is beer money due you, BTW?

[Katya Mullethov]

121. A Sense of Entitlement

It's a human right .

[customerserviceguy]

87. Now, I wouldn't give you travel money

But I would buy you a beer, just for the kick of having one with you.

[RandomThoughts]

91. Thats a kind thought, thanks

:D

[customerserviceguy]

122. You're welcome

Somehow, it just wouldn't be DU without ya!

[lawodevolution]

2. lol, the silence is enough to explain it. After step 1 comes step 2 then step 3......total gun ban.

[obxhead]

4. A total gun ban is an unreachable illusion.

The only total ban that is possible is a ban on legally owning guns.

[PavePusher]

41. Now, now...

don't go throwing all that reality on people...

[4nic8em]

17. Aw, come on everybody...

Don't you know that it's every legal gun owners constitutional right to be able to shoot a 9 nine year old girl in the face, on a whim, just for fun?

(for those that need this, see below)

sarcasm

[bluestateguy]

3. They won't be satisfied until all guns are banned

That is, banned for the little people (you and me). They think only the police and the military should have guns, and for a progressive to suggest such a thing is downright appalling.

You give these people the laws they want and then they just start demanding more and more.

[bluescribbler]

13. I don't want to ban all guns.

I have no problem with deer rifles. I have no problem with double barreled shotguns. I have no problem with sportsmen in general, be they hunters or target shooters. I have no problem with a law abiding homeowner or businessman in a high crime area owning a handgun. Perhaps you can tell me how any of those I mentioned would need an assault weapon with a magazine which holds 31 or more rounds? Perhaps you can tell me why he should object to a background check, (so we can be certain that the citizen is law abiding, and is not mentally unbalanced) before he gets the weapon?

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. +1

[TheWraith]

18. I have no problem with someone owning an econobox, but why does anyone need a sportscar?

I have no problem with someone owning a typewriter for their free speech, but why would you need a computer unless you plan to trade child pornography? In a free country, you don't have to demonstrate why you "need" something in order for it to be legal, you need to be able to demonstrate a compelling reason that it should be illegal. We tried that for 10 years with the Assault Weapons Ban, and a study by the Clinton DOJ concluded that it had exactly ZERO effect on crime. Why? Because rifles of ALL kinds are used in less than three percent of crimes involving a gun. Fists and feet are used twice as much as rifles are.

And also, two little newsflashes. One is that those "assault weapons" are some of the most popular new hunting guns in the country. Far more AR-15s are sold than Remington 700s. Fact two is that those inoffensive "deer rifles" are usually several times more powerful than your average "assault weapon."

And thank you for the strawman, but nobody objects to background checks.

[bluescribbler]

20. -1

There most certainly are people who object to background checks, primarily the people who object to the "gun show loophole", because with that loophole closed, they wouldn't be able to sell as many guns.

[TheWraith]

21. The "gun show loophole" is a total myth.

Gun dealers are required to perform background checks on every gun they sell, WHEREVER they sell it, gun shows or not. What people complain about is that individual persons sometimes take their collections to shows, and sell or trade them to other collectors. Catch is, they can do that at a gun show just the same as they can do it in their garage. When you talk about "closing the gun show loophole," what it really means is banning individual to individual sales, even though FBI studies have shown that roughly 1% of criminals get their weapons through gun show sales.

[Union Scribe]

51. We must end the car show loophole!

:D

[rl6214]

19. How do YOU define assault weapon?

I'll bet it's a whole lot different than how I would define it. Many of my guns have magazines that hold anywhere from 15-30 rounds and NONE of them would be defined as an assault weapon. They are some of the most popular sporting weapons on the market today but their magazine capacity in no way makes them an assault weapon.

[NewMoonTherian]

25. Re: assault weapons.

I can easily tell you why an average citizen might need such a weapon; to defend oneself against large numbers of attackers. I can see the sincere, good intent in people's concern with private sales(though I disagree with the solutions proposed), but I cannot in any way understand the idea that a semiautomatic, high-capacity weapon is not useful and appropriate for civilians. Fully-automatic weapons were only successfully restricted because of dishonest parliamentary tactics, and I'll never be convinced that they aren't useful and appropriate either.

[krispos42]

29. "assault weapon" = ?

So if I own a long gun to defend myself (which you have no problem with, stated above) I can't optimize it for self-defense? I can't have ergonomic pistol grips? I can't have, say, a device that shields my eyes from the muzzle flash? I can't have a folding stock to make my gun easier to store? I can't have a bayonet, in case the close confines of a home environment result in a hand-to-hand struggle?

Can I have flashlights and laser-sights and holographic red-dot scopes on it as well? How about two ergonomic pistol grips, one forward and one rear? Can I get it in glare-minimizing matte black, or do I have to have shiny steel with a glossy wooden stock?

[PavePusher]

43. Perhaps you can tell us, with historical and grammatical evidence...

what the Second Amendment has to do with hunting or "sportsmen"?

[Callisto32]

44. This magazine size cap thing is total BS.

You would have to either ban metal stamping equipment and sheet metal, or un-invent the technology of the detachable box magazine. Then you would have to ban sewing machines and linen. Then milling machines and billet steel.

It's like the nuclear bomb. Once someone figures it out, we learn that it really isn't all that hard. Nukes have the disadvantage of requiring rare, dangerous, and expensive materials. Box magazines? Not so much.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. I will go along with background checks but cosmetic magazine bans are not tolerable

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. Why are only people in high crime areas allowed to own?

Criminals can travel and they can and do travel to neighborhoods where people have enough money to move away from the crappier parts of town.

Even then, Mr. McDonals of McDonald v Chicago fame bought his gun because he had problems with gangs.

Gangs being described as large groups of law-breakers.

[Taitertots]

112. Those are among the most popular and efficient for use in the methods you mentioned

So called assault weapons are ubiquitous in sport, hunting, and defensive shooting.


The NICS is supported by the majority of gun owners including the NRA.

[Starboard Tack]

102. You are correct, but trust me it won't make you or me any smaller and

the police should not be exempt. In fact they should be the first to be disarmed. Sanity will hopefully prevail in time. Not soon enough, I fear. I still prefer to believe that common sense will win in the end.

[lawodevolution]

6. this was their 5 year plan in 1993

http://www.bradybusters.com/dnn/Portals/0/data/pages/brady%205%20yr%20plan%20from%201993.htm

It includes plans to reduce gun ownership eventually to zero by making it more expensive to own firearms and make the licensing and registration systems complicated and intimidate gun owners to give up their guns and culture. It's a culture war, although they are losing pathetically now, they are still fighting it and will not stop.

[safeinOhio]

7. I think most polls show that

a majority of RKBA supporters are in favor of some types of gun control and most gun control advocates support some gun rights. However, the extremist on both sides try to divide the majority into neat little extreme groups to push their agendas.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

8. The religion of the gun, you guys just won't give up.......

Life is way too short to be focused on devices of death.....

[lawodevolution]

10. Gun ownership is part of a culture, not a religion. I think gun control often appears like a

religion when you keep pushing your agenda without any real world data or evidence to support your position and just common sense faith and emotionalism, which is rather similar to how the religious operate.

[DainBramaged]

35. Gunniez, finding logic where none exists since 1776

Jesus never owned a gun..........

[Callisto32]

47. But he damn sure told his boys to buy a sword.

So far as to sell their clothes to do so, in fact.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. His diciples owned swords. Peter used one to swipe at a guy's head. N/T

[beevul]

39. Now that you mention it...

" I think gun control often appears like a religion...".

Now that you mention it...

Have you seen the bradys "god not guns" campaign?

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?pagename=GNG_partners

[safeinOhio]

52. Keep lumping people together with extremist

and that puts you with this group.

http://www.knightriderskkkk.com/

The Brady group and the KKK, two sides of the same coin when it comes to gun control.

[beevul]

97. Don't be silly.

"The Brady group and the KKK, two sides of the same coin when it comes to gun control."

Don't be silly. Both those groups agree on restrictions which limit the availability of guns to minorities.

[cleanhippie]

15. It seems the only ones "focused on devices of death" are you and your fellow anti-2A folks

And you are right, life IS too short to focus on that, so just let it go.

[DainBramaged]

34. Meh meh and meh

:puke:

[cleanhippie]

59. Yeah, you showed me.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[PavePusher]

45. Damn... my cars are now "devices of death"?

Well ain't that just a kick in the nuts.

[safeinOhio]

53. Do straw men come

with nuts too.

[PavePusher]

72. Teeny tiny ones. n/t 8>)

[guitar man]

56. Wow it's a religion?

I didn't know that....but it'd be pretty cool if it was, then we'd be coverd by two amendments in the Bill Of Rights instead of just one. :silly:

[Callisto32]

81. The lulz are strong with this one.

[spin]

12. The only two reasons to advocate an extended magazine ban ...

are:

1) Lack of knowledge on the subject.

2) Knowing that it will be ineffective and useless but is one tiny step toward banning all semi-auto firearms and eventually all firearms.

edited for typo

[zaj]

14. I'd say "deal" except that I still think the line between allowable and banned "arms" is fuzzy...

... or rather, I'd say arbitrary. Over time, it has changed and evolved.

That debate continues to be a fair one. We just sort of make up an arbitrary line. And most gun folks say that, for example rpg's or stinger missiles are obviously way over the line. Most all Americans would agree. But it's really an arbitrary judgement to accept that those are banned. Clearly they are "arms". They are just highly advanced, well engineered arms.

And when the line is so arbitrary, it makes the judgement of where the line needs to be draw equally arbitrary.

And thus, the fight goes on...

[NewMoonTherian]

27. I agree!

I haven't seen many other DUers espouse that position. However, I feel it's unconstitutional to impose bans and restrictions based on arbitrary estimates of danger without any supporting evidence. How many homicides have been committed or attempted in the United States using RPG's? A statistically insignificant number? What measurable effect would the ban have on public safety? None? Then there is zero support for a ban, other than the capricious whim of a few influential characters in Washington.

[Callisto32]

48. This is because...

all prohibitions of items, as distinct from behaviors, are necessarily arbitrary.

[Terry in Austin]

22. It's real simple: I don't trust you not to shoot me

Maybe you can wangle your "right" to keep these killing tools around, but if I find out you're somebody who does, I will make it a point to have nothing to do with you that puts me within bullet range of you.

I am not in the society of individuals who arm themselves and will contribute nothing to their well-being.

[Zoeisright]

26. +100000000000000000

Perfectly said.

[ManiacJoe]

32. Do you normally participate in activities

that suggest to others that you need to be shot? If not, what leads you to believe that others would think you need to be shot?

[Terry in Austin]

77. "Need" to be shot

Ha-frickin-Ha. You're a laff riot, pal.

That's exactly the mentality I'm talking about. It's not for anyone to say who "needs" to be shot. The arrogance of it is incredible -- You buy a gun and that annoints you with life and death jurisdiction? I don't think so.

Attitude like that, I'd be a fool to trust you.

[ManiacJoe]

95. I apologize for confusing you with relatively simple questions.

I will rephrase for your benefit.

Do you normally participate in activities that would justify others legally shooting you? If not, what leads you to believe that others would think you could legally be shot?

(In most jurisdictions "legally justified" would cover murder, rape, crippling, and kidnapping.)

[Terry in Austin]

115. You don't get to say what's for my benefit

You don't get to vet my activities. A guy who thinks he's entitled to judge me, and also has a gun -- well, I'd be a damn fool to be anywhere around you, wouldn't I?

Thanks for helping me illustrate my point.

[ManiacJoe]

117. Near me would be one of the safest places you could be.

I am one of the most trustworthy people you could ever meet; you just don't know it due to a lack of experience. I don't hold that against you.

I make no attempt to vet your activities. I am just pointing out that your stated opinion of your activities indicates that you might live longer if you were to be more law abiding.

Personally, my money is on you just blowing smoke and actually being a law abiding citizen and not being a threat to those around you. Thus your opinion that your activities might get you shot by a normal person is rather misguided.

[RSillsbee]

36. Unless you are in the middle of the desert somwhere

I promiseyou are in range of some gun near you.

[Terry in Austin]

78. Not exactly a stirring testimonial for American civilization, is it.

Amending your point slightly to refer to a desert somewhere in the U.S., it is depressingly true. It's one of the things that goes to make our reputation as a nation of adolescent cowboys.

[PavePusher]

46. I don't trust you not to T-bone me with your car.

This has happened to me, more than once (not by you specifically, of course).

[safeinOhio]

54. Do straw men drive

cars too?

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. Giving up on the "empathy" schtick? Good thing, as it was becoming obvious lately

I have to admit you did a fine job of it for almost a year, certainly better than the haters and self-anointed 'constitutional

scholars' ever did.

[safeinOhio]

69. Sounds like you and your friends have

found Glen Becks chalkboard for wacky conspiracies and have become mind readers for, and saviors off the dumb and stupid.

[guitar man]

58. Damn

That must be tough when you need to call the cops, because you know they're going to bring their guns with them...decisions, decisions....

[Terry in Austin]

85. Cops

>>That must be tough when you need to call the cops

Tough enough, no doubt.

But one thing's for sure -- I've got a lot better reason to trust a cop not to shoot me than I do you.

True, just because they've been trained and duly assigned the responsibility of exercising deadly force is certainly no guarantee, but I'd say it's a lot better bet than with somebody whose main qualification is that he shelled out $400 for a killing tool that he doesn't really understand.

You want to be a cop, go for it, but until you've been trained and accepted as one, you just don't rate enough to mess with guns anywhere near where I'm going to be. Maybe not even after.

[guitar man]

88. Why would I shoot you?

If you're not breaking into my house or assaulting me or my family, why the fear? It's not like I'm just going to go out and shoot somebody that's not threatning me. That's what criminals do, and all the gun laws in the world won't stop them from having guns and shooting people with them.

[Terry in Austin]

90. Exactly my point -- why should I take your word?

>> it's not like I'm just going to go out and shoot somebody that's not threatning me

So you say. And you're asking me to trust you for that. You haven't earned my trust, nor do I owe it to you.

It's a life or death decision whether I do, and you don't get to have that much power over me just because you think it's your right to own a gun. It's also my right to avoid you and make sure I contribute nothing to your well-being.

I don't care much for the idea of self-appointed law officers, and when you pick up on the means to use deadly force, that's exactly what you've become.

[guitar man]

93. I have no desire to exercise power over anyone

But I damn well have the right to keep others from exercising power over me. I've already been shot by an armed criminal once in my life, a felon that had no regard for for the law or anyone or anything for that matter. I was unarmed the night I was shot. There wasn't a cop anywhere around to do a damn thing about it when it happened either.

I could frankly give a shit what ideas you care for or don't care for, I'm looking out for my own well being and the well being of my family the best way I know how.

[Terry in Austin]

104. If you get ruffled like that, and also have a gun, this is not encouraging

It doesn't help me trust you not to shoot me.

If you don't give a shit about what I care for, that makes your desires even more uncertain, and further confirms that I'd best take care to stay out of bullet range of you.

Even more than the idea of a self-appointed law officer is the actuality of one. I'm sorry for the trauma you experienced at the hands of one lawless armed person, but if becoming another one is the best way you know how, I'm sorry for that as well.

Good luck at your next gunfight. I hope you practice a lot, and for your family's sake, that you're very good at it.

[rrneck]

108. Your posts are funny.

In a snide, chickenshit, guilt projecting, underhanded, passive aggressive sort of way.

[guitar man]

110. c'mon now

don't hold back, tell him how you really feel! :spray:

[Terry in Austin]

116. You noticed!?

Aw shucks, fellas...

I just love it when that works!

B-)

[guitar man]

109. I'm ruffled?

You're the one running in circles pulling your hair out at the prospect that a citizen lawfully armed for self defense might shoot you when there is absolutely no evidence at all that such an event is likely to happen.

And you're the one that said you had no interest in my well being so why should I give a shit about you? Self defense does not equal becoming a "self appointed law enforcement officer". It's a patently false equivalency. When a people defend themselves with hands and feet, rocks, ball bats, guns or anything else it is about self preservation and nothing more. "Self appointed law enforcement" has a more common name, vigilantism, and I don't approve of that either.

As far as being "good at it". USMC, rifle and pistol expert.

I'm just really sick and damn tired of being made out to be the bad guy because I won't surrender to criminals and thugs and I'm sure others like me have had a belly full of it too...

[X_Digger]

111. "becoming another one" --?

You assume that all those that carry are 'lawless armed people'?



Folks with permits to carry are likely more law-abiding than you are.

[Katya Mullethov]

101. In Austin the odds are , the fuzz will run over you before they shoot ya

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfE7ygj7xR4
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/crime/swat-officers-dwi-case-has-1st-hearing
I don't know how they're doing with the shooting thing up there , but they cant drive for shit .

[Terry in Austin]

106. LOL -- Got that right!

:toast:

[X_Digger]

89. It must suck to live in Austin, then..

There are about 10,000 fellow Austinites with active CHL licenses.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

Don't even think of stepping a toe into Travis county.

*snort*

[Terry in Austin]

94. Yep.

But only when the wannabe cowboys come around smirking about their .44 magnum substitutes.

Other than that, it's pretty civilized.

;)

[X_Digger]

96. Thing is, you'll never know..

Every time you sit in the parking lot that is Slo-Pac, you could be sitting next to someone with a concealed handgun.

Heck, it's Texas, even without a permit, it's legal to carry a gun in your car.

Every time you walk down Sixth, the person you bump into could be armed, and you'll likely never know.

[Terry in Austin]

105. Oooh... It could even be you, right?

What you say is all too true.

And you're proud of it, apparently. You kind of fancy that little thrill of fear, eh? It feels so much like respect, doesn't it? And gosh, it only costs a couple of hundred bucks... and a little practice with the swagger.

[X_Digger]

107. Me? I'm in Dallas.. (used to live in Austin)

I'm just saying.. if you're so terrified of people you don't know, carrying guns- you're living in the wrong state.

There's no 'swagger'- you might like to think there is, that way you think you could identify all these scary people. But it could be the old fart walking his dog, or the woman out shopping at the mall with her kids, or the young guy with the septum piercing who works at one of the dot coms.

[Terry in Austin]

113. I take it you pack, then

And you approve. I don't.

If it's important for you to think I'm terrified, that's exactly the kind of mindset I'm talking about -- you can be a big shot just by buying a gun. Right. It's beside the point whether everybody and their granny is doing it, that doesn't make it any less ignorant.

I drive among any number of ignorant drivers, and make it a point to keep my car where their car isn't. I am well aware that there are any number of ignorant people packing heat, in Texas and elsewhere, and I make it a point to be where their bullets aren't.

I also make it a point to let anyone know who might want to have anything to do with me as a fellow member of society, that if they insist on having the option of filling the common air with bullets of their own, I will have no part of it, nor of them.

[X_Digger]

114. You're projecting your fears into others' attitudes.

I don't care if you're terrified or not. I think your fear is irrational, especially given the tendency for those with permits in Texas to be rather scrupulous and law-abiding as a group.

I take umbrage at your assertion of my ignorance.

Here are some things I know-

Nationwide, 1 person in 50 will be the victim of violent crime (1 in 37 for African Americans.) -- http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

Those who resist with a firearm are 30% less likely to be injured during the commission of a violent crime -- http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/NCVS/

Police have no obligation to protect you, the individual, when you call -- http://www2.newpaltz.edu/~zuckerpr/cases/riss.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County, ad nauseum.

Studies have shown that between 108k - 2.5M times a year, people defend themselves from crime with a firearm- most of the time, not even firing the gun, much less killing anyone -- http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

Those who have a permit in Texas are less likely to commit a crime than the general public (by a huge margin.) See graph posted in reply #111 above.

You are the person most responsible for your safety. The tool that gives you the best chance of deterring a crime, or minimizing the impact of the crime on you is a firearm.

What facts do you claim I'm ignorant of?

[Katya Mullethov]

120. You're painting a picture of defensive gun uses and CCw in general

That is very similar to the hunting scene from Bambi . Complete defoliation of all surrounding trees is something one would expect
with a very large IED , not a defensive gun use .

[Hoyt]

23. They gonna take our guns. Take anything. Just don't take our guns. Guns giveth us life and meaning.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Hatred and fear of guns and gun owners give other people life and meaning.

It's a big world, innit?

[Hoyt]

75. Not afraid of guns, have a few, BUT I don't carry them. Not afraid to be unarmed in public.

How about you?

Sold most of them -- including antiques my dad had -- when I grew up.

Have a few revolvers in my house and feel plenty safe. I do not think guns should be carried in most public places.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. So we are to trust you with *your* guns, but cannot be trusted with *ours*

That says more about you than us, I think...

[DIKB]

24. How about a 3rd option?

Where it's NOT a "wish" of mine, but is a delusional paranoid response by gun-fanatics.

I'd be more pro-gun rights, except I want NOTHING to do with the howling, grown-men-bawling, "THEY GOIN TAKE MAH GUNS!!!!!" crowd.

As long as those people behave like republicans: In that there is no rational response nor any sort of compromise. Where every reasonable action is hitched to the "slippery slope" logical fallacy, and it is BLATANTLY obvious that there is no "meeting them halfway" with gun-fanatics. . .

I will support the opposition, because they act like adults.

Until I see a chart showing the limitations on gun rights vs. the expansions (a logical assessment), I refuse to listen to people who from the outside seem to behave like petulant children.

I am not a republican, an emotional fear-based argument will not work on me.

[Straw Man]

28. 3rd option goes through the looking glass...

I'd be more pro-gun rights, except I want NOTHING to do with the howling, grown-men-bawling, "THEY GOIN TAKE MAH GUNS!!!!!" crowd.

So... you'd be in favor of gun rights as long as no one really wanted them? How very gracious of you. Not to mention the gratuitous bit of bigotry in your dialect spelling. Stay classist...

Where every reasonable action is hitched to the "slippery slope" logical fallacy, and it is BLATANTLY obvious that there is no "meeting them halfway" with gun-fanatics. . .

Are we looking at the same poll? The one that is currently showing the gun-control side to be against compromise by a ration of 11 to 1?

Please don't pretend to be a moderate on this issue. It's a transparent and hypocritical pose.

[DIKB]

31. What??

I live in Arkansas. The dialect is DEAD-ON. I am surrounded by people who when they find out you vote democratic, make the oh so witty rejoinder (accent included), "I better go hide mah gun."

You call the poll "compromise"? That's ridiculous. Those measures should be the absolute LEAST done. People who voted "No Deal," most likely still have the expired assault weapons ban on their minds. You're seriously whining about the opinions on a liberal board, when you are curb-stomping gun-control advocates throughout the country?

"So... you'd be in favor of gun rights as long as no one really wanted them?"
I'd be on their side if they didn't act as though they are losing. It's like a football team being up 70-21 and acting as though the opposite was true. Gun Rights Advocates are WINNING by an ENORMOUS margin, and need to stop acting like they are so persecuted. Open carry laws, concealed weapon permits, carrying in national parks and forests, assault weapons ban expired, etc. Why all the fear?

I have not voted in this poll, b/c it's asinine. It'd be like agreeing, after the windfall of the bush tax cuts, to allow the taxes on the richest to go up only 1%, "As long as we agree we wouldn't go any further!"

Take a step back and make that list:
Expansions of Gun Rights (as well as what types of guns and ammo you can have etc.) vs. Limitations

I've looked at these, and from my POV, you're up 70-21, and you're upset you're not getting sympathy.

[PavePusher]

49. At this point, pro-Rights people are not marking out any new ground...

they are merely restoring liberty and freedom previously lost to anti-Rights people.

It's not a "win" until we have recovered all our lost ground, and start working on actual expansion.

[DIKB]

70. What constitutes expansion?

Given that in the old west, you couldn't carry in town? You're allowed to now. Put that in the "Win" category.

Gun rights are fluid, and change with time and technology. Hence assault weapons, extended clips, etc.

Are background checks and mental health restrictions really a problem?

[PavePusher]

79. That was a fairly rare, limited and temporary phenomena.

No-one is complaining about back-ground checks and MH restrictions.

[Callisto32]

50. 10,000 gun laws.

And that is the least that should be done.

Here's a hint. Everything that actually hurts people is already illegal.

[one-eyed fat man]

57. Why should anyone believe the liars now?

Every gun ban organization for the past 70 years has had the complete elimination of private firearms ownership as part of its charter.

Their spokesmen have repeatedly stated they plan to achieve that goal incrementally over the long term and that deception of the public is a perfectly acceptable means to that end.

The slippery slope argument is not made up. They have already stated nothing short of a total ban on legal firearms is enough. They have already said they will chip away until they get it.

They have already said they will use deception to achieve their goals.

So, when a liar tells you something that contradicts everything else they have ever said is it paranoid to wonder if they were lying then, if they are lying now or just simply still lying?

[Straw Man]

62. "I'd be on their side..." is a transparent lie.

You are trying to present yourself as a moderate, when in fact you are anything but.

The pro-rights side of the issue has been losing serious ground since 1968. (Notice that I don't go back to 1934: See how I can compromise?) Only recently has some ground been gained back. I have no interest in sympathy. I just resent the attempt to portray anti-gun extremism as mainstream.

So I'm curious: Is it only the pro-gun people who speak that particular dialect? Bigotry is bigotry.

[DIKB]

73. You haven't heard me go on about

the animal rights groups, or hard-line pacifists. How would one write that dialect btw?

Saying, "I'd be on their side" isn't a lie, just like I'd be a republican if they hadn't been so fascistic in their move to the right.

I'm looking at "rights lost" involving interstate commerce/mail-order, armor piercing rounds, guns at schools, a waiting period, background checks, and juvenile gun laws. None of these seem unreasonable to me. If this seriously constitutes "losing ground" to you, that just means you're starting to scare me, the gun-rights utopia seems a terrifying place.

I'm not trying to achieve anything rather than get you to realize how hard-line and far your position is. I don't support banning extended clips, or closing gun-show loopholes. I'm ambivalent about it. But when someone wants to ban all guns, or act like their guns are going to be taken away, BOTH situations irritate me.

As I said in another post, in the old west, you couldn't carry in town. That's not "recent ground gained back." Extended clips and assault weapons didn't exist.

I'm logical, a moderate, and not anti-gun. However when a logical assessment is taken as "anything but" a moderate position, it SHOULD tell you something about your stances. If someone were to take St. Ronnie's positions, he'd be seen as a flaming liberal to Glenn Beck (for perspective).

[Straw Man]

80. You see yourself as a moderate, as do I.

I also believe that I am logical. Yet we are miles apart. How can that be?

I would suggest to you that you have prejudices that you are unwilling to examine and are allowing these prejudices to cloud your judgment. Interestingly enough, you have decided that my position is hard-line without actually knowing what it is. You seem to be convinced that a belief in the slippery slope is prima facie evidence of extremism. Having lived all my life in one of the most highly regulated states in regard to firearms--New York--and being exposed almost daily to calls for more and more regulation, I take the slippery slope as a given and the denial of same as evidence of extremism.

I'm sorry that I accused you of lying. That was uncalled for. But surely you can see that calling oneself "moderate" and "logical" doesn't make it so. It's just an attempt to frame the argument in one's favor; it's virtual ad hominem.

I will hold firm on the dialect being in poor taste. It's never good form to mock the way people talk.

[DIKB]

82. I'm sorry if I implied that you talk in that manner.

Too many people here do, and it irritates me to no end. I have been teased by friends from Florida for having a southern accent, but they've never heard someone pronounce gun with two syllables, "Guh-un," as I have.

Living in Arkansas, where there are virtually no attempts to restrict firearms, the measures mentioned in the poll come off as benign to the few people I've mentioned it to.

I take no real stance with the assault weapons ban expiring, my friend Ronnie allowed me to shoot his SKS Assault Rifle, and I would like to buy an AK47. However I can see how it might be an issue in more urban areas.

Where we live determines why we are "miles apart." I will admit that where I live, and the people around me, has influenced me. Like I said, finding out I voted for the democratic candidate for president had a coworker saying they should, "Hide their gun." Particularly since no candidate I've ever voted for, has supported any type of gun bans.

So while I decide upon my candidate upon many different issues, the "gun-nuts" around me have made me extremely leery of any and all gun enthusiasts. I apologize for projecting my acquired prejudice.

[Katya Mullethov]

83. It is quite likely they are not "gun nuts"

But are in fact what is commonly and affectionately referred to by my colleagues and myself as " Sportsmen" . Clinical studies have proven time and again that 3 out of 5 "sportsman" are also "pricks" .

[GreenStormCloud]

66. What are you willing to offer for compromise?

Remember that a compromise is that you give up something to get something. We pro-gun people never see any offer by the antis to give up anything. You idea of compromise to to accept half of what you want and give us nothing for it. And we know from experience that you will come back for the other half later.

Besides that, we are winning. Why should we compromise? We can defeat you in the legislatures. We have won in the courts.

[DIKB]

68. THANK YOU!

You are the only one to acknowledge that you are winning and ask, "Why compromise?"

More than anything I want the gun-rights advocates to stop acting like victims. A confident, "Beat us at the polls" attitude, is far more friendly to people in the middle.

The national parks and forests was GIVEN to the gun rights lobby (no compromise there), and they can't be magnanimous and give up the extended clips?

The assault weapons ban is gone, why not close the "gun show loophole"?

[PavePusher]

71. Again I will point out to you...

that so far, we are only gaining back (slowly) what was taken.

We have not opened any new ground yet, thus, no compromise is desired or neccesary.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

118. Regarding your "THEY GOIN TAKE MAH GUNS!!!!!" comment:

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"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 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

[The Traveler]

30. I'm a gun owning left winger

But I don't need extended magazines. I don't need automatic rifles, either. Me and my Mossberg are just fine, especially when backed up by mean old Mr. Browning. (9mm 14 round clip.)

With all the whacked out right wing bible thumping Glen Beck worshipers in these parts, I do feel a keen need to maintain the ability to defend myself ... God forbid I ever need it.

Still, I am quite willing to negotiate on Second Amendment matters. I do recognize its historical importance as a deterrent to tyranny. But guns are not the most dangerous weapons a would-be tyrant can face these days, as evidenced by the protests in Egypt. Networks, social media, cell phones ... the ability for people to assemble in scale and come to agreement on things ... this represents the greatest threat that has ever confronted tyranny. It is far easier to enslave the mind of a man spoon fed by establishment media than it is to enslave the mind of a man who is engaged in conversation with his fellows, and who is thereby encountering a range of fact and opinion. And if government or the powerful interests that often own government succeed in controlling the content of your mind, your collection of armaments represents little threat to them. You might as well not have them.

(I suspect you are a well meaning conservative who has come here to have a conversation on this subject. I commend you. Listening to opposing views and engaging in discussion strikes a direct blow at those who would exert control over your thinking. It really doesn't matter if you change your viewpoint on things in any particular way ... you are here, making what appears to be an honest attempt to reason with those of different views. It is a revolutionary act in these highly polarized times. They do not want us to reason together. God knows what we will eventually discover if we do! Again, I commend you.)

So at this point, even though I own guns and do regard the Second Amendment as important, I am much more concerned about our right to access to communications technologies, which I regard as being covered by the vastly more important First Amendment. You have a right to speak. I have a right to hear you.

But make no mistake about it. Historically, those governments most desperate to separate the common man from his weapons are USUALLY not honorable in their intent. It does not always work out for them.

For example, the Japanese invaders confiscated all metal items from Okinawa in an attempt to keep the people from making swords.

So the people invented the martial art now called Karate.

The Samurai still had a problem.

Weapons are not as dangerous to the tyrant as the hearts of men and women who will not yield. Especially when those men and women have resolved to be tolerant of their differences.

Trav

[RSillsbee]

37. your 9mm 14 round "clip"

would be banned as an "extended" magazine under HR308. The legislation Carolyn McCarthy is curently pushing

[beevul]

38. I'm not clear on what you meant...

"But I don't need extended magazines. I don't need automatic rifles, either. Me and my Mossberg are just fine, especially when backed up by mean old Mr. Browning. (9mm 14 round clip.)"

First, are you aware that all the legislation thus far proposed, defines "high capacity" as anything over ten rounds? Your 14 round magazine would be effected.

Second, when you say "automatic rifles", are you referring to fully automatic weapons?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

55. You've been duped...

a) Automatic rifles (assault rifles) have been highly regulated since 1934 and importation and manufacture for public purchase was outright BANNED in 1984. NO ONE is talking about banning or even owning assault rifles - there are very rare, all are registered, and they no a factor in crime/murder.

b) If your mossberg holds over 5 shells in the mag tube, even it would be effected by the McCarthy's legislation. Hell, even your old Browning magazines would be effected by the ban - they consider anything over 10 rounds to be high capacity. Hardly "common sense".

c) "Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know."

[Katya Mullethov]

74. Therefore

I will not yield .

[RSillsbee]

33. Except that a lot of us gun owners aren't going for

Yet anothermagazine ban that has zero effect on crime ora private sale ban.

You might want to make sure you're speaking for us before you presume to speak for us

[Euromutt]

40. The phrase "let's say" makes it clear the question is hypothetical

I don't Pullo is trying to speak for anybody. Moreover, the results of the (admittedly unscientific) poll thus far indicate that the advocates of increased gun control aren't interested in actually achieving a compromise--they'll just pocket any concessions they can get and push for more--which is one hell of a good reason for the pro-RKBA side to refuse to give an inch. Which, I suspect, was Pullo's objective in posting the poll in the first place.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Exactly. The gun Prohis *want* a zero-sum game- so we should oblige them.

Let them have their crocodile tears, thinly veiled classism, obvious panic mongering, and Repub-enabling ways.

We'll take freedom, with or without their consent.

[Pullo]

64. The slope we're standing on does indeed appear to be quite slippery ......

I speak only for myself. This little informal exercise only illustrates that compromising with gun control advocates, in order to preserve the remainder of our RKBA, is a bit of a Faustian bargain. 1 "Deal" to 17 "No deal's" so far makes it pretty clear what benefit can be gained by attempting compromise.

The "slipper slope" argument is often derided as "unfounded," "delusional," or even "paranoid." Anyone who uses the "slippery slope" argument against a proposed restriction is immediately attacked in effort to delegitimize them, and therefore their argument.

Yet the Brady's and co. can't hide from their history. When the first extended magazine ban was passed within the AWB, it wasn't but a few months later that gun control advocates started a new push a 6 round magazine ban instead of 10, along with a host of other onerous restrictions. That of course fizzled out after the 1994 mid-terms when many of their congressional allies were tossed out. That is but one of many examples.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. Yes, Virginia, taxes can be used to abridge and infringe rights

The GOP's plan to ban tax-payer money from funding abortions includes giant tax hikes for businesses.
More specifically, it would eliminate tax incentives on employer-provided health care benefits if those benefits cover abortion as a medical procedure. Supporters of the bill say those incentives essentially constitute federal spending on abortion.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/gop-backs-massive-tax-to-phase-out-abortion-coverage-by-private-insurers.php

"I support your right, I'll just make it too expensive for you to employ it."

Let's support gay marriage but where we charge heteros $50 for a license, we'll charge gays $5,000.

They can still marry, right? So what's the complaint against "reasonable" marriage control?

We might as well bring back poll taxes.