You know what? JUST TAKE THEIR GUNS! It's all we're gonna hear for 4 long years anyway, just do it.

[BamaRefugee]

The ONLY thing rightwingers understand and respect is the exercise of RAW POWER. So show them who's the boss.
There is not gonna be ANY "healing" of any kind going on, trying to "heal" rightwingers is a fantasy, an exercise in futility, they revel in their imaginary wounds and martyrdom.
And I say this as a guy who owns a few guns, enjoys going to the range, and got all my Marksmanship medals from the NRA back when it was a GOOD organization. And I was a member.
But now is the time to show that Democrats are strong and powerful and nobody's patsy.


And yes, before a bunch of negative comments, I know legislatively it will be difficult, blah blah blah, but so was EVERYTHING bad that Republicans came up with over the last 2 decades but STILL THEY PERSISTED. So should we.

[Sneederbunk]

1. Obama still counting all the guns he took.

[BamaRefugee]

2. And yet they never stopped screaming about him doing it.

IIRC, he even EXPANDED gun rights, you could go armed into National Parks and on AMTRAK!
Correct me if I'm wrong, too groggy to look it up.

[trc]

3. You are right

It was his first executive order

[dware]

61. You cannot go armed on Amtrack.

that's false information.

https://www.amtrak.com/firearms-in-checked-baggage

[krispos42]

62. You do realize he pushed for a gun ban, right?

And discussed at length his disappointment that gun-control legislation didn't move forward while he was in office?

And that bans on "assault weapons" are in the DNC party platform?

[Codeine]

4. I don't want to take their guns.

Reasoned regulation is a position I support, but confiscation is not. Nobody’s taking anything, nor should they.

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. Very few that have advocated taking others' guns are willing to do the job themselves

I regard these sorts as either:

Some sort of strange bird, a cross between

Gallus gallus domesticus x one of the Accipitrinae family, or a member of the Buteo genus.

or merely Farquaadists (little different from Trump in that respect):

[BamaRefugee]

10. Hahaha, I know that you know nothing about me, but I do a dangerous job coordinating with California

and international courts, the US District Court, and the US Marshal, with the possibility of being shot or assaulted ever present.
But having said that, if you're saying that normal citizens would have to do the job, then let's dispense with all levels of government and just let folks run the place themselves, why pay cops and soldiers to just sit around while WE THE PEOPLE go out and do the dirty work?

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. -10 yards for 'fallacy of the excluded middle', with a strawman preface.

Your reply raises a few questions:

Do you have a duty weapon that you take home at night?

Do you really think that America's heavily RW cops will go along with your dream?

[BamaRefugee]

19. I do not carry a weapon. And this isn't "my dream" it's a freaking post on DU! ;-)

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. I note you avoided the second question: Do you think rank-and-file cops will go along?

[BamaRefugee]

23. I have no idea, but if that fear is what we base the next 4 years on, we're lost. Also, I am not

sure that "rank and file cops" are sent out to enforce Federal laws. Are you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. I believe the fact that you're not actually a cop has much to do...

...with your dismissal of the unfortunate truth that many cops, including Feds[/b, are very right wing, as see their
recent Nacht und nebel actions in Portland.

[BamaRefugee]

33. When did I dismiss that? And I'm not a cop, but I act as on officer of the court as a licensed,

bonded and registered California process server. I do the same thing as the Sheriff for the courts (and for the US Marshal I do writs and levies to empty defendant's bank accounts when they have refused to abide by a judge's decision on damages in a case they lost).
The difference is the Sheriff generally only makes 1 attempt to serve defendants the summonses and subpoenas, restraining orders , unlawful detentions, etc. while I keep trying until the job is done.
Trust me, I have to deal with various levels of police, I have to testify in court frequently, I'm not unaware of how things are!

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. Let us know when *you* volunteer for a confiscation squad, mmkay?

[BamaRefugee]

8. Why would the citizenry have to do the job? It would be a law enforcement issue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Ah yes, the Farquaadist appraoach to gun confiscation:

"Some of you may die...but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make"

[WhiskeyGrinder]

7. Lol no.

[Amishman]

13. this, lets skip over the likely backlash and constitutional issues

and realize with a 50/50 senate at best we have exactly zero chance of passing something like that.

[BamaRefugee]

17. True BUT, if we learned anything from Republikkkans, it's KEEP TRYING SOMETHING, NO MATTER WHAT

That has paid off for them TREMENDOUSLY, us, not so much.

[Amishman]

20. Given what we have seen from the extreme right and law enforcement

i'm not sure banning them is the right idea, as that won't make them disappear.

I think perhaps more on our side should have them.

The past year or so has made the prospect of widespread political violence seem all too real.

[pwb]

9. Democrats have lots of guns.

It is time we admit that to lessen that argument. We are more private about our lives and don't wear our guns as clothing. It is more than difficult to take away a right granted by the Constitution. So there's that?

[BamaRefugee]

12. I say that right in the text of my post. And "THEIR GUNS" would not cover every single firearm, but

there wasn't enough room in the header for me to enumerate every single type and sub-type.
Just the ones that will REALLY piss off the rightwingnutjobs.

[EX500rider]

44. So legislation based on how much it will piss off certain groups? Glad u r not in govt. nt

[jmg257]

14. Other then the prerequisite AWB, not much to go on here.

And even that would depend on how it is written, and expected to be implemented.

Interesting, for sure.

[BamaRefugee]

15. And right on cue, the right wingers begin yet another assault on the gun laws that we DO have:

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article347996/Missouri-Senate-passes-gun-nullification-bill.html

[tavernier]

16. My husband doesn't want any guns or large trucks.

He has a fairly good sized penis.

Actually, he passed a few years back, but I can hear him saying that.

[SlogginThroughIt]

21. No.

That is all.

[better]

24. We should stay well the hell clear of talking about taking away their guns.

INSTEAD, we should be pursuing universal background checks, and every bit as important, a ban/buyback on extended capacity magazines, for a number of reasons:

1 - Capacity genuinely is relevant to public safety, unlike many of the factors restricted by the AWB.
2 - The attractiveness of a high rate of fire (think bump firing) is proportional to capacity.
3 - Unlike violations of the AWB, capacity violations can be very easily and near instantly spotted by law enforcement.


Trump, coincidentally, broke important ground in this regard, by banning bump stocks, which didn't generate anywhere near the level of backlash we might have expected, for the simple reason that it banned ONE thing, that DOES matter, and even gun lovers know it. But it was still actually an inferior approach to banning high capacity magazines, because bump firing does NOT actually require a bump stock, they just make bump-firing idiot-proof, so banning the stocks doesn't actually prevent the high rate of fire, whereas banning high capacity magazines WILL have the effect of making people not WANT a high rate of fire. If your gun holds only 10 rounds, firing at 10+ rounds per second means reloading EVERY SECOND.

Personally, I think our major mistake in crafting gun laws has been that they have been crafted by people who, though well-meaning, lack adequate understanding of how firearms work to write well laws that will actually be effective. And that has given gun nuts legitimate grounds on which to oppose. We CAN (and should) do better.

[BamaRefugee]

26. Agreed, but UBC will be screamed out as "THEY'RE TAKING OUR GUNS!"

[better]

29. That's the universal refrain to everything. Ignore it. More likely will be this red herring argument

"It will be too much of a burden on me as a private citizen to have to perform a background check to sell Grampa Grit McTruckpuncher's guns he left me when he died."

To which, of course, the simple response is "When's the last time you administered a driving test before selling a car?"
Never? Because every state issues these nifty little things called driver's licenses? Curious!

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Capacity limits are merely security theater- reloading takes 3 seconds, at most:

[better]

39. Another frequent RW gun nut talking point based entirely in flawed logic.

True, it is not a silver bullet (no pun intended), but it WILL make a difference.
Three seconds you're reloading are three seconds you're NOT shooting, and that CAN be enough.

And if you're limited to 10 rounds or less, you are not going to want a rate of fire so high that you can only effectively engage one or two targets, at most, before having to reload, because it puts you at considerably greater risk than simply firing carefully and selectively. There is a reason that you don't see low capacity magazines on military assault weapons, despite them being fairly quick to replace.

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. You haven't refuted my point, you've merely responded with cant

i.e. "the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments"

It's a common aspect of gun control advocacy at DU

I suspect you know rather less about guns than you purport to.

[better]

47. On the contrary, I did refute your point, just not the part of it you're focusing on.

I'm not arguing that swapping a magazine is any more time-consuming than you are claiming.
I'm arguing that there's a legitimate argument for banning high-capacity magazines, regardless.

For the simple reason that the higher the capacity, the longer between those reloading windows where it is at least marginally safer to approach and disarm a shooter. The duration of those reloading windows does absolutely nothing to alter this fact.

This argument is a classic example of the flawed "it won't completely solve the problem, so we shouldn't do it" logic that we so often see in opposition to sensible gun control, though that may or may not be the position you are actually trying to advance.

I don't claim to be a firearms expert, by the way, though I have been shooting for over 40 years, and have held an Expert Marksman qualification from the US Army, so I'm not exactly ignorant about guns, either.

And what I'm citing are not opinions or sentiments, they are facts.
Smaller magazines DO mean more frequent reloads, which DOES mean more opportunities to neutralize the threat.

You are, however, right to identify the speed of reloading as a relevant issue, and it's another that merits careful scrutiny and perhaps regulation, because it does have legitimate impact on public safety. But it does not alter the sensibility and legitimate public safety arguments in favor of limiting capacity.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. You should know that your schtick was recognized even before you joined DU:

How to recognize the tactics used by anti gun activists in their plan to ban guns

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361725#361836


A few highlights:

Distraction: “no one is trying to ban your guns” is often used in the same post in which they then talk about their sensible gun laws to ban “assault rifles”. Obviously they want to ban guns but they feel that they might be able to lighten you up and dumb you up a little so you can allow them pass their sensible gun laws, then when they progress to the next step they will do the same thing again.

Quoth you: "I don't claim to be a firearms expert, by the way, though I have been shooting for over 40 years, and have held an Expert Marksman qualification from the US Army, so I'm not exactly ignorant about guns, either"

Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” The goal is for them to appear to be on your side then they will try to soften you up to the next step in their gun ban agenda. But remember that even members of the Brady family own guns, that does not mean they are not willing to ban you from owning them.

Also called "forced teaming" by X-digger: "An advocate for more restrictions pretends to be a 'gun person', and decries the problems that 'we' face- nevermind that to many ears, this sounds like, "I'm not a racist, I have lots of black friends.."
X_Digger Donating Member
60. How about..

Not sure if this one counts as a separate one, but the..

MGAFYGAE -- "MY guns are fine, YOUR guns are evil."

Black powder guns, revolvers, traditionally stocked shotguns, deer rifles, even 1911's- "But I {or Dad, or Granddad, or Uncle Duke} had / have one of those, so they're perfectly fine. The rest of your guns? Ban 'em."

friendly_iconoclast
Response to Reply #60
61. ...A variant is the "Uncle Ruckus"

Claiming to be a gun owner and/or very familiar with guns, and yet continually putting down other gun owners

Anyway, as you were saying?

[better]

54. You've deduced that I'm an anti-gun activist out to ban guns

From my post EXPLICITLY saying we should NOT ban guns?

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're the one putting down this gun owner, whereas I've actually gone out of my way NOT to put you down or ascribe motive, and merely challenged your argument on its merits.

I mentioned my background with guns specifically and only because you impugned it.

I actually do love guns. I've got one of those scary-looking tactical stocks that would (stupidly) render my rather mundane ranch style rifle an illegal assault weapon the very second I equipped it, because it has a pistol grip and telescoping stock, and I live in New York, which does still ban assault weapons even though federal law no longer does. I obey that law, but I do actually oppose it, because it's badly written.

I'm fervently opposed to the AWB too, in both its incarnations, precisely because it bans things like pistol grips and adjustable stocks, which it seems quite clear you know as well as I do in no way legitimately classify a rifle as an assault weapon (as opposed to a grenade launcher, which obviously does), or have any real bearing upon public safety, while ignoring things like capacity, which genuinely do.

And I would like to have high capacity magazines. On average, I shoot around 300 rounds in a target shooting session, and it'd be nice for that to mean reloading 10 times instead of 30, but that's merely an issue of convenience.

But facts are facts, and the fact remains that capacity DOES have public safety ramifications, and those ramifications, clearly shown by history, outweigh my convenience.

And lest it be lost on you, I'm specifically arguing that once limited to a reasonable capacity, there's really not any legitimate reason to ban, say, an AR-15, because capacity (and speed of reloading, as you so helpfully added to the list) are really the only major differences that makes it any more dangerous or suitable for assault than say an M1 Garand, or any regular old ranch style semi-automatic rifle chambered in the same caliber.

*edit* Yes, of course, I am aware that the M1 is chambered in 30-06, not .223 like the AR-15 typically is.
I mention it because of the lower capacity and different reloading mechanics.

The plain truth is that I'm far less hostile toward gun rights than probably most people here on DU. I'm just realistic about what actually does make a firearm a greater mass shooting threat (i.e. designed for assault, as opposed to lawful uses), and I value everyone's right to life enough to make reasonable concessions on such features.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. When what you post corresponds to several previously seen and noted propaganda techniques...

...it behooves the reader to be skeptical.

[better]

58. Fair enough, but you were not merely skeptical, you were also accusatory.

That's understandable, of course, as you're a mere mortal subject to emotional responses, same as me.
Just maybe invest a bit more effort in accurately assessing before you start declaring.

Perhaps keeping in mind that "it won't completely solve the problem so we shouldn't bother", especially when combined with dismissing facts as opinions, is ALSO a previously seen and noted propaganda technique.

Like so many other issues, the balance between gun control and gun rights is complex.
But it being complicated to maintain a proper balance does not mean that no step toward either goal should be taken.

It just means every step should be taken carefully and objectively, with proper care given to protect the rights of all involved.

And I have a vague inkling that if you carefully and objectively consider the merits of the arguments I've been making, you might very well agree that restricting capacity is in fact a reasonable approach to decreasing the carnage of mass shootings without infringing too egregiously upon gun rights, just as I agree that banning "assault weapons" as they have thus far been defined is not.

This, unlike some other issues like racism, is one where there really is a sensible middle ground.
We just need to invest the effort in meeting each other in it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Using "...frequent RW gun nut talking point" gave away the game. The later, honeyed words...

Last edited Wed Nov 11, 2020, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)

...likely camme because you were caught out.

As Maya Angelou put it: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

I stand by my original assessments of both your thesis and your rhetorical tactics.

Your "gun safety advocacy" would find a more receptive audience at the following DU group:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

[BamaRefugee]

25. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR: I posted this not as my dream, but as WE NEED TO OWN THE CONS, just like

they LOVE to "own the Libs".
We need to fuck with them in every way possible. Fight fire with fire. They go low, we outwit them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. I know you're frustrated (we all are)- but that can lead to ill-advised attempts at remediation

This is an example of that

[BamaRefugee]

37. Or we can do ill advised attempts at "healing", that will never ever happen ;-)

[Clearly fogged in]

27. The things we say

And stop wagging your tails when I'm yelling at you, is what i tell the dogs. Sometimes I think they enjoy hearing it.

[aikoaiko]

28. It's our guns, too. And no. No confiscations. No forced buybacks. No outrageous taxes.

[BamaRefugee]

34. Don't take OUR guns. Just "theirs". ;-)

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. "Don't take OUR guns. Just "theirs". ;-)" How would that work? Political tests?

[BamaRefugee]

42. Pretty easy, we wear Birkenstocks, they wear camo. Let's do this! ;-)

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Do you prefer surf casting reels, or spinner rigs?

Electric auxiliary, or gas?

Congratulations, you've made DU's Gun Control Advocacy Hall of Fame:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=9858

Thanks for that, it was getting a little slow there for a while...

[BamaRefugee]

45. I prefer a Penn Squidder if I'm out on a boat near Catalina, but fly fishing everywhere else.

I drive a Prius, is that "electric Auxiliary"?

[BamaRefugee]

46. As long as you're trolling me, why haven't you answered my reply to your post where I asked if

"rank and file cops" do Federal law enforcement?
You accused me of evading a question, which I answered, yet no response from you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. I didn't reply as it makes no difference. Feds can be just as RW as local cops

[BamaRefugee]

50. But that's not what I asked, and you specifically stated "rank and file cops".

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. It makes no difference. Local yokels don't enforce Federal law

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. And for that matter: You posted this weeks before the two close-run GA runoffs...

...(a state with many gun owners)- while empatically insisting that the *Feds* do the rounding-up, while
*only* taking RWers guns

You have either an extraordinarily poor sense of timing and tone- or this entire OP is merely:

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-05384-001

(Those of a certain age will get it)

I leave it to the disinterested reader to decide which...

[hunter]

31. Their guns, their trucks, and their balls...

... in that order.

[BamaRefugee]

35. Finally, someone who gets it! ;-)

[Hortensis]

38. Using raw power to overset the will of the people?

Aside from issues of democracy, we don't have the raw power.

Btw, all members of the house have to get reelected again in only 2 years. We really don't want a repeat of 2010, when reaction to our party's heroic creation of the ACA resulted in ENORMOUS, DEVASTATING losses in congress and state governments across the nation. The same people who angrily kicked them out liked the ACA too much to allow their new Republican majorities to destroy it, but gun rights would be quickly restored by those they elected in 2022.

[lunatica]

48. It's not about legislation

It’s about the Constitution.

I’m all for regulations. A ban on automatic weapons and no conceal carry or open carry weapons in public spaces. Using common sense and protecting innocent people is needed, especially in schools.

I think you’re a responsible gun owner so there’s no reason to take your guns away. The self appointed militia groups carrying their weapons in public places though, not so responsible. Force them to leave their weapons at home.

[marie999]

55. My husband is 77 and I am 72 and we definitely conceal carry our pistols when we leave the house.

[Yeehah]

51. What guns? They said Obama was going to take them all.

You mean they were wrong??

[Dial H For Hero]

59. Details, please. Which guns? Will owners be compensated for their weapon's market value?

What about accesories (scopes, stocks, premium triggers, magazines, etc.)? Will owners be compensated for those?

What about ammunition? Any plans?

What is the penalty if a gun owner refuses?

There are hundreds of millions of guns which have no paper trail. At this point, they're "in the wild", so to speak. Do you have a plan for those?