Tomorrow's New York Daily News cover, posted without comment:

[Poll_Blind]

PB

[Tx4obama]

1. There'll most likely be a vote on the ban via an amendment to the bill, see article on link below

Feinstein on assault weapons ban: 'I’m not going to lay down and play dead'

(CNN) – Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she’s not going to stop fighting to get a vote on her proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms modeled after military assault weapons, hours after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that the measure has no chance of passing the chamber.

“This is very important to me. And I’m not going to lay down and play dead,” Feinstein, D-California, said on CNN’s “The Situation Room.”

Reid, D-Nevada, told reporters he won't keep the proposed ban in gun legislation heading to the full Senate for consideration because including it would guarantee the measure would be blocked by a Republican filibuster. But he said he wants to ensure a vote on the ban will still take place.

The ban has been fiercely opposed by the National Rifle Association, Republicans and some Democrats would get fewer than 40 votes, Reid said, far below the threshold needed to defeat a filibuster or pass the Senate.

Instead, Feinstein could propose the ban as an amendment to the gun legislation on the Senate floor in order to get a vote on it, Reid said.

-snip-

Full article here: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/19/feinstein-on-assault-weapons-ban-im-not-going-to-lay-down-and-play-dead/

It ain't over yet.

[krispos42]

12. "modeled after military assault weapons"

So it's okay to have semi-automatic firearms, just as long as it's not "modeled" (styled) after military hardware.

Her proposal is and continues to be a dumb idea. Her basic contention is that protruding pistol grips, telescoping or folding buttstocks, and heat shields so dramatically increase the lethality of a gun that they have to be banned.

So I can own a semi-automatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine, as long as it doesn't have a protruding pistol grip. And if I take off the pistol grip, my rifle goes from "assault weapon" to "sporting rifle".

And, of course, the weapon used in Newtown was 100% compliant with her previous legislation, which has been in effect in Connecticut continuously since 1994.


The number of DUers, and the general public, that either don't know this, or don't care as long as she's "taking on the gun lobby", is astonishing.

[BainsBane]

49. How else should the ban be defined?

[bossy22]

51. how about not even banning them?

how about focusing on things like universal background checks that would truly help gun violence in this country.

I don't see how putting a pistol grip on a rifle makes it more lethal. The VT shooter used a 9mm handgun and managed to gun down 32 people. Is the air different in Virginia than it is in CT? Is an "assault weapon" the only thing effective to gain a large body count in CT, but in Virginia it isn't? Or could there be more at play here......

[Fawke Em]

53. How would that have stopped Adam Lanza?

His MOTHER bought the weapons, not him.

And, we don't know if he would or would not have passed a background check.

[bossy22]

59. it wouldn't have

but it would stop many more murders than lanza committed. A large source of weapons used in crimes are from illegal straw purchases

The only thing that would have prevented Lanza would be a complete gun ban (all rifles, shotguns, pistols illegal). Even then there is no guarantee since there is evidence he was planning this for a long time. The truth is it is almost impossible to stop someone who goes to such great lengths in planning something like this from actually carrying it out.

[JoeBlowToo]

154. Magazine limitation would have saved a lot of children...

If he had to reload more would have escaped.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

178. Yes!

[GreenStormCloud]

200. How long do you think it takes to swap out a magazine?

Check out this video:

[Ikonoklast]

211. How many times did you think Lanza practiced doing that exact thing?

And how many hours of practice does it take to be as proficient at it as the demonstrator in that video?

Why do you think that it is so many mass murderers are taken down when their weapon jams on them after a magazine exchange, or they run out of rounds in one weapon and are changing over to another?

[FSogol]

216. +1. Crickets

[GreenStormCloud]

256. Crickets? See below, post #249.

You were rather fast on the draw with the crickets. I stepped into the kitchen to get some BBQ beef from the fridge and micro-wave it.

And now, having eaten, I have to go to work (afternoon/evening shift) so I won't be back until tomorrow.

Do try to be somewhat realistic in the time you give folks to respond.

BTW - Notice that I fully answered his question about how much practice it takes. I you want to see real speed in a magazine change that comes from extreme practice, there is this video:

Most of the runs of his changes are in video slow motion so you can follow it. That is what can be done if you want to spend lots of time practicing.

[FSogol]

266. Which of the last few massacre killers were professionally trained shooters?

Go ahead an finish your burrito.

[GreenStormCloud]

372. Ten minutes training is all it takes for fast reloads.

You won't be as fast as the guy in the video, but you can turn in times under two seconds. Semi-autos are designed to be easy to reload.

[FSogol]

377. I call bullshit. Any skill takes time to learn. n/t

[GreenStormCloud]

380. It doesn't take any skill to reload.

The skill in using a gun is to be able to shoot it accurately. That can take a lot of practice, although modern technology is making that easier.

Over a century ago handguns began to be designed to be fast and easy to reload. That design is still being manufactured as one of the best handgun designs ever. I am speaking of the M1911 pistol.

Reloading it is easy. Push button, insert mag, depress lever. Very easy to learn. In ten minutes you can have it down to where you can do it in the dark.

The AR-15 is also easy to reload. Push button, insert mag, push button.

Obviously you know very little about how guns work.

[FSogol]

381. Then you would wrong. I am very proficient with firearms.

Go argue your NRA talking points with someone else.

[GreenStormCloud]

397. I doubt that you have any proficiency with guns.

If you did, you would know how easy it is to reload a semi-auto pistol of American design. Especially the M1911 design. It is only 102 years old.

[FSogol]

399. Since I don't define everything as guns or gun-love, let me give you a non-gun (gasp!) example

of what I am talking about.

A knot commonly used in ice climbing is a figure 8. It is very simple to tie. It is harder to tie when it is -20 deg F and the cord and your fingers are stiff. It is harder to tie with mittens or mountain gloves on. It is harder to tie in the dark. It is harder to tie in the rain and wind and sleet. It is really hard to tie when you are on a manky 60 foot ice column in terrible conditions. At the Ouray Ice Fest, they have some drinking games. One involves tying knots blindfolded while standing barefooted in a bucket of ice while the audience throws snowballs at you. In those conditions, top climbers, ie. experts in tying knots in terrible conditions, have trouble tying simple knots.

Now, imagine some dope like Lanza. Maybe he spent hours fondling and playing with his guns in front of his bedroom mirror like my old college roommate. Maybe he practiced loading and unloading which I doubt. In the real world conditions, with everything going on around him in the chaos he created (with the help of his guns!) it will be much more difficult to load even the simplest gun. If you get my point, great. If you don't understand this point, there really isn't anything further to discuss. Your NRA talking point world-view seems to be little more than masturbatory gun fantasies.

[GreenStormCloud]

402. That's why guns are designed to be easy to reload.

In the stress of combat the soldier, or cop, or homeowner, will be hampered by unneeded complexity. That's why semi-autos are designed to be ultra-simple. Push button, insert new mag. Easier than tying a knot.

In fact, all weapons are designed to be as simple as possible because they don't want a scared, rattled, soldier not being able to use the weapon.

I served in Vietnam. While the M-16 of that time had its problems, I don't remember anybody complaining about it being complex to reload.

[GreenStormCloud]

249. About ten minutes of practice is all it takes.

Rifles with button release magazines are easy to quickly swap magazines with. All the guy in the video did was push a button and put the new mag in. Not complicated at all. The guns are designed to be fast and easy to change mags.

Even American designed semi-auto pistols have a button release under the thumb to allow for a quick release of the magazine. One hand holds the pistol and presses the button with the thumb while the other hand brings the new magazine up to the gun. Fast and easy mag change, designed in 1911. Many European designs require two hands to release the old magazine which does slow things down a bit.

Very few rampage killer have been taken down in the manner you describe. The Gifford's killer's gun jammed before the magazine was empty. It was a 33 round magazine and he fired 31 rounds. Large capacity magazines often tend to jam toward the end of the magazine. When I was in Vietnam we usually loaded our magazines with two rounds less than the rated capacity to avoid that type of jam. IOW, a 20 round mag was loaded with 18 rounds.

A jam is really bad news for a shooter, especially in a fire fight in which someone is shooting back. Those can't be clear quickly. There are drills that some shooters practice for such an event, but even then it can take from several seconds to clear. Some jams require that the gun be disassembled.

The Batman killer's gun jammed early in his string of fire. He had a 100 round magazines and it jammed after only a few rounds.

Swapping gun is a different matter entirely. How long does it take to put something down with one hand and pick something else up with the other hand? Can you walk and chew gum and dial your phone at the same time?

[Ikonoklast]

267. "Can you walk and chew gum and dial your phone at the same time?"

I can, thank you.

You have just put forward an excellent argument to limit magazine capacities.

[GreenStormCloud]

373. How will limiting magazine capacity slow down the reload time?

With only a modest amount of practice you can reload in less than a second. All you will end up with is that a rampage killer will have to carry some more extra magazines.

[AtheistCrusader]

311. coroner said he reloaded freely many times. didn't even fully empty the mags.

Seems irrelevant to THIS massacre, though perhaps not others.

[RVN VET]

354. I absolutely agree with you but

isn't it a frakkin shame that we can speak so easily of the way "so many mass murderers are taken down?" (No, I'm not sorry they get taken down; I find it disturbing that there are so many of them, so many that we can so effortlessly speak of their being taken down in great numbers.)

10th anniversary of Cheney's Slaughterhouse and it turns out that the worst of our enemies, as Pogo once said, "is us."

[jeff47]

260. How many magazines do you think someone can easily carry?

And before you get too excited, you should realize we don't give our own soldiers a giant number of magazines because they become unwieldy.

Plus, each swap is an opportunity for the shooter to screw up. See: Giffords, Gabby.

[hack89]

269. At least 8 or 10 in a commercially available tactical vest

that is what Lanza had.

[jeff47]

285. And if they were so effective

How come we don't give those to our soldiers? Their gear can't hold that many.

But what does the military know about firearms, right?

[hack89]

291. ILBE and MOLLE gear can certainly carry that many mags

they are modular system that allow the soldier or marine to customize as needed. With dual stack magazine pouches, they can carry 10 -12 mags easy. The standard ammo load is 210 rounds - that is seven mags right there. And the smart soldier will always carry as much ammo as he can.

[jeff47]

292. That's why I was careful to not say it never can carry that much.

It normally can't, but can be expanded if necessary.

The people against limiting magazine size insist that it will do nothing to stop mass shootings. Yet the people with experience in the subject realize that 20 magazines is extremely unwieldy.

[AtheistCrusader]

314. The military is concerned with additional issues such as

Supply chain management, and gear weight so the average soldier that meets x fitness bar per the apft can hoof it so many miles under y conditions, etc.

Things Joe lunatic bent on a killing spree isn't interested in. A battle pack of .223 contains 200 rounds.

[EOTE]

286. So much better that Lanza would have been able to get off 80 bullets instead of 200 some, right? NT

[hack89]

287. I support limits on magazine size

I was just answering a question about how many mags someone can carry.

[EOTE]

288. Just making sure your words aren't misconstrued. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

374. The VT killer had at least 18 magazines.

The Giffords shooter didn't screw up the mag change. His pistol jammed on the 31st round. He had a 33 round mag. Giant mags are notorious for causing a failure-to-feed jam toward the end of the mag. The follower spring isn't able to maintain a constant tension on the round for the entire string. Unjamming a jammed gun can be a time consuming process.

If he had been using standard magazines it is extremely unlikely that his gun would have jammed. He would have been able to reload quickly and keep on shooting, as several rampage shooters have done.

[demwing]

328. About as long as it takes a child to die /nt

[BainsBane]

57. what makes it lethal

is the capacity to shoot 100 rounds in a minute and kill all those children you see pictured above. The reason they have defined it as they have is to allow hunting and sporting rifles to be exempted. But you know that. You pretend it's cosmetic, but your real goal is unfettered gun proliferation, and the hell with how many children are slaughtered.

[bossy22]

62. he probably would have been able to kill as many

with a 9mm pistol and multiple 10 round magazines. That is my point. if the AR-15 wasn't there and he used a pistol the body count probably wouldn't be much different. Why waste so much political capital on something that probably wouldn't have changed the outcome?

[BainsBane]

69. He "probably would have been able to"

is not evidence. There is a reason the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for rampage killers. Why spend time on the bill? The answer is in the faces of those children in the OP. Respect for human life, trying to turn this nation into a civilized country, human decency. Human life is infinitely more important than gun fetishes. No one needs any of those barbaric weapons to defend themselves. That is an evil we can do something about, especially since the majority of the country supports an AWB. The only reason the AWB has difficulty being passed is because of the financial power of the gun lobby who have bought at paid for the Republican politicians who carry out your wishes on this particular issue.

The people have a right to have their voices heard. Politicians must pay for putting profits above human life.

[bossy22]

76. but the essential question is why is the AR-15 the weapon of choice?

is it because it is the most lethal available? Hardly, there are plenty of more powerful weapons out there than an AR-15. If we did a study and found out that Red cars are more likely to be involved in accidents- would banning red cars lower accident rates? No it wouldn't. Correlation does not equal causation.

and even if it was banned- that doesnt mean there isn't a replacement that is just as good. Again, we come back to the VT massacre as an example. a 9mm pistol did that. No AR-15 involved. are the laws of physics different in the south?

Here is a very valid reason to why AR-15s are chosen- because they look familiar. Works just like advertising. People go to movies, they play video games, they see the M16 as this "big bad gun". So when they are "looking" for a gun to commit such a horrible act, the first thing they think of is the M16 and what looks like an m16? An AR-15. It works on the same principal as advertising and marketing, if no one knows your product- even if it is the best thing out there- no one will buy it.

[Walk away]

159. Here in NJ you pay more to insure a red car.

Types of cars that are involved in more accidents come with large surcharges on insurance premiums in a state with some of the highest rates in the country. You might even say that the money constitutes a deterrent towards purchasing a deadlier car and certainly an incentive towards driving one more safely.

Maybe we should just charge these gun owners a huge surcharge for owning these guns! Maybe every gun should have to be insured and the law against suing gun manufacturers should be struck down. Maybe instead of banning a type of gun, all guns should be registered and required to be inspected every year to make sure the same person that bought it still owns it.

I think treating guns like cars might be a very good idea.

[shenmue]

173. Yes!

Good idea.

[AtheistCrusader]

344. Begs the question, AR's arent the weapon of choice.

[hack89]

163. Handguns are the weapon of choice for mass shootings by a large margin.

The Va Tech shooter choose a handgun - he killed 32 people. The most deadly school shooting was done with a pistol.

More shotguns were used in mass shootings than assault weapons

[Spitfire of ATJ]

174. I'm old enough to remember when banning hand guns was a goal...

These days, I wouldn't be surprised if they lifted the ban on hand grenades.

[hack89]

184. Gun control advocates made a huge mistake in 1994

they thought that an AWB would be good way to get America use to gun control and would pave the way for more comprehensive gun control laws. They definitely had plans to strictly regulate hand guns.

The AWB turned out to be a massive self inflicted wound - all it did was galvanize gun rights organizations at the state and local level. Right now gun control groups are fighting desperately to get back to where they were before the AWB.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

190. They're failing on the public opinion battle....

People are starting to see the "gun enthusiasts" as a bunch mentally ill threats to national security.

How many more "isolated incidents" is it going to take?

[hack89]

195. Balanced against that is the understanding that gun violence is at historic lows

so why incidents like Sandy Hook horrify all of us, most people understand that they are truly rare events.

Both sides of the issue have their extremists - the vast majority of gun owners are not "mentally ill threats to national security". Facts are fact - only a tiny percentage of gun owners ever use their guns in an irresponsible manner. Responsible use of guns is the norm. That is why gun deaths have declined while gun ownership has increased. There is no indication that there is a sea change in public sentiment on guns.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

201. No, most people see these events are not "rare"....

THAT is the problem.

And despite your denials the polls show that public opinion is NOT in favor of a bunch of guys running around in the woods playing army.

[hack89]

205. So why is gun control failing in such a spectacular fashion?

you supposedly have overwhelming public support yet nothing seems to be happening? Nor does there appear to be widespread disapproval that nothing seems to be happening.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

221. Next thing you will say is Congress has a high approval rating.

[hack89]

225. No - they deserve their lowly status

I was talking about the gun control movement. It seem pretty weak and ineffective - why isn't there a liberal counterpart to the NRA for example? Surely there is enough support for gun control to match them in fund raising and grass roots activism.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

231. The NRA doesn't NEED to raise funds. It's got the gun makers behind it....

It's like comparing the Sierra Club to Big Oil.

[hack89]

236. So just how much cash are we talking about?

it is not like the gun industry is a huge business - certainly not compared to oil companies.

[LanternWaste]

247. $11.7 billion in sales and $993 million in profits.

$11.7 billion in sales and $993 million in profits. Although some not see that as a huge numbers as contrasted against the oil industry, I'd imagine that same figure is considered rather large relative to any counter-PACs involved.

Additionally, I'd think that it's not that number taken on its own that we look at, but the percentage of that number given to lobbyists; e.g., according to a report in 2011 from the Violence Policy Center, between $14 million and $39 million came into NRA coffers in that year alone. That's only one right-wing PAC, in only one year. I'd imagine that's a lot of congressmen and senators in the NRA pockets.

If the gun industry can prevent the CDC from focusing on its agenda-- studying health care, disease and prevention, it can do quite a bit more, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/19/seven-facts-about-the-u-s-gun-industry/

[hack89]

248. And how much to the NRA? nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

259. LOL!!! Guns and ammo are one of our major exports!!!

[hack89]

262. So give me a number. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

300. 42.

[hack89]

301. Thanks. nt

[Ikonoklast]

227. Because you have bought-and-paid for by the NRA legislators ignoring overwhelming public opinion.

MONEY trumps all for theose people; they vote whichever way the donations tell them to.

Did you ever convince your congressman or senator to vote the way you want them to on an issue backed by public opinion, if they took massive donations from the opposing side?

Probably never.


Public opinion means nothing to them.

Dead kids, even less...as long as it isn't one of their own.

[hack89]

234. So where is the progressive counterpart to the NRA?

Surely there is enough support for gun control to match them in fund raising and grass roots activism.

Until the gun control movement can mobilize voters like the NRA, it will continue to fail. Voters are all that politicians care about.

Progressives have a long history of organizing and activism. Civil rights, woman rights, abortion rights, marriage equality - all good examples of strong, well organized and funded movements that changed America. Gun control seems to be the exception. Why do you think that is?

[Ikonoklast]

240. Tens of millions of dollars from arms manufacturers to fund their political arm make the difference.

Money. Money. Money.

[hack89]

245. Emily's List alone has raised nearly 100 million dollars since 1985

George Soros gave $24 million to political groups in 2004 alone

So don't tell me that progressive organizations can't raise money for important causes.

Stop blaming the NRA for your failures.

[JohnnyBoots]

261. Gun Control

enthusiasts have Bloomberg on their side. He is a multi-billionaire. If anything, I'd say they have more money than the NRA. What they lack is true public support and money can't really make up for that, it can buy a lot of polls to say what they want or a finance a School of Public Health (Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins) to give them data that dovetails nicely with their 'polls', but it can't make up for iron willed grass root support. This is why the AWB is a non starter.

[hack89]

263. It kills me how gun controllers embrace Bloomberg. nt

[SunSeeker]

338. What crap. Sheldon Adelson gave $100M in 2012 alone.

You have to reach back over almost 30 years to get a similar amount for Emily's List. Tell me, how much did Emily's List donate in 2012 to all left causes, let alone gun control?

And how much did Fox News' favorite bogeyman Soros donate in 2012? How much did the Koch brothers?

The only billionaire I am aware of that donates any significant amount to gun control is Bloomberg. That hardly makes up for the wave of money on the right to block any gun control measures, like universal background checks that are supported by 91% of Americans. But it's not supported by the NRA, so we don't have it. The NRA IS to blame.

To suggest that the billionaire gun mfrs via the NRA have the same money as the left is a ridiculous lie.

Stop defending the NRA. They, and anyone who supports the NRA, has blood on their hands.

[hack89]

342. So after the first billion dollar campaign where the Dems out spent the repukes

you are going to tell me that progressives can't match the $50 or so million the NRA got over the past years from gun manufacturers? Really?

Stop using the NRA as your excuse. Because that is all it is - an excuse.

[SunSeeker]

360. Way to deflect my points by just raising new bullshit. No, Repukes outspent Dems in 2012.

Here's my link: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance Where's yours?

An estimated $577 million, or 69 percent, of outside super-PAC and nonprofit spending supported conservative causes, and $237 million went to liberal candidates and causes.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/12561-big-money-breakdown-why-2012-is-the-most-expensive-election-ever

Yes, Obama, not being a 47%-hating, tax-return-hiding oligarch, got a lot more small donations than Romney. But Romney still outspent him. The Dems' money was spent getting Obama and key Dems in office, not fighting the NRA. The NRA, as usual, spent freely, as did the gun manufacturer lobbyists. But the real tell was how little lobbying the NRA actually had to do in order to get its way. As noted in the Huffington Post, "The group's power in the halls of Congress is so evident that it is rarely challenged."

"If word gets spread around the floor that this is an NRA-scored bill, in the past anyway, that has been that," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), referring to the group's practice of counting certain votes to rate lawmakers' loyalty. "It is palpable on the floor when the message that is spread around is that the NRA is scoring this. It's like a wave."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/gun-lobby-nra_n_2317885.html

And no, Dems in vulnerable districts can't match or fight the NRA. Sad, but true. Feinstein is brave, but she is in a safe district. The NRA gets involved in a race and scares the crap out of the other side. They also come in on local propositions, killing gun reform, where just a few million dollars can overwhelm the progressives.

I'll never forget the shit the NRA pulled in my very blue California in 1982, when it poured in over $5 million against a grassroots proposition to require gun registration and to ban gun purchases by mail (Prop 15), blowing it out of the water. Even though Prop 15 started out ahead, the NRA's negative, misleading TV ad blitz doomed it. On Election Day 1982, California voters rejected Proposition 15, aided in large part by the NRA having registered more than three hundred thousand new voters at California gun stores. I had a friend who ran one of those NRA voter registration tables--paid by the NRA. My friend was the perfect NRA tool, sweet kid, but awkward man-child with severe insecurities; only his massive gun collection made him feel cool. And the NRA convinced him that Prop. 15 would lead to the loss of his guns. You might as well have told him he was going to be castrated. The NRA gave him the table, the No on 15 signs, money and the voter registration cards. He would set it up in the redder areas around L.A. and enticed people over like he was gathering a petition and then got the No on 15 people registered. Of course, the yes on 15 people would never get near him and would never get registered. Brilliant, eh?

Not only did the NRA bring down Prop 15, but it brought down Tom Bradley's Governor bid; before the ad blitz he was ahead in the polls and would have been our first black Governor. It's detailed in a book called Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist by Richard Feldman.

The NRA is evil. Pure evil. I hope their glory days are over. Sandy Hook really has changed the country. But you will continue to be its apologist. And for God knows what reason, the mods will continue to let you and your fellow gungeoneers pollute this board with right wing NRA propaganda, like your line about George Soros--straight outa Glenbeckibeckistanstan.

[hack89]

365. A perfect world

you have the perfect bogy man to explain away your failures.

Have you ever considered that gun control does not have the passionate and widespread support you think it has? Of course not - it's always NRA NRA NRA. Reminds me of TERRA TERRA TERRA - the ultimate excuse.

[SunSeeker]

371. Sigh. You don't deny anything I said, you just repeat talking points.

There is no other thing that 91% of Americans agree on like they do on the need for universal background checks. You may have the "passion" of the loons and billionaires on your side, but we have the American people.

This is getting boring, like every time I engage a gungeoneer. All they can spount is the same inane, unsubstantiated talking points.

[hack89]

375. And universal background checks will now most likely pass the Congress

That was the entire point of stripping the AWB from the bill - to allow things like that to pass.

I support universal background checks. I live in a state that has them and I know what good they can do.

I just don't support the AWB.

[Jenoch]

329. "...running around the woods playing army."

Is a stereotype. As a percentage of gun owners, those that engage in that sort of activity is quite small. You brought it up, so I'll let you do the research.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

330. I'm a gun owner, but I'm sane.

[GreenStormCloud]

206. Numerous rampage killers have used pistols only.

The Luby's killer, the VT killer, and the Ft. Hood killer all used pistols only and they all racked up a high body count. Both the Luby's killer and the VT killer used standard magazines and reloaded.

ARs & AKs are not the weapon of choice for rampage killers, although they have recently been used in some.

[tblue]

239. Dear BainsBane,

Thank you. I will never understand anyone defending the ownership of (fill in the correct terminology for the weapons used in mass murders). Those who argue for it no longer deserve to be heard. Not now. Not after what we've just gone through.

[BainsBane]

275. Have you seen this

New group? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
You might be interested.

[Jenoch]

312. "There is a reason the AR-15 is the weapon of choice for rampage killers."

Are you sure? While they have been used recently, (Newtown, Aurora) I am fairly certain that handguns have been more often used in such crimes.

[ThoughtCriminal]

356. There is a connection between magazine capacity and number of deaths in mass shootings

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/publications/WhitePaper102512_CGPR.pdf

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/high-capacity-magazines-mass-shootings

The gun worshipers somehow believe that they must have high capacity magazines to defend themselves (From Obama lead UN troops, space aliens, or North Korean Paratroopers), but at the same time think they can kill more people with three 10-round clips than one 30-round clip. But in case after case, we have found that higher capacity clips are correlated with a higher number of deaths.

[VanillaRhapsody]

99. Then why put a pistol grip on a sawwed off shotgun?

and don't get caught with one!

[bossy22]

106. because it makes it more comfortable to hold in certain positions.

doesn't change how fast it fires or how lethal it is

[VanillaRhapsody]

124. oh really

then why did they cut off the stock? BECAUSE it does make it more lethal...therefore...don't worry about whether it is more comfortable ....we want to worry about how lethal the weapon is? Okay NOW we have a starting point! If you want to have a weapon that shoots more than say 10 rounds...GET insurance!

[GreenStormCloud]

218. They cut the stock off for concealment.

Only criminals saw off the barrel and the stock to make an illegal gun. It turns a 12 gauge shotgun into a huge single shot pistol. The lethality of the gun is reduced some because the shot is expelled at a lower velocity. It makes the gun very handy for holding up convenience stores. Law-abiding gun owners don't do that to shotguns and don't rob C-stores.

[VanillaRhapsody]

392. Until we make them criminals for owning illegal guns!

since SOME guns are already illegal to own...it only proves that more guns can be JUST as illegal to possess.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. heaven forfend anything should interfere with one's shootin' comfort.

Although, technically, wouldn't a less comfortable weapon be tougher to use to fight off dangerous 6 year old elementary school students deer, "home invaders", and totalitarian gerbmint new world order black herlipoopters...

and, as such, be "less lethal"?

[GreenStormCloud]

398. Guns that are more comfortable to shoot are also more accurate.

I assume that you want bullets to hit their targets and not go somewhere else.

Before you get all snarky, remember that it is a human the chooses the target. Of the billions of round fired annually in the U.S. only a very few are fired at people. The rest need to be on target so as not to be a danger to others.

[Warren DeMontague]

400. Oh, no, no one ever gets snarky in a gun thread. But I'm glad safety is a concern.

Since we want to talk about what is 'safe' to be shooting, maybe people should try one of these:

[krispos42]

70. Like this

"All semiautomatic long guns, as a class of weapons, are banned." Manual-action only; no self-loading guns.

Throw in the relevant parts of the ATF's regulations that define "semi-automatic", and you've got a loophole-free ban.


This is very clean and clear. Feinstein is trying to draw a line that can't be drawn, one that divides semiautomatic long guns that feed from detachable magazines into two classes: legitimate sporting guns, and "assault weapons".



I suppose one could try to ban the "fed from a detachable magazine" part, and only allow semiauto rifles and shotguns that feed from a fixed magazine, but California tried that, and the definition of "fixed" is pretty loose. They haven't been able to address the work-arounds, such as "fixed" magazines that require a tool to remove, then make the tool out of a strong magnet so it sticks in position to the catch.



I don't think this will fix the problem of homicidal maniacs picking crowds of trapped, helpless people to slaughter until the cops show up. But if one believes that the problem is fast-shooting self-loading long guns that can take quickly-changeable magazines, and thus discharge many shots in a short amount of time, then the steps that logically follow is to either ban semi-auto long guns, or long guns that take detachable magazines, or both.

The process of banning certain semi-auto long guns based on whether or not they have heat shields (Democrats advocating for NOT putting protective heat shields over parts that get hot enough to burn flesh???), or ergonomic comfort features like pistol grips and quick-adjustable stocks, is silly and useless.

I can see banning folding stocks, as they can make a rifle shorter than is legally permissible. But telescoping stocks? Heat shields? Protruding pistol grips?

[BainsBane]

75. How about some of the hand guns?

Covered in Feinstein's bill?

I appreciate your giving an answer to my question. I will save your response to investigate it further.

[bossy22]

78. there is no lethality difference between

A glock 19 (not banned) and a Tec-9 (banned). Both are semi-automatic, both take a detachable magazine, both are 9mm. the main difference is that the magazine in the Tec-9 is inserted in front of the pistol grip while the Glock magazine inserts into the pistol grip.

Both have the same rate of fire, both can accept "large capacity magazines".

[krispos42]

107. Hand guns can also be "assault weapons";

The term can be applied to shotguns, rifles, or handguns.

Her 2013 proposal for handguns looks like this:

A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of
the following:
(i) A threaded barrel.
(ii) A second pistol grip.
(iii) A barrel shroud.
(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

(i) is useful only if you own a silencer, which is a $200 tax plus the cost of the silencer, so you're looking at spending about $400-$500 above the cost of the pistol. Of course if you're doing it for illegal purposes, you would just use a pillow or something. I don't see this as an issue worth banning, but if you want to ban threaded barrels for pistols, go ahead.

(ii) It seems to me that a pistol with two pistol grips is actually a good thing to prevent crime; the second pistol grip would make it much harder to conceal and draw, and I don't think aiming is enhanced any. A second pistol grip can work on a long gun that is braced against your shoulder, but when both hands are free-floating in space it seems to me that the wobble would increase, not decrease.

(iii) I'm not sure why this is an issue. Semiautomatic pistols have had their barrels completely enveloped by the slide forever. Pretty much every single semiauto pistol sold has the barrel inside of the slide. So... why is a slide okay but a heat shield not okay? I think this is a leftover from the era of the TEC-9 pistol.

(iv) Same thing as (ii) with respect to concealment and drawing.

(v) There are very few machine-pistols made; the recoil is too much to make them a practical weapon, even for the cops or the military. This will not affect anybody, really, so go ahead and ban it.


The characteristics she seeks to ban (regarding pistols) are ideas that have been rejected by the evolution of the handgun. You have to look long and hard to find a handgun that has a magazine that's NOT in the pistol grip, or one that has a second pistol grip. There is simply no advantage to these features, and several major drawbacks. Evolution puts the magazine in the pistol grip because it cleans up the gun for use in a holster, it lowers the overall length of the gun, make the gun handle better, and speeds reloading because "hand finds hand" in the dark.

If anything, maybe we should outlaw handguns that DO have magazines in the grip!

It is probably in reaction to the sales of "AR-15" pistols, which use regular AR-15 magazines and shoot regular AR-15 ammunition (.223 Remington or 5.56mm NATO), but are pistols.

At 20 inches long and with a magazine sticking out, I find it hard to believe this will be the choice weapon of the armed robber. Especially considering the price. It's really a short rifle with no buttstock, and I can't see how firing rifle ammo out of it would be particularly fun.


And thank you for the civil conversation. I hope you find this helpful.

[jmowreader]

141. Three characteristics

Semiautomatic action

Detachable ammunition magazine

Is a rifle

Those three terms will have to be defined in the law...but that's what an assault rifle is.

During Clinton's ban, which was an appearance ban, the gun companies had sporter models of assault rifles. This can be stopped with a function ban.

[BainsBane]

280. that includes a lot of hunting and/or sporting rifles

which is why Feinstein hasn't defined it so broadly.

[jmowreader]

355. Hunting and/or sporting rifles can be redesigned to not have detachable magazines

An assault rifle loses its reason for existing without detachable magazines.

[DallasNE]

384. Don't Most Weapons Today Have Semiautomatic Action?

To me both the magazine and the ammunition should be the target. The other two are non-starters.

The magazine must be limited to 10 rounds and not be easily modified, i.e., designed in a manner where magazines can be stacked to create a high capacity magazine. A buyback program needs to be part of the deal to remove existing high capacity magazines. The military type ammunition used at Sandy Hook needs to be made illegal -- cop killer bullets, etc. It should also be illegal to modify the ammunition once purchased in ways that would give it these properties. And these would apply regardless of the design of the weapon they are used in.

[Demo_Chris]

64. Exactly, she proposed feel-good nonsense designed to pander to the uninformed

She did so knowing that it would no nothing to curb gun violence and that, while her own seat is secure, it would put enormous political pressure on Democrats who cannot vote for the thing regardless. It was politics at it's worst.

But this topic does allow me to bring up something I have said (and been criticized for) many times before. Simply: meaningful gun control will not be accomplished until both sides put aside their dislike and come together on a solution. Anti-gun people, you NEED the second amendment people's help. You need their advice, their input, and their support, and until you win this you will have nothing. Further, you need to start listening and actually thinking about the questions they raise and the objections they offer.

I say this as someone who really doesn't care about this issue, so take it for what it's worth.

[bossy22]

67. bravo sir!!

couldn't have said it better myself

There are plenty of things we can do that are more effective then an assault weapons ban, that would still allow Americans to exercise their rights

[Demo_Chris]

73. Thanks nt

[DallasNE]

385. I Understand The Sentiment

But don't see how capitulation solves anything. Apply that here and you would be expected to apply it to Ryan's budget and a whole host of other issues. Giving in to these bullies is a non-starter. They too need to start listening and actually thinking about other points of view as well. Without both pieces being in place no compromise can exist. One sided capitulation cannot be the answer.

[Demo_Chris]

390. Capitulation is a huge word my friend

Right now we have nothing. That's important to remember. What the more restrained among us would like is some kind of meaningful legislation that would help curb at least some of these attacks. Others, less restrained, want nothing less than the abolition of these weapons from society. Since that's easy to address, let me do so now and quickly: it will not happen in our lifetimes, if ever, and the only mechanism which would make this possible politically, practically, and "legally," would be precisely the kind of government tyranny that the defenders of the second amendment claim the provision is designed to guard against. So let us move on to something more practical.

The more reasoned, as I said, simply want legislation that would prevent some of these crimes from taking place. The devil, as always, is in the details. The proponents of these legislation are quick to propose restrictions, but decidedly sketchy when it comes to describing how their proposals would accomplish much of anything. Few mass murdering maniacs have a record that would prohibit them (or the people around them) from owning these weapons legally. The same applies to high capacity magazines. There are a hundred million of these already in existence and more coming every day. Banning them does little to curb access, and it is debatable how much good it would do even if it did.

What we are talking about here is essentially terrorism, except instead of the motivation being political or religious, the motive is insanity. The goal is to inflict the maximum pain and suffering, to take as many as possible with you when you go. Whether the target is a kindergarten or a college or a mall or a theater, there is no way to stop a lunatic once he his madness has driven him to this point. Magazine capacity or the shape of the weapon matter little in terms of the damage inflicted. What matters is his intellect and imagination -- two attributes which are fortunately often lacking. They tend to copy rather than innovate.

And this is a very good thing, because these maniacs at present seem to be limiting themselves to gun toting avenger fantasies rather than the far more horrific alternatives (which I will not outline here). Our goal should not be to push them from this, but to stop them all together if we can. And that, I suspect, requires and entirely different approach.

[DallasNE]

395. We Actually Agree On Most Things

The major exception is magazine capacity. That is the single most important change necessary, in my view. In Tucson the shooter was taken down when a woman grabbed at the magazine the shooter was attempting to load when a man came over and actually subdued the shooter. Just think if that action would have happened after 10 rounds instead of 30 rounds. Here is my earlier proposal.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2547457

[Demo_Chris]

396. I don't have a problem with this....

It certainly cannot hurt -- and it's a provision that even many second amendment folks wouldn't have a huge problem with as they can still get their magazines if they really want them.

But again, what does this really solve, and how often. While I hate to even type a semi-NRA style talking point, this one happens to be true: we are addressing the tool, and that poorly, while avoiding the real problem. My own theory is this...

Every day, and in a thousand ways, we tell people that we are not in this together. We are a society that all but worships individual success -- particularly success won on at a human cost -- while actually villifying and even criminalizing those who do not make the cut. For them we have nothing but scorn. It is a sociopathic society and it breeds sociopaths. Particularly among the young. And why not? We outsourced their jobs, ran up 15 trillion in debt, trashed the economy, priced them out of an education, we're gonna destroy their social security, they already know they'll never have healthcare, and the people who did it, the generation that burned it to the ground, the people with all the money, they're patting themselves on the back and planning to spend spend spend and leave nothing in their wake.

We tell these young people every day that they are on their own, that they are losers, that we seriously do not give a damn about them, then we when they blow away a schoolroom full of children we wail, "How could they do this... don't they care?!"

The answer is no.

No. They do not care -- any more than we cared about them. We only STARTED to care about them the minute they pulled the trigger.

There was a line in a recent Batman movie that kinda sums this mindset up...Some men just want to watch the world burn.

If it was intended to shock it missed the mark. The audience didn't cringe, they nodded along. Fuck yeah, burn it. For most it was just an idea they can identify with, but for others it was more. It's how they really feel. Some people really do just want to watch the world burn. They are full of hate and fury and despair, and they want you to taste it as well. They don't give a fuck about you or your family, they don't even care about their own lives.

We can ban guns, but when we do all it will take is ONE who's a bit more creative. One maniac going into a theatre with chain, padlocks, and a napsack full of molotov cocktails -- and we will have our next epidemic. Or it could as easily be something else. You cannot ban sociopathy, but I think we better start working on it.

In my opinion.

[DallasNE]

91. Both The AR-15 And High Capacity Magazine

Used at Newtown were banned until Bush allowed the ban to expire.

[bossy22]

97. no they weren't

AR-15's were fully legal under the 1994 law, they just had to have their bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks removed. The magazines were also fully legal, you just had to spend a few more bucks to get them

[krispos42]

117. AR-15s were not banned

Semiautomatic rifles with certain combinations of secondary features were banned. If an AR-15 did not have a restricted combination, it was not banned. The Wikipedia article on the definitions of "assault weapon" explains it very well.

Two; Connecticut adopted into state law the federal 1994 ban pretty much word-for-word, only it didn't have a sunset provision. I live in Connecticut; as I type this the 1994 AWB is still in effect for me. I cannot buy an AR-15 with a pistol grip AND a bayonet lug, but I can buy one with a pistol grip OR a bayonet lug.

Three; 11-plus magazines were not banned, but sales of NEW 11-plus magazines made after the law took effect were. In other words, you could still buy a brand-new or used 11+ magazines after the ban took effect, as long as they were made BEFORE the ban.

Four: the Newtown shooter had either 5 or 11 minutes of time between shooting open the door and killing himself. He reloaded frequently, leaving partially-used magazines scattered about. He shot one poor kid 11 times, turning him into hamburger. Ammunition and reloading was apparently not an issue for him, the sick fuck that he was.

Five: Congress failed to get a bill to Bush's desk. Gah, now you're making me defend Bush. Ewww....

[DallasNE]

140. You're Splitting Hairs Here

I was aware that weapons were grandfathered then as well as any new legislation would grandfather them now. Even fully automatic weapons are legal under that definition -- they just have a different grandfather date. I even went back to Wikipedia to make sure it listed the AR-15 and it did. Lastly, we know that a very high percent of all AR-15's were manufactured after the ban was allowed to expire, including everything used in the Newtown massacre, so you are really splitting hairs in the context of this discussion.

Oh, Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate when the ban was allowed to expire so it is moot that no bill got to Bush's desk for him to veto.

[hack89]

169. AR-15 style rifles were perfectly legal under the AWB

once the manufacturers modified them to remove the cosmetic features that made them "assault weapons".

Weapons exactly like the one used at Sandy Hook were perfectly legal. CT's AWB was modeled after the 1994 AWB - the rifle used at Sandy Hook was not legally an assault weapon according to the state of Connecticut.

[hack89]

165. The Newtown shooter's gun would have been legal under the AWB

CT has an AWB modeled after the 1994 AWB and his rifle was legal in CT.

BTW - Bush did not allow the AWB to expire. Congress did not send him a bill that would have renewed it.

[DallasNE]

252. That Is A Stupid Argument

Bush did not ask Congress to send him a bill to extend the law so he most certainly allowed it to expire.

[hack89]

258. "I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban..." GW Bush 2004

In 2004, President George W. Bush said, “I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get in the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/23/a-look-back-at-gun-control-history/

[DallasNE]

343. The Full Context, Including The "But The Best Way"

Why didn't Bush try to extend the assault weapons ban?

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, new question, two minutes.

You said that if Congress would vote to extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?

BUSH: Actually, I made my intentions -- made my views clear. I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban, and was told the fact that the bill was never going to move, because Republicans and Democrats were against the assault weapon ban, people of both parties.

I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be able to own a gun. I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don't get in the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

But the best way to protect our citizens from guns is to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

And that's why early in my administration I called the attorney general and the U.S. attorneys and said: Put together a task force all around the country to prosecute those who commit crimes with guns.

And the prosecutions are up by about 68 percent -- I believe -- is the number.

Neighborhoods are safer when we crack down on people who commit crimes with guns.

To me, that's the best way to secure America.

This is from the last debate with Kerry in October 2004 -- a full year after the ban was allowed to expire. What did he say prior to October 2003 when the rubber hit the road. As this shows clearly, Bush did and said nothing to extend the assault weapons ban. Nothing. And Bush is not supporting an assault weapon ban today.

[hack89]

345. Congress did not give him a bill to sign.

do you really understand how government works?

[DallasNE]

357. Quite Well; You Obviously Don't Though

The President proposes and Congress disposes. While it doesn't always happen that way that is the way it is supposed to happen. The President submits a budget and Congress acts upon it (though most are dead on arrival) - most of the time. Bush admitted he didn't ask for an extension because there weren't the votes in Congress to pass it. That right there says Bush allowed the ban to expire so I don't know why you are being such a Bush apologist. For the onus to be on Congress they would have had to vote down an extension bill Bush submitted.

All authorization bills are supposed to originate in the House but because of the arbitrary Hastert Rule that says a majority of the majority must declare for a measure that originates in the House so we have recently seen Boehner ask the Senate to pass a bill and send it to them where he then allows an up or down vote on the Senate bill (Sandy aide and extending all of the Bush tax cuts except for those making over $400,000/$450,000 are two such examples).

[hack89]

364. Congress could have originated the bill.

They didn't need Bush to ask for it. Why didn't they?

[GreenStormCloud]

376. A renewed AWB never reached Bush's desk.

He said that he would sign it if congress passed it. The renewal of the AWB died a bipartisan death. Both Democrats and Republicans in congress ran away from it.

[Progressive dog]

162. Yeah, let's not ban anything unless the single ban makes

the weapon not useful for killing. You are right, the bans would have to go farther to stop the killing. But us so-called gun grabbers are willing to compromise, even to the extent of giving the gun worshipers most of what they want.
The gun worshipers still have enough bought and intimidated Congressmen to keep getting their way.

The AWB is supported by a majority of Americans.
The AWB is a small step in the right direction.
The gun lobby opposes the AWB.
The gun lobby spends lots of single issue money on elections.
The gun lobby turns out rude, unpleasant, threatening gun worshipers to intimidate even the families of gun massacre victims.

Yes, I will support any Congressperson with the guts to take on these nuts. A journey starts with a step.

[Peter cotton]

167. If the AWB is a "small" step in the right direction, what would you recommend as a final goal?

Were it up to you, what else would be banned?

Semiautomatics?
Handguns?
Manual repeaters such as bolt-actions and lever-actions?
Any firearm that holds more than 1 cartridge?
All firearms?

[Progressive dog]

176. One step at a time

An AWB is a minimal step.
What weapons or weapon features would the gun worshipers need to hunt and target practice?
Guns are not toys. Just take away the features that are only necessary for playing war or cops and robbers.

[Peter cotton]

189. So you don't recommend any restrictions beyond an AWB?

[sir pball]

191. Well, "playing war" and hunting are by and large the same

Hunters need accurate, reliable, powerful weapons (much more "high-powered" than current war weapons but I digress) - seems to me to be the same checklist I'd want for going to battle. For that matter, target shooters and military snipers have even closer requirements; so close in fact that I own not one but two genuine military issue rifles, not just "military-style", one of which is virtually indistinguishable from the current US sniper rifle - yet nobody wants to take those, hmm..

Just for the record, I support magazine limits, universal background checks through an FFL on a 4473, and licensing of handgun owners (I have a CCW wherever I'm allowed. I cannot make a case against licensing.)

[Progressive dog]

194. No they're not, you are confusing wants and needs

How many deer have shot back at you? I've yet to see an armed squirrel.

[sir pball]

199. What? That makes no sense.

Are you saying I don't need a rifle that will put a bullet that will humanely kill the deer (powerful) exactly where I aim it (accurate) in any and all weather conditions (reliable)?

My rifle of choice for deer hunting isn't a "military-style" weapon. It's a genuine military-issue weapon. And I guarantee you don't want to ban it.

[Progressive dog]

203. Humanely kill the deer makes no sense

Humanely kill. This isn't a mercy killing, the deer didn't ask you to shoot it.
So with a less accurate or powerful rifle, the gun worshipers can't be bothered to get closer to the prey and have to inhumanely kill.
And gee they can't humanely kill if the gun isn't reliable.

[sir pball]

207. Umm...you're babbling, dude. Are you anti-hunting?

The deer didn't ask me to kill it, no. So I *always*, and I take great pride in this point, shoot it in such a way that it drops to the ground without even hearing the gun go off. Would you rather I blow a hole in it's gut and let it bleed to death, slowly, in excruciating pain? Makes it taste like crap anyway; I hunt for food.

And no, I can't kill humanely with an unreliable gun...assuming I'm going to kill the animal anyway, why do you want me to NOT do it in the least painful way possible?

[Progressive dog]

209. Why don't you look up the definition of humane? nt

[sir pball]

210. Yeah yeah, "humane" would be to not hunt

So then you're really saying that hunters don't need guns either, right?

[Progressive dog]

226. How do your title and text connect?

And, no, I'm not.

[sir pball]

232. Oy vey..

I was assuming you were going to take the "no such thing as humane hunting" tack; I've had that from many an anti-hunter. Anyway, I'll humor you.

"Humane
Adjective
1. Having or showing compassion or benevolence.
2. Inflicting the minimum of pain."

Assuming we're working with #2 as a means to effect #1 (I am going to kill a deer. I want to do it in the most compassionate way possible, which means inflicting the minimum amount of pain) why would I not need the most accurate, reliable, and powerful firearm available to me?

[Progressive dog]

271. Asked and answered

Because the most accurate reliable and powerful firearm makes it easier for you, not for the deer. It is a want, not a need.

(sarcasm starts)
Let me see, a more powerful and accurate gun will let me shoot from a greater distance, it will not make it more likely to kill the deer quickly, because I will be shooting at a greater distance.
A more reliable gun will allow me a greater chance of shooting a deer, in any weather condition.
See, I want to make sure that if I miss, my bullets can carry far enough to hit something behind and I want to shoot from a far enough distance that I can't see what's behind. And then I want to do it in a snowstorm or other bad weather, it's more fun to shoot blind.

Then I can be a humane, compassionate, or whatever hunter, which is why I need my more powerful, more accurate, more reliable gun toy to hunt.
(sarcasm ends)

[sir pball]

282. I suppose if you call hunting as a whole a "want"

But your post that started this whole thread was talking about what one "needs to hunt", which I parse as "needs to hunt in the most responsible fashion," not "what will make it fairest for the deer". Don't play the whole "hunting guns are ok" line when you're clearly opposed to both hunting and guns - your cutesy sarcasm makes it pretty obvious you think all hunters are irresponsible idiots who buy ultra mags to go blasting at deer a half mile away in a housing development, and who consider guns "toys"; any hunter with the most basic safety education would be damned offended if you told them that's what they REALLY think when they buy something twice as powerful as a piddling little AR.

Possibly the most popular and inoffensive bolt-action hunting rifle, legal to own the world over, is also by far the most popular military and police sniper rifle in the world...should it be banned because it has the ideal features for "playing war"

[Progressive dog]

289. You can suppose whatever you want

Why would you have to suppose anything, why not just read my posts. If it ain't there, I didn't say it, if it is, I did.
If you read it into them, you are almost certainly wrong, based on past performance.
I have said nothing that would tell you I am opposed to hunting with guns. Maybe you need to look up what sarcasm means.

But let's analyze the part about the piddling little AR. Logic does say if I would be OK to ban an AR, then I would be eager to ban an even more powerful rifle except that a bolt action weapon is not semi-automatic (hey see even I know that and I really don't care if you are a gun expert). So no, the bolt action rifle doesn't bother me.

[sir pball]

406. You did pretty clearly say

And what I took offense at - giving a hunter a more capable weapon (than an AR, I should have made that clear) isn't going to improve our practices but rather encourage us to just be reckless yahoos blasting away and endangering everything within three-quarters of a mile. I'm not particularly confrontational by nature, although this whole debate tends to get that way awfully fast, but some things just grind my gears..

[krispos42]

237. Look

Your side complains constantly about "loopholes". I'm pointing out a BIG FUCKING LOOPHOLE in your proposed legislation so you can fix it before it passes and then you spend a decade complaining about it.

The fact that you admit that the proposed AWB is just a thing to pass to appease people is telling.

What it really is does it what Wall Street did during the financial crisis: you set up something fail, label it "AAA rated", dump it on off on some poor suckers at a profit, then when it fails spectacularly collect even more profit.


This will not work, but your side wants it out there so WHEN it doesn't work, you can expand the definition of "assault weapon" (again) to include even more guns.



And I'll note that you're the one being rude and unpleasant here, not me, and it's because I'm factually correct on your cherished idea. It's not my fault the idea is fundamentally flawed.

[Progressive dog]

253. My side is not a lockstep organization

like the gun worshipers. And yeah, I am being rude to people who defend against all restrictions on guns. I am sick of seeing them on the news, disrupting hearings on possible gun regulations, and not even allowing the families of gun violence victims time to grieve. And that head gun worshiper, the NRA VP, is sure so polite and pleasant.
If you find the truth to be unpleasant, I can't help it.

[krispos42]

264. Then why are you being rude to me?

You think that because I'm pointing out a factual, objective problem (an ongoing problem for 20 years now) with a law, I'm against any change? I've actually posted some things on this issue that you would probably like, such as as universal background checks and quantity limits on both buying and selling guns.


And let's face it, the bodies in Newtown were still warm and the facts in the case still unknown when the politicians began tripping over themselves to rush to a microphone and call for a new AWB.


Don't you with they had gone after Wall Street as hard as they did protruding pistol grips?

[Progressive dog]

276. As I said, I believe that the AWB is a minimal step

I would find it hard to believe that anyone who actually could support meaningful gun control could object to the AWB. I have seen multiple posters in the rkba (notice I didn't call it the gungeon, I'm being polite) claim to support gun regulations and object to every one proposed and refuse to propose any themselves. It appears to be merely lip service. Some might call them liars, but I am actually trying to be polite.

[krispos42]

361. A minimal step towards...what?

This is what confuses me, although I appreciate your politeness on the issue..

If your objective is to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, domestic abusers, foreign nationals, illegal drug users, and the dangerously mentally ill, then an AWB does not address this issue; a tight and universal mandatory background check does.

If your objective is to somehow reduce the firepower of the spree shooter, then this doesn't do it either, and it fact it would take draconian measures to make any kind of noticeable dent in the lethality of a mass shooting when a suicidal shooter has complete dominance over helpless, trapped victims for minutes at a time. Outlawing protruding pistol grips is not a solution.

If your objective is to lower the per-capita gun ownership rate, then this also does not affect that, as guns will still be bought as sold, including tactically-orientated guns.




There are a lot of things we can do to reduce all violence (and by extension, gun violence) that have nothing to do with gun regulation. Ending the War on Drugs, making our prison system public again, and there's a hole raft of economic stuff that would broadly empower the poor, working-glass, and lower-middle-class.

But putting aside the lecture on why USP health insurance is something we need to do, let's look at direct gun-control regulation that I think would work.

1) Mandatory universal background checks.

2) Withholding federal highway funds from states that don't have their NICS databases up to speed.

3) Create a type federal firearms license that would allow people to act as transfer agents with access to the NICS system. The transfer agent would not be a stocking dealer, but would run the background checks between two private individuals for a modest fee. It would be a kitchen-table side business for people. It would prevent straw purchases, as well as "hey, he looked honest to me!" sales.

4) Create limits on annual purchases and sales that a private citizen can perform per year. 12, perhaps, or maybe 10. Call it "X". The NICS would keep a count, and reject a transfer if more than X number of guns was bought or sold by a person. If you're buying or selling more than X guns a year, get a license. It would prevent significant gun-running or fencing, but not inconvenience anybody.

5) Have the NICS system keep track of the make, model, and serial number of all guns sold, the transfer agent who oversees the sale, and person who sells them. Not the buyer, but the seller. The buyer would keep the physical record in his possession but would stay outside of a central database. This affords police a quick way to track down the owner of a recovered crime gun (get a warrant, go to seller, get his record on who the gun was sold to) but prevents the police from trolling through a registry.


This seems to be a pretty ironclad system to me.

[Progressive dog]

362. this background check thing doesn't address the full problem

While purchasers should have background checks, this cures only part of the problem. The AWB and magazine restrictions are at least as necessary.
I don't think that your 3rd point, which allows private use of the NICS is a good idea.

[krispos42]

391. And.... we've hit the wall.

My 3rd point is that the ATF should create a license for people (who are screened just like a gun dealer license) who want to facilitate transfers between private parties by running the exact same background check as a conventional gun dealer would.


The only reason, as far as I could see, why a person would want an assault-weapon ban would be to later be able to expand the definition of "assault weapon" to include more types of guns. It's happened already; the 2013 proposed definition is already stricter than the 1993 definition.

Illustration:


This is a Ruger Mini-14, a semi-automatic rifle that feeds from a detachable magazine (not shown). Equipped as shown, it would be legal to sell new under both the 1993 and 2013 definition of "assault weapon".






This is also a Mini-14. Equipped as shown, it would be legal to sell new under the 1993 definition, but illegal under the 2013 definition. The defining factor is the protruding pistol grip.





This, too, is a Mini-14. Equipped as shown, it would not be legal under either the 1993 or 2013 definition. The defining factors are the presence of both the protruding pistol grip AND the folding buttstock. Removal of either makes it legal again under the 1993 law.







Here's the kicker: they are all the same rifle with the same unique serial number.






Discussing magazine limits is a different story.

[Progressive dog]

401. That is a pretty poor argument

If the gun laws banned a particular type of weapon and made it unlawful to continue to possess them, the gun worshipers would at least have to keep them hidden. The ones you use to illustrate your point would be instantly recognizable.
How many of your guns, or the guns of friends has the government taken to date?

[krispos42]

403. That's not the point I was trying to make

The point is, the mechanicals and the operation are identical regardless of which stock is bolted to the gun. If it's unlawful to have a Mini-14 with a pistol-grip, I can still have the Mini-14 as long as the pistol grip is replaced.

Do you think forcing people to buy new stocks for their AR-15s and Mini-14s and AK-47s is going to stop or lessen the impact of a spree shooter?

I'm not arguing the constitutionality of such a law, I'm arguing the effectiveness.

Behold the AWB-compliant AR-15:





Do you really think the problem with the Newtown shooter was that his rifle had a pistol grip?

[Progressive dog]

405. Yes it was, or maybe you just like pictures of guns

Seat belts wouldn't have saved all lives, air bags wouldn't either, neither do crumple zones.
And no one has claimed that limits on magazine capacity or an AWB will save all lives. So stop pretending that saving some is not worthwhile.

[krispos42]

407. Like I said, we've hit a wall.

The 'holy grail' of the gun-control movement is an assault-weapons ban, which is a pretty shitty holy grail. To extend your automotive analogy, what if Ralph Nader's car-safety legislative objective was to ban spoilers and giant rims and front-air dams on cars?

"No one is saying that banning spoilers will save all lives, but..."





I'm pretty sure that the gun-control movement simply wants the idea and a definition, any definition, no matter how useless or arbitrary, of "assault weapon" on the books. This way, once the term becomes a legal standard, they can simply and quietly expand the definition of "assault weapon", which would be much easier than starting with fresh legislation.

This has happened before; California has expanded the definition of "assault weapon" in the past couple of decades to include more guns, and Feinstein's 2013 definition covers more guns than her 1993 definition.

This is an objective fact, not subject to dispute. I'm pretty sure that New York's new SAFE law does the same thing, but I'm not certain.

I'm sorry we've come to an impasse on this, but I thank you for the civility.

[RC]

168. You choose to not get it.

It is the mind set of the people that want the macho look of the assault weapon that are the biggest problem. It is not the operation of the weapon, it IS the look and feel that gets their hormones flowing. Their fantasies of killing off the well-armed, advancing hoards, single handedly.
Think of it as going from from just putting food on the table with the standard hunting rifle, to "Hey, watch this..." Rambo wanta-be's, full of unrealistic fantasies of saving the day. The look and feel is most definitely the problem.

[Peter cotton]

170. I freely admit I don't "get" your argument.

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2013, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

As far as I can tell, you're arguing that this firearm should be banned:



And that this one should not be:



In spite of the fact that they are functionally identical. They shoot the same cartridge at the same rate of fire using the same magazines.

While I disagree with banning semiautomatics, I can at least see the reasoning behind it...but banning firearms based on how they look makes no sense whatsoever.

[RC]

177. You do not see the testosterone dripping from the top picture?

Normal people can.

[Peter cotton]

187. Nope. I see the following features:

1. A telescoping stock that allow the shooter to adjust the length of pull, making it more comfortable to use.
2. A pistol grip, allowing a more ergonomic hold on the rifle.
3. A plastic stock instead of a wooden one, making the rifle somewhat lighter.
4. Picatinny rails on the stock, allowing the attachment of accessories such as scopes, lasers, and flashlights.

Really, that's the only difference. No testosterone involved, although such features do seem to cause irrational fear in some.

[nikto]

367. I see lots of testosterone...

...In the 2nd gun.

I see none at all in the first one.

[RC]

368. Do you really expect anyone to believe that?

All most people will see is the immaturity behind that post.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

181. They aren't "functionally identical"....

The first one holds more rounds.

[Peter cotton]

183. Incorrect. They both accept identical magazines.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

198. Your pictures don't show that....

Besides, it gets tiresome to hear the same argument.

"Oh! They're the SAME!!!"

They're NOT and you know it. It's just a talking point designed to try to muddy the debate so you can count it as a "win".

[Peter cotton]

208. I'll edit the post to make it clearer, if that helps.

They're NOT and you know it.

Do they shoot the same cartridge?
Do they have the same rate of fire?
Do they use identical magazines?

One is slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory.

So what?


It's just a talking point designed to try to muddy the debate so you can count it as a "win".

One tends to win when the facts are on one's side.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

215. LOL!!! Because you declared victory does that mean it's over?

[Peter cotton]

224. Hm... I notice you didn't actually answer my questions or address the points in my last post.

Care to try again?

Do they shoot the same cartridge?
Do they have the same rate of fire?
Do they use identical magazines?

One is slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory.

So what?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

228. If they're so much the same, why get into a lather over the loss of one of them?

[Peter cotton]

244. You *still* haven't answered the questions. Let's try again, shall we?

Do they shoot the same cartridge?
Do they have the same rate of fire?
Do they use identical magazines?

One is slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory.

So what?

If they're so much the same, why get into a lather over the loss of one of them?

Because it's pointless feel-good legislation that will accomplish nothing but the inconvenience of gun owners. It would prevent citizens from acquiring firearms with modern features.

Can hunting, self-defense, and target shooting be accomplished with guns that feature none of the innovations of the last 50 years? Sure, although not quite as well...but what would be the point?

Why not allow rifles that are slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

255. I have a question for you...

Who do you think WANTS this country to become a war zone?

[Peter cotton]

273. Why are you trying so hard to avoid answering my questions?

Could it be that answering them would undermine your argument?

Let's try (yet ) again:

Do they shoot the same cartridge?
Do they have the same rate of fire?
Do they use identical magazines?

One is slightly lighter and more comfortable to shoot, as well as easier to attach an accessory.

So what?

Who do you think WANTS this country to become a war zone?

A few nut-cases on the far left and the far right.

Isn't conversation more interesting when questions posed are answered?

Care to try it?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

274. I already DID....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022538569#post219

[Peter cotton]

283. I wasn't part of that sub-thread.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

284. As far as I'm concerned the whole issue is washed down....

When they banned machine guns it became illegal to possess one. There wasn't even a "buyback".

People wanted them off the streets. The government did it.

In this case they are letting people keep them if the sale takes place prior to a "ban".

[Peter cotton]

294. Machine guns aren't banned, it's legal to possess them.

The 1934 law in question requires that you purchase a $200 tax stamp, and the 1986 law prohibited future manufacture for civilian use...but if you jump through all the hoops it's perfectly legal to own a pre-1986 machine gun. In fact, there are roughly half a million legally owned machine guns in private hands.

The same restrictions apply to suppressors (silencers), except that unlike machine guns their manufacture for private use is still allowed. I myself have a .22 silencer; I had to pay for the $200 tax stamp and wait about 8 months for the paperwork to go through.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

305. How about putting the same restrictions on assault weapons?

[Peter cotton]

309. It's been proposed. There were rumors that the 2013 AWB was going to do just that.

It wouldn't be practical, though...right now it takes the ATF 8 months to process the paperwork for a machine gun sale. If they suddenly had to deal with the registry of tens of millions of assault weapons, it would take them decades...at least.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

315. There aren't "tens of millions" of assault weapons out there....

To top it off, it was recently revealed that overall gun ownership is DOWN.

People don't feel the NEED for them like some people want you to think.

[AtheistCrusader]

318. You're right, there are MANY tens of millions.

In 2012 alone, there were 980k AR15's sold. That's one year, one model. There are hundreds of models currently and proposed to be classified as assault weapons. Hundreds.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

324. This may shock you but a LOT of those purchases,...

....are from people buying them up HOPING for a ban so they can resell them at a HUGE profit.

[AtheistCrusader]

325. still guns in circulation that could be, at any time

Sold to someone who will use it
Sold to someone who will use it malevolently
Lost
Stolen

Even if the purchaser bought it as a form of 'investment'.

There's 300+ million guns in the US, lots are bolt, lever, revolver... but the vast majority of semi autos are or are proposed to be classified as AW's.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

327. It's not a hopeless cause to get them off the streets....

The PUBLIC wants it but the politicians are lagging behind.

It's a fringe that are the "Gun Huggers".

[Peter cotton]

331. Almost a million ARs a year are sold.

Add in 800,000 Mini-14s, who knows how many M1 Carbines (there were 6.5 million produced), H&Ks, Steyrs, Kel-Tecs, SIGs, and who knows how many millions of AK-47 and AK-74 knockoffs...Americans are currently buying as many AKs from Russia as the Russian military and police combined. Then there's all the .22 LR rifles that mimic the looks of full-size military rifles...they've gotten extremely popular in the last 5 years, and are also classified as "assault weapons".

So is it tens of millions? Sure looks like it.

My point about the ATF stands.

[Progressive dog]

297. So they're better but some features are the same

That is what you are saying, so why not argue from the truth, rather than contradict yourself within a few sentences?

"What would be the point" tells it all.
Truth doesn't matter might be a more truthful phrasing.

[Peter cotton]

298. The two rifles shown are, in practical terms, identical.

One looks scary (well, to some). One does not.
One is slightly lighter than the other.
One is slightly more ergonomic than the other.
One has attachment points for accessories, the other does not.

They both shoot the same cartridge, at the same rate of fire, using the magazines of the same capacity, and can both be reloaded equally quickly. Banning one but not the other is absurd.

There's no contradiction whatsoever.

Really, this isn't that hard.

[Progressive dog]

304. But you like one better, I see

Ergonomics, now what would that be for?
Slightly lighter, huh?
And attachment points for accessories. You could expound on the available accessories.
Didn't you forget the pistol grip. Or maybe your example didn't have one? Or, I think I got it that's the ergonomic part.

The claim that are identical, in practical terms is absurd. What in he-- does" in practical terms mean." In this case it seems to mean "in spite of the obvious differences, only because I say so." And even though they're the same, I like one better.

[Peter cotton]

307. Actually, I like them both.

I collect both modern and vintage firearms, ranging from 140 year old revolvers to brand new AR-15s.

Ergonomics, now what would that be for?

To make the rifle easier to handle and more comfortable to shoot. This is bad...why?

Slightly lighter, huh?

Yes, plastic stocks are somewhat lighter than wooden ones. This is bad...why?

And attachment points for accessories. You could expound on the available accessories.

I did so in an earlier post, but I'm happy to do so again. Typical accessories that are attached to picatanny rails are scopes, sights, lasers, and flashlights. While all of these can be put on the more "old-fashioned" rifle, it's easier to do so with rails. This is bad...why?

Didn't you forget the pistol grip. Or maybe your example didn't have one? Or, I think I got it that's the ergonomic part.

Ergonomics includes the pistol grip, yes.

The claim that are identical, in practical terms is absurd. What in he-- does" in practical terms mean."

It means that they both shoot the same cartridge, at the same rate of fire, using the magazines of the same capacity, and can both be reloaded equally quickly. Why is this so hard to understand?

In this case it seems to mean "in spite of the obvious differences, only because I say so." And even though they're the same, I like one better.

Well, now you know better.

Or maybe not. For some reason I have to keep explaining things that are glaringly obvious...

[Progressive dog]

317. so now you get to redefine identical

I didn't realize you wrote dictionaries. I would agree that the rifles are similar, maybe you could defend very similar but arguing that ergonomics is no intended to make a rifle easier to use does not make it easier to use is more than absurd.

[Peter cotton]

333. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I said they were identical in practical terms, they both shoot the same cartridge, at the same rate of fire, using the magazines of the same capacity, and can both be reloaded equally quickly. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Progressive dog]

335. Are you being deliberately deceptive

You have admitted that there are practical differences and continue to claim that there aren't.
You might want to actually look up the definition of practical. It is obvious that two devices with different ergonomics cannot be identical in practical terms. Not within the dictionary. "Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something."
Do you also need a definition for identical or can you look it up? What about ergonomics?

[hack89]

186. They are identical rifles underneath the furnishings. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

212. Uh huh,...like that's an argument.

[hack89]

214. Same bullet, same rate of fire, same magazine size

one is legal, one would be illegal.

Are you really going to tell me that there is a significant difference in lethality between the two?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

219. Fine, ban both...

Problem solved.

[hack89]

222. Better tell Feinstein before it is too late. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

223. You just can't accept that the two are NOT "the same".

[hack89]

229. They are just as lethal

The Sandy Hook shooter could have killed all those kids with that "legal" Mini-14. It has the same rate of fire, shoots the same bullet, and use the same size magazine as the AR-15.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

235. That's because the assault weapon is the choice of crazy people.

[hack89]

241. Actually hand guns are the weapon of choice of mass shooters

assault weapons are the last choice - even shotguns were used in more mass shootings than assault weapons.


The Va Tech shooter choose a handgun - he killed 32 people. The most deadly school shooting was done with a pistol.

More shotguns were used in mass shootings than assault weapons

[Spitfire of ATJ]

246. So we should do nothing.

[hack89]

251. You could face reality and at least propose laws that solve the problem

as opposed to passing ineffective law "just to do something.".

[Spitfire of ATJ]

257. Yeah, ban handguns too.

[SunSeeker]

299. Exactly. nt

[SpartanDem]

265. At least that would make sense

as opposed to what Feinstein proposed

[Spitfire of ATJ]

268. A massive buyback would be cool too....

Did they seize machine guns when they were banned or did they just wait for them to wear out?

BTW: Ever see the movie "Public Enemy"?

[GreenStormCloud]

378. Machine guns aren't banned, but they are taxed at purchase.

In 1986 the full-auto registery was closed, so manufacture of new civilian machine guns was stopped.

Not that many people want full-auto guns. Full-auto is a way to turn lots of ammo into noise with no guarantee of hitting anything. They are expensive to shoot.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

379. "Not that many people want full-auto guns."

Yer kidding,....right?

[baldguy]

213. The "cosmetic" argument always looses me.

If your problem with the assault weapons ban just comes down to what you say are merely surface features which don't effect the functionality of the weapon - then where are the proposals from gun-knowledgeable people which do target the functional features of the weapon?

OTOH if your argument relies only on features you characterize as cosmetic, doesn't that take these weapons out of the "tool designed to do a job" category and place them into the "fashion accessory designed for doofus gun-nuts so they can pretend to be Rambo" category? The first is equivalent to a hammer, the second is equivalent to a pair of lavender pumps and a matching handbag.

The difference is, of course, if a manufacturer purposely designed shoes to killed people, they'd be shut down and the products would be destroyed.

[hack89]

217. Banning all semiautomatic weapons, rifles and handguns, would be the only workable solution nt

[baldguy]

230. OK then. What would your steps be to get there?

[SunSeeker]

197. Exactly. None of these dudes would buy one if it was pink.

Maybe we should require all Assault Weapons be pink.

[Peter cotton]

220. Not my cup of tea, but to each their own, I say.

[SunSeeker]

254. Not pink enough. And thanks for proving my point. nt

[Peter cotton]

270. How about this one?

[SunSeeker]

272. Perfect. Except instead of Hello Kitty, each stock should bear the picture of a Newtown victim.

The other side of the stock should say "The user of this weapon is a fucking idiot." You know, kinda like cigarette package warnings.

[mwrguy]

319. +1

[krispos42]

243. And you think taking away protruding pistol grips will take away this "biggest problem"?

Which, lets face it, ISN'T the biggest problem. You seem to want to have the government wage war on a mentality or a personality type you don't approve of.

The idiots running around in the woods with AR-15s and MREs and dog-eared copies of "The Turner Diaries" are not the problem. There is never going to be a revolution, or a 2nd-Amendment remedy, or a protracted insurgency, or a race war, or whatever they talk about around the campfire.

So let them. They don't actually do anything but talk and prepare, as opposed to the thousands of bodies racked up annually by our War on Drugs and War on Health Coverage, and related supporting industries. And the more money and time they spend on rifles and "training", the less they have to support Republicans and other regressive people.


Man, I wish Congress had gone after Wall Street as hard as they're going after protruding pistol grips.

[delrem]

295. What can you call Reid's move?

Preemptive filibustering?
Or preemptive faux filibustering? (because the R's never have to actually filibuster)

Is a new vocabulary needed?
Didn't someone promise to fix this crap?
How come only the R's are willing to play hardball?
so many questions...

[louis c]

341. I'm sending this to my dear cousin Diego in FLA.

We were discussing this just this morning.

Diego could have produced this cover himself.

[SoCalMusicLover]

386. It's Over

Even John Belushi would agree.

But the media needs a story to cover, and politicians need money to beg for, so the dog and pony show will go on a few more days, until we await the next big mass killing that starts the useless debate anew.

[freshwest]

2. Oh those precious babies! Tears!

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Exactly.

That's the first thing I see.

[tblue]

242. What the hell else matters?

What could matter more than a little child's life?

[JoeBlowToo]

155. Yes, those kids were expendable, no tears needed...

Nothing trumps the 2nd Amendment which is the source of all our freedoms.

[mindwalker_i]

3. How do you ask a child to be the last casualty

of our stupidity?

[Skittles]

4. all so that paranoid cowards can feel secure

DISGUSTING

[Arugula Latte]

5. I'll say it. I fucking hate the gun nuts in this country.

[KT2000]

63. +1,000 n/t

[forestpath]

120. +1001

[Brainstormy]

192. I'll say it, too.

and all their stupid rationalizations for wanting to be ready to kill people.

[ellie]

233. Thank you

So do I.

[valerief]

279. +1

[marions ghost]

6. Effective

They R Us.

[sheshe2]

7. The Shame is on us,

It makes me cry for all those sweet babies.

[TDale313]

29. +1000

[defacto7]

54. I don't think I have been reminded of the atrocity so abruptly...

I just began to weep out loud. sh....

[valerief]

281. Not me. I'm no gungeoneer. nt

[spanone]

8. the wants and needs of the NRA trumps the american people.

[jerseyjack]

10. Its actually the needs of the gun manufacturers...

[defacto7]

61. who promote the sick minded,

sociopathic, unthinking, apathetic, complacent, arrogant, ruthless, self aggrandizing, gun addicts.

[spanone]

160. NRA = gun manufacturers

[spin]

55. The big bad NRA has only 5 million members. Your problem is not the NRA ...

it's the estimated 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 gun owners in our nation and the voting age members of their families.

Admittedly some of these gun owners see no problem with banning weapons similar to the AR-15. Unfortunately for those who favor strong gun control a high percentage of gun owners believe that if an assault weapons ban passes, the next step is to ban all semi-automatic firearms followed by all handguns. This may or may not be true, which is largely irrelevant as gun control advocates will find it impossible to convince gun owners that they will be satisfied with merely a new assault weapons ban.

Gun owners also wish to see gun violence decrease and have many logical ideas that if passed into legislation would do far more good than any assault weapons ban. It might also help if our nation strongly enforced existing laws. For example, all too often a person with a violent criminal record is caught carrying a gun illegally and gets off with only a light penalty. A year or so later he uses an illegal firearm to murder another person.

I feel it is quite possible to improve our gun laws. The fact that the assault weapons ban is unlikely to pass in this Congress is not the end of the world. If you wish you can always work on passing one in your state.

[VanillaRhapsody]

103. they want to be able to protect themselves if they are assaulted or home broken into

You don't need 100 round magazines to do that. You have a right to protect life and property...not to endanger every one else's!

It is for that reason you don't have a right to a dirty bomb! Its really simple if you are not trying to make it complex.

[spin]

179. I currently live in an urban environment. ...

I don't hunt and I don't target shoot rifles.

Therefore I don't own an AR-15 or similar rifle. For home defense, I feel a revolver and a double barreled 12 gauge coach gun are sufficient.

It is possible that I will move to a move rural area. If I do, I may grow interested in target shooting rifles on my property or hunting feral hog. If so, I may reconsider my selection of firearms and add a "black rifle." If so, a standard magazine will be adequate as the hi-cap magazines such as the 100 rounds versions are unreliable and heavy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

393. Thank you for your reasonable response!

[spin]

394. Thank you back! (n/t)

[HockeyMom]

250. You make too many assumptions

I am a non-gun owner living in a gun household. Is that an oxymoron? I will vote, and have written to my Senator, urging passage of more gun control measures if that means taking away "my" guns.

[spin]

332. You personally dislike some firearms but not all women married to gun owners do. ...

Often the shooting sports is a family hobby, so you may have a prime gun owner and voting age members of his family that enjoy shooting.

My ex-wife and I used to target shoot handguns on a weekly basis. She liked a Ruger revolver that I owned more than my other handguns. Once the sights were adjusted for her, it effectively became her handgun although I was technically the owner. She was NOT a supporter of gun control and neither was I although we both were Democrats as we believed in many of the other goals of the Democratic Party. My daughter also used my handguns at the range and also was a pro-gun rights Democrat.

Not all gun owners and members of their families oppose another AWB, but a significant percentage do. Sadly many gun owners refuse to vote for any Democrat as they are one issue voters and they see our party as the gun control party.

I can cast my votes for Obama and Bill Nelson, a Senator from my state, as while they may support another AWB there is little chance that one will pass. Of course, I didn't want to see Mitt Romney or Connie Mack in office as I largely disagree with their views. I am not a one issue voter.

[HockeyMom]

340. Well, I am a gun violence survivor

from when I was 6 years old in 1954. I have had to defend my life, without a gun, almost 50 years ago. I have lived through 2 school lock downs in Florida (not in NY) where I had to HIDE in a bathroom with 16 Pre-K kids, almost one year to the day before Sandy Hook. My husband, and I am sure most of the supporting "gun wives", never experienced ANY of this. My husband is a Nam Vet who never fired a gun in combat, or ever in his life saw anyone shot to death.

Come back and talk to me when you have experience ANY of the things I have.

[spin]

349. I have watched a person die from a gun shot. ...

It's an experience I will never forget.

My mother and my daughter successfully stopped an attack because they had a handgun. The reason I am here to post this might be due to the fact that my mother stopped a man who rushed her while she was walking home by firing two shots over his head. She was fortunate that she had a small S&W LadySmith revolver in her purse as she was a tiny woman who weighed less than 100 pounds.

I have never seen combat or had to use a gun for self defense but I did chase four guys off who were robbing my next door neighbor. When my wife told me they were stealing stuff from my neighbors house, I told her to call the police. I then pulled a "Geronimo" and ran across the street yelling at the top of my voice. Two guys ran one way and two the other.

It wasn't the brightest thing I ever did as I was lucky not to get shot. One of the items they were stealing was my neighbor's guns and one guy tried to chamber a round into a .45 pistol when he heard me coming but had a misfeed. I could have grabbed my handgun on my way out the door but I had enough commonsense to realize that I might be in a lot of trouble if I shot someone merely because he was robbing my neighbor's house.

The cops eventually caught the thieves. Three were juveniles but one was sentenced to a year in prison.

[HockeyMom]

350. My husband's guns are all in a combination safe

I do not know how to use those guns, or the combination to that safe. So if a burglar comes into my home when he isn't here, they will just have to kill me. They won't get me to open that safe to steal those guns because I couldn't open it even if I wanted to. I choose to do this. My husband is not happy about any of this, but this is how I choose to live my own life as a "gun grabber" living in one those "gun households".

[spin]

358. That is and should your decision to make.

If you choose you can harden your home to make it far more difficult for an intruder to enter which may give the police time to arrive after you call them from your cell phone.

You might also consider having some pepper spray available although in a confined space it may incapacitate you as well as your attacker. Foaming pepper spray might be a good choice as it doesn't spray a large mist.

If I was a bad guy I wouldn't want to mess with a feisty woman with a child's baseball bat or a police baton.

And of course you could do nothing and simply take your chances. Violent crime in the United States has returned to levels last seen in the late 1060s according to DOJ and FBI stats.

I should mention that you should only consider a firearm for self defense if you have mastered how to use one and are willing to shoot another person knowing that you may kill or seriously injure them. Pointing a firearm at someone in hopes of scaring him off might work but he may realize that you are unfamiliar with the weapon and unwilling to use it. If he does, he will likely simply take it away from you and possibly use it against you.

[HockeyMom]

388. I will take my chances with whatever is around me,

and have done that with a steam iron, and a metal window fan. I am very "creative" with "quick reflexes" as the NYPD have told me, twice.

While this worked in NY where it is very difficult to get a gun, maybe not so much living in Florida where anybody can get a gun. Well, I am OLD. Gonna die from SOMETHING, sooner rather than later. Whatever. I will not live the rest of my life in fear from some "boogie man with a gun".

[spin]

389. I hope you never have to face an intruder in your home or are attacked on the street ...

but if it does happen, I feel you will prevail and survive despite the fact that you are not armed with a firearm.

You sound like a self reliant individual to me who would fight like a cornered cat. A stray cat that used to wander by my house once faced the neighbor's Rottweiler and won.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Our national politics, always getting in the way

Backwards.

[lunasun]

11. I have never seen all their faces - hope the cover has impact

sad and sick
shame on U.S.(us)

[NightWatcher]

13. But on the upside think of the thousands of guns sold fearing a gun grab.

I said early on that they better act fast, and the bans should have teeth or else the gun makers will make a ton off the fear and the 5th Annual Obama Gun Grabber Sale.

Now in many parts of the country you can't find a gun because the shops are sold out and on back order. How many more guns will be used that were hastily snatched up because They were coming for the guns?

Like it or not, the talk of gun control sold a shit ton of guns and ammo.

[tiny elvis]

84. what does this tell us?

maybe manufacturers do not keep large stocks
maybe 5-6 guys bought all the good guns at your store (can't find a gun? zat so?)
more surely it tells us that armory builders are not rational
and are the very people who need their guns taken

[blkmusclmachine]

14. The NRA is "Too Big To Topple."

So says our bought-off hacks in DC.

[Skip Intro]

15. I'm sorry, but using those kids as stage props for an agenda...

it's just sickening.

Slam me all you want, it's as effin bad as the years-long tying of everything to 9*11.

It ain't right.

[aquart]

17. Wow. Can't stand the sight of smiling children.

That's sensitive.

Me, I think they should have published the autopsy photos with the multiple wounds making identification difficult.

But I'm the insensitive type.

[Skip Intro]

20. It's the last hurrah for a sick ploy that failed.

I am glad to see it go.

They are innocent victims of a senseless tragedy, not political marketing material.

To use them to push a political agenda, to try to measure and manipulate outrage and turn it into support using these innocent victims as tools - it's sick and disrespectful and I am shocked so many are ok with it.

It's wrong.

[aquart]

22. Got no problem with it.

Just as I had no problem seeing the dead soldiers killed in ONE WEEK of fighting in Viet Nam.

http://life.time.com/history/faces-of-the-american-dead-in-vietnam-one-weeks-toll/

But keep pushing that feeble talking point. What you don't like is that it works.

[Skip Intro]

25. Why do you call my views a talking point?

What do you mean by that?

[bossy22]

31. when it comes to guns

Many DUers leave their thinking cap at home. Any opposition to any proposed gun control law is seen as an "NRA talking point" irregardless of what is actually said. It's kind of funny because many times they will attack you using talking points such as "we don't want weapons of war on american streets" or "there is no magazine limit on hunting humans".

We should discuss gun control in this country, but people have to realize that just because something has a flashy name, doesn't mean its worth supporting.

[HangOnKids]

77. Flashy name?

Really? Leave their thinking cap at home? Really?

[bossy22]

80. yes, really

you don't need an assault weapon to be able to commit mass murder. just look at Cho in the VT massacre. He used a 9mm pistol.

If Lanza was armed only with a 9mm pistol do you really think the body count would significantly change in light of what happened at VT?

[HangOnKids]

82. Blah blah blah

More blah. Thanks for playing.

[bossy22]

83. so sticking your fingers in your ears?

can't handle a bit of logic? You prove my point

[HangOnKids]

86. Please logic?

Your point? PLAAAHHHBWAAHHHAWWAAAA. REALLY?

[bossy22]

88. my point is an AWB would do nothing

why waste the time? If you proposed a total gun ban that would atleast be logical. How can you say that banning AWBs will prevent another Newton when you don't need an Assault weapon to commit newton? Answer me that.

[HangOnKids]

89. Did I Mention An AWB Ban?

Why are you putting words in my mouth?

[bossy22]

95. my apologies, you didn't

But my comment is in reference to the AWB.

There is gun control out there that makes sense. The AWB just isnt it for obvious reasons but it is still treated as "holy gun control scripture" around DU. There are better things out there

[IndyPragmatist123]

144. Great post. The gun control argument is incredibly emotional and irrational for many

Putting a scope and extended grip on a musket doesn't make it any more dangerous, but it does make it an assault rifle, and it would be banned. I don't think this issue is completely dead. There will be a bill titled something like "Compassion for Children Act" or "Anti-murder act" where people will try to use emotion to dictate the conversation.

We need gun control that works, not some silly assault rifle ban that does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.

[aquart]

121. No idea, but I thank you for your concern.

It's important that we never look on the pre-multiple bullet wound faces of these NRA-threatening children again. Out of respect. For the gun manufacturers.

[WillyT]

46. Like That Sick And Shameless Ploy Civil Rights Workers Pulled At The Edmund Pettis Bridge In 1965

Sick, disrespectful, and wrong. Playing on peoples emothions...

Do you even hear yourself ???

[bossy22]

87. do you support "stop and frisk" policies?

I'm just curious

[apocalypsehow]

94. That's nice. n/t.

[bossy22]

96. so you are saying you support such policies?

[apocalypsehow]

100. That's nice. n/t.

[SunSeeker]

296. I can't believe your above post was hidden.

There are so many gungeoneers on DU now that they are now the majority on juries, and get to block unfavorable statements about themselves.

They get on by posting one non RKBA post--if that--then they launch into the threads that mention anything involving gun control, like this thread, which they have swarmed like pirhana. It took forever for the thread to even open. And it's all NRA talking points, following by the paternalistic, condescending, "you don't know what you're talking about," "it's emotion talking" crap. And none of THAT gets hidden.

[Thor_MN]

150. Seems to me, both Adam Lanza and now you are using them as props...

The 'political agenda' you decry is an attempt to prevent more children from being likewise used. Sick and disrespectful is using them as tools to try to scuttle anything to prevent it from happening again.

I have yet to see a gun cultist admit that they own the Adam Lanzas of the world. He was on your side, you own him. You do not get to dismiss him, every past and future mass murderer is part of your team. You are working to support them. You are probably thinking how you are different and that you are always safe with guns. Truth is, I probably agree with you and wouldn't mind you living next door, or next to the Elementary school 6 blocks from here. But that doesn't really matter as you are supporting people who are not safe with guns. The reason there needs to be regulations is that the industry has proven incapable of regulating itself.

[baldguy]

18. It's sickening to allow them to be murdered, and do nothing.

It's sickening to allow a RW terrorist organization like the NRA to dictate our national gun control policy.

It's sickening & twisted that there's anyone left alive in America that is so ignorant, stupid, or soulless to value the lives of our children less than the contemptible machine that kills them.

And gun violence is very, very different from 9/11. We can do something about gun violence. But - because of people like you - we don't. THAT'S what ain't right

[mimi85]

21. +1000% nt

[Skip Intro]

24. You make a lot of assumptions. I think mine are more realistic:

The NRA only wields as much power over lawmakers as the lawmakers allow. DF's AWB didn't get squashed because of the NRA, it got squashed because politicians want to get re-elected and they know the voters don't want this. It isn't the NRA, it's the people they have to face during re-election that got this scuttled.

I don't know of anyone who values children's lives less than a murderer's life.

I'll direct you to post 20 if you still don't understand what I'm saying.

[baldguy]

44. I know what you're saying: "Out of sight, out of mind."

You and the RW pro-criminal NRA hopes that if the politicians believe if the public can't remember the tragic victims, then there's no reason to pass the assault weapons ban. Unfortunately Harry Reid has succumbed to the RW bullshit, Diane Feinstein hasn't.

But the public DOES remember. And the public overwhelmingly supports having it reinstated - even in gun-happy places like Texas. Polls show this time & time again. And the public will certainly remember who put the guns over the lives of our children come next election.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. ...

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. 9/11 wasn't related to most it was used for (war in iraq for instance)

guns did kill those kids and other kids and more kids in the future.

when there is truth in advertisement, it may not be pleasant but it is right.

[LAGC]

34. Do you feel the same way about anti-abortion wackos...

...who wave around pictures of dead fetuses in everyone's face?

Do you think such crass appeals to emotion are effective or right?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. the abortions they do show (the partial births or DNX) are also a form of false advertising.

if they had shown all these kids shot and bloody, i would have said they'd gone too far, but as it currently stands, i support this

[LAGC]

79. Oh okay.

I thought you were wanting them to show the full crime scene photos like some of the others upthread.

That just seems disturbing to me, to say the least.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

101. nope, what they have now is powerful enough. blood and gore makes us feel disgust

hence they are generally not particularly efficient advertising tools

[LAGC]

104. I agree.

And it really does tug at my heart looking at all those innocent little faces in the photos.

I wish the solution were really as simple as passing a couple gun control laws and preventing all future violence.

But when someone is as deranged as these spree-killers all were, they will always find a way to inflict mass harm, no matter what road-blocks the rest of us try to put in place.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

105. that's no reason to not have any roadblocks at all.

crime will always happen but we need police and laws and so and so forth. just because senseless killings will always happen, doesn't mean we should make them easy to happen

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. oh you mean like that guy in China who stabbed and killed all those kids right?

Only he didn't....

But you know....whatever makes a good narrative work for you!

[VanillaRhapsody]

109. Funny though

the mother of one of those babies got his face shot off....and you know what...his OWN MOTHER had an open casket so the Governor could see what our ridiculous lack of gun control caused.

Are you condemning her for the same reason?

[LAGC]

111. A mother's got to do what a mother's got to do.

I just don't like the idea of dead children being bandied about for political purposes, especially by folks who weren't even there.

I mean, it might be one thing if ALL the parents agreed to it, but I can't imagine most of them really want the whole world to see their kids in such a state. Would you?

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. As a matter of fact....yeah they do!

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. You probably wouldn't have liked the image of that screaming

naked pubescent child running from the carnage in Viet Nam either...

But this iconic image....changed everything

[LAGC]

351. I think this photo was much more effective at changing minds:

But point taken.

[VanillaRhapsody]

359. the point was a child....

as horrific as that image is...I don't KNOW that is a child being executed....I do know that child in the image I provided was a catalyst for political change...as the pictures of the sweet but now dead children in the image this thread was about SHOULD be the catalyst for change. One young girl changed the minds of many. I saw that image of that young girl (the same age as I was at the time) on the TV news that night....and I never ever forgot it!

[Le Taz Hot]

132. We have a different interpretation.

I'm seeing the gun lobby using them as canon fodder so all the ignorant little dickless jerk-offs out there can keep their precious and the MIC can continue to fund both sides of any war on the planet. It ain't right.

[morningfog]

147. Shame on you. You and your NRA pals have blood on your hands and are the problem.

[Ganja Ninja]

152. You think that's sickening? Maybe it's because you're looking at the "before" photos.

Try looking at the crime scene photos if you want to see sickening. Some of those kids were dismembered by the shooter and his Bushmaster. They weren't "stage props" then. They were the victims of a horrendous crime. Quite frankly I think everyone should be forced to look at what happened to each and every one of these kids. I think the crime scene photos should be published for all to see so they can judge for themselves what's sickening.

[WillyT]

16. HUGE K & R !!!

[ReRe]

19. K&R

We will never forget those babies and their families.

We will keep fighting the gun manufacturers and their advertising dept, the NRA, until the weapons of war and their ammunition are gone from the face of this country. This fight has just begun, and will NEVER blow over. Newtown was the last straw.

[bossy22]

27. can you define what a "weapon of war" is?

[ReRe]

35. Answer: Assault weapons

[bossy22]

38. So this isn't a "weapon of war"?

it is the primary long range sniper rifle used by american service members. It is not banned in any form of any assault weapon ban laws on the books or proposed?

what about this?


also not covered in the bill

back to your point- no, assault weapons are not weapons of war- Assault Rifles, Machine guns, etc...those are weapons of war

M16 is not an AR-15, it may look like it, feel like it, but it has key differences. An M16 is capable of full-automatic fire, while an AR-15 is not. M16 variants such as an M4 are shorter than an AR-15.

[ReRe]

42. Would you mind removing that filth from this thread?

[bossy22]

47. what filth?

[ReRe]

48. No further comment to the likes of you. Good luck. n/t

[bossy22]

50. if the facts don't fit your belief just ignore them

next time a republican does that I shouldn't expect you to get angry right?

[tiny elvis]

93. assuming you do not know how you look

pasting up the gun porn under the pictures of the gun murdered
is monstrous
assuming you got carried away
be self aware

[bossy22]

102. it depends on the context

in a debate you aren't allowed to hide in some "moral safe zone". Nor do you get absolute moral authority by hiding behind those pictures. Those pictures are being used to advocate for a political goal. I'm using mine to respond to that goal and just because i respond against it does not mean what I say is automatically "filth".

Next time someone uses 9/11 to advocate for the patriot act you should just sit there and take it- that is what you are saying.

[tiny elvis]

118. allowed to hide from what? weird obsessive digression?

you do have a right to be hideous
if i ever see a peer advocate the patriot act i will show him my guns

[Warren DeMontague]

137. so you'd respond to pictures of 9-11 victims by posting pictures of box cutters and airplanes, then?

[Warren DeMontague]

136. Right... "just ignore them".

[apocalypsehow]

65. That's the ugly mentality we face in this fight against the evil that is the "RKBA" movement:

they simply don't care about dead kids if it means the slightest restriction in their "right" ( ) to tote high-powered weaponry around their parent's basements, or strut about town with a pistol perched in their pants.

They don't even care about observing any kind of decency in a thread about the children massacred by an "RKBA enthusiast" right here on Democratic Underground: it's in your face, bub, and they delight in offending the decent sensibilities of progressives and liberals - or anyone, really - who wants to do something about curbing such senseless violence through sensible legislation.



Their utter appalling lack of humanity or compassion or even simple common decency never fails to shock men and women of conscience and conviction.

[ReRe]

90. Really. I thought we had dealt with the likes of it....

... First it was guns, then it was religion, now it's back to guns. They're losing, my friend. Because this one can't be swept under the rug. They don't feel those emotions you stated, "compassion, humanity and common decency." They are psychopaths. Psychopaths have no feelings for anyone but themselves.

[apocalypsehow]

98. Spot-on post - wish we could recommend individual replies.

[spin]

387. Realize that the majority of gun owners have been horrified by the recent massacres ...

and honestly do wish to pass legislation that will reduce the occurrence of such events. However we do not believe that we are personally responsible for the acts of criminals and those with severe mental issues who misuse firearms. The few gun owners who feel no compassion for the victims and families of those who were killed might well be psychopaths.

We largely feel that our current laws can be improved and better enforced and if we accomplish this we will reduce gun violence far more than banning certain firearms because of cosmetic features.

We also feel that the gun control movement is attempting to ban "assault weapons" as a first step that will be followed by banning all semi-automatic weapons and then all handguns. While many in the gun control movement deny this, I do read numerous posts on DU that express support for the total ban and confiscation of all firearms in our nation.

A fact that is rarely mentioned by both sides of the gun control debate is that violent crime including gun crime has dropped to levels last seen in the late 1960s in our nation. Much of this decrease occurred after the first AWB was allowed to sunset. Some gun owners will point out that in recent years the sale of firearms has absolutely skyrocketed and will attribute the drop in violent crime rate by saying that "more guns = less crime." Unfortunately the crime equation has numerous factors to consider and the number of firearms in civilian hands is just one. Still it should be obvious that more guns does not necessarily mean more crime or gun violence.

I feel that if both sides of the debate would resist insulting each other, we might be able to accomplish a lot of good. Unfortunately the art of compromise has been largely lost in our nation and we have allowed it to be replaced by partisan politics.

The future progress of our nation looks bleak if hate continues to replaces respect on gun control and many other important issues.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. because it compensates for their other "short-comings"

its kinda like when they reach mid-life and buy a corvette cause they think it makes them seem more "virile"

[baldguy]

92. Gun porn.

And all that implies.

[Le Taz Hot]

133. Nice timing!

You're all class.

[Warren Stupidity]

146. Another pro gun progressive covering the NRA talking point 3: "get technical and derail the debate"

[SunSeeker]

306. Bingo. nt

[RC]

175. To clarify a few points.

assault weapons are not weapons of war- Assault Rifles, Machine guns, etc...those are weapons of war.

So, you are saying weapons are not used in war, but rifles and guns are? Got it. I've been in the military and I did not know that.

BTY, the AR-15 is easily turned into the equivalent of a fully automatic weapon gun by changing the stock or with the simple addition of a rubber band. Now tell me why something like this is useful for hunting, unless it is for hunting people?

What the hell is the difference between an assault weapon and an assault gun?

[Ganja Ninja]

158. Let me give you an answer you won't like.

any .22 caliber weapon (or smaller) with a clip or magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds.
any rifle of a caliber greater than .22 caliber with a clip or magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
any handgun with a caliber of greater than .22 caliber and a clip, magazine or cylinder capacity of more than 6 rounds.
any shotgun with a clip, magazine or drum capacity of more than 5 rounds.
any weapon using a "Double Column" magazine.
All of the above apply regardless weapon's action be it bolt action, lever action, pump action, semi-auto, Single Action, Double Action, Double Action only.

Ban all of them that meet any of the above description.

[sir pball]

193. Most of those are at least consistent and not cosmetic/"feelgood"

But why double-stack? My bolt-action, wood-stocked, blued-steel, utterly classic and inoffensive .243 has an internal double-stack magazine, 5 rounds. As does every other bolt-action rifle, even the 2 or 3-round ultra mags and elephant guns. It's just a consequence of how the rounds physically fit best into the space in the receiver. You want to ban all of them? Then again, my Rem 700 is literally identical to the military-issue sniper rifle version..

[bossy22]

23. and good riddance too

the assault weapons ban is a farce. It is a waste of political capital and time. It would do nothing to limit future mass shootings nor the carnage they cause.

[ReRe]

40. I can think of allot of farces...

... but the drive to ban assault weapons is not one of them. Have you lost your way?

[bossy22]

45. no i have not, I'm quite on track

the assault weapons is a distraction. They are rarely used in crimes, account for less than 5% of murder weapons used in the U.S. and aren't the most lethal weapons available. Might I remind you that the VT shooter used a 9mm and 22lr handgun to kill 32 people- neither of which is an assault weapon. The VT report actually looked into whether the AWB's magazine limits would have prevented more deaths from occurring and came to the conclusion that it wouldn't. 10 rounds out of an "Assault weapon" come out at the same speed as a "non-assault weapon". The ban is simply based on cosmetics- whether the gun has a pistol grip, a telescoping stock, a foregrip etc...

The reality is that if the newton shooter walked in there with a 9mm pistol the outcome would have probably been the same. If Lanza's mother had properly stored her weapons away from her son this tragedy wouldn't have happened.

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. seems to have slowed them down in Australia though huh?

and guess where the illegal guns in Australia are coming from? Why the good ol U.S.A.

Number one in illegal weapons trafficking I guess!

[tiny elvis]

119. double take on your header

then realized you are just celebrating the freedom

[Hoyt]

122. It would significantly impede future gun sales because these guns are what excite gun "enthusiasts "

[Spitfire of ATJ]

26. Republicans are heartless...

The St. Valentines Day Massacre was mobsters killing mobsters but it shocked the lawmakers enough to ban machine guns.

This is CHILDREN and Republicans are totally unmoved to ban assault rifles and high capacity magazines.

Future historians are going to wonder why America didn't rise up against this madness.

[hack89]

166. Republicans? There are not enough Dem votes in the Senate.

Reid says he can't get more than 40 votes - there are 53 Dems in the Senate.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

171. Please include a list of the Republicans voting for the AWB.....

BTW: It's REPUBLICANS who turned this into a wedge issue.

[hack89]

180. There are 13 Dem Senators not voting for the AWB

We hold a majority in the Senate and cannot pass an AWB on a straight up vote.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

182. As I said, BECAUSE Republicans turned this into a wedge issue.

We don't have votes based on what the People want.

We have votes based on what Republicans want.

[hack89]

185. You don't think that Dems from conservative pro-gun states

are voting for what their constitutions want? Many if not all ran on pro-gun platforms. Are you expecting them to commit political suicide by breaking their promises to the people that elected them?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

238. They just had a study that shows their constituents are more Liberal than they think.

[Milliesmom]

28. Sickening!

Do not give up.................................

[awoke_in_2003]

32. If only...

one of those of those sweet kids had an assault rifle.

[LittleBlue]

33. Looking at those faces is almost too much for me

Imagining them full of bullet holes and dying in their own blood.

How could any of these sick fucks vote against those kids?

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. I cannot stop thinking about the one little girl who survived

by pretending to be dead in a pile of her dead classmates...

I cannot imagine the horror she must have felt when she stood up from that!

[BainsBane]

36. Amazing considering that's a RW paper

a Murdoch paper, isn't it?

[bossy22]

41. it's not RW

it's downright idiotic and unprofessional. I'd add juvenile to that as well. The NY Post isn't worth the paper it's printed on

[laundry_queen]

56. Yeah but RW

down under (isn't that where Murdoch is from?), in the UK and Canada is not the same as RW in the US. There is very little tolerance for gun nuttery even amongst the RWers of those countries. Most people in the western world who aren't American don't understand the fetish and think Americans are quite loony when it comes to guns.

[BainsBane]

58. that's a NY paper

and Murdoch is a raving lunatic by any standard.

[laundry_queen]

66. I won't deny Murdoch is a raving lunatic

He's likely worse than that even, and from what I understand, NY paper or not, he has quite the influence on what goes on in his papers. What I'm saying is even the raving lunatics in those countries I've mentioned think American gun cuddlers are fucking screwed up. What does that say about American gun culture, when EVEN the lunatics think they are crazy? And yet it's still allowed here on DU. It boggles, really.

[BainsBane]

71. okay, but I don't see how that's relevant

to this conversation. The man owns Fox News for God's sake. He's heavily invested in promoting RW lunacy in the US.

[laundry_queen]

81. You were the one who brought it up

I was simply pointing out that Murdoch not being an American makes it less 'amazing' that his RW paper would print this.

[BainsBane]

127. actually another poster pointed out

I confused the Daily News with the Post. This is not Murdoch's paper.

[JBK]

123. Not Murdoch paper

Er, that's clearly the NY Daily News, (the original poster even says that in his headline). It's not The Times, but it's not a right-wing rag like The Post, which is the Murdoch paper.

[BainsBane]

126. ok, I got it confused with the post

[lpbk2713]

43. We failed them, we let them down.

We should be ashamed.

I know I am.

[apocalypsehow]

52. Kick, Rec.

[Milliesmom]

60. Michael Moore on CNN

Said to shame email Harry Reid before tomorrow morning.

DC Address: The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
522 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2803
DC Phone: [phone]
DC Fax: [phone]
Contact Senator Reid: http://www.reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
WWW Homepage: http://www.reid.senate.gov/
Twitter: @SenatorReid
I couldn't find his email address.

Ask him what he is doing in your name, as we do not agree with him!

[dsc]

68. I hope more papers do the same thing

and sadly, I think we will still need the crime scene and autopsy photos to finally vanquish the NRA.

[reformist2]

72. We can't enact now what we enacted 19 years ago? We're moving backwards.

[Yukari Yakumo]

353. Because we don't want a repeat of what happened 19 years ago.

Or more exactly; 18 years, 4 months, and 14 days.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

108. something about RWers and repuke supporters wailing about OUR collective shame

really makes me puke.

It's these same RW supporters who ignore every progressive initiative. It's repukes who actively fight and pay media to propagandize against every attempt liberals make to bring simple human decency back into policy.

WE all suffer the consequences of their disgusting hypocrisy, and then as always, they pose in their phony "concerned and heartbroken" costumes, spreading the shame onto that abstraction they conveniently separate from their own actions known as The U.S.

Fuck you, you fucking war and Amurkin Individualist Macho Gun Lovin' repukes. WE the U.S. didn't enable this. You fucking people who write obscure and sneaky riders into bills, and filibuster the demands of the majority of the People, and protect the interests of the richest lobbyists and own the fucking propaganda outlets enabled this.

[Euphoria]

142. Seconded!! n/t

[BlancheSplanchnik]

204. Thanks!! The issue of message manipulation that the RW does is a real hot button for me.

I hate this phoney concern so damn much! It's as honest as a "We Care About You!" banner at an HMO, and as useful as a memorial after the fact, but no change in behavior.

If they were really concerned, they would focus on the real source and stop them.

[The Straight Story]

125. Thought this was a pic of Iraq civilians at first

That was really us and not just one person.

[Scootaloo]

128. Big round of applause for those who value gun's rights over peoples' rights

Fuck you all.

[still_one]

129. NO!!! I say shame on Congress showing their gutless lack of backbone

[DonCoquixote]

130. Who let the keys loose to the Gungeon?

Because a lot of people are opening their mouths tonight.

Bottom line, there is no reason you need a 100 round automatic clip to defend your home or shoot deer, and if there ever was the revolution so many gun fetishist want, they would get gacked by the military, many of whom would love to gack some of the same war loving types.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. No shit.

Perhaps I shall barf, before bed.

[Le Taz Hot]

131. And even in this thread

the gun lobby's defenders show up. Couldn't even have a moment of silence for these precious little children. Gotta defend the precious no matter whose lives are tragically lost. If I were to say to you people what I really think of you I'd be thrown off this board.

[AtheistCrusader]

278. So, the ongoing discussion of public policy/law around firearms is a 'moment of silence'?

How many moments of silence will there be?

Nice of you to equate gun-owning democrats with 'gun lobby defenders'. A very handy smear, I suppose, if all your intent is, is to stifle discussion of the issue/policy/proposed law and its chances of passing.

[Le Taz Hot]

302. The article and the post

were obviously meant to illicit a moment of reflection and self-examination on this topic. Right away, we get to get "educated" . . . again . . . by representatives of the gun lobby (paid or not). If I wanted to get my groove on by handling/learning about/obsessing about guns I would do so in my own way and in my own time. What I would not do is seek out information about guns in a thread that is meant to bring awareness of the carnage these weapons can have.

You guys are certainly welcome to start your own threads about how wonderful these little penis extend, er, weapons, are in your lives. You guys even have your own Group. I would think this would satisfy your need to obsess on guns to your hearts' content. Instead you come in threads like these and piss all over them. To disrespect the thread's intent and it's posters is to invite enmity so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the response you get.

[AtheistCrusader]

310. it was posted without comment.

Your sexist bullshit aside (females own guns as well) the op allows a broad interpretation of intent.

What you call 'pissing all over the thread' some of consider correcting blatantly misleading facts that distract from chances of passing meaningful gun reforms. (such as universal background checks, which has a shot at passing now).

[Le Taz Hot]

313. The OP obviously felt that comment wasn't needed.

But you guys just couldn't respect that, could you? No, because that's not what you do. You guys are like the worst of the worst Evangelicals who just can't help themselves. They find it necessary to find any poor unsuspecting victim and commence to proselytizing to them without their consent. Here's a clue (again): If we wanted to know how long some gun's shaft is and what species/phylum/fetish category it belonged to, there are certainly the means to look that stuff up. It certainly wouldn't be in a remembrance thread such as this one so, in this case, your "education" is unwanted and inappropriate.

[AtheistCrusader]

316. more bs.

Where is your outrage for posts 4 and 5? Post one was a productive technical post that was later questioned on technical grounds. Good discussion.

Post 2 and 3, sympathetic remorse.

4, 5 go emotional and attack gun owners, of which members of DU are included.
I don't see you saying anything about them for disrupting.

[Le Taz Hot]

320. Well, because I don't find it necessary

to read/analyze/respond to every post in a thread. Besides, I'm sure the authors of those posts are perfectly capable of defending their own positions.

[AtheistCrusader]

321. How convenient to single out only one side of this discussion for behavior,

Especially on correcting technical errors as opposed to vicious hyperbole, being 'disruptive'.

[Le Taz Hot]

322. For the last time,

the original intent of the thread was as a remembrance . . . . Oh, fuck it. It's already been explained to you. If you're unable to understand, please accept my condolences. If you choose not to understand, that's on you.

Now, if you don't mind, I have better things to do than to bang my head against a brick wall.

[AtheistCrusader]

323. It is sad that i have to spell out, your observation upthread is precisely

As disruptive or disrespectful, per your remembrance criteria, as the other posters you are criticizing.

[Le Taz Hot]

326. My observation and response

were natural ones when seeing those precious little faces and knowing that the gun lobby and their loyal sycophants were successful in burying even the lowliest ban on a FEW assault weapons.

Instead of worrying about my response you might want to spend some time meditating on why you find it necessary to worship firearms. Understand, that was a rhetorical question. Now, I REALLY have to go macrame. I'm sure you have a gun somewhere that needs polishing.

Good day to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

336. You might reflect on why you imagine that I 'worship' anything, let alone firearms.

I am interested in gun control policy that works, and is feasible. That's why I support Universal Background Checks, and Registration. Square that with loyal sycophancy to the NRA (which vehemently opposes both) if you can.

[graham4anything]

134. There is only one answer- The Mayors Against Guns. The Great Equalizer

The NRA is a terroristic organizitation that blackmails candidates.

The only way to beat that is to make sure in 2014 100% of all candidates who are against guns gets fundraised $$$$ as needed to defeat the other ones.

Don't even care what other wedge issues those have, taking the insanity of guns and bullets off the streets- this is the single most important issue.

For those in other threads that yammer on against drones, guns in one month kills more collateral damage than drones have in their history.

35 a day dead.
100s wounded
1000s of families lives uprooted
All of those 1st amendments and basic Declaration of Independence rights are vanished by the obscenity that is a bullet in the hands of a private citizen.

And lower down this thread, there is that smut pictures of the false icon of the very, very
selfish people who think their 2nd amendment version of their rights trumps all common decency and respect of others.

Bullets are a cult, an obsession and a cancer that need to be eradicated in the hands of a private person in the streets of America.

It's insanity.

And the reason there is no votes is because of the NRA.

Ban the NRA. Make them a terroristic organization that they are in real life, and freeze their assets, freeze them now. Take their voice away as they do not represent anything more than the worst terrror group in the world.

Sad truth is 9-11 killed 3000 and the worlds economy.

Bullets/Guns kill 35 a day and wound 100s.
In just 100 days, more deaths occur from guns/bullets

Back the Mayors against Guns.

JFK said, Ask not what your country can do for you
Ask what you can do for your country

Time and again, the NRA shows they are a far right extremist organization, and they are dead,
it just isn't going to be instantly.
It will require a few election cycles.
New candidates
New office holders
New US supreme Court Justices
Reinterpretation of the 2nd
only sad thing is-

Who will be the last person to die from a private persons gun in the street from that day forward?

[riverbendviewgal]

143. the pledge of alliegence

Should be changed to ONE NATION UNDER GUNS.

Sick, sick, sick!

[RiffRandell]

145. Heartbreaking and shameful.

Last edited Wed Mar 20, 2013, 10:50 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm so depressed, disgusted and angry.

[CincyDem]

149. I'll say it again - show the before and after pictures

Show the entire country what kind human suffering comes from our irrational "no holds barred" love affair with guns of any and every kind.

There are two arguments against this.

First - it will put their parents through more anguish. I have five kids. I can not imagine there is a great anguish these parents could experience. I can not imagine how they will feel when they read about the next school shooting - because you know there will be another given the country's apathy and/or lack of courage to address one of the several root causes that enable these massacres. I can not imagine the hollow look in their eyes as they talk about their now dead child's hope and dreams of the future.

And because I can't imagine it is exactly the reason why making public the crime scene photos should happen. Today the debate is about the hardship wrought on the poor gun owners of America. The pain that a ban of anything gun related would cause them. The inconveniences of having to load up every 10 shots instead of every 45 (or some number like that). How would America react if given the opportunity to see the pain of losing a child in this way?

Second - it will terrify children across the country. Hate to say this but maybe that's a good thing. We're not talking about being scared of the boogie man that lives under the bed at night. This is about being terrified about something that really happens...and not just once. Children are really really smart. They're not so much influenced by lobbyists or PAC spending. They pretty much go with the basic logic - I don't want to go to school and get shot. Sounds like a reasonable request. Let the poor gun owners of America sit at their kitchen tables around the country and explain to their children why they're not doing anything to prevent this from happening again. Let children around America teach their parents that this is just not ok...and maybe that will mobilize what is now a passive, predominantly silent majority.

Images have the ability to change the world. Once seen, they can never be unseen. Once seen, they sear an emotional fingerprint on the viewer that can change everything about their view of the world. Once seen, they become a poster to be used over and over again to remind us of what we're trying to accomplish (or in this case avoid).

If you wonder about the power of images - think about 10 years ago...might all that have happened if there were no images or video of airplanes about to fly into tall buildings. What might have been different about our national psyche in mid-September 2001 were we not inundated with images from every angle of the rubble pile that was once WTC. December 14, 2012 was no less a national tragedy but we're already forgetting about it because we've yet to see the images that would make this truly unforgettable.

I'm sure the NRA, among others, is fully aware of the power of images. And I'm sure they're first in line to protect the parents from further anguish and prevent our children from see what these killing machines can do to a 6 year old body. And I'm sure they know they know they have no propaganda that can compete with the power of these images should they ever see the light of day.

I know that curtailing access to some of these off the chart killing machines isn't going to prevent EVERY catastrophe like Sandy Hook. But it's crazy to say they will have NO effect. It's crazy to say that doing anything to limit the availablity of these weapons of mass destruction should be the last step after all other options have been exhausted.

Show the crime scene photographs and let's shift the conversation to everyone in this country being willing to do whatever it takes to prevent this in the future.

[valerief]

151. US makes wars. US makes weapons for wars. Weapons for us and weapons for anyone else.

US makes weapons for the world. Weapons not cars.

Weapons makers always win.

[demmiblue]

153. K&R

[malaise]

156. Shame indeed

Guns before the lives of children

[Evergreen Emerald]

157. We need to provide cover from the NRA for politicians like H. Reid

They are afraid of the NRA. Now, however is the time to show courage. We can stop the NRA from intimidating our politicians.

NRA's goal is not freedom or second amendment rights. The NRA is about corporate profit at the cost of those children above. They hide under the cloak of the second amendment.

And the corporations who have the power to fund the NRA are threatening our politicians --and we must stand up to them.

Now is the time.

[sir pball]

196. Don't you mean Nevada voters?

They like their guns. They won't vote for somebody who wants to restrict their guns. All of Bloomberg's money isn't going to fix that - you have to change the hearts and minds of the people on the ground.

Either that or do away with states' representation and go to a straight representative/direct democracy.

[Paladin]

161. K&R. (nt)

[libdude]

164. Does this bother you or not

Very good postings with good thoughts. My thought is that this whole issue is micro when it should be macro.
The Declaration of Independence - govern-
ments are instituted to secure these rights,
life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Second Amendment - " Well regulated Militia.
Instead of banning, focus on government doing for all citizens, youngest to the oldest to secure the rights of life, liberty, etc. In the thousands of gun deaths, has the government failed.
Regulation, there are some things that can be done and should be done. Letting the fringe elements of society set the agenda, these are people that feed their paranoia about government, ends up with Waco, Ruby Ridge, gun fights in the streets, look up the Kehoe brothers.
Want a machine gun? Look up the ATF regs for owning one. Want a semi-automatic weapon, treat ownership just as a fully auto weapon.
The agenda now is being set by the paranoid, the politically fearful, and the money intetests, your Creator endowed rights are not of primary concern.

[sir pball]

202. Funny thing, I'd take semis under the NFA (full-auto-regulations)

But if and only if the full-auto registry were reopened.

[slackmaster]

348. Me too, with the NFA registry opened and a prohibition against states enacting their own laws.

One set of uniform and tough but fair laws throughout the country, that would allow anyone who wants a firearm, and is not a member of a prohibited class, to obtain it without an unreasonable amount of hoops to go through. No registration of antiques or C&R. And a 10-year amnesty period to allow all non-antique firearms to get registered.

I'd accept a comprehensive firearm registry under those conditions.

[sir pball]

352. Give me nationwide CCW and you can have them all..

I've always been willing to go a step further and compromise all firearms under the NFA, in exchange for an open registry and nationwide CCW subject to reasonable training and qualifying, with municipalities allowed to opt out with good cause. And eliminating the tax stamps of course.

[shenmue]

172. Oh snap, they made sense for once

Credit where credit is due.

[Berlum]

188. Shame on the Republican Party & Cronies

For turning their backs on America's children & future.

[MotherPetrie]

277. K&R Who didn't see this coming

[KamaAina]

290. Wait'll someone leaks the crime scene photos

Michael Moore hinted at this. I suspect he may have an ace in the hole.

[Jefferson23]

293. Says it all. K&R

[slackmaster]

303. That ought to sell a few newspapers

[gcomeau]

308. The "assault weapons" ban should be dead.

Because banning "assault weapons" when the definition of any such thing is so easily fluidly redefined is stupid.

If you want to do something about firearms regulate ALL of them properly (as opposed to current regulations, which are a laughable joke) and forget this idiocy about singling out just certain types like getting shot by them is somehow worse than getting shot by some other gun.

[liberal N proud]

334. 535 copies should be delivered to Congress

[wvufan1988]

337. I posted this last night on FB

I posted this last night on Facebook and after a little debate from someone I considered a good friend, I was told that I was uneducated and told to go to hell. I was fine debating him, but I will put up with remarks like that. Why are conservatives so hateful?

[Fire Walk With Me]

346. :(

[lexw]

347. Love for guns befuddles me. I'll never understand it.

[nikto]

369. But...these guns are kinda' nice...

JMO

[lexw]

382. Agreed. :)

[SCVDem]

363. With all apologies....

These photos are too normal to make an impact.

Run the side by side pictures and let's see who can scream 2nd amendment rights!

America needs to see death and gore aside from the video games.

Life does not have a reset button.

[nikto]

366. We just have to respect the understandible fear some gun enthusiasts have...

...That Obama will take away their guns. And once they're gone,
he'll unleash (with help from The Communist Party of Kenya and The Moscow Trotsky Club)...








The Zombie Apocalypse




Then all Liberal gun-takers will be sorry!

[nikto]

370. Could this be...

The NRA too?

[Laelth]

383. k&r for the truth. Shame, indeed!

Never thought I'd be speaking positively about The New York Daily News, but there's a first time for everything. Good for them. Excellent cover.

-Laelth

[backscatter712]

404. Not in Colorado, it isn't.

Well, some small good news.

And not an "assault weapons" bill. But a magazine capacity cap, and a closure of the gun-show loophole (in other words, everyone who wants to acquire a weapon on Colorado has to get a background check first) is now signed into law.

Given how intransigent the Gang Of Psychopaths have been in Washington, I'm not particularly surprised. My strategy, if I were Harry Reid, would be to make sure I get a gun safety bill that can get fifty votes in the Senate, then put it up to a vote. Sure it'll get filibustered, but make sure every senator is forced to put their names on their votes.

Then move on to Election 2014, make sure the people are reminded of how their senators voted when twenty children were gunned down in cold blood and they were given the opportunity to do something about it.