Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumIf the Democrats pass and Obama signs a new AWB would you still support Dems?
If a new Assault Weapons Ban is passed, would you still support and vote for Democrats?
If further gun regulation than that were passed under a Democratic Administration, would you still support the Democratic Party and vote for Democrats?
Where is your line in the sand?
And, would you then vote for the anti-regulation Republicans? Or not vote?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I don't vote for Republicans.
shraby
(21,946 posts)
lastlib
(23,238 posts)Children's right to live trumps any right to have any shiny object.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)An AWB of the type and character of the '94 AWB is what we pro-rights folks consider a virtual firearm in that those politicians voting in favor are shooting themselves in the foot.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)I wouldn't ever hold them responsible for the actions of other Dems.
Although I can understand why some folks might be tempted to stay home and sit an election out if they were faced with such a prospect from their representatives.
I doubt many Democrats would ever cross-over and vote Republican though.
We'd just have low-turnout in 2014 like in 2010, which won't help us take back the House at all.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Every *****AMERICAN***** should support an assault weapons ban. Why wouldn't they?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and there isn't such a thing as an "assault weapon" any more there is such a thing as a partial birth abortion. Under California's law, target pistols used in the Olympics are "assault weapons" Propaganda buzz words to sway the well meaning buy uninformed.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Something that didn't exist when our constitution was written, and something that NO CITIZEN needs to own.
I notice that not one of you can give me a good reason why they are necessary.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...preexist the desire for their removal from society, logic dictates that said those desiring their removal should bear the burden of both need and practicality of accomplishment.
If it is true that no citizens need such weapons, I would suggest that since it is the government which provides those arms to law enforcement and the military, that those organizations would be the logical place to begin their removal.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Just look at England to see how gun control works.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)..."works" and since when are the military not citizens?
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)
However:
May those that love us, love us.
And those that don’t love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn’t turn their hearts,
May he turn their ankles,
So we’ll know them by their limping.
An Irish toast
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)So when our police forces disarm so will I.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)There are lots of things that can kill many people in a short time that people don't "need" (whatever "need" means--- I doubt any "need" would meet your standard).
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)There are only a few things that I can sneak into a crowded movie theater that would kill many people.
And there is really only one definition for need. Do you have another definition or explanation why someone needs a cartridge that holds 30+ bullets?
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)a "cartridge that holds 30+ bullets" for instance.
To address these issues one needs at least a basic technical ability to understand the mechanisms and similarities between weapons and what is possible to engineer and what is meaningless.
So when an insulting, intransigent person who says things like "cartridge that holds 30+ bullets" I find it hard to get the energy up to talk to them.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I win.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)Only a fool declares themselves the winner of a debate.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Not one person here will explain why a gun that holds 30 rounds is needed?
It should be pretty easy if there's a good argument for it.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)But he has no credibility.
Neither do you.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Still avoiding the question I see.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)Plus you're rude.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...address your question to someone having experience dealing with a state or federal Department of Needs.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)How about convenience? I'm lazy. Reloading mags is a PITA, and slow. I need a mag that I can run 30 rounds into from 10 round stripper clips so I can shoot more and waste less time loading. My time is valuable to me.
Now, tell me I don't really NEED that. Neither does anyone NEED dishwashers, clothes washers, electric can openers or a million other devices that harm the environment but make life easier and more convenient.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)No one needs it. The country worked fine before the internet showed up. Hell it caused the financial bubble that Bush Jr. inherited.
No one "needs" it.... and people use it for child porn.... therefore it should be shut down.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)A cartridge [H3]IS[/H3] a bullet! A *MAGAZINE* is what you load the cartridges (bullets) in to. I agree with the other poster and think you need to educate yourself before you continue in this thread any more.... unless you just enjoy making a fool of yourself...
92. LOL! So, instead of giving me a reason, you pretend that I don't know what I'm talking about.
I win.
There's no pretending to it, you DON'T KNOW what you're talking about. Could it be any more obvious??
Ghost
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... I agree I can't think of a reason one needs a "cartridge that holds 30+ bullets", as I have no idea what such a thing would be. Demonstrated ignorance kills credibility.
Why does someone need a pink unicorn with elephant tusks?
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)The gun ban movement is just another morality crusade like Prohibition and the War on Drugs.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)If you want to do something about gun violence
1) address poverty
2) subsidize health care
3) have mandatory minimums for gun crimes instead of drug crimes
4) legalize pot
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Why does anyone need one?
All of your ideas are fine, but there is no way to stop gun violence. It will allows exist. Why should it more dangerous by keeping these unnecessary weapons legal?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there is no department of "needs".
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)You should be embarrassed for writing it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)no one needs a car that goes over the speed limit. They should all have governors to prevent it. Besides killing more people than guns, although air bags are changing that, the added emissions contribute to health and climate change problems. Cars are inherently more destructive than guns.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)First, sports are not weapons. They kill people, but almost all deaths are not intentional, they are accidental. Almost everything is dangerous if not used correctly. Do you also have a problem with food and lawn mowers?
Second, I can't hide a sports car in my pants when I go to a movie theatre.
Third, there are already stricter laws against sports cars than guns. You probably already know about being able to carry guns into bars in certain states. Of course, how would anyone even know in all states.
Fourth, sports cars are expensive. Assault weapons are cheaper and easier to get from any gun show.
Fifth, cars are more dangerous than something else is a terrible argument. If they're both dangerous then we should look at ways to make them BOTH safer.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)1) My definition of need was in regards to guns, not anything else. And sports cars are not more dangerous. I can kill more people in thirty seconds with an assault weapon than a car.
2) What? Of course you can hide a rifle in your pants. But, the discussion was about a sports car versus an assault weapon. Anyways, I have nothing against rifles or sports cars.
3) I don't give a shit about gun dealers. We're talking about gun owners. And, it's perfectly legal to carry a gun while drunk in many states. Why you don't see that as a problem scares the shit out of me.
4) It is true, and you know it.
http://news.yahoo.com/gun-enthusiasts-pack-shows-buy-assault-weapons-212525968.html
5) I was responding to your comment, so don't act like I brought it up. But, you're right. People need cars, sports or otherwise. And, sports cars are no more dangerous than any other. I can drive my 11 year pick up truck over 100 mph and still kill people. That doesn't mean I don't need it. Now, an assault weapon is not something I need, unless I want to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Please tell me you get the difference.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)let alone drunk and armed. In places like Ohio, you can have a gun in the bar but drinking alcohol while armed is a felony.
"assault weapons" are a subset of rifles.
part of it is speculation, buy low sell high.
People do it more often with cars.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Two, it is legal to carry a gun and be drunk in some states. You already know this to be true.
Three, of course an assault rifle is an assault weapon. But, that wasn't the argument you made earlier.
Four, what are talking about? - "part of it is speculation, buy low sell high."
Five, still a stupid argument.
is it legal drunk in public? Drunk in public with a gun?
No, "assault weapon" is a political term, a propaganda buzz word to mean anything. Target pistols used in the Olympics, "assault weapons" under California law. The definition Feinstein is using today is different than what she used before. Assault rifle has a specific technical definition. None of the guns under either AWB meet that definition.
The ban won't be retroactive. The low supply and high demand will push prices up.
So is using the "I don't think anybody needs" argument. That was the point.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)I think that says a lot.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)That's your problem.
You define it as capable of killing 30 people in a minute. Why not 25? Who's doing the shooting? I've seen people shoot revolvers with enough proficiency to approach your standard of 30... maybe in 2 minutes... but again, what's the difference really?
As far as needs, why keep outlining them to people like you... you dismiss them. There's no point. I carry a 9mm pistol (which can hold up to 17 rounds without modification or a magazine sticking out the bottom) because there are feral dog packs in my area and my rifle is single shot. I can't have my pistol materialize and dematerialize because I enter/exit my hunting areas. I can't afford many weapons, so a 9mm pistol covers a wide variety of "needs" for me. It happens to be the same pistol that Cho used at Virginia Tech - and he only had 10-round magazines.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)And in order to talk about banning/getting rid of ____________, it needs to be defined.
"Assault Weapon" is a non-term.
The last AWB did not do get rid of guns that can kill 30 people in a minute; it was an import ban on a weird mishmash of cosmetic.
Even your requirement for 30/people per minute is meaningless. There are people proficient enough with a revolver to do that (or close to it)
To be honest, the ship has sailed on guns like AR's, AK47s and related guns.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)That seems to be the answer from people like you.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)Excuse me if I want there to be a mechanistic connection between a law and a result. Forgive me if I consider the practical implication of a proposal.
I'm against laws for laws' sake. Feel good measures accomplish nothing....
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)iiibbb
(1,448 posts)And will continue. Because you are too emotional to wrap your head around a viable solution.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...should not be analogous to flinging mud at a wall. I don't recognize the authority of Congress to pass an "assault weapons" ban. I further view attempts at such a law as a violation to their oath of office.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)... I would be for it. I'm for the increased scrutiny over automatic weapons for instance. I don't think people should have rocket launchers (the ones turned in at LA gun buyback excluded... what a joke).
However, nothing on the table is practical or enforceable, a great deal of them are wishful thinking, and they target the wrong problems.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Those are the only laws that will make a difference. 
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)just saying.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)have been deleted on DU2. I wonder what would happen if it was alerted and how would motley crew of 6 DUers vote that post?
interesting.
I could take a real sword into a crowd and do the same amount of damage... Ban swords?
Or one any given afternoon run my car into a crowd of people in my downtown area... Ban cars?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I don't spend much time worrying about it.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)but as I tell pro-gun people, I'm not a one-issue voter. I feel one-issue voters are the feeble-minded who the Koch brothers and the MSNBCFOXCNN machine pray upon. Candidates who run on a single issue normally have no idea how to do anything else, like, you know, govern.
Oh, don't get me wrong – nobody who votes for this will ever get a dime out of me again for campaign contributions, nor will I do volunteer work for their campaigns — but I'll still vote for the people I think will do the best for this country. I'll still vote for Chuck and Kirsten so long as their track record and ideology come closer to lining up with mine than a Republican.
I may be pro-gun, but I'm not a Nazi.
Ashgrey77
(236 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,343 posts)Democratic leadership does stuff I disagree with, H1B visas, NAFTA, etc.
It doesn't mean I'll vote "R".
On balance, the Democratic party is the better choice.
But I don't think a new Assault Weapons Ban will solve anything.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)I am an independent voter.
I am a fervent RKBA, but I can't abide the sway held by the religious right, the anti-gay marriage, the push to reverse Roe v Wade, the anti-science stand they have with regards to environmental protection, and the casting off of traditional fiscal responsibility, and the types of judges they've put into the SCOTUS.
Pretty much the only appeal they have to me right now is RKBA, and that's not enough.
But I do my best to vote based on the qualifications of the candidates themselves.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm not going to sacrifice 30+ issues and my political ideology over a single issue.
I'm going to keep nibbling away at this one particular issue though, BUT... I have noticed a good balance doesn't lay with the Republican position on this issue either. I think a good ground can be found somewhere in the middle, and that makes me solid left when you take into account all the other party platform planks.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)No different than supporting a different Dem in a primary because the last one was a DLC DINO.
You're asking me to get enthused about a pandering Democrat that's passing a bill that does not address the problem BUT will let him or her crow about "taking on the gun lobby" (and getting fundraising cash), while enraging and organizing gun owners in the 2014 midterms.
Remember... every paranoid Republican that was stockpiling AR-15s and ammunition because "Obama and the Dems are coming for his guns in his 2nd term" was now proven right.
Remember... every paranoid Republican that was stockpiling AR-15s and ammunition because "Obama and the Dems are coming for his guns in his 2nd term" was now proven right.So much this.
I don't think a ban will pass given the political landscape in the House, but this overt push to start willy nilly banning all kinds of firearms and accessories will not end well for Democrats in 2014, and it won't really do anything to reduce gun violence in this country.
I cringe. If Democrats are trying to strengthen House Republican resolve, and improve Speaker Boehner's standing among the conservative base, there's isn't a single thing they could do that would be more effective than pushing for sweeping gun control measures.
julian09
(1,435 posts)talk about tail wagging the dog, fear is their game.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)today's reasonable will be tomorrows extreme. Take Australia for example, their ban on semi auto and pump long guns seemed reasonable. Now some of the politicians, mostly Greens, want to ban semi auto pistols with asinine and false rants about "300k hand machine guns in gloveboxes" even though legal pistols are not used in crimes nor carried in car glove boxes. Meanwhile, their equivalent to the NRA wants increase customs inspections to catch smuggled guns and more give the cops more money to bust underground factories.
Pullo
(594 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I seriously doubt that whatever they come up with will work, but either way not only will it not impact me, there are bigger fish to fry.
I hope they come up with something good, because if they screw it up it will be a shot of nitrous into Republican politics. Guns are a Republican totem, and if you mess with them you better have your shit together or they'll make you look like a fool.
Response to morningfog (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)We need a total ban on the sale of all hands guns and rifles. We also need to make it next to impossible to get ammunition.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)blue burro
(10 posts)I guarantee it.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Anything less than abolishing the Second Amendment is just pretending to look busy.
While Washington bickers and moans about an assault weapons ban that will have holes in it large enough to fit an entire barge full of semi-automatics, people keep dying. Millions of new guns every year enter circulation - the circulation that is the sole source of guns for all those "bad guys" that the gun fetishists think they're protecting themselves from.
To keep that supply line open is to keep putting lethal weapons in the hands of killers.
Maybe one day America will have seen enough dead children, enough carnage, enough bloodshed to finally figure out what other first-world countries have known for a long time: it isn't about mental illness, or training, or having enough armed guards. Humans are just plain violent creatures, always have been, and probably will be far into the foreseeable future. That isn't going to change just by blaming it on the mentally ill (especially awful when we just had a chance to institute a meaningful mental health program under the banner of universal health care, but skipped it in order to give a long, sloppy wet kiss to the insurance industry in the form of the Affordable Care Act). The only way to stop the spree shootings is to stop making the guns accessible - to not only permanently end the supply of millions of new guns every year, but to begin a thorough collection and destruction program for the 300 million+ guns that are already in circulation.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Darque Wing
(33 posts)Why, you don't want anyone trying to save lives while you're supporting Democrats who are only marginally better than their teabagger opponents?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)no serious criminologist believes it either.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Go ahead, try to find a criminologist who will say that shooting thirty people in ten minutes is easier without a gun. I dare you.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)has nothing to do with ideology. First, you are talking about a rare event. Depending on the study, ranging from the Census Dept.'s NCVS to studies done by criminologists, people defend themselves with guns someplace between 100k and a couple of million times a year. Most of the time shots are not fired. While individual victims might be different, the numbers would not.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Okay, we're done here. Nothing says "I am only here to support the NRA" like using that oft-debunked study, the one that is used in statistics classes as a "what not to do in statistics" lesson. Which means that the rest of your figures are suspect at best, too, probably made up and definitely designed to be misleading.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, using intellectually dishonest rhetoric to protect the gun industry's profits over the lives of Americans. Ashamed.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)it has not been debunked. In fact he got the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the American Society of Criminology for that peer reviewed study. Attempts at debunking it have been tried by paid shills by the same foundation that astro turfs Brady Campaign.Yet, they confirmed his results. I read the studies by Hemenway and Cook. Cook got withing Kleck's margin of error. Hemenway's was so asinine it was ridiculous. Hemenway's counter was largly baseless speculations on false positives, without providing evidence, and accused Gertz employees of dishonesty, again without evidence.
Kleck was not the only one nor the first. Just the best known. The oldest I know of is the Hart study in the 1970s.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Much like the rest of your talking points. Go back to the NRA and ask for new ones.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)last I checked he is still a respected criminologist and university department head.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)So you'll go with the argument from authority based on a professor from FSU, against a professor from Harvard?
Good luck with that.
For those of us that can actually read the studies, it's obvious that Kleck's study was statistically unsound. But, of course, since he came up with a ridiculous figure that supports the Charles Bronson fantasy of gun-owners, that's enough for you, huh?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)vs the Harvard professor that is funded, and his department is funded, by the same people that astro turfs gun control groups. The Harvard professor is viewed as a joke among criminologists, which he isn't. Besides, FSU admissions is entirely merit based, as is their hiring. Harvard has set asides for alumi and legacy kids. IOW, GWB was rejected by University of Texas, wouldn't have been accepted by FSU, but was accepted by Harvard and was given a C average and a degree he did not work for or earn. While Harvard is a good school, it is over rated.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)You keep speaking for criminologists.
Me, I studied under Dr. Henry Lee's lab, and you know what? Harvard isn't a joke among criminologists, nor is Hemenway. But Florida is.
And still you can't answer any of the criticisms in any of the papers that dismantled the Kleck study, other than to falsely claim to speak for criminologists and to accuse a Harvard professor of fraud.
How can anyone with two brain cells to rub together rely on that kind of spurious, dishonest, transparently phony argument?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)that was the sum of the two papers that tried to dismantle Kleck's paper. So, why didn't the professional society agree? If it were given such a debunking, why was Kleck given an award for " the most outstanding contribution to research in criminology"
Just based on criminologists I know. Hemenway isn't a criminologist, he is an economist that works for a public health school.
Forensics is not criminology, so I don't know what Dr. Lee has anything to do with it.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Hemenway's specialty is irrelevant. He was critical of Kleck's statistical study, which was demonstrably full of holes, from bad conclusions to faulty sampling. That doesn't go away because you prefer Kleck's conclusion and don't like Ivy League schools. The professional society DID agree - which is why statisticians still use Kleck's study as a classic example of GIGO, Garbage In Garbage Out. The study is not some magic box that you can't look in, and are only allowed to agree with or disagree with based on the name on the first page. It's supposed to be science - and Kleck's paper is crap science.
If you're going to use this dishonest argument from authority, at least know what you're talking about, NRA hack.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Account status: Active
Member since: Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:12 PM
Number of posts: 16
Number of posts, last 90 days: 16
Favorite forum: General Discussion, 1 posts in the last 90 days (6% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 15 posts in the last 90 days (94% of total posts)
Last post: Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:15 PM
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Darque Wing
(33 posts)You're right. I had just joined, sick to death of being edited and censored out at other sites. And here I expected to find more than NRA trolls and spineless "liberals" who are horrified at the prospect of saying something, standing for something that isn't already popular.
My mistake. Turns out DU is the same combination of right-wing trolls and limp-wristed ivory tower liberals as Huffington Post.
I'll leave you to your regularly scheduled bullshit.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The College's faculty is ranked number one for scholarly productivity compared to all other criminology doctoral programs in the country.
The top two criminologists in the country are faculty members at FSU. Dig a little deeper and you'll find that four of the top 25—8 of the top 65—are here. Impressive numbers that you won't find at any other state program.
Three faculty members were named among the top 10 for grant acquisition—bringing in money that supports students during a time when many state institutions are having to cut back on student funding.
College faculty serve as Editor or Co-Editor for some of the most important scholarly journals in our field, including Criminology, Social Problems, Criminology and Public Policy, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, and the Journal of Drug Issues.
You can find details about these rankings in the Journal of Criminal Justice Education.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Darque Wing
(33 posts)I'm like the only person in the world suggesting a full ban of the 2nd Amendment. I don't have some fancy lobbying group speaking for me. I don't have an industry to support me. I don't have legions of drooling sycophants repeating dishonest talking points for me. All I have is disgust that the Democrats are spinelessly, cravenly shrinking away from the only real answer to this problem out of fear of the NRA, hacks like this guy using crusty old cliches as arguments. For you to think I'm a sock puppet, you assume that there are others like me. WHERE? I would love to find them!
Yeah, I just joined. So? I got sick of having my comments deleted at Huffington Post, G+, Facebook, everywhere else.
And it's "whose sock puppet are you," you illiterate buffoon.
For crying out loud, this place is even worse than Huffington Post. All NRA trolls and Democrats who are terrified to stand up to anyone.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...of the 2nd Amendment."?
You are not only full of yourself- you're lazy
There has been many people at DU and elsewhere calling for that very thing- a fact that can be confirmed with a couple minutes' Googling:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22repeal+second+amendment%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com
About 3,560 results (0.21 seconds)
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22repeal+second+amendment%22&ie
About 46,500 results (0.16 seconds)
Darque Wing
(33 posts)So first I'm a sock puppet, because I just joined, and now I'm arrogant because I don't know my way around the site like someone who's been here for years?
Can't quite make up your mind how to dismiss me, huh? I'll do you a favor and just leave you here to the surrender monkeys and trolls. All yours, asshole.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)And yes, you are indeed lazy and arrogant, and I can prove it-
Proclaiming that
when a Google search of the phrase "Repeal the Second Amendment" returns this:
About 339,000 results (0.23 seconds)
with many, many links following espousing the very idea you claim exclusivity on
shows that you haven't done your homework.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)I can't believe that people are getting away with murder while you whine about word choice.
Fine, replace "I'm like the only person in the world," which I thought was a fairly obvious turn of phrase, with, "I'm in a very tiny, statistically insignificant, though greater than single-digit membership minority wanting to repeal the Second Amendment while the vast majority of America splits into major camps of 'no gun control at all' and 'useless ineffective gun control only,' while people keep dying needlessly."
Do you feel better now? Is that enough to satisfy your anal retentive disorder, or is there anything even more innocuous for you to focus on?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Over my use of who's instead of whose?
What a joke you are sock puppet.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)You wanted to nitpick word choice when you knew damned well what I meant, while being incapable of writing a sentence yourself. If you didn't want that door opened, you should have responded to the substance of the matter, useless idiot troll.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Oh, and looking through your Google results shows just how little support abolishing the 2nd gets. One person says it, and anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people jump on the chance to remind them that it will never happen.
But I suppose you're still busy trying to pat yourself on the back for finding the grand hole in my rhetoric of underestimating the statistically insignificant amount of support my idea gets. Congratulations.
I suppose while you're picking nits just as hard as you can, you'll be the first to point out that you didn't call me a sock puppet, you called me a "seagull," whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
What else should I expect from someone named "friendly iconoclast" besides being a jackass and protecting precious icons like the 2nd Amendment?
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)Oh, and looking through your Google results shows just how little support abolishing the 2nd gets. One person says it, and anywhere from dozens to hundreds of people jump on the chance to remind them that it will never happen.
Ever stop to consider that repealing the 2nd is an idiotic idea?
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Name one reason why it's an idiotic idea. Meanwhile, the good reasons to abolish it are filling up graveyards every day.
What a cesspool of trolls this place is.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Since you can't even see fit to have a star next to your name, just use it for free.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Darque Wing
(33 posts)You're the one running away from the real solution as fast as you can for the sake of political expediency, and you're telling me it doesn't fly? Are you really that allergic to doing something that would actually work?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)enlist your biggest ally, MSM. What's stopping you?
You speak of expediency. Well, put your one-issue morality to the test, and float your not-to-original idea before the gun-ban group of your choice and see what they say. Better yet, start your own group.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)You think I have allies in this? Look around. One half of the political spectrum adores and worships their guns, the other half is terrified to do anything about it. On this, I have no allies, at least, none that I've ever met.
And frankly, the sheer ugliness, the self-righteous smarmy idiocy of both sides when defending the 2nd Amendment in the wake of yet another mass murder is enough to make me think that this is exactly what America deserves. You want Murderville, fine, you got it. May it land on your front door like it did mine a few weeks ago. And just remember, when burying the dead, thank the NRA and the Democrats who are too afraid to stop them. Hope that wins you an election so that you can continue to not do anything of any importance.
Okay, fine, I get it, you're not allowed to have dissenting opinions here. The Democrats are as ideologically rigid in their cowardice as the teabaggers are in their stupidity.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)and have no fear in doing so. Having a less black & white outlook would allow one to see this. It's not fear of the NRA which governs most thought about "gun issues," or even the status of an Amendment. It is the considered support of RKBA by most Americans.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)only one first world country, using your definition, have what comes close to a complete ban. Saved no lives, and has the highest violent crime rate in Europe. Of course you could be talking about Japan which also has no fourth or fifth amendment to speak of. It exists on paper, but there is no exclusionary rule, no right to a lawyer during questioning, forced confessions are SOP, winks at police brutality.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Just more talking points designed to ensure that the next time someone gets pissed at their mother, they have enough firepower to mow down a school. I'm getting sick of the apologists for mass murder.
Don't try telling me that the gun bans in other countries haven't worked. I've been to Japan. And England. And Australia. I've also been to Switzerland, which has the gun laws that 2nd Amendmenters dream of: so I've also seen countries mature enough to be able to handle their guns (which still aren't as numerous as they are here in America). So your little "gun bans cause violence" fantasy belongs on the crazy shelf right next to your "my 9mm fights tyranny" delusion.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and I lived in Japan and South Korea. I mean lived there, not visit for a couple of days. Crime rates did not drop after the laws were passed. Japan has more to do with economics and culture.
Their murder rates have nothing to do with their gun laws. Criminologists who study this stuff found no evidence gun laws do anything.
I never said gun bans cause violence. UK has always been more violent. Just like Mexico. Each country has its own problems. Out of the OCED countries
Mexico is first in murder, we are number three
Australia is first in rape
New Zealand is first in auto theft
Belgium is first in robbery
Denmark is first in burglary
UK is first in assault.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Nice.
I'm sure that will be a fitting epitaph for Newtown: "Well, at least they're dead and not bruised. Thank you, NRA!"
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and re read what I said. Of course, there have been gun control advocates here that claimed that people should not resist or defend themselves either. If anyone is ranting empty talking talking points with appeals to emotion it is you.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Yeah, I read what you said: a bunch of drivel to support putting guns in the hands of killers. Just because you take the time to cut and paste your talking points doesn't mean I'm required to fall for it.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and I said no such things, and I don't cut and paste anything. But since you don't seem to be capable of a rational argument at the moment, bye for now.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)you skip his argument entirely and throw out a logical fallacy. Fantastic job.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)What argument do you see in that list of red herrings? The point is gun violence, and he lists everything but. And you want to accuse me of using a logical fallacy? Which logical fallacy is it when you refuse to play along with your opponent's intellectual dishonesty?
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)to justify the gun control measures that many are proposing.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)That's the difference: I'm not trying to sneak in gun control around the margins, or water down gun control just to satisfy the NRA. I want the guns gone, or as close to it as humanly possible. And that means starting right at the top.
Don't worry, I know it can't happen, because America would much rather have piles of dead bodies than tell anyone that they can't walk around with an arsenal. I know America is a land of the immature, the reckless, the dangerous, and we really don't mind classrooms of children getting wiped out, as long as the crazies, the bigots, the cultists, the unstable, the "one day I'll snap and kill everyone in traffic" seemingly sane people can keep getting their guns.
But dammit, someone has to say it: anything less than actually abolishing the Second Amendment is just pretending to try to fix the problem while keeping everyone in danger.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...anyone able to pass a course in US Constitutional law, the 2A acknowledges and protects a preexisting right. The limits to which state and federal law may limit that right are the topic of discussion here and across the country. Continuing in denial such as this doesn't bode well for you being taken seriously.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)And I even got all the way up to Article V. You should try it sometime, instead of just faking intellectual superiority.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...which one of these words don't you understand? "Bill of Rights"
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Tell me, which one of these words don't you understand?
"AMENDMENT"
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...more times than I can count and unworthy of address beyond post #55.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)So your sole response is that the Second Amendment is set in stone, and any mention of the fact that it can be amended - in fact is an amendment to the Constitution itself - is unworthy of address?
Uh, no, it's pretty salient that the Constitution can be amended. Because if not, then the Second AMENDMENT is a moot point altogether.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...I'll answer when I'm able from home in a bit. If you'll around later perhaps we can discuss more. If not, have a great New Year's and I'll look forward to hearing from you soon.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)Agreed, no arguments here. Legal expertise agrees that principle strengths of the Constitution are its simplicity and its ability to change. That same legal expertise agrees that the rights summarized in the Bill of Rights are acknowledged and protected therein, but neither granted nor assigned nor delegated. Changing or eliminating the 2A would not change man's fundamental right to keep and bear arms. If we simply deleted the 2A tomorrow, it could be successfully argued that the same right is protected by the 10A.
In summary, rights are attributes of people like the rights to life and liberty. Having a thinking mind is an attribute of people. You can form a government that ignores them, many have gone before, but why would you want to?
Have a great New Year.
I'll be around.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Exactly. It works great so far, right?
20 dead children in a matter of minutes. But hey, rights!
I'm so sick of this bullshit. America is happier with piles of victims. And my choices as a voter are restricted to the party of the gun nuts, racists, and drooling idiots, versus the spineless, the fearful, and the afraid-to-disturb-the-status-quo.
Well, you can have your status quo. Don't worry, I'm the only one impotently threatening it. The next school shooting will go on as planned. You have nothing to worry about.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)"Right. So let's not try." - Yes, exactly, let's not. How would changing the Constitution to deny a basic right change anything about future school shootings? If we delete the 2A, should we then start collecting every gun from civilian hands? What exactly do you propose?
"...my choices as a voter are restricted..." - Well maybe. Your choices as a supporter of what you consider reasonable are much less so. Not every gun owner is the kind of cartoon character that Ted Nugent is. The entire discussion about the issues covered in the SOP for this group have become incredibly polarized and, most fundamentally, this issue is anything but black and white.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Polarized? That's bull. You have, on one end, people who want to put guns in every hand in America. And on the other end, you have people like you, who think that their right to do so is some sort of unbreakable sacred covenant and that any number of dead victims is acceptable to protect it. What polarization is there when everyone agrees? They just want to sell more guns, and you can't wait to shove my child in front of the next spree shooter. That isn't polarization, that's full agreement.
Clearly, I'm the only polarizing agent here. I'm the one taking an absolute stand - no 2nd Amendment, no right to guns, and I want a concerted effort to get rid of the guns. Everyone else here is just patting each other on the back for protecting the 2nd Amendment from all those dead kids.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...but compromise is the essence of political progress.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)This isn't compromise, it's surrender - and you're demanding that I surrender with you.
If you had your way, slavery would still be legal, and instead we'd have laws saying that a single white landowner is only allowed to own, say, 1000 slaves maximum, and you'd be happy with that. Because, after all, slavery was protected in the original Constitution, right? So it's even more sacred and untouchable than the Second Amendment, which is just an amendment.
It's a good thing that some Americans, deep in our history, actually had the guts to do the right thing. Too bad that's extinct now.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...regarding the slavery compromise forged in the Constitution. The document itself is a system of checks and balances arranged so (per the Declaration) "as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Basically it's a compromise.
According to recent SCOTUS decisions there is nothing about the 2A that prevents reasonable state and local legislation.
Lots of improvements can be made in the current systems on both state and national levels. Would you want to discuss any of that?
Darque Wing
(33 posts)The one thing that the gun nutters are right about is that the gun control laws - those assault weapons bans and so forth - are utterly useless. They're toothless (full of exemptions, exceptions, and loopholes) enough that they don't actually do anything, which was exactly what the NRA wanted and Democrats have always capitulated completely.
There is no way to keep selling guns in this country without having them end up in the hands of those who would use them to kill people. There is no improvement that can do that. As much as everyone right now is trying to pass this off as a mental health problem, that still leaves the drunk ex-husbands, the disgruntled employees, the road ragers and roid ragers, the bigots and zealots and cultists, the gangsters, the soldier of fortune wannabes, the trigger happy "home defense" specialists that can't wait for someone to step on their lawn by accident so they can shoot them... This is a nation full of immature, reckless people, and we keep giving them guns, with utterly unsurprising results. There is no minor little tweak of the law that will fix that.
And minor tweaks of gun laws, any gun restrictions whatsoever, will send the NRA and their flunkies into full-on outrage mode. We're going to get that reaction even for a weak, watered-down compromise. Look at Feinstein's bill, how many holes and exemptions there are, how little it will do to actually stop any gun from getting to the spree shooter that is waiting to use it. And yet the right will react as if we're throwing them into slave labor camps, because they know that this reaction will, as usual, scare Democrats away from the entire subject - or worse, inspire people to do the whole "centrism is so awesome" thing and end up with yet another flaccid, useless gun restriction that doesn't really do anything.
All to save the Second Amendment. So are we, as Americans, here to serve the Constitution only, or can it ever, just once, be the other way around?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)...is consistency. Making laws that demand a background check to buy a new gun while allowing the sale of a 1 year old gun between private individuals doesn't strike me as consistent. I also think that laws involving criminal negligence in connection with safe storage need some work.
A lot of work needs to be done and I think we could all do with considerably less posturing for the media. I personally think nothing that came from the NRA after the Sandy Hook Shooting was constructive and it would have been better to hold no press conferences.
Murder in this country IS NOT a mental health issue. A fair percentage of shootings where many random and uninvolved people are targeted do involve mental health issues. It's time to stop ignoring these killings where 3 to 30 people are shot because mental health options are so limited. A great percentage of shootings are criminal on criminal acts with the occasional bystanders injured and/or killed. Lots of this is motivated by drugs. It's time to end the war on drugs. We don't need teenagers selling pot shot on corners and we don't need federal agents shot by drug lords in Columbia.
My background is in developing statements there are clear, concise and complete which is something that the current collection of mismatched gun laws numbering over 20,000 severely lack. If one built a frame house in the same manner we've pasted together these laws, the result would be better characterized as a few billion pieces of sawdust holding hands than a house.
This I why I caution against phrasing any effort as undermining rights which are so fundamental both politically and culturally. An informed approach with clear goal that acknowledges rights and lacks the capricious and arbitrary nature of some recent legislation has a chance at some actual progress.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)I don't expect any progress here. I fully expect that the willingness to entertain gun control now will evaporate soon, as the country goes about its business of finding some shiny new thing to screw up like the debt ceiling, and even if anything passes by then, it will be weak and ineffective. I fully expect that we have another two or three generations of this profoundly stupid attachment to the 2nd Amendment, another century of mass murderers and spree shooters and just plain everyday shootings before the political left *might* find the courage to start wondering about maybe one day thinking about making a future decision about it. Maybe another century before they actually do something.
You're right, murder isn't just a mental health issue. But it is par for the course. We live in Murderville, and as long as we keep making it easy for murderers by ensuring that the country remains hip-deep in guns, then we'll keep having them. And since nobody seems to be interested in stopping it, it continues on.
But worse, and here's the part that really hurts: the resistance from both right and left on this issue (from the right, the NRA; from the left, those who can't be bothered to try - just look up at the rest of this thread) makes me really not care so much about the murders. This is a country that is asking for it, literally, every day, begging and fighting to ensure that it continues. I know I'm pissing in the wind, and the behavior from both sides makes me think this is exactly the fate they have chosen together and deserve together. They can shoot each other to bits and bury their dead children and go back to ensuring that the next spree shooter has plenty of firepower, and the only thing I've learned out of all of this is that America deserves it.
So fuck it. Enjoy your stay in Murderville, where the entire political spectrum agrees that mass murder is constitutionally protected. If nothing else, this site has managed to knock the idea of stopping the murders right out of my head. I'm disgusted and done.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,479 posts)I hope you'll change your mind and continue to work for progress whether active campaigning or simple discussion.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)However, I suspect whatever mathematical skills you have picked up over the years have failed
you- do you know want to know why I think this?
Try and follow along here; go to the following thread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117298862
"Pro-Gun Legislative Victories in 2012"
...and count the number of states mentioned in the OP (a spoiler: there are more than thirteen)
How many of those do you think will be voting to repeal the Second Amendment?
Especially after those states' gun owners have been called "baby killers", "murderers-in-waiting",
"gun fetishists" (YOUR term, I might add), et cetera.-not only here at DU, but elsewhere.
Darque Wing
(33 posts)Okay, I get it that you really want to think you're smarter than me, but what's with the "you can't count" bullshit? Did I ever say that there were more or less NRA-backed gun laws passed than were on your list? I don't remember ever commenting on that. Or is this just another chance for you to try to claim undeserved intellectual superiority?
Did I say that America has a great chance of abolishing the Second Amendment? Absolutely not. I know fully well that I'm about the only person in the country wanting to do so - or, at least, willing to say it. I know that taking America's guns is about as likely as getting the heroin away from an addict, and I've never claimed otherwise.
You can stuff your phony, smarmy intellectual superiority.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)sarisataka
(18,655 posts)that is a no brainer. I would encourage them to repeal any useless feel-good legislation just like I am encouraging my reps to avoid throwing away the next election by supporting Feinstien's "I'm sure it will work THIS time" proposal.
It's like saying we don't want cars that are too fast- so your car will be deemed too fast if it is red or has a spoiler-- since red and a spoiler didn't stop speeding before...
petronius
(26,602 posts)when it comes to general elections. 5) No. 6) No.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)iiibbb
(1,448 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Dems it is worth it. Like I said the gun lobby is a paper tiger just like any bully. You stand up to them and they fold like a house of cards.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)There you go! Thinking like a Winnah! Shades of 1994.
We may lose, but we'll be pure.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)want gun control. I told you before you are on the wrong side of history.
brindleboxer
(53 posts)President Paul Ryan.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Your in the minority. Soon there will be another mass killing with an AR15 and you'll be an even smaller minority.
brindleboxer
(53 posts)support for gun rights is stronger now than it was 20 years ago, and it screwed us then and then again in 2000. But sure, throw away the presidency and secure the GOP control of the house all to pass a meaningless law that won't make a dent in gun violence, but will make you feel better.
Sure, the gun control crowd could instead push for measures that would actually help and not antagonize gun owners, but then you wouldn't get the satisfaction of lashing out against the "gun culture" that you abhor so much.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)I don't abhor the gun culture, I am at a loss to explain the attachment to guns in spite of events like the shooting in CT.
New Poll Shows Surge in Support for Gun Control
Saturday, 29 December 2012 10:27 By Matt Pearce, Los Angeles Times | Report
Public support for stricter gun laws has leaped to its highest point in eight years with 58% now in favor, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday. That's a 14-point jump from last year.
Of those surveyed, 92% of Americans want background checks for buyers at gun shows and 62% want to ban magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, which have played a frequent role in mass shootings.
But Americans still oppose a full ban on semi-automatic assault rifles 51% to 44%, and opposition to a full handgun ban is higher than it has ever been, at 74%.
The poll was conducted with 1,038 respondents by phone over Dec. 19-22, with a 4% margin of error.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13608-new-poll-shows-surge-in-support-for-gun-control
reverend_tim
(105 posts)but it will not happen.
I was thinking we might get a closing of the gun shop loop hole, or better back round checks.
Sadly I an doubting that now.
Never Voted Republican, Never Will.
Kaleva
(36,305 posts)brindleboxer
(53 posts)the people who are likely to stop voting Dem in response to an AWB are probably not the same people who post on this forum, with a few exceptions maybe. It would certainly make me think twice, depending on who the alternative was in any given election.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)would those who are passionate about gun control still vote for a pro gun Democrat like Ted Strickland or Brian Schweitzer over a "anti gun" Republican like Richard Luger (ironic name, but I digress), Chris Christie, or Rudy Giuliani?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)my bad. He is still a Republican. Not batshit crazy, but still. Besides, he was the first one I thought of. He could still run for POTUS. Of course he would have to stop believing in evolution and maybe change his name to Colt or Browning to be less European.........
But stranger things have happened.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)post and run, is that your new style?
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)....to that point. In considering the broad scope of reasons to vote for one candidate over the other, RKBA is only one issue. I am from the reddest of red states (Utah) that is very RKBA friendly. The only way a Democratic candidate for public office has even a remote chance here would be if they are pro-RKBA. So I don't think I'll be facing that issue any time soon, regardless of how the upcoming gun control proposals go.
ileus
(15,396 posts)now is not the time to be regressive on the Second Amendment.
If we email and write our reps maybe, just maybe we can escape without anymore harm to our rights. It's up to you and me to make our collective voices heard, we don't want our rights destroyed anymore.
I can see maybe throwing the emotional a bone like a high capacity magazine ban, but keeping standard capacity the norm for most firearms.
It's not too late...
brindleboxer
(53 posts)is that the left has a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority on this issue, stemming from the fact that we're right about pretty much everything else. The result is that the liberal base isn't willing to scrutinize its own position on the issue (and see that it's ineffective and politically calamitous), and grossly overestimates how much support their proposed gun policies have. The way it's looking right now, we're gonna throw away years of progress on a bill that if it even does pass will be so watered down as to be meaningless.
All over some histrionic culture war bullshit.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)... they've been getting rid of moderates for the past decade... they think the answer to their lost influence is to be "more" conservative...
it's a laugh.
Democrats have gained ground because they have moderated their position (and because the right has abandoned all sense)
http://xkcd.com/1127/large/
but make no mistake. Gun control positions lack their heft in the center; they would lose ground if they started to imagine they had a mandate about this.
They have a mandate about the economy... they should tread lightly outside of that.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Pyrzqxgl
(1,356 posts)It's never seemed very sporting to me to go hunting with an assault rifle (if hunting is a sport, that doesn't seem very sportsmanlike). Also we have to have insurance to be able to drive a car. Seems like insurance to cover any damage you might do with a gun would be in order.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)to kill what you eat, and you hunt for the organic meat. Sticking it to the factory farm industry by eating your own humanely killed organic meat is also good.
Trophy hunters be it wolf and mt lion hunters in Wyoming or rich Americans and Europeans who go to African elephants with their single shot or double barrel rifles are not high on my list regardless of weapon.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)As a gun owner I have no problem with gun safety legislation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)although I'm not a fan of buzz words. At what point does it stop being about safety and start to become prohibition?
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Where do see in my post where I say, "ban all guns"?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)NICS on all purchases and safe storage are examples of gun safety. A ban on a type, is prohibition of that type.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)I have know problem whatsoever limiting types of weapons and amounts of firing power.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)... one of the biggest problems with gun control proponents is that they are very imprecise about terminology in two areas that depends on fairly precise terminology (firearms and law). But to be fair both sides are pretty imprecise about law.
"amounts of firing power"
what is that?
http://xkcd.com/1133/
brindleboxer
(53 posts)that we close the armor piercing barrel clip loophole on high capacity cartridges! Now!
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)By fire power I mean the amount of bullets a clip or cartridge can hold.
Better.
For what it's worth I have been shooting guns since I was ten. Leave that, "I can't have a conversation with you cause you don't know the exact metal composition of a firing pin in a 1911 made in 1962" garbage on the curb, it makes you look like an irrational extremist.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)This is the difference is that we are talking about writing laws to govern this stuff and if people can't be bothered to use correct _basic_ terminology, then we wind up with legislation that is both ineffective and frustrating to gun owners.
And someone calling me a grammar Nazi when people are running around here parsing the punctuation of the second amendment is laughable.
And besides... isn't the grammar and punctuation used in the 2nd amendment part of the issue?
So, actually, I don't feel a bit bad insisting that people use the correct terminology, and relatively decent grammar.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Please tell the class how I am not using the word magazine correctly.
Enlighten us.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"By fire power I mean the amount of bullets a clip or cartridge can hold."
A "cartridge" for a pistol, revolver, or rifle only holds a single(1) bullet. Shotgun cartridges can hold any where between one(1) and several hundred projectiles, aka"bullets"
A "clip" is used to load a magazine, either internal to the weapon, or removable from it.
Clips can hold from 5 to 15 rounds of ammunition.
Generally they carry either 5 or 10. an exception is the clip for the M1 Garand, which holds eight.
I hope this helps.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)I am loving the way the you guys are doing the footwork for anyone who wants to write a bill to help mitigate masascres by guns.
Can you tell me more?
blue burro
(10 posts)I wouldn't ever vote for that piece of shit nor would I vote FOR a Dem who supports any sort of near-ban on guns, but I wouldn't vote -against- him/her either. I'd just stay home and grumble.
Kaleva
(36,305 posts)And none of the candidates for the nomination wanted to spend over a $100?
brindleboxer
(53 posts)In Tennessee, Clayton’s policy ideas set him apart from many other Democrats: He is unusual in opposing abortion rights and same-sex marriage, but he’s downright exceptional in saying that the Transportation Security Administration “mandates [transsexuals] and homosexuals grabbing children in their stranger-danger zones.”
Reminds me of John Slattery's "Steve Austin" character on 30 rock, if anyone ever saw that.
But yeah, I would likely find myself in the stay home and grumble crowd as well, as much as it pains me to say it.
Kennah
(14,270 posts)Given that probably a million more AWs and 10 million more high capacity mags have been produced since 2004, a renewal of the 1994 AWB would be even MORE ineffective than in 1994.
That said, I'm still going to vote for Democrats. That will not change.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)I'm a one issue voter that way.
DemDealer
(25 posts)This whole business of exploiting divisive, highly subjective moral issues is not the place of either political party when the country has enough objective problems that so badly need our attention.
Gun control was a loser from the get-go. People are not willing to compromise on the Bill of Rights beyond the constituency of a small minority. The party could accomplish far more good if it abandoned Republican style moral crusades and focused only on issues of nonpartisan, national merit. Just my $0.02. I am lucky enough to live in a district with pro-gun Democrats. That seems quite rare and should change.
brindleboxer
(53 posts)how will we show those mouth breathing cretins in flyover country just how much better we are??
DemDealer
(25 posts)and restoring a higher level of maturity to government by resisting the urge to fight every moral disagreement like a Republican putting out a church fire? 
Really we need our representatives to stop wasting energy on this battle. Its one that even if we ever "win" it, we're going to lose everything else we've worked for. The party needs to quit pouting and put its big boy pants back on.
doc03
(35,340 posts)you can have at least 6 rounds capacity I am OK. If it only includes newly manufactured guns and doesn't include private sales like the last time it would be a total waste. We would lose a lot of votes and it wouldn't help things one bit.
brindleboxer
(53 posts)we will lose a lot of votes and it might help in the tiniest, tiniest bit. I'm not sure that's much better.
doc03
(35,340 posts)brindleboxer
(53 posts)which means we might blow all our political capital on a piece of legislation that won't even get passed. The stupidity of the party backing something like Feinstein's proposal is really just mind boggling.
doc03
(35,340 posts)and get no legislation either. Then agian maybe Democrats will gain some votes for at least trying.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)by allowing private sellers use NICS or finding a way of mandating it. That is about the only thing that is actually popular. 51 percent oppose an AWB. If most people actually knew what an "assault weapon" is, I doubt it would be that many.
doc03
(35,340 posts)calls an assault weapon. So lets not get into that BS. I am 100% in favor of treating all semi autos the same as full autos are under the 1934 law and also put any ammo capacity of over 6 rounds under the same category.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but that's OK. The NFA branch can't handle the workload they have now. They would have to moderniz the entire system and hire a lot of people to handle the workload. Going from a couple hundred thousand mostly police owned guns to what may be a couple hundred thousand guns will require a lot of money and changes. If I seriously thought it would improve public safety, end mass murders, and make NOLA and Chicago like huge Mayberrys I'd be for it. I don't see any of that happening.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)doc03
(35,340 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)" also put any ammo capacity of over 6 rounds under the same category"
doc03
(35,340 posts)or a bolt action or anything? All most of us want do is keep guns out of the wrong hands and you guys come out with the NRA talking points that there can't be any gun law at all no matter what. I don't want to see kids going to a school where some mentally unstable nut case can obtain a weapon capable of murdering 600 kids in seconds. If you guys keep following the NRA and don't clean up your ranks we will all lose our guns eventually.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Tue Jan 1, 2013, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)
Even then, is it a good idea to base public policy on black swan events?
There hasn't been a "mass shooting" in Australia since their ban on semi autos and pump action shotguns. Actually they have, just not classified as such since less than four people died. Gangland murder continue, violent crime continues to go up, and Australia is still the highest rape rate in OCED countries. Biker gangs make their own STENS for fun and profit, as well as smuggled guns. The Australian Sport Shooters Association's solution is to increase custom inspections, better smuggling detection, and more resources to find and bust underground factories. The gun control advocates', mostly in the Green Party, chose to rant that “that there are 300,000 ‘hand-machine-guns’ in Australia, many of which are carried around or hidden in car ‘glove boxes’.” referring to legal handguns, which are neither full auto or hidden in glove boxes.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932
That doesn't mean I don't support reforming current regulation including universal background checks, which I support, I would even go as far as support Bill Ruger's magazine limit. Banning or making semi autos title 2, not so much.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)A M92 is a lever action first built in, guess now, 1892! It has a full length magazine tube under the barrel which holds between 11 and 15 rounds of ammo. All are chambered in pistol calibers that were populer at the time.
A little knowledge, and less snark, will go a long way in having a conversation.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Better run out and buy that Bushmaster before they're all gone.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I've accepted for a long time now that my preferred candidates are probably going to vote in ways I don't like on gun-related issues. In fact, the only time I'm likely to agree with their gun votes is on regulations I happen to support. It's an important issue for me, but not remotely enough to counter their votes on countless other issues.
I could see actively opposing a Democratic candidate that actively campaigned for bans on all civilian firearms, repeal of the 2nd Amendment, or some other sort of very extreme position. But a renewed AWB, while something I consider a pointless exercise in feel-good window dressing, isn't enough.
just us
(105 posts)There has not been a rep. born that has any interest in the middle class.
Not Me
(3,398 posts)And I'd go further...taxing the hell out of ammo.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)No ... Hell yes!