big difference

all handguns. I was just wondering if DU is out of step with the Democratic Party on this.

who haven't a basic knowledge of the constitution or the law are saying ridiculous things like this..

eom

eom

'What does it matter? There are 300 million guns in the US...now what?'

If an owner of said guns does not comply they go to jail for a very long time.

In other words the existing gun problem is handled with very punitive measures. Eventually people will learn that society has had enough.

New gun purchases are either outright outlawed or the cost of ownership is so exorbitant that most people would never consider pursuing a purchase to begin with. Once again, people will learn that society has had enough.

The 2nd amendment guarantees our right to own a firearm. I think an AWB would be allowed by the supreme court, but if you try to tax guns and ammo out of existence, the supreme court will through that out.

If you want to repeal the second amendment, then its your right to attempt to do so, but at least for now, realize that it is there, and it does provide gun owners the right to own guns.

Also, a heavy tax on guns and ammo probably wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns (how's the war on drugs been working for you).

What it would do is allow the rich to defend themselves, and take that right away from the poor, who often live in neighborhoods where crime is higher.

maybe we should start taxing voting, make it "so exorbitant that most people would never consider" voting...any legislation will have to get out of a judiciary committee who has more than a basic understanding of the limitations on government imparted by the constitution, then must make it through SCOTUS challenges...your suggestions would never make it out of the former, no mention of the latter..

Of course, DU is often more progressive than the Democratic party platform. A lot of DUers support single-payer healthcare, for example, but I don't see many people complaining about them being "out of step" with the Democratic party.

On the other hand, the NRA trolls who are opposed to even the mildest gun control laws certainly are out of step with the Democratic party.

full confiscation or saying that the 2nd amendment does not have anything to do with an individual right, which is in direct conflict with the Democratic Party platform. I think it is a bit ironic for sure.

Could you provide some links. Thanks in advance.

You are just making shit up.

either of the following:

1) all firearms,
2) all assault weapons,
3) all handguns,
?

Ok - nevermind. You can think what you want.

about numerous posts and then you provide a link that does not support your claim.

There was a post in here calling for drone strikes to kill all gun owners and our family's.

And there I was thinking you were a gun fanatic!

production. There are tens of millions of high capacity magazines on the market that would be legal under a renewed AWB.

Now if you are trying to use "renewed AWB" to expand those firearms banned under it, then you have lied to the public and I and other pro-RKBA Democrats will oppose you at every step.

Or else you were lying when you said that you supported the Democratic platform. Which is it?

renew AWB?

If not, then you aren't being truthful.

Three posts ago you claimed that you supported the party's platform. Now it turns out you don't. Which one is it?

I'm to the left of the party platform on guns, and also on some other issues.

the AWB?

people, not being completely truthful.

Do you think you are fooling anyone by avoiding the question?

I've already pointed out to you that I really don't care what gun fanatics like you think about my views. But what is on display here is your brazen dishonesty. Everyone can read that you claimed to support the Democratic platform, but this was a baldfaced lie. In reality, you support the NRA platform.

I'm tired of your evasion and must say goodbye.

Either you support the AWB, or you don't support the Democratic platform. This is not very complicated...

Those features it listed were more than cosmetic. Most importantly, it banned high-volume magazines. I would like to see it expanded, however. I would like to see ALL of those "cosmetic" features banned. Especially the removable magazines for shotguns and (most importantly IMHO) that semi-autos not be simply autos that have been converted. They can be too easily converted back.

folding or telescopic stock
pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action
grenade launcher
bayonet mount
flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle

were dependent on whether it was a rifle, pistol, or shotgun.

But, addressing your list:

grenade launcher - are you serious?
bayonet mount - again, are you serious?
Folding or telescopic stock - although I can see where this one might be mistaken as "cosmetic", making the stock retractable actually makes it much easier to carry into assault situations and makes it easier to conceal. There are also cases where coupled with a pistol grip you may want to leave the stock retracted for close-quarters killing.
pistol grip - this makes it much more stable for auto firing. It is far from "cosmetic".
flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle (intended for a flash suppressor) - a flash suppressor is intended to help remained concealed in order to make it more difficult to pinpoint the shooter. Of course, the flash is still visible, but it makes it more difficult to pinpoint. Not at all "cosmetic".

Again, these are all far from cosmetic.

And they SHOULD be omitted in new production. Please do not spread RW talking points here.

The grenade launcher thing, while it sounds bad, refers to an integral part of a rifle, which by itself, withut grenades which are NFA items, is completely inate and harmless.

The bayonette "mount" the AWB referrs to is this:



"Folding or telescopic stock - although I can see where this one might be mistaken as "cosmetic", making the stock retractable actually makes it much easier to carry into assault situations and makes it easier to conceal. There are also cases where coupled with a pistol grip you may want to leave the stock retracted for close-quarters killing."

Even with the stock folded or collapsed, you're still talking a three foot plus rifle. Hardly "easy" to conceal.

" pistol grip - this makes it much more stable for auto firing. It is far from "cosmetic".

It makes for better ergonomics, and better control of a firearm. The "auto firing" thing, is a red herring, since the AWB was about semi-automatic firearms, not fully automatic.

"flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle (intended for a flash suppressor) - a flash suppressor is intended to help remained concealed in order to make it more difficult to pinpoint the shooter. Of course, the flash is still visible, but it makes it more difficult to pinpoint. Not at all "cosmetic"."

No. Just no. A flash suppressor is designed, and intended, to shield the flash from the USER, not from others. And the threaded barrel is another red herring, since they're designed for a SOUND supressor, not a flash suppressor, which, again, are NFA.

So yeah, more or less cosmetic.

And then theres the whole thing, that the great great majority so called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic rifles,. And rifles - ALL rifles - kill less people every year than hands and feet do.

No, they are not merely cosmetic. That is a RW talking point, just as the "rifles kill less people than hands and feet do" BS. When was the last time that hands and feet killed 27 people in 20 minutes?

"No, they are not merely cosmetic. That is a RW talking point, just as the "rifles kill less people than hands and feet do".

Whether its a right wing talking point or not, its factually true.

Dismissing it as a right wing talking point doesn't magically change that.

The ONLY part of the AWB that actually covered something that mattered to the function of the firearm, was the magazing part, and even that was flawed. LEGAL high capacity magazines were available for the entire ten year duration of the ban.

Perhaps the someone on the right wing stated that somewhere along the line as well, and therefore its a "right wing" talking point too.

It remains factually true either way.

That they could no longer simply pull lower receivers from the M-16 line and install semi-auto fire controls. They changed the internal dimensions and revised the semi-auto fire controls to fit.
BATFE, in 1980 informed all owners of these early(pre change) lowers that they would be considered to be full auto weapons and they needed to be either destroyed, or registered and taxed($200 each) and a tax stamp issued for them.
I know about this because I own 3 of these early rifles I bought in 1970. They are registered as full autos, even though they are semi auto rifles.

BATFE has declared that once a full auto ALWAYS a full auto. The registry for full autos was closed in 1983 and no more can be added to it.

Minor nitpick.

We on DU are likely to get more specific.

seem not to agree. Which is cool by the way - just interesting.

occurs with a shooter who only has one gun...a person can only shoot 1 gun at a time with any accuracy...I've never heard of a gun collector shooting anyone, though I'm sure it has probably happened.

here know that this is in the platform.

ME personally anywhere in the OP (it was you who brought in a personal acusation/attack). I simply found it interesting the last few days that nobody seemed to notice what the Democratic Party platform had in it concerning the issue and if their should be a debate on that. YOU tried to make it personal.

Even with a full background check. I'm talking a deep check, like the one I had in the Army to get my TS clearance... I shouldn't be allowed to concealed carry?

Better to have it on you and not need it then to need it and not have it on you. Kinda like a condom.

Life is just that simple. IMO.

your fear and paranoia that drives concealed carry should not endanger my safety

Also a veteran, trained & proficient in shooting. I was on rifle teams for my young adult life, even in high school. We were allowed to carry our rifle to and from school.

I could turn it around and say your fear and paranoia should not endanger my right (because currently it is a right, one that can be taken away) to carry.

disagree with you there. As stated in another post I am talking about background checked, trained (not just certified by some NRA instructor cousin), and heck even mentally certified.

I'd be willing to have all of that done. The first two have been. I'm even willing to restrict to 10 rounds or less in mags. I don't take my rifle out of my home unless it's at the gun range so really, I'm willing to turn that over. I own two weapons currently, a 9mm pistol and an "assault rifle" that fires .223.

Say you and I are at a diner together and an armed robber comes in demanding money and pointing his weapon at all of us, know what I am going to do? I'm down on the ground with you. I'm giving him my wallet and money, hell... even my car keys. Because my car, money and watch can be replaced. Your life and my life can't.

However, say I'm leaving that diner and someone attacks me in the parking lot forcing their way into my car. Then yes, I'd like to have the option outside of my home.

I don't believe in Clint Eastwood fantasies. I value all life.

Yeah. Tell that to the 20 dead kids that "life is just that simple." Tell that to their families.

What a completely moronic statement. NONE of the 61 mass shootings in the last few years were stopped by someone with a gun, despite pathetic little Clint Eastwood wannabe fantasies.

In a small suburban town outside of Tampa called Seffner. My elementary, middle and high schools all had a "Resource" officer. This was an armed Sheriff's deputy who was on duty there daily.

Is this uncommon practice?

We had a female student bring a pistol to the school once. The resource deputy responded before any harm took place and the weapon and person was removed.

I'm not saying it's an end-all be-all, but why don't other counties/states practice employing this position?

Oh, and I also had a teacher who lost her job for bringing her concealed weapon to the school. What about the teachers who would like to be armed?

No one should want to kill or use there weapon. Killing is not a fun thing, however, if you're trained and proficient and in the line of danger with no way to go but forward, like the teacher who stood between the shooter and her students... why not let them carry?

Oh, and how about Switzerland?

I'm not a gun nut. I think the NRA causes problems. I have no problem restricting mags down to 10 rounds or less. However, I shouldn't be allowed to leave my home with it? I don't agree with that.

I remember when Kirsten Gillibrand was appointed Senator she was heavily criticized by progressives.

And she has been a splendid Senator. Maybe the best.

At least some of them have to be Donald-Segretti types.

The mainstream of the Democratic Party reflects the mainstream view of du.
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

but from dangerous critters.

I've only had to use a gun twice (once for a copperhead and once for a timber rattler), but thank the Universe I had it for those 2 times.

I live in a very red area where assholes kill rattlesnakes, cut the head and the rattle off, and just leave them in the middle of the road.

Disgusting.

I carry a snake stick with me in my vehicles at all times, and shoo them off the road so that they do not get run over, or butchered by one of those assholes.

I know that killing them can not be avoided some times, but please if you can, do so.

The coyotes that view my little pommies as lunch on the other hand, get no similar respect from me, when they come looking for an easy meal.

A complete ban

We need tougher gun laws. Close the gun show loophole; no semi-automatic killing weapons with massive clips. Make private sellers go through an agency that does back ground checks and enforce it. NO FUCKING ASSAULT WEAPONS in private hands. Track ammunition or whatever it takes, no one needs thousands of dollars worth of ammo.

cutting entitlements. Pure triangulation.

AAUP!

Last edited Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

theater (as laid down many times in SCOTUS decisions), so too the 'right' to bear arms is not an absolute 'right,' but should be subject to analagous time, manner and place restrictions. Personally, I think anyone who wants to own a firearm should have to pass a rigorous licensing process to exercise his or her 'right,' much like we require those who want to drive to pass a drivers' test.

I think my desires can be accommodated under the Dem Party's platform language calling for 'reasonable regulation.'

Do you agree?

party platform.

sticking point. What exactly is CRAZY gun nuttery?

Edit: Post # 4 says that you should only be allowed to own one, maybe two firearms. So, I supose you may be a gun nutter to him/her.

ownership is FINE. I am a target shooter and hunter myself. It is unlimited guns and ammo, dangerous assault weapons, serious problems with our mental health system, too many loopholes at gun shows and in private sales for background checks and registration, lack of uniform registration, groups like the NRA and their guns and ammo corporate masters having too much lobbying power, etc. that are the problems.

of the problem as well. I personally agree that you proposals would fall within the Democratic party platform although I am sure some would disagree as being either too strict or too lenient.

You are in the minority in Our Party.

gun laws. Are you suggesting that those 66% of Democrats that support gun control support banning weapons for those who currently legally own them? Do you have a cite to that study?

What is 'reasonable gun control' is what the underlying question is, not only for the country, but for democrats as well. Some say no semi-autos, some say no magazines over X rounds, others I am sure will have other things they would like to see. However, I would highly doubt 66% of Democrats would ban private ownership of commonly owned weapons.

I would add a 48-hour waiting period as a federal regulation.

That would inhibit those who have a sudden urge to shoot others and give them a chance to calm down. I think this would particularly help prevent the many gun-related domestic killings that happen in the US every year.

Make the sale, purchase, or posession of anything beyond that a federal felony with one of those mandatory inimum sentences we usually reserve for dangerous hombres like the chemo patient with the pot plant.

The 2nd Amendment was written with muskets in mind, so that's a good place to start.

think that the freedom of speech should not apply to the internet since the 1st amendment was written with books, newspapers, and letters in mind?

I do not want a originalist precedent that says that civil rights are limited to the technology available in 1787.

constitutionally acceptable- for instance, I don't believe you could keep a nuclear-tipped ICBM for personal use.

So the question is not "can we ban certain types of arms, or not" the question is which types can we prohibit.

And leaving aside muskets for the moment, I think 6 bullets an hour is a reasonable compromise. As I said in a different post, if you've got two hands, that's 12 an hour. Plenty to hunt or "defend your homestead" from "intruders"

I think your restriction is too restrictive, I do think that some maximum rate of fire within X period of time is something that should be debated and considered.

This type of debate is what, I believe, the Democratic Party platform envisions. Throw out of the conversation the 5% of Democrats who say no reasonable limits and the 5% (or more) who say no individual right to own firearms and the debate would be much more productive.

this sort of thing:




and not, so much, this:



I've seen enough semantic quibbling over the definition of "Assault Weapon" that it seems to me rate of fire is a good area to start the conversation.

deaths, handguns are WAY out in front as far as type of weapon used. In addition (not instead of) the gun control debate we will be having, we also need to look at mental health availability, cultural issues, and the family. It is a VERY difficult problem (makes the fiscal cliff look easy - hey, have you heard of that lately????)

fall back position, time honored and used by the likes of Pat "I blame Lesbians and Atheists for 9-11" Robertson and Mike "God didn't protect the school because he wasn't wanted there" Huckabee.

We don't know what "cultural issues" played into this shooting except for one; that the mom, the one with the high-powered weaponry, was apparently a "survivalist". So from that I think we can draw certain reasonable "cultural" assumptions around the milieu she existed in. But they're not the ones favored by erstwhile "culture warriors" of the right.

That said, what we do know about this shooting is that the shooter killed lots of people in a short period of time using a gun designed to do exactly that. Gun violence, and in fact all violent crime, are decreasing, and yet there is consensus emerging that something needs to be done about this type of incident.

Therefore, targeting the weapons peculiar to this kind of incident is appropriate.

People should have no more the right to own guns than I do to own a car. I support repeal of the 2nd amendment, which would then allow for sensible and effective regulation of guns, requiring licensing and insurance, as I have for my car.

I sent this letter to mu congresswoman:

Dear Congresswoman Woolsey:

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

It is irrational that we have a constitutional right to own a gun but not a car. A car has utility and purpose, transporting us to where we need to go, and occasionally tragically causing death. Guns have the sole purpose of causing death. They have no other utility.

Please, I beg of you, in your final days in Congress, make the most courageous stand of your life. Introduce a bill to amend the Constitution, striking the second amendment from the Bill of Rights. Take the one real, bold, sane action that will be a fitting memorial to the children and adults massacred in Newtown.

Only after the second amendment is repealed can we have meaningful regulation of guns, which rationally needs to be much stronger and more rigorous than the licensing and insurance requirements for cars, rather than far weaker as is currently the case. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

Challenge your congressional colleagues to pass your bill and send the amendment to the states for ratification. Stand up to the bloodthirsty, moneyhungry NRA. Trust that in all states of our union, there are enough people who love children more than they love guns. Let us have a REAL, meaningful conversation about rights and guns and death.

Challenge your colleagues to exhibit as much courage as a kindergarten teacher or an elementary school principal.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now. It is obvious what we need to do to have any hope of preventing further Newtowns. No other response is proportional to this ongoing catastrophe.

Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

Respectfully,

Logic doesn't work that way, especially when you learn what's being banned - any gun that somehow doesn't fit through a Brady Campaign flowchart.

Like, say I want a Titan II missile with a Thermonuclear Warhead. Can I buy one?