thank God that pro-gun people would never approach a reasoned discussion like that! Nor, of course, would they ever belittle "grabbers," the way the Mayor does when exhibiting such "behavior!"

Projection much, in the OP?

Show me in my past behavior, where I have came anywhere in the same neighborhood of that sort of behavior.

Otherwise you claim of "projecting" is bogus..

...on gun sales, etc.

meanwhile, you repost videos from rightwing sites like "The Blaze..."

of a "reasonable safety restriction on gun sales, etc?

Or rather, how do your ideas on common sense gun safety restrictions -- and blanket opposition to them -- differ from the NRA's?

I could go all snarky and say "I asked you first", but here goes:

Magazine restrictions - 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides; restricting magazine capacity to 10 or less has no impact on this statistic. All this does is make formerly law-abiding people into criminals without any positive impact on public safety; or, as in the case of Colorado, be a pointless exercise as there is no way to tell a legal, grandfathered, pre-ban magazine from an illegal post ban one.

The recent hoopla over "green tip" ammunition that was defined, in error, as "armor piercing". Very few LEO's are ever killed with any long gun and almost every center-fire rifle round will penetrate a Threat Level II Kevlar vest; this proposed change would have done nothing to positively affect officer safety.

I don't follow the NRA's reasoning on the above two issues so I don't know how it might differ from mine, if at all.

All you've done is said you don't support any reasonable magazine restrictions whatsoever.

And, I notice, you STILL refuse to identify what you regard as a "reasonable restriction". Ball is now in your court.

What. Do. You. Regard. As. A. "Reasonable". "Restriction".?

Magazine restrictions are not "common sense"; they do nothing to address criminal misuse of firearms.

Virtually every firearm sold at a gun show is sold by a FFL holder and a background check is done.

RE: "battlefield rifles"; nearly every bolt action rifle is modeled on military rifles that were used on the battlefield. Are you proposing banning those?

I notice it took repeated inquiries for you to actually answer this question.

should having an expended rifle cartridge be against the law? Is that a reasonable regulation?

I'm all in favor of UBCs, safe storage laws and minimum training requirements to carry.
I also support permanent restrictions on purchase and ownership by those convicted of DV. Also restrictions on those under restraining orders albeit reviewed under due process and provision for protection of ownership rights.

Your turn. What do you consider unreasonable levels of control? Jail time for possession of a round of spent ammunition? Felony for first time possession of a single round of restricted small arms ammunition? Warrant-less "safety inspections "? Serialized inventory and tracking of every round of ammunition? Other?

--particularly designed for war zones, that should be kept off our streets, and not made available for purchase.

I support magazine restrictions.

I don't support warrant-less anything.

As technology keeps changing, I think the idea of "smart" guns is a good one. Not that couldn't sometimes be circumvented, but the idea being that in many cases, especially heat-of-the-moment crimes, they wouldn't.

As for ammo tracking, that's too broad a phrase right now, especially in this era of big data bases, to say, "yes or no," without more specifics. But if there are VIN #'s for car engines, why should implements specifically made to kill and maim, be made harder to track than cars?

already have to do required background checks even at gunshows.

What size magazines?

What type of weapon designed for war zones? Are my full military specification bolt action rifles included? how about my M1911 Colt pistol?

I say market smart guns and let the buyer have a choice but the tech is just not there. Maybe the police will volunteer to go first, right?

As the technology continues to be discovered, refined, etc., it may be the safest thing of all, eventually, to design guns only the owner can use.

Even if that technology isn't quite there yet. Hopefully you'll keep an open mind on such things (clearly the NRA won't).

And I agree with the President, though you won't, when he says: "We should restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines.”

like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_GSP
In New York and Maryland, that is an "assault weapon".
There is no such thing in reality. "Assault weapon" is a political term meaning anything a politician wants it to mean. What does "military style" mean? Any bolt action is "military style". What does cosmetics have to do with functioning? There isn't. The terms are simply misuse of language that play well with the naive and intellectually lazy.
10 round magazines, not even the UK does. They don't actually ban ARs either.
http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/08/13/video-lr223-british-almost-semi-automatic-ar15/

n/t

Austria or Czech Republic. You obviously didn't answer the question and you completely missed the point. I believe in gun control laws that affect criminal misuse without infringing on the law abiding. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that any law anywhere in the world has done either.

n/t

Each of the states had their own laws before National Firearms Agreement. All of them, including Tasmania, had at least licensing and registration. The Port Authur shooter did not have the required license. His low IQ and history of violence would have prevented him from getting a license.
Also, violent crime rate and murder rate was dropping before the National Firearms Agreement, so no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
Also, motorcycle gangs are making their own machine guns in basements.

In Europe, the murder rates are the same as they were before UK or any other country there passed any gun control law at all. In fact, civilian concealed carry was probably fairly common in the early part of the 20th century. So, what you think of as "success" is simply a logical fallacy and cherry picking a few countries. Because there are places like Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil, USVI that have stricter gun laws than any European country. New Jersey, New York, Maryland, and DC have stricter gun laws than most countries in Europe.

No, there isn't any evidence.

being presented.

Still can not answer a simple question though.

Is a law against having an expended rifle cartridge a reasonable gun control law?

I can, NO

Than before that one tragedy. They also have more black market guns.

I doubt it.

Yes, I disagree

Just as I guess you disagree with the President on this..

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms"

What size magazines?

What type of weapon designed for war zones? Are my full military specification bolt action rifles included? how about my M1911 Colt pistol?

...whenever we get afraid we might agree.

I support more restrictive magazine sizes than you do, as does the President. But I'd take the ones you support, as a starter.

Since no such actual ban on assault weapons is forthcoming now, and it's all hypothetical, I'm sure -- in hypothetical land -- there would be appropriate exemptions for pistols, antiques, etc.

But some of this may touch on magazine discussions, as well, since "hand" guns are now quite capable of mayhem of their own.

So yes, I support more restrictive things than you do, when it comes to guns, and there's no sense seeing how many angels can dance on pins, for legislation that doesn't currently exist.

But you see, you have many reasonable planks in your own personal platform, as well.

What a century of suffering!

Tapdancing of this magnitude would find a better home at:

http://communityauditions.com/

Is that why all the endless misfired posts?

In any case, rather than prattling off your usual posted list of insults, try joining an actual conversation for a change, as Duckhunter has done.

What common-sense gun safety measures you support? If any, at all?

One non-answer answer deserves another...

A start.

One reason any progress is stagnant. Any offers to seek reasonable control is a 'start'. The 'finish' is always open ended.

The trouble with the 'weapons designed for war zones' is that a quick comparison of civilian and military weaponry will show a strong parallel all the way back to the Revolution. The AR-15 is following in the footsteps of the M1, Springfield'03, Henry Rifle etc. Of all of these the AR is the least powerful and only moderate effective range though highest capacity.

Once smart gun technology is proven effective and reliable it may be worthy of consideration.

I cannot help but notice the only'control' you specifically mentioned as too extreme is the suggestion to abrogate the 4th Amendment.

As for the video, are you saying that the mayor DID NOT, exhibit the behavior as described??

...about these presumed reasonable positions that you assert?

be against the law? Is that a reasonable regulation?

Which are you in favor of?

It is funny that I have not been able to get one pro-control person to answer that question including the group host of "bansalot"

"Which reasonable restrictions do you support?"

All of them. The problem is that so much of what I see proposed is in no way "reasonable."

See how that works?

how surprised I am at that. And once again, I stated I would post my thoughts if you answer that question. Amazing that not one of the controllers so far can do that. I have read many times the reasonable restrictions posted by the RKBA side but I guess since they are not bans and confiscation, it is not good enough.

indeed, you cannot.

Maybe you can raise the dialog after I post some thoughts. I doubt you will though.

Support UBC
Support opening NICS to private sales.
support magazine limits to 20 rounds or what fits flush with the handgun grip
Support better mental health treatment and reporting to the NICS
Support fully funding law enforcement of existing laws and heavy fines and prison sentences.
Support handgun locks and tax credits, discounts for firearms safes and lock boxes.
Support allowing the sale of sound suppressors and removing as an NFA item
Support opening up the NFA registry for qualified people.
Support CCW reciprocity
Support age appropriate firearms education and safety classes. (parental op-out)


Give me more time and I will think of more reasonable restrictions for you.

Now, care to answer that simple question? It is quite easy. Or maybe you will be like all of the other controllers and run away.

We agree on UBC, and use of NICS for private sales.

When you support full funding of "existing laws," which funding/laws do you have in mind?

As for your straw mannish "expended cartridge" hypothetical, what do you mean? Which cartridges? Which kind of penalties?

despite knowing the local by-laws regarding it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=161250

..a discussion of reasonable gun and ammo restrictions?

and yet, when one mentions dead, massacred children, that's supposed to be kept out of the discussion?

a reasonable gun and ammo restriction?

Mention all of the dead children you want, what is stopping you?

I hope you are working as hard for drunk and distracted drivers.

if having an expended cartridge is reasonable gun control legislation.

You've been asked repeatedly to define what you consider to be a reasonable magazine limitation but refuse to offer specifics. Answering would be nearly effortless, just type the maximum number rounds you believe a magazine should contain. I'm left wondering why that may be. Unwilling, or incapable?

"These people look at guns like sex objects." I guess that may be one step up from penis references.

They need to learn some new lines, maybe get speech writers to reinforce some sane talking points or something.

sane enough to even consider that?

culture, whatever. Curiously, with guns the ol' penile allusion persists even when 20% of gun-owners are women. I can understand the reluctance to change; the image of a pea-headed Man™ must be maintained; the lack of credible aspersions to be derived from measuring or characterizing the vagina; the push back when "she wants to strap one on" is blurted out. But, really. The controllers need to update from B&W to color.

Your whole argument is a waste of time if you say being anti gun is anti civil liberty.
Also the last time I looked we still had a first amendment which you are preaching against.
On edit: it isn't very becoming to act like the big bad gun controllers are persecuting you

It is sometimes peddled as being "necessary," but it is a restriction just the same. That said, "anti-civil-liberties" is a pretty broad brush.

As long as a restriction is constitutional and not gun confiscation I don't think it is taking away civil liberties.
I also think we need to be free to discuss gun issues.

you can over here but we also get to have a say in this group unlike the other group "bansalot"

opposing thoughts in their life it is not worth reading what they post.

I am opposed to gun confiscation but not all gun controll and if that is not the position of the other group I am not with them.

They have nothing of substance to add to the discussion so in come the insults, name calling and sexual references.

..subjected to, in that case, at the hands of pro-gun folk.

Do you condone that behavior?

Rhetorical question, yes?

Do you condone this behavior?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=9I-HAmL9guQ

..so it was hard to know what you meant.

The mayor may have made a slight, boneheaded slip in front of kids (who were in an office with other adults? It's hard to tell) But don't you be that way either, like the rightwing with Hilary's emails. It's no big deal, and this "gotcha" video is one going viral on rightwing websites like Glen Beck's.

Future murderers?

...lifted from video made viral by Glenn Beck and others.

You should address those DU members who say such things, if they have, and stick to the conversation between us, where I don't believe any of those names have come up.

And you haven't even called me a "grabber" yet! Gosh!

That's the problem with having a longtime public relations professional as a
purported "leader" in a movement- their approach starts to catch on with others.

Love him or hate him, Duckhunter has been forthright about what he believes and what
his goals are.

I wish I could say the same about you, but...well, your posts speak for themselves...

they never disappoint! Or surprise.

What we've seen in this thread is more in line with what this guy's 'work' was
like as the Watergate scandal heated up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Ziegler

Those old enough will will remember his unswerving loyalty- and his evasiveness, bafflegab,
and self-contradictions

And to constantly mistake your own spewage for both "conversation," and, mostly sadly of all, "cleverness."

Would that you could say the same...

I think you should ask in the other forum, what that phrase means.

about firearms owners or not, please answer the question.

Can you also please answer my other simple question asked of you.

For some reason you have a problem answering simple yes or no questions, WHY?

..ad nauseum?

I think the Mayor is correct that the unhinged obsession about weaponry and "power" runs deeper than a mere hobby.

But what are you doing defending Glenn Beck's viral video campaigns so vociferously?

I have a few more out there that I will find

Where?

And which laws?

“One expended round of .270 caliber ammunition,”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/23/miller-dc-businessman-faces-two-years-jail-unregis/?page=all

Odd.

Or perhaps not?

and the linked statute is from the Violence Policy Center and is about as anti-gun as they get.

No surprise, that.

As for the law, it sounds like the ammunition restrictions make sense, as part of their overall gun law.

That said, that doesn't mean there isn't room for discussion about, specifically, spent cartridges, though your persecution complex aside, it doesn't seem this is an issue anywhere else, or anytime else, other than this one two year-old case. Where, if the Moonie Times and Fox's reports are to actually be believed, it seems the cops may have overreacted. A lot. (If the accounts are true).

You neglected to mention that man's ex-wife accused him of threatening her with a gun.

Funny thing about the USA, innocent until proven guilty. You failed to mention no gun found at his house.

Funny thing, once again you failed to answer the simple yes or no questions, whats the matter, afraid?

I will ask you nicely again and will keep doing it. Every time you fail to answer, it just makes you look worse.

I trust that you, at last, have some decency, eh?

I do not think you did.

"States with Weak Gun Laws and Higher Gun Ownership Lead Nation in Gun Deaths"

The above statement is a flat out lie.

How nice of you, and the controllers say we are the insulting ones.

Hubba hubba, your honor.

I think a lot of controller/banners think that when the full moon rises and the wolves start howling, they too can go into a trance, eyes rolled back, and act like any shout-show yee-hah on a low power AM radio station -- and nobody notices. As long as the argument is cast as -- how did the New Yorker article put it ? "Moral?"