Skip to main content

View Diary: Building Bridges, Not RKBA (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Some real simple things that can be done (17+ / 0-)

    Agree with many of your points.

    1. Nationalize the gun control laws, they are to varied per state to enact real enforcement.

    2. Mandatory registration with elimination of the gun show loop hole.

    3. Liability insurance, we force people to insure their two ton machines that could kill, why not force people for machines designed to kill.

    4. Elimination of military grade hardware for public consumption. There is no use at all for someone to own a Bushmaster...period.

    5. Massive national buy back program, literally a no questions ask weapon buy back to get many of the old hardware off the market and black market

    6. Embrace technology, RFID and biometrics, tie that in to the sale of weapons through dealers only.

    Combine all of those, and we could eliminate quite a bit of problems.

    The Aussies did it, there is no excuse on why we cannot.

    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

    by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:18:27 AM PST

    •  Federalise gun control laws is a no-brainer (8+ / 0-)

      When DC or NYC have severe restrictions on gun ownership, but any old asshole can drive for half an hour to a gun show in a neighboring state and buy whatever they want, local solutions will not work.

      •  Exactly, nearly 40% of weapons on the black market (5+ / 0-)

        enter it through these loopholes. Close that, and we could make a massive dent in gun violence.

        Couple it with no questions asked buy backs and we can further close the markets down.

        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

        by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:18:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, let's base that federal law on Vermont. (8+ / 0-)

        It's the bluest state in the union...

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:22:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  First off, I need to apologize... (4+ / 0-)

          I'm hours late to my own party!  I reversed the time zones in my head, so when I wrote this I thought it would publish in about an hour, but it actually published at 4:00 a.m. my time.  D'oh.  So, here I am hours late and I haven't even had a cup of coffee.

          I see no reason we couldn't take a look at Vermont's gun laws and use them as a starting point.  However, Vermont has some pretty light restrictions.  IIRC, a 14 year old can have a concealed weapon.  While that might work in a rural and mountainous region, it would be a disaster for my hometown of Oakland, California.  Not that 14 year olds aren't packing heat here!

          So, sure, start with the most lax gun laws and work from there.  What laws does Vermont have that you think might work as a nation?  What laws should Vermont , and other states, have?  

          •  Last time I checked, VT allowed for (4+ / 0-)

            anyone who could legally own a firearm to carry one concealed, sans permit. And legally owning a pistol is 18 if memory serves.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:35:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  so are you here to just distract and ridicule? (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peterfallow, CwV, poco, jeff in nyc, splashy


              We are not broke, we are being robbed.

              by Glen The Plumber on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:54:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  OK (4+ / 0-)

              So...is that reasonable to you?  Do you think that allowing anyone to carry a concealed weapon anywhere would help reduce gun violence?

              •  From that other diary, My solution proposition: (5+ / 0-)

                http://www.dailykos.com/...

                Ok, how about this: (0+ / 0-)

                license shooters -- and as part of the licensure, make them pass both a written and a practical test. The license is as good as and no better than a driver's license -- four to six years between renewals, and you must present it at the time of entry to a firing range or along with your hunting license and game tag(s).

                separate license required for long arms / handguns / shotguns.

                Background check for all purchases - NICS as a minimum; I would rather see a better system but you go to war with the army you have, or you fly the mission with the airplane you're issued ...

                Initial licensure to be taught as part of a required, regardless of homeschool or public school, mandatory, standardized-across-the-nation, course before HS graduation. It must last at least two weeks and include handling the firearms, disassembling them for proper cleaning, and learning to fire them safely under range conditions (ie with hearing protection and safety glasses in place).  A firearm is a lot like a portable drill -- it's a tool that requires conscious effort to use properly and demands certain safety precautions when handled. It's not some exotic totem of evil or some bad-mojo death-machine. Familiarization would take a lot of the panic-reaction (omigod a gun! run away run!) out of the equation; understanding the operation would help more, I think.

                I think a basic safety course is good every year in school -- but you have to make sure you're not "dumbing down" the stuff to the point kids tune it out. Bring back rifle teams and pistol teams as high scool sports (there are shooting sports in the Olympics, I remind you).

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 02:02:43 AM CST

                In other words, put the onus where it belongs: on the operator, not the object.

                Starting with real education, advancing through sports uses, and reinforcing safety and responsibility on the part of the user at every level.

                Note the utter lack of response, although other comments I posted in that thread did get either recommends, HRs, or replies.

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:30:54 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Education (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BlackSheep1, Glen The Plumber

                  I might have an issue with mandatory gun education in schools, but I completely agree that education prior to licensing is a reasonable requirement.  Personally, I would be willing to consider some basic gun safety education, just as I accept basic sex education.  I do think more knowledge and awareness can't hurt!

                  •  thanks! i think the more we teach people, and (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kamakhya, Glen The Plumber, KVoimakas

                    the more people we teach, the better the world.

                    A firearm's like a kitchen knife ... or a person.
                     Everything's in context.

                    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                    by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:04:09 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I learned to shoot in the Boy Scouts (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kamakhya, Glen The Plumber, poco

                    at summer camp. We had proper equipment and facilities, proper training, especially in safety, and supervision. I later owned a .22 target rifle, and was on my university's rifle team. Later still, I sold my rifle to a dealer.

                    I can see how, say, Police Athletic Leagues could do much the same thing as the Boy Scouts for teaching safety and responsibility in cities.

                    Not in schools, nohow, never. Securing the weapons would be a nightmare, and schools do not have time and resources to teach the existing curriculum. Teaching about guns without handling and shooting the guns would be an exercise in futility. Paintball is no substitute.

                    America—We built that!

                    by Mokurai on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:44:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Mokurai: Junior ROTC here in Texas does in fact (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      have rifle teams. Some, I'm told, even have pistol teams. I've worked in schools (not as a teacher -- in IAQ / building evaluation) where there were real ranges, in operation even during summer break.

                      LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                      by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:29:28 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  I have no problems with it. (0+ / 0-)

                And it seems to work for VT...

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:30:58 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Why not base it on NYC which has seen (9+ / 0-)

          homicide rates drop by 80% over the last twenty years? 2012 is heading for around 400 homicides compared to 2500 in the early 90's., whereas Vermonts hasn't even halved over the same period?

          Much better model than a rural state with a 95% lilywhite population made up of retired hippies, arthritic farmers and angry DJ's.

          •  Because New York sucks. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BlackSheep1, gerrilea

            Of course, I'd rather live in the middle of no where with no one around for miles (hence my opinion on NYC).

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:44:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That was not a rational response (5+ / 0-)

              The fact that you think New York sucks, for whatever reason, (I think it rocks), does not count as a valid argument when discussing the merits of different systems of gun control in different legislative jurisdictions.

              New York sucks has to be the weakest argument ever from a gun lover - even Gerrilea does better than that.

              •  You make it sound like I tried to use that as (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound

                a serious argument.

                Seriously?

                I'd think you'd know me better than that.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:30:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know you from your RKBA comments (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber, poco

                  adamantly refusing to discuss any form of gun regulation while pretending to be oh, so reasonable, along with gerrilea. For those not following the debate, the title of this diary refers to gerrilea offering a bridge in RKBA: Building Bridges that turns out to be a classic Bridge to Nowhere. I am repeating the link given at the top of this diary. VK commented extensively in that diary, and I commented on his comments.

                  Why you think, VK, that anybody would understand you as anything other than useless on the subject of guns is beyond my understanding.

                  Your comment was useless. It was not marked as snark or anything other than simple seriousness. So peterfallow attempted to take you seriously. You fail.

                  America—We built that!

                  by Mokurai on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:53:20 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dude, if you can't even get my initials right (0+ / 0-)

                    why would I respond?

                    Well, I guess I should anyway.

                    Why am I not useless when it comes to firearms? Hmm. Maybe it's the fact that I'm a certified firearm instructor. Or that I've taken LEO firearms training. Or that I own a bunch. Or...I guess I could continue.

                    Hell, I'll go back and apologize to sen...peter fallow. My bad.

                    And I'm all for certain firearm regulation. Shall issue concealed carry in all 50 states. Better enforcement of NICS. Better reporting to NICS. Punishing those who try to buy or sell firearms illegally.

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:04:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree with NICS enforcement (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, Glen The Plumber, splashy

                      I also agree with stiffer penalties for illegal sales.  

                      I understand your concealed carry permits, but I would go the other way and eliminate or restrict the legality of concealed weapons.

                      I appreciate your expertise on the subject.  

                      •  Why would you eliminate or restrict? (0+ / 0-)

                        As states pass shall issue concealed carry laws, the cry has been that blood will run in the streets and all this horrible horrible stuff will happen.

                        Yet, year after year and state after state, this fails to materialize. If you look at the Florida statistics, people with a concealed carry permit actually commit crime at a rate less than LEOs.

                        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                        by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:20:37 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  By this definition of 'reasonable' (0+ / 0-)

                    I assume that you were willing to discuss varying forms of warrantless wiretaps & varying forms of torture.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:35:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Apologies. (0+ / 0-)

                My comment was not meant to be taken seriously.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:04:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  a little-brainer? :-) (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, Glen The Plumber, Kamakhya

        E.g., just for discussion: if one could (legally) only buy guns from dealers, and all the guns had an ID, then the law could require that guns be purchased only in one's state of residence (as proved by a driver's license/state-ID, or maybe a credit-card address).

        Sure, some people would get around it, but would face penalties if caught. (The perfect is the enemy of the good.)

        Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

        by Sharon Wraight on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:35:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  nothing "simple" to any of that (11+ / 0-)
      1. Nationalize the gun control laws, they are to varied per state to enact real enforcement.
      seems to me the failure to properly enforce state laws has to do with intrastate problems and not any interstate variances in gun laws.  
      2. Mandatory registration with elimination of the gun show loop hole.
      hell to the no on registration.  even private sellers are supposed to conduct background checks under current law.  
      3. Liability insurance, we force people to insure their two ton machines that could kill, why not force people for machines designed to kill.
      this idea basically amounts to "insure me against willfully illegal actions."  it would be like car insurance offering a separate DUI rider.  

      beyond that, there is a natural market for car insurance that simply doesn't exist for guns, as no one wants to be out 30k because someone else lost control. most existing gun liability insurance only covers self-defense scenarios.

      4. Elimination of military grade hardware for public consumption. There is no use at all for someone to own a Bushmaster...period.
      true military hardware is so heavily restricted, it is essentially unavailable now.  

      just come right out and say you want an AWB.

      http://www.policymic.com/...

      Let us not forget that mass shooting at Columbine High School occurred while the AWB was in full effect. It's also worth noting that the perpetrators also had almost 100 homemade bombs. In addition, the worst school shooting in history occurred at Virginia Tech, where the shooter did not even use firearms covered under the AWB.
      http://www.motherjones.com/...
      The assault weapons ban proved of little value where it counted most: on the street.

      The legislation...defined assault weapons in a manner that would allow gun manufacturers to skirt the ban without much trouble. It exempted 650 firearms and grandfathered in weapons and ammo clips produced or purchased before the enactment of the ban.

      ...the measure's prohibition on high-capacity clips was probably its most effective provision. "Ultimately, the 1994 ban was almost meaningless because it was so defectively drafted," says Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, who worked for the House subcommittee on crime in 1994.

      The law did little to affect gun violence.

      the bushmaster reportedly used by lanza was legal under CT law, despite their standing AWB.  chew on that.

      what the 1994 AWB did accomplish was delivering the house to the GOP for the first time in 40 years.  we lost 50-some seats in the subsequent election.

      5. Massive national buy back program, literally a no questions ask weapon buy back to get many of the old hardware off the market and black market
      yay!  cash from old useless guns for to go buy new and better guns!
      6. Embrace technology, RFID and biometrics, tie that in to the sale of weapons through dealers only.
      you'd have to provide specifics, but on the surface, HELL NO.
      The Aussies did it, there is no excuse on why we cannot.
      we are not australia.  our population is 13 times theirs, and their constitution has NEVER contained anything comparable to our 2nd amendment.

      i do get that looking to other models for ideas is informative, but for the love of dog, please stop making overly simplistic comparisons between us and countries that could fit inside one of our states.

      Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

      by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:24:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here how about this (6+ / 0-)
        the bushmaster reportedly used by lanza was legal under CT law, despite their standing AWB.  chew on that.
        Then perhaps it should be illegal to have

        Chew on that

        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

        by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:45:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  well, if an AWB (6+ / 0-)

          does not encompass the gun in question, as was the case in Newtown, what do you propose?

          Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

          by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:50:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ummm encompass it? (5+ / 0-)

            This ain't rocket science we're discussing

            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

            by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:54:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  and yet you have no answer (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Robobagpiper, gerrilea

              if connecticut's AWB did not prohibit the bushmaster, what would you suggest, since you think they should not be legally available?

              Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

              by Cedwyn on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:01:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Umm I just suggested it (5+ / 0-)

                That.It.Not.Be.Available.To.The.Public

                I am talking French or something, and you're just not understanding me or are you being purposely obtuse?

                --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:02:37 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And how would you make it not available (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cedwyn, Robobagpiper, gerrilea

                  to the public?

                  Stating "make it not available" is all well and general. What specifics would you use?

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:07:40 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A total ban on it (4+ / 0-)

                    Seriously, am I speaking Swahili?

                    Why are you people so obtuse to ignore the obvious?

                    --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                    by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:10:36 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A total ban on WHAT? (7+ / 0-)

                      Guns?
                      Semi-automatic guns?
                      Semi-automatic guns with the capacity to take any sort of magazine?
                      Semi-automatic guns that look scary?

                      You're not answering the question.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:17:34 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Okay lets step this back (5+ / 0-)

                        The question was about the bushmaster and the fact that it was legal. I suggest that perhaps it NOT be legal.

                        So I'll broaden the scope. Weapons like that one used and others like it should not be available. Assault style weapons like the AR, Tech 9 and the like

                        You need not clip sizes beyond a few rounds. If you need more than 7 or 8 rounds. Learn to shoot better.

                        Essentially we need a renewal of the AWB and an expansion of closing loop holes by standardizing gun laws across all states.

                        Seriously, I said this in the FIRST POST.

                        Stop being purposely obtuse

                        --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                        by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:24:11 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not. I'm asking for specifics. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea

                          If you want to say magazines that hold more than 7 or 8 rounds, than that's ONE specific. Congratulations. What are the others?

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:36:47 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Seriously? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber
                            So I'll broaden the scope. Weapons like that one used and others like it should not be available. Assault style weapons like the AR, Tech 9 and the like

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:57:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What are you basing 'others like it' on? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            What criteria?

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:31:15 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your the gun expert, help us help you (0+ / 0-)

                            This is where we need you at the table, because without it we get bad laws.

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:22:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Any type of AWB will be bad law. nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Cedwyn

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:24:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Now you're being obtuse again and purposely (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, splashy

                            obstructionist.

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:29:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no he isn't (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, KVoimakas

                            you're saying those weapons should not be available.  but if the terms of CT's assault weapons ban didn't cover them, what terms would?  

                            so what is your suggestion on how to construct an AWB that would keep the bushmaster off the streets.  

                            if you want new gun laws, you need to have an idea of what you're asking for, how to get it, and how effective it might actually be.  unless you want the dems to go all pickett's charge over some bullshit that will do nothing but put the GOP back in power.

                            saying they should be illegal is all well and good, but if you can't find an AWB that will pass congress and be effective, what's the point?

                            http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/...

                            that's the outline of DiFi's proposal.  notice that it grandfathers guns already owned at the time of enactment?  so really, what would an AWB accomplish, assuming DiFi's could even pass?

                            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                            by Cedwyn on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:37:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  So would you ban (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BlackSheep1, Cedwyn, gerrilea

                          the Ruger 10-22 (perhaps the most popular "plinking" rifle ever, which to my knowledge has never been used in a mass killing) simply because it comes with a 10 round magazine (and can accept larger)?

                          Oh, and by the way, none of the guns mentioned in your comment load from a "clip" . . . if they did they would not be able to accept "oversize" magazines.

                          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                          by Deward Hastings on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:58:45 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  two points from a gun owner (10+ / 0-)

                            1. any AWB that we can pass will have loopholes that allow some "bad" guns to be sold, and will also be too broad in other ways and thus overly restrict some "good" guns like the one you've mentioned (I'm intentionally using those loaded terms for shorthand, not becuase I think an AR is inherently "bad" or that my bolt-action hunting rifles are objectively "good", but just because we recognize that certain kinds of guns are associated with certain crimes that we as a society would like to reduce).  

                            As a gun owner and operator, I will tolerate those restrictions much the way I tolerate a ban on using my cell phone while driving, even though I know it has no effect on my driving safety and I also know there are much bigger safety hazards on the road that are not being addressed by regulation.  Perfect not enemy of good, etc.

                            2. I am so f'in' tired of gun experts harping on the semantics of "magazine" vs. "clip".  Seriously, is that all you got?  I think you should accept that non-gun-experts (i.e. most Americans) use those terms interchangeably, and discuss the merits of the proposal.  Personally, I hate when people say "I could care less" but I try to ignore that logical/grammatical error and focus on the substance of their statement.

                            I have never felt very strongly about gun control, and certainly never contacted a legislator on the issue of gun control until this past week when I wrote to both the Senators of my western state in support of it.

                            I relate that anecdote to support my argument that there is a tide in favor of gun control right now that is stronger than we've seen in decades, and I would appreciate it if gun experts would weigh in constructively so we can shape the coming legislation so that it's as effective as possible.

                          •  I wish I could tip this a thousand times (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            Especially your second point.

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:52:19 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The magazine/clip distinction (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            idbecrazyif, Duncan Idaho, Cedwyn, oldpunk

                            is not idle . . . clip loaded guns cannot accept "oversize" clips, while there is typically no effective limit to magazine size.  But more important, its misuse is a marker of opinion held in ignorance by people who want . . . some law . . . but can never articulate what it is (except, perhaps, a total ban on private ownership of all guns).  We will not get "good" gun control laws unless the issues are understood and the laws well written . . . and that will not happen based on "input" from people who don't know what they are talking about.

                            The difficulty of definition of the dreaded "assault rifle" is another example of the same problem . . . I'm sure you and I would be in general agreement about "what it is" (anything you'd ever see advertised as "tactical" might be a hint), and simultaneously recognize the difficulty of a "legal" definition that was neither too broad nor too easy to circumvent.  Every legitimate use of the Bushmaster can be accomplished with a Mini-14 . . . unfortunately so can most of the illigitimate uses, with simple aftermarket add-ons.  People blathering about "clips" are not going to help us address that.

                            In my neighborhood the "favorite guns" of the "bad guys" are not assault rifles anyway . . . they are large magazine 9mm pistols . . . particularly Glocks . . . so the first thing I'd go for would be a total ban on 9mm Parabellum, both sale and possession of the amunition and the (pretty much all high capacity) weapons using it (none of which have any legitimate civilian use that cannot be better and more safely met otherwise).  How long it would take the bad guys to find their own alternatves is an open question, but it's somewhere to start and something (relatively) easy to define and enforce.

                            I'm all ears for suggestions on how to define and ban the "AR" derived "black guns" that are so popular with the gun nut brigade, or the equally useless AK-47 family . . . but as much as I dislike the crazies who collect them those guns are not "common in crime", at least not around here.

                            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                            by Deward Hastings on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:34:45 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'd like to find some meaningful way to (3+ / 0-)

                            prevent things like Sandy Hook, while at the same time also reducing the innumerable amount of shootings in places like my home town Chicago.

                            I think an examination of ammunition types and gun types is important. Many of us just have no idea the innumerable amount of weapon types out there, or even how easy it is to find a common substitute.

                            I think that if barrel length exceeds a certain length, then the weapon needs no more bullets than 5 or 6 before requiring a reload. And the reload process should be such that it increases the time between loadings.

                            There is no reason anyone should own a semi auto shotgun. A pump action should suffice.

                            And any rounds which are capable of creating hydrostatic shock damage should really stay in the realm of the military.

                            But I really appreciate people who are like yourself. Coming to the table to discuss, inform, and find a good direction.

                            Without that, we get bad laws.

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:20:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't see the barrel length (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            idbecrazyif, Cedwyn, oldpunk

                            as having much to do with magazine capacity . . . just blasting away is not good technique with rifle or pistol.  But there are many of both with a capacity that exceeds 5 rounds (which I agree should in almost all cases be enough) . . . the M1 Garand at 8, the Ruger 10-22 at 10, the 1911 Colt 45 at 8, for just a few examples . . . none of which are in any realistic sense "assault weapons" and the attempted banning of any which would accomplish nothing but furor.  The M1 automatically ejects the clip when empty, the others require a deliberate magazine ejection, with all three there is a significant pause to reload.  People who like to "play soldier" or "survivalist" will practice "speed reloads" no matter what . . .

                            I have a 12 gauge semi-automatic Savage that was my father's (and is older than I am) and a 12 gauge Remington pump that is more reliable and just as easy to fire rapidly.  There's not much (or no) point in banning semi-auto shotguns except for high capacity "street sweepers" . . . if there's any attempt to aim at all you can empty the pump just as fast as the semi-auto.  Recovering from the recoil is what really determines the time between shots.

                            All bullets produce "hydrostatic shock" to some degree or another . . . with rifles in particular the distinction between them in that regard is a bit overblown.  "Military' ammunition is often deliberately specified to maximize injury and delay death, since incapacitation ties up enemy forces.  When hunting one wants (and in some jurisdictions one is required to use) a high energy fragmenting round to insure a quick kill.  It is none of it as simple as it appears on first look . . .

                            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                            by Deward Hastings on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:59:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess the idea then should be to try and get (0+ / 0-)

                            legislation that perhaps exempts previous manufactured weapons with degrees of lethality and move the industry in a specific direction while at the same time increasing areas where we can remove as many hand guns as possible.

                            This is where I personally feel that no question asked buy backs (for hand guns and assault style weapons) could do wonders to remove weapons from streets.

                            Essentially try to move the industry in a specific direction, while allowing responsible owners who own certain weapons to hold and retain them.

                            And when it comes down to ammunition, I realize that all bullets produce said damage to some degree, what I was attempting to put forth was that perhaps reducing the number of weapons that can fire large rounds at fast speeds would do absolutely nothing in affecting your average owner who likes to plink a few rounds down range, or someone who varmint hunts.

                            Although I do realize that said high power rounds would still be required for other responsible things like hunting....so idk. I'd just like to see the lethality of bullets on the streets reduced.

                            Thats a hairy one, that quite honestly I don't have the knowledge to grapple, and appreciate when owners like yourself step up to help frame the debate.

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:31:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We've got a problem, (0+ / 0-)

                            and it's not going to be easy to resolve.  The whole history of the Country is built around guns, and individual action with guns.  We officially sanction mass violence on a government level, and then tell individuals thoroughly steeped in Paladin and Rambo "don't try this at home".  We let armed thugs roam the streets and then wonder why homeowners want at-least-equally-powerful weapons for "self defense".  We are presented daily with images of a Nation in near economic collapse and then wonder why the suburbs fear the welfare dependent (but well armed) hoards from the inner cities.

                            People want guns because we, as a culture, have given multi-dimensional and almost boundless reasons that they should want guns. You, we, are not going to find a path to gun control until we address the underlying cultural issues, and that means first and formost finding a way to take the guns from the "bad guys" first.  People do not want to be "victims" . . . and thus the whole message of the NRA . . . "the government has failed to protect you, you must protect yourself".

                            Whatever the intent the way "gun control" advocates are going about it now generates the perception that they are on the side of the "bad guys".  It feeds the "every man for himself" perception that is at the root of the problem to begin with.  I totally agree that "assault rifles" are dangerous (and pointless) in civilian society . . . and there are a number of ways to limit (and in some cases outright ban) them . . . banning high capacity magazines for a start.  But the first order of business should be addressing the perceived threat that leads people to want the damned things in the first place . . . get the guns in daily use, particularly high-capacity hand guns, out of criminal hands and off the streets.

                            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                            by Deward Hastings on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 07:09:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Late reply but I agree with you (0+ / 0-)

                            I just wish more people would approach the topic like yourself

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:11:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But if Glocks were banned, ... (0+ / 0-)

                            and somehow taken from current owners, the owners would just migrate to some other type of gun, of which there a MANY manufacturers and models from which to choose.

                            And is the type of gun REALLY the biggest concern?  Isn't it more logical to focus on the type of ammunition?  Lanza reportedly used hollow-points, which do so much more damage compared to the alternatives that I'd think their banning would be a better place to start.  Lanza shot his mother in the face only four times (I'm not meaning to minimize this), yet so much damage was done that she could not be properly identified for HOURS.  In other words, her face was shredded.  The thought of as many as ELEVEN of these monstrous bullets ripping apart the bodies of six-year-olds is sickening beyond description.  (I mourn for the families for their loss, but knowing they will be haunted by the details is so much more horrifying to contemplate anyone having to bear.)

                            A Kossack recently posted a link to an image of a man whose thigh had been shredded by a couple of such rounds.  Even though I was prepared to be shocked and sickened, the actual damage was FAR, FAR, FAR worse than I'd imagined.  I could only look for a half-second before having to click away.  The thought that Lanza saw the gory results of his work and yet was able to continue tells me all I need to know about his "sanity" and the true evil nature of his mind.  The fact that he put one of those rounds through his own brain doesn't come anywhere near to making me feel better that he's gone; in cases like this, I REALLY hope there's a literal, eternal hell for him to face and experience.

                            From what's been reported to date, the rat bastard simply hated the fact that his mother was pushing him to become independent and live on his own.  If he'd only committed suicide, that'd be one thing.  But the fact that he felt it acceptable to murder lots of other people, helpless little kids no less, in protest, proves to me he was absolutely a monster.  Methinks his pleas for mercy to his creator, should there be one, will fall on deaf ears.  One message to others who now or in the future will be attracted to the idea of copying Lanza and exceeding his carnage should be made to understand just how reviled their memories in society will be.

                            Perhaps we should undertake to construct public "anti-memorials" to shame the killers, thus giving others a reason to at least consider choosing a different path?  

                            /rant off, turning the mic over to more creative minds in hopes actual SOLUTIONS come to their minds

                            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                            by Neuroptimalian on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:43:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Deward Hastings: My Remington 550 .22LR holds (5+ / 0-)

                            15 rounds in the magazine (a tube under the muzzle). It's an autoloading bolt-action rifle. Does not look like a variant of an M-16.
                            Yes, commenters here at DKos have said I have to give it up to be considered reasonable or responsible or not a "gun nut".

                            I have no paperwork for it -- even the sales receipt from the gun store where it was bought as a used weapon is in somebody else's name. It was given to me ... as a Mother's Day present. I've not even owned it a year, and I'd be reluctant to part with it: it has some serious sentimental value, and is the first "all my own" not-issued-GI firearm I've owned.

                            And if Texas or New Mexico started a NQA buy-back and some jerk stole it for the "gift card" remuneration, I'd be pissed as hell not just with the jerk who stole it but the gun-grabbing government who paid that pittance for it to destroy, sans any proof it wasn't stolen from me.

                            If you want to give up your firearms, feel free.
                            Respect my choice not to as much as I do your choice to do so.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:51:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You sound like a responsible owner (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, poco, splashy

                            So I am quite sure that you likely have a safe of some sorts to keep that weapon locked up.

                            So this

                            the jerk who stole it
                            Is an unlikely scenario. Buy back programs work to get hand guns off the streets.

                            --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

                            by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:54:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Check the video from last night's CBS evening news (4+ / 0-)

                            the firearms being "bought back" in LA were, from the pictures, largely long guns (I posted a link to the story in another comment today).

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:16:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It was to laugh at . . . (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, Cedwyn, oldpunk

                            do you think they got even one Glock?  Or saved a single life by "buying back" a 7mm Italian bolt action rifle that quite possibly (probably) had not been fired for (well over) 50 years?

                            The "symbolism" is nice, but even the slightest hint of reality would have been nicer.

                            Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

                            by Deward Hastings on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:39:14 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So one photo proves that there is nothing to (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, Glen The Plumber, splashy

                            buybacks? How is that astrology working for you?

                            There are buyback programs taking in substantial numbers of handguns, as Google Images will be happy to show you. Don't make me come over there with the cluestick.

                            America—We built that!

                            by Mokurai on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:01:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Can't have it both ways: does the buyback (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            somehow ensure legitimate ownership by the person selling the firearm to the program?

                            Google Images? What should I search for?

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:26:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The Google Image Search: (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, Glen The Plumber, splashy

                            Google Images Search for gun buyback programs.

                          •  Lots of photos. (0+ / 0-)

                            What about details of legitimate ownership from the submitters?
                            That matters.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:03:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We said semi-autos with large and (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, Glen The Plumber

                            expandable capacity. That lets you out on two points.

                            We aren't coming after you. Not even in black helicopters.

                            ^_^

                            America—We built that!

                            by Mokurai on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:58:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Mokurai: you guys don't consider (0+ / 0-)

                            15 rounds hi-capacity?

                            Back when these were new, 'twas a major selling point ...

                            and somebody here on DK told me that it was too an assault rifle, and I must know that.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:12:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Why don't you help? (11+ / 0-)

                        Make a useful contribution, just once, for God's sake.

                        Since you and your gang are so informed and detail-oriented about the definitions of various gun types, why don't you suggest some language that would encompass the types of weapons that the less-illuminated among us would obviously like to see restricted?

                        Standing on the sidelines and hurling smug critiques is NOT going to endear you to anyone, nor improve your position in these policy debates.  You could actually help work out something reasonable.

                        (I have no idea why I wasted my time to write this comment.)

                        Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

                        by dnta on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:29:14 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't want to see more restrictions. (5+ / 0-)

                          Hence my lack of suggestions.

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:36:04 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Then just say that (8+ / 0-)

                            Obviously, if you are completely unwilling to consider any restrictions, regulations, controls, or other methods of reducing the quantity and quality of the firearms in the US, then there is no point in having this discussion with you.  Frankly, I'm baffled as to why you would join it in the first place.

                          •  Exactly (5+ / 0-)

                            The hard-core RKBA faction here has made it crystal clear that they have no interest in working together to help enact reasonable firearms restrictions.  Fine.  There is therefore no "bridge" to be built, and no reason to try to include them in policy discussions.  They will object and complain, but reasonable Democrats (and maybe some Repubs) will have to move forward without their contribution.

                            Yet it is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set... -- Gandalf

                            by dnta on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:33:04 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  See my post upthread (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            I suggest we regulate operators.
                            We do that with cars.
                            It's possible to own a non-op car even in California, isn't it?
                            Are they all re-registered every year?
                            Or ... oh wait. Just when they go back on the road or are sold?

                            I could get behind an NICS (I'd really want something better) style background check for private sales. Do it like your car title -- go to the bank with the buyer and run the check to make sure the buyer's licensed to drive in Texas before you sign the title (with a notary) and hand over the keys.

                            Or in this case the trigger group.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:54:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Were you interested in working together to (0+ / 0-)

                            enact 'reasonable' warrantless wiretaps?

                            "no reason to try to include them in policy discussions"
                            Other than elections?

                            "They will object and complain"
                            And vote.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:41:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've put forth my suggestions elsewhere (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, Kamakhya, Cedwyn

                            and I don't think an AWB is effective nor would it be.

                            I am for strengthening NICS, making states comply with reporting standards, AND enforcing those who try to buy or sel illegally.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:33:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm baffled why you believe banning things (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Cedwyn, FrankRose

                            will stop the violence in this culture.  It won't.

                            I'm baffled why anyone wouldn't support creating public policies that would actually do so.

                            Such as banning violence in movies, music and television.

                            Such as teaching our children peace instead of war.

                            Such as acting as a nation in a peaceful manner.

                            What baffles me is that my unscientific survey here in the most Liberal State in the Union, NY...the majority of people I've spoken to, including non-gun owners see our pursuit of said "gun regulations" as a means for us to lose total political power.

                            Why would we push ourselves out of power?  Do you really think the Republicans can do a better job of running this nation than we can?

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:42:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Severely fact-challenged (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            I have quoted NRA opinion surveys and research, which Second Amendment Fundamentalists gerrilea and VK have simply ignored. We might as well treat them as trolls, and Not Feed Them.

                            America—We built that!

                            by Mokurai on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:04:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, when presented with firsthand evidence (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            I'm now a troll that shouldn't be fed?

                            I could care less what the NRA says, I'm not a member and never have been.  I don't care what CNN, Fox or anyone else claims to be "valid" surveys.

                            Remember those "exit poll surveys" in 2004, well Kerry clearly didn't fucking win.  He was ahead by 5% points going into the freaking election and he still lost!

                            And hon, review my profile please.

                            If you continue these false accusations against me I will report you.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 01:10:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't believe in banning things. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            Please point to where I ever advocated bans.

                          •  Here: (0+ / 0-)

                            link

                            I assumed you know that the B in AWB means ban.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 06:21:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, I understand the word "ban" in in there (0+ / 0-)

                            But you know, as well as I do, that the AWB did not actually ban all assault weapons.  Furthermore, I was making the point that if the original bill was faulty, it could be rewritten.  For example, it could be rewritten that assault weapons could only be used in licensed shooting ranges.  

                            The Clean Air Act had the words Clean and Air, but really wasn't about clean air either.

                            But, I will give you a bone, I would consider banning certain weapons, but I wouldn't consider banning all weapons.  I see the distinction even if you don't.

                          •  But you did advocate for a ban on certain things. (0+ / 0-)

                            At least that's how I read that.

                            Apologies if that was misconstrued.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:21:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Um, it's all semantics at this level (0+ / 0-)

                            I consider restricting access (as in you can't get it unless you are special) ok when applied in certain cases.  You might get all upset and call that a ban.  OK.  I prefer the terminology of restriction of access to banning outright because I do not support bans generally.  When discussing bans and gun rights, it is most often assumed to mean a ban of all guns.  I do not support that and never have said that I do.  Restricting access to some guns is different than banning all guns.

                          •  legislation is going to happen (5+ / 0-)

                            I don't want people with limited gun experience to be the sole authors of that legislation.  I would like gun-knowledgeable people to participate so that the scope and wording of the legislation can be more effective than previous assault weapon ban laws.  I agree with most RKBA folks that such bans have had little practical effect.  But I believe that well-written legislation could be part of an effective overall societal response.

                          •  Key phrase: (8+ / 0-)
                            ...part of an effective overall societal response.
                            Exactly right.  

                            It's probably understandable, but there've been a tremendous number of simplistic solutions tossed out since Newtown:  Everything from "Ban 'em all" to "Arm 'em all."  Neither one of those is going to happen, nor should they.  Problem is, it's a helluva lot easier to point to the simplistic solution than to suss out a proper societal response.

                          •  I agree 100% (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, splashy

                            I don't know enough about guns to be able to craft meaningful legislation.  The AWB of 1994 is often cited as being useless.  Therefore, it needs to be redone so that is not useless, if possible.  The only way that will happen is if people knowledgeable about the manufacture and use of assault weapons help with the proposed legislation.

                          •  Are you in contact with Sen. Feinstein's office? (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kamakhya, poco, Glen The Plumber, splashy

                            It doesn't matter what commenters say here, either in ignorance or knowledge. What matters is what will be introduced on the first day of the new Congress.

                            Feinstein will introduce assault weapons ban in Senate

                            I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons. It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession. Not retroactively but prospectively. And it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets. So there will be a bill. We’ve been working on it now for a year.
                            A feeble bill, but better than we have had for a long time. We can discuss what else to do, although not with deadenders like gerrilea and VK.

                            We also need to get rid of the Tiahrt amendments and the like, which prevent law enforcement from retaining records of checks on gun purchases, maintaining any form of electronic records on gun ownership at ATF, and any form of health and safety research on guns at CDC or NIH.

                            Just for starters. None of these things has anything to do with the Second Amendment.

                            America—We built that!

                            by Mokurai on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:10:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I must've really gotten under your skin (0+ / 0-)

                            if you consistently type KV as VK.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:17:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Now, now, that wasn't fair, he still doesn't know (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas, Cedwyn, FrankRose

                        what he wants.  You act like he should know what he wants banned after all, he is suggesting it.

                        Ugh...

                        ;)

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:35:03 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  I have another problem with point 5: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Cedwyn, gerrilea
        5. Massive national buy back program, literally a no questions ask weapon buy back to get many of the old hardware off the market and black market
        So somebody could steal weapons for the buyback, and the legitimate owner have no recourse?

        Nonstarter. Right there.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:34:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Responsible owners lock their weapons up (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splashy

          So chances of theft are a strawman argument

          --Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. - Thomas Jefferson--

          by idbecrazyif on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:58:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Stolen = strawman, now???? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            from my property, I've had tools stolen.

            My firearm is kept secure.

            Doesn't mean I couldn't have it stolen -- the house next door was broken into in September, and a firearm was stolen from my Dad during a burglary in early 2002. He wasn't home at the time. We reported the break-in and the theft (other things were taken too that we could identify). Never heard a word back from the cops.

            The guns used in Newtown's Sandy Hook shooting were stolen from their owner, who the shooter murdered before furthering his rampage.

            How is that a strawman argument?

            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

            by BlackSheep1 on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:14:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Another fine reason for mandatory registration (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, poco, splashy

            No one could sell a weapon that they didn't register.

            I can see both sides here.  We tried buyback programs here in Oakland, but they have all been failures.  I think the biggest reason is they give very little money.  So people turn in useless, old guns and not the weapons that are on the streets right now.

            However, I can certainly get behind a real program that would offer real money in connection with real reforms.  It is not going to help if people turn in so-so guns, take the money, and turn around and buy a better weapon.

        •  That's just silly. People steal guns to sell them (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, splashy

          now. What's the difference?

          America—We built that!

          by Mokurai on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 12:12:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  What about the recent buy back in LA? (0+ / 0-)

        They had so many guns come in that they were scrambling to get more to buy them with.

        If there is an incentive, I bet a lot of people would be happy to give up their guns. Especially ones with children around.

        Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

        by splashy on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:36:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  As to biometrics ... (0+ / 0-)

        since there's no chance in hell of eliminating guns from the planet, perhaps in the future it'll at least be mandatory that they come with a sensor embedded in the trigger or along the spine of the grip that determines whether a user has ANY mind-altering chemicals in their system, from alcohol to psychotropic drugs, and, if so, the gun would be prevented from engaging some necessary mechanism and won't be able to be fired.

        It'd be a start.  Laws, schmaws; they're made to be broken or evaded.

        And if there's any kind of chemical imbalance (detectable in bodily fluids) that accompanies insanity, using that test result to disable a gun would be a bonus.  Especially in cases where the mentally troubled aren't taking meds.

        Meanwhile, back at the ranch, yet another person was pushed onto subway tracks in NYC and killed by an oncoming train.  Although some will (jokingly) call for the banning of all trains, I can't help but wonder why it has not occurred to anyone to put springy boards along the tracks next to platforms so that victims couldn't just bounce their way back up?  There ARE solutions to problems, just not enough intelligent people addressing their minds to conceiving and implementing them.

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:09:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site