Skip to main content

View Diary: This guy right here ... (753 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bullshit, No They Are Not (26+ / 0-)

    Police need them to fight the criminals who have them. You don't need them.

    If you were a marine, you should have no problem taking down a scumbag with six shots.

    You ain't fighting zombie hordes, you have no need for a semi with a 20 round clip.

    None.

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

    by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:44:15 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why should I willingly hamper myself (5+ / 0-)

      by not carrying the most effective weapon available?

      •  Because My Kids Lives Are Not Worth You Having (35+ / 0-)

        a very dangerous, mass killing security blanket that you can use to slaughter my kids at your whim. For all I know, you're the next one to snap. Why SHOULD you be allowed to have it when a pistol is fine for your needs.

        This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

        by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:55:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because a [revolver] isn't fine for my needs. (4+ / 0-)

          I have explained why in great detail. A semiautomatic is superior in many ways.

        •  Not for you to decide what a law-abiding citizen's (5+ / 0-)

          ...needs are. That is beyond arrogant presumption.

          •  Society Decides, And We Will (15+ / 0-)

            Society decided I don't need a race car that goes 300 MPH.  Even if I think I need one.

            So if I decide I need Anthrax for my protection, that's ok with you?

            Currently, 2A is interpreted to give us the right to individually own a firearm. It doesn't specify what type. Society will draw the line and WE will decide for you, because obviously YOU are not responsible enough to make that decison if you are buying semi automatic weapons with 30 round magazines that you think make you safer.

            You don't need that. Too fucking bad for you. You're right to own that type of weapons ENDS when it endangers the life of me and my family.

            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:27:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tyranny of the majority? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper, FrankRose, Sarenth

              That's why we have a Constitution.

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

              by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:32:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, Common Sense Regulation Of Dangerous Weapons (11+ / 0-)

                No one is taking all the guns. We're restricting what types you can have.

                Deal with it.

                This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:34:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Rule of Law (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PsychoSavannah, Beetwasher, wonmug

                That is what democracies do. Society, by way of discussion and debate, determines for us the limits of individual action.

                Majority Rule WITH Minority Consent. The majority feels that assault weapons are government prerogative. The minority feels that the Second Amendment protects their right to have home defense and hunting rifles. Excellent. The majority rules and the minority consents.

                This is the way this will go. Best wrap your mind around it now.

                Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:32:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do not consent, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annieli

                  because the magazines my pistol, which I keep for defense, is designed to accept hold 20 rounds. "The majority" thinks I should not have these. What then?

                  •  Rule of Law. (5+ / 0-)

                    Majority rules, minority consents. That is called democracy.
                    The majority is also smart enough to know that the majority can be enlarged with reasonable policies, which many of the minority have already consented to. One of these reasonable policies is a 6-10 round magazine limit. There is no doubt that most hunters and sportsmen will consent to that, and that peels away a significant part of your minority into the majority. You are left with a minority position within a minority position. Sorry.

                    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                    by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:35:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So you would favor confiscation, then, if (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      "the majority" so decided?

                      •  Confiscation is not reasonable (6+ / 0-)

                        and no majority can be had, or envisioned, to enact such a policy. It would imply an intrusion into the homes and lives of people which would in fact violate other Amendments to a significant degree.

                        However, should some people with extended magazines or semi-automatic battlefield weapons violently resist turning in their illegal equipment, it is possible that warrants would be issued to search for them. Constitutional protections would apply. Absent an open threat of violence, the weapons possessed in the home might be kept, either legally or illegally, it matters not, because over time, they will decrease in number, which is the intent of the law. If a person chooses to keep an illegal munition, purchased before the new law goes into effect,  no one will be the wiser if there is no open threat to the government, neighbors or relatives. The vast majority of law-abiding people would conform to the law, as always, knowing that they would keep their handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles. I would support this.

                        There is no majority which would favor forcible confiscation of weapons used for self-defense or hunting. There is a majority which favors the declaration that semi-automatic weapons for battlefield use belong in the hands of a well-regulated authority, and should be surrendered to avoid them being stolen or used by relatives of law-abiding gun owners with nefarious intent.  

                        Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                        by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:20:41 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Then You Decide If You Want To Be An Outlaw (0+ / 0-)

                    Good luck with that!

                    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                    by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:45:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  For one, no one has determined that we have a (0+ / 0-)

                  situation in which there is a minority of gun owners in this country.

                   As a matter of fact, but current data it is an almost 50/50 split with 40% of gun owners answering that they are Democrats.  These are gun owners who answered that they were indeed a gun owners.  We can guess the number is much higher.

                  •  The point? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    splintersawry

                    The raw numbers are fairly immaterial. If there is a 50-50 split between gun owning and non-gun onwing citizens, fine. I doubt it. Most statistics show about 80 percent non-gun owning and 20 percent owning. Whatever. I accept your 50-50 split. Or 40-60. Or 30-70.

                    The point is that a majority of Americans, both gun owning and non-gun owning, say that battlefield weapons do not belong in the hands of unregulated citizens or citizen-militias or whatever you want to call them, while a majority say people should be able to keep handguns for self defense and shotguns and rifles for hunting.

                    I frankly do not see what the contention is about. Are these "citizen" militia people willing to self-immolate over a Constitutional provision to regulate military weapons that did not even exist until 1940? Or 1980? Are they that in love with their arms that they are willing to go to jail or begin a Civil War for them?

                    If so, the majority of Americans are now willing to accomodate them, while striving to the last breath to get them to change their minds to support reasonable policies under the Constitution. Even their own patron Saint Anton Scalia says its Constitutional to do so.

                    You are so far out on a limb that your support is a minority of a minority, and any thoughts your side have about forcefully resisting are insane rantings.  Best get your mind around that and come to the light side.

                    Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                    by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:18:33 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I am ok with the assault weapons ban as during the (0+ / 0-)

                      Clinton years. Not thrilled about it but ok with it.  I am ok with enforcement of existing laws so I am Ok with background checks.  Ok with mentally ill and felons barred from legally owning a weapon.  

                       Not ok with :

                      a national registry

                       bullet auditors

                       yearly weapons inspections

                       making fines and fees, ammo and insurance so expensive that only the rich can have their 2A right

                      semi automatics bans

                      making it illegal to own, possess or buy a very limited amount of ammo

                      limiting how many legal guns I can own

                      complete weapons ban and buy back

                      Etc etc etc....or any number of other ideas that have been floating around here for days.

                      See, none of us have any idea what is going to be really proposed yet, and yet all of the ideas listed above have been floating around here for days...so way more than likely the same type of ideas are also floating around the heads of Congressmen.  

                      So until they make known what it is they intend to do, people who value our rights under the 2A are a little apprehensive waiting on that decision.   Again, it is the second part of the Bill of Rights.  It is a very valued right to many, many, many people...left, right, men and women, and people of all races and cultures.

                •  So, when it doesn't happen, what will you do? (0+ / 0-)

                  Seriously though, an AWB won't pass Congress.

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

                  by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:06:30 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  /snort (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueness, vcmvo2, Bisbonian, Beetwasher

                KVoimakas is now Rosa Parks via Ted Nugent.

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

                It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

                by poco on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:51:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  no, it isn't (0+ / 0-)

                we have a constitution because the previous system didn't work at all.

                for one, it was difficult to put down rebellions.

                An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                by mightymouse on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:38:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  You can own a car capable of 300mph (3+ / 0-)

              You can't drive it on public roads at 300 mph, and you have to have it pass inspection, you have to be licensed, etc.  As a gun owner, I'm fine with good regulations to prevent accidental deaths and crimes with guns, by the way.  Americans have a right to be armed, but with responsibilities to ensure the safety of ourselves and others too.

            •  He is not endangering your life or your children. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              That is your own irrational fears.

              •  Tell It To Sandy Hook (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                newpioneer, The Nose

                For all I know he's the next Fucker to snap, and he's got easy access to weapons of mass slaughter. Too easy.

                This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:02:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  and you believe the new laws will stop those who (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas

                  really be the next mass murderers from possessing a gun?  You think they are going to line up to turn them in?  Do you think they won't be able to buy them right off the street just like they do now?

                  Remember Columbine happened during the last assault weapons ban.  Those killers bought their illegally.

                  •  Yes, If It Saves One Lice Its Worth It (0+ / 0-)

                    If it keeps one gun from one lunatic its worth it.  Only a selfish person wouldn't even want to try.

                    Status quo is just oke dokey with you, huh?

                    Wonder why that would be.

                    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                    by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:19:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Enforce existing laws. Make them stronger if you (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      must but only after proper discussion and debate and IF the will of the majority is to make the stronger THEN make them stronger....with all proper procedures followed through Congress.

                      This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution....it is a right of the people and thus should have every bit of public debate as possible.  

                      •  Isnt That Whats Happening, Debate? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        The Nose, splintersawry

                        Are you not making your voice heard?  Did someone muzzle you?  WTF are you talking about?  Is someone censoring you or something?

                        Since no one is saying ban all guns its not 2a, its common sense regulation.

                        This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                        by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:35:00 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Uhhh there are a lot of people making reference to (3+ / 0-)

                          gun bans...from "assault weapons" bans to semi automatic weapons bans to complete firearm bans.

                          Every other diary on guns for days.... eventually, if not from the very start, leads right down the path to talking about wanting a complete ban and buy back program.

                          I have seen no public debate yet on this....other than people calling anyone who wants to keep their gun "a gun nut" or "gun worshiper" who you are scared to have your children around.   By the way, I'm a teacher....scary, huh?

                            All I have seen thus far, is heads of power speaking to each other behind closed doors and apparently will make a decision on something as important as this in less time than it usually takes them to go on vacation.  It is even being talked about that executive decisions will be made.  

                          •  Wake Me When Its being Considered in Legislation (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Nose, splintersawry

                            And we can talk about yr rights being trampled.

                            Regulation of guns is perfectly constitutional, even according to that RW shitbag Scalia.  Go try to by a fully automatic machine gun.  Banning those fuckers worked.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:58:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You mean the ban from the 1930's that had no (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            where near the 310 million weapons involved, as does now?  Private possession of those weapons, even before the ban was near 2 percent.....not 1 in 2 households such as firearms are today.  

                            Go to sleep now...as it won't be long before I'll have to wake you.

                          •  Did you ever stop to think (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beetwasher, The Nose, splintersawry

                            that it is the FUTURE that we must be mindful of? 310 today, and how many tomorrow? We can at least try to put some restraints on that. Attempt to control the proliferation. Thus, creating a future that will have fewer than 310 million. No doubt it sounds like an unfathomable task to you, but it is not. It is absolutely doable and do it we must. Bigger tasks have been undertaken and successful.

                            There is nothing more exciting than the truth. - Richard P. Feynman

                            by pastol on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:25:04 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sucks For You, But Regulation Is 100% (0+ / 0-)

                            Consititutional.

                            Now go hug your gun, weirdo.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:14:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since you have reduced yourself and your (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            discussion to name calling, in a conversation in which I was being respectful and courteous, I will let you have it as I suppose you have nothing more to add of consequence.

                            Regulation is indeed constitutional as long as it doesn't trump rights under the 2A, hence the reason for such regulations that are already law and enforceable.  I have no problem with that enforcement nor a problem strengthening them, should we find need to after serious debate and dialogue and congressional processes and if it's the will of the people.  Again, as long as we always consider, during the same debate and dialogue, that the people have a right that must not be infringed upon, we can work together to try to go after those who would kill and continue to honor the rights of a law abiding gun owner.

                          •  Regulation Is NOT Infringement. Period. (0+ / 0-)

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:00:22 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well let's talk about that for a second. So you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            think regulation is NEVER infringement....ever, period....right?

                            Hmmmmm

                            Well then, what's you opinion about the following:

                            Voter ID laws?

                            Protest Zones and Permits?

                            No Protest Zones?

                            Throwing people out of a state building because they have a sign?

                            Areas that are declared off limits to the press and others with cameras?

                            The TSA body scanning your Grammie before she can fly to see you on Thanksgiving?

                            Capital punishment?

                            Are you ok with those regulations of your rights?

                          •  I can still buy full auto. nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Meteor Blades

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:09:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, That Gives Me Comfort (0+ / 0-)

                            Where are all the machine guns? Seems banning them worked out and there's no massive black market or demand for them, huh?

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:15:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you have the money and can pass a... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            ...thorough background check, you can buy fully automatic rifles now. The law did not ban them.

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:14:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, They Are VERY Tightly Regulated? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splintersawry

                            Good! Let's do that with all weapons. It's perfectly constitutional.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:16:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                      Well, why don't we just strip away 4th and 5th amendment protections then?

                      If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it.

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

                      by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:08:24 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  But it is the Supreme Court's. And they have (4+ / 0-)

            decided that a handgun or hunting rifle is enough for you and everything else can be regulated under fedearl law. So you may have a right to carry a gun you do not have a right to carry a semiautomatic gun. Or assualt rifle. Read Helller and McDonald decisions both written for the majority by Scalia.

        •  His choice of firearms has no bearing on your kids (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          slothlax, theboz, Not A Bot, KVoimakas

          lives.

          This is the same bullshit argument the right-wing used to justify torture, Gitmo & Warrantless Wiretaps.

          Didn't buy it out of the right-wing.
          Don't buy it from you.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:36:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tell It To Sandy Hook (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miggles, The Nose

            I dare you to say that to a parent.

            Bullfucking shit his choice has no bearing. For all I know he's the next fucker to snap and take out a classroom.  Or maybe its you.

            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:49:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Tell it to a 9/11 victim.... (3+ / 0-)

              At least that is what the right-wing told me about warrantless wiretaps, torture and Gitmo.

              Trying to exploit a tragedy for political purposes is not only extremely tasteless, but also ineffective, since your focus is on people who have done no wrong.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:24:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Dont Change The Subject, Semi Auto weapons (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Miggles

                Are directly responsible for the MASS deaths at sandy hook.  Deal with it, weirdo, theory gonna be regulated.  But you keep living in yr bubble and denying it.

                This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:28:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not changing the subject. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sarenth, KVoimakas

                  The subject is infringements on Constitutional rights for perceived security.
                  Both you and the right-wing pushed to do this.
                  Both you and the right-wing used a tragedy to justify it.
                  Both you and the right-wing decided that infringing on the liberties of innocent people was a rational response.

                  They did it to the 4th Amendment.
                  You're doing it to the 2nd Amendment.

                  I disagree with both of you.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:42:11 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What Right Is being Infringed, einstein? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Miggles

                    Were talking gun REGULATION not a ban of all weapons.

                    Your precious right to own a gun remains.  Scalia himself signed the USSC decision agreeing gun REGULATION is perfectly acceptable.

                    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                    by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:47:32 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Calling it regulation doesn't change anything. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas

                      People have certain liberties now (buying a semi-auto, magazine size etc), that you want to strip away.

                      If the Supreme Court deemed it acceptable & the right-wing called it 'regulated warrantless wiretaps', then I assume you would find warrantless wiretaps to be 'perfectly acceptable'.

                      For the record, I wouldn't.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:56:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Dont Change The Subject, Gun Regulation is (0+ / 0-)

                        Perfectly constitutional.  Even that shitbag Scalia agrees.

                        This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                        by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:01:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not 'changing the subject' (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas

                          I have used the words 'liberty' and 'rights'. I have used these words appropriately. The fact that infringing on liberties makes you uncomfortable doesn't change the meaning of the word.

                          I don't know if you noticed or not, but warrantless wiretaps isn't 'unconstitutional' either.

                          'Constitutional' or not, we, as Americans lost liberties with warrantless wiretaps.
                          'Constitutional' or not, we, as Americans will lose liberties with the current proposals for gun control.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:10:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  We're Talking GUN REGULATION, Stay On Topic (0+ / 0-)

                            Gun regulation is perfectly constitutional. And access to poorly regulated weapons of mass slaughter are directly responsible for the mass deaths at Sandy Hook. Period.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:17:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Gun regulation is perfectly constitutional" (0+ / 0-)

                            So is warrantless wiretaps.
                            But I assume that you supported that as well.
                            After all, it is constitutional and limits liberties for perceived security.

                            I didn't.
                            I support American liberty.
                            The American people will decide which they prefer. Distrusting Americans & loathing American liberties, like you.
                            Or supporting American liberties, like me.

                            I look forward to hearing their answer.
                            After the elections, I look forward to hearing from you whether or not losing Democratic seats for your perceived security was worth it

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:55:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  An assault weapons ban may be possible... (3+ / 0-)

                  ...as may a high-capacity magazine ban. But you will never ban semi-automatic weapons. Most handguns sold today are semi-automatic, and a large percentage of hunting rifles and shotguns are also semi-automatic. It is not the action of the weapon that is the issue.

                  Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:17:27 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That May Or May Not Be True, Doesn't Mean It (0+ / 0-)

                    Shouldn't be attemtped. If it saves one life it's worth it.

                    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                    by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:18:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you attempt to ban all semi-automatic.... (3+ / 0-)

                      ...weapons, you will wreck the attempt to enact controls that actually make a difference by turning people who otherwise would have been our allies in ending gun violence into foes.

                      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                      by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:58:12 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Maybe, Maybe Not, At The Very Least There Needs (0+ / 0-)

                        to be MUCH stricter regulation of them. MUCH more stringent.

                        This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                        by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:58:26 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I don't disagree with that. Restrictions ARE... (0+ / 0-)

                          ...too relaxed by far. The key to all this debate is how do we spur enough citizens to spur enough congresspersons and senators to create and pass legislation that the president will sign that will actually accomplish something to reduce the amount of gun violence in the United States. That is not a total ban on semiautomatic weapons of all kinds. But there are numerous other restrictions and requirements that can pass if people learn to stop talking past each other.

                          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                          by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:43:54 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  exploiting (0+ / 0-)

                is exactly what Bush did at 9/11 and you know it. Bush ignored the warnings, and had an invasion plan ready to go before 9/11happened, then he used it to take away your rights. but did you say anything then? Did you?

                "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

                by azureblue on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:50:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  What about the criminals that have them? You are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          so worried about law abiding citizens having guns to protect themselves, and the possibility of one of them "snapping"....people like John the math teacher who happens to be a gun owner, or Jane the postlady who happens to be a gun owner, or the sweet old lady in your Sunday school class who happens to be a gun owner.....and you would disarm them out of your own fears...all the while the real criminals will still be out there with more and bigger weapons and no one will be able to protect themselves....including yourself.

      •  Because (0+ / 0-)

        and it is appalling that you ignore this as a soldier : You are responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel of your weapon. Including the ones that miss your target. My God - you want to use a weapon that will put bullets through walls and car doors, bullets than can travel of a quarter mile, possibly killing innocent people, to defend your self in a spray of lead?

        "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

        by azureblue on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:47:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  hate to break it to you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theboz, Bailey2001

      but most 6 shot revolvers are semiautomatic.  

      "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

      by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:52:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's only one semiautomatic revolver I'm aware (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vote4Obamain2012, mightymouse

        of and they only produced about 5,000 of them.  

        That was 100 years ago.

        Double action isn't semiautomatic.  Saying it is is just as innacurate as calling a semiautomatic carbine a "fully automatic assault rifle"

        "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

        by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:58:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Double action is semiautomatic (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happy camper, Bailey2001

          Most pistols, both revolvers and magazine fed, are either double action or double action/single action.  Almost every revolver and magazine fed pistol is semiautomatic. A single action pistol has to be cocked first(think old time cowboy guns), while the double actions don't. The trigger pulls the hammer back(1st action) then comes forward to strike the firing pin(2nd action). Semiautomatic is about trigger pull; One pull, one shot without having to cock it or manually chamber a round.

          "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

          by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:16:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Semiautomatic means self loading. A double action (0+ / 0-)

            revolver is still manually operated, although the operation  is powered by pulling the trigger rather than by operating a bolt or lever.

            The term does not mean "one shot per trigger pull".  It means that after the first round is fired no human effort is needed to load (and typically, to eject) additional rounds.

            Webley did in fact make a recoil operated automatic revolver.  

            That's it, though.

            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

            by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:31:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Automatics are self loading too (0+ / 0-)

              The difference is the trigger pull.  

              As for double action vs single action....here's a link.

              link

              "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

              by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:55:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'm very familiar with the difference between (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annieli, Sarenth

                single and double action revolvers.

                A semi-automatic pistol is a type of handgun which uses a single chamber and barrel, with a mechanism powered by the previous shot to load a fresh cartridge into the chamber. One round is fired each time the trigger of a semi-automatic pistol is pulled.
                A revolver, which uses multiple chambers and a single barrel, and a derringer, which uses multiple chambers and multiple barrels, also fire one round for trigger pull, but achieve this in different ways and as such are not classified as being semi-automatic.
                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                If it's not self-loading, it's not a semiautomatic.

                This is very, very basic stuff.  

                The fact that one round is fired with each trigger pull is not the sole qualification that makes a pistol a semiautomatic.  By definition, the loading operation (after the first shot) must be powered by the energy of the previous shot.

                I understand you'd like to redefine the word, but it has a generally agreed meaning in the English language.

                "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:16:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Semiautomatic is about cartridge loading. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW, mightymouse

            If the next cartridge after a shot is released is pushed into the chamber by some means other than hand action. such as a gas-charged piston, the effect is multiples of times more efficient than any manual mechanism such as in a double action pistol. It is true that many experienced people using a double action pistol can get off a shot a second, but after a dozen shots, the best can get fatigue. With a semiautomatic gas charged, the firing can go on forever as long as the guy can pull the trigger. His or her hand strength contributes nothing to the mechanism which puts the next round into the chamber.

            It is well within legal definition of semi-automatic to include gas-charged cartridge advances. Double action pistols could be excluded from semi-automatic easily, although I would argue against it.

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:40:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Also Cocking The Hammer, Which Is Separate. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli, JesseCW

              A semiautomatic uses recoil or gas to:
              1) Chamber a fresh round (generally from a separate box magazine).
              2) Cock the firing pin spring, which is the released using the trigger.

              A revolver does not "chamber" a round at all, except why you put it in the cylinder with your fingers, and neither single or double actions cock using energy from the bullet.

              There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

              by bernardpliers on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:29:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Then out of the goodness of our hearts (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcmvo2, Miggles

        You can still own those.  Happy?

        Arguments about what is or what is not a semi-automatic are a distraction, and I think you damned well know that.

        •  It's an important distinction (0+ / 0-)

          IF you're talking about limiting certain arms, there has to be some kind of line drawn.  

          "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

          by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:14:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Common tactic. Change the subject from gun control (7+ / 0-)

          to gun trivia. We liberals suck at gun trivia because we do not spend our time learning about guns and how shiny and cold they feel in our hands. No we are to busy trying to get policies that help people.

          •  Yet (3+ / 0-)

            you want to legislate guns?

            I'm sorry I would have to laugh at you if it wasn't so damned serious.  

            Your policies will help no one if you are ignorant of guns, how they work, what the classifications are, etc.  You want effective policies, you need to be informed.

            Uninformed, ineffective policies are poor ones at best, and disasters at worst.  

            Then you set up a clear divide between liberals saying that "True Liberals" are not gun owners?  You are neither helping your cause nor saving lives.

            "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

            by Sarenth on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:01:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is the very same argument I've been (0+ / 0-)

              making since this entire topic started up here some weeks ago; unless Progressives and other Democrats start dialogue with gun owners on the same side in a way that is respectful and informed, what policies can be made and what progress can be had?

              I feel like there is all too much sound and fury. All talk, no action, and a lot of disrespect and basic pissing off those with enough knowledge to make judgements about what will help. To me, many talking are doing so in a way that is thus quite disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook and of all gun violence: offering pat, armchair quarterback solutions to problems they don't and can't fully understand.

              When abortion is discussed, we talk with women.

              When immigration is discussed, we talk with immigrants.

              When health care reform is discussed, we talk with patients and health care workers.

              So why, when gun ownership is discussed, are people who don't own guns and have outright disdain for them doing most of the speaking? And why do they want gun owners to not be included in the conversation?

              Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

              by mahakali overdrive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:02:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  We don't want them not included (0+ / 0-)

                But have you seen any good, workable solutions offered here by those most likely to be affected by them, the active gun owners?  It seems during these gun policy discussions, there's a group of people who are determined to shut that discussion down using any tactics necessary to do so.

                Do we need to define what a semi-automatic is for the sake of the actual law? Of course.  But note that those eagerly picking apart suggestions for being too general or too specific don't seem to come up with language that would actually ban AR-15s and large magazines in a way that would stop them being available.

                Truth is, very few of us here are writing the actual language of the law.  We're hashing out ideas.  By the time the policy is mostly worked out, then the definitions go into the law.

                •  The resistance may come (0+ / 0-)

                  because the wrong things at their root are being suggested.  Handgun crimes are, by far, the biggest killer in America.  The AR-15 is less of an overall statistical threat to American lives than the average 9mm.  This is precisely the problem that was had with the last time we had this go-around.  

                  We need to address the problem at its roots, and part and parcel of that is the proliferation of guns, to be sure, but also how handguns are a huge part of the problem.  I do not have all the answers, but before we start pressuring for this ban or that, we need to look at what policies actually need fixing and where the most good can be done.

                  "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

                  by Sarenth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:15:57 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Unless the scumbag has a friend with him (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site