Skip to main content

View Diary: Obama's proposals on guns face tough fight. Broader background checks have best chance in Congress (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Magazine Buy Back? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MPociask, Deward Hastings, fuzzyguy

    Some of those puppies are expensive - in the $30 range, and many people have a half dozen. Some folks will have 20 or more.

    Point being a lot of law abiding people would be irate if the feds told them they had to destroy several hundred dollars of personal property.

    There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

    by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:32:38 AM PST

    •  More than likely (0+ / 0-)

      Older clips would be grandfathered in, under something passed right now.  I don't agree with this policy, as I think a buy-back makes a lot of sense, for clips AND semi-automatic rifles and handguns, but, that's where we are.  

    •  Whoopdy doo. (0+ / 0-)

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:43:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Don't destroy them. Disable them. Perhaps trade (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, nominalize

      ... them, at a lower dollar amount, for something else.

      Does the public treasury have to buy back - at full dollar - something someone bought and now cannot lawfully use, because they'd be "irate?" Gun lovers - as opposed to sportsmen - seem to be wildly indignant about everything that would limit their cherished use of weapons that are admittedly dangerous to people and property. "Irate" can't be the standard.

      As a practical matter, to make hi-cap magazines illegal (and semi-automatic registered before today, when the President addresses the nation; no forward profiting from it!), I'd be willing to use some deficit-causing debt-raising public money ... if the GOP thought it helpful to their causes. In fact, I'd like to see 'em advocate for that, perhaps filibuster on the issue.

      Popcorn, please.

      2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:46:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  reducing capacity of old mags would be possible (0+ / 0-)

        By means if a couple thin bolts half way down, soldered in place, to limit the travel of the spring.  

        There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

        by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:24:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And just as easily, (0+ / 0-)

          they can be modified back.
          That's not a solution.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:39:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Soldered In Place (0+ / 0-)

            Ultimately everything is about possession, not what someone might do with it.  With practice, I could probably make a mechanical pencil into a .22 zip gun in 20 minutes, but we don't outlaw pencils for that reason.

            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

            by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:46:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Thin bolts and solder - trust these? Verify? (0+ / 0-)

          Compliance would be a mess, like "coming for their guns."

          Certainly, enforcement has to taken into consideration as an important issue. The more self-compliance and self certification, the better.

          It's the non-compliers who will inevitably force the issue, handing us the threat of Waco and Idaho standoffs and shootouts. Face-offs, egged on by zealots or not, must be avoided. Hopefully, the passage of time and public opinion will diminish these kinds of confrontations. If gun owners have to expire with guns in their cold hands (as Mr. Heston so luridly put it), let it be by natural causes.

          2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

          by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:46:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, Let's Look At A Wingnut Logical Fallacy (0+ / 0-)

            They like to point out that NY has high cigarette taxes, and as a result NY has a lot of cigarettes smuggled in.  Then they compare that to guns to say that gun laws will simply result in gun smuggling etc.

            Where they compare apples and oranges is that the police aren't vigorously arresting people for having a pack of smokes without the tax stamp, but an illegal gun would be taken a lot more seriously.

            If you want to ban possession of something, then ban the possession of it.

            Keep in mind millions of these magazines will continue to be manufactured for government contracts.

            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

            by bernardpliers on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 12:59:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good points. (0+ / 0-)

              Confrontation is a problem - as is enforcement, generally.

              Nevertheless, I'm with you on a possession ban. Criminalizing hi-cap magazines that are not disabled, as the NRA will surely argue, makes criminals out of otherwise law abiders, an eminently reasonable cost of limiting the availability of guns and ammo most prevalent in massacres.

              Guns are dangerous. Their owners, their sale and trading, their availability and use can constitutionally be regulated. There's plenty of precedent for criminalizing even possessing them, as in situations that are inherently dangerous (such as carrying one while committing a misdemeanor or felony) or threatening (airplanes).

              Full speed ahead. Let the NRA and its shills take polar extreme positions, and show us all how extremist they really are. They may well turn out to be their own worst enemy.

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 02:38:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Back during the ban on such clips (0+ / 0-)

      I have seen them go for $100 on auction

    •  buyback or "trade back" . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MPociask, nominalize

      otherwise it's going to be argued to be an "unlawful taking" anyway.

      I think that "tradeback" is at least plausable . . . turn in what you've got and get a "legal" one (or perhaps even more than one) in return.  Keep what you've got and face confiscation and a substantial fine (or even jail time).  Pay for the whole program with an ammunition tax.

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

      by Deward Hastings on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:53:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site