Skip to main content

View Diary: 2 haters post hit lists, lose their guns: be happy. (249 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not. (22+ / 0-)

    Not that you really wanted to know.
    But seriously, this is why I can't say "No I don't believe in confiscation", because there are WAY too many people out there who have guns that shouldn't. Can we honestly guarantee that their guns won't be confiscated?
    Should we?
    Is there any way to roll back the number of bad gun owners without some kind of confiscatory plan?
    CT is pushing through an AWB but it will grandfather existing assault weapons.  Well, with no registration of who does and who does not already own these weapons, how do we know which are newly bought? All this does is stop sales of NEW slaughter weapons, but the USED trade continues unabated, uncontrolled.
    If your goal is to get these weapons off the streets, then possession of one should be made illegal, not just sales.
    It should be at least as illegal as a bag of heroin.

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 02:41:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I'm with you (16+ / 0-)

      An AWB to be meaningful has to include confiscation (or buybacks, I don't care) of the existing weapons out there.

      If we get that bill passed, we're effectively saying those weapons have no place in a civilized civil society.  So to be consistent, we have to simply get rid of them.

      When the union's inspiration /Through the workers' blood shall run /There can be no power greater /Anywhere beneath the sun /Solidarity Forever!

      by litho on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 02:46:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pitbullgirl65

        I'm looking forward to seeing the bulldozer in front of the police station run over all of the cops' AR-15s and high capacity glock magazines.

        the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

        by happymisanthropy on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 07:54:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Do you really think (6+ / 0-)

      it's a good idea to make criminals out of millions of people who have never harmed anyone? These weapons are used in less than 1% of murders. This is like trying to address highway deaths by outlawing Corvettes.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 03:07:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  BS (30+ / 0-)

        No one should own an assault weapon. They have no purose whatsoever except to kill people. It is disgusting that we allowed these to become legal.  And we shouldconfiscate everyone of the damn things.

        Whether teh people qwho currently own them have killed anyone or not is irrelevant. They should not be allowed in a civilized society.

        •  Just what is an 'assault weapon'? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happy camper

          Mr Sugarmann coined the term and it seems to just grow wider and wider every day.

          If less than 2% of crimes are committed with something, does it make sense to waste time, money and political capital to make them illegal?

          Also, are you aware that Ex Post Facto does fall into this?  If I have something that I legally bought and someone then makes ownership or sale of that item illegal, I can not be charged with a crime or have my property taken from me.

          Also, in a civilized society, would a leader who has personally approved the murder of children be allowed to keep his job and freedom?  I'd argue that we do not live in a civilized society but instead have civil people that do the best they can with what is here.  Peel the veneer back a bit and we are not far off from Homo Sapien Neandertales.

          Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
          Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
          Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

          by ErikO on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 06:49:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Assault weapons do have a use (0+ / 0-)

          hog hunting is done at night , night  vision devices can be mounted on the weapon. If there are many hogs you need more bullets to take out as many as possible.
           Hogs are very destructive and need to be controlled.

          " Resistance is NOT futile, it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling." Wino

          by Wino on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 08:07:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Only less than 1% of murders! (18+ / 0-)

        For 2011, the most recent year I was able to find a stat, that works out to 150 homicides.

        No one would be talking about "outlawing Corvettes", if we could get this country to treat firearms the same way we treat Corvettes. You know, test, license, insurance, registration, inspections, renewals...

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 03:49:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Also, the AR-15 has been sold to civilians since (0+ / 0-)

          the 1960's.

          It's not a 'new' platform.  

          There are exactly 25 'select fire' AR-15s that were ever made.  They were made by Armalite Rifle as both Proofs of Concept and demonstration models for the design and name that were later sold to Colt and became the M-16.  Colt then sold their semi-auto versions as 'ar-15's since they owned the name.

          The lower receiver of the AR-15 would require a LOT of careful machining as well as a specific part called an 'auto sear' in order to be made fully automatic.  This is illegal to do and has been so since 1986's FOPA which ended the availability of select fire firearms manufactured after that date.  They can still be made legally if you possess the correct Federal Firearms License and a few other licenses from the ATF but anything made after that can NOT be sold to private persons that do not have the same licenses.  Only the military or law enforcement can buy anything made to fire more than one bullet per trigger pull that was produced after 1986.

          Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
          Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
          Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

          by ErikO on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 06:54:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I think it is a great idea. (7+ / 0-)

        What part of:

        THERE IS NO NEED FOR A CIVILIAN TO HAVE ONE OF THESE WEAPONS.

        are you having trouble with?

        You aren't holding the Govt off with them - the Govt has more of them.

        You aren't holding off a home invader with them.  

        By the time you get the weapon out of the gun case, loaded and in a firing position, you are fucked.  

        If you are concerned about a home invasion, I recommend a 9mm.  I like the Army's 9mm.  Recoil is practically non-existent, so it is easy to make the snowman and keep it on target.

        And it will put someone down in a hurry.

        •  Shotgun (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pitbullgirl65

          pistols shot 1 bullet at a time and you have to be good.

          Still, today, many people think bullets magically hit targets.

          Too much TV and movies.

          Shotgun will clear the room. Smaller gauges won't blow out your eardrums or windows and repairing the walls can be easier.

          Since we are all about pragmatic compromises here, the Taurus Judge is available as a 5 shot .410 gauge that also chambers a 45-70. Can have both shot shells and a nightcap.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 04:23:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  You are turning it upside down (14+ / 0-)

        They only become criminals if they persist in owning contraband weapons. No slaughter weapon, no crime. Caught with slaughter weapon after grace period, criminal.
        Eliminating 1% is eliminating over 100 murders/year.
        100+murders acceptable to you?
        And your analogy misses the fact that Corvettes and all high-powered sports cars are limited by DOT to a certain power to weight ratio specifically because they were getting too powerful in the 70s and killing people. Same idea as limiting the magazine size and kill rate.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Fri Feb 22, 2013 at 05:00:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, but it is a good idea to sanction drunken (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lilredhead

        or impaired gun play, especially if it occurs in the presence of a minor child.

        Some people can learn from their early mistakes with a fire arm, e.g. accidentally discharging a firearm with on serious injuries.

        All these guys who accidentally shoot themselves in the leg should face at least a temporary loss of RKBA and have to pay for training, and prove that they have learned some safety rules, and prove that they know how to clear a weapon that has jammed. And ONLY then should they have RKBA restored for any weapon.

      •  Corvettes, highway deaths - your choice (0+ / 0-)

        In Germany, stopping by the side of the highway to pee is legal, because that is viewed as unpredictable, but stopping by the side of the highway because you ran out of gas is not legal.

        Gas use is considered a knowable factor that the driver is responsible to manage without incurring ANY risk to others.

        Highway accidents are rare in Germany so what gives?

        The high speed on the highway makes distance visibility harder, and therefore crashes can involve many, many cars.

    •  Drunken or impaired gun play - (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight, SoCalSal, Lilredhead

      make it a punishable offense, that incurs fines, at least temporary loss of rights, and rehabilitation through required proficiency testing and licensing, even if no one is seriously injured.

      Step up sanctions for serious injuries.

      Reckless endangerment for drunken or impaired gun play in the presence of a minor child.

      Automatic manslaughter if anyone is killed.

      There are some people who should not retain the RKBA even though they will never be convicted of a felony, or be committed to a mental institution.

    •  How do you propose to do that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xxdr zombiexx

      on the ranches in Montana and Wyoming?  City boy--I can tell, because there is an enormous difference in the attitudes of city dwellers and country dwellers.  Bottom line--it ain't going to happen in the vast regions of the country.  You might do it in the cities, but not in the rural areas (by rural, I don't mean the 'burbs).  City dwellers need to understand--country folks do not think the way you do, they do not like you, their attitudes are very different from yours.  You will not change this in the near future.

      •  Banners need to truly grasp this. (0+ / 0-)

        If they don't they are not operating in reality.

        As much as they don't want to hear it.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 04:18:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bullsh!t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        orlbucfan

        I work with farmers all over the country, I've spent quite a bit of time on farms in the midwest and down south, some of my family are out there. I am very aware of rural life.
        Not one of my farm and ranch friends would take an AR15 hunting, if you proposed that they do, they'd tell you that you are some kinda city idiot. And they don't go around strapped either.
        Guns that I've seen out there (with one exception, and those people were transplants from the East Coast and England, playing stupid cowboy games in Montana), have been shotguns and long rifles for hunting and protecting their animals from predators, functional ones have been locked up and the old rifle over the fireplace is disabled.
        These people would not be effected at all by gun registration and background checks. Nor would a ban on slaughter weapons bother them, since they have no use for them. They wouldn't even be effected by a handgun ban.
        Where I run into the bad gun owners is in the suburbs.

        If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

        by CwV on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 05:04:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And now I know you're from the city (0+ / 0-)

          Everybody I know that lives here in ranching country, except those with small children, have a LOADED gun where they can get to it quickly.  When a cougar is dragging one of our goats over a fence we don't take the time to unlock the gun safe, load it, find our flashlights and run for the barn.  And it has nothing to do with protecting us from two-legged predators--out here we are pretty much safe from that.  And, a lot of people have semi-automatics, but there aren't many AR15s.  Quite a few mini-14s though, which are a version of the M14 military rifle only in .223 instead of .308.  In fact, that gun is sold as the "ranch rifle", and it was named that for a reason.

          All that said, you say "midwest".  Is that Ohio, Illinois???  I can tell you things are very different in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming---in the actual west, where we have mountain lions and bears.  When was the last time one of your friends had a sheep killed by a coyote?

          Now, do you understand why folks out here in the west do not think the way you do?  Without living here, I doubt that you will ever understand that people think differently, and more importantly, why they do.  I'll try one more time:

          Out here, citizens do not have the problems with guns that you have in the cities.  They see gun violence as a city problem and they want you to deal with it in your cities and leave them alone because things have been working fine out here for decades.  They resent city residents trying to "run their lives" and telling them how they should do things when they don't see any problem where they live.

          •  I just found a deer carcass in the woods (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            orlbucfan

            here in rural CT, killed by coyotes or a mountain lion. They've never taken any of our domesticated livestock.
            And I am fine with leaving ranchers to live as they are, the problem is that loose laws in one state undermine tight laws in another. I have no problem with people that have legitimate use for firearms and are not criminals or unbalanced, being able to legally procure the arms they need.
            What I do have problems with is the idea that in order to preserve their serenity, there can be no meaningful gun control.
            And since the vast majority of people in this country are not ranchers and farmers, and since the vast majority of guns are not owned by ranchers and farmers, (or "urban" people, by which I assume you mean African Americans) rather they are owned by suburbanites, the laws have to be written primarily to address where the real bulk of the weapons are. A workaround for legitimate owners, fine, negating all control for that one small constituency, no.
            Almost 2000 killed since 12/14.
            Because it's just too easy to get a gun.

            If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

            by CwV on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 09:07:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You assumed really wrong (0+ / 0-)

              "or "urban" people, by which I assume you mean African Americans"

              Race never even entered my mind in this discussion, but it obviously did in yours.  Now, like a Dali painting, that I've seen it I will always see it.

              I'm done with this discussion, and I am done with you.

              •  Can't handle it, eh? (0+ / 0-)

                You make assumptions about me and my experience and get insulting about it, then when it turns out you were dead wrong, you can't deal. Go ahead, run away now. This is getting boring anyway.

                If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

                by CwV on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 12:17:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site