Skip to main content

View Diary: It's not logical to limit magazine size. (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Severl issues here (5+ / 0-)

    1) you would require someone to get a license to own a gun, that license would probably be a form of ID but you probably don't think someone should need a form of ID to vote (again a consitutional right).

    2) Liability issues: Sorry but can you sue the car maker that made the car that crashes into a crowd of people? No, you can go after the driver but not the car maker (unless there is something faulty in the car).

    3) Forced gun buybacks? Really? That idea is just plain dumb. You are basically saying if they don't comply they'll be treated as criminals that's exactly the type of shit that the NRA uses to scare people.

    Sarcasm: It beats killing people...

    by Dreggas on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:57:59 AM PDT

    •  bah, several* n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Sarcasm: It beats killing people...

      by Dreggas on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:58:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's voluntary buy backs. (0+ / 0-)

      Not forced.

      It's up to the gun owner. But if they don't comply, then they can no longer consider themselves as legal gun owners.

      Why should guns, alone, be outside all safety restrictions? It's crazy.

      Sheesh, they took asthma inhalers off the shelf because some kids were getting high with them. And we can't regulate the firepower of deadly pieces of metal that are made to kill in the first place?

      •  Name one other law (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, FrankRose

        where compliance is legal with the only penalty being "you can no longer call yourself a legal gun owner".

        How about I promise to no longer call myself a sober vehicle operator?  Cool?  Great.. pass the scotch.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:49:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you want something more harsh? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm trying to make this transition as easy as possible on gun owners. I'm trying to make it so they don't have to fear confiscation -- at all -- and will willingly comply. They will STILL be able to own guns. And a wide array of guns. Just not those with the capability of exchanging magazines or any other kind of ammo container.

          I don't want to "criminalize" that transition and want it to be a voluntary move away from certain kinds of guns.

          Kind of like our society's transition away from cigarettes wherever you go. Cigarettes in doctor's offices; cigarettes inside public buildings; cigarettes in front of kids, etc.

          Our society will eventually evolve when it comes to guns, too. It will eventually see how dangerous and barbaric it is to insist upon unlimited firepower and consumer choice.

          •  " I'm trying to make it so they don't ..;. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            heybuddy

            ...have to fear confiscation -- at all ..."

            You claim this at the same time you are arguing in favor of confiscating tens of millions of guns if people actually use them.

            So, for instance, nobody can take their semi-auto shotgun pheasant hunting or their semi-auto pistol to the target range. Because, if they do, you would confiscate it.

            There is a word for such an argument: disingenuous.

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

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:41:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

              They would at that point be illegal guns. They would at that point be banned guns. It would be as if they had a howitzer and tried to use it in public. Currently, the howitzer would be confiscated, under existing laws, right?

              So doesn't it make sense that an ILLEGAL weapon would be confiscated if the owner uses it in open defiance of the law?

              And these now illegal guns would ONLY be those with magazines or drums -- with detachable ammo containers in general. Revolvers wouldn't be impacted. A .357 magnum wouldn't be impacted. No gun that requires loading bullets one at a time, by hand, would be banned. Just those with detachable magazines, etc.

              And the magazines themselves.

              •  Let me try this again: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                heybuddy

                You say: "I am against confiscation."

                But you are not.

                You want to confiscate tens of millions of guns.

                It's okay to admit that you favor confiscation. But don't play games about it.

                And then there is this:

                We should limit guns to those that require the loading of bullets by hand, one at a time, only. One bullet at a time, with a limit of six per gun.
                If you want all bullets to be loaded by hand, you will have to confiscate all the speedloaders for revolvers and, based on your six-guns-only requirement, all the many revolvers that hold 7 or 8 or 9 rounds. Plus, your plan will mark an end to large numbers of lever-action hunting rifles that hold 8-10 rounds in tubes.

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

                by Meteor Blades on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:20:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't play games. I'm upfront about (0+ / 0-)

                  all of this. I want this to be voluntary. A part of the buyback process. A now illegal gun sold back, voluntarily.

                  That's up to the gun owner.

                  If I were for "confiscation", I wouldn't suggest a buyback program or limit the ban to certain kinds of weapons.

                  That said, the people who have to explain themselves are those who are fine with magazines and the laws we have now, not those of us who want to get rid of them and reduce gun lethality.  

                  Explain how they should be allowed, given their history of mass murder and their total lack of necessity for anything else.

                  You don't need them for target practice, hunting or defending yourself. But they do have a history of being used in mass slayings.

                  Explain why you support and defend their existence, please.

          •  what a joke. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

            by wretchedhive on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 06:10:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site