Skip to main content

View Diary: Waving the little white flag in front of the Gun Lobby (90 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In what ways will these laws ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... cause the hardships for gun owners that you imply?

    •  I am not implying anything (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nextstep, KVoimakas

      The question was why do mass shootings spur gun sales? The answer is that people fear more restrictive gun control laws.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:46:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You said this "has been true" ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... so I simply was asking in what specific way have recent laws made "the purchase of guns and ammunition harder, and more expensive."

        •  Look to the NY SAFE act for one. nt (0+ / 0-)
          •  Which provision? (0+ / 0-)

            Are background checks the problem?  Or is it the inability to purchase military-grade weapons?  Or maybe necessitating a need to reload almost as frequently as the founders would have had to do back in the day?

            When any kind of restriction at all is the problem, then I have a really hard time sympathizing with fears about rules and regs.

            •  What military grade weapons? (0+ / 0-)

              Pump shotguns? Used by the military. My 1911? Used by the military. Good bolt action rifles? Used by the military. Lever action rifles? Hey those were military too.

              Semi-auto rifles have been used by the military for a long ass time. But to say that AR15s are military grade seems a bit disingenuous since the M4s and M16s are select fire (burst or full auto) while AR15s are not.

              Magazine restrictions are silly. They're arbitrary. Standard mag for my 1911? 8 rounds. Thompson? 30 round stick or 50 round drum. AR15? 30 rounds. Look at Columbine. The guy just had a bunch of ten round magazines.

              •  I know, that was vague. (0+ / 0-)

                Certainly any firearms that existed in 1787 would have been considered "military."  And I don't know enough about specific kinds of firearms to have an intelligent conversation about them.  I was thinking only in broader terms about the kinds of weapons some people want to own that most of us cannot imagine anyone using outside of a modern military application.

                Just because something is in the Constitution does not necessarily mean it should be enshrined forever (e.g. "importation of Persons" referring to the slave trade), any more than the lack of something being there (e.g. the right of women to vote that didn't exist for the first 133 years of the constitution's ratification) should keep it out forever.

                We all know the Second Amendment could never have been intended to promote the financial health of the munitions industry to such a degree that anyone, even a blind person, can own a weapon designed for one thing and one thing only: to kill human beings.  

                I know too many reasonable gun owners (e.g. my brother-in-law, who is an NRA instructor) to want to ban all guns.  But he clings to the "enforce existing laws" talking point to such a degree it makes me despair that we can ever begin to address some of the conditions that foment Sandy Hooks and Auroras.

                (According to the CDC, approximately 87 Americans died at the hands of other Americans wielding guns since you wrote your response yesterday.)  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site