Skip to main content

Honesty - truthfulness, sincerity, frankness, freedom from deceit or fraud.

I don’t see much honesty when it comes to the proposed AWB nor do I see much honesty from the people who are proponents of it.

In order for there to be honesty I believe the public should be told, in no uncertain terms, that there is absolutely zero functional difference between a semi-automatic rifle chambered for .223 that has a wood stock and a semi-automatic rifle chambered for .223 that has a black plastic stock. No functional difference whatsoever. There is no difference in the cyclic rates of fire of a wood stock semi-automatic rifle and a black plastic stock semi-automatic rifle. The cyclic rate of fire does not change because of moulded black plastic or with the addition of a pistol grip, flash suppressor, bayonet lug, barrel shroud or any other such accessory. Now there is a difference between a semi-automatic rifles rate of fire and its cyclic rate of fire. The cyclic rate of fire is based on how fast the weapon cycles or in layman terms how fast it loads, locks, fires, unlocks and ejects each round, whereas the rate of fire factors in how fast a person can change magazines and the overheating of the barrel.

Since there is no difference in the cyclic rates of fire of wood or plastic stock semi-automatic rifles why bother with legislation that doesn't address cyclic rates of fire? What is the purpose of such legislation? What is the goal of such legislation? Are AWB proponents really afraid of moulded black plastic stocks? I don’t think so. I don’t think they are afraid at all. I think they are fully aware that there is no meaningful difference between the two. Therefore when it comes to the moniker of “assault weapon”, I recommend that we just stop using it. The term “assault weapon” is as dishonest as the term “War on Terror”, both are nothing but bullshit marketing ploys intended to do nothing but play on people's emotions.

It’s time for some Crazy People and truth in advertising. It’s time for those in favour of an “Assault Weapons Ban” to get honest and say what they mean which seems to me to be that they are in favour of a ban on semi-automatic rifles. That’s honest isn't it? Since there is no difference in the cyclic rates of fire between wooden or plastic stock semi-automatic rifles, shouldn't they just admit they want a ban on all semi-automatic rifles? Isn't that the honest thing to tell the American public? But I don't suppose that would go over so well would it? It’s probably unlikely there would be much support for a SARB (Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban).

So no more of this “assault weapon” silliness, let's just call these things what they are which is semi-automatic rifles. Unless of course this isn't an honest debate about guns, violence and saving peoples lives…

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So, since they are as deadly... (12+ / 0-)

    I take it you'd be in favor of a ban on semi-auto weapons?

    Sounds good to me.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:48:57 PM PST

    •  You would be mistaken, I am not in favor (14+ / 0-)

      of a SARB. But please go ahead and promote what you are in favor of and be sure to let everyone, including your congressman know.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:55:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Half of all (16+ / 0-)

      the guns in the US are semi-automatics. Semi auto shotguns, pistols, and deer rifles, as well as the dreaded assault weapons, most of them unregistered. This technology has been around for a hundred years. How will you collect them all? And I don't mean "how" as in "you'll get shot" I mean how will you begin to know where to look?

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

      by happy camper on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:00:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So of course the answer is to do nothing. (8+ / 0-)

        Of course.

        The proposed solution never changes.  It's always nothing.

        I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

        by detroitmechworks on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:03:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Offer a better proposal, you know something (16+ / 0-)

          that might actually reduce crime. That would be a good place to start.

          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

          by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:13:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bank robbery is outlawed and banks still get (6+ / 0-)

            robbed. What no one knows, and on one can know is how many banks don't get robbed because of the law.

            You have no idea how much things would be worse today if not for the past AWB, and all of the other law enforcement in this area.

            Saying nothing works is simply a copout , trying to make it so that nothing gets tried.

            (And, for the record, I'm openly in favor of repealing Amendment 2. Outlaw the stuff and people will turn it in. If not, then truly only outlaws will have guns.)

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:58:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bad analogy (16+ / 0-)

              Bad for two reasons:
              1) Just as bank robbery is already illegal, assault or murder with a gun is also illegal. So in that sense, your analogy is good only if you're okay with the laws as they are. I.e., sure, people get shot, just like banks get robbed, but at least they're illegal and that's stopping the worst of it.
              2) If you mean gun ownership should be illegal, then the analogy really falls apart. Yes, bank robbery is illegal... because stealing from others is on its face a bad thing. You're taking from others without permission. But simply owning a gun does absolutely no harm to anyone. These are not equivalent actions in the least.  If your analogy is meant as "bank robbery is outlawed, so gun ownership should be outlawed," you haven't presented a very good rationale.

              •  In a society where there were no firearms (or (4+ / 0-)

                nearly so) it would be impossible to argue that personal ownership of firearms served any demonstrable social purpose. Who, exactly, would gun owners be protecting in that scanario?

                But here's where you totally miss the boat. I can't remember exactly the number of the NRA talking point (it's in the top five, though, I know) that says "there are 90,000 firearms laws already, and we still have crimes, so we don't need more laws, we need..."anything but more laws". Again, until you can show that crimes have not been stopped, you have no argument against the efficacy of regulation/prohibition. None. nada. Zilch.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:16:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Hey, me too..."I'm openly in favor of repealing (13+ / 0-)

              Amendment 2".  Then the government will have no authority whatsoever to "regulate" any arms, of anyone, including the militia.

              Perfect, Ughhhhh.

              You do understand the RKBA is not created by the 2nd Amendment, right?  That amendment granted limited authorities to the US government.  The right pre-exists the US constitution.

              I think if we really want to stop bank robbers, we should outlaw banks while were at it.

              No bank, no bank robberies, works for me.

              And if we're going to go to all that trouble of amending the constitution, I really do think the first amendment must be done away with. Too many people starting unfunded wars with the political speech, too many people killing in the name of their faith, too many people being misled by the "free press" not to think any longer.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:16:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Boy, do you need to start reading case law, and (5+ / 0-)

                get out of your own little bubble. In all my years of studying this stuff (starting in law school in 1973) I have never heard anyone as off the wall as you.

                Seriously, I'd suggest that you stand it down a notch, and try to get a grip.

                (And for some suggested reading, start with The Commerce Clause. It'll change your entire perspective of the place and times that you are trying to figure out how to live in.)

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:22:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Okay, might as you will, try to belittle my (7+ / 0-)

                  position, I will not buy into your "law school" training. You do need to get a refund on that if this "argument from authority" is all you could come up with here, really.  

                  The only valid argument is: force rules this world.  He with the most force, wins.

                  Case law must keep in context Supreme Court Decisions.

                  United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

                      6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

                  http://www.apfn.org/...
                  In the face of this Supreme Court record, is it accurate for gun control advocates to claim that the non-individual nature of the Second Amendment is “perhaps the most well-settled” point in all of American constitutional law?[313] The extravagant claim cannot survive a reading of what the Supreme Court has actually said about the Second Amendment. In the written opinions of the Justices of the United States Supreme Court, the Second Amendment does appear to be reasonably well-settled--as an individual right. The argument that a particular Supreme Court opinion’s language about the Second Amendment does not reflect what the author “really” thought about the Second Amendment cannot be used to ignore all these written opinions—unless we presume that Supreme Court Justices throughout the Republic’s history have written things about the Second Amendment that they did not mean.

                  While the Warren Court and the Burger Court offered mixed records on the Second Amendment, the opinions from the Rehnquist Court (including from the Court’s “liberals” Ginsburg and Stevens) are just as clear as the opinions from the Supreme Court Justices of the nineteenth century: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is a right that belongs to individual American citizens. Although the boundaries of the Second Amendment have only partially been addressed by Supreme Court jurisprudence, the core of the Second Amendment is clear: the Second Amendment--like the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments--belongs to “the people”, not the government.

                  Maybe someday you'll accept history, if it were anything other than what I've presented here, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me.

                  The "commerce clause" is a red-herring, no thanks, I don't need to be intentionally distracted.

                  And I guess I win, I have the force of law behind me.

                  ;)

                  P.S. "Tone" what down again????

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:25:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You came to a "gunfight" with a knife. You're so (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino, Quicklund

                    far out there that I'd feel guilty for even trying to continue.

                    Sorry!

                    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                    by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:35:07 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Empty words, if you had a legitimate position (7+ / 0-)

                      You'd have presented it.

                      I do love debate, really.  I actually can admit when I'm wrong and if you could teach me where historically this position is incorrect, I'm willing to listen.

                      Saying I'm wrong doesn't mean a thing.  

                      I do play a doctor, no no a lawyer on the interwebs though and that gives me authority over all things...really.

                      ROFL.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:53:36 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Funny how it sometimes turns out that ... (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        oldpunk, gerrilea, FrankRose

                        some people who "went to law school" were actually only the janitor.  Others, it seems, attended "law school" by studying a limited supply of books in a prison library.  

                        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                        by Neuroptimalian on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:15:20 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  See you think that "historically" and "legally" (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        PinHole

                        have some sort of magical connection to each other, and you ain't paying me enough to do all of the work that would be needed to get you up to speed in this area.

                        Suffice it to say "historically" is generally used by persons fixated on "Original Ientent", and the whole O.I. thing is pretty much only a right wing talking point. I have yet to see that you've put any sort of a left wing spin on your stuff and, until you find a way to do that, you're simply not to be taken seriously on a left wing site.

                        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                        by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:37:23 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  The Constitution is "left" or "right"?? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          theatre goon

                          I must "spin" my perspective of the law to met your arbitrary standards?

                          Isn't that what is commonly called propaganda?


                          "When you have the law on your side, pound the law.  When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have neither the law nor the facts going for you, pound the table."
                          Your pounding on the table here may distract the uninitiated, not me.  What is clear however is that you have no legitimate position.

                          Could I refer you to Logical Fallacies for your educational enjoyment?

                          "No True Scotsman."
                          "Red Herring."
                          "Appeal to Authority"

                          None of these fallacious arguments actually address the issues raised.  Do you have historical evidence contrary to mine that shows the US Constitution creates rights, specifically the RKBA's?

                          I'll accept legitimate Supreme Court decisions as the starting point, okay?  And dissents are nice, but they are not admissible as proof your position is actually valid today, in these United States.

                          Work with me.

                          :)

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 07:13:59 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, you need to ask someone on a right wing (0+ / 0-)

                            site to "work with" you. I'm trying to have discussions, not training sessions.

                            But I'll give you one break. Tell me, in "Readers Digest" version what you know about the Federalist Society, and what you think of it. I mean,if you can't even pass this test, then you really need to go back and start over.

                            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:09:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "No True Scotsman" again? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Jeeze...here I thought you had a law degree.

                            Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist, great historical debates they had as anonymous posters in the newspapers of the day.

                            In the end, we have a little bit of both worlds they wished to create.

                            IMO, misdirection meant to obfuscate the Ratification Documents submitted by the 13 original States.  The majority of which also presented demands for the newly formed government to include a "bill of rights".  Guarantee's that the new central government could not ever do certain things.  

                            Of course, through the years many "jurists" have been intentionally misdirected and divided by "original intent"....false dichotomies, IMO.

                            It's nice to know what they thought, but there is no lawful obligation to "interpret" what they wrote as binding on how the constitution is currently written.  There is a lawful obligation to those legal documents called the Ratification Documents.  Something the authoritarians of today wish to pretend do not exist.

                            Hey, but again, you keep on keeping on here and believing whatever it is you wish.  Clearly you have nothing and I had hoped for some honest debate, not patronizing false logic.

                            Good day.

                            PS. remind me not to waste any more precious electrons, will ya?!

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 11:57:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  If the right isn't dependant upon the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dream weaver

                Then logically gun-uncontrol proponents would experience no change were teh 2nd be amended.

                Oh, and by the way, this is the most unintentionally funny claim I have ever heard made (today.)

                [If the 2nd A were repealed]...Then the government will have no authority whatsoever to "regulate" any arms, of anyone, including the militia.
                This reveals a profound misunderstanding of, just about everything.

                There is no mention of freon in the Constitution, yet the federal government manages to regulate it. How can that be?!!!!!!

                •  I have no constitutionally protected right to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk

                  own, keep, buy, sell or trade "freon".

                  You need to understand that we have a Common Law System, not a Napoleonic Code system.  In a common law system what isn't specifically stated is the privy of the individual and beyond the reach of the government.  IN a Napoleonic Code system, what isn't spelled out is specifically IS the privy of the State.  HUGE difference.  See Sweden, see France, hell see Louisiana, they have a Napoleonic System down there.  

                  We have a social compact between all citizens, "We The People", not the Government and "We The People".   The government does not grant me a damn thing, we grant it limited powers and authority because we created it.  It has no inherent powers or rights, it has no right to exist unless we say so... It has limited delegated authorities and obligations.

                  Our system evolves and it can, with a new law or policy or court decision, be changed.  Those changes must comply with the fundamental legal document called the Constitution, our social contractwith one another.

                  The Constitution grants limited authority to create and control our government.  The Bill of Rights were not "suggestions" or "recommendations".  

                  If you wish to grant it more power and authority then "We The People" have established a clause in said document to do so, it's called Article V.

                  You'd have me believe that if the 2nd A was repealed and not replaced with something else the Federal Government would retain powers not specifically granted.   Could you then show me where that social contract allows for the regulation of arms by our created government?

                  Perhaps Article I Section 8?

                  To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

                  To provide and maintain a Navy;

                  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

                  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

                  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

                  See, it doesn't say anywhere else anything about regulating arms of the citizen.

                  Go ahead and repeal the 2nd A, you'll find out that I'm correct, the Federal Government would be tying its own hands.  Leaving the issue to the States to decide.

                  Which, by the way, the Supreme Court has pretty much done already, haven't they?

                  We have a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

                  Hope this clarifies things for you.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:52:31 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And you would not have any such right for guns (0+ / 0-)

                    If the 2nd wasn't part of the Constitution. See how that works?

                    Let the unintentionallity roll!

                    •  I refer you to this historical document: (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      Hamilton's Federalist #84:

                      To the People of the State of New York:

                      I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

                      Now we do know that the Bill of Rights had to be added or the newly agreed upon constitution and the government it created would have surely failed.

                      You may have been misinformed of our mutual history here, take time and review the documents please.

                      It just so happens I've compiled said in a diary almost 3 yrs ago.

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

                      Don't take my word, take the words of our founders and the historical records they left us.

                      The Constitution does not grant rights to the people whom created it, it never did.  It creates obligations that our government MUST follow.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:30:31 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  A good question here is what control measures are (7+ / 0-)

              often put in place to discourage people from robbing banks? Security systems, video cameras, controlled access, armed guards. Heck my credit union didn't even have tellers you could walk up to, just a phone bank and those canisters you put deposit slips and money into.

              As for how much worse things would be today, no way to tell. IIRC the studies on the 1994 AWB weren't able to determine if violent crime was reduced due to the ban.

              You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

              by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:23:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "no way to tell" - Exactly! That's what I just (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sandino

                said. It's exactly why you don't have a point when you try to say that past measures have failed, and use that as a justification for not going forward with what is now being suggested.

                You have absolutely no idea, and yet you still feel perfectly justified in calling the majority of the left wing of the U.S. political spectrum "dishonest".

                Are you sre that you wouldn't feel much more comfortable writing this shit on a right wing site?

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:27:27 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm sorry I thought you said this. (8+ / 0-)
                  You have no idea how much things would be worse today if not for the past AWB, and all of the other law enforcement in this area.
                  All you are saying is that I don't know how much worse things would be today if not for the 1994 AWB. Which clearly implies that if not for the 1994 AWB things would be worse today (ie, higher rates of gun crime). But the reports I've read clearly state that they couldn't determine if the 1994 AWB did anything to reduce violent crime. One would think that 10 years of data would show the effectiveness of something. So for me, after 10 years if the effectiveness of the AWB can't be determined, well I'm calling that a failure.

                  I'm quite comfortable here, thanks for asking though. As for the primary point of my diary, honesty, all I am asking for is that the term assault weapon be dropped and replaced with semi-automatic rifle. Because isn't that what is really wanted, a ban on semi-automatic rifles?

                  You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

                  by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:45:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Taking things out of context has always been (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Sandino, Quicklund

                    considered to be extremely dishonest. What I said next after your quoted language was exactly this

                    "Saying nothing works is simply a copout , trying to make it so that nothing gets tried."

                    Gosh, a whole different meaning, isn't it, Mr. Dishonest!

                    How many lives have already been saved by all of the things we've already done is, admittedly, unknowable, but pretending that you know that the correct answer is "none" is leagues beyond shameful.

                    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                    by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 09:54:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sorry I missed the part where I said that (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Robobagpiper, theatre goon, gerrilea

                      nothing would work or where I suggested that nothing get tried, hence my omission of the content, since I didn't say such things your statement wasn't relevant to the point I was making.

                      After ten years researchers couldn't point to any data that conclusively said that the AWB reduced crime. Legislation like that is a failure, so I don't see why trying it again will be any different. If people want to focus on guns instead of the criminal pulling the trigger, they should go for it. I think that continuing to move in such a direction is misguided, but that's me.

                      I think limiting magazine capacity stands a reasonable chance in reducing the severity of mass shootings but banning semi-automatic rifles based on looks is in my opinion asinine, when it is the weapons cyclic rate of fire that is the real issue, and that can only be addressed by either banning semi-automatic rifles or by mandating that firearms manufacturers mechanically limit a weapons cyclic rate of fire.

                      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

                      by oldpunk on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:17:06 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  I live in an enclave of Canadians. I do a lot of (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, oldpotsmuggler, Quicklund, Lilith

          work for Canadians in their homes so as one can imagine, I have many a conversation with them. Nearly all of them I know are fairly to extremely wealthy, considered conservative to uber conservative in their own country. Now, of course their system is obviously different from ours so a Canadian uber conservative is quite a bit different than even the average conservative Gooper here in the states. Just a guess, but I suppose I know a good 100-110 of them.
              Really strange, too, I have only met one thus far that I thought was an asshole, all in all I've found Canadian people to be the most decent folks I think I've ever met- much more so that Americans, no comparison there.
              Conservative or not the two things that they are in total awe about regarding us/vs them is what the hell is wrong with us idiots, fighting over whether or not we should have nationalized health care, and not that bullshit Obama foisted upon us, the get even richer scheme made up exclusively for the health care corporations.
               The second has always been this bullshit about guns, it comes up first in conversations with them now. They cannot comprehend any of it. Yeah sure, they all know our Constitution and Bill of Rights and most all of them can quote from it better than most of us can. They're far from stupid people, matter of fact Canadians as a whole are by far more and better educated than we are.
               I was on a job yesterday, the guy I had this conversation with is a mega multi millionaire, thinks Harpers ass is a reincarnation of god herself, about as hard core as conservatives get. He told me how he'd just gotten back from the store and whille there the idiot in the car next to him slung his car door open and whacked a nice dent in his car's door, got out and without saying shit just proceeds on into the store as if nothing had happened. It really pissed him off once he got out and saw the damage the guy had done and he said his first thought was 'man, I'll just wait until this asshole comes out of the store, I have to say something to this punk".
               Then his next comment was something to the effect that "I sat there for a second and it hit me, this fuckers probably got a fucking gun, that's why he was so brazen about it and just blew it off even after seeing that I was in the car, I mean what kind of asshole does shit like that unless they're carrying a damn gun?"
               Probably a good question, that is pretty damn bold. But he went on to say that it's so damn easy for Canadians to forget where they're at, some responses are simply inherently reflexive but here responding to anyone for damn near anything can bring on escalation of some bullshit situation like a car ding to where out comes the fucking gun and "I'm standing my ground".
               They are seriously scare of us, we come off as totally insane to them. The Texas school shooting last week was over two guys bumping into one another, the shooting at Moorehouse this weekend was over a lost basketball game. We have become that. We have become scary ass crazy motherfuckers with guns and the right to kill folks with them and it scares the shit out of sane people.
              It's not just Canadians. This area is the #1 tourist destination of this entire planet and I hear the same thing from people from all over the globe- nice place but I'd never live here, you people are fucking crazy- and it's invariably about the guns. Invariably.
              Anyway, he went on to tell me that just last year his friends place was burglarized and according to Canadian law your guns have to be locked up properly, not stuffed under mattresses, pillows, and hanging on the wall, if a gun is stolen you are obligated by law to report it immediately. So he did. RMCP shows up, looks the place over, the gun safe was in a closet but so was a legally owned handgun in a shoe box.
              He got hauled in, faced 10 years for improper storage, didn't get jail time but did get placed on probation and had to pat a $10,000.00 fine.
              I like that. Consequences.
              I can't own firearms now but I sure had plenty back when I could, I'm not against them entirely but the one thing that never ceased to amaze me was that there really are no across the board consequences for legal owners of them that want to go out acting an asshole, are reckless, careless, negligent or just flat out stupid in the manner in which they carry, bear, or use them. No insurance required. Drop the damn thing in public and kill someone, oh well, peripheral damage, ruled an 'accident', here's your gun back, idiot, try and be more careful with that thing next time. That shit is disgusting and if you don't think it happens every goddamn day you are sadly mistaking. Responsible law abiding gun owners can and do dumbass shit every day that negates every bit of that responsible law abiding part, they are until they aren't.
              Then what?
              You can have your gun. Keep the damn thing. If you're willing to carry a minimum of $1,000,000.00 in liability insurance for any time it leaves your premises. Want armed guards in schools? Guns caused that to be what it is. Why should I have to pay for that? Or anyone else that has a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness that your love of guns infringes upon?
              Pay for it. Pay for all the damage guns cause or may cause. A tax of say $1,000 per year per gun would be a nice start.
              Agree to the same lifetime ban that criminals are forced to deal with even when their crime has not a damn ting to do with a gun, or weapon of any sort- act an ass, act recklessly, carelessly or criminally, boom, say bye bye to your toys for the rest of your natural born ass. Why should you be any different from the common criminal when you cannot act any more responsibly than one?
               There are laws, I know this, goddamn shame to me that they are being meted out in favor of "responsible law abiding gun owners" until they breech the definition of all of the above.
               Old redneck asshole in Liburn that killed the kid in his driveway? Out on $11,200 bail. Black kid that shot the kid in the arm at Moorehouse? they won't even give him bail. Race may play a part of course but the real difference is one had a permit, the other did not. Neither had a record, neither is a flight risk. So why the disparity? The piece of paper? Please...

          Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

          by teabaggerssuckbalz on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:45:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where you derail yourself (7+ / 0-)

            is the point where you don't take the rest of the canadian support structure into consideration.

            They've got a banking system that is still properly overseen by the government.

            They've got a health care system that is outstanding.

            They've got a number of similar strands of the support web that hold their population at a higher level of well-being, both physically and mentally and emotionally.

            Of great importance in the gun comparison is the mental and emotional well-being.

            Two decades ago, I read a book by a guy who made his name in the gang scene without a gun - he beat and stomped a victim into permanent disfigurement. That's not mental and emotional well-being. The guy also chopped off the arms of a rival gang member at the elbow, tied them up so he wouldn't bleed, and kept one arm as a trophy - also done without a gun. Also not mental or emotional well-being.

            When you compare us to the canadians, don't forget the other elements that are contributing to the differences. The little things mean a LOT when they reinforce each other. Just like a butterfly flaps wings in tokyo and it rains instead of being sunny in san francisco, these small social safety net butterfly flaps in canada lead to a very divergent outcome.

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink. The answer is not more gun control, it's people care.

            by JayFromPA on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:29:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Great rant, could you make this into your own (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, oldpunk

            diary next time?

            Seriously.

            The "conservatives" in Canada vs here were NOT part of this diary.

            How we are viewed by Canadians and the rest of the world was NOT part of the topic of this diary.

            The "insanity" we display was also NOT part of this diary.

            The "fear" of Americans was NOT part of this diary.

            So, what does this rant have to do with the topic again???

            Wait, you did say something about consequences, right?  Maybe since we're talking about solutions to be offered then that does correlate with the diary.

            We already have a system in place for holding people accountable for their foolishness, it's called home owners insurance.  And then isn't the goal revenge NOT stopping crime?

            I thought the difference between us Democrats vs Republicans was that punishment should rehabilitate the criminal, right?

            What does having hefty fines, insurance or harsh consequences have to do with getting people to become less violent?  NOTHING.

            In fact, insurance could make people more careless.  That was proven to me one day when a customer from Florida told me the reason he still lives in areas below sea level is because he had insurance.  So, he takes the chance that his home will most likely be washed away in a hurricane because of where he built it and then says, that's okay???

            So do we want to "reinforce" bad choices?  And it's clear you believe a bad choice would be owning a firearm.  I, however, do not agree.  How that firearm is handled is another story completely.

            I'd really rather not have a person around me that hasn't had basic firearm safety and practices it.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 08:25:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I also don't like the idea of someone around me (0+ / 0-)

              that doesn't know or practice basic firearm safety. The problem is that little two hour course that is required is hardly an example of prudent gun safety and the evidence proves it isn't with each gun "fail" story I see that hits the wire, and yes, I read about 60-80 papers a day every day and I see many many examples of it. No, we the people need much more protection from you the people with guns. We also have rights, the most basic of all, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can be none of the above when idiots are dropping their guns in public, 'accidentally' firing them in public and injuring and killing innocent people with damn near impunity. It is VERY rare that a 'responsible law abiding gun owner' is charged with any crime or their rights to own guns taken away after causing injury or death. I study this shit in great detail and you can claim whatever you want to but the reality is i have yet to see someones right to keep and bear arms taken away as a result of irresponsibility. negligence, or stupidity. When and until they do, when and until there is accountability in all cases involving idiotic stunts with guns I'm going to remain against their massive proliferation.
                  I'm not all against guns, I have owned quite a few and shot competitively for many years. The all guns all the time meme is stale already. I remember when my wife was going through her FBI check to become a cop years ago- now THAT is s check I'd VERY strongly support- go talk to neighbors, friends, employers- the only difference between a criminal and non criminal is that one simply hasn't been caught-yet. Criminal background checks are futile at best in determining whether someone should be allowed such a great and deadly responsibility as owning a firearm in my opinion.

              Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

              by teabaggerssuckbalz on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 05:41:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Rarely rec such a long post (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lilith

            But this one deserves it in spades.

        •  Build a better Strawman... (5+ / 0-)

          that one's lost it's... stuffing.

      •  I'm beginning to think that this (14+ / 0-)

        is a mathematical impossibility.

        Hypothetically lets say authorities could register or confiscate one gun per minute, every minute (60 per hour) 24 hours a day from an estimated national firearms inventory of 315,000,000 guns.... There are 1440 minutes in a day (60 X 24) or 525,600 minutes in a year (1440 X 365)... logistically it would require 600 yrs to process 315 mm guns (600 yrs X 525,600 per yr = 315,360,000) @ 1 gun per minute...

      •  I am told gun owners are responsible people (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dream weaver, Lilith

        I am sure most will comply with American law.

        Add in a buy-back program.

        Add in a honeymoon period, with no prosecutions.

        Add in stiff penalties after the honeymoon period.

        -----Say a $5,000 fine for simple posession of a banned firearm.

        -----Say a minimum of 10 additional years for commission of any crime while in possession of an unlawful firearm.

        A collector who keeps his banned, unsurrendered firearm in a safe results in no fines and no one dead. Bootm line: Who cares?

        Believe it or not, criminals are not dumb. Just as gang members use juvvies to commit some crimes, criminals will use non-banned firearms to avoid the automatic jail time. A .38 revolver scars people just fine, after all.

        Very dumb/violent criminals will get caught and be removed from the genral population for substantial coling-down periods.

        And the suicide-by-mass-murder fucks will have a harder time buying weapons capable of hosing down entire lecture halls.

        Sorry if there are any holes. This was concieved of any typed up in real-time. One man can think of only so many original thoughts in 10 minutes.

        •  How about targeting the criminals, period? (7+ / 0-)

          Incredibly, stiff mandatory sentences for all crimes committed with any gun. If you are a felon and possess a gun, stiff mandatory sentence...happens twice, life.  You rob someone with a gun, you shoot someone (even if they don't die), even if you pistol whip someone with a gun....if you abuse your right, you go to prison.

          You commit any crime with a gun and you don't see daylight for a very,very long time.

          Leave law abiding citizens alone with their 2A rights, under the Constitution intact.  Target the crimes and the criminals who commit them.  That is who we are going after, right?

          This is something all law abiding gun owners would be thrilled to support.  

          •  We've tried half-measures (0+ / 0-)

            This diary complains about half-measures. Effective change means new legal structures and it also means reducing the supply of hyper-lethal firearms on the civilian market.

            •  New legal structures that target law abiding gun (5+ / 0-)

              owners and still leave plenty of room for criminals to not be hindered in the least, is not the way to go.  

              We must understand that the 2A is a guaranteed right to the law abiding, and must not be infringed, and somehow that premise always seems to get lost in the mist of these discussions.  

              We must find a way to target the criminals foremost and as exclusively as possible and leave the law abiding with their Constitutional rights as untouched as we possibly can.

              It is the same idea that we have had deaths during protests, we have had cities burnt down during protests, building bombs from protesters, property destroyed by those who abused that right.  Yet, we do not ban all protests, nor repeal the 1A...nor even have debates that "if it would save even one life..." about the 1A.

                Instead, we correctly target those who abuse their rights under the 1A....exclusively.  When the "discussions" target those who protest legally or attempt to hinder those who protest legally...you will see an uproar here and elsewhere from those who use their rights without harming others.....as it should be.  That is the correct way to target...only those who harm and abuse their rights.

              The 1A and 2A are equally as important and equally as valued by those who see the Bill of Rights as guaranteed rights to the people.

              •  Yes but (0+ / 0-)

                New laws which effectively limit high-firepower guns but do not detract in the slightest from legitimate sporting needs are the way to go.

                Uou and I are in debate. Your position is: Everything you try cannot possibly work so I have proven your side can never succeed.

                Which is why I showed how easy it is to respond to that nonsense.

                •  No that is not my position. My position is that (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, gerrilea, rockhound

                  it will not work against the targeted group, if indeed, we are truly targeting criminals. My position is that we must focus laws and improve laws to go after the criminals and those who use guns to harm others.  Instead of making any attempt to take guns from law abiding gun owners.

                  We have already had an AWB and it failed.  It did nothing to curb crime, it did nothing to eliminate in any real way "assault weapons" from the hands of criminals.  

                  This new bill will again not remove high powered weapons, as there are many, many exemptions.....there are bans on certain weapons with plastic pieces and yet the same weapon with identical firing capabilities are "ok" because they do not have a cosmetic features.  310 million weapons on the streets now at last count....over 3,000,000 new background checks in the last 2 months alone.  This will do nothing to remove guns from the streets and honestly, that is not the answer.

                  The answer is to go after the criminals.  I want laws that work against the targeted group.  Criminals.

                    Stiff, mandatory sentences against anybody who uses a gun in a crime.

                   Life sentences, if we have to go that far, on a second offence.  

                  Mental health funding and education

                  Actually use the laws we have and actually enforce them to the highest limit.

                  If you fail a background check because you have a felony and you know you have a felony....you ought to go to prison.

                  If you are caught with a gun and you have a felony...straight to prison with a mandatory sentence is where you should go.

                  Nothing I have suggested would IN ANY WAY infringe on the law abiding gun owner, who owns guns for whatever legal reason they have them for.  Hunting, target practice, to hang on the wall, defense, take pictures with, look at, collect, heirlooms....to hang beside their plague of the 2A and an American Flag....whatever.

                  •  Gun owner can concede non-sporting changes (0+ / 0-)

                    Yes, effective gun control laws will "affect" lawful gun owners. That is how life works. The point is, right now mild changes are being proposed, changes which do not impact sporting firearm use in the slightest. Legitimate sports shooters will be "affected" in that they cannot own 30 round magazines. But there is no sporting need for this large a magazine. "Affected" in this case in no way means "harmed".

                    Yet the NRA and its gun-uncontrol allies are unwilling to make even this simple concession.

                    So I am sorry, but gun ownder will simply have to accept that they will be affected. Now the issue becomes, how can we enact a new regulation system that saves lives and protects guns sports too.

                    To that there has to be some give.

                    •  Do you think the following should be top priority? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      Do you agree with them all?  Perhaps they deserve even first in line status of any new laws?

                       

                      Stiff, mandatory sentences against anybody who uses a gun in a crime.

                       Life sentences, if we have to go that far, on a second offence.  

                      Mental health funding and education

                      Actually use the laws we have and actually enforce them to the highest limit.

                      If you fail a background check because you have a felony and you know you have a felony....you ought to go to prison.

                      If you are caught with a gun and you have a felony...straight to prison with a mandatory sentence is where you should go.

                      •  I favor debate, brainstorming, and change (0+ / 0-)

                        Existing laws obviously are fatally flawed, or else we would not need to consider new laws. So far as I am am concerned, we can start from a clean slate there.

                        The rest of your proposal concern nothing but penalties for after-the fact crime. That is not sufficient. Or else we would not be in the mes we are in.

                •  "The way to go"??? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  Why again?

                  I really don't feel like repeating myself so, copy and past it is:

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

                  VP BIDEN'S WORDS:

                  http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/....

                     "Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what it is now," Biden said.

                  So why are we pushing gun control again?

                  How about living wage jobs?
                  How about Universal Health care, NOT for-profit health insurance?
                  How about ending the racist drug war?
                  How about ending continual war?
                  How about ending poverty that kills 133,000 Americans each year?

                  How about anything that will stop the despair that dehumanizes us creating the conditions that lead to more violence?

                  Your position has never been valid and even Joe Biden knows it.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 07:33:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Thank goodness! I thought AWB was an acronym (14+ / 0-)

    for Average White Band, and I was truly hoping that they were still average and white.  Honestly...

    Someone once asked me why do you always insist on taking the hard road? and I replied why do you assume I see two roads?

    by funluvn1 on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:50:23 PM PST

  •  You can have your toys (7+ / 0-)

    Just take away the ability to fire off 30 rounds in seconds.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:52:39 PM PST

  •  loud vid, had to turn vol way down, but ... (9+ / 0-)

    yea, i'm impressed. continuing my noobie-self-ed, begun with selecting various user manuals (all of which are heavy on the 10 Commandments of Gun Safety) and moving now to carefully-chosen vids, to train myself to be almost like a field-champion American cocker ... that could hunt ... and win.

    at least it's a start, for me, and something completely new. it will not make me as familiar with guns as my parents were, seems like everyone felt a house rifle was normal and necessary, but i can't continue to play fast and loose with facts, repercussions, unintended consequences, uninformed/misinformed/opinionated comments: i really am better than that, mom.

    * Join: The Action: End the Bush Tax Cuts for Richest Two Percent * Addington's Perpwalk: TRAILHEAD of Accountability for Bush-2 Crimes.

    by greenbird on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:54:19 PM PST

  •  Yes, the simple answer seems to be "firing rate" (5+ / 0-)

    like I just mentioned in another diary here.

    It's a simple matter of regulating the result, not the process -- the "what", not the "how" -- since that's what you actually care about.

  •  Sadly, I doubt your proposal will catch on. (19+ / 0-)

    Most of those who would like to ban semi-automatic firearms, which have been available for over a century, if not all firearms, know that there is simply not enough support for such a thing to ever get it done.

    That being the case, they have turned to the "assault weapons" label, to play on the fear of those who don't know the difference.

    They need the dishonesty to garner support for their ultimate goal.

    Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

    by theatre goon on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 02:57:45 PM PST

    •  The only semi-automatic weapons in 1913 (0+ / 0-)

      I am aware of were military weapons. After WW1 ended tons of surplus weapons leaked into civilian hands, as is wont to happen in post-war eras. For examplem, the Thompson Submachinegun.

      BUT.

      When we think of Thompson Submachinegun ownership in the 1920s, it is not law-abiding civilian ownership we think of, is it? BTW St Valentine's Day is coming soon.

      So I think the claim that semi-auto weapons have been commonly available for over a century to be false.

      •  The Thompson Submachine gun was not (5+ / 0-)

        a surplus weapon from WWI, but was invented in 1919. History fail.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:02:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Then you should educate yourself. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, Robobagpiper, fuzzyguy, gerrilea
        I am aware of were military weapons. After WW1 ended tons of surplus weapons leaked into civilian hands, as is wont to happen in post-war eras. For examplem, the Thompson Submachinegun.
        You are extremely uninformed.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:32:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Seriously - it was not 1919, but 1929, that is the (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, fuzzyguy, andalusi, gerrilea

          date at which the Thompson began to become conflated with criminal violence.

          And under what conditions did it become so?

          Prohibition.

          And under what conditions does violent crime flourish now?

          Prohibition, of a related variety.

          Quicklund, failing to learn from history not once but twice, would add prohibition on top of prohibition, because he somehow thinks that mere possession of the guns, and not the prohibition and the criminal enterprises that grow up around it, causes criminal violence.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:04:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's lazy thinking. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robobagpiper, fuzzyguy, andalusi, gerrilea

            And, sadly enough, it's not at all uncommon.

            How to respond to poverty and the abuse of alcohol?  Ban alcohol.

            How to respond to violent crime?  Ban the tools some people use in committing crime.

            Too many people didn't learn from the history of the first one, so they don't realize that the latter is similarly poor logic.

            Trying to respond to the underlying causes of those problems will take time and money -- we have to do something now, but we don't want to spend the money.  

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:58:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Question: 1919 was? (0+ / 0-)

          A) More than 100 years ago.

          B) Less than 100 years ago.

          Then read upthread and see if you can locate a point.

          Yes, I used a poor source for this particular detail and I was wrong on the aspect of it being a war surplus item. This erro, of course, does nothing but reinforce the point I set out to make. Uniformed can be easily corrected, inability to process information often cannot.

          •  I saw your point. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, Robobagpiper, gerrilea

            It was incorrect, and therefore irrelevant.

            I have no problem processing information -- you, however, did not provide any accurate or relevant information to process.

            Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

            by theatre goon on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:41:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Um, the Thompson was *automatic* from the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, gerrilea

            start. The first semi- model was released in 1927.

            So the question of whether or not semis were available to the civilian market for a hundred years has no relationship to the public issue date of the Thompson. Mentioning the Thompson at all is a red herring.

            The Colt 1911, and its predecessor the 1904, appears to have been available for civilian ownership from their inception (indeed, they were given away as prizes for marksmanship contests).

            So a question: 1904 was:
            A) More than 100 years ago.
            B) Less than 100 years ago.

            It helps, when you're going for a "gotcha", to have some passing relationship to the facts.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:30:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You think it because you do no research (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        theatre goon, annecros

        When something can be objectively proven to be true, such as the earth's revolution around the sun or evolution, then beliefs are irrelevant. You think semiautomatic weapons have not been commonly available for over a century. You are demonstrably quite, quite wrong.

        Winchester's 1903 semiautomatic sporting rifle was marketed to the public (starting in 1903, as you could guess by the name) and was commercially successful---i.e., lots of people bought one---up until Winchester introduced a replacement model in 1932.

        Remington designed a sporting rifle called the Model 8 and started selling it in 1911. The rifle was popular with the public as well as with police and the military.

        And let's not forget the Browning Auto-5 semiautomatic shotgun, continually produced for the public from 1902 to 1999.

  •  a question for the diarist (6+ / 0-)

    If you were holding a struggling hostage with one arm (or spare magazines or some other item you desperately wanted to hold onto) and had to defend yourself by firing a semiautomatic rifle with your other hand as accurately as possible, would you prefer to use a rifle with a pistol grip or one without, all things being equal?

    Or does it make, as you've said, no functional difference?

    I'm far from an expert, but it seems that, since we have opposable thumbs, the rifle with the pistol grip would offer a surer grip compared to one without.

  •  Although to be honest (truly) I also (11+ / 0-)

    have to say that when a semi-automatic rifle is "dressed up" in its scary black plastic, that is when it is marketed as an "assault rifle" by the powers-that-be in firearms marketing circles, and they try to capitalize on the image that comes with it.

    Otherwise, it would have been sold as a "ranch" or "varmint" rifle. The "assault rifle" moniker is part of a marketing ploy.

    So in a way, the AWB is an attempt to undermine not just a weapon type, but the aggro image that goes with it: the push that you need this weapon to beat down the Commie/Zombie hordes... and stuff.

    So, if they want to attack that marketing, I'm 100% with that. ;-)

  •  I proposed just what you asked for (5+ / 0-)

    here.  

    No traction for that diary, as best I can tell, the pro-AWB folks don't like it cause it isn't what they are used to, and the anti-AWB don't like it cause they find it convenient to oppose a bill based on cosmetic features rather than ballistics.

    So, you will win short term, but someday the AWB will pass, in its stupid form, because the gun folks aren't interested in discussing how to make the AWB effective.  The NRA and other groups make their living by making gun laws ineffective, and most of the anti-AWB folks are helping these groups along.

    How about trying to figure out an effective ban rather than simply shitting on the one already on the table?

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:21:49 PM PST

    •  I don't think any ban will be effective. (13+ / 0-)

      That being the case, your framing here:

      How about trying to figure out an effective ban rather than simply shitting on the one already on the table?
      ...seems to be assuming only your own preferred method of responding to violent crime is the only one possible.

      Personally, I support trying to change the causes of crime, rather than banning a weapon that is used very, very rarely in crimes of any sort.

      For instance, I support most of the executive orders President Obama has discussed (with the possible exception of the one regarding mental health records -- depending on specifics, it may run afoul of existing law).  These measures show some hope of actually impacting crime.

      The last time we had an assault-weapons ban, it had no impact on crime.  Why would one expect that it would do so this time?

      Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

      by theatre goon on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:29:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because, perhaps, gun owners (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, Bisbonian, tytalus, Sandino, Quicklund

        could help craft a bill that would effectively separate weapons that are good for hunting and weapons that are only good for killing lots of stuff at the short to medium range.

        Seriously, anybody who argues that an AR-15 is a better weapon for hunting than even a halfway decent bolt action hunting rifle is stupid or lying.  Sure, it can be used for hunting, but then again so could a .25 caliber Saturday Night Special--but only a moron would choose to use one for hunting.  We all know that.  So why not work to get rid of the weapons that have no other use than to kill lots of people or give the owner a hard-on--cause that's the only thing an AR-15s are good for.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:39:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So, you'll dismiss out of hand... (13+ / 0-)

          ...those who happen to disagree with you:

          Seriously, anybody who argues that an AR-15 is a better weapon for hunting than even a halfway decent bolt action hunting rifle is stupid or lying.
          That is already enough for me to question your intent to discuss the subject honestly.  Declaring that anyone who disagrees with you is either "stupid or lying" is an unsupported opinion at best, an ad hominem attack at worst.  Neither is a particularly compelling argument.

          Further, you now seem to be insisting that only hunting rifles are acceptable for ownership.  This is a limitation that you offer no support for beyond your insistence.  This is not a particularly compelling argument.

          And this comment:

          So why not work to get rid of the weapons that have no other use than to kill lots of people or give the owner a hard-on--cause that's the only thing an AR-15s are good for.
          ...shows, quite clearly, that since you cannot support your earlier "arguments" with facts or logic, you are willing to resort to personal insult.

          That being the case, I see no particular reason in continuing this discussion.

          Have a lovely evening.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 03:49:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I note you in no way tried to defend (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bisbonian, oldpunk, tytalus, Sandino, Quicklund

            an AR-15 as a hunting weapon.  Rather you just said I am offended and said good day.  Very telling. As for my reasoning as to why AN-15 is a lousy hunting weapon...see link in the first comment in this thread.

            Basically it has to do with muzzle velocity and bullet size and the fact that the impact energies of an AR-15 drop very quickly above 100 yards, making them lousy hunting weapons.

            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

            by Empty Vessel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:10:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  AR-15s aren't restricted to a single caliber (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpunk, theatre goon, gerrilea

              AR-15s can take different caliber uppers. You can hunt with an AR-15 outfitted with a 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Creedmoor.  .243 Winchester, 300 Blackout, or 7.62x39 upper.

              And coyote hunters seem to have no problem hunting with the .223/5.56 round.

            •  There was nothing to respond to. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, gerrilea, fuzzyguy

              You made an unsupported assertion, along with several outright falsehoods and personal attacks against those who disagree with you.

              Once you devolved to those dishonest tactics, I saw no more reason to attempt to engage you in discussion -- you showed that you were not interested in honest, adult debate.

              I thought I made that clear -- my bad if it was not clear.

              Of course, I never said I was offended, either, so I guess it didn't really matter if I was clear or not, you had no intention of responding to what I actually said.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:07:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Plus tumbling rounds are designed to maim not kill (0+ / 0-)

              A wounded enemy soldier takes him out of action and also causes the enemy to care for and feed a non combatant. In war, oftenit is better to wound than to kill.

              In hunting, never.

        •  I know this isn't your intent, so apologies (8+ / 0-)

          in advance:  Since a 7.62 is generally a more destructive round, it would arguably make a better hunting round.  That would make an AK-47 a better hunting rifle.  Which would mean that the AK would be exempted from any SLGB* based on its valid use as a hunting gun.

          * SLGB = Scary Looking Gun Ban (Sorry, the whole acronym thing got to me)

          •  At what distance would the AK be the better round? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk

            To figure out the destructiveness we need to combine muzzle velovity and caliber to determine the impact velocity at different distance. Further, the energy removed from the firing chamber to load the next bullet reduces the energy of the bullet.

            So, a bit over simplistically, a 7.62 shot from a bolt action would be far more deadly at greater distances than a 7.62 shot from an AK.  Thus, again, the bolt action of the same size would be a far better hunting weapon.

            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

            by Empty Vessel on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:06:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I know this is an unpopular concept here, but (14+ / 0-)

              since I don't own any firearms and never have, I can say it.

              Why does owning a firearm have to have a reason?

              As you've repeated, "for hunting", there are other reasons isn't there?

              Or they not allowed now?

              Why do you have the right to free speech, free press, free religion?

              Do you need a reason?  I didn't know our rights had to be justified, really.

              And justified in such a narrow scope, as you've done here.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 04:28:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It affects cost-benefit analysis (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk, theatre goon, Quicklund

                I have a right to buy fancy socks without having any need and without justifying them to anyone.

                However, since I don't have a need, the social cost of making them harder for me to own would be low.

                If there were a big social benefit to banning fancy socks, then there'd be a utilitarian argument for doing so.

                If I needed fancy socks to put food on the table or protect my livestock, the calculation would be different.

                •  Understood, but must this issue be "utilitarian"? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk, Robobagpiper, theatre goon

                  Isn't that where we get into trouble and such heated debates?

                  If we accept the fact that the RKBA's is an unalienable individual right, then the reason is immaterial.

                  Unless the focus moves to LEO and military and even then the limits have to be the same, equally applied.

                  The fact that there are White Papers revealing the arguments that drones can be used against US citizens on US soil makes me jealous.  If they can have all the high tech toys, why can't we?

                  I've always believed we should have as many guns and bullets, plus one than our government has.  Keeps the power structure where it should be, with the people.

                  But I'm stubborn like that.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 07:20:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Rights have to be justified where there is (5+ / 0-)

                pressure to curtail them without actually doing the hard work of amending the constitution. Such justifications seem to me intended to try to keep the centrists/wishy-washyists/undecideds at least a bit favorably inclined toward gun ownership.

                I think most "activist/paying attention" gun owners are not so much justifying ownership of firearms per se, but ownership of specific categories of firearm, e.g., semi-automatics. I've ready plenty of comments from RKBA opponents inviting us to go back to muzzleloaders, since that is what the founding fathers had in mind (the commenters conveniently ignoring the founders were also completely down with slavery, suffrage only for white males, certainly no right to contraception, etc.)

                YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

                by raincrow on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:20:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Free speech isn't regulated? Free Press? (0+ / 0-)

                We accept regulations on our other rights day in and day out … Why is the Second Amendment so sacrosanct?

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:46:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  "We" don't anything...we have no choice (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, oldpunk, fuzzyguy

                  in the matter.  

                  I didn't talk about "regulations" but reasons why one exercises said rights.

                  There is no reason stated to justify my exercising my faith, my right to protest or my free press.

                  The framing of the 2nd A as exclusively for "hunting", was the issue I saw AND commented on, okay?

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:03:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Most RKBA adherents cite "self defense" as (0+ / 0-)

                    the primary "reason" that their "RKBA" should not be regulated... not hunting... not target shooting...

                    "Regulation" is the primary, recurring theme in this conversation, is the issue I usually see and I commented, okay?

                    Baby, where I come from...

                    by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:30:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  100-150 yards, maybe a bit more. (6+ / 0-)

              There isn't a big difference ballistically between a 7.62x39 shot from a bolt action rifle (yes, they exist... CZ makes one) and an AK. The bolt action will be a smidge faster, because it's not bleeding gas to work the action, but not enough to matter.

              Accuracy differences would account for more, most AKs are not extremely accurate guns, but with good iron sights or a low-power scope, they do well enough out to the range limits of the cartridge. 2-3 inches at 100 yards will git 'er done in the field... again, comparisons to the .30-30 are useful.

              --Shannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:44:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  An AR-15 is an excellent rifle for lots of things (8+ / 0-)

          that have nothing to do with killing humans.

          They are excellent target rifles.

          They are excellent varmint and predator rifles.

          Depending on the size of the deer where you live, and with good load selection, they're a decent choice for a deer rifle, and the SKS and AK platforms are even better. (7.62x39 ballistics are pretty close to the .30-30... whcih has killed a shitload of deer.) WIth a switch of the upper reciever (not controlled by any Federal laws, it's not a "gun" per the 1968 Gun Control Act) to a larger cartridge than the .223 Remington, they're an execellent all-around medium game rifle.

          With surplus 5.56 NATO ammunition (once we're done shooting it up in Afganistan and panic-buying it at home), they're excellent for general plinking. Cheap to shoot for a centerfire rifle, more fun than  .22. Put a .22LR upper on one, and it's just another .22... the best plinking rifle ever made.

          So yes, they have plenty of purposes... as many as there are people who own and shoot them.

          Because "purpose", in the human sense, is not a property of objects.

          --Shannon

          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:39:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I try to educate in my diaries and comments (6+ / 0-)

      but tend to get brushed off as someone trying to obfuscate the subject by bogging things down in technical details.

  •  re: assault "lookism" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, gerrilea, ancblu

    it may limit choice in getting decent custom single shot target competition guns since they "resemble" the AR-15 pattern, but cannot be fired as fast since they are not semi-automatic, but bolt action

    Warning - some snark above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ "We're like a strip club with a million bouncers and no strippers." (HBO's Real Time, January 18, 2013)

    by annieli on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 05:09:55 PM PST

    •  The bolt-action and single-round capacity (0+ / 0-)

      keep them off any proposed ban lists.

      Their multi-thousand dollar cost keeps them from being owned in vast numbers.

      This is one small area everyone can agree is not a problem and is not at risk from legislation.

  •  I'll be the first to admit... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, gerrilea

    ...I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to varying types of automatic / semi-automatic weapons.  My ignorance on the issue could be exploited by either side of this debate (there's no denying the 2nd Amendment, but there is a debate to be had regarding how it's interpreted.)  However, it makes very little sense to me to continue to manufacture and sell high capacity clips and weapons that are generally used on a battlefield.  

    Do I really need to know the minutiae here, or is this splitting hairs?

     

    Now there is a difference between a semi-automatic rifles rate of fire and its cyclic rate of fire. The cyclic rate of fire is based on how fast the weapon cycles or in layman terms how fast it loads, locks, fires, unlocks and ejects each round, whereas the rate of fire factors in how fast a person can change magazines and the overheating of the barrel.
    Please explain to me the difference in and the significance of the rate of fire between automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

    Might seem like a loaded question, but I'd really like to know why these distinctions are important and why a ban on automatic rifles included in the AWB bill is a ploy by pro-gun control advocates to actually go after the types of semi-automatic rifles you discuss in your diary.

    •  The rate of fire of a fully automatic rifle (5+ / 0-)

      should be higher than a semi-automatic rifle since all that has to be done to empty the magazine is pull the trigger once and hold it down. Will that rate of fire be significantly higher? That would depend on the capacity of the magazine and the shooters skill at changing magazines.

      As far as I know the AWB focuses solely on semi-automatic firearms that look like they are fully automatic and therein lies the rub. IIRC the AWB does not address the functionality of firearms it only covers their appearance and therein lies the rub addressing only how things look instead of how they function. There is little to no difference between how fast a black plastic semi-automatic rifle fires and a wood stock semi-automatic rifle fires. It seems to me that proponents of the AWB have a problem with all semi-automatic rifles, not just the black plastic ones, hence my request for honesty.

      I think it is a weapons cyclic rate of fire that they don't like, all I am asking is that they get honest with the American people and proclaim what they really want, a ban of all semi-automatic rifles. And if they are really honest they would extend that ban to all semi-automatic firearms to include shotguns and handguns.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 06:56:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for the reply. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, raincrow, gerrilea

        Can I assume that you believe that outlawing high capacity clips is a more effective (and honest) way of reducing the lethality of both automatic and semi-automatic weapons (insofaras making it take more time to reload)?  

        Are semi-automatic rifles the most common type of weapon used in hunting?

        •  I have actually written a diary suggesting (4+ / 0-)

          that magazine capacity be restricted to 10 rounds, it's one of the few proposals as far as bans go that has the potential of reducing the severity of mass shootings.

          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

          by oldpunk on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 08:28:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And I disagree most vehemently. Two of the (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, oldpunk, rockhound, gerrilea

            most notorious mass shooters (Cho at VT, and Harris at Columbine) operated almost exclusively with 10-round magazines - a dozen or more each.

            The "instances" where a shooter was stymied in reload involved extreme capacity magazines (the AR at Aurora, or the attack on Giffords), where the inherent unreliability of the magazine caused a jam either in the magazine or the well.

            Restricting magazines, to the contrary, only harms those who don't fill a backpack full of reloads - in other words, magazine limits disadvantage those who are minding their own business but who might be armed against people who came looking to murder a bunch of people.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:39:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You and I are actually closer to violent agreement (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, gerrilea

              than anything else. That's why I said that restricting magazine capacity is one of the few proposals that has the potential to reduce the severity of a mass shooting. Banning scary looking firearms will do less than fuck all, other than hurt Dems in the midterms.

              I personally think that such a restriction will have the same effect that it had last time which is pretty much zip. So I guess I am really more ambivalent than anything. With that said I would be willing to give on magazine capacity, I see it as a sop, but that would be about it.

              You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

              by oldpunk on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:02:33 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See, I'm not willing to go with any bans. (5+ / 0-)

                Because "ban" is short for "criminalize the possession of".

                Think about that. Even if old magazines are grandfathered in, a ban sends people to prison not for what they do, but what they have.

                As such, criminalizing possession should never be offered as a sop - it should always be given the highest level of scrutiny with regard to efficacy.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 05:12:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for working to inform yourself (4+ / 0-)

      Full automatic is what you see in movies. A bad guy holds the trigger down and there's a continuous rapid fire until the gun runs out of ammunition, which never happens in the movies. Such weapons are already hard for civilians to own.

      Semi-automatic means the gun fires one shot per trigger pull. After each shot the gun readies the next round with no work needed on your part. Hold down the trigger and nothing more happens. Seconds pass. Minutes pass. Three Republicans make stupid comments about rape. Eventually you get bored and let go of the trigger.

      Pull the trigger rapidly and it fires rapidly.

      What makes Bushmaster-type weapons so hideously well suited for 12/14 type crimes is that a shooter can load them with 30 or even a hundred rounds at a time, and when he runs out, he can swap in a new magazine in a second or two, making it only justly barely possible for someone to tackle him without being shot.

      There are also semi-automatic rifles which conveniently ready the next round for you but which require more time-consuming reloading after a few shots. Those are better suited for hunting than for atrocities.

      I can't speak for people who own firearms like those on the Feinstein list but I think they're afraid that if laws don't have to make sense, then there's no limit on what the next law might do.

  •  I don't think most people know this (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, Robobagpiper, gerrilea

    and they certainly don't seem to be paying attention to the actual stats that say long guns are not the problem.

    So most people are not clamoring for the banning of semi-auto rifles -- but that may yet come.  

    So why don't we actually attempt to solve the problem most people right this moment wish to solve? For the life of me, I can find no reason not to ban the manufacture, import, and transfer of high-capacity magazines, coupled with an aggressive 50-state buy-back program.

    Those of us who are proficient semi-auto shooters and are not intent on spreading mayhem can reload in a quite adequate time if 6 or 8 rapid-fire shots is not enough to knock down our intended targets. But there are abundant accounts of people who were able to overpower a rampage shooter -or- run away as he clumsily reloaded, juggled multiple magazines, etc.

    Over time, small magazines and increased emphasis on mental health/ involuntary commitment, making all private transfers legal only through an FFL w/ standard background check and waiting period, may vitiate the arguments that all semi-auto long guns should be categorically banned.

    That will still leave pistols and the flow of illegal guns to intentional/ actual/ hardened criminals (as distinguished from suicides, accidents, and spree killers) as the continuing elephants in the room.

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:07:35 PM PST

  •  Why no "honesty" about who started... (8+ / 0-)

    ...calling these "assault weapons"? It wasn't those who advocate a ban of these weapons but the folks who were marketing them.

    Those who advocate a ban do so not based not on these firearms' cyclic rate of fire but on features that were added to the military versions of these rifles, starting with the original AR-15, to make them more controllable and effective in those military versions. And on their high-capacity magazines.

    Some foes of the ban argue that these are cosmetic features. But since these features were designed for the military version of these guns, what purpose do they serve on the civilian versions?

    Personally, I think the assault weapons ban will fail in the Senate and thus will never get a vote in the House. Therefore, I think other legislation should be pushed first: background checks, gun-trafficking, repeal of Tiahrt amendments among 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 Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 10:08:48 PM PST

    •  If the features were merely cosmetic (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ThatSinger, pot

      you would think the pro-murder-toys gang would accept them, since they don't limit the functionality of their killing tools.

      The AWB will fail, but the political price paid by the opposition will be worth it.

      "GOP, we stand with the shooter"

    •  For me I am more concerned about where we (4+ / 0-)

      go from here. The term "Assault Weapon" was a marketing ploy to sell more weapons. Just like the terms "Weapons of Mass Destruction" and the "War on Terror" are marketing ploys intended to stir people up emotionally. What matters more, how we got where we are or where do we go from here and how do we get there?

      I guess I don't see the problem with civilian semi-automatic rifles being more comfortable to hold, more controllable and more effective, those actually sound like pretty good safety features, imagine the marketing campaign "Buy our x brand of firearm, they are lighter, more comfortable and will help improve your aim, which will make you a safer and better marksman." Sadly they chose the route of "Our weapons now look cool and will make you feel like you are really in the military."

      Military R&D (or any other for that matter) often makes it into the civilian market place. The military found a better design using newer materials that makes handling and firing a weapon easier on the soldier, affords them better control over the weapon and helps them shoot more accurately, all which allow them to be safer, why shouldn't civilians have access to the same technological advances?

      I guess the caveat here would be that with these modifications making it into the civilian market place we have potentially allowed the citizenry to be somewhat more lethal than they were before. I say potentially because a person with a 10 round magazine that knows how to shoot is going to be far more lethal than someone with a 20 or 30 round magazine that thinks they are in the military.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:34:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There's a mentality that comes with fake military (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk, ThatSinger, gerrilea

    weaponry and I think it's something that needs to be squashed. The tedious weekend warrior types. Non-military cowardly folks who like to play pretend and wind up hurting people to prove that they're alphas. If removal of these weapons from the market helps kill that sub-culture, I don't see why responsible gun owners wouldn't be behind it. But you're not, which makes me think that you're unreasonable and irresponsible and that you need laws to help reign you in.

    I get the point you're making that there is no difference between one semi-automatic and another, however in making the case you've actually convinced me that all semi-automatics need to be banned as well since they have no practical use other than killing people. Not hunting, not self-defense. Just killing like at Sandy Hook and Aurora. As long as we're being honest, I see the AWB as a back door toward that eventual goal, which is why I support it.

    Anyone who thinks a gun that shoots 45 rounds a minute isn't a threat to the public isn't really being honest either.

    •  I'm glad I helped bring you to a decision point. (4+ / 0-)

      One of the differences between you and me would be our opinion what to do about people with the mentality you referenced. There probably aren't very many of them but they definitely exist and I find them rather annoying as well, I'm just not interested in even trying to control people at that level, social engineering of that nature doesn't appeal to me all that much.

      I really, really don't care what people do with in their private lives, even if what they are doing I find disturbing. As long as what they are doing is for the most part legal (I'm not a fan of the War on Drugs) and not harming or infringing on the rights of others, I say have at it, hell do it 3 or 4 times if that's what you enjoy.

      But I must admit I find your opinion about what to do about that particular sub-culture anathema to liberty. Fortunately I am not of the opinion that we need laws to reign you in.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:48:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Liberty is shooting cans and targets? (0+ / 0-)

        It's hard to see that as what the authors of the constitution had in mind. I know you're trying to make a point, but try not to cheapen the concept of liberty along the way.

        I think we both know the "I have a gun, so I'm now a badass" mentality that weekend warriors most visibly represent is more pervasive throughout gun culture than you want to admit. Remember that most of these high profile shooting sprees are happening with legal gun owners, which is an indication that the system for giving guns to people legally doesn't work too well. Like you I don't really care much about what other people do with their lives... as long as it doesn't effect me or consistently result in the deaths of innocent people. Isn't that where you would draw the line?

  •  Do you support the current restrictions... (0+ / 0-)

    On fully automatic "rifles"?

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:37:42 AM PST

  •  If there's "no difference in functionality"… (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quicklund, pot

    Why then are we not seeing these mass slaughters committed with deer rifles?

    Baby, where I come from...

    by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 06:41:57 AM PST

  •  Do you know it's possible to write different laws? (0+ / 0-)

    Just because a bill might share a name with a law passed 20 years ago, that does not mean the new bill has to contain the exact same wording as the defunct law. Legislators are free to write the new law in any way they chose and which has enough political support.

    So you can be certain no one is interested in enacting weak and ineffective laws. That is why your contribution and similar ones are helpful. The key to successful gun regulation reform is to avoid the intentionally watered-down laws which emerged under NRA suppression efforts.

    Pro-NRA gloating about the way the old AWB failed, such as this diary, will help present-day efforts to craft effective laws. Listening to the NRA brag on how they de-toothed the old AWB laws makes that goal much easier.

    Thank you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site