Skip to main content


I still haven't found the 'right bucket' to put Wayne LaPierre in:

-- Over-paid Lobbyist
-- Master of circular logic
-- Pundit without a leg to stand on
-- Just plain full of it

All of these fit, so it's a difficult choice. But here, I think, is the bucket that fits him best of all:

-- Fearmonger-in-chief


And here's why:  Wayne LaPierre just won't let go the NRA's 'worsest' of nightmares. (He won't let go of his 'blankey' either ...)


Why NRA says background checks lead to confiscation

by Dan Freedman, chron.com, Houston -- March 30, 2013

But the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates paint a dark picture of expanding background checks to private purchases, insisting the move inevitably would lead to a national firearms registry.

With a registry in place, they say, the stage would be set for the NRA's worst nightmare -- gun confiscations.


"They're coming to take away your guns -- Oh My!"

Only thing is, they're really not ...



One thing you got to give conservatives credit for -- they're persistent.

They think if they keep repeating something often enough, somehow -- by osmosis -- that will make it true.

Think again, conservatives. It's time to straighten out your twisted pretzel logic:

Fear of gun registration and confiscation "has been an NRA mantra forever," said William Vizzard, a criminal justice professor at California State University in Sacramento and formerly an ATF supervisor in San Francisco. "It's based on nothing but the fact they just keep saying it over and over again."

Gerald Nunziato, a former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent who directed the bureau's National Tracing Center from 1991 to 1998, said that under the 1934 National Firearms Act, the ATF is required to maintain a registry of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers and other weaponry favored by Prohibition-era gangsters.

"If what the NRA says is true, why haven't these weapons been seized?" Nunziato said.


Good question.  "Why haven't these Prohibition-weapons been seized?"

(Where is Elliot Ness, when we need him?)


Well the NRA used to say:

"Just wait for Obama to get re-elected; They'll take away your guns for sure then."

Ooops!  Wrong.


The NRA fearmongers used to say:

"Just wait for the next big public-shooting tragedy; They'll take away your guns for sure then."

Ooops!  Wrong.


Now the NRA bucket-master LaPierre is saying:

"Just wait until they get a comprehensive universal background check system in place; They'll take away your guns for sure then."

Well we should have two words, preped and ready for this baseless claim:

Ooops!  Wrong.


Guess what Wayne ... "They" already know everything there is to know about you -- AND you're still armed and clueless, aren't you?

Ooops.  Get used to it, dude. You still got your 'blankey'.  Now if only you could get a clue.



Originally posted to Digging up those Facts ... for over 8 years. on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:22 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  The problem is, they have a HUGE microphone and (12+ / 0-)

    increasing numbers of people are believing him, because underneath the yelling and screaming he has his minions going on "sensible shows" and making quieter arguments to the same effect.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:34:21 AM PDT

    •  which is why (12+ / 0-)

      I keep "replying back"

      with the mini-mic at my disposal ...


      At some point, sanity will trump fear-mongery.

      this remains my on-going hope.


      THEY deserve no less, from us.

      12/15/2012

      •  If records are not kept, ... (0+ / 0-)

        there will be no way to prove a background check was ever even conducted.  And if it can't be proven, you can bet it'll be exploited.

        Count me among those who don't believe for a minute that records won't be kept and a registry developed ... ultimately to be used for ulterior purposes.  And I don't even own a gun, never have and never expect to, but I will never take any government official's "word" (even under oath) as being the truth on any subject, no matter what side they're on on any particular issue.  I've personally known, and otherwise become aware of, too many ethically challenged people (in politics, the judiciary, the business world, and in general life) to ever be convinced otherwise ... with the possible exception of seeing the results of an fMRI.

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

        by Neuroptimalian on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 07:26:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Funny how only right wing conspiracy theories... (17+ / 0-)

    get broadcast constantly by the MSM.

    You'd almost think they were trying to control the dialog...

    /snark

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

    by detroitmechworks on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:40:00 AM PDT

  •  It Did Happen (4+ / 0-)

    Internet Search "California" and "SKS"

    Also "FDR" and "automatic weapons", though you can make a case that that was not technically confiscation.

    The meme you are reinforcing, is, alas, that progressives are intellectually dishonest, as dishonest as right wing rant radio.

    Please do better in the future.

    We can have change for the better.

    by phillies on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:51:12 AM PDT

  •  Because registration *is* confiscation (11+ / 0-)

    If every gun can be tied to a legal owner and he is responsible for any improper use, a huge (and proper) liability goes with it.

    If any crime is committed with a gun registered to you, you can be charged with negligence for making the gun available.  If you sold it illegally without a background check, it should reach a criminal threshold.

    That's almost as bad as not having one!

    I've always wondered how such maniacal people could manage to have so many guns stolen which wind up in the street.  (Psst!  It's because they're sold illegally!)

    Guns don't kill people but there's always one there at the time of death.

    by john07801 on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:00:09 AM PDT

  •  Several member's of this forum have been very (6+ / 0-)

    vocal about their desire to achieve confiscation.  Many of these anti-gun diaries do nothing put pour gasoline on the fire.

    •  I support (10+ / 0-)

      the 2nd Amendment.

      I support responsible gun ownership.


      I am not responsible for what "several members of this forum" say, or believe, or advocate for.


      I think have a goof like LaPierre out there,

      hurts the cause of "responsible gun ownership."


      Even the SCOTUS has ruled that "reasonable exceptions" to the 2nd Amendment, are not prohibited by the Constitution:


      The Scalia Second Amendment Exceptions
      by jamess -- Mar 17, 2013

      •  I also (7+ / 0-)

        support those "reasonable exceptions:"

        1) limits the type of weapon;

        2) concealed weapons prohibitions;

        3) prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill;

        4) forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings;

        5) laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms;


        IMO such legal exceptions enhance "responsible gun ownership"

        -- not prevent it.

        •  Your idea of reasonable isn't the same as other's (4+ / 0-)

          The only things from your list that I would begin to entertain are items 3 and 5.

          Furthermore, stating demands and then asserting that these things are "reasonable" or "common sense" is really not conducive to making progress on the issue as it is effectively an ultimatum.  That being said, I really don't think that there will be any progress on this issue.  There will be no compromise and at most some enhanced rules on background checks will be passed and I would be surprised to see even that get through the House.

          Your statements also suggest to me that you view the legally armed citizen, not the criminal, as being the problem that needs to be addressed.  This is a lot of why the push for gun restrictions is failing.  If there is one thing that should have been learned by the efforts over the last three months is that if there is to be progress on reducing violence, including gun violence, that a different approach than an assault on people's liberties is going to be required as this will do nothing but drive them to hard lined, no compromise stances.

          •  I view (7+ / 0-)

            people who use guns,
            to hurt or intimidate unarmed people,

            as the problem.


            That, and the "mental competence" to own and respect  guns, in the first place

            as another BIG problem.


            re: those exceptions, Scalia made room for them.

            not me.

            •  Your definition (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Canis Aureus, Neuroptimalian
              use guns, to hurt or intimidate unarmed people, as the problem.
              Is a crime and does not represent law abiding citizens, it represents criminals.  
              •  it's not always so "cut and dried" (7+ / 0-)

                given the Stand your Ground laws:


                The fatal flaw in 'Stand Your Ground' laws
                by jamess -- Jan 02, 2013


                It used to be, a Deadly Threat had to be present and imminent,
                before you could "legally" respond in kind,

                with legal "deadly force."


                Now it's not so clear.  Some reading/interpretations of SYG,
                find that you only have to "feel threatened"

                to respond with non-equal "deadly force."

                Even when that threat was unarmed. Even in public places.
                Talk about slippery slopes.

                •  There is no 2A right to be a menace with a gun, (6+ / 0-)

                  not to oneself or to others.

                  David Waldman's weekly GunFail series is testament that significant guns are in the hands of people who ARE A MENACE to themselves and others.

                  The series Just Another Day in the Gun Grazy USA provides daily reminders that permissive gun policy has enabled one industry to profit handsomely from the flow of a dangerous legal product into the hands of people who can and do create a menage with a gun.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:09:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So how to address this: (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    noway2
                    significant guns are in the hands of people who ARE A MENACE to themselves and others.
                    How do you remove guns from those who already have them, yet are apparently a threat?

                    Do you go after law abiding citizens with further restricting of their rights or do you impose further penalties and stricter sentences for gun criminals and their deeds?

                    The first idea does zero to remove guns from those who have them already and yet are a threat....the second idea has a chance of deterring them, even a small one is better than zero chance.

                    •  The first step to solving any problem is admitting (3+ / 0-)

                      that it exists. Simplistic black and white choices do not reflect reality. There is no simple pool or law abiding gun owners vs. a pool of criminals.

                      ...law abiding citizens with further restricting of their rights...
                      The current state of failure has many inputs, not least of which has been a sustained attack over many years against policies that improve gun safety and increasingly permissive gun policy, that imposes the menace of untrained/careless/impulsive/angry gun owners in the public domain.  

                      Would you clarify what you would be willing to do, to separate unsecured firearms from the hands of minor children?

                      Would you clarify what you would support to separate lawful alcohol use from lawful RKBA?

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 04:34:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sure (0+ / 0-)
                        Would you clarify what you would be willing to do, to separate unsecured firearms from the hands of minor children?
                        Enforce child neglect laws for one....your child gets a hold of an unsecured weapon and hurts themselves or others or is simply seen or known to have been placed with an unsecured weapon and you risk using your children.  Use public messaging to make this crystal clear.  Impose even stricter penalties for gun crimes committed by those who have no legal right to have a gun in the first place and yet use them in a crime.  Hold parents criminally responsible, IF the gun was given to a child with known reasons not to have one and/or a crime was committed with the gun and the child obtained the gun from a parents home and the gun was unsecured.  Perhaps make new laws that would require supervision of an adult if a child uses a gun ever. (this idea would have the most opposition....since some children are quite capable and responsible and compete and/or hunt regularly....I have used guns since the age of about 7 or 8 and won my first college scholarship at the age of 9)
                        Would you clarify what you would support to separate lawful alcohol use from lawful RKBA?
                        I completely support laws that prohibit the use of a gun while under the influence of alcohol and/or prescription drugs that would hinder your ability to use a firearm responsibly.   I feel the threshold of "under the influence" and/or penalties should be along the same lines as drunk driving.  

                        None of these ideas further restrict a law abiding gun owner nor make them have to change their own gun owning ability at all and would also work.

                        None of these ideas target the law abiding and only put the restrictions and further penalties on those committing crimes.

                         Even in the case of parents responsible for children's safety...this is already law and if a parent puts a child in danger in any regard and that danger was neglectful....they are not law abiding but themselves criminals and breaking the law.

                        Can I ask you for your ideas?

                        •  Are you aware that fewer than half the states (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpotsmuggler, a2nite

                          prohibit sale of a firearm to someone under the influence of alcohol?

                          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                          by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:09:12 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  The focus of this diary (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Neuroptimalian

                          is about some citizen's fears of confiscation.

                          I was responding to your apparent concern with "further restrictions" which you frame as:

                          ...law abiding citizens with further restricting of their rights...
                          I find the idea of confiscation ludicrous even without our history of strong RKBA permissiveness. The practical barriers are too high; it takes multiple officers significant time, and incurs significant risk that an officer would get shot. We don't have the manpower, or the time.

                          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                          by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:23:36 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ok, but you asked me my views on two particular (0+ / 0-)

                            issues and I answered.  I wish to know your views for discussion:

                            Would you clarify what you would be willing to do, to separate unsecured firearms from the hands of minor children?

                            Would you clarify what you would support to separate lawful alcohol use from lawful RKBA?

                          •  I've discussed my views repeatedly - and you (0+ / 0-)

                            dKos has a search feature that you can use to satisfy your curiosity easily.

                            Sorry, but even if I had the time, I must refrain from indulging your attempt to thread jack Jamess' diary.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:06:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow, really. You asked questions and I was kind (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KenBee, noway2

                            enough to explain in detail my views to "satisfy your curiosity" and did so with true desire to have a discussion about it...since YOU asked and all.

                             Yet you apparently can't even answer the same question you drilled me on.

                            Ok, then.....don't worry about it.  I know the answer now.  No need to explain.  

                             

                          •  Sorry, if you misunderstood my comment (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            jamess, a2nite

                            It wasn't personal.

                            This diary is not the time nor the place, we are Jamess guests here.

                            I have already engaged in lengthy discussions with several RKBA members re my support for RKBA and where I think states will go forward if Federal level regulations fail. The next time I do have time, I'll send you an email so you can join in, if you care to do so at that time.

                            No way was I implying that you should care what I think. Just that if you can't wait to know what I think, it's all there at your finger tips in my diaries and comments.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:41:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  The NRA doesn't have much support here at DKos (6+ / 0-)

        I fail to understand why so much energy is spent on complaining about them, which amounts to preaching to the choir.  Even most Liberal gun rights supporters are turned off by their right-wing irrationality.  You are correct, though, their generalized position does hurt the cause of responsible gun ownership; which should be a non-partisan issue.

        •  I focus on the NRA (8+ / 0-)


          because most of Congress,

          is afraid of their NRA's shadows.


          They have no courage of their own convictions.

          Instead they look to the NRA, to know what to think or say.


          It's pathetic.  And worse yet, it's anti-democracy in action,
          speaking of the Constitution.

          •  Any power the NRA has comes in two flavors (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jamess, a2nite

            One is lobbying capability which can be represented in terms of dollars.  Their dollars come from two sources: manufacturers (and their ilk) and citizen members.  Shooting sports are not exactly a cheap hobby, so it is no surprise that there is plenty of money in the industry.  This is people speaking with their wallets.

            Two is the ability to mobilize people into action.  They have a very active communication network, effectively a grape vine.  They are prolific in emailing their members, they publish magazines, they make telephone calls, they distribute paraphernalia, they are active in the industry with respect to training and standards.  In essence, they are immensely visible.

            If the politicians fear them, it is because they fear their ability to influence voters.  One of the real problems with opinion polling is turning support for an issue into making it important enough to cause people to vote in support of it which is a a much higher and more difficult standard.

            •  No way 2 know who is getting paid to serve (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpotsmuggler, a2nite

              as a spokesman for the NRA, or whether some are just volunteer spokesmen for the NRA.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:11:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Accusing a member of Daily Kos... (0+ / 0-)

                of being a paid hack is H/Rable. I'm sure you know that by now.

                •  standards differ...accusations of NRA shillery (0+ / 0-)

                  often made and altho reasonable gun owner MB has been often quoted about dkos past policy of accusations of shillery it hasn't stopped the common daily accusation/implications, nor have  moderating principles prevented open discussions about antagonizing or declaring some commentors to be 'HOS' with justifications being twisted accusations of trollery...which summed up become 'disagreement'..like I said, standards differ if they even exist anymore.

                  This machine kills Fascists.

                  by KenBee on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 12:34:42 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  They are not afraid of the NRA, they are afraid of (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ban nock

            the huge percentage of gun owners in this country and are likely having their switchboards ring off the wall for months now with angry voters.

            I agree that a large percentage of people wish to see universal background checks in place, but even that support is fading with the latest polls out...so are these people calling their representatives 24/7.....because I guarantee you that the gun owners are doing just that.  

            My husband is a voter and a Democrat but very ho hum about politics and I can tell you....I have never seen him so interested in an issue...ever.

        •  No way 2 know why some kossacks persist in (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpotsmuggler, a2nite

          repeating NRA talking points and RW memes, ad nauseum.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:10:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  at least those arguing for confiscation are (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patrick Costighan

      for something that would potentially make a difference. Banning weapons that are almost never used in crimes makes a lot less sense.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:26:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No way 2 guess which members of this forum (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpotsmuggler, WakeUpNeo

      are very vocal in their opposition to any gun safety reforms.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:05:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reform advocates cite England and Japan as models (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whatithink, oldpotsmuggler

    Status quo advocates will never admit this because it contradicts their talking points, but gun violence will continue as long as there are guns in private hands, so the ones capable of reason must figure that anyone who wants to "end gun violence" must therefore want the only possible means of ending gun violence.

    Wouldn't people here want a zero-inventory solution if it were politically possible?

    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 10:26:12 AM PDT

    •  No. (0+ / 0-)

      If everyone else was limited to knives and hammers, there are those who would want guns due to the superiority of the weapon to defend one's self.

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

      by Neuroptimalian on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 09:19:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I recced for the conversation but I have to admit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, annieli

    I'd hoped that someone was actually going to make the argument for confiscation, a measure that would have a real affect on gun crime, though I'm not sure if it wouldn't create more injury than it curbs.

    Confiscation per se isn't the problem, rather the outlawing of previously bought items, and then having a list of people with those items. I think they did this in CA with the SKS. First registration, then outlawing, so your option is turn it in or become an illegal owner.

    If you look at Lapierre's history I think he is a zealot. History, circumstances, and luck, have served him well. He basically staged a coup and took over the NRA. I'm uninterested but read a good review of how he got to where he is.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:20:28 AM PDT

    •  well (5+ / 0-)

      Isn't that what "grandfather exceptions" are for?

      Congress uses them all the time.

      •  but then a ban becomes ineffectual, like we have (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess, Neuroptimalian

        here in CO.

        I talked to a sheriff's deputy the other day and he asked me how they are supposed to determine when a magazine was purchased even if it was a law they liked.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 11:28:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why should someone be allowed to own these (4+ / 0-)

        things simply on the basis that they thought to buy it prior to some given arbitrary date?  Clearly if they are legal and safe for how ever many thousands, if not millions, of people then why should it be a problem for future, equally law abiding, people?

        This is also the sort of talk that sets off panic buying.  Your guess is as good as mine as to how many more guns are in people's hands as a result of fear of a ban.  To be blunt, this is why I ordered an AR15 back in December, which I am STILL waiting on and the manufacturer won't even give lead times.  I understand that part of the problem is the upstream supply chain and the high grade steel (4150 moly steel) required is in short supply.

        The next one on my list is an FN-5.7 which is another one that DiFi wants to stomp on.  These were things that were on the "would be nice someday but don't really care about" but have become in the "goddammit I have to get it now because they are going try to take them away" list.  This is the sort of thinking, amplified over millions of people, that is driving both the economics and politics.

        •  I'm tired of the ping pong (6+ / 0-)

          Maybe it's time you wrote another post?

          your last one was an apparent hit.

        •  I also bought a semi-auto rifle (6+ / 0-)

          in mid-March, because I am concerned about a California ban, even if the federal ban fails.  I bought a Smith and Wesson M&P 15.  But I only waited for the mandatory 10 days here in California.  My local gun shop had many in stock.  Sorry you can't get yours.  They are fun to shoot.  I picked mine up and headed to the range to shoot biodegradable clay targets through the scope.

          Now my new rifle is cleaned, unloaded, cable locked, and in the gun safe.  There are no children in our home, but I still keep them locked up.

          Not sure who is endangered by this - seems pretty safe to me.

          It's still a free country.  If I want to shoot guns for fun, for target practice, in competitions - why should that be disallowed or prohibitively expensive because so many know nothing about guns.  

          I've been on DKOS a long time (check my UID), and I have to say these gun control diaries are about as bad as the Middle East flame wars and the 2008 primary wars.  Getting tired of it.

        •  Speaking of "fear" and "knee-jerk reactions"... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener
          This is also the sort of talk that sets off panic buying. Your guess is as good as mine as to how many more guns are in people's hands as a result of fear of a ban.
          The next one on my list is an FN-5.7 which is another one that DiFi wants to stomp on.  These were things that were on the "would be nice someday but don't really care about" but have become in the "goddammit I have to get it now because they are going try to take them away" list.  This is the sort of thinking, amplified over millions of people, that is driving both the economics and politics.
          You should diary this.
    •  Would you please link to that review? nt (0+ / 0-)

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 01:16:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not sure but I think it was in an RKBA post, with (0+ / 0-)

        links. Probably Google would bring it up. In a nutshell there was a pre arranged democratic ouster of the sitting board at the annual NRA meeting. A bunch of reactionaries showed up, voted, and that Lapierre guy was in. He had very extreme ideas and he has carried them out. The old NRA still lurks in all the training programs, shooting range safety, even hunting legislation, but there is the political side that everyone is familiar with.

        Lapierre is very smart and very good at what he does. He is the ideological brain of the NRA. If he left, the NRA might well change quite a bit. Ted Nugent and similar are simply window dressing.

        I'm only interested in the NRA when they work to defeat my candidates or when they lobby for a hunting bill I like or against an anti hunting bill I don't like.

        How big is your personal carbon footprint?

        by ban nock on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:47:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If you want to see blood in the streets and .... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess, WakeUpNeo

    innocents killed, then go ahead and try to enforce a confiscation action.  That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of in my life, and can only imagine the carnage by many of the out of control, extremist wack jobs out there that own some serious firepower in their homes and apartments and the insane panic, and paranoia  that will overcome them.  Personally, I believe there has to be another safer way to arrive at a sane firearm ownership and sales situation in this country than to attempt a knee jerk reaction.

    Idealism is one thing, common sense is another.  Firearm ownership is here to stay in this country, and the question is how to eliminate the increasing use of violent firearm usage in today's society.

    Maybe a country with a sound economy for all and with the basic quality of life issues addressed as well would be a good start...  Coupled with a serious enforced background check system and making sure that the laws on the books of firearm ownership transfers are enforced as well.  I also agree that training before a purchase is a good idea as well, and I don't mean just learning how to use a firearm but the education of laws and responsibilities pertaining to ownership as well.

    Just my 2 cents...

    "Don't Let Your Mouth Write A Check, That Your Butt Can't Cash."

    by LamontCranston on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 12:58:40 PM PDT

  •  There is a right wing meme about confiscation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    in New Orleans.

  •  Yep. I have been pointing out the fact... (7+ / 0-)

    ...that we have had a national gun registry for nearly 80 years and the only confiscation has been made against owners of the proscribed weapons who committed felonies.

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

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 02:43:20 PM PDT

    •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control

      Is that because of the good graces of the gun control lobby, or because its been legislatively impossible to completely close the NFA registry?  The best gun control advocates can up for is wait the Hughes Amendment to dry up the supply of transferable weapons.  Of course, NY SAFE has and S.150 would go even further, in one swoop entire classes of semiautomatic centerfire rifles are more restricted than machine guns; non-transferable and destined for destruction.

      When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

      by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 03:09:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  thanks MB (5+ / 0-)

      for helping to make
      this common sense and obvious point.


      appreciate the support.

      •  note that these confiscations were of criminals (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite

        illegally in possession of firearms, ex-felons are basically deprived of their 2A rights.

        These are actually going on right now in California, the Calif DOJ has a giant list they have accumulated of ex-felons they 'know' to be right now in possession, illegally (by being an released or probational ex-felon you would be prevented from possessing or being in the same residence with a gun.
           They beseeched the media and the governor iirc at this politically opportune time to do so, for 24 million dollars and for this they would hire I think 50 more DOJ agents and go to these known people's homes etc and seize their weapons..in the next 5 years.

        Now to be fair, this action is essentially a good thing, but to criticize it I would have to know that even if this door to door seizing was their job description all this time that they hadn't been already doing this: door to door seizing...
          ...because if they haven't been seizing but just accumulating the necessary data, they are pretty open to complaints  they were sandbagging so as to pick the best time to fear monger for more money to complete the mission.
          And what have they been doing, if not this 'protect the public' goal, now so much more important than, say, back in November?
          By them hoarding and not acting on this info, they seem open to questions of priorities:    they may have been instead involved in many drug enforcement actions instead of seizing weapons from ex felons and therefore protecting the public...ex felons who weren't described as either violent or non violent ex felons by the way, iirc.  The effect of this is that my pot growing non violent old friend who was popped 20 years ago for their indoor pot grow is also prevented from having a simple gun like a pump shotgun to prevent the bears and lions who stalk his few livestock and pets, as well some protection from the rural home invasion tweek squads.
           I also believe the nonviolent ex-felons should be able to (and they may be able to..in some states) be able to submit at low or no cost a simple petition for this right to be restored in whatever limited way it can be...another reasonable measure.

        As a calif citizen, I want someone to investigate this and see if the calif DOJ has been derelict in this pursuit of these illegally possessed weapons, and if so why and what were they doing and who is responsible for these priorities?

          So, those are some confiscations we all can basically  support right now.  

        James, I have two more comments along this line...

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:11:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Neuroptimalian, Neo Control

    Long lead times.  Canada took decades to go from registration to confiscation.  New York City and California each demanded gun owners surrender weapons they had registered a decade after registration.  

    National confiscation risk in any given year is low because the gun control lobby nationally is so weak.  However, wherever the lobby has grown strong enough, it has first proposed registration (and, where possibly, caps), waited for demography to work its wonders, then went for confiscation.  Considering the long view taken by people here on even the smallest steps forward, is it any wonder that gun rights activists are thinking strategically as well?

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 03:01:11 PM PDT

  •  We keep hearing that LaPierre is winning the.. (5+ / 0-)

    ..message war. I'm not convinced, but then I'm a progressive Democrat who would like very much to see a whole range of tough laws enacted.

    But here, even Joe Scarborough voices serious doubts that republicans can win supporting LaPierre's tacics and or message.

    Scarborough : Wayne LaPierre op-ed is ‘so laced with racial overtones' - - 02/14/2013 (with video of Lapierre racist ranting)

    I don’t know where to start…yeah, it’s responsible to own a gun; it’s responsible to protect your family; it’s responsible to have a handgun in your house; it’s responsible to have a shotgun; it’s responsible to have a hunting rifle, but Wayne LaPierre is suggesting if you are against Americans being able to own assault weapons with 30-round, high-capacity magazines…and he said, Hispanic drug gangs are coming to America. And those terrible people in Brooklyn. Don’t go out after dark.

    I mean, this is so laced with racial overtones…the Republican Party, if they were smart, their leaders today would condemn it, but they’re not smart; they’re scared, and if they keep running scared they’re going to lose more votes, they’re going to get hammered in future elections if they allow this clown to continue to lead them around by their nose.

    They’re shameful; they need to be leaders.

    So whether one agrees with Scarborough or not he's got a large national following that he is not known for putting at to risk, like by blasting LaPierre.

    And Scarborough has a pretty big microphone himself.

    Thx jamess

    •  Gun deaths shaped by race in America (5+ / 0-)

      The Washington Post doesn't seem to agree that Wayne LaPierre is winning any message war.

      By Dan Keating, Updated: March 22, 2013

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Gun deaths are shaped by race in America. Whites are far more likely to shoot themselves, and African Americans are far more likely to be shot by someone else.
      The article maps the origins of our national divide on gun safety and finds it rooted in the differences of what we experience:
      "Suicides and homicides are highly charged human dramas. Both acts shatter families, friends and sometimes communities. But the reactions are as different as black and white, and those differences shape the nation’s divided attitudes toward gun control."
      
Contrasting life experiences, whether from a family member’s suicide or the death of a relative in a homicide, drive the nation’s split over an essential element of the gun debate: Would fewer guns save lives? Survivors of homicide victims consistently tell pollsters that the answer is yes, but the response to suicide is different.
      The article is worth a read. Here are the key findings mapped onto the states:
      Washington Post - Gun deaths shaped by race in America - Figure 3 (Image 4)
      Washington Post - Gun deaths shaped by race in America - Figure 3
      "Gun deaths in urban areas are much more likely to be homicides, while suicide is far and away the dominant form of gun death in rural areas. States with the most guns per capita, such as Montana and Wyoming, have the highest suicide rates; states with low gun ownership rates, such as Massachusetts and New York, have far fewer suicides per capita."
      PS - I need some advice about adjusting the size of a figure so that it fits within the comment width.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:03:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The WaPo article has an interactive map (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson, jamess, WakeUpNeo

        where you can look in more detail at any state and where if falls relative to all the other states.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 05:05:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you for the links and very good info. (4+ / 0-)

        ..About sizing: whenever I have an image that is too large to fit the comment space I use the snipping tool to capture the image instead of just entering in the URL (found by right clicking and opening the properties selection to retreive the URL- the normal way) to the host site (imageshack or whichever one you use)

        Then shrink the entire page by either hitting/holding control while typing plus + or minus key -  to shrink or enlarge OR you can hit/hold control and the use the mouse scroll to shrink or enlarge in smaller more accurate increments.

        Now the entire page is shrunk down. Once the image is shrunk to the size that you're pretty sure will fit, click on the world. Lower left of your screen. It's the start icon that open all your programs to do stuff.

        there is a search box. Type in snip or snipping tool. Open the snipping tool and click "new".

        Your screen will sort of white out. At this point carefully place the pointer (it's an x shaped pointer) exactly where you want the corner to be, estimating vertically and horizontally from that corner if it will capture what you want when you draw a square or actually a rectangle prolly

        Now hold and draw a square/resctangle around the image you want to capture. Once that's doneclick 'save as' the capture with a label you like.

        Then when you go to imageshack (or whatever host site you use) click on the browse button instead of feeding in the URL from the original image. The brower will allow you to browse your pictures where you then type in the label you chose for the snip/capture open that and the image is now ready to upload to the image storing site to be tranferred to here or wherever you want.

        This is how it will look using the sized down screen and then capturing/snipping the image:

        ........................................

        P.S. I'm now curious now. It looks like this is your image host:
        http://s3.amazonaws.com/...

        You're ahead of me because that looks like what the front pagers here at Daily kos use. It even says dk- production/images in the URL
        And it's It's got the black bar that pops up when you hover over the image with attribution: Washington Post

        •  Thank you - I'll book mark your advice (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Nelson, jamess, WakeUpNeo

          About the images - Indycam is writing a diary about guns and suicide, and I offered to help, and they sent me this WaPo article as one of the articles to digest. I loaded the images into daily Kos, and set the attribution to WaPo but I  restricted the license to myself until I could learn more about how to properly deal with the copyright. Still waiting to hear back from Indycam on what's fair use.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Sun Mar 31, 2013 at 06:21:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  He may not be winning the message but (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      WakeUpNeo

      is winning through attrition. The longer the "electeds" drag their feet, the less likely that we get anything.

      Guns are more important than people.

  •  Thank you, jamess. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric Nelson, jamess

    Both for the content of your diary and for moderating this as a platform for sharing illuminating data and discussion.

  •  Another Cal DOJ fumble reported in the LA Times (0+ / 0-)

     yesterday or saturday, was that the state, that would probably be the Calif DOJ I talked about up a few comments, the DOJ just found out that the ankle bracelets they put on about 7000 released offenders....don't work.

    They were made by the low bidder, GE, and failed 45 of 110 tests they are required to meet.
         This was problem was discovered after being reviewed after the constant complaints by the second and losing bidder....that the various ways the bracelets systems have of preventing tampering or hiding the signal failed.

    The state DOJ declared this an emergency, went or brought in all these 7000 parolees, sex offenders, gang members, criminals all, and swapped the ankle monitors for the second bidder's product.

      Again with this ordinary citizen's questions:
      At what cost monetarily...
    and at what cost in terms of re-offense and dis-respect for the system?....because the only way these work is for the offender to believe, pre-offense...or maybe call it pre-re-offense, that they believe they are actually being monitored and they better not do The Thing They Were Impelled To Do...which in some criminals is a very strong thing to fight.

      The second bidder that got GE's systems cut off was, IIRC, the one that kept ratting out the system til the DOJ had to do something...this IIRC was not discovered and dealt with by the DOJ. IIRC.

    Look for it in the LA Times for better, heh, better details that I can recall from mornings readings and memory.

    So this is another thing in the wider issue of the Calif DOJ/government and their systems protecting us...or not.
      The point: they don't have the money to do much at all but react to politics, to complaints from the money, or the politics. And no, of course they aren't coming for your guns...unless you are an ex-felon in illegal possession.

    This was the issue in a Cal DOJ/county sheriff raid, they mobilized the whole area SWAT, other agents, evidence trailers, the bomb squad, city police, dogs, and this whole caravan gathered and coordinated and bumbled and rumbled out the 40 miles of very bad road to seize some weapons from, they say, a violent ex-felon known to be in possession...so, a very big deal operationally, and nothing much else was done elsewhere while this was going on. Turns out:
         He hadn't lived there for years...so their list may be a little stale...and this cost a lot of time, pay, confidence from police and the public...in all a very costly loss..and whoever is still out there.

    Where am I going with this?...that of course 'they aren't coming fer yer guns'...unless you are an ex-felon on their list and they have your current address...but even more specific: it is too costly to go door to door, of course there is no door to door confiscation going to happen..yet. Except for this List.

    What would happen first way before some giant operation like this would be?
    .... simply making possession of such and such scary pink or black gun to be illegal after some date, you bring it in and turn it in....or face arrest and fines and legal bills and possibly eventually a search warrant and home entry and jail time. And more legal bills. And we'll shoot yer dogs.
        After you fail to comply.
        Then you would be a criminal...and then we're coming fer yer guns.

    Unless you move.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Mon Apr 01, 2013 at 01:55:20 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site