I think we've already lost the gun control debate.
I know, "We've lost, how?"
The Gun Sales Association (fomerly NRA) has framed the debate quite nicely using their panic mode, and the sheer numbers of guns is at an unprecented high.
Even *IF* large magazine and assault rifle bans are passed, how the hell can those laws be enforced?
Have the infamous "jack-booted thugs" go door-to-door demanding to search for those?
Oh that will go over REAL well... 
And now those 3-D printers are getting better and better, so the key parts for semi-auto guns can be made literally in someone's home.
= new reply since forum marked as read
What's disrespectful about owning a gun store?
What's the going rate for an acre of real estate there on Fantasy Island?
Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #111)
in keeping certain ones after a certain amount of time (in which case they would no longer be "law abiding"
.
At times armed entities are required for enforcing laws, which if you recall is a substantial reason for the securities of the 2nd amendment. (Such entities are deemed necessary in fact).
Freedom stems from being part of a community, a community formed knowing some portion of personal liberty is necessarily surrendered; a society whose aim is the common good, subject to those laws enacted for better securing the liberties of all.
There has been a lot of proposals for keeping criminals from getting guns, which are generally good ideas, but rather than focus on those things (like mandatory background checks on all purchasers), the focus turned to attacking protruding pistol grips and quick-adjustable stocks and heat shields. Because putting a pistol grip on a rifle turns it into an "assault weapon", apparently.
To a lesser extent, the debate over magazine capacity was of a similar vein. "If the shooter has to reload more often, this will give the bystanders more chances to jump him!" was what the argument boiled down to. And at no time was the stated goal of 10 rounds or less debated on the national level. Colorado compromised at 15 rounds, NY state rammed through a 7-round limit (apparently to protect all the .45 owners out there). But the issue of the hundreds of millions of 11-plus magazines already in existence was not addressed.
Here's the thing: everybody was frantic to prevent another mass shooting, and fell over themselves to propose laws that would address what happened at Newtown. Except that Newtown-like events not reduced by these laws. Cumstain there had 11 minutes of free-fire time in a confined space full of helpless victims.
Now, the NRA blew the debate with their usual paranoia about jack-booted government thugs (apparently, SWAT raids on potheads is okay, though) and taking on the government through some sort of guerrilla war with racial overtones. Of course this is ridiculous; those people have been reading "The Turner Diaries" a little too much. But the fact that the Feinstein 2013 AWB still allowed semiautomatic rifles fed from detachable magazines to be sold cannot be disputed, and shows the core political grandstanding of such legislation.
Here is the real issue. Many people in this country, generally liberals, are greatly disturbed by the kind of person that owns guns intended primarily for self-defense.
Why?
Because a person that owns guns for self-defense is a person that thinks about killing people. A lot.
He or she puts a lot of thought into the best gun with which to kill and under which circumstances: concealed carry, car carry, bedside gun. They think about which ammunition will kill the quickest. They think about where to shoot somebody to kill them the quickest. They think about how best to carry concealed, so nobody knows they are carrying a gun to kill people. They debate over optics and accessories to help them shoot to kill faster and more accurately. They read magazines and books and websites that explore these issues. They go to the range, and even to training centers, to learn how sharpen their skills on killing people. They even compete at events designed to sharpen their shooting skills and lethality with guns.
This really bothers a lot of people, and they then support any legislation they can to change this mentality: bans on tactical features, long waiting periods, outlawing concealed-carry and/or open carry, making transportation of unloaded guns difficult, limiting and recording ammuntion purchases, etc. Basically, they are trying to do to gun owners what the conservatives are trying to do to abortion rights: make it so hard that a lot of people don't bother.
And of course, this makes for plenty of stupid lawmaking by politicians that, after failing to take on George Bush, the banksters, Big Pharma, Big Oil, the health-insurance industry, the military-industrial complex, and other very big issues, now want to be able to point to some ineffective law and scream "I took on the gun lobby! See? See? Vote for me and give me some cash!"
Response to Archae (Original post)
Response to Kolesar (Reply #128)
Response to Archae (Original post)
Lets move the focus from stupid things like pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and flash suppressors (please give us a hand here Feinstein!) and move the discussion to items where moderate gun owners can agree with (and the gun nuts won't oppose so vehemently): Universal back ground checks, mental health checks, end straw purchasing, end gun-show loophole, and searches on felons for weapons (and prohibited persons).
I think the mistake we have made is focusing on the EQUIPMENT rather than the RESTRICTION. Afterall many gun owners are gun owners as compensation for equipment 
, lets focus on FILTERING, LEGAL RESTRICTIONS, and PROHIBITED PERSONS. By dropping the attack on EQUIPMENT the opposition will fizzle and any legislation based on the registration and permission process will probably fly right over the not so high IQs of many gun owners.
REGROUP - WE CAN DO THIS!
[img]
[/img]
But ~
[img]
[/img]
In The Wind
[img]
[/img]
