Do gunners think people are so stupid

[boston bean]

that they care whether a gun is fully auto, or can fire as fast as your finger allows.

Unloading a cartridge or magazine, or whatever the hell you want to call it, that allows for spraying of multiple fatal projectiles into crowds of people without re-loading.

Jesus H. Christ.

Ban those motherfucking things once and for all. There is no need for a civilian to have these weapons.

Believe me the victim doesn't care whether it was a fully auto or as fast as a fricking finger can pull the trigger killing machine.

[bowens43]

1. That would be a good start

the gun fetishists would have missiles and smart bombs if they could get their hands on them.

[RoccoR5955]

108. Here's a better start.

Take the guns out of toy stores and toy departments. It would not interfere with the gun advocates' "rights," and would have kids growing up not thinking that guns were toys, and that they needed the real ones when they were old enough.
I was in Holland a couple of months ago, and in the stores there there are no guns. I was told that it is illegal to sell toy guns in the Netherlands, because many look just like real ones.
So perhaps if we get rid of the guns at an early age, the toy ones, in twenty or so years, we may have fewer people interested in having guns.
Just an thought.

[treestar]

114. Good thought.

Great idea.

[mwrguy]

133. and video games

[smirkymonkey]

154. Brilliant idea!

Please, anything to rid this country of it's sick obsession with guns.

[TeddyR]

166. You really want to take toy guns out of toy stores

As a solution to the country's gun violence? I agree that it won't violate any Second Amendment rights, but that's sort of like blaming Marilyn Manson for Columbine. I mean, do you know how many tens of millions of kids each year play with toy guns and don't grow up to murder someone?

[RoccoR5955]

173. This works in Europe

Why shouldn't it work here? There were many toy guns in Holland in the past, until they outlawed them, and they have very little gun violence. I really do think it would work.

[Jim Beard]

185. Very good Idea

I have been shopping for my grandkids toys over the last few years and I do not buy TOY guns. 1. I don't want to promote guns and 2. If they do decided to buy guns in the future, they will know they are not toys.

[Thinkingabout]

2. We need sensible thinking, NRA does not provide a base of sensuble thinking.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

3. Well, "somebody" must care ...

One is legal for ordinary folks, the other is not.

That seems like a big difference.

I'm not sure if it was "gunners" or "non-gunners" who introduced, passed, and signed that law.

If they're banned for all civilians, cops will complain about being disarmed.

[dsc]

183. the machine gun ban dates from the 1920's or 1930's

which was a considerable time ago. I would be willing to bet semi automatic weapons have improved greatly in the mean time.

[Eleanors38]

189. Not that much improvement. Same basic designs, shapes, and caliber selection.

Accuracy has been improved, but this is more a concern for competitive shooters and hunters. Beyond the synthetics, accessories and computer construction, it's more amazing that civilian weapons are roughly same as they ever were.

[pintobean]

4. If you're going to start trying to ban things

don't you think it's a good idea to use the proper language for the proposals?

[boston bean]

5. No, I think my reps and senators get the idea.

they can write legislation.

[Duckhunter935]

10. except they do not either

A barrel shroud is that "shoulder thing" or magazines being used up when installed in a rifle. just a couple of gems from those smart legislators.

[boston bean]

11. We should depend on the terrorist organization of the NRA to write these things, heh?

[GGJohn]

27. No, we shouldn't,

but at least they know what the fuck they're talking about, unlike most of our law makers.

[Jim Beard]

186. I dont need to know what makes a car work, I just want to drive it.

[GGJohn]

188. But if you're a law maker pondering new laws on firearms,

you need to know what the fuck you're talking about.

[Jim Beard]

193. So they all need to know about the parts of a nuclrar weapon to vote for a a reduction treaty.

No because they all know what they do and that is all that is necessary. They also have a large staff of aids to advise.

[GGJohn]

194. Well, apparently, those aides aren't doing there jobs,

as in the case of Carolyn McCarthy and Diane DeGette.

Even a basic knowledge would be better than what we have now.

[Duckhunter935]

29. legislators

That actually know what they are talking about. I prefer the NSSF to the NBA. But at least they know the basics of firearm functions and operation.

[pintobean]

16. Lol. So it doesn't really matter what we're talking about

Ban ban ban works just fine. Let the politicians figure it out, because they always do such a great job.

[boston bean]

19. Why don't you type it out. You are so interested in the correct vernacular, you could be an expert.

[pintobean]

22. I'm not trying to ban anything

[boston bean]

24. Goodie for you. Either get the point/or not, vernacular derailments

is what you offer.

[pintobean]

28. It's what you're whining about.

I offered an explanation as to why it matters.

[boston bean]

32. Yet, you offer nothing. Except pointing out

that my vernacular doesn't measure up to your standards, and therefore my points are moot.

But you continue on if you wish.

Most people understand what the issue is. Others would like to derail.

[actslikeacarrot]

145. I think you are right. Christ, there are people...

...in this thread that also want to ban toy guns and video games!

[GGJohn]

18. Most of our Reps have no fucking clue about firearms.

I'll give you a few examples.

Classic McCarthy not knowing what the fuck she's talking about.

Or Diane DeGette, this was pure comedy gold.

Don't you think that our Reps should know what the hell they're talking about before trying to pass laws?

[meaculpa2011]

36. Wow. Good to know. I just ran out of...

K-Cups so I guess I'll have to throw away my Keurig coffee maker.

[GGJohn]

38. Hilarious ain't it.

These law makers want to enact firearm laws, yet don't even know what they're enacting the laws for.

[smirkymonkey]

155. Really, what is it with your gun obsession?

Why do you need them and why do you need so many? Seriously, I would like to know because I completely do not get it.

[GGJohn]

159. Ok, here's my answer.

I don't have an obsession with firearms, most of the firearms are of historical value and are not used for shooting and I did inherent my father's firearms when he passed.
The firearms I do have for shooting are mostly for hunting and protecting our livestock, and are all locked up in safes when not in use.
I do have a few handguns, mostly historical revolvers, but I also have a couple of semi auto handguns that are used for CC when I'm in another state, and that's few and far in between.

[smirkymonkey]

160. OK. Thanks for the explanation.

I appreciate your honest answer.

[GGJohn]

161. No problem.

BTW, I love your sig line, mind if I abscond with it?

[smirkymonkey]

162. No problem!

[Eleanors38]

187. No, they are rather incompetent on bans...

Which is why they define stuff which is quickly sidestepped, challenged in court, or not enforced. But it makes some feel self-righteous.

[Renew Deal]

34. Nice hijack

[lark]

81. He does it every time guns come up here.

Rather than taking any constructive position, he just shoots holes in the details. The facts that we are in the middle of a daily gun massacre means nothing to some of these military types.

[beevul]

164. Thats not 'shooting holes' in the details.

Rather than taking any constructive position, he just shoots holes in the details.

Thats not 'shooting holes' in the details, its revealing the holes that were already there.

Subject matter and correct understanding of it matter, well, to reasonable people anyway.

[safeinOhio]

40. They sure left out a lot of details when they wrote

laws about, Stand your ground, home castle, in fear for your life and requirements for CCW permits. Why not leave out details on these rules too?

[Agnosticsherbet]

87. If all the dead can raise their hands we will go with your proper language proposal.

Any hands?
Any hands?
Your authority as a dictionary cop in this matter did not pass.

[Photographer]

6. An answer?

[boston bean]

14. eh! good one! make the point perfectly.

[Duckhunter935]

15. that should only

Be allowed to be published in print as video did not exist

[Photographer]

17. I thought we just went over this?

[Duckhunter935]

30. here?

[lark]

82. +1,000,000

K&R

[Jim Beard]

190. Very good, I had to go to the you Tube link and "steal" it for myself.

here is another one...You Tube of hunters and gun instructors]



Hope you enjoy

[Scuba]

7. Hey, if you can't describe the inherent benefits of 1:10 rifling in a .308 barrel ...

... then you shouldn't be allowed to speak, or even hold an opinion, about gun control.













sarcasm thingy here for those without the gene

[Straw Man]

148. Wrong.

Hey, if you can't describe the inherent benefits of 1:10 rifling in a .308 barrel ...

... then you shouldn't be allowed to speak, or even hold an opinion, about gun control.

That's an irrelevant detail, unless you want to ban 1:10 rifling. It behooves anyone advocating a policy to be familiar with the details of that policy and why it is important.

[Scuba]

167. One needn't be a neurotoxin specialist to know ...

... that such toxins should be kept out of the hands of idiots.

[Straw Man]

169. Neurotoxins?

Hyperbole is not your friend.

[GGJohn]

8. NO.

And I will fight against any such measure by peppering my reps to vote against any such restriction.

And remember, pro 2A Americans vote almost en masse.

[boston bean]

9. There will be a tipping point, and your minority of block voters en masse

will lose.

Common sense will one day prevail.

[GGJohn]

23. Been hearing that for the last 30 years

yet, firearm laws are getting more liberal each year.
Every state in the Union now allows for Concealed Carry with many states recently enacting Constitutional carry, IL was the last holdout on CC, more states are liberalizing their firearm laws than ever before.

Despite your pipe dream, you are never going to get a ban of semi auto firearms, it's just not going to happen.

If that's the tipping point, I'll take it.

[boston bean]

26. We're getting closer cause the further that pendulum swings into

crazy territory, the harder it will swing back.

[GGJohn]

35. We're getting closer?

Gee that's funny, because that's not what the polls say.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/?

Now that number has fallen 5% points, which is natural after a mass shooting, but it will rise again.

Face the facts, there will never be another ban of semi autos like in 1994, which wasn't a ban at all, semi autos were still sold new during the 10 years the AWB was in effect.

[boston bean]

37. Yes, you just haven't felt it yet. I wouldn't be so sure if I were you.

[GGJohn]

41. How do you know I haven't been affected by firearm violence?

Take a look at my avatar, that should give you a clue about my experience with firearm violence, and I've been affected by firearm violence in my civilian life, but I don't blame the tool for the violence, I blame the person wielding the tool.

[boston bean]

44. When did I intimate any such thing?

You however don't seem to give a hoot that the availability of these killing machines are part of the problem.

[GGJohn]

46. They are a miniscule part of the problem

semi auto rifles account for less than 5% of firearm homicides in this country, yet that's what you want banned?

[boston bean]

48. They are the weapon of choice for mass murderers and are easily available.

That is not something I am willing to just say... ah, ok.. nothing to worry about or change.

Also, I don't think civilians need glocks or other similar semi auto weapons only.

There is no use for those but to kill. And the lobby to keep these weapons legal is causing a break down in this society.

[GGJohn]

52. Well luckily for us,

there is no dept. of needs in this country,

Firearms in this country aren't the cause of the coming breakdown in society, get over yourself.
Climate change, outsourcing, drugs, income inequality, just to name a few, are causing the coming breakdown of society, and if or when that happens, then all bets are off and my firearms will help me survive.

I'm no whacked out survivalist or doomsday prepper, I'm just pragmatic about where the world is headed.

[boston bean]

55. They are the implement used to KILL innocent people.

If that doesn't fit any of your definitions, I'm not sure what else to say.

There is a moral argument here, and it is imperative, we not shrink from the honest facts of this problem.

INNOCENTS being murdered due to the availability of these killing machines, so you can feel more safe, is making us all less safe. And in turn will turn this country into a police state. Cause believe you me, the gov't is not just going to sit back and let innocent people get sprayed by bullets. We will have more police, more searches in all public spaces. All so some people can keep their precious, for whatever ridiculous reason.

[GGJohn]

58. One more time,

my firearms have never hurt another human being, so I'm not part of the problem.

BTW, what would you do with the 150-200 million of semi auto firearms already in civilian hands?
Because making illegal and demanding they be turned in is a no go, you wouldn't get the police to enforce such a scheme, nor the military, which would be illegal in the first place, so, what's your plan?

[boston bean]

59. Your firearms haven't hurt anyone. Yet your position and fight to

keep them with such ease and availability have.

I don't know how much more blunt I can be.

It isn't all about you, you know.

[GGJohn]

61. My fight isn't really about the availability of firearms.,

it's about the right of the people to choose what's best for themselves from a legal product.

[boston bean]

62. And in doing so is part of the problem we face today.

I'm sorry, but that is just the honest truth of the matter.

A little self reflection of the selfishness you have regarding this, and the reality of innocent killed, might be helpful.

You can't just detach yourself from this.

[GGJohn]

63. I advocate for freedom of choice and I'm the one being selfish?

You've got that backwards, you're the one being selfish by trying to deny law abiding citizens the right to choose what's best for themselves from a legal product.

[boston bean]

65. There are many products that are not safe for society that have been banned, recalled.

I think that your obstinance in recognizing this is a big part of the problem, as you are not alone..

[GGJohn]

66. Those products weren't protected under the Constitution.

See the difference?

[boston bean]

68. Neither are all types of gun ownership protected under the constitution.

Let us try to be reasonable here.

[GGJohn]

69. The words in general use mean anything to you?

The AR platform is the most popular rifle in the US today, there are literally millions of them in civilian hands, banning them would certainly trigger a court challenge going all the way to the SCOTUS where the odds of it being struck down are very good as they are in general use in this country.

[boston bean]

71. This will change, and it will be despite persons like yourself. Sorry to say.

But I and MANY others will support a ban on semi auto weapons.

And in time, the court will come back around to the way the 2nd was interpreted for nearly 200 years.

[GGJohn]

73. The SCOTUS is loath to overturn settled law,

Heller v DC is now settled law, the Justice's will not revisit it, even if 2 liberal judges were appointed, the chances of them overturning Heller v DC is slim to none, case in point, Roe v Wade is still the law of the land, yet we've had a RW court for decades now.

[boston bean]

74. The supreme court can and will bend to this national crisis.

It is so obvious that anyone with a shred of a moral compass knows something has to change.

Unintended consequences of their decisions have made them re-visit the law and changed/disparate decisions numerous times.

All it will take is the will of the people of this country to say enough is enough, I wish you would join.

[GGJohn]

77. The SCOTUS doesn't interpret the Constitution according to the will of the people

and history tells us that settled law is very rarely revisited, as I pointed out in Roe v Wade.

[boston bean]

78. I believe the constitution is a living breathing document, like most people

who are liberal do.

And yes, changing times and issues do impact decisions.

Whether you would like to agree with that or not.

[GGJohn]

79. Of course it is, I never said different,

but my statements stand, Justice's are loath to revisit or overturn settled law.
Sorry, but that's just the way it is, so I hope you're not hanging your hat on them overturning Heller v DC, it just ain't going to happen.

[boston bean]

80. They shall when we have the right mix of justices.

No freaking way we can continue to be an open and free society with the proliferation of these killing machines.

And that will win the day.

[GGJohn]

83. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying LALALALALALA

doesn't mean you're right, I have history on my side while you have nothing more than hopes and fantasies on yours.

[boston bean]

84. and right back at you. I believe that this country will one day soon

say enough is a fucking nuff.

[Jim Beard]

195. Here ya go Boston Bean

This should stomp the shit out of Heller............

Have the Justices Gone Gun-Shy?}Five years after its landmark gun-rights decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court is avoiding any cases about the Second Amendment

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

[beevul]

165. Wanting to ban self loading firearms is not "reasonable".

Let us try to be reasonable here.

Wanting to ban self loading firearms is in no way reasonable.

[treestar]

115. Why do you need a semi automatic ?

If that is your reason, then you are all whacked out survivalist. You really thing something like what you described is coming?

[GGJohn]

119. I own and live on a small farm, we have lots of predators that try to take our livestock,

I own an AR-10 chambered in .308 with an AZ compliant 5 round mag for hunting deer/elk for food, I have a custom built .223 upper for that AR-10 for smaller game and to kill predators that try to take our livestock.

You can believe what you want, doesn't mean it's accurate.
And yes, judging by the climate change happening and the refusal of this country to deal with it, a breakdown of society is coming.

[Duckhunter935]

125. great thing about the AR platform

Changing the caliber without having to purchase a separate rifle

[treestar]

139. for hunting deer and elk

never really thought of that. Why not an ordinary rifle ?

[Duckhunter935]

144. what's not ordinary

About semi-automatics? I would argue bolt action are not ordinary rifles by sales for the last 30 years.

[hack89]

146. Several reasons

modern rifles are lighter, more ergonomic and the synthetic furniture more durable. They are also extremely accurate.

[GGJohn]

149. It's much lighter than the standard bolt action hunting rifle with all the wood furniture on it,

its less recoil, ergonomic, and instead of buying two rifles for hunting, I can change out the upper receiver to a different caliber and use it to hunt smaller game.

I would never use it for self defense unless society totally broke down or a zombie apocalypse (LOL), a 12 ga. pump shotgun is much better suited for that, and where I live, I don't worry about it in the least.

I do have 4 full safes full of firearms and ammo, but most of those firearms are of historical value, not for shooting and when my father passed, I inherited his firearms.

[Waldorf]

150. What makes the AR15/AR10 platform quite popular is the ability to push to pins, pop out the current

upper assembly and pop in another in an entirely different caliber.

[Lizzie Poppet]

129. The only semiautomatics I own... (this ended up being a long post...fair warning!)

...are relatively low-capacity handguns and a .22lr rifle with a fixed, tubular magazine. One of the centerfire handguns uses 9-round magazines, the other 8. The .22lr handgun (a target competition model) has a 10-round magazine. My competition rifles are all bolt-action. So I could certainly say I don't need something like an AR15.

But is need the determining factor for legal availability, even if the item is potentially dangerous? That's a complicated and important question. I accept the notion of banning non-essential items that pose a significant threat to the public...but only if that threat has been demonstrated to be significant (which may be demonstrated with semi-automatic firearms, although the fact that the enormous, overwhelming majority will never cause harm to a human being leaves that open to debate) and for which there is a practical, do-able way of removing them.

With semi-automatic firearms, I'm by no means certain that latter qualification can be met. Semi-autos probably comprise at least a third of all firearms currently in civilian hands. That estimate may well be low, given how gun sales have exploded for the last decade and most new sales are semi-autos. Well over a hundred million semiautomatic guns, in other words. Even if I accepted that banning them is a good idea (I don't...), the task of actually removing them from society seems effectively impossible.

And now a little rant on survivalism, to get back to your question to another poster. I put this at the end, so you can skip it if it's of no interest. =P

It's a source of no small amount of eye rolling to me that so many survival "preppers" get their focus so very wrong when they concentrate heavily on weaponry and other combat-oriented gear. While most even vaguely plausible "shit hits the fan" scenarios might include the need to defend yourself, equipping oneself for extended combat operations (often at the expense of other survival measures because they spend so much on combat gear) is silly. Even if the SHTF scenario is long term or even permanent, if you're getting into firefights so often that you need enormous amounts of ammunition and other supplies, then you're doing it wrong. The odds will catch up with you, even if you're Team Six material (and virtually none of these people are). You're going to stop a bullet...in a situation in which modern trauma medicine isn't going to be available. Hello there, room temperature.

Survival in such a situation isn't about "stuff" in the first place (more on that below), but the stuff that matters most is food and water, shelter, and basic medical/hygiene supplies. Self-defense gear matters, but you don't need your own personal logistics train, ferchrissakes. If you're in a Hurricane Katrina situation and your home's destroyed, you might need a gun...but you will need food, water, and shelter.

The big risk where I live (Portland) is earthquake. A truly big one could leave the area largely in ruins, with no power or clean water for weeks or even months. So I have some big water containers (and a really good filter), a bit of long-term type food, and a pretty serious first aid kit, among other useful things. It just makes sense, living on a damn fault line. I have guns, too...but that's not because they're "post-apocalyptic" survival gear. If I were buying this stuff all over again, they'd be a ways down the list, after those other supplies.

But as I said, the key to surviving in a long-term disaster situation isn't stuff. It's community. We're herd critters. Our species went down the path of cooperation and specialization, and it's been a good choice, evolutionarily-speaking. Groups survive where individuals cannot. The ability to form a cooperative, self-reinforcing group is more important to survival than any amount of gear or "leet combat skillz."

Okay, rant over. =P

[Duckhunter935]

147. nice rant, thanks

[GGJohn]

153. Having cases of MRE's is also a prudent move,

they've improved over the last several years and aren't half bad plus the shelf life is pretty good on them also.

[Lizzie Poppet]

156. Yep.

Shamefaced confession: I actually really like a lot of the meals! Here I am in "hardcore foodie" Portland saying something like that...I could get run out of town!

I have one case. I should buy a couple more. Articles I've read describing projected scenarios for a genuinely serious quake here have asserted that services could be out for several months. We could very well have such a quake. Apparently there's a lot of tension in the faults around here and this part of the PNW is "overdue" for a major temblor.

Oh, and I live literally on a faultline.

[safeinOhio]

45. Not a ban, but just

the same restrictions we now have on full automatics. Those restrictions have proved to be legal and affective.

[GGJohn]

47. I would have no problem with opening up the NFA to include semi auto rifles

as long as they allowed the selling of new autos to those that are qualified to legally own them.

[safeinOhio]

51. Sure, add to that

a much higher tax and greater penalties for violations.

[GGJohn]

53. Agreed. eom.

[Springslips]

43. "yet, firearm laws are getting more liberal each year. "

Maybe when they hear the gun laws are being liberalize the gun nuts will fight against them!

[lark]

91. Are there any restrictions you'd support?

What is your answer to stopping the daily gun massacres? Or, are you fine with those, because that's how you come across? It seems like you are fine, even gleeful, about guns multiplying like cancer. Guess you think it's OK that people can literally own arsenals to create war like conditions, like in San Bernardino? Do you support terrorists buying guns? If so, you are supporting terrorists, just like the rwnj in congress.

[GGJohn]

94. I would like to see the NFA reopened and semi auto rifles classified as NFA titled weapons,

but at the same time, I also would demand that new full autos be allowed for sale to qualified law abiding citizens.

My whole premise isn't really about firearms, it's citizens allowed the freedom of choice to decide what's best for them and their families.

[lark]

104. Ha, the law does't say anything about citizenship.

Terrorists from other countries come here to get guns. That's what your choice is getting us. I'm 100% for freedom and hate the current prison profits laws on drugs, traffic fines, because that's all they do is increase people in jail and prison profits. Why are you anti-drug, isn't that also a personal choice and one that causes far less harm than your cherished guns? It's not the drugs fault that some overuse them, is it? See, your crusade for freedoms, is only about freedoms you want, not about people exercising their free will or you would not be anti-drug.

[smirkymonkey]

134. Not for much longer.

What is it with you gun people? You are completely out of control when it comes to this issue. No compromise at all.

[pipoman]

25. It doesn't matter what anyone wants or how many supports

Without a constitutional amendment your request cannot happen....ever

[-none]

70. All it took was a Supreme Court decision to get us to where we are now.

Why would it take a constitutional amendment to fix things? Why would not just another Supreme Court decision?
A couple of new Supreme Court appointees that knew and understood American history would do it.

Keeping in mind the historical reason for the militia. That reason no longer exists with our modern military.

[GGJohn]

72. Apparently you don't understand how the SCOTUS works,

Heller v DC is now settled law, Justice's are loath to revisit or overturn settled law, even if 2 liberal judges were appointed to the bench, the chances of overturning Heller v DC are very miniscule.
Just look at Roe v Wade, we've had a RW court for quite awhile now and it still stands as the law of the land.

[-none]

90. Appearently it is you that does not understand a few things here.

The Supreme Court has reversed itself before and there is no reason why they can't do it again. It will happen with firearms control in mind for stopping the mass murders. Count on it.
For all practical intents and purposes Roe vs Wade has been pretty well gutted in most states. The pro-birthers are working on what's left. Roe vs Wade may be the Law of the Land, but it is not much the law in many states.
The above is absolutely backwards to common sense. They say abortion is murder, but don't have any problems with the killing them later, after they are born.

[GGJohn]

92. Apples v Oranges.

That's the states, not the SCOTUS, and very rarely has the SCOTUS revisited settled law and actually overturned it.

[pipoman]

99. It will take a hundred fucking years. . you do know this right?

Until then the existing case law is the law of the land.period.

[yeoman6987]

121. The states are doing the same with guns

California, Connecticut, Colorado, Maryland and cities like Chicago and New York are making gun control laws that suit them. So it's not just abortion getting tougher laws but guns are too.

[DonP]

157. Actually, Chicago gun laws are now the same as all of Illinois State Pre-emption applies

IIRC, California has state preemption too.

Not sure about the others.

Illinois changed it when they passed the concealed carry law 2 years ago.

Individual cities and counties can't have any gun laws that are more restrictive than the state gun laws.

It prevents having a patchwork of laws that make you a criminal by driving across a city limit or county line.

A lot of state have them for alcohol sales too.

[lark]

98. VRA was settled Supreme Court law and it was over-turned.

This current "interpretation" of the law can also be over-turned, just like I'm hoping will happen with Citizens United.

[pipoman]

101. Neither will happen in your lifetime....what will you do today?

[GGJohn]

103. As I said, very rarely does the SC overturn themselves. eom.

[lark]

105. But, it does happen.

If it's happened before, it can happen again.

[GGJohn]

107. Yes, it does happen on a rare occasion.

But I hope you're not hanging your hat on the justice's revisiting Heller v DC, because, IMHO, it ain't going to happen, at least in mine or your lifetime.

[lark]

116. In today's messed up rw world, I don't trust the SCOTUS to do anything right.

I'm just hoping for a better, saner, world eventually, with better government all the way around. Of course, it could go the other way and we could become Somalia, we're not that far from it right now. If a repug becomes president, your semi-automatic guns will be safe, but Medicare, social security, ACA and your ability to have a good paying job will probably go away. Which is more important?

[Eleanors38]

191. "Get us where we are?" SCOTUS merely affirmed where we have been for years.

The most stringent regs on firearms were in the South, due to apartheid, and in some cities. That all changed after the 60s, and before Heller was plopped on the bench.

[Lizzie Poppet]

112. The union will dissolve long before that happens.

Not violently, I don't think (and I certainly hope), but the days of this country as currently constituted are numbered. That number isn't all that low, mind you; we're probably a couple decades away...although when this happened to the Soviet Union, it happened faster than anyone imagined. But it's coming.

When it does, whatever polity ends up forming in the Northeast can (and probably will) enact such bans. So will California, which will likely "go solo," as none of the other states it borders are all that politically similar. The rest of the polities that form are extremely unlikely to enact extreme gun control measures in the foreseeable future. It's certainly not likely here in Cascadia.

I can't state strongly enough how deep the divide is on this issue, although the utter shitshows most GD gun threads here turn into should provide a clue: even on a progressive forum, the issue is incredibly divisive. You will not see any sort of national consensus for extreme gun control measures for generations, if ever. That doesn't prevent sensible controls...but sweeping bans of large categories of weapons aren't happening.

[yeoman6987]

118. The last major overhaul on gun control was by president Clinton in 1994

What happened in November 1994? Oops. Huge GOP landslide.

[Photographer]

13. En masse? Well, that explains the glut of teabaggers and republicans in congress.

[lark]

85. Yeah, who cares that millions are killed?

At least you got your rights and that's all that counts to you, obviously.

[GGJohn]

88. No, what counts that law abiding citizens have the right to make the choice of what's best for

themselves and their families.
And here I thought freedom of choice was a cherished right, guess I was wrong.

[lark]

93. Freedom to live is more important.

Your cherished and beloved guns take that right away from others, often with no provocation, on a daily basis. What do you recommend to stop that? Haven't seen any answers from you, just mine, me, my is what counts.

[GGJohn]

96. My firearms in no way is the problem, they've never been used in any criminal manner

and my point stands, law abiding citizens should have and still do, have the right to determine what's best for themselves and their families.

Don't like it? Well then, I can't help you.

[EX500rider]

168. "who cares that millions are killed?"

Huh? About 9,000 people are murdered with firearms in the US every year..did you mean "every 111 years!"?

[treestar]

113. Why ?

What is wrong with banning semi automatics?

Adam Lanza killed 26 people in 5 minutes.

Who else needs than but a spree shooter ? Or active duty military in combat?

[Elmergantry]

12. Would that include handguns as well?

32 killed with handguns:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting


BTW good luck with your ban...

[lostnfound]

20. Airplane crash? Aerospace community: how can we make these safer? Mass shooting? Gun community: crickets.

They got no answers and evidently aren't troubled AT ALL by the daily unfortunate side effects of their passion.
Because they don't come forward with suggestions on how to change ANYTHING. Apparently they LIKE it the way it is.

The rest of us should just shut up and give up, and wait for it to get bad enough that the gun community experiences enough personal loss themselves to notice that the situation is, um, less than optimal..

[pipoman]

31. You just don't like what you hear

Most don't believe gun laws have a single thing to do with it. Mental health services, policies exporting jobs, income inequality are among the biggest factors, but alas, some think completely impossible dreams are the only answer....others know what the word "impossible" means...

[baldguy]

50. We all know that NRA propganda has worked, and it's worked well.

The fact that we have a mass shooting every week proves it.

[pipoman]

64. The only real threat the NRA has is, 'we will sue and win on constitutional grounds'...

There are many federal laws crafted around the dreaded 2nd amendment. There may be some more possibility though I haven't heard too many. There is opportunity in states for sure...but alas, big gun control really has no interest in actually selling their ideas to voters, they would rather lobby and hobnob on the hill than find solutions.

[lostnfound]

135. I like those solutions just fine but I don't see the gun community exactly aligned on them

The right wing half of the gun community is usually not in favor of government mental health programs.

But we who are not in the gun community ought to just be quiet and wait for the gun community to come to the rescue, with proposals to stop the epidemic of mass shootings.

The gun community owns this problem.

[pipoman]

138. No, the issue is that those most concerned waste their time on constitutional impossibilities...

[lostnfound]

170. The gun community owns this problem. Why doesn't "those most concerned" include the gun community?

Instead they focus all of their energy on fighting those who want to control guns, and devoting no energy to how to counteract the growth of mass shootings.

[pipoman]

171. No, I see plenty of suggestions from liberal 2nd advocates

They are always swept aside by those seeking the impossible. Possible things like making NICS checks available for private sales and starting a public service campaign for voluntarily transferring through the system. Why haven't these two things been done by this president? If background checks on private intrastate sales will make a difference, why wouldn't we make it possible and appealing until we get a law. Right now Colorado is not in compliance with their own law because FFL gun dealers are under no regulatory obligation to provide the service.

No, this is being waged as a battle rather than a btotherhood. Gun owners and 2nd amendment types are very much overwhelmingly law and order types. They also believe the old, 'sacrifice rights for safety and have neither' philosophy. The happy medium...the yin and yang is voluntary compliance for the safety of our country. After a few years you will have an ally in the majorityof gun owners and state laws enacted will make way for some sort of federal solution.

Big gun control has done exactly the same thing for 2 decades expecting different results...that means they are crazy or corrupt...the verdicts are in, we will work within those confines or we will do nothing.

[lostnfound]

174. What about the backlash against smart guns that only fire when in one's own hands...

A voluntary choice by gun makers to make them, and gun shops to sell them was hit with such backlash by the NRA..

[pipoman]

176. There isn't a single good option available....

Until there is an option law enforcement is comfortable with, the public isn't going to support..there is the obvious issue of 300 million plus guns without that will never have....

[Duckhunter935]

177. allow them to be sold

Do not force them like they wanted to do by outlawing all other weapons. Let the market decide. Let the police and military have them if they are so great.

[treestar]

163. Saw an editorial

In the local paper by a Trevor Hughes. He said we as a country are willing to sacrifice people in the name of gun rights.

That's what they don't want to come out and say.

Naturally the victims survivors don't agree but their numbers are not enough ETA I am describing what they think. I don't but I know there are posters who would claim I did.

[pipoman]

21. Since that isn't going to happen....

Maybe we should concentrate on things that can actually happen?

Maybe making it possible to do background checks on private sales.

Improve access to mental health services.

Concentration on state legislative activity.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Farook passed a background check

On the other hand if he or his friend couldn't purchase the semi auto weapons he and his wife used that might have limited the carnage. The rifles and pistols they had should be banned. Failing that all ammo purchases should go into a federal database so that law enforcement can investigate large purchases.

[pipoman]

57. Do you realize

That law enforcement hasn't the time or inclination to investigate 100,000 felons, mental health cases, and domestic abusers who call the FBI from the gun store to tell them they are trying...in real time...to illegally buy a gun and who just lied and signed a federal document under penalty of perjury. Every single day this happens...today.. <5% are even investigated...and you think they're going to investigate ammunition sales?

Tens of thousands of people have over 10k rounds of ammunition....they will not be investigated until the 100k felons etc above are investigated.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. yes best to do nothing because anything we do will not be perfect.

the arguments from gunnerz are just tediously stupid and predictable. Tens of thousands of people should be in a database that can be easily cross referenced by federal agencies investigating domestic and international terrorism. Computers are really good at keeping searchable records with sizes well into the hundreds of millions of entries. Really even if we accept your assertion that tens of thousands of people are each hoarding more than 10,000 rounds of ammo, that is not a problem.

Next argument for continuing to do nothing about mass slaughter?

[Hangingon]

95. The San Bernadino terrorists had a garage bomb factory.

If they had no semi automatic firearms, they would have gone to the bombs. Radical Islam has a long history using bombs. People determined to create terror Will adapt.

[Warren Stupidity]

128. technical derailment diversion.

The rifles used in the San Bernardino mass shooting were illegal under California law because they were modified and violated the state’s ban on assault weapons, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined on Thursday.

Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the suspects in the Wednesday shooting that left 14 people dead and 21 wounded, were armed with four guns. They carried two .223-caliber semiautomatic weapons and two 9mm semiautomatic pistols, according to San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan.

The two semiautomatic rifles were versions of the popular AR-15 model, according to San Bernardino officials. One was made by DPMS Inc., and the other by Smith & Wesson.

While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057

Oh wait a sec, how many people were killed by explosions in the attack? What? Did you say "zero people"?

Now please proceed with your gunnerz technical derailment diversion.

[Hangingon]

152. Okay. I'll just wait and see.

[Eleanors38]

192. We'll have to take it up with the NBA: National Bomb Association.

[pipoman]

131. Why don't you care that 100k felons, crazys, and domestic abusers are ignored?

Why do gun controllers only insist on the impossible? There are many things that aren't constitutionally impossible, they are always dismissed by the outraged....keep doing the same things expecting different results..

No...federal databases are unconstitutional and will not happen...

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Their internet playbook puts the "technical derailment"

front and center.

[TNLiberal4]

42. Someone has to know the terminology

The unfortunate truth is that someone has to know the terminology enough to make effective laws. You know the NRA thugs will throw in loopholes and legislators (knowingly or unknowingly) will include them.

Look at the federal assault weapon ban or the new NY assault weapon bans. Gun manufacturers were out there with "compliant" models before the law's ink had dried.

Thats why I'm all for a blanket ban on all semi-autos with detachable magazines.

[Locrian]

54. absolutlely

The lack specifics and/or lack of knowledge is what makes a lot of laws full of loopholes. Witness the entire banking/financial industry. Trying to act any sort of effective law without knowing the first thing about the specifics is doomed.

[Squinch]

151. True. That's why no one but doctors can discuss laws about medical practices and products. And

why no one but butchers can pass laws about meat safety. Oh, wait... well... hang on there.... it turns out that's just stupid!

Even though its the same argument you guys pull out of your ass, practically word for word, every time there is another massacre enabled by the gun lobbies and the gun owners who would like to keep reform from being discussed.

[TNLiberal4]

175. Discussion is great

I think we're on the same side of this issue.

Discussion is great and forms the basis for legislative policy. My point is that even the most well intentioned laws are ineffectively if they are poorly written or rife with loopholes. That is where the "technical" knowledge is important.

It is no different if we are talking about regulating gun manufacturers or the financial industry. When the technical knowledge is by and large limited to industry insiders we are not going to get effective legislation.

[Squinch]

184. Bernie Sanders is not a financial industry insider. Do you think he is capable of putting

together effective legislation about the financial system? How about Elizabeth Warren?

They are poorly written and rife with loopholes because the gun lobby, enabled by the gun hobbiests, requires that they be written that way. If our legislators wanted to write a law without a loophole, there is no doubt that they have the wherewithal to bring in whomever they need to advise them on how to word it correctly. They simply don't wish to do so. Because they fear the people who think their hobby is worth a weekly massacre.

That argument simply doesn't hold water.

[safeinOhio]

49. This law has stood the test of time

and the courts. It has been effective. Could well work for a larger class of firearms.

The National Firearms Act (NFA), 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as I.R.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA&quot is Title I.

[Duckhunter935]

60. problem is fully auto

Weapons were not in general use at the time but semi-automatics are the most widely used type of weapon now.

[jberryhill]

97. Opium poppies were a widely grown garden flower too

And cannabis was a major cash crop.

[Duckhunter935]

102. and I am for cannabis legalization

[jberryhill]

122. So am I, but that's not the point

There have been numerous instances of things widely in circulation which were restricted. Nothing is perfect, but go see how easy it is to find a set of Lawn Darts.

[Duckhunter935]

124. and weapons are heavily

Restricted, just pull up the federal, state and local regulations. The many thousands that restrict firearms accessories and ammunition.

[jberryhill]

140. Clearly not enough

It's a lot like the tax code. Riddled with exceptions, loopholes and enforcement issues. That's why there are so many.

[Duckhunter935]

143. clearly need to be enforced

So correct

[safeinOhio]

132. You could buy one from the Sears catalog at the time

now you can't. You can't even get a Sears catalog either.

[Duckhunter935]

136. yes but most did not

So they were not in general use. Yep, I agree on Sears, used to have the best tools. I never go there anymore sadly.

[edgineered]

56. No, I do not believe that

No, I do not believe that so-called gunners think people are so stupid that they care whether a gun is fully auto, or can fire as fast as your finger allows. I also do not believe that the so-called gunners themselves are that stupid.

Start with this analogy: Before digital photography came about, a suggestion frequently given to those who would shoot 36 exposure rolls and insist on showing every picture: If you show all 36 pictures to someone and I show that same person only the six best from the same roll, they would think I was a much better photographer.

Now for the explanation: It is a matter of efficiency. Whether it is a double barrel shotgun or a fully automatic rifle there are a limited number of rounds. By squeezing both triggers at once or spraying a hail of bullets in a matter of seconds a shooter must reload immediately, whereas firing each shot independently guarantees more hits. One shot, one kill is a much wiser approach for taking out multiple targets not confined to a single area. (before the usual Sunday morning crowd here goes ballistic with the Alert button let me say that this post is intended as a statement of fact and not endorsement of or approving the use of any weapons or strategies to inflict harm, incite rage, or upset anyone)

It would not surprise me to learn that these so-called gunners think people are stupid for other reasons however.

[aikoaiko]

67. An argument for a lack of critical thinking when proposing gun bans?

Ban the gunz11!1

[Jester Messiah]

75. "You can't have this, you can't say that, you can't go there, you can't do that."

Land of the free, baby. Amazing that now we have purported liberals trying to restrict the hell out of people.

[G_j]

86. I'm not sure if they think we/people are stupid

but some certainty treat others that way.

[shadowrider]

89. Ban pressure cookers

In the blink of an eye, faster than anyone could with a gun, more people were killed and maimed in Boston.

I say ban the pressure cookers.

[Renew Deal]

109. Pressure cookers have a use other than killing

Do guns?

[shadowrider]

111. So pressure cookers used as bombs are ok, since they have more than one use?

Is that what you're saying?????

[stevenleser]

100. That is their way of derailing any discussion on gun control. Trying to turn it into a technical

discussion on the performance abilities of various firearms and firearms classes.

[cherokeeprogressive]

123. You think this is a discussion about gun control?

It's an exercise in "look at me!" style message board posting, and nada mas. Hence the insult right in the subject line.

[Duckhunter935]

126. not gun control at all

It would be gun confiscation

[cantbeserious]

110. This Citizen Suspects That Appeals To Reason Will Not Persuade - Certainly The NRA Agrees

eom

[Lizzie Poppet]

117. I'd like to go on record...

...as stating that I can't stand the tactic of deflecting the conversation from the main point via technical quibbling. That's not debate or discussion...that's just arguing, and doing it badly. It accomplishes nothing useful.

However, sometimes certain technical details are germane to the debate. Not whether something is an assault rifle or an "assault weapon." But for example, some gun control advocates have suggested that with civilian possession of paramilitary semiautomatic rifles like civilian ARs and AKs is how powerful the ammunition is (and perhaps that ammunition should be banned). And while that is indeed true compared to most handguns, it's legitimate to point out that the ammunition for those weapons is considerably less powerful than that used in most common hunting rifles. That's not a deflection, it's pointing out a potential problem with trying to set a limit on ammunition power. Again, just an example...

But the above caveat aside, yeah...it's a silly tactic and its use annoys and embarrasses me. I enjoy "talking shop" with other shooters...but a debate on gun control isn't the place for shop talk.

[cherokeeprogressive]

120. Yawn

[Facility Inspector]

127. .

[G_j]

130. as if people don't recognize all the NRA talking points

ad nauseam...

[Igel]

137. How about we de-glamorize them?

Ban their mention in anything but the most evil and moralizing of terms in any public speech. With a view to phasing that out once we can cleanse the historical record of such hate and threat speech.

Do anti-gun advocates really think just banning them will make a difference, when their use is glamorous, advocated, pushed, in popular films, in music, as toys, and even in historical works of fiction? When they're touted as means of self defense.

It's like prohibition: Until gun violence is thoroughly shamed in all of its forms, until every last trace of it being a good thing is eradicated from public *and private* discourse, we'll still have binge gun use just like we had the speak-easy during Prohibition and teen binge-drinking now. People will die even though their access to the source of death and pain is prohibited. People will show completely understandable weakness--can't blame them for alcoholism or traffic accidents caused by the improper use of a legal product. The product itself should be illegal and placed under the most stern form of opprobrium.

The rest is a convenient scapegoat. I mean, what use is there for civilians to talk proudly or boastfully about gun violence any more than talking about alcohol in those terms, when so many die on our streets from it. Or any violence or self-medication, at that? And why limit it to civilian use?

Every time we train a soldier to use a weapon like a gun or advanced knife training (as opposed to culinary "knife skills&quot it just means our enemies win.

[Waldorf]

141. Then you will need to ban everything except single shot weapons. A revolver can be fired as fast

as a trigger can be pulled.

[ileus]

142. Mine are made for saving lives...

[spin]

182. The fact that firearms can be used for legitimate self defense and often are ...

is rarely mentioned in the gun control debate. Frequently people are able to deter an attacker or a home invader by merely slowing they are armed. No shots are fired.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. Another stupid EMOTIONAL OP that gets no conversation going

[ManiacJoe]

172. Stupid, no. Ignorant, yes.

The great thing about ignorance is that it is easily fixed for people who are willing to educate themselves.

When discussing guns and their laws, there is no need to enter into a technical discussion if you don't want to. Unfortunately, the first thing most people do is quickly jump into a technical discussion. To make matters worse, most people don't have the knowledge to have an educated technical discussion, and they get upset when the knowledgeable folks point out their incorrect usage of technical terms.

If you don't know the definitions of the technical terms, don't use the technical terms. Be verbose and use their wordy definitions instead of the short terms. There is nothing wrong with slowly picking up the vocabulary, which is much better than misusing the vocabulary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

178. I disagree and that is because I watch sausage making for real

in order to get policy passed by people who actually do that, you need to speak the lingo.

Two things that turn off any policy maker faster than light

1.- Ignorant rants that are emotional. Once, twice, ok they will sort of listen, more than that nope.

2.- People who do not know the issue at hand.

Granted, being a subject expert does not necessarily earn you the policy you want, but it earns you respect. If people want to get changes in gun regulations (for the record I do), emotion and wrong lingo might make them feel better, but will get them ignored very fast.

For the record, many of our 2A fans who are stuck in riffling, and all that, have the same issues getting policy makers to listen to them... but they have the NRA and other organizations on their side. Fortunately the anti gun folks are getting better organized and are even getting people to advocate for them who have a clue and it is starting to pay off. The OP... I know she would get the same treatment by my policy makers as a few of my regulars at both city council and board of supers (unrelated issue) a big fat yawn.

Hell it is bad enough that even the press starts playing with their phones anymore. We all know we recorded the speech a year ago... pretty much same speech.

[ManiacJoe]

179. Actually, you seem to be in very much agreement with me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

180. Where I disagree is that people should not be stuck on lingo

It matters.

I mean if you are talking climate change and you start talking to city council about ppm of carbon and why that matters, they tend to pay more attention... if you go on a rant on how we are all going to sweat to death (while you are correct by the way, heat waves are on the way up), will only get you a bunch of very annoyed people.

It is the same with guns.

If you have somebody talking about why we have to ban assault rifles... pretty much that is already done... becuase semi automatics are not assault rifles. That happened back in the 1930s.

I used to be in the school that it did not matter if you knew the lingo. Now I know better, it matters and a lot.

[ManiacJoe]

181. You still seem to be agreeing with me.