They hate me, now I want you to too.

[sir pball]

I'm a centrist in the worst way - I take reasonable positions from all sides and loudly proclaim them so that all sides hate me. I figure if you're all mad at me, I'm doing something right. That being said (and this is a slightly edited repost, yes)..

I support a lot of pretty strong gun control, just not the kind of regulations that play to the masses. I don't support an AWB because practically, it's a silly feel-good law that frankly does ban guns on looks (Patton called the M1 Garand "the greatest battle implement ever devised" and it's not by any definition an "assault weapon&quot and pragmatically is a piss-poor way to spend political capital; ~350 murders with rifles of *all kinds* vs. 6,500+ with handguns is a telling statistic to where we should be focusing our efforts.

I think every firearms transaction, be it from a dealer, at a gun show, through the classifieds in the local paper, or from your best friend, should go through an FFL (licensed dealer) and be recorded on a 4473 (the ATF form that records any gun sold via a dealer); I don't like registration but I'm very much in favor of traceability and I think the difference needs to be clarified and promoted. I'm entirely OK with magazine limits - my preferred handgun carries 8, and my single magazine-fed rifle can't handle more than five without starting to damage the $700 barrel. People who claim that 30-round mags are "ideal" for home defense make my head spin - who or what is gonna assault your home that you need 30 rounds to stop? At that point I'm cutting my losses and running. Licensing, fine with me - I routinely have a concealed-carry permit, which is advertising to the government that I own guns, so making it mandatory? No problem. Hell, I've openly said I would be fine with bringing all guns in America under the same very strict laws that regulate machine guns in exchange for some realistically minor concessions. And that's just off the top of my head - probably 85% of gun control I support but the polarized nature of the debate and especially the weird fixation on the fucking AWB makes it a hard if not impossible discussion to have.

I know that simply saying "I own guns" makes people here recoil in disgust and fear, and tends to cut off a lot of constructive dialogue - but I own guns, and I am more your friend than you may think.

[holdencaufield]

1. The only way I could hate you more ...

... would be if we were married.

[sir pball]

2. I almost am?

She's stuck with me through a lot more shit than I should ever ask of any girl; I just haven't popped the question since she's been adamant about not getting married before 30. Two years and eight months to go..

[holdencaufield]

3. If you love it ... put a ring on it

[sir pball]

4. Thanks Beyonce ;)

She and I have had this discussion a lot. We aren't going anywhere; at this point a ring would be nothing more than symbolic (not that symbolism isn't important)...and we kinda like Brad's "I won't get married till teh gays can."

[Mopar151]

5. I agree with a lot of what you have to say

I would propose that some "tactical weapons" and >10-12 round clips, magazines, drums, belt-feeds, etc be moved to the same federal status as full-auto. I don't think that the old AWB was particularly effective, except as a driver for speculation in "Assault Weapons", and I think that same "speculation fever" is driving the big surge in demand now - at least that's the sense I get from the gun nuts I've run into.

[sir pball]

6. I suppose it depends on how you define "tactical"..

I have at least three rifles that could be very well called "tactical weapons" and only one of them is semi-auto. All black, with bipods, and other Scary Features though.

[oneshooter]

7. Tactical is a mindset, not a material thing.

Now, who hates you, and why?

[kudzu22]

8. Here are the problems with magazine bans

First problem -- there are already tens or hundreds of millions of these things owned legally today. If you ban them tomorrow, and don't confiscate them, then how do you differentiate between a pre-ban and a post-ban magazine? They're not registered -- they don't have serial numbers on them. They're just a box with a spring in it. If you do confiscate them, you're going to owe their owners a LOT of money. It's illogical, ineffective and unenforceable.

Second problem -- the Second Amendment is about more than hunting and self-defense. It's also about having an effective militia. For those unfamiliar with this concept, that means having an armed citizenry capable of waging war. So, it goes counter to that purpose to make privately owned weapons less warlike. Granted, the likelihood of us ever having to use the militia is exceedingly remote (for now), but that is the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Miller case specifically noted that only weapons that are useful for militia service are protected. One would be hard pressed to argue that an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is not fit for militia service.

In short, if anyone is serious about banning "weapons of war" from private hands, they should follow the proper course and repeal or modify the Second Amendment.

P.S. Sorry, I still don't hate you

[av8r1998]

21. Thank You

Second problem -- the Second Amendment is about more than hunting and self-defense. It's also about having an effective militia. For those unfamiliar with this concept, that means having an armed citizenry capable of waging war. So, it goes counter to that purpose to make privately owned weapons less warlike. Granted, the likelihood of us ever having to use the militia is exceedingly remote (for now), but that is the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Miller case specifically noted that only weapons that are useful for militia service are protected. One would be hard pressed to argue that an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine is not fit for militia service.


For FINALLY stating the actual intent of the perfatory clause.

[Eleanors38]

22. I have a somwhat diff take on the "militia clause:"

It is the fed gov's interest & need in the wider, overall individual RKBA, so that it may fulfill its obligations under Article 1. The states are left with how to regulate the "carry" portion, so long as they do not run afoul of the 14th.

[av8r1998]

23. Ummmm....

Not so sure I understand your POV.
Are you saying that the Fed Gov't should/should not regulate firearms?

That the 2nd applies only to Militia insofar as the Federal Gov't is concerned?

:confused:

[jmg257]

26. But the PEOPLE decided a long time ago that an armed citizenry was NOT the

Best security...was not even necessary. WE decided we much prefer a kick ass standing army/navy, along with a federally controlled, and armed, select militia.

The 2nd amendment's security for the militia re: a RKBA is obsolete. With that right for the people, was an obligation and duty to be well- regulated, to serve, to be THE 1st line of defence...A notion long since rejected as ineffective by THE PEOPLE.

Look elsewhere for justification.

[kudzu22]

28. When was that voted on?

I must have missed that national referendum. The only way I know of for THE PEOPLE to change the 2nd Amendment is to further amend the Constitution. So, which amendment removed the citizen militia?

[jmg257]

29. That was in 1903 I believe, with the Dick Act & creation of the National Guard.

Wouldn't expect you to remember, twas a long time ago!

Said Nothing about changing the amendment, just making it obsolete (re the Militia/rkba).

Edit: likely soon after the citizens were given that holiest of recognition (i.e. tossed a bone) being grouped as "unorganized"...certainly mere untrained and unimportant shadows of their former role as the well-regulated security of liberty.

[kudzu22]

30. Acts of Congress cannot amend the Constitution

The citizen militia is still there, in addition to the National Guard. If the militia became obsolete in 1903, as you say, why then did the Miller court note in 1939 that only weapons suitable for militia service are protected by the second amendment? Did they forget that there's no militia?

They seemed to think that ordinary citizens are still the militia:

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

(Emphasis mine).

[jmg257]

31. Again..didnt say they amended the contitution. But they did

Usurp power to make the constitutional Militias of the several States obsolete by replacing them with federally funded and armed National Guard. Of course as representatives of the people, usurp might be ill-used here, even though congress wasn't granted that power in the constitution.

On top of that direct affect of a new militia, the continued support of A HUGE Army bi-year after bi-year also made the original intent of the 2nd obsolete...simply -a wellregulated militia is NOT necessary, nor is it needed to remove the pretext for that bane of liberty...a large standing army. We sort of puked all over the 2nd in that regard.

So being that the people decided they no longer wanted, or needed, the duty to secure their own liberty, the previous need for arms for that purpose is Obsolete.


Edit: if our roles in the militias are indeed so vital, why can't we all buy M4s? Shit, in NY, CA, &c, one can't even buy a decent AR, M9s need a special permit, we had a federal ban on SA assault rifles, mag capacities are limited, &c.?

Although it would be curious to wonder if had Miller been carrying a BAR...things may be quite different today.

[sylvi]

9. " People who claim that 30-round mags are "ideal" for home defense make my head spin...

...At that point I'm cutting my losses and running."

How would work, exactly? You blow a whistle for a timeout and the intruder lets you play through or something? Some of us have family at home that which leaves cutting and running off the table as an option.

Someone here posted a summary of data concerning shootouts - average number of rounds fired, percentage of hits, shots that hit but didn't stop the assailant, etc. I wish they'd repost that information. Defensive gun uses aren't the "one shot, one kill" Hollywood fantasies that a lot of "reasonable restriction" proponents imagine them to be.

Thirty-round magazines are the standard capacity magazines for ARs. They are ergonomic, feed reliably, and no one has been able to show that eliminating them would decrease the number of innocent gun violence victims, < 3% of whom by your own data die from rifle shootings.

[kudzu22]

10. Good point

If cutting and running is a viable option -- I do that before I fire round #1, let alone round #30.

[rdharma]

11. Cuddle them hi-caps!

[sylvi]

12. Troll alert

And once again, another stunning rebuttal from the grab nut contingent.

[apocalypsehow]

13. Yep. Nails it.

[sylvi]

14. And yet another

And yet another graduate of the Beavis And Butthead School Of Debate And Rhetoric shows up.

2-for-1 sale on clown shoes at JC Penney's tonight?

[Clames]

16. Poor things.

It's all they have really. No AWB, universal background checks is doubtful at best, their yelling at the empty room had done nothing but pump hundreds of thousands of firearms and millions of rounds of ammo into the market which will at some point result in driving down prices in the secondary market which will. They whine, complain, and insult because they have nothing else...

[CobblePuller]

25. See post # 24. n/t

[uppityperson]

27. See post #87. eom

[CobblePuller]

24. You should take some instruction here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262966#post43

Response to ellisonz (Reply #45)
Sun Mar 24, 2013, 10:43 PM
SunSeeker (4,172 posts)
46. Don't put him on ignore or you'll never be on his jury.

That is the problem with putting people on ignore. Then we can't be on a jury regarding any of that person's posts. I imagine a lot of DUers have put the more prolific gungeoneers on ignore. Unfortunately, that means when their sick posts are alerted on, the jury pool has less sane people to draw from--and a higher proportion of fellow gungeoneers.

That could explain why they tend to survive alerts.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #46)
Mon Mar 25, 2013, 12:07 AM
ellisonz (25,393 posts)
47. Rather he's been blocked from the group

Last edited Mon Mar 25, 2013, 12:08 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I agree with your theory on the jury pool - I have only the most personally malicious one's on ignore.

The above poster is a mocking troll IMHO. E lauhoe mai na wa'a; i ke ka, i ka hoe; i ka hoe, i ke ka; pae aku i ka 'aina. - Paddle together, bail, paddle; paddle, bail; paddle towards the land.

Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to ellisonz (Reply #47)
Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:22 AM
SunSeeker (4,172 posts)
51. Good.

I've never subscribed to a group before, so was not aware you could block people. Yes, I am so sick of the gungeoneers crapping on any gun-related thread in GD and LBN. Hell, I've had a few follow my from post to post, telling my I'm "obtuse" (hack89) and similar put-downs. I just don't get why the mods let people like that stay on this board. Glad this group started.
Reply to this post
Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Response to SunSeeker (Reply #51)
Mon Mar 25, 2013, 10:32 AM
ellisonz (25,393 posts)
52. Our goal is to not have that happen here...

...although we can't always be online and sometimes it's not so clear. The poster you refer to was the first one shown the door from this group. He will not bother you here.

E lauhoe mai na wa'a; i ke ka, i ka hoe; i ka hoe, i ke ka; pae aku i ka 'aina. - Paddle together, bail, paddle; paddle, bail; paddle towards the land.

In short, don't shit in the living room.

[av8r1998]

15. Excellent Post

I am glad that at least a few here are willing to engage in discussion.
I agree with you in principle, but I have some issues I would like to address:

I think every firearms transaction, be it from a dealer, at a gun show, through the classifieds in the local paper, or from your best friend, should go through an FFL (licensed dealer) and be recorded on a 4473 (the ATF form that records any gun sold via a dealer);

Here in CT we have a better solution:
Every private sale of a Handgun goes through a state facillitated NICS check. As has been mentioned here before, opening NICS to the public at large and requiring a background check in compliance with Tiart (records destroyed) would be a good solution, and avoid Pseudo-Registration No FFL required.

I don't like registration but I'm very much in favor of traceability and I think the difference needs to be clarified and promoted.
Agree. I will find it but I participated in a thread here which demonstrated how background checks and traceability could be accomplished without "registration".

I'm entirely OK with magazine limits - my preferred handgun carries 8, and my single magazine-fed rifle can't handle more than five without starting to damage the $700 barrel. People who claim that 30-round mags are "ideal" for home defense make my head spin - who or what is gonna assault your home that you need 30 rounds to stop?

Here I disagree, but not because I perceive a "Need" for 30 round mags. Based on your statement, you carry a 1911. I don't wish to carry a firearm that weighs 40 oz, and has feeding problems with Hollow Point rounds (which are SAFER than LRN). My big problem with mag capacity bans is "What is High Capacity. A Glock 17 comes out of the box with 17. A Springfield XDM with 19. In the case of the Glock, it is a function of volume and grip length. I don't want to have to pin my mags, or worse PAY to have them pinned. A smaller cap mag won't fit. My second problem is that a mag ban makes NOBODY safer. In an "Active Shooter" scenario like Newtown, Aurora and Columbine, a shoot can perform retension reloads (reload with a round in the chamber) and have NO interruption in shooting. If they are "Somewhat" proficient they can perform a Slidelock reload in approx. 2 seconds. When the victims are unable/unwilling to fight back those 2 seconds are used up by the victims REALIZING they can flee. By the time they do, the shooter has already reloaded. Now consider a scenario where someone else can shoot back. That 2 seconds is an ETERNITY. I think a defensive, trained defender should have as much ammo as possible to stop the threat. My third problem is have there been any studies/incidents where people were shot with rounds 12+ and no reload was performed? Have there been any instances where a 10 round mag actually saved lives... meaning people escaped while a shooter was reloading after firing 11 rounds. Since the Federal AWB contained a mag limit, I am sure that there are... if the law was effective.

who or what is gonna assault your home that you need 30 rounds to stop? At that point I'm cutting my losses and running.
If this is your thought I suggest before you strap that gun on again you take a course specific to your state in Rights, Responsibilities and Mindset. Your statement tells me you lack this type of training.

If you are able to flee, than, at least MORALLY, and in some cases LEGALLY you should.... before firing another shot. Shooting an attacker is dangerous to you, and to others around you. The only way I take that shot is if it is my ONLY option. The decision to retreat should NOT be an equipment based decision.

Licensing, fine with me - I routinely have a concealed-carry permit, which is advertising to the government that I own guns, so making it mandatory? No problem.
I am as well ... with conditions:
1) Carry permits are treated like drivers licenses. They are issued by states, and as long as certain conditions are met, AND SPECIFIED they be valid nationally. My concern with a federal permit is that I would not want to meet New York's draconian requirements. By "conditions" I mean what we do with Driver's Licenses ... if you are 16 with a CT License you STILL cannot drive in New York. Beyond something like that I would want ALL states to honor it

2) ALL permits become SHALL ISSUE... meaning they MUST issue one unless you are disqualified, and that those disqualifiers are standardized. E.g., you can't have a permit with a Felony or Violent Misdemeaner, SPECIFIED Mental Health Issues, etc. Again, I would NOT want permits to be issued based on Need, Credit Rating, Medical History, Arrest Records, or the much abused "Terror Watch List".

3) Since we would have universal permitting and background checks, remove the restriction on Out Of State handgun purchases.

Hell, I've openly said I would be fine with bringing all guns in America under the same very strict laws that regulate machine guns in exchange for some realistically minor concessions.
Concessions would have to start with eliminating the tax stamp and the CLEO sign off. Why would I pay a $300 tax on a $500.00 gun? It makes no sense, and limits the RIGHT to keep and bear arms to those who can afford it. Do you have the RIGHT to a $4000 Wilson Combat? No. But if all you can afford is $200 you can go out and buy a used Taurus revolver. The NFA Tax Stamp would make some unable to afford even the least expensive of firearms.

Beyond that, I am NOT will versed in Class III stuff, so I can't really comment.

[sylvi]

18. Well said. nt

[premium]

17. I commend you for keeping your cool on the thread in GD

despite a lot of rude, uncalled for comments.
I agree with a lot of your proposals, but not the one that would bring all guns under the NFA, that would put ownership out of reach for a lot of people who couldn't afford the cost.
Keep up the good work, more like you are needed.

[jeepnstein]

19. Centrist? Not even close.

I'm happy for you that you shoot a rifle with a "$700 barrel". But that doesn't somehow put you in the center on this debate. You advocate a registry for all firearms, magazine limits, and consider handguns "where we should be focusing our efforts". Nope nothing centrist about you. And you may think you're my friend but really all you want to do is take away my Constitutional Rights with a smile on your face.

[sir pball]

20. Where did I say anything about registration?

I said firearms should go on 4473s. That's a paper trail, not a registry. TPTB can't punch my name into a database and come up with a list of my firearms, hell, if I didn't have a CCW they wouldn't even know I was an owner at all. I suppose if you think the gov would muster up the time, effort, and resources to seize and process the paperwork from every dealer then you might have a gripe but that's hardly a trivial task and it is the Federal government, not the most efficient organization out there.

I'll assume you don't have a CCW and have bought every single firearm privately with cash; anything other than that loses you the right to bitch about "registration" and "anonymity".

And yes, I do think that addressing the illegal diversion of handguns is a hell of a lot better a tactic than a do-nothing feel-good cosmetic assault weapons ban, seeing as how handguns represent 85% of crime firearms.

Your attitude is no better than theirs. Granted, you hold most of the cards now, but they're getting to be persistent (and well-funded) little gnomes.