Heres your chance, Antigunners.

[beevul]

You want the gun show loophole closed.

You want a new assault weapons ban.

You want federal registration.

Feel free to add to that list (those are the big ones off the top of my head).

So lets compromise.

But before we do...




Tell us - the pro-gun people you so often find yourselves arguing with:


What are you willing to give up to get those things?

Lets face it - if you come to the table with nothing to offer, what you REALLY expect, is capitulation. Or perhaps for your agenda to be forced on us. I think that anyone with any real powers of observation knows quite well, that those things just aren't going to happen.

So, in the interest of compromise, What are you willing to bring to the table?

[falcon97]

1. Nothing.

If there is enough support to institute those restrictions, and if they are constitutional, then that's the way it goes. Don't ALL laws work that way?

[rl6214]

7. Thank God

there is not the support

[falcon97]

54. Unfortunately I think you are correct

that the support isn't there. Just to be clear, I would like to see the Second Amendment overturned. But there are just too many issues to prevent further gun control. I like Democrats having a large majority. I like moderates feeling at home in our party. We need that support on a range of more pressing issues, including health care reform. Taking gun control off the table is fine for me, as long as Democratic gun owners support other progressive policies.

[rl6214]

55. Dosen't this say something

that there is not the support? We the people, do not want excessive and repressive gun control. There are enough gun laws on the books, let's enforce them and move on to more pressing issues.

[falcon97]

58. Possibly.

I certainly think my views on Amendment #2 are in the extreme minority. When it comes to more gun control- in whatever form that may be- it would probably have majority support. Maybe it doesn't, but I think it would be close. Perhaps the determining factor would be the NRA's organization and money. There is no match for that on the side of increased gun limitations. So, yeah, we'd agree that it's best not to take this issue on. We'd disagree, I suppose, on whether the issue should be revisited in the future.

[X_Digger]

60. More gun control not popular..

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll

"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."

And it was dropping even before that CNN poll

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx

[falcon97]

70. As the story indicated,

the recent poll may be due to an (unfounded) belief that Obama is coming for people's guns. There has been an unfortunate decline in the percentage that want stricter gun control. If there was an organized effort in favor of new laws, perhaps the line would at least move slightly in the other direction.

[X_Digger]

72. That and..

new legislation being proposed, economic downturn and your 401k hitting bottom (guns usually make an excellent investment)..

[annm4peace]

2. LIFE ! I come to offer you LIFE !

[rl6214]

37. My life is just fine thank you

[tularetom]

3. First of all I oppose any and all restrictions on ownership of firearms

But what I fail to understand is why all the hysterical paranoia among some gun owners now that a Democrat occupies the white house.

What makes you think that the bush administration which spent eight years fucking with your Fourth Amendment rights, really gave a shit about your Second Amendment rights?

WTF do you think happened to all those NICS background checks that were done as part of the millions of 4473's that were completed during those years.

Bans of any kind do not work, whether is a ban on guns, weed, booze, abortions or whatever. This administration is smart enough to realize that. But somebody is making a lot of money scaring the shit out of gun owners.

[beevul]

4. Ok.

As far as "hysterical paranoia", people have only 2 facts to really go by.

Fact one is the voting record of someone that votes on issues as an elected representative of we the people.

Fact two, is that most of those voting on gun issues as an elected representative of we the people very seldom change their tune. In fact, I'd wager that the term "statistically insignificant" would be appropriate.


While I do not share in the "hysterical paranoia", I can understand it, and where it stems from. It can not be said that the fears of gun owners - such as those buying all the guns as reported in the MSM - are completely unjustified.

I NEVER thought that the bush administration really gave a shit about Second Amendment rights.

"WTF do you think happened to all those NICS background checks that were done as part of the millions of 4473's that were completed during those years."

The background checks (nics) are of name only, and contain no information about what firearm may or may not have been purchased by what name. The 4473's on the other hand, reside at the FFL where they were originally filed. Unless the feds are breaking the law.

I agree.

Bans of any kind do not work, whether is a ban on guns, weed, booze, abortions or whatever.

Well said.

My point in posting the OP, is that all the time we see the term "reasonable" and "compromise" being hurled at us by those that wish to paint us as umcompromising and unreasonable.


Lets find out just how "reasonable" or ready to "compromise" they are.

[raimius]

66. Bush

Bush was no friend of less-restrictive gun laws. He would have signed an AWB, but none was presented to him. His administration more-or-less sided with DC in the Heller case.

However, Obama has a very clear record on gun-rights legislation, and the Republicans, who at least claim to be pro-RKBA, took the opportunity to slam him for it. Politics as usual, unfortunately.

[MrModerate]

5. As a political equation, the "what do you bring to the table" argument . . .

Is eminently practical.

But antigunners like me (and I don't claim to speak for everyone who wants increased regulation and increased enforcement of existing regulations) who think that personal ownership of guns is a really.bad.idea (at least as it plays out in the US), your offer is like the Confederacy coming to the table saying "slavery's a given, but we might be able to compromise on some of the details."

Consequently, my minimum compromise is probably well past your definition of capitulation.

With regard to the 2nd Amendment, I believe the following things: 1) the Founders were talking both militia and personal ownership and were clearly for it; 2) even so, the 2nd Amendment turns out to have been a disastrous mistake; 3) if the Founders saw America today, they'd repeal or rewrite the amendment immediately.

I don't expect to win this fight, and I'll also admit that the political capital needed to win this (even if dems/progressives uniformly agreed) is just too huge and probably shouldn't be spent on this particular battle.

I'll just go on hoping I don't die from a gun crime that could have been avoided if the US had reasonable, effective, and enforced gun control laws like most Western democracies (and staying out of the US 11 months out of the year in places where guns are rare rather than common).

[bossy22]

6. a couple of things

the idea that if the founders lived today they would not have written the second amendment is not entirely accurate i believe...i think it may have been a little more specific but i still think that some guarantee of private ownership of arms would be in place. I say this because most of the people in the US still believe that firearm ownership in some shape or form should be a right. But then again...who knows?

The issue is that citizens of the US have a different view on firearm ownership than citizens of other western democracies. The majority of people in western Europe would be more likely to support a handgun ban. I remember some poll showing that in the UK the handgun ban was supported by a margin of 3:1...but in the US, such a ban is opposed 3:1

but the end truth is, though are gun violence level is high with respect to other western nations- the US as a whole is a safe nation....millions upon millions of Americans wake up and go about their day without hearing a single gun shot. Our firearm homicide rate is only about 3.9 per 100,000...though higher than most western nations, it is far from third world nations levels (which can range around 50-60 per 100,000)

[MrModerate]

8. "Safer than third-world nations" . . .

Now there's a goal to aspire to. I've been in those nations where AK-47s are casually carried on the street by unofficial militias, security guards, and everybody else who feels threatened by the fact that they're surrounded by guns . . . and I'm always intensely uncomfortable -- even then the guys with the guns are there to protect me.

I agree with your assessment of Americans' affection for guns . . . I just despair of it.

[grantcart]

10. Boy you guys just make it up as you go don't you.

The only third world country that has higher firearm homicide rate is Brazil.


I have lived for 20 years in third world countries (Asia) where in most of the countries no homocides by firearm would be recorded in a single year (Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Taiwan and others where they were satistically less than the US and almost universally confined to family disputes (Thailand and Indonesia)

The US is 3.72 homocide but also has an incredibly high 7.35 suicide

No other country besides Brazil and Estonia have anything approaching the combined number.

Countries in Asia for comparison have only 1% of the total death by firearm that the US has, per 100,000

country with the homocide/suicide rate
Japan .02/.04
Taiwan .97/.04
Singapore.07/.17
Hong Kong .12/.07
S Korea .04/.02


http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

[sl8]

52. Are firearms related deaths somehow worse than other violent deaths?

You cited only firearms related deaths.

From your cited web page, using the countries that you selected:

Total homicide/ Total suicide (per 100,000):

Japan 0.62 / 16.72
Taiwan 8.12 / 6.88
Singapore 1.71 / 14.06
Hong Kong 1.23 / 10.29
S. Korea 1.62 / 9.48

U.S. 5.70 / 12.06

The table on the web page you cited lists the U.S. as 13th of 36 countries in violent death rates.

[Howzit]

53. What about Colombia and South Africa?

Since 1998 guns licences are not being renewed in SA, but the same illegal Russian AKs that floated around during apartheid are still in circulation.

[Irreverend IX]

9. Why not focus on legalizing drugs rather than banning guns?

If you're worried about dying in a gun crime that would be the logical thing to do, since most gun crimes are tied to the drug trade in one way or another. And as long as you stay out of the handful of blighted urban areas in the US where gun crimes are concentrated, your chances of getting shot are extremely low.

[MrModerate]

12. I do stay out of those areas (on another continent in fact) . . .

and I do think the "war on drugs" has been an utter failure driven by feckless Mrs. Grundys with a considerable racist streak in their makeup.

But it's not either/or.

While drugs, guns, and violence are all wrapped up together, that's no argument not to go after guns as a priority. Actually, ending the war on drugs would be easier, with the hardest part being weaning police departments off their addiction to confiscated wealth as a major revenue stream.

[Irreverend IX]

47. Which do you think should be the higher priority?

As you mentioned, legalizing drugs would be easier. Public opinion on the matter is finally coming around and all evidence suggests that legalization would bring about a dramatic drop in crime. Banning guns, like all forms of prohibition, would lead to increased crime and violence as a lucrative black market emerges, and confiscation efforts could quite possibly spark a civil war. After decades of drug war, any teenaged kid knows where to buy drugs. There's no evidence that a "War on Guns" would be any more successful.

[MrModerate]

62. The reasonable societal responses to guns and drugs are not identical

Legalization/decriminalization is, IMO, both necessary and inevitable. But prohibition of intoxicating substances and appropriate control of dangerous machines are substantially different problems.

There is already a substantial black market in firearms since -- even in gun haven America -- most people agree criminals and irresponsible people shouldn't have them. Admittedly, there is some risk that otherwise law-abiding persons would be drawn into crime in pursuit of firearms, just as otherwise law-abiding persons of necessity enter a criminal orbit to obtain illegal drugs. But civil war? Hugely unlikely.

And let's be real: the compulsion to be intoxicated is much more intense than the compulsion to own a firearm. In practice gun control -- as you say, gun prohibition -- would be much easier.

[hack89]

14. Do you think that responsible ownership of guns is possible?

if it can be shown that only a small minority of gun owners are involved in gun crimes (most of whom can't legally own guns only) would you consider only proposals that specially target that small group without impact the civil rights of the majority? Or don't you care if the innocent are punished too?

[MrModerate]

61. Actually, I don't consider reducing the number of guns in America . . .

to be "punishment," so the issue of innocence doesn't come up for me.

In an ideal world (as I see it), a constitutional amendment would repair the ambiguous wording of the 2nd Amendment, clarifying state and federal governments' substantial power to regulate citizen ownership of firearms. The details would be worked out by states and the fed.

Basically, any firearm not stored in an approved (presumably municipal) armory and used on licensed premises would be illegal and subject to confiscation. There would be provisions to allow rural and sport hunting use. Gun manufacture as an industry would shrink drasically; retail operations would significantly downsize; and the multi-decade task of collecting and destroying the millions of guns plaguing society could begin in earnest.

It's not just gun crimes such provisions would address, but also gun accidents and the risks borne by all of society by having guns so redily available. Consequently, the issue of it being a small number of owners who commit crimes would become moot.

This proposal is not the majority view; however, it is the sensible one.

[hack89]

65. So you do think that responsible gun ownership is possible

but you don't care.

It scares me when people conflate civil rights with government powers. And like it or not, gun ownership is a civil right. What other civil rights in the Bill of Rights should the government's power to regulate be strengthened?

Curtailing civil rights in the name of "security" is not a progressive value - remember that it was not Democrats that instituted warrant-less wire taps, the Patriot act and the myriad other restrictions on our liberties. Whose side are you on?

[MrModerate]

68. Based on ambiguous language in the Constitution . . .

Gun ownership has been enshrined as a civil right. That should be changed. Not curtailed, but completely reimagined.

Let me point out another error in the Constitution which has subsequently been corrected because the people believed it needed to be: the "right" to own slaves. Let me point out that the right to drink alcohol has been prohibited and that provision later rescinded. If the people so choose, they can amend the Constitution.

Whose side am I on? The side of those who think that untrammeled ownership of firearms is a bad idea and should be corrected.

[hack89]

69. There is nothing ambiguous about it at all

certainly no more than the rest of the constitution.

Good luck with the amendment. Fortunately it will never happen.

[MrModerate]

77. Thousands of Constitutional scholars disagree with you re: ambiguity.

On the other hand, you're probably right about the amendment. It's one of the reasons I don't live in the US anymore.

[hack89]

79. And thousands agree with me.

more importantly, the Supreme Court does as well.

I am sorry that fear is such a big part of your life - it would take a lot to make me leave America.

[MrModerate]

80. *One* of the reasons, I said . . .

On the negative side, wingnut assholes and provincialism, while on the positive side love of travel and how much I can earn overseas are more important factors.

But for the purposes of this debate, the perspective from other countries that restrict citizen ownership of firearms and *don't* descend into tyranny is instructive.

[hack89]

81. But history is also replete with examples of countries

that have both restricted citizen ownership of firearms and have descended into tyranny.

The best way to prevent a descent into tyranny is to respect and protect civil rights. All of the Bill of Rights would be a good place to start.

[MrModerate]

86. I'm with you 100%!

Let's start there.

But, as the existence of 17 subsequent Amendments suggests, from time to time the wisdom of history (or, to be honest, the folly) has driven the American people to modify the original Consitution and Bill of Rights.

In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment has enshrined as a civil right something that ought not to be a right. It should be the subject of an amendment.

[beevul]

82. Those Thousands of "disagreeable"Constitutional scholars...

I wonder what they'd say about this:

Compare the free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution: “The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.” That language — not unlike the Second Amendment’s — of course does not mean that the right to publish one’s sentiments protects only the press. It protects “any person,” and one reason among others that it does so is that a free press is essential to a free society.

Its been amended over time, but the meaning is still the same.

Section 20. Freedom of press. -- The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty; and in all trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, unless published from malicious motives, shall be sufficient defense to the person charged.

http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/RiConstitution/C01.html


Would they see ambiguity in it as well?

[MrModerate]

85. Interesting, but not entirely parallel . . .

Besides, I've stated elsewhere that I personally believe the Founders meant both militia and individual ownership of weapons should be permitted. The language definitely makes that arguable, however, and I don't think they'd make the same decision today.

[beevul]

73. "millions of guns plaguing society"

Um...what?


We have 15 thousand-ish gun homicides annually.


We have 300-ish million firearms in possession of 80+ million people.



How exactly does "millions of guns plaguing society" square into that - without including into that number the guns owned by peacable folks that NEVER misuse them?

[MrModerate]

76. It's uncomplicated: I consider 300 million guns a plague. n/t

[beevul]

83. What?

"It's uncomplicated: I consider 300 million guns a plague."

So it has nothing at all to do with what is or is not being done with those guns, but the simple presence of 300 million firearms in private hands, that you see as a "plague"?


Please tell me that you're not serious.

[MrModerate]

84. I couldn't have said it better myself:

"The simple presence of 300 million firearms in private hands I see as a plague."

Outside of target shooting (a niche sport if there ever was one) and perhaps hunting, I see little or no justified civilian use for firearms. Law enforcement not defined as "civilian" in this context.

[raimius]

87. Why?

Why is the presence of 300 million objects a plague? If you do not care about use ("simple presence"), they are just objects. I don't see how they are a plague... Could you explain that?

Do you consider self-defense to be a justified use?
Do you consider recreational target shooting to be justified?
Do you consider collecting to be justified?

That covers the VAST majority...

[MrModerate]

88. OK:

1) Self defense in the course of professional duties (i.e., law enforcement) yes. In terms of ad hoc protection against random criminals, no. Too much danger to the rest of society having such deadly "objects" used in uncontrolled situations.

2) Target shooting's OK, as long as the weapons are secured in the facility when not in use.

3) Collecting's OK as long as the items are permanently disabled.

[Callisto32]

96. As for #1, Why?

Why should the government bureaucracy be allowed a right to such self defense, and the general society not? Especially, why when the police have often shown themselves to be woefully under-trained, or at least under proficient, in firearms use? This kind of position I find especially disturbing. I would posit that this would created a serious equal protection of law issue. It's a "some are more equal than others" kind of thing when you create an identifiable class like "law enforcement" and then give them less or more rights that the rest of society. I know it happens all the time, but that does not mean it is any less wrong. One rule for me and another for thee seems terribly elitist, don't you think?

[Callisto32]

95. This is a question I always ask, and it usually gets people angry

with me. I assure you this is not flame bait: Why would you like to allow the the government to retain arms, but remove them from the general population?

[quiller4]

94. I wouldn't want to live in the controlled environment you describe. n/t

[Abq_Sarah]

98. That's interesting

Do you believe the bill of rights is a list of rights granted by government to the citizens?

[NewMoonTherian]

29. You're both level-headed and sincere in your beliefs.

Even though we disagree and I think you've been misled, I understand where you're coming from, so I'd like to keep the discussion going. Here are some compromises I think would help in getting some of the things you're after.

Nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry licenses - The same a driver's licenses.

Concealed carry on college campus - This, in turn, may be subject to further compromise.

Reopening the machine gun registry - This wouldn't make them easier for criminals to accquire, as any new ones would still be subject to the NFA of 1936(I'd like the repeal that myself, but this is a thread on the subject of compromise).

Expansion of open carry.

Expansion of the Castle Doctrine.

These are a few off the top of my head. I'm sure others on the forum could add to the list. What kinds of concessions would it take on our part to make some of this happen? If you don't expect to win the fight as things stand now, then it's time to change your tactics in order to achieve meaningful goals, even if it isn't everything you'd like.

[MrModerate]

64. From my point of view, these are pretty radical proposals . . .

But let's see whether there's any hope of compromise.

• Instead of concealed carry license reciprocity or expansion, how about elimination of concealed carry simultaneous with expansion of open carry? That way, if you have some legitimate reason to carry a firearm you can do so, but you have to display it openly. If the objective is to intimidate criminals, that ought to do the trick. Of course, the "legitimate reasons" might be too strict for your tastes. Things such as "I like to carry a lot of cash" or "traveling these neighborhoods makes me nervous" would not make the cut.

• I can't see any legitimate use for civilian use of a machine gun (except as recreation). If it's a sport thing, then such devices could be stored at a licensed armory adjacent to a shooting range or similar facility. I'd think municipal armories would be a much better approach than any registry.

• With regard to the castle doctrine, I'm absolutely in support of nonlethal protective means for homes or defacto homes (project camps and bunkhouses, etc.). Tasers are seldom lethal. Perhaps community training programs in their use and subsidies for their purchase?

[NewMoonTherian]

71. I understand your seeing them as radical.

What I was highlighting was a list of changes pro-gunners would like to see, that anti-gunners might offer to compromise on when bargaining for things they want(though I eschewed what I thought were radical views, in fact I specifically conceded that repealing the NFA is probably not negotiable). It seems you're slightly open to a compromise on the issue of carry, as I can see you'd be willing to accept terms that aren't ideal for you(you're right though, in that the terms you set out still wouldn't be acceptable) and that has the rudiments of a fruitful discussion.

Your other two points are more hardline anti-gun, and I'll expand on why I read them that way.

Your idea for municipal armories(I'm assuming they would "rent" machine guns to shooters, utilizing extensive background checks and harsh restrictions, probably requiring they be used only on the shooting range within the armory) is essentially something that's already offered privately at machine gun shoots such as Knob Creek(I believe they have machine guns to loan to people, though I've never been there before. Can anyone shed some light on this?). So in essence, you're suggesting stripping individuals of machine gun ownership, and in return offering an inferior substitute for something we already have(machine gun rental).

On the castle doctrine, I'm not actually sure what position you're taking. I agree with you wholeheartedly on nonlethal defense if that's what an individual chooses to employ, but the castle doctrine(or "stand your ground" law) applies to all defense, specifically including lethal force, in any place the person has a legal right to be.

So we actually have the beginnings of an anti-gun wishlist counterpart to my pro-gun wishlist. Let's continue fleshing out this list to give us a more solid foundation.

- Elimination of concealed carry.

- Confiscation of privately held machine guns and establishment of municipal armories.

- Laws against use of lethal force in the home, in favor of training and subsidies for nonlethal force(I'm not accusing you of calling for laws against lethal force, but you haven't specifically voiced your views on it, I'm just listing what I would term the general anti-gun ideal).

- NICS checks on private sales.

- Semiautomatic weapon bans.

- High-capacity magazine bans.

- Handgun registration.

- Ammunition registration.

Is there anything you'd add to this list? Any items you'd change or clarify? I'm sure that what I've got down isn't comprehensive, as my pro-gun list wasn't either.

EDIT: I may have incorrectly conflated Castle Doctrine with Stand Your Ground. It seems in some states, Castle does indeed apply only to a place of residence.

[MrModerate]

78. Thanks for your thoughtful response. I'll attempt to get back with a reply later today.

Below is a link that highlights why I think the castle doctrine needs to be shaped to nonlethal force.

http://news.aol.com/article/texas-trespassing-shooting/472454?icid=main

[safeinOhio]

11. The only time we have passed restrictive laws

is when someone shoots or shoots at a President. Those that rant about Obama taking guns away and are driving up the cost of ammo I offer to make a bet with them. Other than someone shooting at the President, I'll bet, your choice of any 10 of my guns against any 10 of yours that the Federal Gov. will not come to take away any of your guns while Obama is in the White House. No takers, pisses them off and usually shuts them up. We hear the same thing every time a Dem is in office.

[comtec]

13. I have never understood the paranoia of the NRA crowd...

no new law will have the government coming into your home to TAKE AWAY your firearms.
NONE
ZIP
ZILCH!
i have no idea about local or state laws, but it is my understanding that those only exist in the minds of the paranoid.

The restrictions are on purchasing NEW weapons.
and lets be honest, they're weapons, designed to do only one thing and that is kill.

The restrictions are always on military grade weapons - AK-47's with fully automatic mode enabled, UZI's which are only good for spraying bullets at a group of people (accuracy is a non-entity) and the like.

Show me ONE hunting riffle that has been banned?

I find the gun-show loop hole pathetic, but unavoidable, i'd love to see it gone, but that is a impossible dream, and I am a realist.

The fastest way to dry up the market is to restrict ammunition sales.

I agree with Chris rock on this one, guns... 5 dollars... bullets... 5000 dollars EACH!

Am I agaisnt weapon ownership?
nope, not in the slightest.
If you pass the background check, and most people do, you are welcome to any hunting weapon out there, or any small caliber, non-automatic weapon of your choice.

honestly who needs a 50mm cannon?
or a chain gun? (despite them being FUN!)

if you get a hard on with a 100000000 round case, go ahead and spooge... but understand imho that anyone who DOES buy such a high capacity (100+, lets be reasonable) holder should also be immediately put on a FBI list.

That doesn't mean surveillance (where they follow you and invade yoru privacy, phone tapping, etc).. but it does mean that your actions purchases will be followed (by a computer program or a intern ONLY).
if you NEED a clip that holds more than 100 rounds, you are probably NOT a weekend hunter, and may have questionable motives.
you may also be a collector, and i think there should be that notation as well.
I believe in letting you do what you want, and I believe if you want it bad enough there should be reasonable hoops for you to jump through.

Of course I expect to be attacked and flamed.

Ration and gun humpers rarely go together, even here on DU, where I have a higher regard for liberal gun humpers :) IMHO education is the most important factor in AVOIDING weapon use against other people and their property... as well as counseling.

Anyway, there you are.

let the flaming begin!

[virginia mountainman]

15. I guess you do not know about New York's "Recall" of some rifles...

That legislation has recently passed the NY Assembly...

http://nordwave.net/new-york/?p=54

Nor,

California's ban, and confiscation of SKS rifles back about 10 years ago..

BTW, their is no "needs" qualifier on our civil rights...

[comtec]

18. How many people were arrested? How many complied and were fully reimbursed?

there seem like reasonable questions.

a recall is where the owner is reimbursed for loss of xyz.

in cars it usually means a free repair.

How many people were arrested? How many homes were illegally invaded and the owners not given proper warning?
It seems to me the scenario that is always placed before the thinking public is there are un-reasonable raids on innocent homes.
this is a court order, requiring reimbursement of costs!

you can wave around laws, but your lack of real numbers hurts your case.

this is a lawful, and orderly recall of weapons. no property is being forcefully taken, and the owners are being asked to comply within a reasonable amount of time and are being reimbursed.

again, your paranoia is unwarranted....this is not soviet russia.

but I have accepted that I would be unreasonably attacked, and so far there have been two takers.

of course reasonable is not a word that should be used in regards to the 2nd amendment argument. it's all purely emotions and something visceral, and quite penile.

[rl6214]

39. And the hits just keep on coming

Examples were given but you don't accept them because they don't meet your exact criteria. A RECALL or weapons is a confiscation. Dosen't matter if there is a meeger reimbursement. Then out comes the obligitory penis reference. More name calling a juvenile accusations.

[virginia mountainman]

41. WTF?!

It is MY personal property, the state does not have "recall" rights...

They did not own it to begain with??? WTF is up with that??

I have committed no crimes, I have lived by the rules, I WILL KEEP MY PERSONAL PROPERTY.

[krispos42]

51. !

rightclick, save

[Tim01]

16. You are dead wrong about automatic weapons. You are uneducated.

I am not going to argue every point of your post but automatic weapons are not available at your local bun store. The "assault weapons" mentioned in the Assault Weapons Ban are SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifles. They are not automatic.

If you think it is about automatic weapons you have been misled.

[comtec]

17. then why did yo ubother to reply?

and you really just proved my point and didn't answer me.

your paranoia is not justified for regular hunting weapons.

[jeepnstein]

19. It's not about hunting.

The Second Amendment is about the right of a lawful citizen to keep fighting arms. Where does hunting enter into the discussion?

[comtec]

23. What happened to the well regulated militia?

I suppose the key word being REGULATED!

I seriously doubt the founders had the kind of mania about weapons that people now have.

There is nothing wrong with due vigilance, but ti's like someone is taking away your binky...

and from a psychological perspective thats kind of sad.

[X_Digger]

28. Well regulated like your colon, not your bank. n/t

[jeepnstein]

34. Considering...

the lengths they took to break away from the British Empire, I'd say they were your worst nightmare.

You are just trying to justify your appetite for taking my Constitutional Rights by demoninzing gun owners. I cannot trust or respect anyone who displays such contempt for my freedoms.

What freedoms are acceptable in your world? Just those you hold personally valuable without regard for anyone else? That's so typical.

[rl6214]

40. You really don't know anything

about the second amendment. And again, more attempts at juvenile insults.

[dairydog91]

20. Actually, paranoia could very well be justified regarding "regular hunting weapons".

The VPC already tried to stoke a movement to ban "sniper rifles," a ban which would have encompassed many bolt-action hunting rifles.

[comtec]

25. I assume that due vigilance and sanity over came that

that is not paranoia, that's just common sense.

and what qualifies as a sniping riffle?
I would imagine it includes a special scope, and a longer barrel for better accuracy, as well as a much larger caliber/bullet size for better range, more power for a straighter path?

I am only talking about banning military grade weapons, not hunting weapons.

hell not even banning, but at least making them hard as hell to get legally.

[inkool]

26. Please look up the existing laws

Like the National Firearms Act of 1934. Military grade weapons are already "hard as hell to get".

[X_Digger]

30. All 'hunting rifles' are based on or are even used by

military somewhere. The Remington 700 'hunting rifle' was used by USMC snipers in Vietnam.

All those features that you listed for a 'sniper rifle' are on all hunting rifles. Hunting game requires more power, a better scope, a larger caliber bullet than hunting a person would require.

[Howzit]

48. "what qualifies as a sniping rifle?"

Any rifle that is used by an individual to knock out selected enemy combatants or assassinate political figures is a sniper rifle. The caliber, barrel length or sights used don't matter at all when the intent is to kill specific individuals. Almost any hunting rifle can be used for this purpose up to 300 yards by almost anybody. With a little more training and .30-06 bolt action from 1906 (most common hunting rifle), effective range can be extended to 600 yards and 1000 yards with lots of training. A .50 BMG rifle is not more accurate or effective to 1000 yards, but it is usable to 2000 yards by a highly skilled shooter simply because the bullet remains super-sonic out to that range (bullets become unstable as they pass from super-sonic to sub-sonic flight).

Instead of worrying about the capability of the hardware in the hands of the public or the capability of the average person, worry about what might possibly motivate someone to take up sniping as a hobby. Unless you address and remove motivation, you don't have any hope of preventing possible sniping behavior; least of all by restricting access to certain types of hardware.

[virginia mountainman]

49. Ahh, Your going to ban Military Grade weaponry???

I have a feeling you don't know what your talking about.......

This is a full, power, military battle rifle, that has hitting power, accuracy, and penetration that an AR 15, or an AK47 can only dream about It is a sporting rifle, made from a German K98k rifle.




Don't forget this one...It was widely issued..



Not to mention this...



Damn, no more pump shotguns...

damn certain not this one... A combat photo, from Vietnam...



A super common hunting rifle in America, Rem MD700 or a Winchester md 70...

Can't tell from the photo, just which one..

[Callisto32]

97. Actually,

Shorter barrels often give better accuracy because they are structurally more solid, and thus less prone to harmonic interference. Also, I thought that one of the things that makes guns dangerous is that they often can miss, like that uzi for which accuracy is not a matter of consideration. Which is it, an accurate or inaccurate weapon that makes for the greater danger?

[Tim01]

43. Because the ban is about semi-auto rifles like the one I hunt deer with.

My semi-auto rifle with its 5 shot mag would be banned under the Assault Weapons Ban.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" does NOT ban automatic rifles(assault rifles).
It bans semi-auto rifles which some people have given the new made up label of "assault weapon", no such thing.

I think you have been tricked into thinking the "Assault Weapons Ban" bans automatic rifles. Automatic rifles are not addressed by the "Assault Weapons Ban" at all.

I think you have been lied to and you have believed it.



If I am wrong just tell me you understand the "Assault Weapons Ban" has NOTHING to do with automatic rifles(assault rifles).

[benEzra]

59. Only a very small minority of gun owners are hunters (1 in 5)

and most hunters also own guns that the prohibitionists are fighting hard to ban. Most gun owners own guns for defensive purposes or target shooting, and those guns are the ones that would be affected by the "assault weapon" fraud.

The "gun owners are primarily concerned about hunting" meme is a gun-ban-lobby fraud. We're primarily concerned about nonhunting guns, which are far more common.

[dairydog91]

21. A couple points.

First, none of the proposed legislation deals with automatic weapons. "AK-47's with fully automatic mode enabled" are regulated by legislation from 1934 and 1986. The so-called "Assault Weapon Ban" did not deal with fully automatic weapons, nor do any of the proposed bans. The same goes for full-auto UZIs.

Second, statements like "The fastest way to dry up the market is to restrict ammunition sales" are going to create paranoia. Just like what car owners would do if the government said "No, we won't restrict cars, we're just going to limit everyone to 5 gallons of gas per year."

Third, who cares about enormous stuff like a "50mm cannon"? There are such weapons in private ownership in the US, to my knowledge they can still be purchased with BATF permission. I seriously doubt that anyone is harmed by the possession of field guns, seeing as its very hard to commit a crime with a multi-ton weapon that requires a designated gunnery crew.

[inkool]

24. Your post is really all over the place.

It is difficult for me to figure out exactly the point you are trying to make. Would you answer a few questions to help me understand your post?

1. Are you purposing closing the NFA and removing all fully automatic weapons from civilian hands?

2. How do you want to limit ammunition sales? Do you really want bullets to cost 5000 dollars each?

3. What do you consider to be a "hunting weapon" and "small caliber, non-automatic weapon"


Also if you do get flamed it may be good reason. Your post is full of inflammatory language. Calling people "Paranoid", "gun humpers", getting "hard ons" over guns and blaming there support for the 2nd on the NRA is not the way to start a civilized discussion.

[comtec]

27. the OP was far from civil to begin with...

and you will notice I'm not against seizing (without due compensation) weapons illegally, nor am I against making them impossible to get.

Raising the price of bullets will make (and I apologize it's near the end of a long week for me, and I can't think of a better term) "willy nilly" use of firearms less frequent.

of course a determined person will find away around laws, but they are a deterrent.

would you really go out to blow some one away (ok not YOU, hell probably no one on this board) if you KNEW it was going to cost you 100 dollars a ROUND.... and you're not guaranteed to hit with that first round, or to kill. It's possibel you'll need to fire several (hundred dollars) times to kill that person.

the legal question completely aside, cost prohibits, or at least, slows down actions, and when we're talking about LETHAL force, that pause can save a life.

so to answer:
1) seizing? are you an idiot? I never suggested that. stopping sales is all
2) see above
3) that is up for reasonable people to decide. but I think the definition is anything over 12mm? .5 caliber? sorry I don't know the terminology well. I'm sure something reasonable can be come up with. pistols are small arms, hunting riffles use small caliber, as I understand. Shot guns are large, but only semi accurate (spray, vs bullet) and exceptions should be made for people in bear and moose country.

at no point will you ever see me suggesting that weapons should be forcefully removed from a home without due process and compensation.

a felon has no right to own firearms. Should there be a process to change that person's ability to own firearms again?
it depends.

this is NOT a black and white issue, so please stop trying to make it one.

[inkool]

31. Again with the insults.

Please do not call me an idiot for asking a question, and I am not trying to make the issue black and white. Simply trying to carry on a civilized discussion even if you are being less then civil.

In regards to the three points above.

1. It seems that you do want to remove guns from civilians. It makes no matter if it is done by force, or with due process and compensation. The gun is still removed.

2. Legally speaking how would you support increasing the cost of ammunition by such a large amount. Most common ammunition costs no more then a dollar each with some as low as a few cents.

3. I would suggest that you become more knowledgeable about guns before you suggest trying to ban them.

[Iktomiwicasa]

33. You really do need to educate yourself about firearms

and what you want to ban and why. Your posts do show a great lack of knowledge of the subject, though I suspect the details aren't really important to you, you just "don't like guns".

[comtec]

35. "educating myself on guns" won't change my position, only make my speech prettier

in the end we'll never come to an agreeable accord.

what I have said has been twisted beyond reasonable limits.

I don't need to discuss specifics, because this is not a discussion on which gun does what, it is in generalities, because laws are usually generic, to an extent.

I have made my moderate stance clear, and yet you and your's insist on attacking me as some kind of gun grabber!

so whatever.

I knew it would silly to try to inject some sense in this thread, but i was bored at work.

I wish you well, and fewer paranoid dreams.

have a good life :)

[Pullo]

36. Just like a Creationist: Take a position on an issue first, and avoid facts as much as possible

then, when you are unable to support your position, abandon any discussion where you get called out

.....and you didn't forget to take a parting shot on your way out the door.


Nicely done! :applause:

[SecularNATION]

45. Yes, Indeed

Seems most of the antigun fanatics here at DU behave very much like fundamentalist creationists. They know next to nothing about guns, yet know guns are "wrong" and should be restricted or banned. Just like creationists "know" evolution isn't true, even though they don't know a thing about it, and have never deigned to take the time to educate themselves on the subject.

[Statistical]

57. It is exactly like that.

For gun grabbers it is faith.

The "know" people routinely buy automatic weapons from Walmart.
They "know" no reasonable person needs more than 10-100 rounds per month.
They "know" so called "assault weapons" are the single most deadly weapons in the word.
They "know" that semi-auto "assault weapons" are used by miltaries all of the world.
They "know" most criminals buy guns from gunshows.

When confronted with facts like:
NFA makes acquiring an automatic weapon extremely difficult and expensive...
Competition shooters can shoot 100-200+ rounds in a day and 10x as much in practice.
All rifles are used in <3% of homicides.
No military uses semi-auto rifles. "assault weapons" are to assault rifles as Hummer is to HMMWV
Criminals purchased <1% of firearms from gunshows based on the "NRA fueled right wing" Clinton DOJ.

It is like talking to a creationist. No amount of scientific data, research, articles, govt studies has any influence on the FAITH.

FAITH OF THE GUN GRABBER and CHURCH OF THE ALMIGHTY BAN.

[inkool]

42. I don't think anyone is asking you to change your position.

Just to have a basic understanding of the topic being discussed.

Your lack of knowledge on guns and existing gun laws makes having a meaningful discussion difficult.

Insults are not a good way to "inject sense" into the thread.

[tisfortomi]

50. Generic laws?

"I don't need to discuss specifics, because this is not a discussion on which gun does what, it is in generalities, because laws are usually generic, to an extent."

I think that about sums it up. Bye-bye credibility...

This is most definitely a discussion on which gun does what. What else is it? How do you propose to regulate something without specifying exactly what it is that you are regulating?

I fervently hope the laws of our land are not generic in the slightest, but rather are scrupulously specific. Otherwise we are giving the weight of law to a collection of fuzzy generalities and subjective feelings. Is that what you really want?

Allow me to suggest that if you are incapable of a specific articulation of your position, you in fact do not have a position; you have a "feeling."

[Statistical]

56. You think $100 bullets makes you a moderate? lol n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

74. So you want to propose laws on a subject you admit you are ignorant about. Great idea.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. Run away, run away.

[raimius]

67. Practical problems

Those who shoot as a hobby go through MANY times more rounds of ammunition than criminals. If twenty shots are fired in a robbery, it would likely make national news. If I fire less than 100 shots during a trip to the range, I consider it a wasteful trip. Many of my training drills consist of more than 10 shots per drill. A common course of fire at a competition is 20-30 rounds (each competition has multiple courses).
Massive increases in ammunition costs may hurt those who regularly engage in crime (I guess they'll increase the price of drugs to compensate), but it will kill the sport shooting community. I don't doubt gangs would spend thousands of dollars to murder their rivals. These are often multi-million dollar enterprises. However, no one I know could afford to keep their hobby under such a plan.

[patriotvoice]

89. Maybe he wants ammunition to be available only at ranges, and operate like dye packs:

"explode upon exiting the premises".

:eyes:

[rl6214]

38. Typical post from the gun hater

Uneducated and irrational with a fewpersonal attacks and general insults thrown in for good measure.

[SecularNATION]

44. Fully automatic mode?

Automatic weapons have been heavily regulated since 1934. So, for you to talk about restrictions on the purchase of new firearms, and then, two sentences later, say the restrictions in question are always on "military grade" weapons with "fully automatic mode", proves you don't know wtf you're talking about. The guns banned by the 1994 AWB were SEMI-auto, not "military grade". Not at all the same as what our military or any other military uses. They only look similar. Jeesh, you people are so goddamned ignorant. Furthermore, the 2nd isn't about hunting.

[jmg257]

90. Of course you don't understand...1) you aren't a gun owner. 2) you're ignorant.

And until you change these facts, until YOU have something important to lose besides rights you don't enjoy, then you will never understand.

But keep up the chatter with regards to things you clearly know so little about, gives the rest of us a chancde to provide a little education.

[X_Digger]

22. Hard to 'meet in the middle' when you're already standing on my toes. n/t

[jody]

32. When opposing sides demand either "prohibition" or "pro-choice" on a divisive, polarizing political

issue, IMO a compromise is simply not possible.

That's true whether it's abortion, same-sex marriage, RKBA or other issue.

When that issue is about a "pre-existing right" as SCOTUS identifies them or as PA (1776) and VT (1777) said "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right" its even more controversial because the "prohibition" or "anti" group want to eliminate a right that government is obligated to protect.

Government protection is the only way short of force that the rights of the minority or even a single individual are protected against a simple majority of votes whether directly by voters or the voters' representative.

Those pre-existing rights as a minimum include ones protected by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments.

I believe progressives support "pro-choice" and anti-progressives support "prohibition" and that applies to all pre-existing rights.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. As expected, no counteroffers were made. We must keep pushing back the know-nothings

Remember this thread when an attempt at guilt-tripping, or a plea for a 'reasonable' new law is made.

They will not give up *anything*, and when confronted on it- become abusive.

I'd call it war to the knife, but that's not quite appropriate, is it?

[virginia mountainman]

63. Agreed...

The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood
of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive
him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the
fact that we have made our position unassailable.

Sun Tzu "The Art of War"

Great words, for all of us, pro civil rights folks to remember. We must strive to make our position unassailable, we are well on our way to that goal..

The Anti Civil Rights forces, will fall.......

Μολὼν λάβε

[Xenotime]

91. I'll give up the fear and horror that guns bring. That should be an even trade.

[friendly_iconoclast]

92. Will you give up having people carry guns on your behalf?

[Recursion]

93. Should we disarm the police? NT