General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAfter Orlando, it’s simple: Ban AR-15 rifles - great blog post from Bangor Daily News
http://callahan.bangordailynews.com/2016/06/15/home/after-orlando-its-simple-ban-ar-15-rifles/Ever since the tragedy in Orlando last weekend, Ive been trying to think of something to say in a post. All I can come up with is that Congress sucks. What is up with not banning AR-15 guns from civilian use?
Not to single him out, but as I sought words I found myself thinking about a recent post Rep. Bruce Poliquin put up on Facebook. He was referring to transgender bathrooms and called the idea intrusive and unsafe. Want to know what is more intrusive and unsafe than transgender people using the bathroom of their choice? AR-15s in movie theaters, elementary schools, workplaces and bars.
<snip>
If our elected officials are worried that a few extremist gun rights folks might cry that such a restriction is an attack on their rights and will keep them from using such guns for target practice, then let them cry. Let them cry their eyes out. Let them cry pools of tears because their pools of tears are preferable to the pools of blood left by a massacre involving semiautomatic weapons with high-capacity magazines.
Id much rather watch AR-15 toting people cry over the loss of their guns than watch people sobbing over the corpses of their friends, loved ones, children, colleagues and students. Again, its that simple.
<more>
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)For those who'll say, "but their aren't that many rifle shootings," semi-auto pistols need to be banned too. Let em sob, cry, whine -- who really cares?
RussBLib
(8,983 posts)it's helps to keep it simple
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)but in the end, it all averages out to the same people being everywhere.
librarylu
(503 posts)np Ban them all.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Ban AR15s and people still have access to AKs, Mini-14s, etcetera.
The only way to get rid of these rifles is to ban ALL semi-automatic rifles.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)or will they be compensated for the rifles, ammunition, scopes, magazines and other accessories for their market worth of hundreds of billions of dollars?
Just curious how this works in the alternate universe in which this is politically feasible.
elias7
(3,976 posts)I guess climate change policy is right out as well, since that would shake up a number of industries and people would lose jobs. And no single payer, since that would destroy the health insurance industry and all those employed by it, as well as those making millions from it. Come to think of it, change is not good, because there's all that nasty status quo to deal with. Ok. Let's just sell more guns and play roulette with all of our lives.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)or will they be compensated for the rifles, ammunition, scopes, magazines and other accessories for their market worth of hundreds of billions of dollars?
jpak
(41,741 posts)Then it's the Confiscation Squad
yup
Just reading posts
(688 posts)jpak
(41,741 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)gun confiscations?
jpak
(41,741 posts)they would be minor.
Most hardcore gun nuts are just plain stupid - and will end up like the Bundy Bunch
Clueless, gun-less and behind bars.
yup
Although I'm probably very moderate relative to my other gun owning brethren, I would comply, but Uncle Sam would need to write me close to a six figure check at legitimate "fair market prices" for as much as I've got invested.
Even considering the likely large level of "non-compliance" you'd get some some of the population, there are many folks just like me who would comply vs. face criminal charges, but I imagine it would get very expensive, very quickly.
Edit: I could see payments and confiscation/enforcement easily getting into the trillions if you're going after all Semi-Auto's.
jpak
(41,741 posts)no six figure checks for you.
If that's your stance, then more power to ya! That said, I personally wouldn't agree with it.
Some of the rifles/handguns that would be banned are quite literally historical pieces, and/or are worth quite a bit of money.
jpak
(41,741 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)jpak
(41,741 posts)$1500
or
Gaol
yup
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Don't you agree?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Not an "assault rifle"
No flash hider
clip fed
wooden stock
4' long
Would those be banned also?
Waldorf
(654 posts)compliance was between 12-16%.
jpak
(41,741 posts)yup
Just reading posts
(688 posts)So tell me, when will this Confiscation Squad be forming up? Will you be applying to join?
jpak
(41,741 posts)yup
And will you be going about it unarmed?
jpak
(41,741 posts)Soviet armored vehicles - check
Blue helmets - check
Jack boots - check
Tactical weapons - classified
yup
Just reading posts
(688 posts)giving details of how the Confiscation Squad works. Do they have comprehensive dental?
jpak
(41,741 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)EX500rider
(10,517 posts)You mean the 300 to 400 people who get killed by rifles every year on avg?
As compared to about 9,000 shot dead with pistols?
Or compared to over 40,000 dead in auto crashes? Over 30,000 who die in from falling? Over 38,000 who die in accidental poisonings?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)"sorry, don't own it anymore."
Now what? You sure as hell ain't gonna get a search warrant based on "I don't believe him."
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)That's some argument, but I don't think it's the one you want to make.
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)Because I an tell you as someone who has done the job you won't get cops in 99% of the US to do it.
The Feds don't have enough manpower to do it even if they did one state a year.
So who is going to lead that squad? Is your hand raised?
spin
(17,493 posts)They would are willing to take weapons from the bad guys but very reluctant to take them away from honest, responsible people.
I would feel exactly the same if I was a cop. 99.999 percent of the people who own AR-15 style rifles pose no danger to anyone. I can better spend my time trying to stop crime in my area.
If we were able to remove all such rifles from civilian hands the bad guys would just smuggle them into our nation. If you can smuggle tons of marijuana into our nation, you can easily smuggle firearms. If that happens the weapons that are smuggled in will likely be able to fire in full automatic mode.
elias7
(3,976 posts)Can't go single payer because of the havoc it would wreak on the folks in the insurance industry.
Can't do climate change because of the havoc wreaked on the industries that must adhere to new regs, on the oil and coal and gas industries that will disintegrate...
Your argument is for never changing the status quo, regardless of the future cost, because of present cost.
Where do you draw your lines?
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Repeal the 1986 ban on new manufacture of transferable machine guns. Repeal the "sporting purposes" aspects of the 1968 GCA. Take suppressors and SBRs off the NFA, and pass national concealed carry reciprocity.
Orrex
(63,083 posts)Recognize the public good of the seizure of those guns, and purchase them at fair market value analogous to the way homes and other property are acquired by the government.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)The right to take private property for public use?
So when do I get to shoot these confiscated guns?
Orrex
(63,083 posts)Tell me where you live, and I'll direct you to the nearest recruitment center.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)for the rifles involved. Those new receivers could still incorporate or use many of the existing accessories. That would mitigate the losses to owners.
The losses associated with prohibited features like detachable magazines could be compensated relatively cheaply. Not sure if there are other optional features that might be lost on the lower receiver but those could also be compensated. I don't think people really care about the bayonet mount on the barrel.
Replacement receivers would be rather cheaper for the government to buy than whole rifles and the exchange could be made as an even swap in the same manner as an auto recall using the manufacturer's usual outlets.
It would be expensive but not prohibitively so.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)M!As, Mini-14s, Uzis, AR-10s, etc.?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)unmodified would be subject to special permitting similar to what is provided for automatic weapons. Unmodified, weapons owned or lent by persons without permits would be offenses of law. Persons caught with them without special permits would be subject to prosecutions that could lead to judgements requiring fines for tardy modification, requirement to personally pay for the cost of modification, or at the owners' option release the gun in confiscation.
That would make confiscation, perhaps the most popular anxiety of gun owners, a matter of their own choice.
This would require cooperation with the manufacurers to create a timeline on the recalls that could meet production capacity.
In the end it would produce rifles that meet socially accepted operational capabilities, it would not prevent all shootings, woundings or deaths, from these weapons.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)trouble to retrofit tens of millions of rifles, and still let 100 million (at least) semiautomatic pistols remain in circulation with the ability to use detachable magazines?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)could be produced. I'm not a gun owner or user. So I am not familiar with handguns and don't know if a modification with a fixed magazine, or a modification that otherwise limited the length of a magazine would be feasible.
What I am looking for is something of a workable compromise. A way that doesn't result in a restriction based on appearance but because of its socially unacceptable capacity which is at the heart of much of the concern.
The government has provided billions in rebate dollars for energy modifications and equipment installation, providing for modifications that reduce public anxiety and to some extent the rate of fire of mass-shooters, seems as important as energy conservation.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)last 120 years. Making sets of replacement parts for that many different pistols would be a logistical nightmare, and cost would be astronomical.
What I am looking for is something of a workable compromise.
Well, by definition a compromise means each side has to engage in give and take. Here's my compromise.
The gun control side gets Universal Background Checks.
In return, the pro-gun rights crowd gets NFA reform. SBRs (short barreled rifles) and silencers will no longer be restricted items requiring a $200 tax stamp and months of paperwork.
Each side gets something. Sound good?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Higher standards for permitted ownership of unmodified pistols could be applied. And as firearms are often part of collections I think that the permit would be for the owner and not for each gun, although I can imagine variances in law that might require different types of permit.
I do indeed understand there are logistical issues even including manufacturers long out of business. One-off custom modifications could be possible but they might be prohibitively expensive.
I'm really not sure how, across the evolution of a model series various feature that could provide a useful modification evolved. AFAIK there may be parts which were relatively stable in their designs and that would facilitate a modification.
One thing to keep in mind is that public fear is about mass-shootings and although pistols are often used in crimes people are rather less concerned about them. So it may be politically possible to introduce something in the permitting process and not a requirement for physical change in capacity of some pistols.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)It's a good example of where gun control priorities are: "The most exquisite of moral pleasures" (Huxley) with the promise of "inflicting pain." She doesn't even have to go to war against an army of invaders to get her hate-on, just a comfy spot with MSM.
All she and her ilk have left, it seems.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)of that actually happening, do you not?
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)confiscation of the most popular rifles in America?
rdking647
(5,113 posts)dont ban the rifles. in practicality that wont work
instead make any magazine greater than 15 rounds an NFA item like we treat automatic weapons and silencers now.
a $200 tax per magazine,and they require a through background check.
violation is punishable by 10 years in jail and loss of ALL firearms plus the right to own firearms in the future
ileus
(15,396 posts)aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Such bills won't even get out of committee.
Nope.
jpak
(41,741 posts)yup
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(56,874 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 16, 2016, 09:37 AM - Edit history (2)
Members of Class A were hurt by members of Class B, so let's make members of Class C pay the price.
If you check old threads, you'll see that that line of reasoning was not held in high regard here.
With the passage of time, the difficulty of finding freedom fries on anyone's menu only increased, as what seemed like a good idea at the time came to be viewed as folly, quite like Prohibition. Then the folly became lunacy. Then the lunacy became disaster.
In America, we punish people for committing crimes, not for having the ability to commit crimes.
Your proposal might meet with a warmer reception in some country with a legal system that is not like ours.
Squinch
(50,773 posts)in a ten minute period.
hoffmanfiles
(7 posts)Hey hey, LBJ, how many laws did you pass today? Um, a hell of a lot more than the last few congresses, thats for sure. (Getty Images)
The other day, my wife and I were watching the HBO movie All the Way with LBJ. Bryan Cranstons portrayal of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th President of these United States was uncanny. (Bryan Cranston finally found a character more diabolical than Walter White.) He channeled LBJ in all of his insecurities, paranoia, and rage. He also captured the mans skills when it came to legislating as well as governing. Cranstons performance brought forth all of LBJs passion for bringing relief to the poor as well as ending discrimination against African-Americans. All the Way with LBJ demonstrated Johnsons almost frantic need to accomplish something while holding the highest office in the land.
LBJ sought power, in fact, he practically lusted after it, and would do almost anything to acquire it. While this and so many of his other character flaws and personality traits may not have made him the kindest, gentlest, or most pleasant man to be around, it also drove him to achieve great accomplishments. The numerous laws passed by Johnson during his presidency had more of a lasting effect on our country than perhaps any other president in our nations history. When it came to passing legislation, LBJ had more success than FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, and certainly more than any of the last several inhabitants of the White House. After all, whats the point of being the president if youre not going to try to do anything?. Of course, it was LBJ who stated Well, what the hells the presidency for? when asked about his ambitious agenda.
LBJ signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964 despite all of the Liberals who said it didnt go far enough, and all of the Conservatives who said it was too much too soon. (That must mean it was right) Many said that you couldnt force white people to like black people through legislation. Thats true. But you can force them to treat them equally under the law as the Constitution clearly states. (New York Times)
Yes, LBJ was flawed to be sure. In fact, if you compared him to todays Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, and asked me to choose either Johnson or Ryan to hang out with, Im pretty sure Paul Ryan would be my choice every day of the week. Johnson was mean, vindictive, selfish, needy, nasty to his wife, and at least from a political perspective throughout most of his career, a racist. However, when he was given the chance to make a difference when it came to race, he acted as none others ever have, before or since.
He seems like a good guy. Family man, football fan, grows a beard in office, likes rock n roll, and is serious about the job, and careful with his words. Wonderful. Now, get something done!!! (New York Times)
As I sit and reflect over another horrible mass shooting, this one being the deadliest in U.S. history, I can only think of what LBJ, flaws and all would have done when faced with what seems to be an endless stream of vicious killings. Im pretty sure he would have risked alienating his base, the old Democratic South, and he would have found a way to pass some sort of sensible gun control legislation.
Unfortunately, the way the House of Representatives is gerrymandered, with members reelected in their safe districts every election year, that type of legislation is all but impossible. The Senate isnt gerrymandered, but there are far too many Republicans as well as Red-State Democrats who are unwilling to propose any type of laws that would in any way infringe on the rights of gun owners, even those who are on terror watch lists. How have we come to this?
The pride of Siena College, Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice-President of the NRA. LaPierre is so powerful that there literally can be no gun control legislation passed unless he says yes, and he never does. (You Tube)
The NRA will not allow any gun control measures to pass the Congress. They have a tremendous amount of money, and they have made it quite clear to Democrats as well as Republicans that they will use all of their energy and wealth to defeat any politician who advocates for any form of gun control, no matter how bloody and shocking the murderous rampage may have been. 50 people were slaughtered in Orlando this past weekend, and you can expect your federal government to do nothing.
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has shed any pretense of his former sensible gun control self, and has basically advocated for more guns as the only methodology for stopping mass shootings and terrorist attacks. Our political system seems to have left us with no room for compromise. The only mutual points of agreement between the political parties is that the other side is to blame. The Democrats are too soft on Muslims entering the country, the Republicans are draconian and inflammatory in their approach to the Muslim world and in their intransigence over guns. Is there a solution? Yes, but it will only come from us, the public. We must demand it, and now.
Americas worst mass shooter, Omar Mateen. Was he involved with ISIS, or just an a-hole? Me thinks the latter not the former. (You Tube)
On Monday, under the leadership of Speaker Paul Ryan, the United States House of Representatives paused for a moment of silence to remember the victims murdered in Orlando, Florida this past weekend. The House and Senate of course both offered up thoughts and prayers for the victims, but for once, Democrats actually fought back. They heckled the congressional leaderships empty offerings of condolences, and demanded action. What were their outrageous demands?
Pass background check legislation so we can see whos buying these very powerful and deadly weapons.
Make it illegal for people on No-Fly Lists to purchase a gun. In other words, Republican members of the House and Senate are comfortable with people who the government has deemed to be too dangerous to get on a commercial airliner, buying assault rifles
Whats frustrating is that these arent radical anti-Second Amendment approaches. They are small but significant steps towards limiting some of the more questionable members of our society from getting their hands on dangerous weapons
Im pleased that the Democrats walked out on the Moment of Silence, but I doubt there will be any action enacted by the House or the Senate until at least after the next election, if ever.
The AR-15, the mass-murderers weapon of choice. Now available in black, appropriate for any type of deranged killer with a score to settle, real or imagined! (Getty Images)
So, what is it that the federal government could do that would at least perhaps save a few lives, because even a few lives would be worth our while.
Outlaw assault rifles. (Sorry Conservatives) They are impractical for home defense, and you cant take them out in public and pretend that you are going to stop a mass shooting that you just happen to stumble upon. Shotguns and handguns, and hunting rifles, fine, (Sorry Liberals!) but the place for compromise lies with assault rifles.
Strictly vet any person coming in to the United States from Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia. (Sorry Liberals) This isnt a ban on Muslims which is asinine, impractical, and impossible, and of course, illegal! (Sorry Trumpsters), However, people who come from countries where ISIS has established a presence, or who are carrying passports stamped from those countries need a closer look. (Sorry Liberals)
An American citizen who spends time in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, or Afghanistan needs to be at the very least briefed by the FBI. The last time I checked, those arent exactly vacation hot spots, so why would somebody go there? There are some countries that simply arent safe for Americans, and we are better off limiting visits to those nations.
Tell Donald Trump, you are not helping. A ban on Muslims is ridiculous, illegal, immoral, and carries the same judicial weight and effectiveness as the Burger-Meisters law to outlaw toys! Donald, could you please enlighten us on how we will be able to tell what a Muslim looks like? Could somebody tell this orange-faced blowhard that the largest Muslim nation in the world isnt even in the Middle East, its Indoneisia a country in maritime southeast Asia! Ahhghhhh!!!!
(Im sorry, but this is not a coherent policy. Its a racist knee-jerk reaction, and it accomplishes nothing. (You Tube)
As we learn more about the killer, we find that he wasnt so much an Islamic radical, as much as he was your basic nut-job. He hated gays and woman, but apparently he hung out at the very bar he ended up attacking. He used gay dating Apps as well. Perhaps this was nothing more than a case of a frustrated man who felt shame about his homosexuality, and took it out on woman as well as the gay community. Perhaps his religion played a role as well. Its hard to say until more facts emerge, but banning a religion is not an answer, nor is it even a discussion worth having.
There is compromise to be had, but it will take leadership and guts. LBJ said himself after he enacted meaningful civil rights legislation that he had most likely lost the south for the Democratic party for a generation. Its been longer than that, but it was certainly worth it. Are Republicans and Democrats willing to take that chance today? Dont hold your breath.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)too bad some of those laws have moved north of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Thought you'd lke to know.
aikoaiko
(34,127 posts)Did having an AWB in place in CT make you feel any better about the Sandy Hook massacre when a AWB compliant AR was used?
Yup.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Reschedule the entire class of equally-capable weapons, or don't. Otherwise we wind up with "well it doesn't have a bayonet lug" or "the grip extends at an angle of 67 degrees from the body" nonsense.