General Discussion

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)

109. Then what are you worried about?

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:23 PM

Dec 2012

Tell me, in the case you mentioned, what happened to the sawed off shotgun? Where is it now?

Banning thirty round magazines doesn't require a single square foot of prison space, because nobody has to go to jail in order to carry that out.

If there were a $500 fine and loss of the magazine, not only does it not require a single square foot of jail space, but it is revenue positive.

The consequence, over time, is that there are fewer of them and they are less readily accessible. Additionally, people like the gun owner in the Newtown situation would not have them around the house for others to steal or otherwise get ahold of them. There's your "gentle nudge".

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

162 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

THIS is what firearms looked like when the 2nd Amendment was written ... [View all] Bozita Dec 2012 OP

When the goofs show up here with a picture of a quill pen Loudly Dec 2012 #1

Ask 'em where the First A's qualifying clause is... CTyankee Dec 2012 #6

It's past time to put "well regulated" to good use neverforget Dec 2012 #2

Militia. pscot Dec 2012 #4

Regulated Beaverhausen Dec 2012 #12

Precisely Sherman A1 Dec 2012 #21

At the time the BOR was written, Jenoch Dec 2012 #111

And do we have well run? No. We have disastrously run. robinlynne Dec 2012 #113

We have the National Guard and . . . brush Dec 2012 #120

Why are you including automatics? Jenoch Dec 2012 #130

Take a look at these videos brush Dec 2012 #143

Implicit in "Well run" is a Sherman A1 Dec 2012 #117

Girandoni Air Rifle wercal Dec 2012 #3

??? Bozita Dec 2012 #5

Wiki: yewberry Dec 2012 #7

Lewis and Clark had an air rifle with them Progressive dog Dec 2012 #36

and here I thought the weapons of Anatoray in "Last Exile" were pure fantasy. MNBrewer Dec 2012 #47

There was also the puckle gun... beevul Dec 2012 #122

WTF. Fail again. 1500 strokes for 30 rounds! Lets replace all guns with it now!! Logical Dec 2012 #9

It's not so hard. Glassunion Dec 2012 #11

Serious question.... Logical Dec 2012 #57

I know that there are air rifles today Glassunion Dec 2012 #63

Wow, but I am curious why no one offers this. I am sure it would be popular. Logical Dec 2012 #69

It might be the shape of the round wercal Dec 2012 #72

Fairly common lumberjack_jeff Dec 2012 #105

There are some powerful air guns jberryhill Dec 2012 #106

Yeah, I'm sure by the 700th stroke the shooter would be tackled and handcuffed already. JaneyVee Dec 2012 #31

Right. And because this gun had so many problems.... Barack_America Dec 2012 #30

The Technology was there wercal Dec 2012 #67

The drafters of the second amendment were not armorers jberryhill Dec 2012 #78

The OP established what the FF knew about wercal Dec 2012 #86

You have not established they knew about this BB gun jberryhill Dec 2012 #115

Fine. You can have a paintball gun jberryhill Dec 2012 #56

Its lethal at 150 yards wercal Dec 2012 #68

Yah right... jberryhill Dec 2012 #71

Question wercal Dec 2012 #77

How many prisons were needed when gold was banned? jberryhill Dec 2012 #81

You didn't address the questiom at all wercal Dec 2012 #85

Lead paint and drugs are readily distinguishable. jberryhill Dec 2012 #88

Bad example wercal Dec 2012 #107

Then what are you worried about? jberryhill Dec 2012 #109

Yep..just like assault weapons became so rarified wercal Dec 2012 #123

"Rarefied"? jberryhill Dec 2012 #137

Still waiting for an answer on that shotgun jberryhill Dec 2012 #136

No the police took the shotgun wercal Dec 2012 #141

There is a great difference billh58 Dec 2012 #148

Irrelevant Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #65

How on earth is it irrelevant wercal Dec 2012 #70

Was it a weapon then in common military use? No. Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #76

I guess the fact it was used in a military at that time wercal Dec 2012 #80

Again that's pretty largely irrelevant Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #91

I've actually read the federalist papers on the subject... wercal Dec 2012 #135

Get this - you have to roll around on the ground between shots! jberryhill Dec 2012 #74

I guess you're right wercal Dec 2012 #83

WTF are you on about now? jberryhill Dec 2012 #87

Uh, no, they didn't live in a rapidly changing world Confusious Dec 2012 #110

You do realize that the 18th century wercal Dec 2012 #139

And historians dispute when that happened Confusious Dec 2012 #142

Please do yourself a favor and read a history book wercal Dec 2012 #144

You can go to Wikipedia or open any history book and find out what I said is true. Confusious Dec 2012 #145

I'm sure the irony of your last statement wercal Dec 2012 #146

There's no irony Confusious Dec 2012 #147

What else can I tell you wercal Dec 2012 #149

Saying "you seem to be stuck on internet searches and wikipedia" Confusious Dec 2012 #151

Gun Freak? wercal Dec 2012 #152

I am realistic enough to know that we cannot merely presume original intent, Confusious Dec 2012 #153

This is what people keep missing nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #8

I really am not sure if semiautomatic rifles would have changed their minds. HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #100

Reading the Federalists and Jefferson nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #116

I think you may be right. n/t HereSince1628 Dec 2012 #118

I have said that before hfojvt Dec 2012 #10

As an owner of a black powder rifle I can understand the bayonet thing newfie11 Dec 2012 #19

In contrast, 100 years later pscot Dec 2012 #40

It wasn't even about the guns -- it was that there was no standing army starroute Dec 2012 #13

This needs to be an OP. I'm getting tired of seeing the meaning of the 2nd Amendment being pacalo Dec 2012 #15

You should email Supreme Court Justices and tell they have it all wrong and misinterpreted it. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #20

Okay, that's funny. pacalo Dec 2012 #23

Right .... because the supremes never get it wrong etherealtruth Dec 2012 #27

Four out of nine SCOTUS justices already agree. RomneyLies Dec 2012 #35

It's not as easy as you suggest. Jenoch Dec 2012 #132

Until tis court. Now it is regular practice. n/t RomneyLies Dec 2012 #133

You support the most rightwing court in 70 years? Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #48

No, but theirs is the only opinion that technically matters. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #50

And again, all it will take is one of the evil five to leave RomneyLies Dec 2012 #61

Really? You made an appeal to authority mocking the poster. Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #95

Such a sage court Doctor_J Dec 2012 #62

They already know they have it wrong tkmorris Dec 2012 #156

well, the gun nuts claim they can protect from invasions/our government Doctor_J Dec 2012 #60

I am fied up with the cowards of today hiding behind the 2nd amendment Skittles Dec 2012 #14

YOU TELL 'EM, SKITTLES! pacalo Dec 2012 #16

Why do they never, EVER explain the part about the "well regulated militia"?... I guess it's because world wide wally Dec 2012 #17

They would be apalled and bewildered by today's weapons Liberal In Texas Dec 2012 #18

Damn... what kind of weapon light is that? OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #22

Some may want it for their rearview mirrors. pacalo Dec 2012 #24

huh? OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2012 #25

You do realize that rifles that held muliple shots were available back then Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #26

So replace all guns with those, deal? JaneyVee Dec 2012 #32

Lol! NealK Dec 2012 #112

You do realize that the memorized rightwing rebuttals are just getting boring, right? Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #49

If facts are boring, then I aplogize. Travis_0004 Dec 2012 #82

You do realize that it doesn't take very much to convert a semi-automatic weapon.... OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #54

Actually it does.. Mec9000 Dec 2012 #66

So installing a slide is an incredibly tough modification? RomneyLies Dec 2012 #73

It is still semi auto Mec9000 Dec 2012 #84

Yet it allows you to fire at nearly automatic rates of fire RomneyLies Dec 2012 #90

not really Mec9000 Dec 2012 #92

Yes, really. billh58 Dec 2012 #150

LOL!! Yeah, okay....whatever you say. nt. OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #104

Actually- needledriver Dec 2012 #28

Do you think the Founding Fathers were stupid? Taitertots Dec 2012 #29

They also thought blacks were 3/5ths of a person & women couldn't vote. JaneyVee Dec 2012 #33

Ah, so you are of a mind that the founding fathers were geniuses with perfect foresight RomneyLies Dec 2012 #39

Is your position is that the Founding Fathers didn't think firearms technology would advance? Taitertots Dec 2012 #43

Of course they knew it would advance RomneyLies Dec 2012 #45

The rate of advancement argument is non-sense Taitertots Dec 2012 #51

Your arguments are ludicrous RomneyLies Dec 2012 #52

Firearms technology hasn't Taitertots Dec 2012 #99

Firearms technology barely budged in the fifty years prior to the AWI. RomneyLies Dec 2012 #101

No, there were huge breakthroughs in firearms technology in the lives of the Founding Fathers Taitertots Dec 2012 #103

Your NRA talking point assertions that billh58 Dec 2012 #154

Wow, that's a whole basketball squad of strawmen... friendly_iconoclast Dec 2012 #155

Responding to the wrong post sorry Taitertots Dec 2012 #158

It is not good that you have ignored everything I've ever posted... Taitertots Dec 2012 #157

Your subject line is very true, billh58 Dec 2012 #159

Good, don't reply to my posts with idiotic bullshit. Taitertots Dec 2012 #160

And most people owned them, and how many used to them for killing people? The Straight Story Dec 2012 #34

Even less reason to let the new model 'Murkin pscot Dec 2012 #44

Top of the line current technology of the day. Why would they be required to own anything less? geckosfeet Dec 2012 #37

"The Last of the Mohicans".... Iggy Dec 2012 #38

What an utterly irrelevant comment to make. 1-Old-Man Dec 2012 #41

How long did it take to reload them? What range were they accurate to? DainBramaged Dec 2012 #42

You really believe Lanza could have slaughtered 22 kids and 5 adults pscot Dec 2012 #46

The rate of fire of a muzzle-loading musket and/or rifle at the time of the American Revolution.... OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #58

When drug gangs, rapists, home invasion thugs guardian Dec 2012 #53

Home invasions happen a lot in your 'hood? GoneOffShore Dec 2012 #55

The "stupid musket argument" is exactly the context of the world in which the.... OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #59

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH@!!! Zoeisright Dec 2012 #121

if a gun is my "little penis substitute" guardian Dec 2012 #131

�Never trust a government that doesn�t trust its own citizens with guns.� ~ Benjamin Franklin. -..__... Dec 2012 #64

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. ~ Benjamin Franklin RomneyLies Dec 2012 #75

+100 RetroLounge Dec 2012 #114

I'd rather trust the government than be forced to trust idiot neighbors like Nancy Lanza. Dems to Win Dec 2012 #119

Awesome post Berserker Dec 2012 #138

If you wanted to fire 30 rounds in a short period of time you needed 30 men with muskets. yellowcanine Dec 2012 #79

It's winter Berserker Dec 2012 #140

More examples of privately owned arms. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #89

I don't think that a field gun would have commonly been privately owned in the 18th century. Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #93

You might not think it, but they were, and they were part of the reason for the 2nd. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #94

Well, no, they weren't Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #96

But that is not the point, now is it? This thread and my reply are about the 18th - 19th century. Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #97

And again it's pretty largely irrelevant to the context of the 2nd Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #98

Well first, you're just wrong about ownership of artillery by colonists. The Continental Congress Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #102

No, actually, I'm not wrong Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #108

Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #124

Do you want citations? because I can provide those. Spider Jerusalem Dec 2012 #125

Because I just knew you don't have anything to do but sit here waiting for someone to Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #127

Post removed Post removed Dec 2012 #134

I'll be back tomorrow to hear your next batch of dung. n/t Egalitarian Thug Dec 2012 #128

This is what free speech looked like when the 1st Amendment was written Recursion Dec 2012 #126

THIS is what our "original intent" SCOTUS said the 1st Amendment has ALWAYS meant ... Bozita Dec 2012 #129

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2015 #161

This message was self-deleted by its author CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2015 #162