"It's over," a Democrat strategist admits. "The gun nuts have won...again."

[Pullo]

Obama quietly abandons assault weapons ban

A new ban on assault-style weapons was part of Presidential candidate Barack Obama's platform.

Fear of such a ban sent gun sales skyrocketing and the propaganda machine of the giant National Rife Association went into overdrive flooding its membership is "legislative alerts" about such a ban.

That was then, this is now.

Obama and the Democrats appear to have lost all interest in a ban on assault weapons or any other legislation cleaning up loopholes in America's gun laws even though killings are on the rise and gun violence continues to escalate around the country.

White House officials admit support for a new ban isn't there and the President isn't willing to take on another losing battle with Congress.....

....."It's over," a Democrat strategist admits. "The gun nuts have won...again."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/17340

Cynicism has killed the gun-control debate

After the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and again after the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, many of us believed the country would turn against guns - assault-style weapons and handguns in particular. But all these years later, we now recognize 280 million as the estimated number of firearms among the 300-plus million inhabitants of the United States. What is there to say? That is a mountain of guns, and it's growing.....

.....People are stressed about the economy and worried that recovery might be a long way off, and that there may be shortages of food and gasoline, or an increase in crime as the jobless become desperate. So they've purchased guns and ammo, just in case the apocalypse comes before Mr. Obama's economic stimulus package takes effect.....


.....Most of us are also convinced that there are too many angry, ill and violent people in our midst, and that they have easy access to guns. Absent leadership that would promulgate greater control of guns, we fear mass killings will continue. So, the thinking goes, maybe it's best to be prepared - have a gun handy, just in case the madman comes to your office or your kid's school.

It's an epidemic of resignation, and it helps the National Rifle Association......

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.rodricks12apr12,0,4236017.column

Gun control debate yields to arms race

In mid-America, the gun-control debate is as dead as the Columbine killers. We've accepted the philosophy that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and have entered into a personal-protection arms race.

There are 280 million firearms in the United States today. With everyone packing, the issue now is making sure I can take my gun anywhere the other guy can. If guns are outlawed in schools or parks or bars, only outlaws will have guns there, right?

I can see the logic. With about one gun for every man, woman and child floating around, I understand the fear.

I just wonder where it all leads.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2009/apr/12/gun-control-debate-yields-to-arms-race/

Just a taste of Sunday's gun control headlines.

There's a lot of hand-wringing going on.

[Skittles]

1. IS there a way to put an entire forum on Ignore?

someone please tell me!!

[Cirque du So-What]

3. I've got a dozen or so names on mine

And that probably accounts for 90% of the posts in the gungeon. I'm not sure whether the OP will be around long enough to put another one on ignore, however.

[Skittles]

5. actually, that is not a bad idea

it would seem a lot of them are one trick ponies

[onehandle]

4. I wish. nt

[elocs]

6. Please, please, please let me know too! n/t

[jody]

16. Anti-RKBA groups want to disarm victims and pro-RKBA groups want to disarm criminals. n/t

[Skittles]

27. yeah right

:thumbsdown:

[jody]

74. Your thumbs down apparently means you favor arming criminals and disarming victims. Either that are

you are grossly ignorant of the attitudes of over 80+ million firearm owners toward crime.

[villager]

35. uh, how do "pro-RKBA" groups seriously suggest disarming criminals, Jody?

other than, you know, after the fact, when the blood's all over the floor.

"Sorry about your classroom, ma'am! Don't know how he was able to build up such a stockpile at the weekend gun show! But we'll sure lock 'im up now!"

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. By taking their guns away when they are caught with them. How else?

How do you suggest disarming criminals?

David

[Caliman73]

68. I'm not jody but I have some suggestions

In the immediate...better funding and coordination of the NCIS database. Access for private sellers to said database. Enforcing laws already on the books for offenders of firearms laws. Perhaps longer sentences for violent offenses with firearms or other weapons (rather than locking people up for minor drug offenses). More probation and parole agents to follow up with offenders that are released from prison, right now the case loads are something like 1:300 or 400 (very conservative estimate).

Longer term...parents of children and the public as a whole needs to have serious discussions about civic responsibilities. We must rethink the way that conflict resolution is taught or not in this society. We must also address the culture of impatience, entitlement, and selfishness which is pervasive. We must also address social injustices such as racism and discrimination (which are still alive even in the Obama era), poverty and lack of opportunity, alienation, and consumerism/profiteering run amok.

We need to fully fund and stress the importance of education. We need to address the stigma of mental illness and fully fund mental health services and teach citizens to do the hard work of understanding themselves and others.

Now I know that these are not suggestions that wave the magic wand to make the evil inanimate objects that we call guns disappear, but they address the real problems, the motivators of violence. The anger, the despair, and the disconnect that we feel from one another that create the criminals and the fuel for their crimes.

Now...do YOU have anything constructive to add or are you going to insist that if we just take all guns away that all violence will disappear?

[villager]

84. On top of everything you suggest, I'd add a ban on military-style weapons in civil society

...since they aren't designed for hunting or target practice, even if a few pro-proliferators here will try to make the case that AK-47's are perfect for deer season.

I already know you disagree, so you don't have to let me know. The point is, I don't disagree with what's in your post, I'd just go beyond it, since a civil society can make collective decisions to enhance its safety, even if those decisions make the paid-to-proliferate folks in the NRA frown, bleat, and stomp their feet.

[Caliman73]

89. The problem with your logic is that military "style" firearms

Are just regular firearms. They can be used for hunting and target practice the .223 round, which is adapted by NATO forces as the 5.56x45mm, was in existence before its adoption into the military. It is a small game round that is the most popular small game cartridge in the US. Military "style" weapons are no different in function than other civilian issue self loading rifles. It would be like saying that in order to increase highway safety, we are going to ban red cars, since they are more visible and seem to get more speeding tickets. It isn't a "civil" society, but an irrationally scared one that chooses to ban objects based solely on their outward appearance. Plus, the previous AWB did NOTHING to enhance safety.

[jody]

73. I speak for myself, enforce existing laws and make sentences mandatory for using firearms when

committing a crime.

Those mandatory sentences must be served consecutively with any other sentences, not concurrently as happens in too many cases today which makes the sentence for firearm possession an ineffective punishment.

I want to disarm and punish criminals, not disarm potential victims.

With which parts of my specific proposals do you disagree?

[villager]

83. What does "enforce existing laws" mean, specifically, as far as disarming criminals?

I probably don't disagree -- I just go beyond the pro-gunners preferred "barn door closed after horse bolts" approach, i.e., locking up someone *after* they mow down 15 people at their local shopping mall.

Well, sure. Lock him up.

How are you going to keep the next 15 from getting mowed down?

[jody]

86. At the federal level "enforce existing laws" means simply:

"enforce" -- "To compel observance of or obedience to:", e.g. Law Enforcement Office

"existing laws" -- 18 USC Chapter 44 and 26 USC Chapter 53

"How are you going to keep the next 15 from getting mowed down?"

I don't know but I know laws that disarm victims and leave criminals armed is not the solution.

What do you propose?

[villager]

87. jody, you like to link, but just tell me how you will take guns out of the hands of criminals

before they use them...

Paraphrases welcome. I won't hold you to the letter/sub-section of the Federal code. I'll believe ya.

You tell me what already-on-the-books laws we have that aren't being enforced, that should be, and how this will help reduce gun violence in America.

[X_Digger]

88. Not Jody, but..

Sentencing guidelines are routinely set aside. NY state changed to _mandatory_ minimum sentencing in '06 (PL 265.03(3); PL 70.02(3)(b)) . Other states have guidelines, but some follow them more than others.

[villager]

90. Okay, harsher sentences *after the fact*, but what about before the fact?

Or are you saying at least a few "armed robberies" don't later become murders, as it were, upon release?

[X_Digger]

93. Before the fact, NICS does need better coverage.

It's going to be a balance between private data protection and security.

Mandatory sentencing has two effects- removes dangerous criminals from society longer, and hopefully serves as a deterrent for using a gun in the commission of a crime. (and yeah, it does open up new problems like prison overcrowding, but that's another subject altogether!)

[jody]

91. If they are criminals and haven't had RKBA restored, they can not legally possess arms.

Most of the federal laws I cited are not enforced and when sentences are given for possessing a firearm, they are often served concurrently making them ineffective.

When a criminal commits a new crime locally when firearms are involved and is convicted again in local courts ignoring firearm possession, firearm possession is almost never charged in federal courts making federal laws impotent.

Please explain to me how taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens "will take guns out of the hands of criminals".

I say again, I don't see how disarming potential victims does anything to remove firearms from criminals.

[villager]

92. What I'm saying is, pro-RKBA groups aren't interested, really, in preventing criminals from getting

...guns in advance, since that might involve laws, etc., the NRA doesn't approve of.

That said, some in this very forum have lauded the Brady-created NICS, and its expansion into private gun dealings. That, at least, might keep some guns from getting into some hands.

I hope you at least support that.

Everything else is just barn-door-closing-after-horse-scrams stuff. I don't disagree with most of your points, but those points alone won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And I'm not about "disarming" regular folk -- much as that broad-brush is used to try and shut down discussion. I am about licensing, much stricter regulation, and yes, prohibition of some types of guns of which you and others here are enamored.

cheers!

[Pullo]

95. How about locking up felons who *fail* an NICS???

instead of leaving them free to buy one illegally?

Close the Brady loophole NOW!!!!

[villager]

96. you want to tighten up some Brady loopholes? Sure...!

n/t

[Caliman73]

97. villager

First, I want to acknowledge that you are trying to engage in an honest conversation about firearms. It is refreshing not to have someone making reference to penis size and other nonsense. Thanks. Regarding the NICS, it was Brady-NRA sponsored. As you have said most gun owners support expanding and improving the database as a way to keep people with violent histories from obtaining guns. Preventing the wrong people from getting guns in advance is a very difficult task to undertake without preventing other people who are entitled to own them from access. Licensing fees add to the cost of firearms which is basically telling low income people that they cannot purchase a firearm for defense or that they have to choose between that and other essentials. California has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country and some of the highest rates of gun crime. Chicago, Illinois and Washington, DC follow the same model. The problem is not the guns the problem is the circumstances under which people will choose to use the gun to commit crimes.

[Scout]

100. too bad the victims are already dead when they are serving their sentences

one can be a criminal without ever having been caught ... what about their guns, Jody?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Yes don't click on it and read the posts.

[Tejas]

36. or post 6 times in it either LOL!

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Bitch about it and then kick it 6 times, good plan.

[BlooInBloo]

2. (shrug) As long as it's their kids getting killed, and not mine - I guess that's all to be expected

Since they just have to have all 10 brazillion of their unregulated guns - someone's certain to die.

Aw fuck - didn't realize I was in the I-have-small-penis forum.

My bad.

[spin]

11. You must be stranger than gun owners...

as since there is no existing data on the correlation of gun owners and penis size, you must have conducted a personal survey. Phew!

[dashrif]

51. Don't

Be a SIZE Queen

[spin]

7. It doesn't have to be over...

The pro gun and anti gun advocates can work together for some REAL solutions to the problems of firearm violence in our country. It's not rocket science but it does evolve some honest effort from both sides. It won't be easy and it won't be cheap and it requires working together despite how much you hate the other side.

So we all have a choice, do we play childish games where the winner takes all or do we work together to do something really important that improves our lives and our society?

[Skittles]

8. you've nailed the problem right there, spin

both the gun nuts and the anti-gun folk are absolutely ridiculous, just fucking extreme - they simply seem uninterested in reasonable compromises :puke:

[spin]

10. Just like two football teams in the Super Bowl...

the only important thing is to WIN!

[Pullo]

29. Both the Brady Bunch and the NRA are more interested in fighting than winning

according to Richard Feldman, who wrote Riccochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbiest

I've heard him give a couple interviews and he has a fascinating perspective. I plan on picking up his book.

I've voted for Obama in part because I thought he would be smart enough to avoid things the AWB. The AWB was all about attacking the symbolism of gun crimes, but it did nothing in reality to address said crimes or reduce the proliferation of "assault weapons. In fact, the AWB was responsible for making "assault weapons" the most popular rifle sold in the US.

There's nothing to gain for Democrats by reinstituting the "ban." I would waste valuable political capitol, it wouldn't do anything to address violent crime, and it would give the right gigantic boost.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Of course they are- the first duty of any organization is self-preservation

And the Brady Campaign has become the best thing that ever happened to the NRA-ILA.

The tone-deaf, inaccurate press releases. The inability to speak to or about most gun owners without insulting them.
The laughably small amounts that they donate to politicians. The only gun-control
lobbying group that's more obviously astroturf is Gunguys.com

Is it any wonder the NRA, et al, have played them like the Washington Generals?

ISTR a quote from a gun shop owner regarding President Obama:
"If I'd known he'd make me this much money, I would have voted for him."

If I worked for the NRA, *I'd* donate to the Bradys, as in:
"Don't change. We love you just the way you are!"

[hlthe2b]

12. Labeling the gun control faction as "anti-gun" is very misleading

Very much like labeling the Pro-Choice movement as "Pro-Abortion"....


And THAT is the problem...

[spin]

17. All too often the label is justified...

as the "gun control" group uses a incremental approach to banning all firearms. It's impossible to do all at once, so you target one type of firearm and then another.

To top it all off, they promote misconceptions and outright lies to support their position.

Of course, the pro-gun groups such as the NRA-ILA often engage in the same activity.

Both groups are really not interested in really solving any problem. If that happened they would be out of business.

It's like two football teams, the Steelers and the Browns. The object is to WIN at all costs. (Or at least fill the seats with fans.)

In order to solve the problem of firearm violence in our society we need to use a different approach.

[hlthe2b]

20. Case in point....

[Duke Newcombe]

18. And labeling pro-RKBA folks as "gun nuts" is so much more helpful? n/t

[Skittles]

19. I'm referring to the extremes

and the extremes are gun-nut and anti-gun - and both are utterly absurd

[pscot]

22. But in the end, it seems like

the debate only moves in one direction. No matter what anyone says, the end result is always more guns. It's hard to think of an instance where gun owners have been inconvenienced, much less had their rights curtailled. Concealed carry is starting to seem almost normal. There's a waiting period, and background checks (hah), but you can drive an 18 wheeler through the gun show loophole. As we've seen recently, any crank or crazy can arm themselves to the teeth. How this makes us safer is beyond my understanding.

[Skittles]

23. oh, it will always be more guns

the NRA has made sure than any asshole in America can easily get one, requiring half the nation to feel they need one to protect themselves.....it has alway been and will always be more guns in America

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

40. There isn't a federal waiting period.

[X_Digger]

41. You might like to know..

That some of the landmark legislation that controls guns today was either _written by_ or heartily endorsed by the NRA.

-1934 National Firearms Act - federal statute to regulate machine guns was written based on the many state statutes written and lobbied for by the NRA
-1968 Gun Control Act - federal licensing of dealers, restricted guns by mail
-1993 Brady Bill - National Instant Check System

There's never been any 'give' on the other side of the line- at least not without a court challenge. Compromise has not been a give and take, it's been 'take as much as I want' versus 'take as much as you'll let me'.

[NewMoonTherian]

81. Nationsl Firearms Act

"-1934 National Firearms Act - federal statute to regulate machine guns was written based on the many state statutes written and lobbied for by the NRA"

And with that I'm letting my NRA membership lapse. Thanks for the info. I'm switching to the GOA.

[gorfle]

71. And why not?

But in the end, it seems like the debate only moves in one direction. No matter what anyone says, the end result is always more guns.

It would seem to me that if it were any other Constitutionally-enumerated freedom people would rejoice at seeing the exercising of that freedom flourish. Why not this one?

It's hard to think of an instance where gun owners have been inconvenienced, much less had their rights curtailled.

Then you just aren't thinking very hard. California has already instituted bans and confiscations, such as they did with SKS rifles back in 1999. The Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, while not functionally effective, made certain firearms more difficult to acquire and more expensive. Until recently, people in Washington, DC could not store a functional handgun in their own homes for self-defense.

Concealed carry is starting to seem almost normal.

That's good, because the exercising of a Constitutional right is normal!

There's a waiting period, and background checks (hah), but you can drive an 18 wheeler through the gun show loophole. As we've seen recently, any crank or crazy can arm themselves to the teeth. How this makes us safer is beyond my understanding.

It's true, it makes little sense to have background checks for firearms sold through dealers but have no background check in place for private sales.

This is why I have proposed a solution whereby every citizen who applies for a state-sponsored ID or driver's license gets pre-approved to own firearms, though the NICS database, with the choice to opt out, and if they are approved their ID gets a little green "F" stamped on the back. All private firearm transfers would be required to check for this permit and make a note of the ID number of the person they sold a firearm to, and keep this information for 10 years, until substantial penalty of law. Any firearm found used in a crime could be traced from its original point of sale through each successive owner through this information.

But whatever system you come up with the plug this "loophole" must preserve anonymous firearm ownership. Anything else is a non-starter.

[krispos42]

80. And how exactly is this a bad thing?

You seem to be operating from the idea that as our country became older and our civilization became more civilized, educated, intelligent, etc., that gun ownership would go down. As if it was some kind of phase that would be grown out of.

I find that interesting.


If this expectation is widespread among people, this might explain the fustration levels that some gun-control groups display.

[rl6214]

55. I agree with you

Both the Pro gun group and the no-nuts antis refuse to give and inch. Maybe if we stopped calling them gun nuts or wing nuts that might be a start.

[gorfle]

70. No can do, Spin.

Sorry, Spin, but I've given up on compromise with the anti-firearm folks. As has been evidenced quite clearly here in these very forums, when I've tried to come up with compromise suggestions on how we might reform the background checking process, for example, we've seen clearly that the objective all along from the anti-firearm crowd was to make the processes as arduous as possible so as to effectively discourage firearm ownership.

The very best you can hope for in dealing with these anti-firearm folks is that your firearms will be kept under lock and key at a "sporting facility" where you may go to use them from time to time.

Most are simply playing the game of "death by a thousand cuts" with the total elimination of private firearm ownership as their ultimate goal.

There is really nothing to be gained from compromise on this issue if you are a firearm owner.

[spin]

98. You know, I have to agree...

I also support the idea of reforming the background check and finding a way to apply it to private sales.

I would also like to see a requirement for a firearms training class and upon certification, the issuance of a card similar to a SCUBA card. To purchase a firearm or ammo you would have to show the card. The number of hunting accidents in Florida dropped dramatically when a hunter safety course was required. I've seen a fair number of people show up at the ranges I shot at, with a firearm that they owned for a considerable time but they were unfamiliar with basic firearm safety. One or two had no idea if their firearm was loaded and were unfamiliar with how to check it.

I do see one major problem with this idea. If a person needed a firearm for self protection, such a requirement would be a major obstacle. I haven't really found a good way around this. My best idea is to have a judge issue a document that would allow a purchase with a requirement that the course be completed in a reasonable time.

I actually would like to see a mandatory gun safety class in every high school. The anti-gun contingent would NEVER allow this, but they will constantly state the firearm accident statistics to support their idea of banning firearms.

It's a shame that we can't all work together to improve our laws and to reduce both the misuse of firearms and accidents. But if we did, I'm sure the anti-gun folks would raise the same amount of anger about the reduced numbers.

I was hoping that Obama might be a leader that would look for honest solutions and it's still very early in his administration. He has a full plate of problems to deal with.

So the effort to reason with the other side is all too often a waste of time. I too often use it as an excuse to avoid exercising.

[Arctic Dave]

9. I wasn't aware this was even an issue for O.

The NRA and the gun manufactures sure did make a lot of money off of the hype though. Hey, wait a second......

[jody]

15. Obama supports renewing the AWB. n/t

[aquart]

13. So the idiots who are stockpiling guns and ammo at top prices....

are not only out the money...but they better not commit any crimes at all because if anyone executes a legal search warrant they're going to find an arsenal and wonder what it was going to be used for.

Domestic terrorists or just plain suckers?

[spin]

25. Define "arsenal"

Plenty of people have large legal gun collections and plenty of ammo. Not illegal where I live.

Hopefully demand for firearms and ammo will drop to reasonable levels. All Obama has to say is that he will not sign a new assault weapons ban or any other draconian gun legislation into law.

Otherwise, one out of every five households in the states will have 3 or 4 "assault weapons" and 20,000 rounds of ammo.

[aquart]

45. Doesn't matter how I define it.

But it might matter how someone with a legal search warrant might define it. And that could be so very elastic.

[spin]

48. I know of no laws in Florida that prohibit how many legal firearms...

I can own, or how much ammo I have.

The media might say that I had an "arsenal" but since what I own is small compared to many other gun owners I know, I'm not worried. Hell, most of the local cops have a bigger "arsenal" of personal firearms then I have. (We've shown each other our firearms and went shooting together.)

[rl6214]

57. Dosen't matter how they define it

It is not illegal to own 5, 10 20 or even 50 weapons with ammo to go with it.

[rl6214]

56. Gun and ammo values

Have gone up over the past 4 months higher and faster than any investment you could think of. It's not just a matter of building and arsenal but building wealth.

[slackmaster]

77. They're not idiots, they just didn't plan ahead

Some of us bought firearms and ammunition when the prices were reasonable.

[jody]

14. It's not over until Obama says "I will veto any bill that renews the AWB". n/t

[stillcool]

31. That's it? He just has to say..

he will veto any bill that renews the AWB and you all go away? HA! What happens when your state enacts laws that control weapons? What's the President going to do for you then? Isn't that where legislation starts?

[Tejas]

34. apples and oranges

He just has to say he will veto any bill that renews the AWB and you all go away? HA!

What, and let the FOURTH LARGEST forum here at the DU stagnate? Of course not, we'd party like it's 1999 and start looking at reversing some useless laws.


What happens when your state enacts laws that control weapons?

What do you mean "when"? Some states already look like England, ever heard of Kalifornia or Illinois? Where have you been?


What's the President going to do for you then? Isn't that where legislation starts?

Hopefully he'll do things that great Presidents do such as turn this economy around and bring back respect around the world for this great country. As far as state's issues, that's why we vote state politicians in and out. You are familiar with that process eh?

[stillcool]

39. Jeepers creepers...

I am very familiar with my state government. We have de-criminalized marijuana, and even have gay marriage. We actually legislate at the state level!!! If you don't want a federal law banning or controlling weapons, don't you have representatives that vote for your interests? Or is the President the only one who looks out for you? I wonder what 'useless law' you would attempt to reverse. Is this basically a one-trick-pony issue?

[Tejas]

43. My reps do vote in my interest,

and I happen to be a resident of the great State of Texas. How about you?

The problem(s) are reps from other states that continually introduce bills so as to push their personal vendettas, er, agendas on the entire country. Carolyn McCarthy (D - Long Island, NY) is an excellent example, her husband gets killed on a subway so she promptly starts trying to ban firearms across the entire country through idiotic bills that thankfully haven't become law.......

.........idiotic because she appears to not even know the basic parts of a firearm in the first place, just that they're evil and bad and blah blah. Even sadder is the fact she could get 50 cosponsors to her bill.

So what state do you live in?

[stillcool]

50. I live in Massachusetts...

right over the border from the 'live free or die' state. In my mind, all this hoopla over gun control makes no sense. I could understand if there were actually some effort being made by the federal government to control the number of guns in this country. It's like fighting the abortion battle when there is no effort being made to ban them. I don't get it.

[Caliman73]

69. I live in California

It is a pretty good place to live, but we have some pretty dumb gun laws here. I own 3 self loading or semi-automatic rifles which I will use to explain the stupidity of the laws. Where most other states allowed the AWB to expire, my state wrote its own. the 3 rifles I own are a Ruger 10/22, a Kel Tec Su-16, and an RAA Saiga. The 10/22 fires the 22lr rimfire cartridge which is good for very cheap target practice and effective on small varmints if you choose to hunt (which I don't) it is a good starter rifle with very little recoil. This rifle, and the cartridge are still lethal. Now, I took off the wooden stock that came with the rifle and added a pistol grip for ergonomics. This is perfectly legal. Ok, the Kel Tec fires the more powerful .223 centerfire cartridge. Still a small caliber rifle round but more lethal than the 22lr. I cannot add a pistol grip to this rifle or else I will be in possession of an "assault weapon". As it sits now, the exact same rifle with the EXACT same function is perfectly legal and NOT an assault weapon. One ergonomic change, the same one that is completely legal on the 10/22 rifle, makes the Kel Tec an assault weapon. Does that make sense?

I'll go one further. My RAA Saiga is based on the AK series. It was created for the civilian market as a self loading rifle. Perfectly legal to own in California. Now, the Saiga imported by Kalashnikov USA is the EXACT SAME rifle, made in the very same factory. It is banned in California as an assault weapon. So I ask...how do the gun laws in California, the state I was born and raised in, make sense when I can own the same exact rifle that is banned as an "assault weapon" with complete legality just because it imported by a different company?

[Tejas]

99. "no effort being made to ban them" - did you read my post?

I just gave you the perfect example of an attempt at a NATIONWIDE ban by McCarthy (HR-1022). Otherwise, did you notice the gleam in Feinstein's eyes on the 60min interview when asked if she'd persue a ban in the future?

As far as your state goes, unless possessed before Sept 14 of 1994 (pre-AWB) then SEMI-AUTOMATIC "assault weapons" that even remotely LOOK like an AK are banned.

Why?


Large capacity magazines that you didn't own before 9/14/94 are also banned. If you possess mags that can hold more than 5 rounds, you are subject to 1-10 years in prison.

Again, why?


Are the criminals in Massachusetts unique? Do they obey the firearms laws in your state? These bans are good for...........what?


(sorry to be terse, don't mean to offend you personally)

[jody]

72. The issue is what Obama's administration and the gun-grabbers in congress might attempt.

IMO that immediate threat to renew AWB would be taken off the table in this administration if Obama pledges to veto a new AWB bill.

The issue you raise re states may be settled with the NORDYKE v. KING case which gives SCOTUS a chance to determine whether "The Second Amendment Should be Incorporated Against State Action Through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause."

[aikoaiko]

21. I would call it a virtual stalemate on Federal gun bans.

Obama, Holder, Clinton, Feinstein, McCarthy (and a couple of other heavy hitters) haven't capitulated.

[blueclown]

24. "The gun nuts have won...again."

Yep... and it's a shame.

:kick:

[spin]

26. Why not give up on banning weapons...

and try to work with pro-gun groups to REALLY solve problems rather then pass "feel good" laws that are only designed to be incremental steps to total gun bans and confiscation?

[dairydog91]

79. "Feel good" laws feel good. nt

[Hoopla Phil]

28. It's a good day when Civil Rights win.

[xchrom]

30. that's too bad. nt

[benEzra]

33. Good. I suppose they'd have preferred a repeat of the 1994 debacle instead? (n/t)

FWIW, gun crime is down considerably over the last couple of decades, though you'd never know it from MSM fearmongering.

[yay]

38. Good, now maybe...

I'll be able to finish off my list of guns to buy.

[X_Digger]

42. I keep hitting the WH website..

..waiting for that section to be removed..






Nope.

They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

*grumble*

[yay]

46. Someone on arfcom said

"I'll believe he won't take our guns, when he's out of office and hasn't taken our guns"

[X_Digger]

49. I don't like the political brinksmanship

..of appearing to waffle on an issue in order to piss off the fewest amount of people, but I can understand it.

Nobody will ever seriously accuse him of being dumb.

[virginia mountainman]

47. Great Post!! K&R

Seems like all our good work is paying off. I remember back a few years ago, when the papers made just about the SAME WHINY ASS COMMENTS, and it was followed by silence on the subject for several years.

One day they will get tired of us kicking the asses all over the place, and give up fucking with the U.S. Bill of Rights.

[Prophet 451]

52. *sigh*

I consider myself pro-gun-rights but the comments here are rather disheartening. It appears that I must either oppose all regulation or oppose all firearms in private hands. Sadly, since neither side appears willing to budge, it appears a rational discussion is out of the question.

[virginia mountainman]

58. Who says that?!

Most of us are for truly sensible regulation...BUT FUCK STUPID ASS BANS ON COSMETICS.

What do you mean neither side? The pro gun side, Budged, and Budged to the point their are about 20,000 gun laws on the book??

The fucking anti's need to Budge some...

[Prophet 451]

59. Define "sensible"

There are a lot of gun laws on the books. However, many of them duplicate one another, are obsolete or otherwise unenforceable.

Here's what I consider sensible:

- Mandatory basic safety testing before purchase, to be repeated at periodic intervals (say, every five years). This can be done in most areas for less than fifty bucks a head and would cut down on the 700-1000 fatalities and who knows how many injuries caused by accidental discharge each year.

- You must take reasonable care to safeguard your weapon. At a minimum, that means secured from child access and preferably trigger-locked. If the weapon is in your car, that means out of sight of the casual thief.

- A ban on full-auto weapons and APDS ammo. I know, this one's already on the books.

- A ban on ex-prisoners convicted of violent crimes owning handguns for a minimum period. The purpose of that one should be obvious.

- You must not be drunk, high or otherwise intoxicated in control of a firearm. Nor can you be blind. Believe it or not, Texas has a law on the books allowing blind people to go hunting. Obviously, there should be a self-defence waiver of both rules.

- No aerial hunting or hunting with hounds of anything. This one's about cruelty to the animal. I have no problem with hunting or even culling when necessary but I do have a problem with doing so in a way that's virtually guarenteed to cause unnecessary suffering.

[yay]

60. I dissagree on one.

"- A ban on full-auto weapons and APDS ammo. I know, this one's already on the books."

Why? since 1934 there have only been 4 murders used with legal full auto weapons. Keeping them regulated under the NFA and even requiring a special class/liscense I could understand, but out right prohibition seems silly to me.

I'm still chuckling at the notion of blind hunting though.... does that make me a bad person?

[Prophet 451]

64. I chuckled too

The reason is two-fold: Firstly, the can do an awful lot of damage if they are used illegally and secondly, there is no civilian application for them. Semi-auto is perfectly good for home defence (although my choice would be the humble shotgun) and if you need a full auto for hunting, you're a lousy hunter. The only thing full autos can do which semi-auto can't is put a lot of lead in the air very quickly and, discarding teh military, the only realistic use for that is illegal.

[yay]

66. Target shooting isn't a realistic use?

Yes they can do a lot of damage, but this goes back to the whole "if you outlaw ___ only outlaws will have them". There's a reason why big full auto shoots are so popular and why people are willing to shell out $10K for an auto sear. Sending a large amount of ammo down range in a short amount of time is fun for a lot of people.

There really wasn't a problem prior to 1986, and the last minuet amendment was underhanded at best. I say repeal it and start requireing a class on how to safely handle a full auto weapon.

Personally I'd opt for a .38 special or .45 at the home. Faster and easier to handle in the rather confined space of a home, not to mention easier to keep out of reach of children. Add to that less chances of stray projectiles. JMHO

[Prophet 451]

67. OK, you convinced me

Repeal the ban. However, owning one would require a special class for safety and it must be kept VERY secure (you really can't use a full auto for home defence, you'd go through a wall and perforate next door's kid).

I'll be the first to admit that the shotgun is just personal preference.

[X_Digger]

75. When you get a Title II (class III) weapon..

..you agree to let the BATFE come inspect your stuff. I doubt that anyone with that kind of investment, subject to barely announced inspections, is going to store them irresponsibly.

re perforating a wall- automatic or not won't affect that as much as the caliber choice.

[yay]

82. If they were legalized

Prices would come down, they would be just a bit more expensive than their semi-auto counterparts.

[virginia mountainman]

61. alrighty......

Mandatory basic safety testing before purchase, to be repeated at periodic intervals (say, every five years). This can be done in most areas for less than fifty bucks a head and would cut down on the 700-1000 fatalities and who knows how many injuries caused by accidental discharge each year.

I have no problem with basic safety testing, before FIRST PURCHASE of a firearm, not to be repeated, or at least not MANDATORY repeat classes, Gun Safety has all but been run out of the school system....Owning arms is a civil right, we do not test for the other ones.

You must take reasonable care to safeguard your weapon. At a minimum, that means secured from child access and preferably trigger-locked. If the weapon is in your car, that means out of sight of the casual thief.

No problem their, but certain allowances must be made for folks that want to keep one usable for home defense.

A ban on full-auto weapons and APDS ammo. I know, this one's already on the books.

Actually, it is not a ban, just tightly regulated, and taxed, (but if you can pass a common NICS check at an FFL, you will get it) Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot, are used in tank battles, from "tank to tank" Common hunting rifles, with even more common hunting ammunition will blow a hole clean thru a bullet resistant vest....AP for pistols, and rifles has been banned for years.

A ban on ex-prisoners convicted of violent crimes owning handguns for a minimum period. The purpose of that one should be obvious.

That would be a violation of the 68 Gun Control Act...and a BIG TIME FEDERAL FELONY....You will do about 10 years in Club Fed, if you are a convicted felon, and are caught with so much as a single shot .22 rifle....

You must not be drunk, high or otherwise intoxicated in control of a firearm. Nor can you be blind. Believe it or not, Texas has a law on the books allowing blind people to go hunting. Obviously, there should be a self-defense waiver of both rules.

Already illegal....In VA, it is called "Reckless use of a firearm" I don't know TX law, so I can't comment. I know this, my father is law, is LEGALLY blind, and cannot drive, but he can still shoot, and shoot well.. He has severe "Tunnel Vision"

No aerial hunting or hunting with hounds of anything. This one's about cruelty to the animal. I have no problem with hunting or even culling when necessary but I do have a problem with doing so in a way that's virtually guaranteed to cause unnecessary suffering.

I grew up, hunting rabbits and coons with my beagles, it was humane, generally they where "treed" or in full run, when I made my shot. As for the aerial hunting, I can agree with you.

Back to the comment earlier....Can you think of ANYTHING, the Anti's have ever offered US???????

Anything???? Anything at all???

It is unfair to say the pro gun side, never wants to compromise, we have continual gave ground, when has the Brady Campaign offered to give us ANYTHING that we gun owners did not already have??

[Prophet 451]

63. Hmmm

I have no problem with basic safety testing, before FIRST PURCHASE of a firearm, not to be repeated, or at least not MANDATORY repeat classes, Gun Safety has all but been run out of the school system....Owning arms is a civil right, we do not test for the other ones.

We do test for driving though and I think that's a fair comparison (and yes, I would support periodic retesting for driving as well). None of the other civil rights involve handling a potentially fatal weapon. The periodic repeats is open to negotiation. I would prefer it for teh simple reason that all of us pick up bad habits over time. EDIT: I'd strongly support the re-introduction of Gun Safety as an option in schools as well.

No problem their, but certain allowances must be made for folks that want to keep one usable for home defense.

Of course. The exact details can be worked out. My main concern is that little Johnny doesn't go digging through your desk drawer one day and accidently blow his foot off.

Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot, are used in tank battles, from "tank to tank" Common hunting rifles, with even more common hunting ammunition will blow a hole clean thru a bullet resistant vest....AP for pistols, and rifles has been banned for years.

Um, I'm going to claim a senior moment on that one.

I grew up, hunting rabbits and coons with my beagles, it was humane, generally they where "treed" or in full run, when I made my shot. As for the aerial hunting, I can agree with you.

Sorry, misunderstanding there. I'm British and "hunting with hounds" is the technical name for what people commonly think of as "fox hunting": Chasing a fox on horseback with a pack of braying hounds who get to rip the thing to shreds when they're finished. It's now banned here and most hunts have switched to drag hunting (chasing a trail of scent around a wood, great fun) but there's a campaign to bring it back.

Back to the comment earlier....Can you think of ANYTHING, the Anti's have ever offered US???????

Anything???? Anything at all???

It is unfair to say the pro gun side, never wants to compromise, we have continual gave ground, when has the Brady Campaign offered to give us ANYTHING that we gun owners did not already have??

OK. Having thought about it more deeply, I'll retract my previous comment.

[yay]

65. minor detail

"AP for pistols, and rifles has been banned for years."

Only pistols, yes according to the BATF .308, .223, 7.62x39, ect are all "handgun" calibers. Note, you can still buy some rifle AP ammo as there has been no "pistol" released in those calibers.

[dashrif]

78. Dogs

- No aerial hunting or hunting with hounds of anything. This one's about cruelty to the animal. I have no problem with hunting or even culling when necessary but I do have a problem with doing so in a way that's virtually guarenteed to cause unnecessary suffering.


I know of only two ways of hunting bear 1st using bait and can take days to draw a bear 2nd using dogs to track and tree a bear that can take hours

And hunting waterfowl and upland birds are good uses of a dog to retrieve and scare up game

Dogs have been used for thousands of years by man to hunt and from time to time I use my basset to hunt rabbit she loves it if I leave my house with a gun to go to the range she thinks its time to go hunting she starts barking and jumping up on the fence.

[Prophet 451]

85. Two different things

See previous answer about this one. My fault for imprecise language.

[rl6214]

54. I would say there is a mandate

as to what the American public want and it's not to have senseless gun laws.

[virginia mountainman]

62. How much clearer can the American Public be on this issue???

And yet, you still have bullshit comments coming from government officials, hit peaces on the news, and brainless blithering of Caroline McCarthy...

Going on, and on....

[Pullo]

76. That's Caroline "Barrel Shroud" McCarthy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

[Iktomiwicasa]

94. Yay...

...for the gun *nuts*!

:woohoo:

[anonymous171]

101. WOOT! nt