Obama won't take your guns, Nancy Pelosi will do it for him...

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/07/pelosi-pledges-compromise-on-assault-weapons-ban/

...During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.

"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."

"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."

Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines...

Please try to not mention in public the fact that registration preceded confistication of SKS rifles in Speaker Pelosi's home state of California.

After all, we don't want the idea that "Democrats want to take your guns" to get any widespread credibility or anything.

Do we?

[rl6214]

1. No surprise here.

[Skip Intro]

2. Nobody should have an AK47.

[aikoaiko]

4. How about a Ruger mini-30 ranch rifle?

:shrug:

[Skip Intro]

5. Ok. I don't know what the fuck that is. There.

Guns are made to kill.

I can see guns for personal protection.

I can see guns for hunting, much as I despise that "sport."

Assault weapons? No.

I don't know the gun to which you refer.

But there should be some sanity here.

[rl6214]

7. Full Auto Assault Weapons?

Should be regulated.

The junk that the main stream media calls and ak47?

It's just another rifle that's called the AK47 just to make them popular to sell. They aren't any more lethal than any run of the mill hunting rifle.

BTW I don't own any ak47s, real or junk.

[MercutioATC]

37. There's no such thing as a "full auto assault weapon".

An "assault weapon", by definition, is semiautomatic.

[rl6214]

62. You are correct

But the anti gun crowd seems to lump them all into the same pile so for simplicity sake I did the same.

[quiller4]

97. No, no no An assault weapon has to be capable of full auto

If it is only semi-auto that it is nothing more than a sporting rifle dressed up in combat clothing.

[pipoman]

9. I think the point is

what the fuck is an assault weapon?

There is a video of the director of the BATFE testifying before congress saying he cannot define assault weapon without including hunting firearms which have been in use for nearly a century.

[bossy22]

12. the mini-30

is a self loading rifle (aka semi-auto) that fires a 7.62 x 39mm round. Its primary purpose was as a multi purpose ranch gun


the catch is...the civilian legal AK-47 is also a self loading rifle that fires a 7.62 x 39mm round

[Skip Intro]

14. Why would you want one?

[bossy22]

16. well personally

i want one (well i should say own one- an AK that is) because it is a fun gun to take to the range to shoot. The ammo is relatively cheap and the gun requires little maintenance to keep it functioning. I also own one because i like to collect military style firearms

I know other people who own them to hunt deer with- even though the 7.62x39mm round i find is not the best deer hunting round due to its lack of power at long range and the accuracy issues with most guns that fire it

[Skip Intro]

22. I guess "fun" is relative. I don't get it. But people are dying from those guns. The AKs.

That is something worth considering, yes?

I wont argue hunting deer with you, as much as I'm tempted.

The subject is guns.

Do you think all guns should be legal?

Registered?

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. No- the NFA of 1934 is the legal standard. No- CA used registration to confisticate

And most gun owners don't hunt

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Change on edit- 'confiscate'

Note to self: 400mg. ibuprofen 3X daily while fluish and posting at DU

[bossy22]

31. ill answer one at a time

"That is something worth considering, yes?"

Yes and no- i say yes because the type weapon used in a crime should never be ignored. I say no because Ak's are not needed (nor or the "best") for killing. The shooting in binghamton and VT was done with simple 9mm handguns (and a .45 handgun in binghamton)- guns that are kept by a large percentage of gun owners as self defense weapons (and also standard issue for many beat cops). I think the best way to look at it is correlation does not equal causation. Lets use an example- i do a study to find out what color car is most involved in accidents and i find out that most common car color of cars in accidents is red. Now i go out and ban all red cars- are accidents going to decrease?- most likely not- since its not the color of the car that causes the accidents- it could be said that drivers who are more likely to drive wreckless and get into accidents like red cars. If that is true then simply banning red cars will just force those wreckless drivers to drive cars of other colors. Its the same with guns. You ban the AK-47, the person uses a mini-30 and the same result happens

Do you think all guns should be legal?
no, i believe there should be (and there is ) a line to be drawn. I draw that line that semi-automatic firearms (handguns and long guns). Ill tell you why. My premise is use in self defense. Fully automatic firearms in my opinion are no good and actually detrimental to home protection/ self defense- firing hundreds of rounds in your house at a burglar will end up getting someone else in your house killed. That being said i still think that they should be legal in the sense that you need a special license to get one- but that these guns arent "easily avaliable". Semi-automatic firearms on the other hand are the primary defensive weapons used by cops and civilians alike. The benefit of the semi-auto is that it allows you to hold your line of site without having to lose it because you need to manually reload. Now in my definition of semi-auto firearms i also include those guns that are misrepresented as assault weapons. I say this because assault weapons describes the cosmetic features on a semi-auto firearm that are not related to the "killing power" of the gun. Its like an racing stripes on your 350HP mustang...you wouldnt ever say that your racing stripes make your car faster or affect its driving in any way. the same thing goes for those guns. What determines its effectiveness is its semi-auto action (self loading)- it will fire just as quickly if it has a pistol grip or if it doesnt. It will not fire faster if it has a bayonet lug, or a telescoping stock)- just as your mustang wont go faster with those racing stripes painted on it

Registered?
generally no (with the exception of fully auto weapons), if you want to get a more indepth answer i have a post on this a little farther down on this page. But generally i believe registration is impractical and the costs outweigh the benefits

i hope my answer is what you were looking for

[Skip Intro]

35. Thank you.

Well thought answer.

I dunno.

I keep coming back to the point of owning a gun.

It is to kill.

I don't think the Dems should be in the business of taking guns away from people. I don't own one at the moment, but that may change any day. I want to be able to buy one for my own protection at some point if I so decide.

I had the unfortunate occasion to have someone who mistook me as a new friend to open his car trunk to me and show me an array of guns, all sizes and types. I didn't want to be around that person any longer, and I found my exit and left.

It seems your argument against bans and even registration rests on which guns, and that was my argument as well, even though I have outed myself here as being uneducated on the subject. I just don't know dude, why does someone need to ride around in a nissan with a trunk full of guns?

I am an outsider, and I think I have a perspective that is valid, and to non-gun-owners, common.

I don't know the stats, but I think gun deaths in this country are on a level not seen outside this country. The availability of guns, of all types, and the anonymity of gun ownership, including the black market, must play a role in that.

I guess I come down to the registration argument.

If you are going to own a gun, the gun should be registered. This is not a panacea. But hell, guns for self-defense aren't the ones killing people daily.

[bossy22]

38. well

someone shouldnt be riding around with a trunk full of guns...thats just irresponsible (you dont drive around with 50,000 dollars cash in your car everyday)

"I don't know the stats, but I think gun deaths in this country are on a level not seen outside this country. The availability of guns, of all types, and the anonymity of gun ownership, including the black market, must play a role in that."

I'd have to agree- to say guns have nothing to do with gun crime is silly- the degree to which they affect crime though is debatable. To answer your question about gun deaths and other countries is a bit complicated. I would have to say yes, our country has a far more higher firearm homicide rate than many other western nations- but thats just firearm homicide. to me it doesnt matter if you are murdered using a gun or a knife...a murder is a murder. So if you look at our overall murder rates- we are high, but we are not nearly at the levels that we are portrayed at. Our murder rate is about 5-6 per 100,000 with the western world being at about 2-3 per 100,000. the third world is about 20-50 per 100,000. I also look at other countries like switzerland where firearm ownership is relatively common with there low firearm homicide rate. So in conclusion- in my opinion its not all about guns- its about the way we treat drugs in this country, our non-existent healthcare system, and a really bad penal system which looks to punish more than it does to remedy a situation

overall i can say the gun control v gun ownership arguement has been badly fought by both sides. Both sides use emotional arguments and catch phrases (assault weapons, resistance against tyranny, etc...) to drum up support- without realizing that they are in fact really hurting there cause. A sensible gun policy must truly be well thought out, taking into account the gun violence in this country AND the fact that the ownership of firearms is a protected right. If we did this, without using stupid emotional phrases like assault weapons "they are coming for your guns" we could really accomplish something. But unless they ban media soundbites- that wont happen- and the emotional fight will rage on

Im glad i was able to be of some help to you in understanding this complex issue

well im off to bed...got to wake up for work in the morning...have a good night sir

[Skip Intro]

92. You know, that was a really good post.

It's like three days later now, and I still think certain guns should be legal and certain ones should not. I remember that scene in one of Micheal Moore's movies where he was in Canada and just went up to all these unlocked front doors in this neighborhood, and there was a significant lack of guns owned by the population. And I read the headlines here about people shot everyday. The run of the mill homicide, almost exclusively by gun, is relegated to a quick spot on the local news. Only the mass killings make national news. But people are dying, frequently, daily, from being shot by a gun. The proliferation of guns, no doubt mostly unregistered, seems to be obvious as necessary for what we see here.

I have learned a lot in this thread. Yet my basic view remains unchanged. There is a correlation to the vehement "from my cold dead hands" movement to the glamorization and use of guns as a weapon of murder. It is a fact of daily life in this country.

And I guess it comes down, after all I've read here, to registration for the most part. Still, on the other end of the spectrum, we don't want machine guns legal, do we? There is a line.

[bossy22]

93. thanks

well of course there are certain guns that shouldn't be easily available. Since 1934 Machine guns have been tightly controlled by the federal government. In my personal opinion it should stay that way (except for the 1986 machine gun ban since it was unnecessary...the current federal regulations were effective enough to limit legal machine gun crime to 2 cases in 50 years). The question comes down to where shall we draw the line.

in my opinion there is very little that can be practically done to stop most gun murders....most of those murders are single victim crime. Other than a full ban and confiscation- nothing will really reduce the prevalence of guns in crime. And since that is an impractical goal...i can't really see any measure that would significantly affect violent gun crime.

We do try though....we have background checks, prohibited people, bans on certain weapons. In the end it comes down to the fact that any gun can be used to kill someone with, and there will always be guns out there.

But who knows, this is just my opinion. I feel that our right to keep and bear arms is very important so i feel that we should err on the side of gun ownership. Others feel differently. The debate will continue...and probably never end

well again i am off to the sack...have a goodnight

[slackmaster]

47. I own more than 50 of them, and the purpose has nothing to do with killing

Your broad-brush assumption about peoples' motivations for owning guns is flawed.

[Skip Intro]

57. Ok, then what are they for?

[slackmaster]

91. It's a hobby and a financial investment

I enjoy restoring and shooting them, and teaching people how to handle them safely. I have taught well over 100 people the rules of firearm safety, and then how to fire weapons accurately.

I haven't had one person say they didn't enjoy the experience. Typically a friend of mine who is also experienced take a group of several "newbies" to an outdoor shooting area. We start them off with a bolt-action .22 rimfire training rifle. Withing a couple of hours there is usually someone in the group begging for more ammunition for my AR-15.

As an investment, my collection has done much better than stocks, bonds, real estate, or precious metals.

Old military weapons are among the best products of the society that made them, in terms of materials and workmanship. That makes them inherently interesting to me and to a lot of other people. Sometimes our shoots have themes such as "Weapons of World War II", or "Pocket Pistols", or "Firearms designed by John Moses Browning". The possibilities are endless.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. First off, very, very few people are killed with semi-auto rifles of any stripe

Assault weapon, or deer rifle. Something around 3% of murders. Closer to half are committed with pistols. So if there is a problem with a particular class of weapon, pistol seems like the better thing to go after right?

If you completely ban all things that count as 'assault weapons', you're going to piss off a LOT of voters, somethign that Bill Clinton attributed the loss of our majority in Congress in '96 to. And all to target 3% of murders? (It's actually less than 3%, if you scope it down to just rifles that count as Assault Weapons)

Doesn't seem like a good expenditure of political capital, if it costs us things like Universal Health Care, or undoing some of the damage of the previous administration.

[slackmaster]

46. I own a Mini 30 as part of my collection

Why do you care why someone else would want one?

[quiller4]

98. I don't now but I was happy to have one when I lived in a rural area.

Emergency law enforcement response was hours away. The nearest meth lab was less than a mile away and plenty of unsavory characters found their way down our private road. My spouse often worked late and I was home alone. The mini 14, dog and motion sensor lights gave me peace of mind.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. Most gun owners don't hunt, and that is not the standard for suitability anyway

The sterotypical 'good' gun owner is a hunter with a bolt action rifle. Unfortunately, the stereotype
is false: +/-80% of gun owners don't hunt, and the most popular rifles in the US are semi-automatic, sometimes called 'assault weapons'.

By far, most gun owners are law-abiding and see no reason to give up their property and rights
due to someone elses' paranoia. And they are wont to express this opinion on Election Day.

If Democrats keep playing to the stereotype, we can expect to lose Congress and revitalize the
GOP.

[MercutioATC]

36. Well, that's not a problem.

The only people who legally own an actual fully automatic AK-47 hold a federal Class 3 firearms license which requires an extensive FBI background check, exorbitant taxation ($200 per weapon per year), and they're subject to surprise inspection at any time.

Very few people own an AK-47 and they've all been thoroughly checked out.

[babylonsister]

3. You scare me. nt

[Cant trust em]

6. Why is registration such a big deal to the gun lobby?

I'm not a gun guy and this isn't something I'm passionate about. I just don't get what the big fuss is.

Any thoughts?

[baldguy]

8. They're afraid.

The New World Order, or the Illuminati or the International Jewish Conspiracy might confiscate them.

:sarcasm:

[jmg257]

43. or the state, as in NY and California, as it has before.

[baldguy]

48. Eliminating specific weapons that everyone agrees are dangerous

Is not the same as general wipe spread confiscation.

Gun worshipers try to cloud the issue by conflating the two, and only a fool would believe their RW propaganda.

[jmg257]

50. The problems are 1)not "everyone agrees", & 2) registration lead to confiscation in the past,

and may certainly do so again in the future.

Who is to say "everyone" will not agree that all weapons are dangerous, especially once they are all registered and easy for the state to confiscate?

YOU can trust "everyone" - I don't. And I am NO fool (nor do I worship guns, though I do enjoy shooting and collecting them).

[baldguy]

60. So, you believe the RW propaganda.

2nd Amendment Uber Alles! Seig Heil!

[jmg257]

61. About those issues? Certainly! Hard to argue with facts & history. Propaganda is then not needed.

Not when common sense, experience, and real-world reality are so much more trustworthy.

[rl6214]

63. Uber Alles! Seig Heil!

What a Moron

[baldguy]

68. What else would the morons in the gungeon understand?

[rl6214]

69. Why are you here?

[jmg257]

64. Here is some German for you..."Waffenkontrolle"

[baldguy]

65. More RW propaganda.

[jmg257]

66. If you insist. Seems you'd goose step right in time with those SS troops.

You can admit it, we already get it.

You embrace gun control and registration, and will tell all the rest of us over and over how we can be quite sure there is nothing to worry about, and how "everyone agrees".

Hmm...what was that about propaganda again?

[baldguy]

67. FYI the average German gun owner in 1938 was perfectly happy & supportive of the Nazi Party.

Because gun ownership is entirely compatible with & supportive of fascism. Of course the Nazis confiscated guns from Jews - THEY CONFISCATED EVERYTHING FROM JEWS BECAUSE THEY WERE JEWS! NOT BECAUSE THEY HAD GUNS!

You are not an oppressed minority for being a gun owner, so spare me you whining & your stupidity & your fringe RW propaganda. Civilized countries have rational gun control policies. RW fools oppose them.

Neonazis like guns. Hippies don't. The hippies are right.

[jmg257]

71. Knowingly not an opressed minority, and PLANNING ON STAYING THAT WAY.

Which of course is the point, or one of them.

[baldguy]

73. With the GOP in charge, your guns won't help you.

Guns, gays & abortion are distractions that keep idiots voting for the GOP & from dealing with real issues. The GOP position on these does immense harm to this country, as we have seen.

[rl6214]

75. But the GOP is not in charge

And our leaders say they have no desire to even touch this issue. How do you explain that?

[jmg257]

88. My guns won't help me at anytime if they are confiscated. Which

of course is another point, and why registration is feared, no matter who's in charge. Because it has lead to confiscation in the past, and can easily lead to confiscation again, especially when "everybody agrees" they are all dangerous ((which just means 'when enough of those in charge think it better if the people are effectively disarmed').

Will it happen? Really not sure. Of course I hope not.

Can it happen? Bet your ass.

[Iktomiwicasa]

90. The U.S. government

confiscated the arms of my people once. 300 of them are in a mass grave down the road a few miles from me. Give up our weapons? Piss on THAT.

[rl6214]

70. Propoganda?

That's just fact but when present with fact the no-nuts gun grabbers deny or ignore them.

[baldguy]

72. Propaganda - trying to paint the rational majority who want rational gun control as Nazis

And trying to paint gun owners as an oppressed minority rather than as beneficiaries of a multibillion dollar corporate lobbying campaign which generates shit like that.

[rl6214]

74. "rational majority who want rational gun control as Nazis"

Aren't you the one that posted this?

"2nd Amendment Uber Alles! Seig Heil!"

And if it is a majority that are trying to get rational gun control, why isn't it happening? The "multibillion dollar corporate lobbying campaign" is not proposing the laws, writing them up and voting on them. The representatives WE put into office are doing it, or not doing it. Are they not there to do our work for us, the work we want done? Didn't we vote them into office to pass the laws WE want. If the "rational majority" put them in office to enact these "rational gun control" laws, why isn't it happening, and don't say it's because of the "jmultibillion dollar corporate lobbying campaign" because many here have stated that the money is just going to the right wing {minority party).

[baldguy]

76. You can't recognize sarcasm through standard 3rd grade reading comprehension skills, can you?

Huh, that explains a lot.

[rl6214]

77. No

I know your type there was no sarcasm intended there. Don't try to backtrack now.

[baldguy]

78. Backtrack how?

I've been saying "2nd Amendment Uber Alles!" in response to gun worshiper stupidity like yours for months.

[rl6214]

84. Just because you have been saying it for months

Dosen't mean that this isn't your true belief

" trying to paint the rational majority who want rational gun control as Nazis
And trying to paint gun owners as an oppressed minority rather than as beneficiaries of a multibillion dollar corporate lobbying campaign which generates shit like that."

[baldguy]

85. Just because a gerbil can type doesn't mean he can understand sarcasm.

And you can't either.

[rl6214]

86. Right

You keep making stuff up and we will know you for what you really are.

[baldguy]

87. You can mislead yourself & believe anything you want. People who can read know differently.

[SsevenN]

79. Baldguy- Not too bright eh? Get your facts straight...

"Gun control support at all-time low

The heavy coverage of mass shootings in Binghamton, N.Y., North Carolina and Washington state and the cop killings in Pittsburgh has had little apparent effect on the nation's appetite for new gun laws.

A Gallup Poll out this morning shows support for a ban on private hand gun ownership at an all time low, with 29 percent of respondents saying they support such a law. It's the smallest percentage since Gallup started asking this question 50 years ago. Interestingly, gun control advocacy hit its all time high in 1959, according to this poll. It's important to note that the poll was taken before the massacre in Binghamton, but other mass shootings have been in the news for a few weeks.

The poll may show why virtually nobody in Congress is rolling out new gun control legislation. Indeed, when I served on a panel earlier this year with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), he said there didn't seem to be any appetite for new gun control laws, even with a Democratic president and an expanded liberal majority in Congress."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Poll_Support_for_gun_control_hits_all_time_low.html

I guess the eeevul NRA must have brain washed the majority of the population, bending them to their will eh?:boring:

[baldguy]

80. Nice spin from a RW propaganda site.

But even Politico can't avoid the truth:

UPDATE/CORRECTION: The folks at Media Matters have made a fair point in criticizing this post, noting that the polling was done several months ago -- even though Gallup posted this poll just today. It's still worth noting that there isn't yet a ground swell of support in the Democratic Congress for new gun control laws in wake of the tragic shootings, but I should have drilled into this polling data more closely. Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign, writing in HuffPo, has also taken Gallup to task, calling the release of the poll today misleading.

Try again. And this time you might want avoid posting GOP shit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. Is the SKS ban referenced at the ca.gov website "propaganda"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x212694#212739

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php

Let me guess-
Freepers hacked the site and California law isn't really what it says on the state's own website!

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Here's some more RW propaganda

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php

We know the State of California didn't really register and
subsequently confiscate those rifles.

That's just crazy talk...

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Sporter SKS rifles weren't particularly dangerous in California

And were banned/confiscated anyway. Hmm, some bright light just might seek to get that ban overturned, using the precedent set by Heller vs DC.

Anyway:

Which 'specific weapons' are dangerous, in your opinion?
And what is your metric for dangerousness? Looks? Popularity with criminals? Caliber?

California banned .50 BMG rifles, admittedly scary looking, but in the real world-

Even less dangerous than the average center-fire rifle, which aren't all that popular with
criminals to begin with. Now, there's another ban that might be vulnerable to challenge...

[Howzit]

94. "Eliminating specific weapons that ..are dangerous"

All guns are very dangerous - how dangerous depends on the intent of the user. Most cars are capable of being driven over the speed limit - should some of the be banned because they have large gas tanks? What is it that provokes acts of violence because it isn't magazine capacity.

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. Because people who had registered certain rifles in California had them confisticated

As the great Yogi Berra said:

"You could look it up!"

[Cant trust em]

11. or I could just post the question here and someone could answer it for me.

This is a discussion board isn't it? So discuss.

[bossy22]

15. because

it has a dubious effect on solving crime and the costs outweigh the benefits

in a country with 300 million guns and 12 million new guns bought and sold every year, the administration of such a scheme would be enormous and cost billions. Canada's gun registry has already cost the country over 1 billion dollars and its not even functioning 100%

there are too many questions on how such a large registry would be run- i doubt the ATF could run it- unless someone quadrupled the size of the agency and increased its budget by 20x...

also there is the issue with compliance- in canada there is a major section of the gun owning population which continues not to register there long guns- you can bet that the same would be here

[bossy22]

18. also i'd like to mention

there is always some form of a paper trail with any gun that is purchased...so in many ways a registration system would be redundant

[Cant trust em]

19. Something tells me that impracticality isn't what fires people up about it so much.

Not that the point isn't valid, but I doubt that it's the real crux of the issue.

[bossy22]

21. well thats only my personal opinion

but i think many people are against it because they see it as an intrusion into their rights...

[Cant trust em]

25. The cost benefit analysis makes a lot of sense to me

An intrusion of rights based on the idea of John Smith owning gun #20983409230570235 doesn't make sense to me.

I'm registered for tons of other crap and I don't feel infringed on at all.

[bossy22]

32. i generally tend to agree

i consider my self a realist...as much as i personally believe that registration of a right is wrong i will be honest and say that most courts would uphold it as a reasonable regulation of the right to bear arms- therefore i dont believe that argument holds much water

[AtheistCrusader]

42. You will if your car is declared illegal because it produces too much CO2

for the number of people it moves, and it ends up crushed or melted down with no compensation.

Heh.

Actually, I'm ok with registration if done correctly. If it includes provisions that protect existing owned firearms from confiscation, or ex post facto banning from possession, then I will be fine with registration.

The problem is, California has set a precedent that suggests I should not trust the government to uphold any such arrangement. But I'm willing to give it a go, if the protections are strong enough.

[Cant trust em]

49. As long as registration stays just registration, then I don't have a problem

Even with your analogy if I receive adequate compensation (which would have to be debated) then I still wouldn't have a problem with it.

I think that there is/should be a concern for people owning things that are dangerous, but being allowed to keep them though they are now illegal. I don't think that breaking into people's houses and taking the dangerous items is the correct step for enforcement, but people should be encouraged to turn the weapons in and be compensated accordingly. If people are caught using such a weapon after they have been declared illegal, they should face some consequences.

I'm sure that there are a lot of things that I haven't thought of in the 30 seconds it took me to develop this idea, but the idea of people running around with rocket launchers and using the excuse of "well, when I bought it it was legal" doesn't sit well with me.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. But nobody has rocket launchers.

Not unless you are in the business of testing or manufacturing them.

The weapons that are being called 'assault weapons' are for the most part, very normal rifles, with an exotic appearance. They work, just like any other semi-auto hunting, or target shooting rifle. There's nothing inherently dangerous about them, any moreso than any other semi-auto rifle. If you stick in a dowel or other magazine limiter to reduce it's capacity to 5 shots (normal is 10), the SKS is a very capable, popular, legal deer rifle. It's the most popular single rifle model in the country. It's max capacity is 10 rounds, so it's technically not even an 'assault weapon', but it gets called out over and over as a 'high powered assault weapon'.

It's very frustrating. Especially considering most crime committed with firearms is done so, with handguns.

[Cant trust em]

53. I just use rocket launchers as an example of a decision making process gone wrong

The idea of post-legislation confiscation, that is. If something is inherently dangerous, it shouldn't be allowed to exist simply because it was purchased before a law was passed.

That being said, I am willing to listen to your argument that the SKS isn't "inherently dangerous". I think that a more constructive way to deal with the problem would be to focus on which weapons actually are dangerous and getting those off the streets. In the Obama model, start with the things we have in common.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Registration is pretty key to finding where weapons

make the jump from 'legal' to 'illegal'. So finding some solid deal that will make firearms owners accept registration without some huge political backlash, is very important. It's not going to do us much good to get guns registered, if it costs us Congress or the White House again.

Only thing I can think of is, protection for existing weapons. Forget thinking down the road 'we might ban X because it's often used in crimes', and focus on drying up the supply of guns that make that transition from legal to illegal customers via straw purchases, and such.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. There are 3 common misperceptions about rifles and their owners out there...

1) Most rifles sold these days are semi-automatic, of some variety or another. The days of the
bolt-, or lever-action being the 'usual' rifle are long over.

2) Most gun owners *don't* hunt, about 80% ISTR

3) 'Assault weapons' are, in fact, useful for hunting. The SKS is quite suitable for deer
and smaller game and many hunters do use it in such a way.


And rifles as a group are rather underrepresented in crime statistics
both in general and as a % of total guns owned.
So, the SKS is both "in common use" and not "unusual and dangerous".
The ban on them in California may be vulnerable to court challenge.


If President Obama really wanted to reduce gun crime (and undercut the Republicans), he could issue a statement supporting the decision in Heller
and open up the NCIS for background checks to private sellers on a voluntary basis.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. See post #27 below n/t

[Skip Intro]

17. Really. You got a gun. It's registered to you. What is the problem there?

[Cant trust em]

24. I don't think the level of political energy spent here is worth it.

Like I said, I'm not particularly attached to this issue one way or another, but I just don't get it.

[Skip Intro]

26. Because, if someone kills someone with a gun, you can run a search of the registry

and find the criminal.

In the best of circumstances.

[Cant trust em]

28. I meant in opposition to it.

Of all the fights that could be fought, they pick this one?

[Skip Intro]

29. People are dying. I think it's a worthy cause, a worthy fight. Politically, yeah

not a fight you want to pick. They know that. I gotta give them kudos for doing it anyway.

On edit, universal health care would top this. I see where you're coming from.

I don't even know anymore.

My political world is spinning.

[Statistical]

45. Couple of problems.

Most time murder weapon is not recovered until they already have a suspect AND get warrant. At that point tracking the weapon you already have would be useless.

In the very few (outside Hollywood & CSI) cases where someone murders someone then decides for some strange reason to leave the weapon at the crime scene despite the fact it is registered to the murderer it still has problems.

There are about 350 million guns in this country. The vast majority have never been registered. About 100 million of those would be considered "street/illegal" guns. Guns that have been stolen, sold, resold, and are currently in the hands of felons, gang members, etc. Those weapons (the most MOST likely to be used in crime) will NEVER be registered.

Lastly even among legal registered weapons they do "move" people sell them, gun owner dies and family is getting rid of possession they might not know the law and sell the weapon in a manner that doesn't update registration. Weapons also are routinely stolen.

There is no conclusive information that it will have ANY effect on solving crime. As other have mentioned Canada has a national registry and it is not very effective at solving crimes:
1) weapon serial # not available most of the time
2) when serial # is available it is not in the databse
3) when serial # is in the database information is incorrect or out of date.
4) in few times that #1, #2, #3 are not true the crime may be solved using "good ole detective work".

Canadas national database (about 1/10th # of weapons as US) has cost of $1B to date and it isn't complete. Total cost to build could be >3Billion plus hundreds of millions per year to maintain. Since US has 10x as many guns a good baseline would be $30B+ for a similar database that will not be effective is solving crime.

What it will be effective at doing is convincing gun owners that the NRA is right. Dems are anti-gun and they need to vote to change that.

[Trajan]

13. Those damned Democrats ....

Dontcha just HATE when they take away your guns ?

Damn them ..... Damn them all to hell ....

[silverojo]

20. They're missing the real issue--it's not guns, it's mental health

They just use guns as a scapegoat to hide the REAL problem in our society: Their refusal to fund mental health treatment.

Every single one of these gunmen is clearly insane, and didn't get treatment. That's because the Repukes (and too many Dems) are so gung-ho for cutting funding for mental health.

Ban guns? Great. Now these people will just start making explosives, and become suicide bombers. Or maybe they'll skip the suicide part altogether.

[Merlot]

23. I didn't know guns were ever confiscated

gotta link?

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. Yes, they *were* confisticated and here's the link from the CA state site

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12275.php

2008 Dangerous Weapons Control Law
12275 thru 12290 Assault Weapons

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

CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS CONTROL ACT OF 1989
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS


f)(1) Any person, firm, company, or corporation that is in possession of an SKS rifle shall do one of the following on or before January 1, 2000:
(A) Relinquish the SKS rifle to the Department of Justice pursuant to subdivision (h).
(B) Relinquish the SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288.
(C) Dispose of the SKS rifle as permitted by Section 12285.
(2) Any person who has obtained title to an SKS rifle by bequest or intestate succession shall be required to comply with subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) of this subdivision unless he or she otherwise complies with paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 12285.
(3) Any SKS rifle relinquished to the department pursuant to this subdivision shall be in a manner prescribed by the department.
(4) The department shall conduct a public education and notification program as described in Section 12289, commencing no later than January 1, 1999.
(g) Any person who complies with subdivision (f) shall be exempt from the prohibitions set forth in subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 12280 for those acts by that person associated with complying with the requirements of subdivision (f).
(h)(1) The department shall purchase any SKS rifle relinquished pursuant to subdivision (f) from funds appropriated for this purpose by the act amending this section in the 1997-98 Regular Session of the Legislature or by subsequent budget acts or other legislation. The department shall adopt regulations for this purchase program that include, but are not limited to, the manner of delivery, the reimbursement to be paid, and the manner in which persons shall be informed of the state purchase program.
(2) Any person who relinquished possession of an SKS rifle to a law enforcement agency pursuant to Section 12288 prior to the effective date of the purchase program set forth in paragraph (1) shall be eligible to be reimbursed from the purchase program. The procedures for reimbursement pursuant to this paragraph shall be part of the regulations adopted by the department pursuant to paragraph (1).
(i) Notwithstanding paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 12276, an "SKS rifle" under this section means all SKS rifles commonly referred to as "SKS Sporter" versions, manufactured to accept a detachable AK-47 magazine and imported into this state and sold by a licensed gun dealer, or otherwise lawfully possessed in this state by a resident of this state who is not a licensed gun dealer, between January 1, 1992, and December 19, 1997.
(j) Failure to comply with subdivision (f) is a public offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or in a county jail, not exceeding one year.

[jmg257]

44. NYC also.

"In 1967, Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a rifle-shotgun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. Under that law, every person who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun in New York City had to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain a permit to possess it."

"In 1991, the New York City Council, at the prodding of Mayor David N. Dinkins, went further than Broderick. It passed, and the Mayor signed into law, a flat ban on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns..."

"The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) had notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city."

[spin]

58. Glad to oblige...I would appreciate your comments.

There was the gun confiscation in New Orleans after Katrina. Here's an link to a interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

Here's a couple links to confiscation in California:

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calockyer.html#letters

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/07/heads_up_for_ca.php

[CarinKaryn]

83. What a load of crock

That's a video produced by the NRA using a bunch of shills. What do you expect those fearmongers to say, that there was a breakdown in society thanks to the shrub's inactions and armed people running the streets had to be disarmed for the public safety (if those people are telling the truth, which is highly suspect anyway).

Got any "proof" from an UNBIASED source that that happened?

[spin]

89. Sure...

First watch a video from ABC news from Sept 8, 2005:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf8trl69kzo

Here's an article from a newspaper in Pennsylvania:

t was something we never believed we would see in the United States: Armed police and National Guardsmen taking firearms from law-abiding citizens – at gunpoint.

This happened in New Orleans, beginning about 11 days after Hurricane Katrina devastated the city and other Gulf Coast areas.

Not only did it happen, but the officers and soldiers weren’t very gentle about it.
http://www.tribune-democrat.com/editorials/local_story_301105142.html

An article from Stateline.org who advertises themselves in this manner: Stateline.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan online news site that practices journalism in the public interest by reporting on emerging trends and issues in state policy and politics.

In the days after Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans police went door to door and confiscated guns from citizens in an effort to counter chaos and crime in the wrecked city.

But gun advocates saw the seizures as an infringement on constitutional rights and said never again.

The actions of the New Orleans police have inspired 13 states, including Louisiana, to enact laws to keep state and local officials from taking guns during a state of emergency, such as after a natural disaster or terrorist attack. President Bush also signed a bill in October that would penalize states financially for illegally confiscating guns during an emergency.
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=198836

How about an article from a Pittsburgh newspaper:

As New Orleans devolved into a less civilized version of Kevin Costner's "Waterworld," and as vandals, looters and rapists shouted "Laissez les bons temps rouler" ("Let the good times roll") while shooting at rescue helicopters and other signs of civilized behavior, police started confiscating the guns of their fellow New Orleanians.

Well, at least from those not shooting at them.

The government started tracking down law-abiding gun owners to ensure that civilians could not have pistols, shotguns or other firearms. "Only law enforcement are (sic) allowed to have weapons," Mr. Compass said.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_374924.html

And of course Wikipedia:

Controversy arose over a September 8 city-wide order by New Orleans Police Superintendent Eddie Compass to local police, National Guard troops, and US Marshals to confiscate all civilian-held firearms. "No one will be able to be armed," Compass said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns." Seizures were carried out without warrant, and in some cases with excessive force; one instance captured on film involved 58 year old New Orleans resident Patricia Konie. Konie stayed behind, in her well provisioned home, and had an old revolver for protection. A group of police entered the house, and when she refused to surrender her revolver, she was tackled and it was removed by force. Konie's shoulder was fractured, and she was taken into police custody for failing to surrender her firearm.<70><71> Even National Guard troops, armed with assault rifles, were used for house to house searches, seizing firearms and attempting to get those remaining in the city to leave.<72>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Confiscation_of_firearms


You stated that "I didn't know guns were ever confiscated." Obviously guns were confiscated.

If have lived in Florida for 40 years and during that time I have seen a lot of very strong tropical storms and was within 60 miles of the center of Hurricane Charlie. One storm knocked out power for a week. Many times my neighborhood was flooded to the point that the police would have had to wade through waist deep water for a long way to get to my house.

If the police or the national guard came to my door and wanted me to turn in my firearms, I would have been VERY upset. You're more or less on your own in a bad storm. Once the winds hit a certain speed, the cops don't respond. During the aftermath of the storm they are far to busy to handle many calls.

[friendly_iconoclast]

96. A gentle reminder of two axioms of debate for you...

1.) When a factual claim is made, it matters not who said it, or whether you think the claim is true.
Your BFF *may* be wrong about something, and someone you despise *may* be correct. The claim is either true, or it isn't.

2.) When you're publicly shown to be incorrect about something, one should acknowledge it and
remember for future use: "Research is our friend, and careful use of it can avoid public embarassment."

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Sorry, meant to say 'confiscated'

Comes from PWTF = Posting with the flu.

[Cant trust em]

55. I prefer confisticated.

An extra syllable never hurt nobody.

[spin]

59. "Confisticated" is a great word to describe what happened in New Orleans...

Link to an interesting video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

[umccoyw]

95. i dont thkn they can ban guns

the federal government is supposed to be able to restrict guns at all according to 2nd amendment especially now after its been decided it a individual right and not a militia right in D.C V. Heller