And your point would be what, exactly? “Second Amendment! Second Amendment! Screeeeech! Second Amendment!”
As point of fact, I have been exceptionally reasonable. The only screeching here is yours. Totally predictable. For you to post that about me means that you have not read the thread, further marginalizing your opinion.
Exactly. The antis don’t just want certain things banned. Their ultimate goal is to ban everything! Every rifle, pistol, revolver, and shotgun, regardless of it’s caliber or capacity. And their way of doing it is incrementalism. A little at a time. So we have to fight them at every step no matter how minute’ any of their given proposals might seem to others. Magazine restrictions, ammo sales, gun bans, licensing, taxes, etc., etc., etc. They’re all little movements toward the same end!
If we woke up tomorrow and every privately owned firearm in the U.S. had vanished into thin air, and the only thing from then on we were allowed to own were single shot Muskets from 1776, the minute someone murdered someone with one (and in a country of 300+ million that would happen quite quickly) they’d be screaming to ban the Muskets. They’re like the Terminator! They won’t stop…EVER! Until our rights are dead!
The antis who say this isn’t their ultimate goal are lying! They are liars!!! And any gun owner who falls for even one of their tricks as “reasonable” is a fool!
No compromises!
Actually you have no idea what I fucking need or don’t need so I’d appreciate if you take a step back. If you want to fucking ban guns that can fire 20 rounds in 10 seconds, sack up and call for a ban of all semi autos. Stop the incremental bullshit that your side is famous for doing. I’m drawing the line on “assault weapons” because if the fucking morons running the asylum can’t figure out there is a bigger problem, then they cannot be trusted to stop with the AWs. You’ve made your point abundantly clear on where you stand, I don’t fucking care. YOU aren’t going to get my guns, so you can end that fantasy right now.
My guns are safe. the overwhelming majority of guns are too. Feinstein herself said that 400 people were killed with “assault weapons” in the last eight fucking years since the ban expired. I’m not going to equate it to deaths from swimming pools, drunk drivers, or anything else. With numbers like that even you should be able to figure out that “assault weapons” are about the last thing you need to worry about.
Not going to help you take away my shit. You wont be satisfied until x = 1 y = 1 and z equals 90, or did I read you wrong?
JX, before you work yourself up into a stroke, remember that it’s not the antis you have to convince. They will always want you disarmed and you will not succeed in changing their mind.
The people we need to talk to are the gun owners who say *“I’d agree to…such and such…regulation”. * They are the ones who need to be wised up as they have been fooled into stupidly giving up a little bit of their liberty here and there.
You don’t NEED to be a Muslim, you don’t NEED to walk down the street without a cop searching you on a whim, you don’t NEED to know that a judge can’t sentence you to flogging…you see how dumb this “reasoning” is? You’re just assuming the conclusion. Any right you don’t like goes into the “you don’t NEED” pile, which sidesteps the actual question of why you get to make things illegal for everyone based on your own undefined criteria of what everyone else “needs.” We don’t have god-emperors in this country, and we don’t have unchecked majoritarianism; people get to do things even if self-appointed schoolmarms don’t like them, and even if a great democratic majority doesn’t like them.
FWIW, as someone who is not a gun owner I appreciate the spirit of this thread and the constructive conversation that most have brought to it. The thread is not directed to the likes of me, but I do read it with interest.
Can I see if I’ve got it so far?
Pretty good consensus on eliminating “the gun show loophole” and anything else that might function in a similar manner.
Many but not all who could accept required training, possibly greater amounts for handguns. So long as it was affordable and available.
Pretty much divided about requiring safe storage or what constitutes safe storage. Similar thoughts about the related concept of making the owner responsible for misuse of his/her weapon if it is used by someone else as a consequence of their not having adequately secured it.
No love for microstamping: extra cost with little extra benefit.
No love for the AWB but that seems mainly directed at the fact that the list is drawn up by those who do not know the guns so well. Is there room for a ban on weapons that gun owners could agree actually are significantly more dangerous than typical guns (but are not currently outlawed) whatever they might be? What would they be? Short of a ban are there other additional requirements that might be imposed, such as more secure storage or additional above and beyond requirements prior to purchase?
Strong support for better enforcement of current laws.
A solid undercurrent that ANY compromise is to be avoided and better to dig into an extreme position to avoid the slippery slope. Some with multiple exclamation marks.
Is that a fair recap so far?
Thank you again for this thread from those who are not its intended participants but who have an interest in understanding what reasonable people think and why.
That’s right, it’s not like you are dealing with human beings who have their own values and morals-you are dealing with The Enemy. Every damn one of them want exactly the same thing, and every single thing they say is a lie to further their Secret Agenda. Its best you not even listen to their “questions” or agree to any “compromise” from “reasonable” people. Just listen to people like Wayne LaPierre and realize that “President” Obama is going to knock on your door and take away yoru god-given guns any day now, just like he was the day after he was elected the first time and the day after he was elsected the second time-the pattern is there if you are brave enough to see it!
I’m quite clear where the person I was replying to stands. Aren’t you? He knows the answers before he asks them. I will gladly consider compromise that is win win for both sides with anyone else. When the first thing out of the other side’s mouth is “ban this” or “ban that” the well poisoned and I’m not going to waste my time. If you look earlier in this thread I posted some of the things that I would be willing to consider.
Obama has been a better friend to gun owners that Bush ever was. I’m not blind nor paranoid. Try not to paint me into some redneck, UN fearing, corner.
I know. I’ve been reading this crap for years and lately it’s been coming on pretty thick by the usual suspects. I’m working on my own group of gunowners to get them on board. I reserve the f bombs for whose minds are unable to be changed. He dropped the first one by the way. 
If you would calm down and look at reality, you’d see that “assault weapons” pose virtually no risk to you at all, no matter how large their magazines get. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that your “moral obligation” is founded on misinformation.
Not likely; I think most of us are against bans of any specific type of firearm. And even if we were, in principle, not opposed to banning certain classes of guns, why would we support banning the one class that does the least amount of harm? (I.e., those military-style rapid-fire assault weapons.)
Pretty close, yes.
I’m one of those people. I would be fine with gun control measures like training and licensing requirements, in principle – but the presence of people like BobLibDem in the debate forces me to reconsider. If any compromise I make is just going to be seized on as another stepping stone on the way toward the most highly restrictive measures they can achieve, regardless of whether those measures have any rational public safety basis (and that’s what really has me going :dubious:), then what reason do I have to concede anything?
But by the by, Messy Kweznuz and/or Gary Crimble everybody. Though we might be a bit at odds in this argument, I hope you’s all having a good one.
Unfortunately, you won’t put a real dent in gun deaths unless you address handguns:
No, what needs to be addressed is WHO is perpetrating the majority of violent crime. It’s gang bangers, those involved in the drug trade, and others in the inner city. And most of them do not acquire their weapons legally and/or cannot legally possess firearms in the first place. Few bring this up as middle class America doesn’t really care if Rufus Drugdealer blows Leroy Shitstain away. But this is what a large percentage of shootings in the U.S. are about.
If you subtract the shootings done by those mentioned, you’d find there would be very few shootings left over. Mass school/mall shootings and Jim Bob capping his bitch on Saturday night are very rare occurrences overall.
When one considers this, why are we as a nation such a bunch of wimps when it comes to dealing with crime? Why are armed robbers that could get 40 years getting 3 years? Why are people charged with assaults being allowed to plead to ordinance violations of disorderly conduct? The amount of tax dollars spent to lock these pricks up for serious periods of time the first time around is dwarfed by the amount spent by continuously arresting/jailing them time after time after time. It’s insane!
I was really just pointing out that banning “assault weapons” is missing the target, if you’ll pardon the pun. What mix of gun control, gang crackdowns, sentencing and just general poverty fighting is the best policy wrt addressing deaths by handguns is a separate issue. One that I don’t feel knowledgeable enough to address.
Thank you.
One bit to add in - the rate of violent crime, homicide in particular, is actually way down.
The deaths associated with guns that have not decreased are suicides (and completed suicides are much more common with access to firearms), which have increased, and the very visible but in truth low risk to the average person mass murder.
This thread is not my place to comment on what should or should not be done about that, but the facts should be laid out on the table. Otherwise I’ll return to listening in and learning.
poll tax
n.
A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for voting.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
I have said nothing about use of a license fee or tax to reduce violence.
That’s more of a British usage. In the US it more often refers to a tax on voting. Wikipedia:
A “poll tax” can be a tax on people-- that is, everyone pays it-- or a tax on the activity of voting. In the US, the latter is not constitutional.
Wonder how that British definition ended up in the American Heritage dictionary
In any case, a tax or license fee on firearms certainly does not meet the definition of a poll tax and since we are already pay taxes and or license fees on certain firearms (carry permits for handguns and transfer taxes on NFA arms), they are likely constitutional.
We have to face the reality that many in this country don’t like firearms and sooner or later, will tire of the costs incurred by gun crime. If we, as gun owners were seen as helping defray those costs, it might be good PR.
The similarity is that if you suggest taxing guns as a form of gun control, you are advocating the use of a tax to suppress a constitutionally protected right, and not merely for revenue purposes. A poll tax should not be enacted to stop anyone from voting, and neither should a gun tax not be enacted to stop people from owning guns.