Because any common-sense attempt at gun regulation in this country is immediately met with kneejerk responses from reactionaries who think every piece of gun legislation is a backdoor to confiscation, totalitarianism, and white Christian males being herded into death camps by whatever scary minority group is the designated boogeyman of the decade.
Or, actually, because of what I said.
No, you cannot. He is a veteran, a Marine (though most people would say he stopped being a Marine the day he quit the corps, like I stopped being an employee of Yankee Doodle Dandy the night I quit that dreadful job), and just plain better than you.
Isn’t the Second Amendment also, um, an amendment?
I agree with you. Feinstein’s bill is probably the NRA’s wet dream. The bill doesn’t have a chance of passing, won’t really do much and obfuscates the any real discussion we should be having on meaningful gun reform debate. It allows the NRA to fundraise and rathole the real debate. Makes me wonder if Feinstein isn’t actually on the NRA payroll?
There’s just no good way to ever convince (and stop) a conspiracy theorist, is there? I’ve often joked to my husband that GOD HIMSELF could come down and tell my mother (who is one of these people) that she is wrong and she still would not give up the belief that Obama is the antichrist sent to turn us into a communist country and take our guns. Dear Og, what a bunch of fanatical simpletons.
In Feinstein’s case saying that she has been biding her time looking for an opportunity is not simplistic, conspiratorial, or false. As I cited above, she has wanted to ban firearms since the 1970s, sponsored the original AWB, tried to append it to another law to extend it in 2004, opposed every bill even remotely favorable to gun ownership her entire career, and introduced her “new” AWB on the first day of the new Congress. She is reliably anti-gun and always has been. You can’t claim that people are jumping at shadows when it’s actually the truth.
Airman, can you actually cite Feinstein outright calling for the ban on all guns? I mean, Wiki is a good start but a Wiki comment isn’t the same as a news report on a Feinstein press report where she says flat out she wants to ban all guns. I think she’s called for a ban on handguns in SF (not all guns) and a ban on semi autos (not all guns) but until seeing something more concrete I think the “ban all guns” is a BS meme. I’d be happy to be corrected on this with some real cites instead of inferences as to what Feinsteins “real end goal” is. I’ll grant you there is smoke, but y’all haven’t shown the fire.
IMHO the “law abiding gun” lobby loses credibility every time the slippery slope argument is rolled out.
So, show the truth here.
He was referring to the 5000 fingers of Dr. T.
There’s more at this wiki article on her various political positions. This is a different article from her wiki bio.
These days it’s hard to get any politician on the record with details about an issue. They’ve learned to say general things like “I’m for gun control.” or “Get rid of assault rifles and high capacity clips.” We don’t know how far they want to push the ban. They’ll take it in small steps. I guess from their sides view it’s a smart tactic. We do know Feinstein’s attempts at gun legislation go all the way back to her days as Mayor of San Francisco.
Pretty much the same stuff that’s already been posted. The 60 Minutes quote could be construed as support for a total ban but I’m assuming she was talking about semi automatics, given the context. Thanks for linking it. It really puts your claim that Feinstein is “so far left it’s not even funny” in its place, seeing how she’s pro-capital punishment, a co-sponsor of the PATRIOT act, etc.
I see. We can’t tell what people mean by their words, so we should just assume the worst. Shame on you for supporting slavery.
What’s it to you? I’m no hunter (ethical vegetarian all my life, in fact, wouldn’t shoot a deer even if it looked at me funny or insulted my mom), but I am one of the millions of civilians in this country who own semi-automatic rifles. Even if I were to grant that I don’t have a great need for my AR-15s (or my high-capacity magazines), I am interested but not very much impressed by the logical alchemy whereby “you don’t need it” is transmuted into “you can’t have it.” And, considering there are so many millions of them out there, but they figure in only the tiniest slice of violent crime (more people are killed with no weapon at all than with assault weapons) it seems that your objection is not founded on any care for public safety but rather a kind of moral outrage, unconcerned with fact but able to sustain itself forever on indignant potentiality.
There is something you should understand about the folks on the other side of the debate. For the gun rights advocates, a ban on semiautos is a complete gun ban, or as near it as makes no odds. A ban on semiautos is not just a “reasonable restriction” or anything approaching a possible compromise – it is a full-on gunpocalypse that will be fought to the last breath.
I disagree. I’ve seen quotes from gun hunting enthusiasts, who are, by definition, gun rights advocates, that speak against semi automatics. A sizable number of Americans support a ban on semi automatics, and did before the Newtown shootings. I reckon that once semi automatics have been gone awhile-- it will take a few more massacres, sadly, but I think it will happen-- few will want them back, just as few Americans want automatics available to civilians. I also think that the eventual removal of semi automatics will happen peacefully. Nice hyperbole, though. “Gunpocalypse.” That’s cute, I like it.
I take your point, though, that there’s a large-ish subgroup of gun rights advocates-- gun nuts, they’re usually called-- who are crazy for coco-puffs. Most of them are talk. Unfortunately, their talk may convince some unfortunate people to shoot some even more unfortunate cops or something. That’s bad, right? I think shooting cops is generally bad.
Exactly how was Hitler going to stage an invasion of the United States with no major sealift capability nor air support? I really want to hear this. I appreciate the service of my Grandfather in WWI, WWII and Korea, but he never indicated to me that he resist an invasion by Hitler of the outer banks of North Carolina. The Vets saved Europe. No question, but let’s not get silly about it. Being a Vet doesn’t make you more or less of a citizen.
I don’t think anyone was saying it was a problem, it was simply an observation that they still like to play with weapons similar to what they were issued while in the military. I use the word “play” advisedly. Range shooting is in no way realistic training except for the very basic stuff, like learning how to use your front sights.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Military training isn’t relevant to private ownership. Training just means that they know how to properly operate it. The military also trains in using mines, flamethrowers, rocket launchers, and many other very destructive things. Just because a soldier has extensive training in something doesn’t mean they should be permitted to own it once they are out of the military.
Training doesn’t prevent someone from flipping out and killing people. Gun owners are so insistent that all guns be legal that they are enabling the crazy people access to very destructive weapons that can easily kill large amounts of people. Background checks can only do so much. You can’t guarantee that the sane person buying the weapon today will remain sane after traumatic events like being fired, divorced, going bankrupt, etc. At least if you limit the destructive capability of the weapons, he will be more limited in how many people he injures when he flips out.
I’m not saying that people don’t exist who care only about the right to own shotguns and sniper rifles – just that they’re in the minority, that there’s a pretty huge overlap between the people who support a ban on semiautos and those who don’t actually own any guns at all. Do you have any idea how many millions of Americans own handguns or AR-15s? Crikey, do you have any idea how many AR-15s were sold just in the last three weeks?
I actually don’t either, but I’m trying to find out. This Slate article isn’t exactly scientific, but estimates that there are around 3.75 million AR-15s in private hands in the USA – and that’s just one particular kind of semi-automatic rifle. Add in all the other kinds of semi-automatic rifles, and then throw in pistols (they’re semi-automatic too) and you might start to get an idea of why I’m saying that semi-automatic weapons are a gigantic part of gun ownership and the gun market. They are most certainly not unusual or specialist weapons, owned only by a few, and seen as dispensable by others.
Well, that’s a nice way to try to dismiss as irrelevant everyone who disagrees with you. They’re nuts, they’re crazy, and they want people to shoot cops for some reason? Why do you hate America, Dave? :dubious:
Yes. Semi automatics are popular in the US. So’s heroin. Millions (billions?) of people smoked opium, it doesn’t make opium smoking good for you.
The reason why you can’t get good numbers on guns in the US-- which is usually good at things like government websites, census data, and general counting of things, is because the NRA lobbies against it.
Anyway, best as I can figure, less than half of US households own guns. (Incidentally, are you Aussie?) Even the NRA estimate is about half. I’m guessing a sizable minority of households that contain guns have them because they’re durable goods and they were inherited. Maybe 20%, right? The 2010 estimate is 114,825,428 (http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/hh-fam/table1n.txt). Half of 114 million is 57 million houses, minus 20% is 47 mil. And then, because of the NRA, you scratch your head, remember that most hunters don’t use semi automatics, and say, OK, 30 million households have semi automatics. That’s what I did, anyway. Give or take 10 million.
30 million households, I feel I’m being generous here, but a only 30 mil out of 114. I could be wrong-- easily, thanks to the NRA. Looks like semi automatics are cheaper than bolt action. I found that surprising, especially since bolt actions are claimed to be much more popular for hunting. It could easily be that my perceptions are colored by my experiences-- serious hunters had bolt action rifles. Dickheads had semiautomatics.
They embarrass me. I remember when the VT shooting happened and Aussies asked me if it would mean that the US would finally get serious about guns. All I could say was that there’s a lot of Americans, they won’t really care much about another 30 dead, more or less. It makes me mad. I’m an American citizen, still, and I’m usually proud to be one. But yanks are just so stupidly wrong about guns-- including the friends I grew up with, my family, people I normally respect-- so backward ass, superstitious, a bunch of blockheads on the subject-- that it makes me feel shame.
What’s worse, it’s my demographic that enables the slaughter. Guys a lot like me. Guys who, for some reason, can’t see the common good. I believe that if the primary American demographic that was claiming they’d give up their guns only after a shoot out was black males age 18 to 29, the Republicans would drop it like it’s hot.
I alluded to how your big talk could lead to another cracker shooting a cop. Ever heard of The Turner Diaries? Some white pride cracker wrote that book, it’s a fairy tale about how whitey finally got rid of all the subhumans. Pages from it turned up on Timothy McVeigh.
A good example as far as I’m concerned, since I think both should be legal. (Not that I’d ever use heroin. :p)
Nah mate, American here.
By and large this is true of a lot of us. I might share a feeling of outrage over one particularly publicized event, but I think public policy should be based on statistics and not shock; and when it comes to statistics I don’t actually care about 30 deaths in any meaningful way. Certainly not enough to seriously inconvenience myself. I don’t think very many people can honestly say otherwise.
I have heard of the Turner Diaries, but I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say. Which part of my talk was “big,” and how could that lead to somebody shooting a cop?
Well, for a long time the citizens of Chicago were essentially disarmed with no legal way to own, much less carry, a gun. Guns are evil, you see, they cause crime and there is no legitimate reason for a law-abiding citizen to carry them, the police will provide adequate protection. Yet the mayor had armed bodyguards and several aldermen routinely carried weapons claiming they needed “protection”. Meanwhile, the murder and assault rate kept climbing every year, despite the police protecting the disarmed population.
See the hypocrisy there?
Nope.
The problem wasn’t that Chicago had tight gun control, the problem was that it wasn’t universal across the nation. Focusing on state or local crime rates to test the efficacy of gun control is a fool’s errand. Unless we police our state borders the same way we do the national borders, gun control laws need to be nationwide.
Chicago having restrictive gun laws and Chicago’s citizens being “disarmed” are not the same thing. This is a stupid example.