The New Assault Weapons Ban

[Bear_Nenno]

[QUOTE=GomiBoy]

I think that stance is slightly ridiculous. People get grandfathered in for all sorts of things from real estate to zoning to whatever. It’s not like all of the laws concerning every issue are thrown out whenever a new party takes office.

So then, by your own admission, this part of your proposed ban is meaningless. All it will take is for people to buy a shit ton of weapons during the term of a progun mayor, and they can possess those weapons for the next 50 years of anti-gun mayors? Exactly how will that have any effect at all?
That’s the problem with most gun legislation. It just is never well thought out. There’s a million loopholes which render it pointless. An inconvenience, that’s it. Come up with a good idea. One that makes sense, and makes a difference. And I’ll support it.

[CatInASuit]

@Una Persson

And the point I rebutted was that it was not a copy of a military weapon, which was your initial claim. You have not yet responded or retracted that claim. I suppose one can allege that any gun is a copy of a military weapon, given that guns were originally developed for the military, but that’s not really very valid in the modern sense.

Likewise.

I have yet to see someone tell me about an Assault Weapon that is non-lethal and designed for something other than killing, seeing as this is central to the ban in question.

[GomiBoy]

@Una Persson

I don’t dismiss them, I just find them lacking completeness in some areas.

And rather than discuss, you make personal observations about my lack of knowledge. OK, fine.

So by your criteria, a little .22 plinking rifle, common to folks all over the US, would be just as restricted as any other detachable magazine weapon? That’s really an extreme view, and I think it’s clear there will be no meeting of the minds on this issue at all.

Yes, because a detached magazine weapon is more dangerous than a non-detachable magazine. Color me surprised you won’t ever agree, as I believe you support no restrictions whatsoever in weapons sales or ownership.

And the point I rebutted was that it was not a copy of a military weapon, which was your initial claim. You have not yet responded or retracted that claim. I suppose one can allege that any gun is a copy of a military weapon, given that guns were originally developed for the military, but that’s not really very valid in the modern sense.

Wow, you found one model of rifle which wasn’t a copy of a military rifle. So therefore, those Mini-14, AR-15, SKS, Tec-9, Mini-30, etc, etc, etc, are also not copies of military weapons.

Do you even realize how silly that sounds? You point out one weapon which is not a copy of a military weapon, and actually think that changes the intent or spirit of the legislation I’m proposing. No wonder.

Berkley has a nearly complete ban on free speech? Am I the only one in here who finds that to be a rather extraordinary claim to make on the SDMB? You’ll forgive me if I ask for numerous cites on that one example.

Of course not, but I like the way you changed the goal posts there. Cities in America don’t have nearly complete bans on guns either, but since that is your premise how about a cite there?

You asked for a city that restricts free speech. Berkley restricts the rights of those supporting non-Liberal causes to speak or protest.

[Bear_Nenno]

@GomiBoy

Then in order to buy the more quickly gun they’d have to pass a more stringent background check…

I’m going to work through this with you. But you cannot say things so dubiously. You really must be more specific. Otherwise, it seems like more “feel good” legislation.

Tell me:
What exactly does your proposed “more stringent background check” check?
Is it instant?
Does it take some time? A week? A month?
Does it take an investigation by some official?
At what level?
Where does the money come from to pay the official?
Additional fees added to the purchase?
What is it that you expect this more stringent background check will find that a normal instant NICS check will not?
Who do you plan to disqualify from purchasing your high capacity weapons?

How do you propose these “more stringent” checks will be carried out for the thousands and thousands of daily gun transfers? You want to start a new registry for high capacity weapons. Who is going to pay for all that work? Taxes? Will people who already own a high capacity weapon have to pay a fee to register it? Do you think they will pay a fee to register something they’ve lawfully owned for 10 years? I doubt they would even do it for free. Or even if you paid them to do it.

There will always be an almost infinite supply of nonregistered high capacity weapons out there. There is just no way to get them all registered. I bet less than 50% would ever be voluntarily registered. People who own AR15s are they type of people who do not want a registration. Even if that was passed, nobody would cooperate. So, again, the legislation becomes meaningless.

[CatInASuit]

@GomiBoy

Yes, it is a US position; this principle is a foundation of US Constitutional law. And whilst I am on your side in the argument to ban some guns, it is up to the government / the ban-ers to provide the justification, not the other way around.

I am aware of that fact as you pointed out earlier.

However, last time I checked this was Great Debates and I would prefer to hear justification from both sides as to why the weapons should be banned/not banned to help decide if the ban is fair or not.

[GomiBoy]

[QUOTE=Bear_Nenno]

@GomiBoy

So then, by your own admission, this part of your proposed ban is meaningless. All it will take is for people to buy a shit ton of weapons during the term of a progun mayor, and they can possess those weapons for the next 50 years of anti-gun mayors? Exactly how will that have any effect at all?
That’s the problem with most gun legislation. It just is never well thought out. There’s a million loopholes which render it pointless. An inconvenience, that’s it. Come up with a good idea. One that makes sense, and makes a difference. And I’ll support it.

I somehow doubt that, as minor inconsistencies you seem to think are insurmountable barriers to progress.

The permission to buy detached-mag weapons is the only thing here. Folks who already own them, or buy a metric shit-load before the restrictions come in, would need to apply for permission to keep them or face arrest for owning illegal weapons. If permission’s granted, then things carry on as they are. If someone can’t pass a simple background check and can’t get permission from local police to own these guns, do you really want them having a metric shit-load of them?!?

There would need to be exceptions for family heirlooms and the like, but why is this so impossible to be workable?

You assume the laws would dramatically change every 4 or 6 years with the change in office of different parties in every city and town in America. I doubt that; local politics tend to be a hell of a lot more static than federal politics, and if local laws are supported by such a razor-thin majority that a new election changes the laws every 4 years then perhaps your hobby isn’t quite so well enjoyed by your neighbors.

[GomiBoy]

@Bear_Nenno

I’m going to work through this with you. But you cannot say things so dubiously. You really must be more specific. Otherwise, it seems like more “feel good” legislation.

OK.

Tell me:
What exactly does your proposed “more stringent background check” check?
Criminal record, mental health record, etc… similar to Concealed Carry

Is it instant?
No. There is a waiting period. 5 days minimum

Does it take some time? A week? A month?
A week minimum. Why does this always piss off gun rights people? Why do you need INSTANT checks and purchases?

Does it take an investigation by some official?
Not investigation, but sign-off

At what level?
Chief of Police or local equivalent

Where does the money come from to pay the official?
One-off fee to register as an owner

Additional fees added to the purchase?
A one-off registration fee to pay for the overhead

What is it that you expect this more stringent background check will find that a normal instant NICS check will not?
NICS would be fine, as long as it checks mental health records as well.

Who do you plan to disqualify from purchasing your high capacity weapons?
Mental health problems, criminal record, felons

How do you propose these “more stringent” checks will be carried out for the thousands and thousands of daily gun transfers?
The same way the NICS works now. And thousands of thousands seems a bit high, especially when I am talking about a fraction of total guns, not all of them

You want to start a new registry for high capacity weapons. Who is going to pay for all that work?
One-off registration fee

Will people who already own a high capacity weapon have to pay a fee to register it?

Do you think they will pay a fee to register something they’ve lawfully owned for 10 years?
No, but if you want to buy more of them then yes. A one-off no-fee registration could be grandfathered in for this type of case

@Bear_Nenno

I doubt they would even do it for free. Or even if you paid them to do it.
There will always be an almost infinite supply of nonregistered high capacity weapons out there. There is just no way to get them all registered. I bet less than 50% would ever be voluntarily registered. People who own AR15s are they type of people who do not want a registration. Even if that was passed, nobody would cooperate. So, again, the legislation becomes meaningless.

Surprise me…

Seems pretty simple to me. People who own AR-15s and don’t get them registered then use them in crimes would face a hell of a lot steeper penalties then.

And cooperation with the law is not the issue; if you refuse to cooperate with the law, then you face the penalties, just like any other law. I simple don’t agree that all guns no matter what are some sacrosanct right the way so many people seem to.

[GomiBoy]

@CatInASuit

I am aware of that fact as you pointed out earlier.

However, last time I checked this was Great Debates and I would prefer to hear justification from both sides as to why the weapons should be banned/not banned to help decide if the ban is fair or not.

Good luck on that, let me know how it goes.

[Bear_Nenno]

If permission’s granted, then things carry on as they are. If someone can’t pass a simple background check and can’t get permission from local police to own these guns, do you really want them having a metric shit-load of them?!?

If you added this to your ban, I would require a couple things.
How would you feel about these additions:

1. It will be required for the permission to be “shall issue”. In other words, the local police chief would have to specifically justify why a particular person was denied his permission to own big magazines. The police will not be able to blanketly state, “no magazines in my town”.
   If they do the background check, and the guy has never done anything wrong, they can’t just deny him because they dont want to bother with the paperwork.

2. There are Florida Sheriffs who outright refuse to sign any NFA paperwork. An ATF form for purchasing a machine gun requires a signature from the chief law enforcement officer of the county (the Sheriff… not the police chief does not hold this status BTW). There are some sheriffs who, as a matter of policy, refuse to put their signature on ANY forms from any person. One reason is liability. They are fearful that some horrible crime will be committed and it will come back to bite him in the ass since he signed the form. This is crap, because all the signature states is that he did a background check, and the guy is eligible. It isn’t supposed to be endorsing or granting anything. They are just supposed to fingerprint you, check for felonies, and then sign the paper. That’s it. But by not signing, they effectively ban NFA weapons… but not really. Because all a person needs to do is go to the sheriff in the next county over. Or make a donation to the Bar Association and get a judge to sign it… or form an umbrella coorperation and buy all your NFA shit through the corporation…

Anyway… so the second this is:
There must be a clause that explicitly relieves the CLEO, the city, (and hell, the gun manufacturers) and/or anyone else involved in the good faith granting of permission to a citizen of any and all liability for any act that is later committed with a high capacity magazine sold in that town.

1. Shall Issue
2. Release of Liabilty

You up for that?

[GomiBoy]

@Bear_Nenno

If you added this to your ban, I would require a couple things.
How would you feel about these additions:

1. It will be required for the permission to be “shall issue”. In other words, the local police chief would have to specifically justify why a particular person was denied his permission to own big magazines. The police will not be able to blanketly state, “no magazines in my town”.
   If they do the background check, and the guy has never done anything wrong, they can’t just deny him because they dont want to bother with the paperwork.

2. There are Florida Sheriffs who outright refuse to sign any NFA paperwork. An ATF form for purchasing a machine gun requires a signature from the chief law enforcement officer of the county (the Sheriff… not the police chief does not hold this status BTW). There are some sheriffs who, as a matter of policy, refuse to put their signature on ANY forms from any person. One reason is liability. They are fearful that some horrible crime will be committed and it will come back to bite him in the ass since he signed the form. This is crap, because all the signature states is that he did a background check, and the guy is eligible. It isn’t supposed to be endorsing or granting anything. They are just supposed to fingerprint you, check for felonies, and then sign the paper. That’s it. But by not signing, they effectively ban NFA weapons… but not really. Because all a person needs to do is go to the sheriff in the next county over. Or make a donation to the Bar Association and get a judge to sign it… or form an umbrella coorperation and buy all your NFA shit through the corporation…

Anyway… so the second this is:
There must be a clause that explicitly relieves the CLEO, the city, (and hell, the gun manufacturers) and/or anyone else involved in the good faith granting of permission to a citizen of any and all liability for any act that is later committed with a high capacity magazine sold in that town.

1. Shall Issue
2. Release of Liability

You up for that?

Yes, on both. Shall issue isn’t a problem for me if the tests are in place and the standards fair and open, and if someone passes all the tests then why would the company, the city, or the signing individual be responsible for the actions of someone else?

But I forgot to add one thing. Training would be required, to be funded by the gun owner, to satisfy safety and accuracy status as if a concealed carry permit. You can’t get one unless you can prove that your are a good enough shot and safe to handle one. If you know what you’re doing, then you just have to pass a simple handling, safety, and shooting test at your local police gun range. If not, you have to pay for classes in safe gun handling and take the same test out of your own pocket.

[Bear_Nenno]

@GomiBoy

Criminal record, mental health record, etc… similar to Concealed Carry

Your ignorance is showing again. There are no such things inherent in Concealed Carry laws. If you can legally own a firearm in Florida, you can purchase a Concealed Carry permit. There is no greater background check or mental health record.
How do you propose that the government will be able to investigate mental health history? If a person does not volunteer that information, how can some agency in Colorado know that a person had mental issues in Iowa? There is no national databank of mental patients! Such a database would be a huge invasion of privacy and illegal.

No. There is a waiting period. 5 days minimum

Not an exceptionally big deal. There already exists waiting periods on most purchases anyway.

A week minimum. Why does this always piss off gun rights people? Why do you need INSTANT checks and purchases?

If you want to force people to wait a week, that’s one thing. But it is quite another to require an investigation that TAKES A WEEK. Does that make sense? The longer the investigation, the more likely paperwork will get lost or things will be mishandled. Plus, the easier to get backlogged. It’s more of a hassle. You have to keep calling and be like “Just checking on the status of my application…”
Or you just wait and wait and then find out shits been lost or wasn’t filed properly or whatever. Anyone who has had to deal with USCIS or any other government licensing authority knows how horrible waiting is. Last time I checked, they were only just now processing I-751 applications that were filed last year!!! That’s why people want INSTANT.

Not investigation, but sign-off

If there is no physical investigation or interviewing of neighbors and such, then what is this new method going to find? The NICS check already instantly checks for everything. Anything else would take an actual investigator to uncover. Now you’re saying no investigator. Then how will this background check be more stringent than NICS? To do that you would need an investigator.

One-off fee to register as an owner

So you will get a card or something that says you can own high capacity weapons? So then when you buy them in the future, and you’ve already paid your one-off fee, then you dont need to pay again or go through the more stringent background check and wait a couple weeks?

NICS would be fine, as long as it checks mental health records as well.

Now your proposal requires a whole new database and a change to existing medical privacy laws. Are you up for that?

Mental health problems, criminal record, felons

Once again… feel good legislation. These are already disqualifiers for purchasing ANY firearm. So you want to spend millions of tax payer money to impliment a ban that “no… seriously this time” prevents felons and people with certain mental health issues from buying things they already can’t buy to begin with???

The same way the NICS works now.

So you want to check NICS to ensure that no felons or dangerously crazy people will buy the high capacity weapons? Do you realize that this is already the law for EVERY firearm??? Not just your high capacity ones. But every single sale through a licensed business does this… already.

And thousands of thousands seems a bit high, especially when I am talking about a fraction of total guns, not all of them

Guns that hold more than 6 rounds and magazines for those guns?? I would say that “thousands of thousands” seems a bit low. You realize that people sometimes just buy magazines… And they buy them maybe a dozen at a time if they’re on sale. That’s a lot of purchases to track.

No, but if you want to buy more of them then yes. A one-off no-fee registration could be grandfathered in for this type of case

This sounds like you are talking about registering PEOPLE not guns. That is completely different.

It is one thing to keep a database of people legally allowed to possess high capacity magazines and weapons. That’s not that hard of a thing. But you earlier compared your registration to the NFA list.

The NFA list is a registry of WEAPONS, not people. Each weapon is registered on that list by serial number, and every single one of its past owners. Not too hard to do since the list never gets any bigger. It is locked.

Registering all the current magazines and weapons out there now is impossible. Registering all the PEOPLE who want those weapons and magazine… not so much.

Seems pretty simple to me. People who own AR-15s and don’t get them registered then use them in crimes would face a hell of a lot steeper penalties then.

Back to your registry again. Which is it? Are you going to attempt to add every weapon and magazine to some new registry? Or are you going to have people add their names to a “lawful owners” registry? One is much more practical than the other.

And cooperation with the law is not the issue; if you refuse to cooperate with the law, then you face the penalties, just like any other law.

It would be unenforceable. Just like any other new gun law. People who commit crimes with their AR15s are… already committing a crime. Who cares about your extra stupid “you didn’t register it” charge that gets tacked on. And those people who never committ a crime and never register it… the government will never know.
More feel good legislation. How about just increase the penalties for gun crimes. That would be a helluva lot EASIER than all this mess you are proposing. If a person commits ANY gun crime–whether its registered or not–then fucking crush him. No tolerance, no parole. Now you dont have to worry about passing registration laws to increase charges or jail time. Just increase the mandatory penalties and you will get the same effect.

[/quote]

[GomiBoy]

@Bear_Nenno

Your ignorance is showing again. There are no such things inherent in Concealed Carry laws. If you can legally own a firearm in Florida, you can purchase a Concealed Carry permit. There is no greater background check or mental health record.
How do you propose that the government will be able to investigate mental health history? If a person does not volunteer that information, how can some agency in Colorado know that a person had mental issues in Iowa? There is no national databank of mental patients! Such a database would be a huge invasion of privacy and illegal.
Not an exceptionally big deal. There already exists waiting periods on most purchases anyway.
If you want to force people to wait a week, that’s one thing. But it is quite another to require an investigation that TAKES A WEEK. Does that make sense? The longer the investigation, the more likely paperwork will get lost or things will be mishandled. Plus, the easier to get backlogged. It’s more of a hassle. You have to keep calling and be like “Just checking on the status of my application…”
Or you just wait and wait and then find out shits been lost or wasn’t filed properly or whatever. Anyone who has had to deal with USCIS or any other government licensing authority knows how horrible waiting is. Last time I checked, they were only just now processing I-751 applications that were filed last year!!! That’s why people want INSTANT.

If there is no physical investigation or interviewing of neighbors and such, then what is this new method going to find? The NICS check already instantly checks for everything. Anything else would take an actual investigator to uncover. Now you’re saying no investigator. Then how will this background check be more stringent than NICS? To do that you would need an investigator.
So you will get a card or something that says you can own high capacity weapons? So then when you buy them in the future, and you’ve already paid your one-off fee, then you dont need to pay again or go through the more stringent background check and wait a couple weeks?

Now your proposal requires a whole new database and a change to existing medical privacy laws. Are you up for that?

Once again… feel good legislation. These are already disqualifiers for purchasing ANY firearm. So you want to spend millions of tax payer money to impliment a ban that “no… seriously this time” prevents felons and people with certain mental health issues from buying things they already can’t buy to begin with???
So you want to check NICS to ensure that no felons or dangerously crazy people will buy the high capacity weapons? Do you realize that this is already the law for EVERY firearm??? Not just your high capacity ones. But every single sale through a licensed business does this… already.

Guns that hold more than 6 rounds and magazines for those guns?? I would say that “thousands of thousands” seems a bit low. You realize that people sometimes just buy magazines… And they buy them maybe a dozen at a time if they’re on sale. That’s a lot of purchases to track.

This sounds like you are talking about registering PEOPLE not guns. That is completely different.

It is one thing to keep a database of people legally allowed to possess high capacity magazines and weapons. That’s not that hard of a thing. But you earlier compared your registration to the NFA list.

The NFA list is a registry of WEAPONS, not people. Each weapon is registered on that list by serial number, and every single one of its past owners. Not too hard to do since the list never gets any bigger. It is locked.

Registering all the current magazines and weapons out there now is impossible. Registering all the PEOPLE who want those weapons and magazine… not so much.

Back to your registry again. Which is it? Are you going to attempt to add every weapon and magazine to some new registry? Or are you going to have people add their names to a “lawful owners” registry? One is much more practical than the other.

It would be unenforceable. Just like any other new gun law. People who commit crimes with their AR15s are… already committing a crime. Who cares about your extra stupid “you didn’t register it” charge that gets tacked on. And those people who never committ a crime and never register it… the government will never know.
More feel good legislation. How about just increase the penalties for gun crimes. That would be a helluva lot EASIER than all this mess you are proposing. If a person commits ANY gun crime–whether its registered or not–then fucking crush him. No tolerance, no parole. Now you dont have to worry about passing registration laws to increase charges or jail time. Just increase the mandatory penalties and you will get the same effect.

[/QUOTE]

So extra stupid… and this is rationed debate?

You say in one breath that mental health is already checked, then say it will be impossible to check and a violation of privacy to check. You say in one breath that the NCIS already checks these things, then say that creation of a new database would be an inherently difficult, large, and privacy-violating action in another.

And if tacking on extra penalties for types of weapon is inherently stupid, then how do mandatory minimums work exactly?

Sounds like I am not the one ignorant of the law here.

[Bear_Nenno]

@GomiBoy

You say in one breath that mental health is already checked, then say it will be impossible to check and a violation of privacy to check.

I was taking your nonsense one line at a time. You only stated “mental issues” without ever clarifying what you meant by that. If you mean someone who has been involuntarily institutionalized for a crime (where he was found nonguilty from insanity or some such) then that will show up.

But if you mean people who have suffered from severe depression, are addicted to controlled substances, have voluntarily checked in to a mental health clinic, etc. Then those things will not show up.

You say in one breath that the NCIS already checks these things, then say that creation of a new database would be an inherently difficult, large, and privacy-violating action in another.

For some things it is. For others it isn’t. There is no database of people who are abusing controlled substances or who are addicted to cocaine.
There are several “mental health issues” that prohibit a person from purchasing a firearm. Most–but not all–can be checked through NICS. Others would require an investigator and/or a new database.
There are many “mental health issues” that do not currently prohibit a person from purchasing a firearm. If you would like to specifically add any of these to your list, then I can stop guessing as to what you mean.

And what I said was that NICS already checks for certain mental health issues. Read a little more carefully before you label someone’s post as “so extra stupid”.

“Mental Health Issues” is not a single, specific thing. It is not the same as saying “felony”. NICS already checks for certain mental health issues. It checks for all the ones possible with current existing databases. If you want a “more stringent check” then you will need a new database–as I said.

Then later, I read your statement that no investigator would be needed. Well, NICS already checks everything that is possible without a new database or an investigator. So by saying that you are not requiring an investigator, you are limiting your search to whatever NICS can turn up… which is ALREADY the process for all gun purchases.

So extra stupid indeed.

And if tacking on extra penalties for types of weapon is inherently stupid, then how do mandatory minimums work exactly?

I have no idea what you’re talking about here? Go back and read carefully. Did I ever once say that I supported an increase in penalties for weapon type? I said to increase penalties for gun crimes–not crimes committed with certain guns.
Read for comprehension this time.

Sounds like I am not the one ignorant of the law here.

No. It sounds like you are blatantly ignorant of more than just the law.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@glee

This is not personal ownership of guns, but a Government militia scheme.

To be fair, Switzerland does have private ownership of guns besides that which you recieve for being in the militia. But the whole “They get a buttload of training” still remains.

[Bear_Nenno]

Let’s try it like this…

Are there, or are there not, mental health issues that do not currently prohibit a person from purchasing a firearm which you think should prevent them?

If so, what are they, and how to you propose we check for these without an investigator and without a new database?

If not, then what exactly is different in your proposed plan that is not already part of the current process for purchasing every firearm from a legitimate business?

[Bear_Nenno]

And FWIW, since this is a rational debate, the next time you dont understand what someone is saying or think that their statements are contradictions, you should ask for clarification–instead of stopping to insults.

Damn that pisses me off… I’m gonna go out and fucking shoot something. Be back later.

[Johnny_L.A]

@GomiBoy

Thanks, now how about a cite from a source that is slightly less cravenly biased?

I knew when I posted that someone would ‘blame the messenger’. But do you deny the information posted? Do you have a cite refuting that the items quoted did not take place?

[Erasmus_Darwin]

@gonzomax

The dems go from those who think guns should be greatly cut back to NRA gun nuts. The Repugs go from gun nuts to confiscators.

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

The last major gun confiscation in the U.S. occurred in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Police and National Guard units confiscated legally owned firearms from residents in the area. It happened under the watch of Democrat mayor Ray Nagin.

As a reaction to this incident, Republican Senator David Vitter proposed what’s been referred to as the Vitter Amendment – an amendment to a DHS appropriations bill that would make it illegal to confiscate firearms in the aftermath of a natural disaster provided that the possession of such firearms is legal under existing state and federal law. It was co-sponsored by 19 senators, 17 Republicans and 2 Democrats (Byrd of WV and Baucus of MT).

The amendment was voted on and passed just a little over two years ago. The final vote was 84-16. The 16 senators who voted against prohibiting the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms:
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)

Now it’s certainly true that both parties have some members who’re supporters of gun rights. But your characterization of the Republicans being the ones who’re worse on the anti-gun scale (being confiscators compared to the Democrats who you characterized as just wanting to greatly cut back) is a load of crap.

References:

Ray Nagin

Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4615:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session

[GomiBoy]

Bear_Nenno - you asked some questions, I answered them. You stooped to insults first, remember that. And in case you don’t recall the exchange, it’s about 5 posts back. And since you apparently never intended to debate anything of the questions you asked, I have to question why did you bother asking them? Your mind is made up. You won’t be changing your opinion. And apparently none of your hobbyist friends will either. So be it.

Well, it seems to me that no matter how rationally I answer any questions you pose, you will fly off on another tangent so I decline to be your whipping boy.
Johnny L.A. - I don’t read Al Jazeera expecting honest debate of East-West issues or the Gulf Times to give an honest appraisal of Israeli foreign policy. I am not going to go to a gun-cert web page and expect to see any contradictory cites or certs. Yet you are surprised why?

[gonzomax]

In New York City legislation was passed and enacted by 3 ,count them 3 , Repub leaders. It was not speculation but fact. They did it.
Nagin was not in control of the National Guard. Overall control in N.O. was our Republican government. It was done by by he N.O, police, the national guard and US Marshalls. I guess you think Nagin controlled them all. It was a higher authority than him to do that.