pedrop357: ph0rk: pedrop357: dittybopper: Meh. I think he's toast as far as that goes. What gun owner is going to vote for him? The guy who wrote the original failed Assault Weapons Ban, and who went on to be Barack Obama's go-to gun control guy? Yeah, that'll go over well with the rural and suburban blue dogs, and the Democrats aren't in a place where they can completely ignore them yet.

Run him and Cuomo together and it should finish what was started with the 2013 Democratic Party Political Suicide Pact.

Because the Democratic party is doing so badly right now?

A lot of Democrats have gone full retard on the gun control issue and went insane in New York. 2014 should be interesting.

It won't be Feinstein, Schumer, Lautenberg, etc. who lose their seats, it will be all those foolish enough to join.

On a side note, I'm thinking the Republicans could run a nitwit like Sarah Palin against Biden and/or Cuomo and probably come out ahead.

Mid terms are a long way away - I doubt the current scare will last that long, and even if it came close I'm sure the inner party strategists would push to change the strategy. It is about winning, after all. It is far too early to make predictions about 2014 or 2016.

FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's a burden to reload the ammunition into the magazines far more often or to have carry a lot more to the range just so gun control supporters can feel like they're solving a problem.

as has been mentioned earlier, shooters in the past have been stopped while swapping mags. i fail to see how being a bit of a "burden" justifies the killing of more people.

It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.

Giltric: FlashHarry: Giltric: FlashHarry: if it saves even one life

Even with the low end of defensive gun use estimates which sit around 100k from the Brady bunch wouldn't you be risking more lives than saving them?

lolwut?

are you saying that people need 30-round magazines to defend their homes?

Not all, but you have to be right in 100% of the cases if even one life is sacred.

Except for when we're talking about a gun restriction, then it has to have been able to prevent every gun death in the history of time or else its useless and a waste of time, right?

pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's a burden to reload the ammunition into the magazines far more often or to have carry a lot more to the range just so gun control supporters can feel like they're solving a problem.

as has been mentioned earlier, shooters in the past have been stopped while swapping mags. i fail to see how being a bit of a "burden" justifies the killing of more people.

It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.

As political strategy it is likely to play rather well, however, with ample time to shift course between now and Nov. 2014 if public sentiment changes.

CPennypacker: Do you guys all have reading problems? Thats what I found after looking for 5 seconds.

We already know how the overwhelming majority of them turn out. A guy goes into a place where guns are banned by policy or law, shoots and kills for minutes or dozens of minutes reloading at will and only stops when he finally runs out of ammo, gets tired of killing unarmed people, or finally encounters resistance.

dittybopper: Democratic Party was doing real well in 1993. They controlled both houses of Congress with healthy majorities, and the presidency. Then they got their asses handed to them because of the Brady Bill and the original Assault Weapons Ban

Perhaps. I don't think they'll be singing the same tune this time - Gay rights and immigration will be much larger planks in the platform, and people get a lot more worked up about those issues, or have lately. I expect these bills to go nowhere fast and the issue to more or less die within six months. What they are doing now is probably just posturing, but that's the game.

pedrop357: CPennypacker: Do you guys all have reading problems? Thats what I found after looking for 5 seconds.

We already know how the overwhelming majority of them turn out. A guy goes into a place where guns are banned by policy or law, shoots and kills for minutes or dozens of minutes reloading at will and only stops when he finally runs out of ammo, gets tired of killing unarmed people, or finally encounters resistance.

So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

We should just ban all guns. Period.

It worked so well for alcohol and drugs and prostitution and speeding and drunk driving and murder and robberies. You can't get or do any of that stuff anymore.

FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.

and talk about rare events. what percentage of americans have been killed by terrorism? yet look at how our laws changed after 9/11. look at the wars we waged.

Indeed - while it ay be bad policy to make sweeping changes after one or two high-profile events, that's how we do it.

IMO, an assault gun is anything without the primary purposes of hunting or protection from wild animals.

If you don't know what those things are already subby, I doubt you care enough to join the derp-fest.

FlashHarry: toys have been taken off the market because one or two toddlers choked on them. those are rare events.

i'm sorry, but if the only justification for high-capacity magazines is that they're more convenient, then that's not justification enough.

We don't have to justify it, the other side does, and the best they can come up with is that might stop a fraction of a tiny fraction of incidents. They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots. They also have to justify why the police should be able to have them when facing the same threats that we face first.

ph0rk: StoPPeRmobile: ph0rk: Many people can't understand why anyone has a need to carry enough hardware to slaughter 150 people or more. The argument that, as currently worded, the 2nd amendment protects their the right to do so doesn't address the first question (why do they need to?)

Why do cops need it? Are cops slaughtering 150 people or more?

Because civilians are doing same, obviously. Should law enforcement be less well-armed than the public? Besides, the guns that cops carry can be easily taken away: simply vote different local politicians into office and have them change the rules.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?
I egged the chicken, and then I ate his leg

FlashHarry: and talk about rare events. what percentage of americans have been killed by terrorism? yet look at how our laws changed after 9/11. look at the wars we waged.

Does that make it OK? One bad law does not justify more bad laws.

FlashHarry: pedrop357: It's not justified just because it might stop a few instance of an already very rare event.

and talk about rare events. what percentage of americans have been killed by terrorism? yet look at how our laws changed after 9/11. look at the wars we waged.

And those were all unbelievably dumb things to do.

CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.

pedrop357: CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.

Which is easier to pass: a bill restricting magazine sizes, or a bill mandating regular mental health checks for all citizens?

HeadLever: FlashHarry: so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety.

How is making a reloading operation more inconvienient going to imporove safety? All any shooter will need to do is pack additional (small capacity) magazines that takes literally no time to swich. Or are we going to now insall mechanisms that initiates a 'magazine waiting period' so that you need to wait 3 days from the time you take an spent magainze out of the firearm until you can load a new one? That would make more sense in this context.

We could make them Windows based.

At the drop of a hat they will scream to alter The Constitution.

Maybe we should bring back slavery.

StoPPeRmobile: HeadLever: FlashHarry: so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety.

How is making a reloading operation more inconvienient going to imporove safety? All any shooter will need to do is pack additional (small capacity) magazines that takes literally no time to swich. Or are we going to now insall mechanisms that initiates a 'magazine waiting period' so that you need to wait 3 days from the time you take an spent magainze out of the firearm until you can load a new one? That would make more sense in this context.

We could make them Windows based.

Windows has detected you are attempting a spree killing. Would you like to search online for help?

pedrop357: CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.

Welcome to the minority

FlashHarry: pedrop357: They have to justify why this is worth depriving people of the ability to defend themselves against multiple attackers or in more desperate circumstances like natural disasters or riots.

and how often do these things happen?

They never happen until they do. At that point, it's a little late to wish that you had a decent sized magazine to stop the two or three men in your house, OR the looters in your neighborhood, OR the people who've been secretly growing marijuana on a section of your land.

StoPPeRmobile: At the drop of a hat they will scream to alter The Constitution.

Maybe we should bring back slavery.

Funny, it seemed ok when the GOP wanted an amendment to ban gay marriage.

ph0rk: pedrop357: CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.

Which is easier to pass: a bill restricting magazine sizes, or a bill mandating regular mental health checks for all citizens?

How about neither?

pedrop357: ph0rk: pedrop357: CPennypacker: So what you're saying is guns are too dangerous and we need to take them away from everyone? WTF gun grabber I just want a magazine size restriction and some other sensible restrictions

I don't see magazine size restrictions as sensible or reasonable.

Which is easier to pass: a bill restricting magazine sizes, or a bill mandating regular mental health checks for all citizens?

How about neither?

I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

I went to gym (25 minutes blah blah), are lunch, went to Lowe's and checked this thread and exactly what happens when people discuss guns is happening.
People for gun control are trotting out the same tired arguments about owning nuclear weapons and stinger missiles and saying the constitution was written before repeating arms so they're not covered by the constitution.
People against gun control (usually the people who know about guns) are trying to explain that generally, the proposed legislation does very little to address the problems of gun crime and gun violence.
And this is what is so frustrating.
I am on the left side of virtually ever debate. I voted for Obama twice (the first time I stayed awake until ass late at night to watch the inauguration because I was in Iraq at the time). Hell, I even voted for Nader in 2000 (from South Carolina, so my vote didn't count anyway). But as soon as you talk about guns, the left gets all derpy.
You're not going to get the type of gun control you want. I'm very sorry, but there are enough people in the country who think differently than you do that can match your votes and keep it from happening. So instead of focusing on things that make no difference like bayonet lugs, pistol grips, folding buttstocks, or other military style features that you don't understand. Bring something to the discussion that will help. Listen to the people who know about what you're trying to regulate.
The President's executive orders are a good start. I agree with all of them. I have taken advantage of the gun show loophole myself and as much as I enjoy not having to pay a transfer fee, I can see how someone could use it to get around a background check that they cannot pass. It should go.
I'm all for licensing tests. I'd be OK with having serial numbered and registered gun safes so when they look up your background you have to have a gun safe registered with the government in order to purchase a gun. I think that could help with stolen guns being used in crimes.
The right needs to realize that not every piece of legislation dealing with guns is an infringement upon the 2nd Amendment. The guns aren't going away, but you have to make sacrifices, too. If that means buying a $500 gun safe before you can purchase a gun in order to ensure it's harder to steal your gun, that's fine, too.

FlashHarry: i hate to break it to you, but your SHTF scenario is extremely unlikely. but it is very lucrative for people selling guns, ammo, dried food and other prepper items

Dude, check out my bug-out bag!

FlashHarry: HeadLever: Reloading the magazines with cartidges is not the same as switching them out of the firearm.

GRCooper: Changing mags != reloading mags

pardon me - i misread the post. i realize that loading a magazine with individual bullets is not the same thing as switching out an empty mag for a full one.

so, ok then... the argument against banning high-capacity magazines is that it's inconvenient to have to load magazines more often? well, we do lots of things that are inconvenient in the name of safety. stopping at intersections for one.

i still don't see how this is unreasonable. if it saves even one life because a shooter got tackled while swapping mags, then doesn't that justify the inconvenience of having to reload your magazines more often?

I'm not trying to be snarky or dismissive; but I haven't seen a definition for "high capacity magazine". 10? Internal mags as well as external? Does that mean that *any* gun that ships with a magazine capacity greater than that is de facto 'banned'.

Before I get charged with worrying about semantics, let me go ahead and plead guilty. I think semantics are vital when talking about federal legislation.

FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

dittybopper: CPennypacker: Except for when we're talking about a gun restriction, then it has to have been able to prevent every gun death in the history of time or else its useless and a waste of time, right?

See, here's the problem: Guns are here to stay, period. So if you restrict some small subset based on cosmetic features, those who will misuse them will just substitute firearms that are available.

That's the elephant in the room: Substitution. And it *DOES* happen. The rise of so-called "Pocket Rockets", small handguns in large calibers like .45 ACP, was due in large part to the original AWB, the thinking being "If I can't have a whole bunch of smaller rounds in my gun, I'll go with a smaller number of more effective rounds".

This even happened in the UK. After the Hungerford massacre, they banned assault weapons, and not just cosmetically, but they banned any semi-auto rifles bigger than .22 LR. Then at Dunblane, the shooter used modern handguns. So they banned them. Then in the Cumbria shooting, the shooter used a shotgun and a .22 LR rifle.

The problem is where do you draw the line? What happens if we pass an assault weapons ban with actual teeth and we still have shootings? What then? You'll come back arguing for more restrictions. That's how slippery slopes actually happen in real life.

Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

pedrop357: FlashHarry: pedrop357: They never happen until they do.

the thing is, mass shooting actually DO happen. they're not some rightwing fantasy.

Hurricanes, looting, illegal grow ops on private land, etc. are fantasies?

No, but the "I'm gonna use my gun to be a hero in these situations" certainly are fantasies

ph0rk: I don't think doing nothing would go over too well. What solution to "the problem" would you suggest that might actually get passed?

Start with the premise that we should be looking at how more freedom can help solve this.

Start with allowing teachers and staff who have concealed weapon permits the ability to carry firearms in school like they already do everywhere else.
End the drug war and celebrate the thousands of lives and billions of dollars saved
Take the money and return it to the people via tax cuts and let each state decide how they're going to deal with issues like urban decay, mental health, etc.

CPennypacker: The problem is where do you draw the line? What happens if we pass an assault weapons ban with actual teeth and we still have shootings? What then? You'll come back arguing for more restrictions. That's how slippery slopes actually happen in real life.

Meh I'm lukewarm on the whole assault weapon thing. I was referring to sensible regulations like magazine size limits, which are always met with the "It only happened a few times so we shouldn't do it" style arguments you saw me dealing with above.

Unfortunately, the only thing that would really work is a pre-crime unit. Mental health checks are as close as we can come, but the cost will be high and small-govt. types will fight it tooth and nail.