I do not want an "assault rifle" ban

[JanMichael]

I want every gun owner in the US to have to register their firearms....ALL of them...if you go to a firing range, you WILL need your "papers."

I want EVERY sale monitered by a federal agency. I want all sales of ammunition monitered...any more than normal, and I mean a normal day at the range, or a good turkey or deer hunt, or whatever woodland critter it is you are going after reported.

I want their to be annual federal taxes on the already owned guns...like property tax, only federal...to pay for that.

I do not want ANY of them grandfathered in. None. Zero. And that includes our old .22 rifle that sits in a trunk with no bullets around...the one we look at about every three years and talk about how much we miss Grandpa.

Have one of those cool black powder jobs over the mantle? Yeah. It's gonna cost you.

You guys love your guns? Well, I love my dog, my house, my Subaru...and every one of them require money every year.

You make a sale and don't report it, and pay the proper sales tax? Guess what? You just broke the law....

[graham4anything]

1. I want the NRA classified as a terror org, and their funds frozen

I want bullets to cost $10,000 each

and I want all guns to remain off the streets, and only in a private home

(and that means too- NO gun in an apartment house, as there are other tennants who might be anti-gun)

[TheMoreYouKnow]

3. So much for all that "common sense" talk

Good luck

[bongbong]

5. LOL

Have you run out of NRA Talking Points to parrot yet?

[TheMoreYouKnow]

9. I didn't realize that calling out sheer insanity

Was now an NRA talking point.

[a geek named Bob]

26. BongBong seems easily amused...

Also, anything that disagrees with zis views is "obviously" an NRA talking point.

[graham4anything]

34. Guns are sheer insanity as you call it. Gun lovers who think someone is out to get them need meds

it is called paranoia
when they think they need a gun everywhere and anywhere because people are always after them

I live in the NY area, in the 70s at the stereotypical worst, I rode the subways at 3am

not once was I ever bothered, not in Times Square, not in the train, not in Brooklyn, Queens not anywhere

Just fear and paronia

and of course, hides the true reason most gun people actually want a gun and its not hunting,sport, or safety from a robber either.

nope but none of them admit the true reason

[Mojorabbit]

53. The 70's were nothing like things are now. nt

[graham4anything]

67. They were 100 times worse then and in the past. Now all is peaceful except, and if, not for the gun

and the gangs in NY were at war with each other then, one Mafia shooting after another,
you couldn't eat a good Italian meal without worrying if a head will fall into the soup at the table next to you

[pop topcan]

66. If you were never bothered, why do you care either way?

What's the 'true reason' according to your Crystal (or Magic 8) ball?

[tblue]

191. I was saying to my SO just last night

This 'need' to own these weapons is a sign of psychological pathology. It's not healthy, rational, or moral. They don't need guns. They need professional help. And if they need professional help, they need to be closely monitored if they come anywhere near a firearm.

[graham4anything]

11. only way to stop incidents in the street is to stop guns from being in the street Legal& illegal

keep the guns inside

People don't parade around with their Bowling Balls

and only say one bullet at one time and one gun at one time

unless someone is planning to take over a country, stockpiling guns is ridiculous
(after all, the stale lines for protection, how many guns after the first can one pick up in the middle of a dream if woken up by a person looking like all mass shootings comes through the door wearing fatigues?
by the time you reach, the person in the house is dead anyhow

(and its laughable that anyone would want to shoot a member of the mafia gang-when historically,anyone does that there will be severe consequences. Look at what happened to that person who accidentally hit a child on a bike that was the son of a leader. Ended up in acid).

[Glassunion]

42. You Sir owe an apology.

"People don't parade around with their Bowling Balls"

[Lizzie Poppet]

6. And a pony! Don't forget a pony!

[former-republican]

18. Who doesn't want a pony

[graham4anything]

36. The 19 kids in Oklahoma City and the 20 kids in CT probably would love to be riding horses today

but weapons of mass destruction killed all of them

[Lizzie Poppet]

37. "weapons of mass destruction"

Killed the kids in OKC. Not the ones in CT. Words, you know...mean stuff.

[a geek named Bob]

41. but that gets in the way of a good rousing rant! n/t

[graham4anything]

48. Guns indeed are WMD. They are manufactured to kill. No other reason to have one

guns have killed more people than terrorists do, probably every year on record

rebrand, reframe, rehear the arguments in a new SCOTUS and then a new verdict

[a geek named Bob]

49. and now you are engaging in pure bombast...

guns are WMD's? Really? They are set to wipe out large numbers of people, when deployed/used?

[Ineeda]

62. Well, the one used on Friday

was A: a weapon
and B: caused mass destruction
and C: wiped out a large number of people
Therefore a weapon of mass destruction, WMD.

Correct?

[a geek named Bob]

65. jeebers on a Harley...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs


go get edu-ma-cated!

[Ineeda]

69. Edu-ma-cate yourself, pal.

The first line from the Wiki article: A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms)

So this didn't happen on Friday?

[a geek named Bob]

71. and what did the FBI page say?

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title)(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.”

WMD is often referred to by the collection of modalities that make up the set of weapons: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE). These are weapons that have a relatively large-scale impact on people, property, and/or infrastructure.

Are you actually so incapable of comprehension as to NOT understand the above? Or are you just looking to score cheap points?

[pop topcan]

73. You conveniently took that snippet totally out of context: From the page

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);

That is dishonest. i.e. means, "that is", and is NOT that the same as e.g. which means "for example".

[a geek named Bob]

78. but they HAVE to take it out of context!

otherwise, the rhetoric is RUINED!

[graham4anything]

74. I could go&edit wiki if you would like to include guns as WMD and what a terrorist looks like too

it certainly is not what the NRA million dollar suits tell people that terrorist looks like

the terrorists look just like the guy who shot the school up, and Gabbie Giffords, and Oklahoma City, and a movie theatre, and shot MLK and JFK did.

It's funny-they stereotype what they wish Jesus looked like but anyone who is the least bit smart knows that Brad Pitt lookalike is not the truth, and they stereotype what bad people look like. Ironically, it is reverse.

[a geek named Bob]

75. and what did that quote from the FBI page say?

why does your verbiage about "what a terrorist looks like" matter here?

[Chorophyll]

253. Uh, yes. They are in fact.

Taking out 27 people in 3 minutes isn't mass destruction enough for ya?

[a geek named Bob]

255. that's rapid fire, not mass destruction...

the FBI link I posted gives the definition.

Bombast... it makes rhetoric sound better!

[Lizzie Poppet]

54. Like I said, words have meaning.

So do phrases. "Weapons of mass destruction" has a well-known, broadly recognized meaning that has nothing to do with your convenient re-defining.

[a geek named Bob]

55. Lizzie Poppet... that would destroy the full emotional thrust of the rhetoric

[Lizzie Poppet]

56. Good point.

When an appeal-to-emotion fallacy is the base of one's argument, it helps to make up the lexicon as one goes along, I suppose.

[a geek named Bob]

60. I've been noticing a trend in a lot of "arguments" around here

1.) Get their attention
2.) show a big problem
3.) show your solution and why it MUST be used (insert appeal to emotion here)
4.) show why only your solution will work
5.) call to action

It's a classic propaganda trick. (Damn... I guess I DID learn something in grad school...)

[letemrot]

108. Don't forget..

Anyone who disagrees with said action must be 1. Gun nut 2. NRA Troll 3. RWNJ gun nut NRA Troll.

Be sure to alert on posts and call any/all of these names in response.

[a geek named Bob]

113. pretty all of the classic ingredients for a witch hunt

[Lizzie Poppet]

204. Oh, dear!

I have it on good authority that I weigh the same as a duck, too...

[a geek named Bob]

205. Oops!

Well... This Pagan and his Wiccan lady aren't going to blithely give ourselves to the madding crowd...

I can always build lasers.

[letemrot]

217. But what Sharks with

'Friken lasers'

[Kennah]

233. It must not cost much for you to fly

[Lizzie Poppet]

202. hit.nail.head

It's playground-level "logic," but it works, if the intention is to silence any meaningful debate or discussion.

[a geek named Bob]

237. Lizzie Poppet...

I figure that's part of the actual goal...

1.) shut down dissent
2.) build the bandwagon
3.) after each "victory", redirect the crowd to a new target.

classic witch hunt...

[Chorophyll]

254. Because dead children are emotional rhetoric.

Gotcha.

[a geek named Bob]

257. Dead children are a tragedy.

Using dead children to hype political movements is a form of rhetoric: Appeal to pathos.

So far, the groups on DU on this topic have all the makings for a witch hunt.

An "Assault Weapon" on its own isn't the problem. Crazy people getting their hands of them is the problem.

Why wasn't there red flags on regular mental health visits for this kid?

[Chorophyll]

259. You've just basically given me the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line.

There are crazy people all over the world. But sane countries have gun control.

As to regular mental health visits: the killer's mom was affluent and paranoid about the government. I guess she thought she could handle it herself. That seems to be the gun-clutcher attitude.

[a geek named Bob]

260. Right back atcha

There are crazy people all over the world. But sane countries have gun control.

And most places, the crazies are monitored and/or detained.

As to regular mental health visits: the killer's mom was affluent and paranoid about the government.

And others can call it in...

I guess she thought she could handle it herself.

Other people can make the safety call..

That seems to be the gun-clutcher attitude.

That just shows bombastic propaganda on your part.

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. Then Bush was right to invade Iraq? The place was and is crawling with AK's

[sanatanadharma]

193. Guns may not be weopons of mass destruction until someone shoots 100 in a church...

...but they are weapons of terror.
Some buy guns by the dozens because they live in terror of life.
Everyone else lives in terror of the day an idolator snaps and and in terror of the small penis posse-s of poseurs who should never have access to the guns diverted from the unregulated and stolen from legal market.
It is the faith in guns rather than God or your fellow (wo)man that drives this insanity.

[JanMichael]

39. Yep. They might have wanted ponies for Christmas

even if they were just toy ones.

[pop topcan]

72. You actually believe that stuff, don't you?

Amazing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

240. Of course

That's because as anyone who understands what the terms mean in their ordinary usage understands the difference between a terrorist and a psycho. The former have political motivations for their attacks on innocents, the latter do not. "Terrorist" doesn't refer simply to someone who makes people afraid...

[morningfog]

175. The NRA fanboy can't stay away.

[Travis_0004]

33. I might support bullets costing 10k

I could retire tomorrow!!!

[villager]

76. I would like to have the NRA classified as what they really are, as well

n/t

[a geek named Bob]

77. other than a lobbying party for gun manufacturers, what would that be?

[villager]

81. Well "lobbying party for gun manufacturers" is a start, Geek Bob.

And a big step for you!

[a geek named Bob]

84. Have I ever said anything other than that about the NRA

big step? let me guess... you like to "raise consciousnesses," don't you...

[villager]

109. So -- just to be clear -- you consider your mission to "lower consciousness?"

I admit, it would explain many of your posts!

[a geek named Bob]

116. okay then...

"raising consciousness" is usually when some group - usually "socially liberal" in name - decides that people need to think in a different way, regardless of the targeted group's wishes.

Just to be clear, I don't like witch hunts, and I don't like propaganda. I also find your attempts at snark to be revelaing of the paucity of your arguments.

[villager]

124. Okay, Bob! I will keep an eye out for those dreaded "social liberals!"

Dangerous lot, those social liberals!

Though I'm confused -- when was the last "social liberal" witchhunt? I don't think Joseph McCarthy was a "social liberal," was he?

[a geek named Bob]

126. Ever hear of Marcuse? How about "politically correct?"

McCarthy wasn't a social liberal, but there is the whole field of Critical Theory, Freiran style eudcation, and the ever popular image of the Marxist professor.

Marcuse was all about certain people not being allowed to talk, and VERY against citizens having firearms.

[villager]

128. So, the only example of a "social liberal" witchhunt you give is by someone who isn't

...actually a "social liberal," by your own admission?

Which, even if he was, would just constitute a single opinion, and not an actual witchhunt at all?

[a geek named Bob]

134. speech codes have gotten a good play

jebbers christmas, but you guys get predictable.

Te next thing you are likely to talk about is how wide spread I am casting for a fear net.

[villager]

140. Bob, what on earth are you talking about now? And who are "you guys?"

[a geek named Bob]

142. You are going to tell me that you have never heard of speech codes?

Seriously?

[villager]

143. Well, is that something used by social liberals in their witch hunts?

[a geek named Bob]

147. okay... let's stop a minute...

Are you seriously saying that you have never heard of a speech code. Does the "water buffalo incident" ring any bells?

Yes, Liberals use these as witch hunts.

[villager]

148. Bob, why don't you just say want you want to say, directly. Attack liberals straight on

....instead of obliquely.

Just tell us why you can't stand liberals, and get it out, instead of hinting around at it all the time.

[a geek named Bob]

152. so, you're baitin', is what you are saying...

I am a progressive. I believe in the idea of civil rights and individual freedoms.

So far, this thread has been about how to "amend" (lovely word, that) the constitution, and you guys obviously know so much more...

So... what makes you smarter?

[villager]

184. Bob, who are "you guys?" You keep insisting I'm one of "them," but who is "them?"

I'm sounding like a Pogo comic strip, nearly, but I'm trying to cut through the Gordian Knot of your rhetoric (to freely mix imagery).

Who's this "them?" Some insidious group I am evidently part of, but which you -- lone valiant defender of individual freedoms -- stand apart from?

[a geek named Bob]

186. I liked the mixed up imagery... I think you've got something there

You were the one throwing stereotypes, so I thought it was a game everyone could play...

[villager]

198. You mean, because I dared stereotype... the NRA!?

That, after all, is where this sub-thread came in.

[a geek named Bob]

203. Actually, some were stereotyping ME, so I returned the favor...

I'd never drive a Hummer... not enough hauling capacity.

[villager]

227. Well, "some" may have been, but I wasn't. Though I believe I was accused of trying

...to raise consciousness!

[GreenStormCloud]

172. You would have First Amendment problems with that. N/T

[GreenStormCloud]

166. Did you send your wish list to Santa?

It is almost Christmas.

[spanone]

2. it's called an assault rifle for a good reason. ban them.

[Skidmore]

4. Send this to Biden.

[Hoyt]

7. I like it. Whatever happens, I hope it is enough to close a bunch of gun stores, bankrupt a few

manufacturers, cause folks that that have been accumulating a lethal weapons cache to thin the heard at plunging prices, etc., . . . . . . and cause the gun cultist to hide their bad habit because the vast majority of non-cultists now consider them a blight on society.

[ComplimentarySwine]

57. Why would prices plunge if manufacturers and dealers went out of business?

It seems that the limited supply would cause prices to rise, just like the '86 machine gun ban did. A pre-'86 M-16 that used to sell for $1,000 or so and costs less than that to manufacturer now sells for something like $15k. The people with the stockpiles seem to be in the best position if something like that were to happen...I imagine that that is why a lot of them are stockpiling to begin with.

If everything that I wanted wasn't sold out everywhere I've looked (especially that M21), I imagine that I would be stockpiling as well.

[Hoyt]

79. Couple of reasons - everyone will be dumping them because of annual tax and future ban on sales

Also, as they are no longer marketed with sexy ads, yahoos will quit drooling over them. And only yahoos will want one anyway because people who give a shit about society wouldn't be caught dead with them.

Make the cost of owning one prohibitive , reduce sexiness of lethal weapons, limit private sales, etc., and the yahoos who "invested" hoping to make a buck off death will lose their ass - justice.

[a geek named Bob]

80. it certainly worked out imported sports cars

[ComplimentarySwine]

88. I'm not sure that you're thinking this through

Did the price of cocaine go up or down once it was banned and a black market was started for it?

[Hoyt]

110. You don't understand - the annual carrying cost, the stigma , fact one can't sell it

after five years, lucky of sexy/lethal marketing, etc., will have kill demand. Then the purchasers will just become yahoos, and they already have one.

But, don't listen to me - run out and buy all you can grab.

[ComplimentarySwine]

111. What's going to prevent them from selling them after 5 years?

Don't you think that among "crazy" gun people, they will just form a black market?

[Hoyt]

114. The law would say that. Then we'd see just how un-law-abiding gun culture is.

[ComplimentarySwine]

131. And after we see how "un-law-abiding" they are

then what?

[Hoyt]

199. Like I said, you gonna play Randy Weaver.?

[GreenStormCloud]

179. Your crystal ball needs tuning. N/T

[MotherPetrie]

8. How the fuck does any of that preclude banning assault weapons?

[XRubicon]

123. How many Hummer H2's did you see on the road today?

Think about it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. They are not assault riffles

The right has managed to subvert the term. They are infantry battle riffles. Period.

For reasons that have to do with the culture don't think this will pass, but send it over to the WH.

[JanMichael]

12. exactly...this "assault rifle ban" is going to get talked about...

and in the end...what the HELL is an "assault rifle?" The right is setting the language again....and there will be more horrific shootings.

[white_wolf]

14. Assault rifle or infantry battle rifle neither belongs on the streets.

It's as simple as that. If you actually legitimately need a weapon like an AK-47 for self defense then you are way over your head and odds are that gun won't save from the mafia or whoever you pissed off, because your average citizen does not need a weapon designed for the battlefield.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Terminology and framing matters.

[TheOther95Percent]

13. I like the idea of a property and/or sales tax too.

I would like all gun sales to be subject to a background check and whatever modifications are needed to make sure you can't buy a gun that can spray bullets in a room full of people.

[JanMichael]

15. The taxes will go to pay the employees of my new

Gun Nutter Agency, or whatever you want to call it. I am sure it will be a branch of the ATF.

[TheOther95Percent]

20. Anything left over should go to mental health programs

[HereSince1628]

17. No, do not call it a tax, it'd be an annual license fee. To cover the costs

of government needed to regulate guns, police their use, prosecute violators, and to pay for corrections activity that may be involved in implementing criminal penalties.

Sort of like an auto license...one for every car.

[JanMichael]

19. I like that; thank you

as another poster made so clear above, language matters so much. This is a good idea.

[HereSince1628]

23. Just like cars you could also require insurance coverage

to deal with 'accidents' during lawful use.

That way everybody has some financial protection from the effects of Dick Cheney when he's out bird hunting.

[TheOther95Percent]

21. Better Idea.

Although like the federal tax on gasoline, I think there should be a considerable tax on firearms and ammunition at the point of sale.

[JanMichael]

22. oh absolutely....tax the crap out of them

at every turn. But, I want a liscense on EVERY one sold since ....what? Should we say Jan. 1st, 1800 or so? That covers quite a few. Or should we go back a bit further?

[HereSince1628]

24. Best of all requiring fees of users is pure Ronald Reagan

[RantinRavin]

44. There already is a tax

A federal excise tax of 10% on handguns, 11% on long guns and ammunition.

[TheOther95Percent]

92. In that case, it should be higher. Much higher.

[slackmaster]

25. It's not going to happen

Your totalitarian wet dream will remain forever a sick fantasy.

[a geek named Bob]

28. If it happens...

I intend a brisk trade in cheap laser pistols...

[slackmaster]

29. Yes, and tragic boating accidents, shovels, and ABS pipe.

[a geek named Bob]

31. Not to mention axes, swords, and point-ed sticks n/t

[WinkyDink]

122. Hey, "Bob," did Adam Lanza choose any of THOSE?

[a geek named Bob]

132. so a crazy person goes for the most convenient weapon...

The problem isn't the firearms, it's the crazies on the loose.

[WinkyDink]

119. Har-de-har-har.

[a geek named Bob]

125. Did I make a joke? n/t

[JanMichael]

30. really. Works in other countries.

And how is it "sick?" Furthermore, how is having a liscense to own a firearm "totalitarian?"

You don't have to own one; not requiring that-

[slackmaster]

38. The United States of America is not "other countries"

Furthermore, how is having a liscense to own a firearm "totalitarian?"

Do you need a license to have free speech, or the right to a jury trial, or to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. There are limits to the first

No right is absolute.

There are already, for all intents and purposes, licensed gun owners in the US and you know it...1934...we could very well do this for infantry riffles. Let's call them what they are.

[JanMichael]

46. What in the world do those have to do with

buying and owning something? You are taxed on most things you own; since guns are causing so many problems for people (medical bills, funeral costs, lead poisoning in the ground at old shooting ranges)...then you get liscensed and taxed.

[ComplimentarySwine]

61. How many other countries have 9 guns for every 10 people?

How many other first-world countries were founded from a citizen overthrow of an established government? (I really dont know.)

[pop topcan]

70. The Arab Spring (which Democrats strongly support) would be an abortion without individuals

trying to overthrow dictators having guns...

[ComplimentarySwine]

89. Perhaps we have different definitions of "first world" n/t

[pop topcan]

91. Just a guess...you've never been outside of Podunk County...right?

The elegance and infrastructure in many middle eastern countries make Peoria look like a Mumbai slum.

[pop topcan]

82. It's really ironic isn't it, how on every OTHER issue the bulk of DU worships Franklin's warning

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

And no, the loss of 20 kids is not a 'little' thing, but one must also consider the millions who have been similarly lost to fascism, dictatorships, ethnic cleansing, religious warfare, et sad cetera.

[a geek named Bob]

86. it's classic propaganda...

find a nefarious target to focus people's anger on...

[XRubicon]

141. Dont reply to your sock....

[neverforget]

83. Registering, licensing and taxing are totalitarian?

[pop topcan]

93. Well, now that you mention it...no. Let's bring back poll taxes, that will solve some of the 'black

problem'....


(do I need here?)

[neverforget]

95. Nice dodge

[pop topcan]

96. Thanks...can you answer it?

or not...

[neverforget]

98. I'll answer after you do

[neverforget]

102. Hate to tell you this but there are taxes on guns and ammo now

http://www.ttb.gov/tax_audit/atftaxes.shtml

Pistols and Revolvers 10% of sale price

Other Firearms and Ammunition 11% of sale price

[cantbeserious]

27. Yes - All Good Suggestions

eom

[socialindependocrat]

35. Let's just have a "Net WorthTax"..

That way everyone will pay 1% of their total net worth and we can get rid of the debt problem.

Then, when people die we just burn them in a county incinerator because
heaven knows we wouldn't want them taking up valuable real estate
when they're dead and we can no longer tax them.

No, no, let's grind them into dog food some we cam make one last doller off of every-body.

You people sound more like Republicans every day!

I guess they'll be a run on pitch forks and torches at Home Depot this weekend...

At lest we'll be supporting small business!

[99Forever]

43. Things that make you go hmmmmmm,.

This guy is calling people here Republicans, because they want gun nutjobs to foot the bill for their own fetish, in one line..


.. and then in the next two line calls Home Depot "a small business."



Ya can't make this shit up.

[JanMichael]

45. that poster lost me at the "dog food" comment

I just ignored the post. Sounds like teafuckery to me.

[99Forever]

47. Smells a lot like the underside of a bridge to me. n/t

[beevul]

50. Firearm registration is federally illegal per..

Firearm registration is federally illegal per the firearm owners protection act of 1986.

Sure, you could repeal it, but then you'd be opening the NFA registry to newly manufactured (and post 1986) fully automatic weapons.


Probably not what you had in mind, huh?

[Xithras]

68. Per the Supreme Court, there's no way to force existing users to register anyway. It's a moot point.

The original 1934 NFA, the law that banned fully automatic machine guns and silencers, required that the existing owners of those weapons register them, and banned felons from owning firearms. In 1968 a convicted felon was caught with an automatic firearm and was charged with not registering it.

The guy claimed that a law requiring him to register his firearms would be illegal. Why? Because he's a felon, so owning a gun is a crime. By forcing him to register a firearm that he originally purchased legally, the government was essentially FORCING him to confess to a crime, which was a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court agreed in Haynes vs. United States. The court decision created a completely idiotic registration framework where law-abiding citizens were required to register their firearms, but CRIMINALS were constitutionally protected from doing so.

The NFA was amended shortly afterward to put into place the system we have today. Instead of the original and unconstitutional system, where people were forced to register their own firearms, the law instead refocused on the resale and transfer of firearms. The Supreme Court has upheld that as being legal. The governments presumption was that, by heavily regulating them at the point of sale, the availability of the weapons would decrease over time as the current owners sold them off or died. This has largely been borne out, and today it's exceptionally rare to find someone who owns one of these guns without an NFA license. There have only been two incidents of NFA registered automatic weapons being used in a crime in the U.S. in nearly 80 years (and one of those incidents involved a police officer who went nuts).

[Buzz Clik]

51. I want them banned. n/t

[a geek named Bob]

52. them...what?

full autos? semi-autos?

Luckily, YOU don't get to override constitutional rights.

[JanMichael]

59. the amendment reads a "well regulated militia." I want it

regulated out the freaking wazoo.

[a geek named Bob]

63. and therein lies the tale...

1.) Well Regulated has some wiggle room
2.) Militia can mean
2a.) National Guard/Standing army
2b.) Civilian enforcement
2c.) all able bodied men between the ages of 14 through mid sixties. (Classic for the Anglo-Saxon Folk)

[TheBlackAdder]

105. It's a shame that's not the definition of 'Militia'. Also, 'Well Regulated' means something too!

Keep twisting the English language.

Perhaps you should read the Federalist Papers where they thought disciplining a civilian militia was futile, not something that can be achieved in a day or week every so often, but on a regular routine basis.

[a geek named Bob]

106. And I'm twisting the language...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia

1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
See militia defined for English-language learners »
See militia defined for kids »

There... shows a fair bit of wiggle room.

Personally, I think there's an ulterior motive to the "let's ban guns" groups.

[TheBlackAdder]

265. The laugh is... You have no concept of what I had written. nt

[morningfog]

176. I'd like to introduce you to the 21st century. Welcome.

Please come in and leave your arcane thoughts and paranoia at the door.

[a geek named Bob]

183. I was pointing out the vagaries of language...

Fog, I'm willing to bet a pizza in the restaurant of your choice that I'm more in touch with the 21st Century than you are.

How shall we compare our "century with-it-ness?"

[allinthegame]

58. TAX

ammunition to the hilt. If you want to have 10,000 rounds sitting on your living room floor you should have to pay for them in a significant way....so significant that you might not want to have all that stuff sitting in your living room.
This goes with a license and a waiting period and a certificate of use and a "James Bond" lock and anything else that would almost make having this garbage worth having.

[pop topcan]

64. Fortunately, what you claim to want is less likely than Madonna becoming President.

...

[XRubicon]

97. Keep lying to yourself...

[pop topcan]

100. Okay...more like Lady GaGa becoming president.

mox nix

[a geek named Bob]

101. how is he lying to himself? n/t

[XRubicon]

117. I think there will be new gun taxes, maddonna wont be president either.

Its a great way to pay for security at schools and take money from stupid people. The "dumb tax".

[a geek named Bob]

120. and who are the stupid people?

kind of showing some prejudices on your part, aren't you?

[XRubicon]

129. People who own guns

Maybe you?

[a geek named Bob]

135. ah... figured as much...

So, being able to quickly recognize patterns and prioritize into a firing solution shows ineptitude...

Your snark shows the paucity of your "proof."

What makes you smarter, kid?

[XRubicon]

137. How many guns do you own?

Fancy words...

[a geek named Bob]

138. I guess it's those two graduate degrees and the upcoming third...

that compels me to use "fancy words." (usually considered a sign of "verbal Intelligence."

As for how many guns do I own... how do you want to classify firearms? I've no "Assault weapons..."

How about you climb off the bandwagon and explain what the alternatives are to greeting a home intruder? Should I give said intruder a sternly worded lecture? My choice is applying a 5 amp stun stick.

[a geek named Bob]

139. by the way...

were you trying for the "appeal to gallery" or the "appeal of the common touch" when you stated your

Fancy words...

[XRubicon]

145. Was there a sale at University of Phoenix?

My graduate degree is from Columbia...

[a geek named Bob]

150. great! I kind of figured something along those lines...

Columbia was the host for the ISR, and the taint never really left.

my first two are from state schools, as will the third.

Aside from "fancy words" as per your institution, what makes you smarter?

[XRubicon]

155. I see this tax thing really has your brain overheating, that's why I like it.

Do you drive a Hummer too?

[a geek named Bob]

156. WOW... you're just full of stereotypes...

Actually, I drive a modded 10 year old hyrbrid civic. I ripped out the main battery, and added a fuel cell. The FC uses up more room in the back, but I get better mileage.

Any more stereotypes you'd like to throw out?

If you really want to get to it, I don't "hate" liberals. I "hate" socialists. I consider them mentally ill and untrustworthy.

If we are going to play stereotypes, then that last comment covers you, as the stereotype of Columbia students is the urban Marxist wannabes.


<checks forehead> nope... no fever...

[XRubicon]

157. Please define socialist, I'd like to hear your definition

Tip: Open two browser windows, go to Rush Limbaugh's web site and do a control F on "socialist".

[a geek named Bob]

159. As I don't listen to Limbo, that won't help much...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

so·cial·ism

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

It seems to be a system that is operationally incapable of working, despite the incredible number of erudite adherents.

Here's a hint, sparky... when you try and bait people, try for subtlety...

[XRubicon]

164. No need for subtlety with you to get results.

So, start naming socialists Senator.

[a geek named Bob]

169. I'm a senator, now? Sweet!

I know that Bernie Sander is a socialist, and I'll hold judgement on him... I haven't reviewed his record.

How about all of those countries that LEFT the socialist fold? Why did they do that?

[XRubicon]

171. Do you have a list?

Dont show it to anyone, I think you should just waive around to make a point.

[a geek named Bob]

180. So now I'm McCarthy?

Neat trick... How was I raised from the dead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

Also, Bernie describes himself as a "democratic socialist," as opposed to socialist (as per the Merriam Webster)

He seems to like small businesses, and therefore would not fit the classic definition.

[XRubicon]

182. Check out the big brain on Bob.... what do they call a quarter pounder in France?

[a geek named Bob]

185. no idea...

there was a well received movie that would state that your answer would be "a royale with cheese"...

So... do you have a list of pure socialist countries with a higher standard of living, as per that list I posted?

Three pizzas says you don't.

[XRubicon]

190. Laughter is the best medicine and you Bob have provided much tonight

I need to sign off, one more day of work before vacation.

[a geek named Bob]

195. good to know you can laugh at yourself...

It's the best way to stay sane.

Get some sleep, and then off to work with you. I finished grading papers yesterday.

We can correspond some other time.

Cheers.

[hrmjustin]

160. How progressive of you to hate socialists.

[a geek named Bob]

161. thank you for the kind words...

As Socialism seems to thrive on repression, OF COURSE I'd hate it.

[hrmjustin]

163. Many countries are socialistic and are not repressive.

[a geek named Bob]

167. Really?

Do tell...

How shall we differentiate between socialist and socialistic? Are you going to use the same logic as the "one drop" rule?

They have more social mobility? More civil rights? A higher Standard of living:

Easy access to a dense form of protein?
Easy access to vitamins?
Easy access to information of one's choice?
Easy access to methods of transfer of information?

[hrmjustin]

174. Aren't most European countries Socialistic.

Tax the rich at high rates, and put the money into social programs.

[hrmjustin]

189. So you don't hate liberals, Are you a liberal?

[a geek named Bob]

194. My wife and I usually considerourselves to be "progressive"

How are you defining "Liberal?"

If you mean a person who loves individual liberties coupled with responsibilities, civil rights, and equal opportunties for all...

Emphatically YES

If you mean a person who wants to push an agenda of victim culture*, politics of resentment, and/or economic leveling

Emphatically NO

* for the record, I had a number of "hard knocks" that gave me brain damage and PTSD. I consider myself a survivor, not a victim.

[hrmjustin]

197. Politics of resentment sounds like you mean class warfare. Do you think that liberals push

class warfare and a victim culture. I think liberals push for fairness in the tax code and look out for the little guy. We don't push victimhood.

[a geek named Bob]

201. and that's why I ask for clarification...

I think certain groups push victimhood culture. I don't think we can lump the UAW mindset in with the Marxist Crit Theory prof.

If you read Iriagaray, you'll see some of "teh crazy..."

politics of resentment are also called the school of resentment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Resentment

[hrmjustin]

207. So you would consider yourself a moderate democrat.

[a geek named Bob]

208. and there we go again...

What are the goal posts to mark moderate from liberal? Where does a progressive fit in?

[hrmjustin]

210. I don't know. I consider myself a liberal.

I believe in higher taxes on the rich, equal rights for all, pro-choice, marriage equality, gun control, and cutting military spending. I think that makes me a liberal or progressive if you like.

[a geek named Bob]

211. I can agree with all of those, provided we can define "gun control..." n/t

[hrmjustin]

213. I support banning military style weapons. Do not ask me what types. I know nothing of guns.

Closing gun show loopholes and a uniform waiting period nation wide.

[a geek named Bob]

214. then we are in accord... n/t

[hrmjustin]

216. So I guess we agree on much.

Perhaps I misjudged you. I thought you were a conservative. Sorry about that.

[a geek named Bob]

238. No problems

My wife says I'm a populist/progressive/cranky-yankee inventor

[hrmjustin]

243. Again I am sorry I was harping on you.

[a geek named Bob]

244. No need to apologize...

so...

How do you feel about the idea of schools putting in anti-gun fields?

Here's the idea:

have a set of fat-switchable RF transmitters, and attached receivers. When the system's turned on, the transmitters rapidly go "up the dial" and freeze frequencies when the the receivers get a traveling wave guide bounceback. THen the transmitters go to full power, making the barrel of the gun impossible to use, unless the user only wants a backfire.

If this sounds good to you, share it. If it makes money, I'd like 5%. If you want me to build it, give parts money, a little labor cost, and a meal and a beer.

[hrmjustin]

245. That is an interesting idea.

[a geek named Bob]

247. The major problem is going to be the power usage...

No real way around that...

[hrmjustin]

249. And when the cops show up you might need to turn it off.

[a geek named Bob]

251. Not a problem

once the field is switched on at a period of time, it can be switched off.

The barrels of any guns will have been rendered useless.

Power requirement's going to be a pain in the neck...

[Mr Peabody]

85. Do you believe in Santa claus? n/t

[Pholus]

87. Just grab all those "Man Card" registrations that Bushmaster has...

[graywarrior]

90. Why not insure them?

[XRubicon]

94. I agree 100%, I still want assault ban though. nt

[pop topcan]

99. Good plan, I support a ban on assaults too!

Maybe even make them felonies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[a geek named Bob]

103. +50! n/t

[XRubicon]

136. Are you sure?

Do you have a lawyer?

[pop topcan]

151. I used to have a lawyer, but he died when

an ambulance backed over him.

[MADem]

104. I don't think you'll get your wish. If an assault weapon ban came back into fashion, that would be

a huge "win" by most people's standards. I think it will be a fight to get that, even....we'll see what the NRA has up their sleeves on Friday.

[former-republican]

107. I think the NRA is going to support a MAG ban on anything over 10 rounds.

[Llewlladdwr]

112. I think you're wrong.

Considering the millions of +10 round magazines already in circulation such a ban would be worse than useless.

[former-republican]

115. It's an easy gesture on their part

New guns will come with ten rounders like before the AWB expired.
It wasn't that big a deal back then.

[XRubicon]

127. Yeah, so we shouldn't ban them right?

How bout if you get caught with one you get arrested?

[former-republican]

144. It's feel good law and the rest will be grand fathered

[GreenStormCloud]

188. No way. The NRA will go hard line.

Their donations depend upon them having an image of no compromise.

[MADem]

261. That would probably be an 'easy way out' for them.

Then, they'd provide their crazed enthusiasts with directions on how to "build your own" to increase the firepower!

I'm no expert on the topic, but I have been told that it's not all that hard to fashion a mag that holds a lot of bullets, if one knows what one is doing.

[WinkyDink]

118. AGREE 100%! The $$$ angle is the only way to include ALL firearms & discourage usage.

[JanMichael]

133. yep

Hit the gun nutters in the wallet. How the hell are the damned things NOT registered?

[Agnosticsherbet]

130. I want all gun owners to buy insurance, just like auto insurance...

to cover the possible mayhem and medical costs. No insurance. No shooting.

[libdem4life]

154. I am all over this one. Think of the shrinking of the medical system with another layer of

insurance. Insurance companies would be great for this...their actuarial tables are accurate. It could be included in current home or business insurance costs. Could also get uninsured insurance, so that if a problem is caused with an uninsured gun, yours pays, but they lose the gun. Use the Point System. Also will save on the health care general insurance fund, because its coming out of a different department.

[gonzo_del_oeste]

250. 2nd post

I want people to have a license to have children.

And limits on dogs.

No insurance on their children or dogs; no children or dogs.

[Hekate]

146. Works for me. After reading the hateful paranoid fetishistic garbage here on DU...

... I am more than ready.

Your proposal has nothing at all wrong with it, btw. IMO it is very fair. License. Tax. Register.

Fetishists.

Hekate

[a geek named Bob]

153. so... instead of using a firearm on a home intruder, can I use a flame thrower? n/t

[Hekate]

232. You can use your registered taxed licensed firearm and not ignite your house

[a geek named Bob]

235. Can I use my 5 amp stunstick?

5 amps will really crimp a tweaker's style...

[Hekate]

246. Can I be on the regulatory commission?

I'd be glad to volunteer to help draw up the body of new laws, licenses, and taxes.

And to be sure, if a gang of 6-year olds tries to invade your home, I'm sure you'll be prepared.

Just one last note -- and then really we should cease this useless exchange -- I think the Sandy Hook massacre of the innocents strikes our hearts like the 1963 bombing of a Sunday school in Birmingham that killed 4 little girls. That marked a turning point in the Civil Rights movement -- Gods willing, this event will mark a turning point as well.

In case you're too young to remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing

Hekate

[a geek named Bob]

248. Not many 6 year olds break windows or locks to invade a house...

I'm really not sure if the emotionally background tone is the same for the 1963 deaths, and the situation now.

Mind you, I was -3, in 1963...

Sounds like building lasers and stunsticks is a good work-around for dealing with new laws...

[libdem4life]

149. Yes yes and yes. Every firearm is registered. Just like motor vehicles. That's not too hard and

I'm pretty sure there are more than 300,000,000 out there. It is not as hard as it would seem. Cities and Counties could be empowered to add a federal agency...they do it all the time...and then pass a law. Do the flat fee buyback. I believe that is already possible now in some cities or counties. What is there to lose? What's the beef...other than the "gummint gonna git 'em." Well, if registered, guess what, those criminals can't steal a gun ... it would be reported and you'd have to bring in the gun and show a license for the ammo sales...(tax,tax,tax,) it would be reported. And we're thankful for that

And anybody who resists this or feels put upon, there's something else going on there. And the survivalists, let them go buy up some land some where, register the arms, and live happily. They are yours as long as you abide by the law and pay registrations, inspections, and such

Heck, if every gun was registered along with responsibilities, taxes and fees, and re-registration, I'd be fine with open Carry. They'll probably find normal people will kind of ignore them or walk a lilttle farther behind...no problem.

Cause a crime...gun goes away. Cause a injury or death...consider it like a DUI, except manslaughter and your life will be seriously messed up for a long time. Long time before you'll get another gun...lots of classes, working as first responder assistants to murders, etc.

MADD...Mother's Against Drunk Driving did a massive thing in California. Maybe we could copy their methods for a Parents For Sandy Hook. We have the means and the way.

There have so many good ideas on this board...who knows, some of them may be part of a really big shift in our nation and in our day that will be remembered forever. and we have the Person of the Year on our side !!!

[NYC_SKP]

158. "Papers, please". Where have I heard that?

Are you serious????

[XRubicon]

162. License and registration please... and proof of insurance. Sound familiar?

[NYC_SKP]

165. Equally disturbing, really. It wasn't always this way.

Frog, pot, slowly raise the flame....

[a geek named Bob]

173. yup...yup...yup

There always seems to be a group of characters that simply knows more than us benighted souls. Out of the great goodness of their hearts, they are willing to take the time and energy away from their own schedules, to lead us to a better place.

Such nobility! It makes me weep with gratitude!

Do I really need to add the Sarcasm icon?

[NYC_SKP]

177. No need to follow, Bob. Really. I mean it. I'd prefer actually that you stay right there. (nt)

[a geek named Bob]

181. in what way?

you lost me there.

[morningfog]

178. For a gun range. Get over youself.

[NYC_SKP]

192. Get over yourself?

Where I come from there are considerably fewer than one law enforcement officers per square mile.

How's your math, sport?

Wanna match these numbers with good wishes?

Why would you want to conclude that what works for your life must work for everyone?

[morningfog]

196. Please. What does any of that have to do with your opposition

to requiring registration of your firearm to go to a gun range? You were clearly starting towards labeling it fascism, sport.

I am curious about the crime statistics of your tragically law enforcement deficit county.

[NYC_SKP]

200. I just don't know what a gun range has to do with having a gun.

It's like any number of other distractions about hunting and whatnot that come from people who clearly never lived in a rural situation but have these rich opinions about firearms.

It's just like talking about farming to someone who has never met a tomato.

You and I probably don't have enough in common to have this conversation, much less your having a right to regulate what I own and don't own, if you get my drift.

[morningfog]

206. You have no idea about me, but assume as you like.

I don't know what your "rural situation" is. When I was a kid, we just called where we lived the sticks. I never thought of it as a "situation." I did notice you avoid my question on the crime statistics. When I was growing up, in my "rural situation," we had much lower crime than those in the city. I saw my granddad, who always had loaded guns around, shoot snakes, skunks, groundhogs, rabbits, targets and in the air. Yet, I fail to see why anyone in a "rural situation" would protest against having their guns registered. I would call that an extremist and paranoid positions. One you should let go of.

You are against registration entirely? How does registering your guns prevent you from playing local cop in your home?

[NYC_SKP]

212. When did I say I was against registration?

I made no assumptions about you, but rather wanted to ask you to be mindful.

I currently live in California.

There is an effective AWB, a two week wait period, and a background check.

I don't resist any of these measures.

The assumptions DU members have made of my life and my attitudes are laughable.

Included among these are the assertions that I made a post about a killing machine, a simple stainless steel pump action shotgun that was called a "killing machine" and a "gun porn post".

So, excuse me if you are or I am mistaken.

[morningfog]

215. Then what the fuck did this mean?

Star Member NYC_SKP (45,106 posts)
158. "Papers, please". Where have I heard that?

View profile
Are you serious????

Seriously. The OP stated:

I want every gun owner in the US to have to register their firearms....ALL of them...if you go to a firing range, you WILL need your "papers."

Was I mistaken to read that your "'Papers, please'. Where have I heard that?" was not in response to the OP which mentioned papers only on the requirement to register and then extended it to the firing range?

And, if you did not mean fascism when you said, "'Papers, please'. Where have I heard that?" What the fuck did you mean?

[NYC_SKP]

218. "Papers, please" is universally understood to apply to a police state.

If you want that then you go ahead with yourself.

[morningfog]

219. So, you are against gun registration?

It is hard to get a straight answer from you. Just let me know where you stand. You say I shouldn't read into it that you are against registration, but seem to refer to it as a police state. I still don't even understand your rural situation, but let's leave that to the side.

Are you for gun registration or is that a police state (aka fascist)?

[NYC_SKP]

220. You REALLY need to read all of my replies.

Then I think you'll understand.

I work fucking all day long with people who don't read my emails and missives.

I'll be damned if I'll keep reiterating what I've already made clear to some perfect stranger who wants to pick a fight with me.

So, read up, it's all out there partner.

peace out.

[morningfog]

221. Partner, I read them all. Sport, you dodge my question.

Stranger, you have a hard time making sense. It seems you are staunchly against registration, yet took offense when I suggested such. When asked directly, you get defensive and lament on your rural situation.

Are you against registration of firearms?

[NYC_SKP]

222. I think all new sales should be recorded, I support wait periods and background checks.

what exactly are you trying to get at and why are you hounding me?

[morningfog]

224. I was just looking for an answer. YOu still haven't given it.

Do you support mandatory gun registration? Or is it too much like a police state?

I understand if your line of work makes these issues tough.

[NYC_SKP]

226. no. not for all guns, just new purchase. nt

[NYC_SKP]

223. And no, existing ownership of weapons will NOT be registered.

Fuck that fucking fascist authoritarian shit.

[morningfog]

225. Ah, thank you for finally saying what you think.

An extremist position, I understand your reluctance to give it on a Democratic board.

[NYC_SKP]

228. No reluctance, very few call for registration of all arms.It's fascist to want to register all arms.

All arms, old and new?

That is an extremist point of view, very few want that.

It's a nutty idea.

Where do you get these ideas?

[morningfog]

229. It's a great idea.

Then, adding criminal liability for those who don't keep the weapons secure if they are later used to kill.

[NYC_SKP]

230. You do realize it's an impossiblilty to ever require registering all existing arms.

Or ever actually getting it done.

But I give you credit, some people want to require outright confiscation of all arms.

Thank you for not calling me an NRA shill or spouting RW talking points.

Peace.

[a geek named Bob]

236. ummm...

I figure that you COULD use some big data techniques to figure out who's got the guns...

use chemical "sniffers" and metal detectors in unison.

[NYC_SKP]

239. And drones! nt

[a geek named Bob]

242. well...

It WOULD be safer for our LEOs...

[MurrayDelph]

168. I want liability insurance

require that and "let the free market take care of it."

[X_Digger]

170. Liability insurance excludes criminal acts.

You know how much such insurance costs? The NRA sells it- $28 per year.

[tblue]

187. Me too, JanMichael. Me too.

I KNOW the 2nd Amendment does not grant the right of private gun ownership. That said, if there are confused, for lack of a better term, individuals who insist on guns as a Constitutional 'right,' then by all means we need to do exactly what you said. That and make bullets cost $10,000 each.

With you all the way!

[Is That All There Is]

209. So You are the Person God

left in charge after he died. Will you humbly please let us practice some of the other Amendments to the Constitution.
I did not see the word abortion spelled out in the Constitution. Come to think of it, I bet there are a lot of things not in the Constitution and in the Constitution that you really like and others do not. I am pretty sure also that you do not like it at all when they try to define your ideas.

[Deep13]

231. a bit overboard

no one's .22 is going to be used in a mass shooting or even a one off shooting. same with ancient firearms. there is no reason to punish a large segment of the voting public that has not done anything wrong.

houses are real estate. no one actually owns real estate, we only possess it. you pay taxes for the right to possess it. if i am paying punitive taxes on guns I owned before new regulations, then I want that money to be used to maintain public shooting ranges, the same way auto excise taxes pay to keep the roads paved. the dog licenses, well, that's just a way for the town to gouge you.

Here's an alternative proposal. SBRs, short-barrel rifles, are shoulder-mounted guns with barrels less than 16" long. They are technically legal, but only after a federal fee and special permit. You need that stuff before you can take possession. No ordinary gun shops sell SBRs because they are a bureaucratic pain in the ass. I have never heard of a gun crime being committed with a legally registered (as opposed to a hack-sawed improvised) SBR despite the fact that they are actually ideal for many crimes including mass shootings. Silencers are the same way. The states that allow them only allow them after a significant registration procedure. Lawful silencers are never used in crimes (again, not including things like shooting through a pillow).

So, treat any "assault weapon," however we end up defining that, as an SBR. Only serious gun enthusiasts will bother with the red tape and they will never transfer them to a third person.

[Kennah]

234. Just curious if you believe ANY of this would have preventing the tragedy at Sandy Hook?

[JanMichael]

258. Yes, I think strict regulations might have stopped the past several

cold. I didn't go any further into my ideas because this thread has become unweildy, and I am having trouble keeping up...

But, take it further....limited and regulated amount of ammo...would have sent a clear warning signal to the government about the Aurora, CO shooter, and the VA Tech guy. A realistic background check on Mrs. Lanza might have forced her to store her weapons at a repository instead of keeping them at home. Yes, there are numerous safeguards that could have been enforced to stop this before it happened.

The shooter in the mall in Oregon, I am not sure about. I didn't pay that much attention to him because of the immediate news of CT. Perhaps? I do not know.

[Kennah]

262. Unless someone counts the rounds one buys and fires at the range, it's easy enough to stock up.

"Bought 100, fired 100" really only fired 50

Focus on Sandy Hook, since that was my question, and tell me what measures would have prevented it. You don't have to list numerous ones. Just three to start.

[JanMichael]

263. OK-

1. background checks of every member of a household that owns and keeps guns; if someone in the household has issues that could prevent them from making decent decisions to have a gun in the home, then the guns AND ammo are stored in an accessible repository either maintained privately, or with the state. This would be a massive inconvenience for some sportsman, I know.

2. Only a few rounds permitted in the household: not dependent on the number of guns. Say, 5-10. The rest of the ammo would need to be stored in facilities at the gun range, or again, state facility. I have never known a hunter to need more than that--- or home protection.

3 HUGE monetary fines for gun owners whose guns are used in a crime...if the guns are stolen, that's tough luck, frankly. IF the owner is killed in the crime, then their estate is liable.

and one more:

Trigger locks on every weapon in the household except the ones used for "home protection," which would be allowed to have either one full round chambered, or in the case of shotguns (such as a double barrel, etc) 5 or so rounds.

This is actually not that difficult; I am sorry the gun owners are so upset that they might have to follow laws that allow them to keep and enjoy their weapons, but allow the rest of us to feel safer.

We own three guns....IF number three were put in place, we would probably ditch the handgun...so yes, this would affect us.

[Kennah]

264. A few thoughts

#1 - Seems very unclear and vague, and I suspect if passed it would be struck down as unconstitutionally vague. Seems we would first have to address the matter of a "person with issues" and what exactly that meant. Assuming we get by that, we do have a constitutional ban on bills of attainder.

#2 - Getting a magazine ban passed would be a serious uphill battle. Limiting the number of rounds one could keep at home seems rather pointless and given to contribute significantly to a widespread black market in ammo sales.

#3 - So a person's gun is stolen, they report it, and they remain responsible for it's use after it is stolen? I seriously doubt one could make that stick constitutionally.

It's not really an issue of difficult so much as it's an issue of what can practically be done and what will have a beneficial effect.

I see there are two paths we can go down that would have any serious effect.

A - Real bans on real things with confiscations/turn-ins. The assault weapon ban is not a real ban, since the item in question can still be owned, sold, and possessed. It is a declaration to manufacturers that they cease producing the item and selling it to the public after a certain date. Same with the high capacity magazine ban. As I recall from the 1994 assault weapon ban, replacements from the manufacturer could be obtained if the original became damaged or destroyed, and this applied to both the guns and the magazines. Estimates say there are 10s of millions of high capacity magazines and millions of "assault weapons" in private hands. Under the 1994 law, "assault weapons" are nothing more than semiautomatic firearms with extra bits of metal on them, like bayonet lugs. If one were going to do something real, then one would propose a real ban on real things, like semiautomatic firearms.

B - A seems like an absolutely impossible path, so I would not bother trying. B is that we pursue the Israeli model and start introducing restrictive licensing for owning handguns, owning semiautomatics, concealed carry, etc. These much more likely to garner support and is more likely to prove effective. We will also have to catch up with Israel on the issue of universal healthcare so that mental healthcare is available.

[darkangel218]

241. Im a gun owner, but i support the ban on the assault weapons.

IMHO one doesnt need them to defend oneself. Get rid of them.

[Chorophyll]

252. K&R

[yodermon]

256. Better yet, conscript all Gun Owners into the Military and send them to Afghanistan.

This is more in line with the 2nd amendment, "militia being necessary for the security of a free state" and all.
We have a militia. If you have a gun you are de facto expressing your membership of that militia, Per the 2nd Amendment.
So let's just formalize it.