I'm generally for gun rights but the Republicans make stupid arguments

[bossy22]

My personal feelings on Assault weapon bans and magazines bans aside- the republican argument them that states such legislation will prohibit self and home defense is silly.

This gun below is really all 99.9% of american households need for home defense

it is your standard 12 ga pump action shotgun which holds 7 rounds. I don't know any criminal that is brave enough to face one of those (most will run just at the sound of it racking)

And for those who carry a weapon such as this below is really all that is needed

It is a 9mm compact pistol that holds 10 rounds. If you feel you need some extra power upgrade to .40 SW model that holds 9 rounds.

I'm not saying I'm for the Assault Weapons ban, I'm merely pointing out how silly the "reasoning" in the gun debate can be

on edit: after sandy hook my views changed like many, I'm willing to consider supporting a magazine capacity limit if it is tailored right- something along the line of Colorado's proposed law. As gun owners we really need to ask ourselves, is it really a big deal if we could only by 20 round mags if it would save lives? Is that really going to infringe on our rights that much?

[ManiacJoe]

1. Stupid arguments easily come from both sides.

For example, your suggestions here may work for you, but as a blanket recommendation for everyone they miss the mark.

[bossy22]

5. I don't disagree with you

I personally think the gun control side tends to make the more worse of the arguments. But in truth, aren't all laws in a way "blanket" policies. We can't tailor a law to everyone's needs/likings.

I'm not necessarily advocating for these laws. I'm just merely making a statement on some perceived realities. How many homeowners armed with weapons that i posted above are outgunned by home invaders? How many CCWers have been killed/injured because 10-15 rounds were just not enough? These are the questions I ask. I'm sure there is some anecdotal stories out there of these things occurring but I'm sure it is far from the norm. I'm also not sure a magazine limit would same lives either- but if it did, would a limit such as 15 or 20 really destroy our rights? I don't know

[Angry Dragon]

7. Why??

[Duckhunter935]

2. thanks

for telling me what I require. And I prefer twenty round magazines myself.

[bossy22]

9. I'm not telling you what you require

You could have a perfect legitimate reason for needing a 20 round or even a 50 round magazines. I'm not arguing with you on that. I'm just pointing out that for the majority of the situations the above firearms would do the job. Again, there are always exceptions.

I personally switch off between a Benelli M4 and a Remington 870 (my father borrows my guns once and awhile and usually keeps them for months)

[baldguy]

31. If you need a 20 round magazine

I guess you don't abide by the NRA's definition of gun control.

[badtoworse]

3. I'd give on the magazine limit and background checks...

In exchange for a federal CCW valid in all 50 states. It would have to be on a "shall issue" basis.

[bossy22]

6. I think such an compromise is fair

[Recursion]

25. That's Alan Grayson's position

I think it's a pretty good compromise.

[baldguy]

32. Just as long as there's some actual standards, and the carrier demonstrates an actual need.

One of the reasons we have such an extreme problem with gun violence is the "lowest common denominator" approach in those states with fewer brain cells.

[badtoworse]

34. The requirement to demonstrate an actual need is a deal breaker

"Shall issue" means the onus is on the state, or in the case of my proposal, the demonstrate why you should be denied a permit.

[slackmaster]

4. I find unconvincing any argument that attempts to tell other people what they need and do not need

[bossy22]

8. I'm not telling anyone what they need

I'm just making an observation from my own experiences and knowledge. Yes, I'm 99.9% sure there are those out there that my suggestions would not work, but there is also a large amount of people it would work for. I'd be willing to guess that the people my suggestions would work for would significantly outnumber those who didn't. That's all I'm saying.

I don't necessarily agree with the proposed laws.

[slackmaster]

10. I think a substantial majority of people don't actually need any kind of firearm at all, but...

...they still have a right to own them. It's about choice to me, and always has been.

I can't approve of prohibitions against people owning personal weapons that aren't functionally different from ones that have been in common use for more than 100 years.

[bossy22]

11. to play devil's advocates- sometimes choices have to be limited

First off, I'm against an assault weapons ban, I think semi-automatic weapons irregardless of what they look like should be generally available. I'm more referring to the magazine capacity

Second, you are right, it's not about need- we are dealing with a right. But we also have to take in to account public safety and if we are going to craft gun laws that recognized both these principals- need is going to play a roll. We are going to ask ourselves- if the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect guns for lawful purposes- what guns do we need to allow so that an individual can adequately exercise that right such stated purposes.

on edit: so the question I ask how badly are our rights infringed if we are limited to only 20 rounds in our Target AR15, or 15 rounds in our CCW pistol? How badly are our 1st amendment rights infringed by prohibiting speech that directly incites violence?

[slackmaster]

12. Choices already are limited, severely IMO, and have been since 1934

I believe the line dividing military weapons from civilian sporting and defense arms was drawn correctly with the National Firearms Act.

I think it goes a little too far in some areas, such as states being able to ban sound suppressors completely, but generally the line is placed correctly.

on edit: so the question I ask how badly are our rights infringed if we are limited to only 20 rounds in our Target AR15, or 15 rounds in our CCW pistol? How badly are our 1st amendment rights infringed by prohibiting speech that directly incites violence?

I have to ask, realistically, what purpose would be served by imposing such a limit on magazine capacity? I don't see any real good coming from it.

How badly would our First Amendment rights be infringed by limiting books to 50 pages?

[bossy22]

16. Yes, but just because they are limited now doesn't mean they are limited enough

" I believe the line dividing military weapons from civilian sporting and defense arms was drawn correctly with the National Firearms Act."
I agree, Again, I have no issue with people owning AR15's and such. I own one myself.


"I have to ask, realistically, what purpose would be served by imposing such a limit on magazine capacity? I don't see any real good coming from it. "
That is the question. I'm not sure. That's why at this point I don't generally support magazine restrictions.

[rustydog]

17. Speed limits? purchasing narcotics only with a prescription, must have a license

to practice medicine, must be a licensed electrician? Must have CPR and First aid certification to run a day care?

If joe numb nuts had a 10 round magazine, would he have been able tokill as many children in 5 minutes having to reload every 5 seconds?
When will you be outraged? After seeing the massacre scene photos of the dead kids? No one NEEDS high capacity magazines. period.

[slackmaster]

24. Your phony needs-based argument doesn't move me, neither do your appeals to emotion and scorn.

[Hoyt]

21. When it comes to guns, society has an interest - not just those steeped in guns.

[upaloopa]

13. Back in the 70's my cousin's husband showed

Me the two sawed off shotguns he got for his wife and him for Christmas. I asked him what were they for and he said they were for "when they come."
I asked for when who comes, he said the poor people. This guy was a conservative of the John Burch type and a millionaire.
He got caught by the IRS for tax evasion and right after he shot himself.
I think a lot of folks who have guns in the house are like my cousin's husband.
They are afraid "they" will come.
Most people don't own guns and are not afraid of "them."

[bossy22]

14. I think that idea is held by the minority of gun owners

I think most gun owners that have a gun for purely protection think of it as a fire extinguisher. It is a Just-in-case system.

[upaloopa]

22. I don't believe that. But then I may be wrong

[bossy22]

23. you probably have been hanging around the wrong crowd

[slackmaster]

26. I think your assessment of most people who keep firearms for self-defense is correct.

They don't dwell on them. I have a relative in another state, an elderly woman with health problems, who is strongly in favor of gun control but keeps a pump shotgun in her home just in case. She's definitely not in shape to fight an able-bodied person. But she certainly doesn't dwell on having a weapon, or fantasize about shooting someone, or anything remotely like that. She sees it as an appropriate implement for a possible last-ditch defense that we all hope never happens.

[Gravitycollapse]

18. No, most gun owners are not afraid zombie hords of poor are going to attack them.

Nice try though.

[Gravitycollapse]

15. Many argue that a snubnose .357 magnum is best for carrying.

So there is not a real consensus on what kinds of firearms and what calibers are optimal for a given situation.

Some argue that a 16, .410 or 20 gauge shotgun is best for home protection. Others argue that an AR-15 is best.

[bossy22]

19. thats true

I'm not necessarily suggesting those specific guns, I was just generally pointing out an overall category. I put a snub nose 357 in the same category as the glock pistol in this case

[Gravitycollapse]

20. I would rather have an AR-15 for home protection.

Using hollow points. Hydrostatic shock and all.

I would worry that the shot from a shotgun would travel through walls intact.

[graham4anything]

27. I am 100% AGAINST any gun and bullet having any right to exist at all. Period. End. Of. Story.

by any private person and in any street.

Law enforcement (federeal/state/city) while on duty but even cops have to return their gun to their office, locked away til the next shift and not in street.

The national guard = militia.

as Franklin said wanting to get rid of all guns from the hands of private citizens I think
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
and please folks, having a gun and bullet is as silly as flying a kite in a thunderstorm.

[Gravitycollapse]

28. Even in the case of war?

[NickB79]

29. That's nice

When you'd like to join us in the real world, to have a real-world discussion about the proper controls and regulations for legal gun ownership, you're always welcome. Because, no matter how much you dislike them and how hard you stomp your feet about their existence, guns are going to be legal to own in the US until long after we are both dead in the ground, many decades from now.

[Buzz cook]

30. Republicans make stupid arguments

That's pretty much par for the course isn't it?
Unless they lie like Newt Gingrich or get massive passes from the media, republicans can't argue their way out of a paper bag.

If it weren't for a packed conservative court, we wouldn't be in a position of a 2nd divorced from the militia clause. That is the only strong point they have.

With the militia clause in force the 2nd is moribund. Without the militia clause the ability to own firearms is meaningless.

So basically the republican argument boils down to, I have a right to own firearms because I have a right to own firearms. No one can restrict that right because I have a right to own firearms.

Once they go beyond that argument they have nothing.

[sigmasix]

33. unspoken assumption?

The right of American citizens to own guns seems to be about more than what the 2nd Amendment says; isnt there an unspoken assumption? America's political,cultural and educational structures were based in and guided by our embrace of the enlightenment and humanistic pragmatism- These revolutionary notions were supposed to produce a citizen that is superior in wisdom and self-reliance. The rugged individualist image of the average American includes an assumption of pre-qualification for the responsibilities concomitant with gun ownership. Many patriotic American gun owners sense that an attack on gun rights is an attack on the very image of American exceptionalism or "rugged individualism". Is there any truth to the image of the American maverick that pulls him/her self up by thier bootstraps, while displaying wisdom and piety whenever a gun is needed to be used?
Not every gun owner is a member of the NRA- as a matter-of-fact, the vast majority of gun owners are not members and never have been or will be. Most American gun owners believe in common sense laws and regulations- it is a very vocal, well financed minority "represented" by the NRA that are against common sense reforms and responsible purchasing regulations. The NRA represents gun manufacturers (lot's of political pac money) and thier products. They offer a club for consumers of the products produced by the manufacturers they represent that tends to attract gun owners with a penchant for conspiracy theories and end-of-days prepping. Not all members of the NRA are gun nuts, but most gun nuts are members of the NRA. A gun nut is not an average gun owner(someone that owns a couple for utilitarian, sentimental or other normal reasons) gun Nuts have a morbid fascination with tools of death while fervently insisting there should be no regulations about them. Some of these personality types are dangerously paranoid and out of touch with the rest of humanity. The NRA has retained the services of many racists, paranoid conspiracy mongers in attempting to fire-up the core of thier support(this is why ted nugent is still an important leader of the NRA). Most normal gun owners aren't members of the NRA for several reasons, some of the more obvious include; NRA supported and distributed racist conspiracy theories about the president of the United States Of America and an army of black soldiers intent on taking Americans'guns and enslaving white Americans, the notion that a couple white guys with guns in thier homes is the only thing protecting americans from federal tyranny, Ted Nugent and Wayne. When gun-rights advocates publicly divest themselves from the NRA and chastize NRA leaders for the toxic influence they have bought within America's body politic, will they be taken seriously.
The people that want a 100% ban on guns in America will never get thier way- and when NRA parrots conflate regulation movements (much more popular with all Americans) with gun banning movements (much less popular and politically powerless) they are being dishonest in a particularly unAmerican way.
I have to remind so many teabaggers of this fact: regulation is not confiscation. It's in the dictionary: go ahead and look it up.
I wonder if some of the 100% gun banners in DU are really sock-puppets for the teabaggers- insisting on wildly ridiculous confiscatory legislation and blanket, sweeping assumptions about the true objective of individual gun owners. Sometimes gun banning posts seem more like right wing sock puppet creations-straw men of sensible gun law advocates. The Nugents and LaPierres from the NRA represent the real threat to the future of the 2nd amendment.