General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary: "I believe law abiding, responsible Americans have a right to own guns"
This was in answer to the CNN reporter asking about what she thought regarding the Second Amendment. So, looks like that is settled.
She went on to say she would like to see an assault weapon ban re-instituted, and other "common sense" reforms.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Make it illegal for non-law enforcement citizens to possess semi-automatic guns known as assault riffles? You will get a completely different response The way a question is asked does make a difference.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)I think it's fair to say that the country is divided roughly 50/50 on this issue.
LonePirate
(13,420 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)A couple of months support for such a ban will revert to the previous level. It always does.
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)Rather than what should be banned, what is definitely permitted?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)Never going to happen.
Maximum of 2 guns At HOME
The average gun owner in this country has 8 guns. What happens to the "extra" guns?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)we have to in the future.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Is that what you are advocating?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)sarisataka
(18,654 posts)However for someone who hunts small game, deer and ducks 2 guns would not be sufficient and we haven't even considered home defense
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)sarisataka
(18,654 posts)General purpose calibers. For instance you could use a 12 gauge for any of those activities. It is not optimum and you are risking wounding animals and letting them get away or perhaps you kill the animal but it is so badly damaged that the meat is no longer edible.
I was considering that you would most appropriately use a small caliber rifle for the small game a mid caliber for deer and then a shotgun for birds. Those are typically the type of people would hunt with to ensure clean and humane kills while Hunting.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)A .22, a 12 Gauge, and a .30-06. That's enough to hunt anything in North America.
Of course, just because something is "enough" is no reason to mandate such a limit. And that "three gun solution" doesn't address self defense.
sarisataka
(18,654 posts)On the rare occasions I hunt it is usually one of those three that I select to go out with. I have however acquired a couple of other options over the years.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)In addition to various .22s, a Browning BAR in .300 Magnum, a Marlin .45-70, a Swedish Mauser sporterized with a Mannlicher-style stock.
Right now I'd probably choose my AR-10 in .308 to hunt big game.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...is that neither side is using common sense. One side wants to ban everything except 16th century blunderbuss. The other side has no problem allowing fully automatic weapons and grenade launchers. The common sense answer lies in the middle, but anyone taking a position in the middle is viciously attacked by the extremists on both sides. So nothing gets done. Nothing will get done. Too much $ to be made in donations by advocating extremist positions...compromise dries up the donation pipeline.
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)I'd add one more thing to your excellent comments. Neither side here is capable of making an argument without insulting anyone who disagrees with them.
Gun control extremists call gun owners "gun humpers" who don't care who lives and who dies. NRA extremists call the gun control people fascists who want to turn the US into North Korea.
It's like two nasty children screaming at each other on a playground. And that's no way to make friends and influence people.
DashOneBravo
(2,679 posts)Release The Hounds
(467 posts)Response to One Black Sheep (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Warpy
(111,259 posts)Maybe even non auto pistols.
Semi auto weapons and military style long guns? No.
The price for the ability of the average schmuck to own these things is just too high.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Never going to happen.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Just reading posts
(688 posts)Not the best analogy, there.
hunter
(38,311 posts)Guns are disgusting.
Smoking is disgusting too.
Both are a public health hazard.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Until then, you're stuck with it.
hunter
(38,311 posts)Gun love is disgusting.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)hunter
(38,311 posts)I think there's no reason for Clinton to appease the radical gun crowd. They're not going to vote for her anyways, and it might be for the best if those gun lovers who can't stomach Clinton or Trump sat out this election.
Living in a community where guns are a very serious problem (cops and other "law abiding" citizens included, not just the gangsters) I have no tolerance for gun love. I can't imagine using a gun for "self protection" either. Fact is, the bad guy shoots first, and by the time more guns come out everything is FUBAR anyways. Guns escalate the disagreements we humans have among ourselves, and in the case of suicides, the arguments we have within ourselves.
I've been in many rough situations, worse than more sensible people ever expose themselves to. I've stumbled upon strangers in my home, and people breaking into my cars. I've confronted armed people. A gun wouldn't have made me feel better in any of these situations. I don't need a gun to feel secure. I feel more secure without one. Guns are not a good solution to any problem, except maybe hunting for food or putting down literally rabid wildlife. Nothing you'd need more than one or two bullets for, unless you are an idiot.
The second amendment is bullshit, a relic from a time guns were primitive and owning slaves was legal.
The defenders of it are relics too, and rarely progressive in any way.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Then you're very much out of step with the American people as a whole. From Gallup:
'
I don't need a gun to feel secure. I feel more secure without one.
So don't get one. It's your choice, after all....and being pro-choice is a good thing, last I checked.
The second amendment is bullshit, a relic from a time guns were primitive and owning slaves was legal.
And it's the law of the land. Since you don't like it, you can start working on repealing it. Get back with me in a few decades and let me know how the struggle is going.
hunter
(38,311 posts)If you want charts and stuff, try this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027919642
Your chart tells me most Americans are wrong. But that's always been the case about so many things.
Hell, U.S. American chose Reagan over Carter. The "average" U.S. American isn't too bright, and frequently votes against their own best interest.
Am I an arrogant SOB? Yes I am.
A good leader tells people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)I think magazine size is the key.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Fortunately, neither our candidate nor party platform agree.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Warpy
(111,259 posts)don't bet the rent on that.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)say, the next 5 years.
It would be the easiest money I'd ever made.
scscholar
(2,902 posts)Your defeatist kind is why so many of us are constantly dying in the streets. Dying in the streets.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)authorized? They are military long guns. One dates to 1926
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Her position is identical to Obama's.
Whatever we think (and I hate guns of any type, truly madly deeply), the Supreme Court, for whatever it's worth, already decided that individuals have the right to own guns (but left stand that restrictions could apply). It's incumbent upon the president or potential president to follow decided Constitutional law, whether it was decided wrongly in their opinion or not.
There is zero wrong with Clinton's statement, so I don't know what this OP is about.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)A vast majority of Americans support that position. Just not crazy or criminal people owning deadly assault weapons.
I'm a hunter and I hold her exact views. Semi-auto guns need to be tightly restricted indeed. But not all guns for most people.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)the gun control debate.
It has been a hot topic lately.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)That's the only way to ban assault rifles. The AWB from 1994 was a complete joke.
Dem2
(8,168 posts)We need to find a way to restrict weapons of mass slaughter from those who would chose to use them for what they are designed for.
The best solution is to simply severely restrict the sale of war weapons similar to how we did back in the 40's for fully automatic weapons.
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)Kentonio
(4,377 posts)She wants law abiding citizens to be able to own them, but also wants law abiding gun manufacturers to be able to be sued, if anyone goes crazy and uses one of their weapons to commit a crime?
One Black Sheep
(458 posts)That is something specific that you would have to google about, I don't know the answer.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)But the gun nuts are all twisting everything that is said getting all convoluted about terminology to distract from the problem.
Let's have an honest conversation and I want to see the gun advocates propose something solid instead of defeating everything that is said.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Instead of banning the weapon impose magazine capacity limits of 20 rounds. Semi-auto rifles don't fire any faster than semi-auto pistols and certainly aren't "weapons of war," at least in the sense that they aren't used by any military in the world.
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)20 rounds could still do some considerable damage. You need something that limits the duration that one can shoot continuously so that maybe they could be jumped.
If you can't kill what ever you are hunting with 5 shots, then you need to go the firing range.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And certainly easier than banning semi-automatic weapons altogether (which I don't think will ever happen). But at some point I believe the magazine limit becomes too small (5 is too small IMO). A handful of states have 10 round limits and those have held up to legal challenges so far. NY had a 7 round limit and that was struck down, in part because nobody currently produces a 7-round magazine. But there are plenty of stories about people needing significantly more than 5 rounds to protect themselves, either because they missed a bunch of times or because the times they hit did not stop an attacker. I suspect you MIGHT get a 20 round limit passed but anything less than that would be difficult, and I don't think there's any way that a law restricting you to less than 10 rounds would pass.
Just reading posts
(688 posts)Most states already restrict magazines capacity while hunting....and in any case, hunting isn't the issue at hand. The right to keep and bear arms is.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But the argument regarding the magazines already in circulation applies to just about any gun control proposition that would result in a ban. For example, with an AWB you still have millions of those weapons in circulation that simply aren't going to be turned in by their owners. I'm not sure that doesn't mean you don't implement some sort of restriction on future sales. As I mentioned, Maryland and California, and maybe a few other states, already have some sort of limit in place.
And to be clear, in my opinion AR-15-type weapons aren't "weapons of war" or "machine guns" or "weapons of mass destruction" and are subject to Second Amendment protections. But if you are using them for hunting then you don't need a 30 round magazine, and I personally think that a sidearm is a much better home defense weapon (or even a shotgun). I also don't own one, though I probably would if the one I was interested in didn't cost $1000+. So I could live with (not necessarily be hugely in favor of) a law that limited magazine capacity. That said, doubt it would pass in the current climate.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)Seems reasonable.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)duh
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Should he have had access?
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)because most people won't always remain responsible and law-abiding. That was supposed to be the point of my TIC post. Cheers.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Except that where guns are concerned, most people DO remain responsible and law abiding.
That isn't opinion, that's fact. Problems with guns are caused by less than 1 percent of all who own them.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Of course, the Orlando shooter wasn't on a watch list...
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Capable of inflicting harm on another person?
All Cadillac owners are responsible and law-abiding, until they're not.
Rocknrule
(5,697 posts)you're not a real Murikan"
- Republicans
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)Her opinion changes all the time. She says what her pollsters say is more popular. Apparently now that Bernie has been dispatched, shifting to the right is the correct move to increase the odds of her winning. So what?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)hunter
(38,311 posts)Guns are a public health menace, like cigarettes.
People should be encouraged to quit guns.
Cigarettes killed the Marlboro Man, and likewise, many gun owners and their family members are killed and maimed by guns.
Second hand smoke is dangerous, so are second hand bullets...