Gun control supporters always want a compromise. Ok. Heres your chance to show it.

[beevul]

I'll support a proposal that allows only STANDARD capacity mags for handguns. Not "10 round mags" but STANDARD capacity. Handguns vary in how many rounds they can hold in a standard mag.

Heres where the compromise comes in:


What are you gun control supporters willing to give in return?


Opening the NFA registry?

Nationwide CCW reciprocity?


Lets hear it.

[baldguy]

1. One moment of sanity doesn't make up for 30 yrs of stupidity.

Keep going.

[TPaine7]

9. Compromise defined

You make concessions until gun controllers can no longer hold out the false promise of future concessions.

[baldguy]

16. I thought it was waiting for one more massacre

before agreeing to support something everyone knows is needed.

And there'll always be one more massacre.

[beevul]

28. You have that confused.

"I thought it was waiting for one more massacre"

No, thats the "ban it" legislation certain anti-gun politicians keep in a drawer for such opportunities.

[Euromutt]

90. "And there'll always be one more massacre." Unfortunately, yes

Let's say we impose a ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds; a complete ban this time, no grandfathering of existing mags. Then the next mass/spree killing happens, say by some fuckhead using a pair of GI-standard M1911A1s (capacity 7+1) and he kills 14 people. Hey, it's happened before: Edmond Post Office in Edmond, Oklahoma 1986, the original "going postal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Sherrill).

Is any proponent of magazine capacity restrictions going to say "well, that didn't stop the massacres; guess we'd better repeal the law"? Are they hell.

The next push of course, would be for a complete ban on handguns. Sure, that's not going to actually fly in the United States, but let's say it did, leaving us in a comparable position to the United Kingdom. Next thing you know, some fuckhead with a double-barrel shotgun and a bolt-action .22 rifle goes on a county-wide killing spree, leaving twelve corpses in his wake. Like in Cumbria, last June (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings).

Is any gun control proponent going to say "gosh, maybe we're on the wrong track here; progressively banning more and more firearms just isn't stopping the mass/spree killings"? Are they hell.

So where do we go from there? How about an extremely restrictive gun ownership regime, that only allows for possession of a single-barreled non-repeating shotgun, and that only with an arduous licensing process? Like Japan. And then some fucker plows a rented two-ton truck into a crowd of shoppers, jumps out with a dagger and starts stabbing people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre). Or some guy sets fire to a tenement and starts slashing the occupants with a chef's knife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonhyeon-dong_massacre).

At what point do we acknowledge that someone bent on mass murder will find a way, and that as long as we stare ourselves blind at the weapons the last guy used, "there'll always be one more massacre"?

[cleanhippie]

79. So you are unwilling to budge on your 30 years of insanity?

How expected.

[wtmusic]

2. No compromising safety.

If it's safe, I support it.

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Do wear a helmet in your car ?

Yeah I know , you don't need one . You're in a car . duhhhh .
lol

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Me too. Get ready to wear a 5 point harness, horseshoe and helmet in your car.

After all, it's safe.

You might need to adjust your hairstyle and attire to compensate, but it's a small price to pay.

[wtmusic]

64. This woman tried that, and it didn't help.

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=7897465

Seems it was other people who were responsible for her misery. That's why we have laws, and why your argument is a straw man.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. What the hell does that have to do with my post?

Seriously, a 2 shot derringer goes off and that means what to you? All that gun needed was one round in it, to do the damage it did.

Back to the car restrictions. Because after all, if you lose control of your car, and you are fighting to keep your butt in the seat, you are less likely to regain control, and can kill others.

[wtmusic]

66. That's correct, only one round was needed

so I would have to agree with you that CCW is dangerous and unnecessary. :thumbsup:

[AtheistCrusader]

68. So are drivers.

All it takes is one wreck, then, right?

One NEGLIGENT ASSHOLE doing X to ban something? Hang on to your ass, I've got a LIST.

[wtmusic]

71. No, no.

By your logic, we should wrap every car in 2 yards of urethane foam to cushion against drunk drivers. We don't, because it makes a lot more sense to

*limit the rights*

of some citizens who believe it's their God-given right to drive drunk. Makes more sense to deal with the problem at the source than make the rest of society bear the burden, no?

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Try again.

You just made no sense at all. I was hoping to see where you would go with this but... that wall looked painful.

[wtmusic]

73. You want the rest of society to shoulder the burden of your dangerous plaything

and a lot of people think that's bullshit...me included.

Try to keep up.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. I see. You think everyone who uses one of these mags is a luantic.

Got it. Because otherwise, only the drunk drivers that hit someone are dangerous, right?


99% of the high cap mags sold in the US have never been used in a mass murder. You can take that to the damn bank.
Nor are they required to commit a mass murder, if you were paying attention at Virginia Tech. They are pretty much inconsequential.

In fact, it may have even enabled the heroes tackling the shooter in AZ. There is a reason the miltiary does not use these extended mags. The spring has to be excessively powerful to carry the load of the extra ammo, and this can lead to jams, failures to feed, and difficulty RELOADING. Meaning, he was standing there with a firearm that didn't work. Likely, because of this magazine.

If he'd had four 10 round mags of proper manufacture for that weapon, can you guarantee me he would have been tackled?

[wtmusic]

75. No, actually I don't.

Not sure how we got off on that tangent, but are you claiming we should encourage the use of mags which are safer because they don't work well? :crazy:

I guess that's more rational than posters on another thread, who went as far as to claim that full auto is safer than semi.

But I digress. Mags are not that important to me - give me a six-month wait, mandatory registration and training, mental evaluation, stiffer penalties for violations, then go out and buy the biggest mag you can carry.

[beevul]

76. In exchange for those new restrictions...

In exchange for those new restrictions, "six-month wait, mandatory registration and training, mental evaluation, stiffer penalties for violations", what existing restrictions are you willing to see eliminated?


In the spirit of the word "compromise".

On edit:

Registration at the federal level is illegal per the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, so registration would mean repealing it, along with the hughes amendment which closed the NFA registry.

Are you sure you would still be for it, that being the case?

[wtmusic]

77. I'm not naive enough to believe the NRA would give an inch

so I'm not sure this little exercise in fantasy is in any way productive.

To be honest, I think the public - especially kids in inner cities - have already done their share of compromising. Now it's the NRA's turn.

[cleanhippie]

80. The whole thread was an exercise in fantasy. Why quit when its your turn to compromise?

[Katya Mullethov]

102. Because it worked for decades

But not anymore .

[X_Digger]

107. And a lovejoy for the punt!

[AtheistCrusader]

78. I think we could meet in the middle somewhere there. Counter-offer:

It's a variation on the hollywood 'hold the gun sideways' thing. I don't correct people about it, because if a thug wants to shoot at me, I'd prefer that be how he holds the weapon. Safer for me. I see these extended mags the same way. Even the drum mags for a rifle carry malfunction risks. I've seen 100 round beta-C mags disintegrate. Congrats, you now have a $2,000 club.


six-month wait
Counter-stipulation: That this time is used for a thorough background check, and is a one-time thing. Also, there must be a bypass for people who can demonstrate an immediate need, such as a battered woman with a valid restraining order.

mandatory registration and training
Counter-stipulation: Training is provided by the state, free, and the registration comes with a constitutional amendment that no ex-post facto seizure of registered firearms can be initiated.

mental evaluation
Counter-stipulation: Not much, only there must be some material risk, not a variation on the may-issue-CPL issue, where friends of the mayor can get permits and no one else.

stiffer penalties for violations
Counter-stipulation: I would like to see this for ALL weapons.

buy big mags
Counter-stipulation: I would support you if you wanted to go ahead and restrict mags to the funcional design of the weapon, no extended malarky, take it if you want it, no cost to you. :)

Edit: One apology, I did create a strawman to represent you in that last post. I usually don't do that, and I am suitably embarrassed.

[wtmusic]

87. Hmm.

* I don't know enough about "immediate need" statistics but desperate people do desperate things, and it would be too easy to abuse a loophole like this.
(When I could smell smoke during the L.A. riots I borrowed a rifle from my neighbor and put it under the bed. Then I gave it back to him. I think most normally law-abiding people would, in practical terms, be able to find a way to deal with it).
* Your amendment: what about seizure of registered firearms used to commit a crime, or those owned by someone who is later deemed mentally unfit?
* On mental evaluation, I have no idea what form this might take. But it would probably have got someone reviewing Jared Loughner taking notice.
* On stiffer penalties we agree, and statistics for drunk driving injuries prove it works.
* We probably agree on mags too. I don't see it as being that relevant as a risk factor (VT). Take care of important safeguards and it's a non-issue.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. In the hands of an untrained person, full auto is safer for the people he is shooting at.

I know it sounds strange, but it is true. It takes training to learn to handle a gun on full-auto. The successive recoils of each shot cause the gun to tend to ride up rather strongly. The fourth and subsequent shots usually hit nothing but clouds. Further, untrained shooters tend to hold the trigger down, instead of firing in bursts, which means they have an empty magazine in about two seconds, or less. Full auto handguns are next to impossible to control.

With semi-auto the person has time to recover from the recoil and aim the next shot. That is far more deadly.

In the hands of a shooter with training, full-auto is devastating.

[krispos42]

119. Witness that poor 8-year-old kid who died last year

while shooting a full-auto micro-Uzi. The gun went up and back to the extreme. :-(

[tortoise1956]

149. I'll be glad to give you your list

just for you.

The rest of us will abide by the plethora of gun laws already on the books, and continue to be responsible gun owners.

Oh, for your information - I have a whole bunch of hi-cap magazines for several weapons, and believe it or not, NONE of them have ever been used in a massacre. Go figure!

[Atypical Liberal]

121. "dangerous plaything"

You want the rest of society to shoulder the burden of your dangerous plaything and a lot of people think that's bullshit...me included.

Firearms are not playthings. The rest of society will have to shoulder the burden of the free access of firearms in this country, or they can repeal the second amendment if they get too tired.

[Straw Man]

148. OK, I see we're doing car analogies.

By your logic, we should wrap every car in 2 yards of urethane foam to cushion against drunk drivers.

OK, hardware solution: sounds like... magazine capacity limits to mitigate effects of criminal use of firearms. Solution rejected. Check.

We don't, because it makes a lot more sense to

*limit the rights*

of some citizens who believe it's their God-given right to drive drunk.

OK, focus on the agent, via the legal system: judge and punish, as we do for... criminals who commit crimes with guns. Solution accepted. Check.

Makes more sense to deal with the problem at the source than make the rest of society bear the burden, no?

Source = person who commits the offense. Burden = imposition of restrictions/requirements on those who have committed no offense.

OK, I think it works.

[YllwFvr]

114. he wasnt carrying in a holster

he was carrying in a pocket, he was carrying a gun without built in safety features. Any decent firearm will have drop proof safeties built into it. This man is hardly one to compare to normal carriers

so, crap gun, plus unsafe carrying conditions = dumbass. This isnt someone to judge your average carrier with.

[HankyDubs]

3. that's not a compromise

It's a giveaway.

Handgun manufacturers then make handguns and claim that their "standard capacity" is 31 rounds.

Meanwhile the states give up the authority to make laws based on the will of their citizens.

Ridiculous. Intended to be ridiculous.

I think we should compromise by allowing violent felons to purchase all the guns they want with no background check and no waiting period. Then you'll get what you really want...a goddamned madhouse.

[beevul]

7. The definition of compromise.

"It's a giveaway."

No, a giveaway is getting nothing in return for further restrictions.

"Handgun manufacturers then make handguns and claim that their "standard capacity" is 31 rounds."

If you had any idea of the reality involved with making a handgun that holds 31 rounds, you'd know how ridiculous you sound.

Sad that you don't. On both counts.

"Meanwhile the states give up the authority to make laws based on the will of their citizens."

I'm sure the slavers made that argument too.


If we are expected to give up something we ALREADY HAVE, so then will the other side be expected to.

Thats a textbook definition of compromise.

[HankyDubs]

17. its a giveaway

"If you had any idea of the reality involved with making a handgun that holds 31 rounds, you'd know how ridiculous you sound."

If you had any idea what lengths the gun manufacturers will go to in order to circumvent any restriction...you'd know how ridiculous you sound. Simply claim that the standard mag is 31 rounds. Done and done. Yippee!

"Sad that you don't. On both counts."

I'm really not all that sad that I'm not involved in the armaments (death) industry.

"I'm sure the slavers made that argument too."

Right, now I'm pro-slavery. What a reasonable, level-headed argument. One of these things is not like the other!

[AtheistCrusader]

67. You realize the BATFE has the power to arbitrarily decide a gun doesn't meet a certain standard

right?

That wouldn't fly for one damn second, and you know it.

[cleanhippie]

81. You are dealing with someone who HAS no idea what they are talking about.

Wasting your time.

[beevul]

89. No doubt.

I believe, however, that giving members of the opposition a forum to demonstrate/illustrate that they have no idea what they are talking about, is NEVER a waste of time.

Never stop our friends on the other side of the issue from destroying their own credibility.

That many of them are so willing to, has contributed significantly to our getting to, and being where we are today.

[Callisto32]

94. Sorry, man. 30 rd. standard capacity already exists.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/pmr-30/

It's a matter of ammunition design, more than weapon design, I think.

[HankyDubs]

124. which proves my point nicely

thanks!

[Maine_Nurse]

14. The will of the citizens--I'll take that!

"Meanwhile the states give up the authority to make laws based on the will of their citizens."

You let the citizens of my state determine our firearms laws and stay out of them. That's a deal I'd take any day of the week!

[HankyDubs]

23. believe me

I'm not going to maine...especially not with the Tea Klan in charge. But that isn't good enough for beevil, he wants to make the rules for my state.

[Straw Man]

38. I don't think you know what "standard capacity" means.

It means a magazine that is flush with the end of the pistol grip. It doesn't protrude way below the grip like the 30-rounder in the Glock that you've been seeing pictures of everywhere.

A pistol that was designed to take a 30-round mag without the mag protruding below the grip would not only look ridiculous, it would be the complete unwieldy and impossible to conceal. You wouldn't even be able to carry it in a belt holster. It would undoubtedly be the worst-selling pistol in the history of firearms. A few collectors might buy one for the freak appeal, but that's about it. No company in its right mind would ever try to market such a monstrosity.

What he's talking about is the 15 or 17-round magazines that semi-auto pistols typically come with. It's what the cops use. Not ridiculous at all, and not intended to be.

[krispos42]

48. Most shooters don't want 31-round magazines

They can make the gun awkward and they do make the gun virtually impossible to conceal or even store. If you're packing a concealed gun on your hip, it's magazine does not protrude past the bottom of the grip much if at all. Otherwise you can't conceal it, and it makes even everyday tasks like driving a car or sitting on a chair a problem.

Even cops, who openly carry their guns, don't pack magazines that extend past the grip.


:shrug:

I suppose you could define in the legislation that "standard capacity" is the lesser of 1) 5" from lips to base plate, or 2) 1/2" past the lowermost point of the pistol's grip.


This gives an absolute maximum magazine length of 5", which is about how long a standard-capacity magazine for a full-size pistol is.

[HankyDubs]

51. Most shooters don't want 31-round magazines

"They can make the gun awkward and they do make the gun virtually impossible to conceal or even store"

So then there isn't any good reason that they shouldn't be banned.

[krispos42]

57. Well, I was actually focusing on handguns in my post.

Lots of people (millions, probably tens of millions) of people have 11+ for their semiautomatic rifles. Civilian-legal copies of the AK-47, AR-15, M-14, M-1 Carbine, etc. Plus after-market magazines for their non-military-derives guns, like the Remington 7400, Ruger Mini-14, and lots of semiautomatic .22 rifles.

Heck, I actually do have a 30-round magazine for my Ruger 10/22. I though I had lost it when I moved, but I found it last weekend while doing some cleaning.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Most of us have voiced an 'ok' for that, we simply want the weapon limited at

it's manufactured capacity. My XD 9mm would be 15 rounds, plus one in the chamber. My wife's .45 is ten, plus one in the chamber.

Limit me to 10 rounds, and I reject your proposed solution. 15 is the appropriate design of my handgun.

[Callisto32]

95. But, variable magazine size is one of the great advantages to the detachable box magazine.

What would you do with weapons like the XD(M)c or whatever the proper writing of the name is? It comes STANDARD with both a 13 and 19 round magazine, one of which has a little attachment that essentially extends the compact grip to standard sidearm length.

EDIT:

I really need to learn to proofread BEFORE I hit "post."

[shadowrider]

96. Sometimes proofraeding doesn't work n/t

[Pancho Sanza]

103. What would be, in your view, a feasible means or mechanism to enforce such a ban?

I'm trying to think of how anything short of a house-to-house warrantless national no-knock and thorough search would even come close to locating many let alone most "illegal" magazines. Another point for you to consider is that the chance of you ever taking guns away (if that is your ultimate goal) from Progressive, liberal Democrats is very slim, much LESS getting them away from rightwing nutcases. Nobody has yet proposed any way to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, do you have any ideas?

[HankyDubs]

138. my view is

"Nobody has yet proposed any way to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys, do you have any ideas?"

That the problem of guns in the hands of criminals is not one that can be solved overnight. The gun rights crowd has ensured that there is a vast supply of arms for criminals to get their hands on.

My solution is to gradually make these weapons less and less available over a long period of time. This is the only constitutional means for doing so. It has flaws...it can be criticized because it is not a "magic bullet" overnight solution...but its about 1 zillion times better than anything the gun "rights" crowd has to offer.

[Pancho Sanza]

142. Less and less available.......until none are? That seems to be the logical endpoint of your sug-

gestion, but it isn't a practical or even feasible one unless you're thinking in terms of several thousand years, in MY opinion. What's included in your mention of "these weapons"? I guess I'm inferring you mean all guns of every size, type and description; correct me if that's wrong - either way you're pretty much stuck with hoping for a virtual "uninventing" of a technology, an upshot (so to speak) the possibility of which I'm gonna stay very skeptical.

I wish you wouldn't put quotation marks around the word rights...I don't think you'd be doing it if we were discussing freedom of the press. :shrug:

[AtheistCrusader]

59. I'm prepared for that eventuality, are you?

[jeepnstein]

4. Your heard it...

They aren't really interested in "compromise". I guess it seemed like a good idea when Custer told his men not to take any prisoners at the Little Big Horn, too.

[HankyDubs]

5. gun rights absolutists

pretending they are interested in compromise...hilarity!

[beevul]

10. Who exactly is a "gun rights absolutist"?

How about removing the mealies from your mouth and telling those reading who exactly the "gun rights absolutists" are.

So far the only definition I can come up with is, anyone that disagrees with you.


Besides that, supporting a proposal limiting handguns to "standard capacity" (flush fit non protruding mags) is an absolutist position ...how exactly?

[HankyDubs]

20. an absolutist

is a person who rejects every reasonable restriction on firearms.

When an absolutist is confronted with the idea that he doesn't really need a 31`round magazine to protect his family, he says..."yew cant tell me whut ah need!"

The absolutist rejects any rational limit on firearms ownership and retreats immediately to slippery slope arguments.

The absolutist asks me "what's wrong with stockpiling ammunition?"

The absolutist tells me that "you can't appeal to emotion" when he plays on white suburban fear.

These are some of the absolutist positions.

[Katya Mullethov]

22. What's wrong with stockpiling ammunition ?

Cracked slabs and matted carpet aside .

[HankyDubs]

24. Hutaree ring a bell?

[Katya Mullethov]

30. Masterfully played

A merry band of jack balls ran their cock holsters and got busted , time to turn in all those ham cans of .223 . lol

[HankyDubs]

50. A merry band of jack balls

"A merry band of jack balls ran their cock holsters and got busted"

First of all, I'm loving your turn of phrase. I'd apply it to most gun owners.

And yeah, the merry bands of jack balls with cock holsters are exactly the reason that stockpiling ammunition is a bad thing.

[oneshooter]

93. So, what is your definition of "stockpiling"?

50 rds of ammo per weapon? 20 rds? Only one mag/cylinder full?

What limits would you propose and how would you enforce them?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Callisto32]

98. I stockpile ammo.

Not because I am waiting for "the big one" but because I buy in in bulk when I can get it cheap. I do the same thing for other non-perishable commodities as well.

EDIT:

What is wrong with thrift?

[Hoopla Phil]

116. Yeah, I heard that the case was falling apart. Seems the only one braking any laws

was the government man on the inside. This used to be done a lot in the 60's I'm told.

[beevul]

27. Very good. Now tell me, what do they have to do with this thread.

"a person who rejects every reasonable restriction on firearms."

Are you saying that a measure that rescricts 31 round mags and only allows only standard capacity mags is unreasonable?

Golly, I thought you were a gun control supporter.

"The absolutist rejects any rational limit on firearms ownership and retreats immediately to slippery slope arguments."

Hasn't been done in this thread, that I've seen, so tell me, what has that to do with this thread?

"The absolutist asks me "what's wrong with stockpiling ammunition?"

no talk of stockpiling ammo in this thread. Are you lost?

"These are some of the absolutist positions."

U&h huh...And what does any of that have to do with me supporting a proposal to make only standard capacity mags illegal?

[one-eyed fat man]

37. Seems kind of silly.

It's been posted many times, but how is it a slippery slope when every gun control organziation for the past half century has had as part of its charter the complete elimination of private firearms ownership?

Where is the compromise in these statements?

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed." - Elliot Corbett, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy, 1969, Washington Evening Star.

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States." -Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

gun rights control absolutists pretending they are interested in compromise...hilarity!

Tell me, were y'all lying then, or are y'all lying now?

[petronius]

53. A person who rejects "every reasonable restriction" is a rare person indeed

In fact, looking around this forum, I'll bet that every single pro-RKBA poster in the place could give a list of reasonable laws that s/he supports.

More than that, it seems to me that the only person rarer than your "abolutist" is the anti-gunner who will admit that any proposed law may in fact be useless, unreasonable, and totally senseless...

[Euromutt]

106. Oh, I think I like you

Nice turnaround you inflicted there. Very elegant.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. You don't get to define 'reasonable' and claim victory with an absurd standard of 'reasonable'.

[Euromutt]

88. I don't think that's the definition of "absolutist" that you're wielding

Rather, from your attitude I'd say a better definition is "a person who rejects any restriction on firearms that you consider 'reasonable'."

Prohibiting people convicted of violent offenses from possessing firearms? You'll get little argument on this forum.
Ditto for those adjudicated to suffer from a mental disorder to the extent they form a danger to others? Again, there's vanishingly few here who'll disagree.
Instant background checks on purchases from federal firearms licensees to prevent aforementioned persons buying a gun? Yep, no sweat.
Federal-level registration and a $200 fee "tax stamp" on automatic weapons, short-barreled long guns and suppressors? Well, I guess we can live with that...
Requiring a license to carry concealed in public? Provided it's not subject to executive "discretion," yeah, okay.

But geez, someone proposes a restriction a capacity on magazine capacity and you ask "why? what good will it do?" and blam! you're an "absolutist."

I think the point of the thread has been proven.

[Katya Mullethov]

92. We have only proven

That we are a merry band of jack balls that run our cock holsters . Easily , and justifiably lumped in with the Hutarree Tea Klan or any other easily marginalized group .
It will be a mistake to write us off as cock holster running jack balls that cant get shit done . But an oft repeated one .

lol . Whatever works

[Euromutt]

104. Katya, normally I appreciate your off-beat humor

But in this case, I do not have fucking clue what you're talking about.

[Katya Mullethov]

110. Another jackball aye ?

Just read the rest of the stockpiling thread dude .

[Callisto32]

97. So people that disagree with you are just stupid.

It isn't that they see differently, or have come to different solutions for similar/same problems. They are incapable of even rudimentary communication through the English language...

Nice.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Actually you are the one providing most of the humor on this thread

Your bluff was called...deal with it

[HankyDubs]

21. coming to me with a lopsided proposition

isn't really calling my bluff.

[beevul]

29. its not lopsided...

Its not lopsided.

My examples of what you might be giving up in return were EXAMPLES.


So what are YOU willing to support giving up, in return?

Or is giving up ANYTHING lopsided, in your view?


I've already stated what I'd support, and stated I wouldn't support it for free.

Asking what YOU would support giving up in return, can not, by definition, be "lop sided".

[X_Digger]

31. If he's not willing to give anything up.. doesn't that make him an 'absolutist'? 'unreasonable'? n/t

[beevul]

32. Projection ya think? N/T

[X_Digger]

34. Not a psychiatrist, don't play one on TV, but..

I ascribe to the Justice Potter Stewart philosophy.

[HankyDubs]

41. reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban

and in return I'd give up background checks for the criminally insane.

We had to fight hard for that one, not easy to give it up, but then at least all the nutjobs would have their freedumbs.

[beevul]

45. I'm FOR background checks for the criminally insane.

Try again.

[HankyDubs]

47. that's a compromise

you didn't agree to it. you're not interested in compromise.

[beevul]

55. Its not something I would like to see gone.

Nor is it, I suspect, something you would like to see gone.

How then can it be on the bargaining table, when we both support it?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

54. A new and improved AW ban...

"reinstate and strengthen the 1994 ban to elimiate loopholes (i'm sure the gun strokers know about these and can explain the worst ones)."

You mean you don't? Know about any loopholes in the original AWB, I mean.

"reinstate and strengthen the 1994 ban to elimiate loopholes"

Lets be clear here, what exactly do you want the legislation to do? It helps to know what what exactly would be banned, in order to assess whether its a worthwhile tradeoff.

On edit: I think maybe you forgot that we were talking about magazine limits. We need to finish that before you start talking gun bans.

[Callisto32]

99. "NOW WITH REAL DEFINITONS!" n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Can we eliminate stupidity from the law too?

Like removing making a bayonet lug a bannable feature? Because seriously, drive-by bayonettings aren't exactly a problem, but it is a nice place to mount a light.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. And now we know you are not serious in the slightest.

Nobody would want you to 'give that one up'.

[HankyDubs]

125. what?

This was a reform we fought for. It's perfectly reasonable, just like waiting periods and banning certain weapons or magazines.

I was asked to "give something up." I offered up the most important victory that the gun control advocates have ever gained...and for that you say I'm not serious?

[AtheistCrusader]

144. You offer something

that no one is asking for. Nobody, not the NRA, not anyone (the NRA of which helped pass that background check system, by the way) would want that to happen.

So you offer nothing in exchange. Or something of no value, because no sane person would take it in trade. Not on the left, not on the right, not gun owners, not non-gun owners. Nobody.

It's worse than offering something you can't deliver, you're offering something no one would want.

[cleanhippie]

82. See, it is ALWAYS hyperbole and insults. You have nothing constructive to add.

[HankyDubs]

128. I've been insulted several times

on this thread and several hundred times on this forum. My self-esteem remains intact.

The difference between myself and the gun crowd is that I don't whine to the moderators to get posts removed.

[NewMoonTherian]

154. True.

I don't like removing posts. There's nothing more frustrating than arriving late to a thread and seeing a deleted post that's generated a ton of conversation, and having no idea what was said. There's something we can certainly agree on. Cheers!

[NewMoonTherian]

147. That sounds like an awful idea.

I want the system to more reliably put mentally unstable people in the NICS database. That's actually useful legislation. I know you were using hyperbole, but of all the useless legislation out there(machine gun ban, large caliber ban, the list goes on and on), why would you offer to give up good legislation in order to pass discredited, unpopular garbage like the AWB?

[shadowrider]

153. Well

why would you offer to give up good legislation in order to pass discredited, unpopular garbage like the AWB?

Because guns are icky.

[NewMoonTherian]

36. "Gun rights absolutist". That... that's....

excellent! That's going in my sig. You are right though; I have no interest in compromise. I'd prefer that my side of the argument continue to dominate in every argument we engage in. I would be willing to compromise if it would make it easier to get certain specific things that I want to see. That's the nature of compromise. Nobody is just gung-ho to run out and start compromising, except - usually - the losing side.

[HankyDubs]

42. this attitude will be remembered

when the pendulum swings back again.

We won't forget how completely unreasonable, dishonest and irascible you were.

[cleanhippie]

83. And your attitude will never be forgotten.

And its not been a pendulum, its been a freight train that has rolled over all of your ridiculous "arguments" and asinine comments. The train has left the station and your side got left behind.

[NewMoonTherian]

105. What possible difference would it make?

Look at the posts above in this thread. Not a single anti-gun advocate has been willing to offer the smallest concession, and the political environment is not remotely in your favor. Why would you be willing to compromise if you ever had the upper hand?

Look; the anti-gun side has bargaining chips. There is no shortage of odious gun laws that have no public safety benefit, and gun owners would love to see them eliminated. If they were put on the table for repeal, there's no telling what you might get in return. Maybe even the ludicrous magazine capacity limit that's so popular these days. Though, to be honest, you'd be better off proposing legislation that hasn't already been proven useless. And you could have them, essentially, for free! Just give up a few restrictions that don't save anyone's life.

Also, I have to take issue with your depiction. I, personally, have done my utmost to be honest. I assume you're referring to the gun rights absolutists(I really do enjoy that phrase) in general, but I haven't seen much dishonesty coming from either side in this debate. I wouldn't accuse the anti's of dishonesty. Just mass misconceptions and substituting emotion for fact.

[Katya Mullethov]

108. Freedumb will take the day

No matter what you call it .

[Union Scribe]

111. 1. Who is "we" 2. What is "unreasonable" about asking for compromise?

[NewMoonTherian]

117. I think...

he was using me(see the post he was responding to) as a focal point to characterize the pro-gun movement. I expressed that I prefer domination of the argument over compromise with the other side. That's what prompted the "unreasonable-dishonest-irascible" remark.

[Upton]

6. Gun control advocates don't want compromise..

most of them want an outright ban.

[X_Digger]

8. Good thread..

I'll add that no, compromise is not, "We'll only take half of what we wanted now." (with the implication that they'll take the other half some other time.)

[beevul]

12. I'd call it a "certainty", rather than an "implication", but yeah. N/T

[-..__...]

13. They don't want "compromise"...

they want submission and blind obedience to their way of thinking.

Here's my "compromise"... for every piece of gun control legislation they propose... we submit 2 pieces of firearms advocacy legislation that either
repeals existing gun control laws, and/or creates new protections.

They have their games... we have ours.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. Looks like the whole "compromise" shtick is exposed right here.

There is no compromise. Only a bit here and a bit there given up - by hook, crook, or guilt it doesn't mater to the anti's.

[msongs]

19. ok gun owners quit shooting people. Now that's a great compromise nt

[jeepnstein]

25. But I haven't shot anybody.

Not one single solitary person. I haven't even tried and missed. So do I get to make a new registry entry in the NFA for my good behavior?

[HankyDubs]

26. i'm afraid that

they can't live with that. Slippery slope.

[beevul]

33. Isn't shooting people Illegal? N/T

[HankyDubs]

40. maybe in your next proposed "compromise"

you can demand that we legalize the shooting of other people.

[beevul]

44. Saying things about other DU'ers that aren't true, isn't nice.

I never demanded anything.

Perhaps you should practice your reading.

[Hoopla Phil]

118. But it can be legal. When justified. Isn't that why police carry them??

[Hoopla Phil]

35. I've shot no one. But I doubt you'll be back.

Now stop trying to take my private property and leave me the hell alone.

[HankyDubs]

130. I haven't done anything to you

and no one on my side of this debate is trying to take your private property. Paranoia is a powerful drug.

[cleanhippie]

84. How can I quit doing something I have not started. You are the one that does the drive-by postings.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

43. no, it shows how hollow the "compromise" gun control supporters call for, really is.

"First you propose a "compromise" where you take a gun control position, and then add a caveat that you know will be totally unacceptable and render the position meaningless."


Thank you for admitting that allowing standard capacity mags is totally unacceptable to you. I suspected as much, but confirmation is nice.

"Then you demand--"in return"--fundamental changes to US federal and state laws."

First, I DEMANDED nothing. I asked, what that you already have, were you willing to support giving up, in exchange for my side supporting giving up something WE already have. I gave examples. Those are not the only possibilities.

That you made no suggestions at all, is noted.

Second, a ban on larger than standard capacity mags IS A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN STATE/AND/OR FEDERAL LAW.

"For 10 years these mega magazines were against the law, and for some reason it didn't cause us to lose all of our constitutional liberties, nor did it lead to any slippery slopes."

No, they really weren't "against the law". You can't even be bothered to know anything about the laws you support.

[HankyDubs]

46. keep compounding your dishonesty

you know why it's unacceptable...why be dishonest about it?

"That you made no suggestions at all, is noted."

I did make a suggestion.

Second, a ban on larger than standard capacity mags IS A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IN STATE/AND/OR FEDERAL LAW.

No, it's not. Its a return to a policy that served us well for 10 years.

"No, they really weren't "against the law". "

"The act separately defined and banned "large capacity ammunition feeding devices", which generally applied to magazines or other ammunition feeding devices with capacities of greater than an arbitrary number of rounds and which up to the time of the act had been considered normal or factory magazines. These ammunition feeding devices were also referred to in the media and popular culture as "high capacity magazines or feeding devices." Depending on the locality and type of firearm, the cutoff between a "normal" capacity and "high" capacity magazine was 3, 7, 10, 12, 15, or 20 rounds. The now defunct federal ban set the limit at 10 rounds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Provisions_of_the_ban

[beevul]

52. Not a bit of it.

"you know why it's unacceptable...why be dishonest about it?"

No, I really don't. I know what you stated above, but what you stated is not reality. When I say "standard capacity mags", I mean flush fit with the bottom of the gun, rather than sticking out the bottom of it 6 or 8 inches. This CLEARLY reduces magazine capacity versus 31 round mags. If you are delusional enough to think anyone would want a regular handgun with a grip section 14 inches long, theres little point in even discussing this with you. Tell you what though, I'd even be willing to add the caveat that the mags can be no longer than 8 inches.


Would that be unacceptable?(note, I just gave further YOUR way on the issue)

"No, it's not. Its a return to a policy that served us well for 10 years."

First, the current law does not forbid possession of them. Therefore any change making them unlawful to possess, IS a fundamental change in law. Period.

Second, for the ten year period of the ban, only mags made AFTER the ban was enacted, could not be sold to or possessed by non law enforcement.

Pre ban mags were available and LEGAL during the entire time the ban was in effect.


That being the case, how exactly did it "serve" anyone well?

Don't be a mccarthy. Know what your talking about.

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Only new manufactured ones were illegal.

High capacity mags that were made before the cut-off date were grandfathered in and were legal. There was enough lead time that the magazine makers made millions extra during the legal period and continued to sell high capacity mags for as long as they had a stockpile.

You really should learn what you are talking about.

[Callisto32]

101. At massively inflated prices, at that.

The banner's own policies actually ended up enriching those they wanted to control.

Isn't the law of unintended consequences grand?

[HankyDubs]

126. well i'm not sure I'd agree

with making things illegal that were purchased legally. That's ex post facto in my book. It's true that this is a flaw, but it's a flaw that existed for a very important reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. You can't possibly be this ignorant.

Do you really not know that Loughner could have bought that mag in 2003? Really? You didn't know that?

If you don't know the kindergarten basics about gun regulation, what are you even bothering typing for?


YOU'RE JUST EMBARRASSING OTHERS THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN ACTUAL FIREARMS POLICY.

[cleanhippie]

86. Oh, yes, the ignorance is strong in this one.

And what makes it worse, is that it WILLFUL ignorance.

[Callisto32]

100. What makes it worse is that we are expected to accept arguments based upon it.

[benEzra]

112. Ummm, linking from *your own link*, we can see the actual text of the non-ban...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act#External_links

...and you may find it illuminating to read it.

Sec. 110103(a)(w)(2) and (4) completely and unconditionally exempted the entire extant worldwide stockpile of 30-round magazines from the ban, with no restrictions whatsoever, as of the date of enactment.

As a result, the 1994 law did not, in fact, ban the purchase of 30-round magazines; rather, it actually encouraged such purchases 1994-2004, by encouraging hedging.

When it was clear that the law had a good chance of passing, manufacturers ramped up and produced several decades' supply prior to the ban's enactment, so that after the initial buying spree wore off, there were few shortages that I can recall. Purchase of 15- and 30-round magazines was just as legal (and probably just as common) as purchase of 10-round magazines, and unrestricted in any way. I lawfully purchased several 30/20/15 round magazines myself on multiple occasions between 1994 and 2004, as did family members, to go along with the purchase of new firearms or to replace broken or worn out magazines, and I still have some of the original packaging and dated bills of sale.

California's 1994 Roberti-Roos AWB was stricter (and extreme by national standards, as AFAIK no other state followed suit) and may account for some of the confusion in the media. But the Federal law banned nothing; it only raised prices, and that only on certain brands/styles. The most-common 30-rounders, e.g. those made for rifles taking STANAG, NATO, or Warsaw Pact pattern magazines, were generally cheaper 1994-2004 than now.

Regardless of whether one supports new bans (and I don't), any new law that actually bans purchase or transfer would be going much, much further than the original 1994-2004 non-ban.

[HankyDubs]

127. right

but as I pointed out, it is not possible to make things illegal if they were purchased legally. That's ex post facto, and blatantly unconstitutional.

But thanks for showing the some of the tactics that the gun crowd will use to get around perfectly sensible restrictions.

[X_Digger]

129. You're the one who was wrong, you were corrected- TWICE

And we're "getting around perfectly sensible restrictions"??!?

You yourself noted the constitutional challenge involved.. what, you'd have congress pass a law that CANNOT BE ENFORCED?!?

*sigh*

[HankyDubs]

131. what?

banning the manufacture of new high capacity magazines certainly can be enforced and is constitutional. It just can't be enforced against existing magazines. For the existing "Jared Loughner" mags, we could hope to take some off the streets during raids against criminals, gun buy-backs etc. Each one that comes off the streets decreases the potential for a "Loughner gun show" by a tiny fraction, and eventually the idea is that these add up.

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. And that would do nothing to prevent a "Cho gun show"....

....as the Virginia Tech shooter used only "McCarthy friendly" magazines, while managing to kill and injure more people than

Lougner did.

Yes, let's waste political capital on trying to revive a law that accomplished little save enriching those who sell gun accesories.

[HankyDubs]

135. so whats your suggestion

for eliminating the "Cho gun show loophole?" Do you have one you would support?

Be really interested in hearing about that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

146. Cho would not have been able to obtain a firearm legally *if*

the state of Virginia had entered him into the NICS system, as he had been determined legally to be non compos mentis.

But they did not. It's time to strengthen the NICS system, as it now has more holes than a wheel of Emmenthaler cheese.


THAT would save more lives than doing the equivalent of taking the car keys of the sober in order to fight drunk driving...

[HankyDubs]

136. I have to say

I just love...LOVE that one of the the main criticisms gun "rights" advocates have of the assault rifle ban is that it is NOT unconstitutional. I guess if it did include some blatantly unconstitutional ex post facto provision, the gun crowd would suddenly support it!

Freaking hilarious.

[X_Digger]

139. Wha huh? 'assault rifles' aren't banned, just strict.. did you mean the '94 'assault *weapon* ban'?

I just love...LOVE that one of the the main criticisms gun "rights" advocates have of the assault rifle ban is that it is NOT unconstitutional.

Assuming you're speaking of the '94-'04 'assault weapons ban', then no, it wasn't unconstitutional, per established precedent at the time.

Do I think such a ban would stand scrutiny in light of Heller and McDonald today? Not really, no. Heller's "in common use, for traditionally lawful purposes" kind of leads me to think that such a ban would fail to pass muster (and may lead to existing bans being removed in various states.)

McCarthy's new ban comes close to being unconstitutional, so close that I don't have an opinion on it.

Possession of an existing magazine would be legal, but all those sitting on store shelves become illegal to sell to anyone except law enforcement. Does that rise to the level of a 'taking' under the fifth amendment - "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."? If you can't transfer it to anyone except the gov.. I dunno.

I guess if it did include some blatantly unconstitutional ex post facto provision, the gun crowd would suddenly support it!

You guess wrong! Not only would that entail spending money on lawsuits, only to have it overturned, it would also lose the senate, the house, and maybe even the presidency for a decade! Forget about comprehensive financial services reform, forget about extending unemployment benefits, hell forget about securing social security and medicare from being pillaged.

[HankyDubs]

140. oh I see--hair splitting!

Genius! Lol.

"Do I think such a ban would stand scrutiny in light of Heller and McDonald today?"

Decisions made by the Scalito, Thomas, Roberts court are not ones I respect....just as I do not respect the Dredd Scott decision or the Plessy v Ferguson decision. These are the clowns who decided corporations are people and attend Koch brothers fundraisers.

[X_Digger]

141. Don't expect them to be overturned any time soon..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/americans-agreement-supreme-court-gun-rights.aspx


eta: and re 'hair splitting'-- in what way? That's how constitutional issues are addressed- only the questions put before the court, and only to the extent being challenged. Pick up a con law textbook sometime.

[HankyDubs]

143. you love fallacies

you just resorted to the argumentum ad populum. Your argument is rendered null and void.

[X_Digger]

145. I did not claim the validity of my argument rested on such..

.. merely that the trend in popular opinion is away from your interpretation.

As such, were the court to render such an unpopular verdict, I'd expect to see legislation such as has been proposed to address Citizen's United.

[HankyDubs]

151. two fallacies

First you appealed to authority, that authority being the Heller decision (which overturned previous precedent) and through the Heller decision to the current right wing SCOTUS majority. All of the rational judges dissented. Not only was this an appeal to authority, it was an appeal to authorities that have proven themselves to be corrupt and unreliable.

Your ad populum argument really wasn't much of an argument, it was closer to simple gloating. So you have a point there, it wasn't an argument.

Question: Is the CU decision a questionable SCOTUS decision merely because it is currently unpopular?

[X_Digger]

152. I'm merely stating the current precedent (Heller)..

There are times when popular opinion differs from SCOTUS opinions (like CU), and in those times, legislation rises to meet that opinion (as VT is doing- http://www.alternet.org/rights/149620/vermont_is_gearing_up_to_strike_a_major_blow_to_corporate_personhood,_ban_it_statewide -- and there will likely be a congressional law to follow).

If popular opinion differs re Heller, you could have expected the same to happen. Since it's not, I don't expect the legislature to attempt it.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Unacceptable to you. Sure.

Who the hell are you, anyway?

[HankyDubs]

133. My name is hank

Who are you? I'm a gun control advocate. The top thread here addresses me.

[cleanhippie]

85. You do know about the DU rules, right?

Your first line is a direct violation.

[HankyDubs]

134. I know how sensitive

our toughguy gun...errr..."rights" advocates are. They compare me to Stalin and to Pol Pot in their signatures, but then they bitch and moan about "rules."

Here's what I've got for the gun...errr..."rights" advocates: :nopity:

[shadowrider]

91. I believe this thread is proving there is no compromise with the anti's

Unless we compromise THEIR direction with nothing in return.

"We'll take half now, and the other half later.".

[GKirk]

113. That's not how compromise works...

...you give up something and the pro-gun control side gives up nothing. :)

[Atypical Liberal]

115. What is "standard" capacity?

What is a "standard" capacity? Double stack? Single stack? However many rounds fit inside a "normal" sized pistol grip?

The Springfield Armory XDM in 9mm holds 19+1 rounds of ammunition. I consider this "standard" capacity for a double-stack magazine.

[Straw Man]

120. Standard capacity

What is "standard" capacity?

What is a "standard" capacity? Double stack? Single stack? However many rounds fit inside a "normal" sized pistol grip?

I'd go with the last one. From a design standpoint, it's effectively limited by ergonomics. If the grip is too long, the whole pistol becomes unwieldy and hard to carry. If the grip is too fat--like if someone tried to implement a "triple stack" magazine--the pistol becomes "ungrippable" by anybody with small-to-average sized hands.

[Hoopla Phil]

122. Let us use the standard established in Heller.

Those in common use. I think a ban on "arms" that are in common use is going to be shot down pretty quick.

[Euromutt]

157. A tricky question, given the existence of differently sized models of the same design

Take, for example, the new XD(M) 9mm Compact: it comes with a flush-fitting 13-round mag, but it also accepts the full-sized XD(M)'s 19-round mag, and in fact comes with one of the latter, along with a "grip sleeve" to fill the gap between the 19-round mag's baseplate and the pistol's grip.

Similar setups exist for the S&W M&Pc, the H&K P2000SK, the Ruger SR9c, compact and sub-compact Glocks, etc.

So would we have curious situation in which a particular magazine would be legal for the full-sized version of the gun, but illegal for the (sub-)compact version?

[lawodevolution]

123. I'll keep my high cap magazines and id like to open the NFA registry

I don't want the federal government to come anywhere near CCW.

[spin]

150. I definitely agree on CCW ...

better to keep it at the state level.

[friendly_iconoclast]

137. 20+ hours later, and no serious compromised has been offered.

What has offered by the gun Prohis, AFAICT:

Insults, half-truths, flatout untruths, at least one Lovejoy, anger (both half-concealed and naked), class warfare,

amateurish psychiatric diagnoses, and just plain bile.



Time to defeat gun Prohibition (whether dislabled as "gun safety" or "gun control") completely and unapologetically.


No reason to hand any semblance of progress to the Pubbies thanks to the True Believers and their neocon enablers.

[Brilliantrocket]

155. It warms my heart that this is all theoretical.

In actuality no "ban" will ever pass again. This is because the non brain dead democratic members of congress know that the 1994 ban cost them 12 years of republican rule, some illegal wars and a 1+ trillion dollar wealth transfer to the elite. I'm glad that more and more Dems are becoming pro gun. Actually gives me someone to vote for. The pro control fellow here is living back in the 20th century when gun control was cool. Sorry buddy your side lost. Stop moping and waving around your false hopes. As if you actually have ground to compromise on ?

Any compromise that limits any firearms features will not work. The only acceptable compromise is increasing background checks, possibly having mental checks and in return we get new machine guns on the NFA. Before you argue that one, there was only 1 or 2 instances of crimes being committed with NFA registered machine guns. This is over a 77 year time frame with over 250,000 registered weapons. Don't you love how some people just like to ban things based on the idea of them? No don't look at the facts, ban something just because you ,personally, don't like it.

[Euromutt]

156. I can think of one compromise: propose a law WITHOUT an exemption for police...

...and if makes it out of committee, I'll happily accept it.

We keep hearing rhetoric about how "the only reason" to have so-called "assault weapons" or "large-capacity" magazines is to "mow down" large numbers of people in a short period of time. And yet, strangely, every proposed piece of legislation contains an exemption for law enforcement. McCarthy's latest bill even allows for "large-capacity" magazines to be transferred from an agency to an individual officer upon the latter's retirement!

Why should we allow our law enforcement agencies, not to mention retired cops, to possess items whose only purpose, ostensibly, is to kill large numbers of people as quickly as possible? I'd like to see legislators propose bills that actually match the rhetoric they use to advocate them. Of course, the law enforcement community would never countenance any such legislation without an exemption for them, as a result of which it would never get anywhere, so it's not like I'm ever going to have to actually make the concession I'm offering. But that's just a result of the intellectual bankruptcy of most gun control legislation in the first place.