Watching Biden on the Newshour... He may have just fucked us.

[TheMightyFavog]

Calling for a High Capacity magazine ban?

*facepalm* *headdesk*

The NRA and the teabaggers will have a fucking field day with this.

[lonestarnot]

1. So fucking let 'em. Dog shit has more sense.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Yes, but they have high-capacity magazines.

[TheCowsCameHome]

18. What's that - periodicals with more than 28 pages?

[Rhiannon12866]

86. +1

:D

[unkachuck]

so do we....n/t

[gateley]

Dog shit has more sense than Biden? Is that what you're saying? nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. I take his statement to mean the NRA and RW sorts

but I could be mistaken.

[gateley]

55. You're absolutely right and that's why I was so puzzled, didn't sound at all

like lonestarnot! I was like "HUH????" Automatically reverted to my "come to Biden's defense mode" because believe me, I saw plenty like those and worse during the primaries. But as I said, sure didn't sound like lonestarnot. I just HAD to ask! :7 :hi:

[lonestarnot]

43. Have you lost some marbles? Why would I say something like that? Read again!

[gateley]

51. I've lost my marbles? Is that what you're saying?

Kidding. :evilgrin:

Yeah, I couldn't believe that's what you meant but it was my knee-jerk-defend-Biden-response left over from the primaries! That's why I asked for clarification. I went back and read it again and I really apologize for even thinking that was a possibility. :(

[lonestarnot]

53. Not to worry.

I love Mr. Vice President. He looks like that puppet, can't think of its name right now. That grumpy ventriliquist that is overrated on comedy central. Walter! Just came to me. :}(

[gateley]

56. Haha! Thanks for the forgiveness -- and really, it wasn't an accusation, it was

a sincere question because I 'know' you! I need some protein. :pals:

[mmonk]

2. I heard rumblings today the administration was planning to have a

say about guns.

[blondeatlast]

3. The vast majority of people in this country don't belong to the NRA.

Therefore, it's a good bet that the vast majority aren't going to give it a second thought--or maybe they'll think "why does anyone need a high capcacity magazine for their deadly weapon?"

[Junkdrawer]

8. What blondeatlast said...

:thumbsup:

[treestar]

30. +1

[myrna minx]

4. Yes - soccer moms will be outraged!

:eyes: THE NRA and the tea baggers are angry all the time anyway so we might as well get something sensible accomplished in spite of them.

[malaise]

5. He is 100% correct

Sometimes the correct decision is more important than the popular one.

[underpants]

6. I agree with it, You probably agree with it. Most people agree with it.

there isn't a single gun issue that the NRA hasn't embarassed itself over or caved on since its inception. They are floated only by their direct money contributions primarily in "red states".

Let them have at it. It will only work to our advantage in races that weren't already decided.

[movonne]

13. +l000

[blondeatlast]

17. +1. nt

[TheMightyFavog]

19. No, I really don't.

I am of the opinion that embracing the issue of gun control in the 1960s was one of the biggest mistakes the Democratic Party has ever made. Embracing this position has done nothing but make millions of rural working class voters betray their own economic interests out of fear of the "Gun Grabbers."

[mmonk]

23. Well when are they going to betray their deity Reagan?

He signed more than one gun control law I believe.

[TheMightyFavog]

27. Really?

This I did not know...

[mmonk]

35. The seven day waiting period was his idea.

He also supported the Brady Bill when Bush I was in office. You can check but I believe I'm correct. It's been awhile.

[sharesunited]

39. Nearly being killed by gunfire might have helped form his opinion.

[mmonk]

44. No doubt.

[mmonk]

41. Also, check this out. It's titled, "Don't Blame Liberals for Gun Control".

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22064

[walldude]

36. Are you saying there should be no limits on gun ownership?

So I should be allowed to have a nuke in my garage and a 50 cal mounted in my backyard?

[TheKentuckian]

50. No, not the nuke but I don't think governments should have them as weaponry either

[dionysus]

57. only if you wear an orange safety vest when operating the fifty.

:P

[Gaedel]

49. I could add a couple of others

1. Merging the social security budget into the general budget.

2. Not indexing the tax brackets of the progressive income tax to inflation. When we got inflation, it pushed the middle class into brackets designed for the rich and killed consensus for the progressive income tax.

[Mimosa]

73. That is soo true.

I don't have that kind of income but I know plenty who do. And while they're far from rich, relatively they are paying 'more' taxes than those who are really rich. So the anti-tax bombast resonates with these cash strapped families who don't have access to tax avoidance methods regularly used by the plutocrats.

For instance, that's why 'death tax' bombast resonates with the middle class. They want to leave a relative pittance or inherit it, witout half getting taken by the government. The rich long ago learned how to negate the inheritance taxes.

[Gaedel]

85. Back in the seventies

It didn't take much of an income increase to start shooting up through the tax brackets.

Between inflation and the rise of two earner households as women went to work, you could very quickly more than double the total tax.

Every couple of thousand dollars you were in a new bracket.

Congress was told the brackets needed indexing and did nothing (inflation gave them a "free" tax increase every year without voting for it).

We had two massive opportunities to roll over the GOP politically (1964 and 1974).
We won big both times and then just frittered away the opportunity.

[MadHound]

67. Ah, then we should distance ourselves from doing the right thing in favor of political gain,

Is that what you're saying?

If so, then the Democratic party should have never embraced civil rights, abortion, unions or other such positions because they to have, and are, issues that also cause the rural working class to betray their own interests.

Yet these are still the moral, ethical and common sense positions to take in order to better our society. To put political gain ahead of these considerations is unethical, and sadly an all to common problem in our government and leadership.

[Statistical]

74. I remember people saying that in 1994 also.

Didn't work so well in 1996. Even Clinton admits the failed so called "Assault Weapons Ban" costs Democrats control of Congress for a decade.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Who cares what they think.

Both need a good field day every now and then. It's fun to see them run around in circles.

[merh]

9. Are you living on earth, in the USofA?

The NRA and tea party folks have been having a field day with Obama taking their guns since he took office.

Nothing to fuck us over with this - maybe it will actually pass and we won't have some nut with a 30 bullet clip taking out folks in the parking lot of Toys-r-us just cause they sold out the playstation game he/she wanted.

[gateley]

11. Well then that's obviously what the Administration is going to be supporting,

otherwise he wouldn't have said it.

Obama got lots of criticism about not addressing gun control during the SOTU, so maybe that's why they trotted this out there.

Sincerely, would a ban on a magazine be that controversial? It's not a ban on a weapon. :shrug: Almost sounds like a good compromise to me.

[beevul]

59. "would a ban on a magazine be that controversial?"

That is the question. However, it isn't quite as simple as it appears.

"would a ban on a magazine be that controversial?"


The talking points right now, are that "nobody needs a 30 round magazine" and "ban high capacity magazines".

Sounds common sense, right?

The problem, is that the people who propose and support these things, don't simply want to ban "high capacity magazines" or "extended capacity magazines", they want to ban standard capacity magazines as well.

They want to set the limits at ten rounds, which is lower than the standard capacity of most handgun magazines.

Heres a picture of a handgun:




The magazine fits more or less flush with the bottom of the grip. Thats standard capacity. What the magazine can hold without protruding. Just a guess, but I'd wager the magazine capacity for this one is 17 rounds.

Heres another picture:



That is actually a HIGH capacity magazine. Thats what they CLAIM they want to ban.


The problem, is that they CLAIM they want to ban whats shown in the second picture, when in fact they want to also LIMIT whats shown in the first picture to less than it can physically hold, as well.


Thats called bait and switch, and is sure to get people angry.

It makes me angry and I don't even own any "high capacity" magazines, though my eleven round magazines are considered by some to be just that.

[gateley]

60. Thanks for the explanation -- seriously, but how can you be certain that

they want to "limit what's shown in the first picture to less than it can physically hold, as well"?

In all sincerity, I think the NRA is too powerful let anything further happen (and we learn time and again that it's the money that's ultimately the deciding factor - and they've got lots!), so I think that's why they're not reacting to this option, they know it's a token concession.

Don't get into a frenzy until/unless it actually comes to the actions you're fearing. You'll drive yourself crazy.

:hi:

[X_Digger]

62. That's what Rep McCarthy's bill does.. over 10? Verbotten.

I haven't checked Lautenberg's companion bill in the Senate, but by all reports, they're identical.

[beevul]

64. Heres an example.

This is the same model - essentially the same thing - as the single handgun I own, shown with a standard capacity flush fit magazine. It chambers .40 smith and wesson round.

Standard capacity magazines - that is - flush fit magazines, hold eleven rounds for that model handgun. They want to limit it to ten rounds. Thats less than it holds. All of the bills proposed thus far are aimed at reducing it to ten. But the talking points say "high capicity". Or "extended capacity". "nobody needs one". See the bait and switch there?

Heres another that looks exactly the same:



This one however is a model 92, which chambers a 9mm round.

Heres the difference between the two rounds:



Because the 9mm is a smaller round, the flush fit mag holds more of them, in the same amount of internal space. 9 mm handguns are a large percentage if not a majority, of all handguns in private possession, in America.

Most hold 15 or better rounds in a standard capacity flush fit magazine.

My point, is that I think people that support this can not and will not understand the amount of anger this will cause, because they do not understand how many will be effected, do not understand that this is based on a deception, and do not understand how angry people in general get when they're forced to live with decisions made based upon deception.

And thats precisely what such a thing would be if enacted into law. Something enacted based upon deception. Bait and switch.


"Don't get into a frenzy until/unless it actually comes to the actions you're fearing. You'll drive yourself crazy."

Naw. I wont. But I will make a point of doing what I can to see that people understand wholly whats at issue, and that its not exactly as those pushing for such restrictions try to make it appear.

Hopefully I didn't come off as gruff here, I didn't intend to. You and I have had pleasant exchanges in the past and I like it that way. :hi:

[gateley]

69. Not gruff at all, and again, I appreciate your taking the time to explain.

So, if that's the case, why isn't the NRA making noise? Again, serious question.

And ALL bills seem to be passed/enacted based upon deception. It's suffocating. Let them tell us the truth and let us decide -- although it's not as though we ultimately have any say anyway. :grr:

Keep educating people. You do an excellent job. :hi:

[beevul]

70. I suspect...

"So, if that's the case, why isn't the NRA making noise? Again, serious question."

I suspect, the nra believes this isn't going anywhere, and they don't feel a need to get involved with that being the case. I am not a member, and haven't been for 20 years...it was a 1 yr freebie that came with gun safety class.

Its also framing, people on the other side might say "they want to give everyone high capacity magazines", call them supporters of "merchants of death" etc. I imagine if the proposed bills get any kind of traction at all, something will be said.

I expect, honestly, that the increased sales of guns ammunition and magazines which is inevitable when such things are proposed and statements made in public by Biden and such, will send a large enough message that the nra wont likely have to say a word.


FWIW the gun industry does have its own lobbying group, but its not the nra. Its the NSSF. The nra is a gun owners lobby.

I know you didn't ask, but its a good thing to know the difference.

"Let them tell us the truth and let us decide"

No kidding. Fisa...the "patriot act"...Blech.


Thanks for the kind words Gately,

You have a pleasant night. :toast:

[gateley]

72. Will I initially said "the NRA and the gun lobby" but then I thought -- the NRA IS

their lobby! Okay, got it. NRA = gun owners.

Does the NSSF have as much $$$/clout as the NRA?

And you probably are right in your suppositions of why the NRA is keeping mum --

We'll see what happens. I'm sure it'll be in the news - front page! Hot topic! :hi:

[beevul]

75. Its all good.

"Does the NSSF have as much $$$/clout as the NRA?"

No, I really don't think it does. Contrary to what a lot of people think and say, the firearms industry is relatively small when compared to other industries.

The "cup plate knife and fork" industry probably makes more money in any given year.

For example, last year, there were a total of 14 million (and change) NICS checks.

NICS is the federal background check that is required in a retail sale of a firearm. Thats the only time a gun company gets money for a gun being sold. At retail. A person to person sale is money from person to person.

They make a percentage of that in accessories they sell, and of course some of them make money from ammunition. Companies like beretta, glock, sig-sauer, smith and wesson, etc generally don't manufacture and sell their own ammunition though.

Anyway, last year, essentially, they sold 14 million NEW guns.

Compare that to how many of the following were sold: a new TV, new set of tires, ipods, computers, anything that costs 500-ish dollars.

Some of those things are consumable or "wear items", while guns generally last over a hundred years if properly maintained, but the point is the size of the industry.

Beyond that, look at who people against guns attack. Its an indicator of sorts, because the organizations they attack are the ones who are able to stand in the way of what those who are against guns wish to enact. They attack the nra. If the NSSF had equal clout and influence, it would be attacked equally as often.

But yeah, its a hot topic.

:hi:

[gateley]

76. Ah, so that's why we hear about the NRA and not the NSSF, then -- money. It's

always the fucking money. :7

And the manufacturers are the ones who have more of a vested interest in keeping guns accessible. Makes sense.

Thanks!

[beevul]

77. In an obvious sense, sure.

"And the manufacturers are the ones who have more of a vested interest in keeping guns accessible. Makes sense."

In an obvious sense, sure. They have a vested interest in being able to sell that which they produce. Just as any manufacturer does. They don't lobby from a consumer point of view though, afaik.

There is a sort of relationship between the two lobbying groups, but the nra takes all the heat. They lobby for the rights of the individual consumer. They're the 800 pound gorilla. Oddly enough, the nra donates more yearly to Democrats, than all gun control organizations combined.

Also, gun control groups are trying now, to frame themselves as "gun safety" organizations, but they don't teach any gun safety classes. The nra does.

Its comical.

[gateley]

79. "gun safety"

Haha! Frank Luntz would be proud!

Even though the NRA contributes more to Dems than the others, I'm guessing it's nowhere near the amount they give to the Republicans. :7

[beevul]

80. He would indeed.

"Even though the NRA contributes more to Dems than the others, I'm guessing it's nowhere near the amount they give to the Republicans."

This is true, though generally, the farther we got from the 90s the less the extent this was true. Last year they gave 1.6 million to republicans and 434 thousand to Democrats. In 2000 by comparison, they gave 3.7 million to republicans, and 267 thousand to Democrats. They donate to and endorse those that support gun ownership.

There is a chart at opensecrets.org that shows their donations from 90 to present, and it correlates somewhat with the pushes for gun control, and who was doing the pushing. Its not linkable, so I'll link you the page:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=Q13


If this new push for gun control fizzles like the previous have, I expect the trend to continue that direction.

If the Democratic Party latches onto gun control again, though, I'd expect it to go the other way.

Hard to say what the future holds.

[gateley]

81. And, I'm guessing the NRA like other associations, companies, industries,

has individuals who do the contributing but who must list their employer -- so an NRA employee who is a Dem would have her/his contribution show up as "NRA"?

[beevul]

83. Honestly I don't know.

Thats an area I honestly don't know anything about.

In fact, I'm not sure how I'd even look for the answer to that.

[Ichingcarpenter]

I need a 77 load magazine for my gun

if I teach at school or go to a bar that day or the next.

Your'e kidding right?

[madrchsod]

12. there really is`t a need for "high capacity" mags unless...

you are really a piss poor shot

[Erose999]

63. Have you met my friend Sarah? She just loves guns. Loves 'em...

but she's a piss poor shot. Couldn't hit a Caribou at less than 100 yards with 6 (or more) rounds from a scoped rifle.

But holey sweet baby white Jesus' blue eyed tears, that woman loves her some guns.

[Xenotime]

90. It's shit like this that I just don't get...

It's just scary to see young girls with assault rifles.

[X_Digger]

94. You do realize that's in Israel, right? Check the signs on the wall. n/t

[pinboy3niner]

14. Let's hope he doesn't mention gay rights...

...or immigration reform, or we'll be doubly (triply?) screwn. :sarcasm:

[Swamp Rat]

15. I agree with Biden, and also think bullets should cost $5,000 apiece.

:)

[Abq_Sarah]

52. While we're doing that

We can also tax words.

[Swamp Rat]

84. Only when CH4 is present.

[laundry_queen]

61. Best idea Chris Rock ever had! nt

[Erose999]

66. But then only the Koch bros. could afford bullets... nt

[monmouth]

16. Sick of the NRA dictating gun laws. They don't run this country, though

they think they do. After what happened in AZ you'd be hard put to find too many citizens not ready to tell them to shove it. Way, way too much power given to the NRA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Mr Vice President, here... careful with the exhaust

get ready for some fire-breathing even down here, under the bus...


oh and 5,4,3,,2,1...

[TheCowsCameHome]

22. They're busy holding an adult discussion

they'll be here directly.:rofl:

[Junkdrawer]

26. The Bat Signal is up....

[Bluebear]

88. lol

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Oh fuck, just when you thought the NRA and teabaggers were going to vote all-Democrat

I mean, they've been showing Democrats such love up till now, huh?

[blondeatlast]

28. For the win!

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

32. We were so close to winning them over too!

Harrumph!

[emulatorloo]

24. Sounds like a good idea to me. Most sane people will see the sense in it too,

that does not include Freepers and Teabaggers.

[Scruffy1]

25. As a former NRA member

I say screw the NRA and their pathetic propaganda machine. They never use any scientific evidence for any of their stuff. I have been a hunter and trapper but never loved my guns more than my family and neighbors. Grew up around them and had a father who was an Army officer and gun safety freak. Saw him disarm a gunman once, but he never carried one on him.He just took him down and grabbed his gun. Is this gun lust some kind of fetish? Do they sleep with them? Make love to them or what? And yes I know a lot of responsible gun hobbyist-none of which are into the pistol packing nonsense and none that need a thirty round clip. As a matter of facr days I've spent at the range were more of a social picnic than anything.

[treestar]

29. Overdramatic.

Biden has said a lot worse and it's forgotten.

[JuniperLea]

31. This OP doesn't pass the smell test...

The odor of drama is overpowering any potential message.

The NRA and the TeaBaggers would have a field day with a basket of cute puppies. Their world is a field day. Their brains have taken a permanent field day.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. You may want to check this out from the NRA

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/01/nra_since_there.html

NRA stays mum on extended-capacity magazine ban
E-mail | Print | Comments (38) Posted by Jesse Singal January 14, 2011 02:00 PM
By Jesse Singal

After the Tucson shooting, Robert A. Levy, chairman of the board at the (very) libertarian Cato Institute and an intellectual Don of the gun-rights movement, told MSNBC's Michael Isikoff that he saw no constitutional objection to banning the sorts of high-capacity magazines used by Jared Lee Loughner in the shooting. And in fact there is a movement to do just that — Democratic Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York, among others, has introduced legislation that would ban extended capacity magazines (the Globe has come out in favor of this move), leading to an uptick in sales as gun enthusiasts worry the ammo will be outlawed. These magazines were outlawed under the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.

---------------

No wonder some folks have been up in arms...no pun...

I guess I was on point when I said things changed after Tucson.

Who knew?

Now better get to work, but decided to add this very relevant piece of info to THIS discussion before the filibuster commences.

[spanone]

34. naw....

[liskddksil]

37. Finally something I can fully support from the administration! nt

[Cali_Democrat]

38. Bullshit

I think most people will support a high capacity magazine ban.

[sasha031]

40. good for Biden saying this

I applaud the move

[oldlib]

45. I agree with VIce President Biden.

Screw the NRA.

[jpak]

46. I fear the NRA nutjobs - series!!

:rofl:

[crim son]

47. They'll have a field day with whatever he says.

In this case he happens to be right.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[blogslut]

54. Good for Joe

I agree with him.

[beevul]

58. The problem is that they also want to restrict standard capacity magazines as well.

The problem is that they also want to restrict standard capacity magazines as well.

I don't own any "high capacity" mags, but I do own some standard capacity flush fit mags, which hold eleven. They are being characterized as "high capacity.


Thats the problem here.


The effort is being made to characterize anything over ten rounds as "high capacity", while "standard capacity" (non-protruding flush fit magazines) ranges anywhere from 7 to 17 rounds.

Such is dishonest, and is sure to be provocative.

[TheBigotBasher]

65. So did the literally heartless, undead

former Vice President. He also said Congress should look at reducing magazine sizes. No link just saw on tv.

[saras]

68. Not the magazines I thought

Given that it's Biden, I presumed he wanted a ban on magazines that require an IQ of over 60 to read them.

[Rex]

71. One of the first things he has done as VP that I agree with and fully

support him on.

[LAGC]

78. Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats.

It alienates and destroys any hope we have of winning over any of the rural/red states. Many people in red states aren't necessarily socially conservative, its just that they value certain things like their guns. While such increased gun control moves may be popular in the more urban areas, its counter-productive in regards to the rest of the nation.

When are we ever going to learn?

[Bluebear]

82. Who is this "us" he supposedly "fucked"? nt

[sendero]

87. Yeah that will work.

.... after all,people who are going to commit mass murder wouldn't think about violating such a ban.

These "bans" typically are just bans on the SALE of things. There are already MILLIONS of these magazines out there and anyone that wants one and has some cash will be able to get them.

The 'feel good' laws are stupid and pointless and they will not stop one fucking gun crime, but hey, we'll at least get to lose some votes so go for it - it doesn't really matter which party is in office anyway.

[NickB79]

89. Yeah, that went over so well in 1994.

It's not like a ban like the one proposed cost the Democrats any seats in the House or Senate then, after all :eyes:

[Brilliantrocket]

91. Anybody who thinks that a magazine ban will have ANY positive effect on crime is delusional.

The 1994 ban did NOTHING. I'm sorry to have to say this ,but if this is what liberals want, then I'm glad they don't have full control of gov't. Banning mags won't do anything, stop listening to Rachel Maddow the way Freepers listen to Limbaugh. Anybody who supports this b.s. mag ban is no better than a conservative in my book.( On a side note repubs would probably sell gun owners down the river if it benefited them). This b.s. is why I'll probably never vote at all. No matter who you vote for, someone is there to mess shit up. They give corporations free reign on one side and take your rights away on the other. Hopefully the government can be as balanced as possible so none of these idiots get anything done.

[leftynyc]

92. Someone correct me if I'm wrong

but didn't Darth Cheney say the same thing just last week?

[LanternWaste]

93. I hate it when politicians speak from conviction rather than...

I hate it when politicians speak from conviction rather than from expediency. Politicians should learn to keep their ideas to themselves and simply govern by polls.