New Assault weapon Ban

Devil, exactly what do you see as "a common sense approach to firearms ownership here" ?

SuperBeetle wrote:Devil, exactly what do you see as "a common sense approach to firearms ownership here" ?

Too broad a question there Superbeetle. I'd have to see the particular law proposal but here are a few items I wouldn't object to. (Some may already be laws in some states) Here are just a few the quickly come to mind:

1. Magazine capacity--I see no legitimate need for ordinary citizens to have 30 round "banana" clips for any sport use
2. Outlaw certain types of weapons, with common sense being the guide (ie no Flame Throwers for citizens of Manhattan!
3. I see no legitimate need for armor piercing ammo of any caliber
4. I see no need for "Instant" background checks for firearms purposes. (there are no "Instant" Driver license tests either)



Common sense things like that. people have a Constitutional right to own firearms but society also has a Constitutional right to collectively defend itself.

"outlaw certain types of weapons, with common sense being the guide"
Ok, I'll bite. What "certain types of weapons" do you mean, (besisdes flame throwers)

Devil505 wrote:Too broad a question there Superbeetle. I'd have to see the particular law proposal but here are a few items I wouldn't object to. (Some may already be laws in some states) Here are just a few the quickly come to mind:

1. Magazine capacity--I see no legitimate need for ordinary citizens to have 30 round "banana" clips for any sport use
2. Outlaw certain types of weapons, with common sense being the guide (ie no Flame Throwers for citizens of Manhattan!
3. I see no legitimate need for armor piercing ammo of any caliber
4. I see no need for "Instant" background checks for firearms purposes. (there are no "Instant" Driver license tests either)

Common sense things like that. people have a Constitutional right to own firearms but society also has a Constitutional right to collectively defend itself.

The problem is the government and elected officials don't have much (if any) common sense. On both sides.

#1 - I don't need any governmental agency deciding what I "need". What next are they going to tell me I "need" limited? Size of my house? Number of cars I can own? How many offspring I have to donate DNA for?
#2/3 - As long as the owner has not been convicted of a crime involving a gun or any other lethal weapon I see no reason to limit the type or number of weapons and ammuntion. We already have laws against murder and assault - let's try enforcing them instead.
#4 A background check is not a test. For that matter the DL test is "instant" - the written is pass/fail at the end. Take the driving test, it's pass/fail at the end also.

I don't own anything close to a military or "assault rifle", and probably never will, but should be able to own one if I want to. My worst criminal offense is a speeding ticket. Here in suburban NYC it's almost impossible to get a pistol possesion permit unless you're LE. You can forget about a carry permit unless you're LE or can justify your "need" to carry.

I've had these gun debates with Paul many time. You have to balance an individual's right to own & carry dangerous items with our collective right to be safe. That requires a common sense approach. While an individual may have been a law abiding citizen his whole life, that doesn't mean that his son, brother, brother-in-law isn't a murderer or that he himself may go crazy & use those weapons against other innocent people.
Where do you draw the line?

Assume all of these questions involve a law abiding citizen...Should he be able to:

1. Carry a loaded flame thrower in Times Squrae?
2. Own tactical nuclear weapons?


(Sorry Paul...I know you've heard these a million times)

My problem with the NRA is that they are against almost ANY restrictions with their "Camel's Nose In the tent" argument.

Actually, a flame thrower is rather simple to make. As far as nuclear weapons, the general public can not afford nor do they need to have or have the knowledge to use them. I never heard the NRA say that we should have nuclear weapons. Ok, I agree that we the people should not have nuclear weapons. We should however, be able to defend ourselves from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Seems we are getting off track a little.
Exactly what type of rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc. do you think that I should not be allowed to own?
Yes, it is possible for anyone to go totally nuts and kill people. Just try to remember people kill people. Always have and always will guns or not.

You guys are dancing around it but not being specific. I'm a gun owner, member of the NRA and I am a proponent of gun control. The problem is the politicians who come up with these laws seem to do on emotion rather than logic and there cetainly isn't any common sense.

I'm ok with a back ground check and a reasonable waiting period.
If you've been convicted of a violent felony, no gun.
If you have a history of mental illness, no gun.
You should have to take a training class in the safe handling and use of the gun.
You should be required to keep control over the access to the guns. Personally, all my guns are in a safe in the basement. All except one which is in a handgun safe next to my bed.
I'm ok with the limitations on owning fully automatic weapons.
If your gun is lost or stolen you should be required to report it.
Other than that, I don't see a need to restrict ownership of guns.
No, citizens don't need nuclear weapons, flame throwers, or armor piercing rounds.
You should be able to carry a hand gun without having to be politically connected. I know many states allow that but not here in Maryland. Here if you think you may be in circumstances where you might need to protect yourself with a gun and do, you are breaking the law. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

A 30-06 can pierce armor. .223 can pierce armor. 7.62 can pierce armor. It depends on what the standard for "armor" is. Depends on the range from target. Depends on bullet type (FMJ vs SP/HP).

None of those are called "armor piercing" by people with a clue, but politicians and judges aren't known for having a clue about this stuff, particularly when they have mothers against guns or the brady campaign or whatever other group calling press conferences in front of dead kids or police officers homes and staging protests on the capital steps.

You don't see the need for instant background checks? Do you mean this as "the background check should take as along as the government wants it to, instant is too fast" or "we don't need a background check"?

And your contention that no president has signed a law confiscating guns misses the point entirely. If the law that's proposed and signed prevents you or me from buying a gun that was lawfully owned and purchased yesterday, that's just as bad. If a new law prevents any new sales of a gun because it shoots a bullet .05" larger in diameter than another legal round, how is that "common sense"? If the new law prevents the manufacture and sale of a gun that doesn't incorporate some theoretical, unproven, unavailable technology, thus creating a virtual ban on new guns, how is that "common sense"? Sure, your neighbor has his still, but he can't sell it to you anymore, you can't buy one from the gun shop anymore, you may not be able to inherit your father's, etc. DC handgun ban, Illinois handgun ban, NJ handgun ban, NYC virtual handgun ban and laws prohibiting transport of any gun through it, "Assault Weapons Ban", New Orleans Katrina gun confiscation, overly subjective, highly restrictive handgun permitting regimes in NY state and others, "safe" storage regulations preventing easy ready-to-use accessibility, and the list goes on. All or most of these these are considered "reasonable" and "common sense" by many people, including President-Elect Obama and his VP Biden based on their histories.

You seem to be willing to ignore the mountain of evidence of liberal Democrat intent on severely limiting gun ownership, hunting and shooting sports, and even home self defense (much less self-defense while out and about) through ever increasing permit fees, dealer fees, dealer regulations and laws, gun range zoning and property taxing, distance from schools laws, distance from homes for discharge regs, time limited renewable permit schemes, caliber limit laws, semi-auto limitations and ban proposals, gun registration schemes, broader and broader ballistics cartridge case database schemes, gun and ammo specific excise taxes from anywhere up to 150% and more, and on and on. Just because rational people have been successful in fending off many such attempts in past years is no reason to not fear and work against such efforts in the upcoming administrations, federal and state. Hell, the same liberal forces have been working for decades to get UN level treaties in place with US acceptance and participation to ban all small arms ownership and sales!

Maybe Obama will come down on the side of gun owners, but there is nothing at all in his past to suggest that he's a friend of you or me or anyone interested in owning and using guns for any purpose from hunting to home defense to collection. Democrat control of congress, under the leadership of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and many others does much to increase the chances of many non-"common sense" gun laws being passed. We're literally at the mercy of a handful of "blue dog" democrats. Maybe you're comfortable with that, I'm not.

And for the love of God, please stop with the flame thrower and nuclear weapon thing. Gun control laws have nothing to do with these two weapons. Please lets talk about something within reach of people and this legislative effort. 50BMG rifles? .50 cal handguns? .600 cal rifles? .50 cal muzzleloaders? Slug shotgun rounds? Frangible ammo? Armor piercing ammo? If you're in favor of an "assault weapons" ban, what should be included? Semi auto AR-15, AK, SKS rifles, .308 cal AR frame rifles, semi-auto shotguns? Bayonet lugs? Pistol grips on rifles or shotguns? 10 round mags vs 5, 6, 12 or 15 or 16 or 20 or 30, etc? 12" barrel vs 14" vs 16" vs 20" vs 24"? A muzzle break? Detatchable mag vs build in?

And why outlaw any of these? How often are they actually used in a crime? Has a crime wave, much less an mild increase, with these weapons swept the nation since the 1994 law lapsed? Those who do use them in a crime, how likely are they to be dissuaded by a law from acquiring them and large cap mags or other banned items? Is it worth limiting the freedom and purchase/ownership/sporting/hunting/self-defense rights of millions of people for the dubious potential for a very small reduction in crimes where such weapons are used (already a vanishingly small number) and for which the perp is going to be dissuaded by such laws? Where's the common sense in that?

There are laws and regs I do support being enacted, but they are only a very small sliver of what it proposed and supported by anti-gun politicians and lobbyists, a group in which I include both Obama and Biden and conrgessional leadership. I do not trust these people to hit upon "common sense" and stop, they will keep right on going so long as people don't oppose them or aren't paying attention.

Lastly, in so far as the NRA ibeing funded and supported in part by gun manufacturers and thus represent their agenda to some extent, I'm completely fine with that. Gun makers want to sell their wares. I want to buy them and I want them to be able to sell. Our interests are sympatico on just about everything. And I'm fine with them negotiating from a place of maximized freedom, if they started from their and my common sense endgame then they would get rolled by the opposition.

coalkirk wrote:I'm a gun owner, member of the NRA and I am a proponent of gun control. The problem is the politicians who come up with these laws seem to do on emotion rather than logic and there cetainly isn't any common sense.

I agree with all your arguments Terry What is required is simply common sense & local enactment of most gun laws. (except for obvious, outright bans...ie Nuclear weapons,hand grenades etc)

Devil505 wrote: You have to balance an individual's right to own & carry dangerous items with our collective right to be safe. That requires a common sense approach. While an individual may have been a law abiding citizen his whole life, that doesn't mean that his son, brother, brother-in-law isn't a murderer or that he himself may go crazy & use those weapons against other innocent people.
Where do you draw the line?

This is an old argument, but we can add baseball bats and kitchen knives to that "line" also since they've also been used when people go "crazy".

If the owner had their guns and weapons PROPERLY SECURED no one else would get gaining access to them and it wouldn't happen in the first place. If the owner goes nuts, well, that is a price to pay for living in a free society. Better to have the option of defending yourself in that situation instead of waiting for the police to show up. The common argument I hear is "guns are only used for killing". I disagree - it's who is holding the gun that does the killing. A gun only may make it _easier_.

Devil505 wrote:
1. Carry a loaded flame thrower in Times Squrae?
2. Own tactical nuclear weapons?

These are both rhetorical cases that would likely never happen, but

#1, Sure. No more dangerous than a drunk driver running the light at 42nd & Broadway on a sunny Saturday afternoon.
#2, If it was my neighbor the threat would be the same as them owning a gun. If they shoot me in the head, run me down with a car, or nuke me I'm dead.

Devil, as one of the more "left of center" people on this board I agree with you most of the time.... but not on this one. Coming from a left-leaning major metro area the whole concept of the "police and government are here to protect us" really falls flat with me. They are their to protect and further their hides only, and do as little work as possible to accomplish that. The mentality of "you're either a cop or a perp" is the norm here.

pvolcko wrote:None of those are called "armor piercing" by people with a clue, but politicians and judges aren't known for having a clue about this stuff, particularly when they have mothers against guns or the brady campaign or whatever other group calling press conferences in front of dead kids or police officers homes and staging protests on the capital steps.

Let's not get hung up in the weeds here Paul. There are REAL armor piercing rounds that the military so designates & is usually a matter of the extra weight/mass of the tip itself (depleted uranium, etc) that makes for the "Armor Piercing" designation by the military & then there are Teflon coated bullets "advertised" as armor piercing, who's effectiveness for that purpose is debatable. What is not debatable, IMO is that there are no legitimate hunting or sporting purposes that would call for that type of round. Their intention is simply to kill people (namely police type people) &, as such, should not be publicly available.

djackman wrote:his is an old argument, but we can add baseball bats and kitchen knives to that "line" also since they've also been used when people go "crazy".

The counter argument is that, since we live in a crowded society, it is really not debatable that we have a collective right to defend ourselves against danger. We do this every day:...... You can't drive a car without the state testing & licensing you, right? Why?....Because a car is a danger to us all & we have a collective right to put certain limits/restrictions on who can operate one. As you point out, a baseball bat can also be a danger. So what we do as a society is weigh the usefulness of the "potentially dangerous" thing against it's usefulness to us as a society. The car obviously has a much greater usefulness than danger to us & so does the baseball bat as a sporting device. What is the societal usefulness of a flame thrower, armor piercing ammo or the like??
When you argue that a flame thrower would be fine in Times Square, you are entitled to your opinion, but WE citizens are entitled to disagree with you & band together & make it illegal to do so.

If all the effort spent on trying to ban guns and debating new laws and in reality just having a pissing contest was spent on keeping the real criminals off the streets and away from society this conversation need not take place.
Lets be honest.A socialistic or communistic government does not want it's people to have ANY guns
A free country wants it's people to HAVE guns.(so that when it's military fails the people can still defend it).
And if you don't think our military can fail,think about if China ever decided it wanted our resources.I bet a lot of anti gun people at that point wish we ALL had guns but it would be to late.And don't say China would never do this we don't know what will happen in 30 or 50 or 75 years.
DON

pvolcko wrote:You don't see the need for instant background checks? Do you mean this as "the background check should take as along as the government wants it to, instant is too fast" or "we don't need a background check"?

I think government (we the people) has the right to take a "reasonable" amount of time to perform a thorough background check b4 issuing a gun license & I have no problem with this "waiting period" acting as perhaps a "calming down" time period. The 2nd amendment does not say you have an instantaneous right to a firearms......Reasonable is the key.
What is reasonable?...We can debate that all night but I would say:

1. One year=Unreasonable
2. Expecting an answer in One Hour? = Unreasonable
3. 2-4 weeks = Reasonable

pvolcko wrote:And your contention that no president has signed a law confiscating guns misses the point entirely.

I was referring to the term "Gun Grabber" that someone used insinuating that Democrats are prone to confiscate guns.