***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[sporthenry]

All 31 Pro-Gun Senators invited to be on Meet The Press this morning refused to go on the show

Cowards.

Posts like this are exactly why it was smart for them not to go. The fact the news was even put out there shows they had an agenda.

Agenda? Of course they had an agenda. They want to know what these people have to say in light of 20 6-7 year olds being dead b/c of their strict interpretation of the first amendment. Agenda has become this bad word in the media. Everyone has an agenda of some sort. When the news brings on people who are for and against abortion, do they have an agenda? Of course, they are trying to bring about a national discussion on abortion and shed light on both sides of the argument.

 

[Otis]

sorry Otis but you just come off like a condescending ####### with a narrow minded view of others culture

actually he is an elightened responsible adult calling out the ridiculousness that is our gun "culture" and the refusal by gun owners to ever give an inch of re thinking what is appropriate or intended by the 2nd amendment.nobody should have automatic or semi automatic weapons. no civilian. period.owning guns is not a culture any more than bigotry or other ignorant behavior is.you want a single action rifle for hunting? fine. nothing else is acceptable. that is the middle ground this country should take.

Succinct and sums up my thoughts very well. Good posting here.

It''s just not realistic. It's never going to happen. Why can't we concentrate on winnable goals: a national database, and end to the loophole, limiting the number of bullets in a magazine. These things are all doable, and if we concentrate on them and push as hard for them as the NRA is pushing against, we MIGHT get somewhere. But what you're talking about is a non-starter.

Push for what bagger wants and I'm joining the NRA. Push for what Tim wants and I can be convinced to join that side.

Join what you want. We don't need you.

 

[Apple Jack]

So apparently the bushmaster .223 is the same weapon the DC snipers used. The sniper attacks took place in 2002. The assault weapon ban was in effect then. Lot of good that did.

Just saw this. So what you are saying, is that a law abiding citizen in the great state of Connecticut, a mother of two, would have found a way to illegally obtain this bushmaster? Is she going to go the the ghetto of Hartford to get this gun? And I pose this question. Do you think banning this gun, would stop some gun crime? If this gun were banned? Whose rights are we abridging? I forgot where the Constitution said the right to bear arms shall be unregulated. We obviously have already regulated guns in that you can't have automatic weapons, so what more do you need to make that jump to this gun?

In all honesty, I doubt the guy would've said, "Aww, man! I was all set to go on a murderous rampage, but I don't have a .223 Bushmaster. Oh well, maybe I'll go play some WoW instead." They guy did have handguns and would've just used those. Cho, the VT shooter, had just hand guns and managed to kill and injure more people than this Lanzo guy.

Which is why only single-action rifles should be legal if we're going to continue allowing people to run around with guns.

 

[timschochet]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons:

1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.

2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

 

[Otis]

More hard hitting facts and statistical analysis.Just put the freaking guns away, gun nerds. They're dangerous. And for crap's sake, don't let your idiotic kids/spouses/family members/friends get them.Jesus christ. You people are impossible.

Have you put your alcohol away Oats?

Your analogy between an adult beverage and a killing machine remains incredibly awful. But I know you're fond of it.

 

[BassNBrew]

More hard hitting facts and statistical analysis.Just put the freaking guns away, gun nerds. They're dangerous. And for crap's sake, don't let your idiotic kids/spouses/family members/friends get them.Jesus christ. You people are impossible.

Have you put your alcohol away Oats?

bump...

 

[BassNBrew]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons: 1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

What aren't you in favor of Tim?

 

[Otis]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons: 1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

Thank goodness we've got you here to keep us grounded, Tim.

 

[timschochet]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons: 1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

What aren't you in favor of Tim?

As previously stated, I'm in favor of limiting the number of bullets in a magazine, so I like that part. But I'm not in favor of an automatic "assault" weapons ban. First off, I'm not even 100% sure what is and what is not an assault weapon. But beyond that, I'm just not convinced that banning these is going to have any real statistical effect on either (a) the number of these incidents or (b) the number of casaulties inflicted when these incidents take place. We had 10 years of a similar ban with, so far as I know of, no evidence that proves this. Unless someone can present that evidence to me, or, as an alternative, produce a compelling argument as to why it would be different this time around, I am not in favor of restricting the abilities of law-abiding citizens such as yourself to collect these sorts of weapons for personal pleasure.

 

[17seconds]

More hard hitting facts and statistical analysis.Just put the freaking guns away, gun nerds. They're dangerous. And for crap's sake, don't let your idiotic kids/spouses/family members/friends get them.Jesus christ. You people are impossible.

Have you put your alcohol away Oats?

Your analogy between an adult beverage and a killing machine remains incredibly awful. But I know you're fond of it.

You can light stuff on fire by pouring alcohol on it first. I've seen it in movies.

 

[timschochet]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons: 1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

Thank goodness we've got you here to keep us grounded, Tim.

You're welcome. Based on your posts, you need it. Seriously though, Otis, you're highly emotional on this subject. Nothing wrong with that; we all are. You'd have to be completely insensitive not to react strongly to what happened on Friday. But is it wise to base public policy decisions based on emotion? I don't think it is. When the shooting happened Friday morning, a lot of people compared how they felt to 9/11. Well the emotional response to THAT event was to engage in an 11 year war in Afghanistan which cost this nation billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and no noticeable advantage IMO. I don't think that was a well-thought decision, but the emotion at the time pushed us into it.

 

[cobalt_27]

From the MTP story about the senators...

One exception? Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) told Fox News Sunday that he believed more guns are the answer to violence in schools.

"I wish to god she had had an M4 in her office," he said of Sandy Hook Elementary School principal Dawn Hochsprung, who was killed in the shooting.

Stupid crazy people.

Yeah if only the principal had am M4. She's have dodged a few bullets, ducked, rolled, gotten the keys out, unlocked the safe, pulled that sucker out, popped in a clip, and then gone Rambo on that poor kid. She'd have shown him but good.Idiots...

This is how these people think. Honestly, just review the responses in this thread mad by "responsible" gun owners.

 

[Enderdog]

"and ban the sale of clips of more than ten bullets", Feinstein said.

Garand clips only hold eight and Mosin Nagant and SKS stripper clips only hold ten, so I don't see anything happening here. 9mms and .45s and Ar-15s don't use clips, so still good.I wonder if she'll try to ban the shoulder thing that goes up too?

 

[BassNBrew]

More hard hitting facts and statistical analysis.Just put the freaking guns away, gun nerds. They're dangerous. And for crap's sake, don't let your idiotic kids/spouses/family members/friends get them.Jesus christ. You people are impossible.

Have you put your alcohol away Oats?

Your analogy between an adult beverage and a killing machine remains incredibly awful. But I know you're fond of it.

I suppose they teach you this technique in law school...when your stumped, be loud and change the subject.Don't bother responding, we all know your personality here. If it's something you enjoy then it's OK even if it kills people by the 1000s. If it's not something you enjoy then nobody should have it.Read your thread about considering purchasing a gun. If you had weighed it out and decided to buy one you would be 100% on the other side of this issue and hurling insults and sterotypes at the non-gun owners. It's just how it is.

 

[parasaurolophus]

All 31 Pro-Gun Senators invited to be on Meet The Press this morning refused to go on the show

Cowards.

Posts like this are exactly why it was smart for them not to go. The fact the news was even put out there shows they had an agenda.

I don't know about an agenda, but there's certainly a discussion happening right now in our nation about what to do. And if you're only going to defend gun rights when it's easy then maybe you don't have a good position.

Going on TV and arguing with people right now isn't the proper etiquette and you know it. The fact that somebody like Otis or even yourself in this very thread are quick to jump to name calling and refuse to acknowledge another possible position are exactly why it is a good idea to wait for emotions to cool down.This just happened on Friday. The last thing we need is people to be reactionary and not think this through. Change is coming, no doubt about it. Let's just hope that change is good and well thought out.

 

[BassNBrew]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons: 1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

What aren't you in favor of Tim?

As previously stated, I'm in favor of limiting the number of bullets in a magazine, so I like that part. But I'm not in favor of an automatic "assault" weapons ban. First off, I'm not even 100% sure what is and what is not an assault weapon. But beyond that, I'm just not convinced that banning these is going to have any real statistical effect on either (a) the number of these incidents or (b) the number of casaulties inflicted when these incidents take place. We had 10 years of a similar ban with, so far as I know of, no evidence that proves this. Unless someone can present that evidence to me, or, as an alternative, produce a compelling argument as to why it would be different this time around, I am not in favor of restricting the abilities of law-abiding citizens such as yourself to collect these sorts of weapons for personal pleasure.

I'm on the fence on the later and need to read more from both sides. Defenitely believe the control factor needs to go up with the sophistication of the weapon.It would be great if they would introduce single item bills on solely this issue, but something tells me we'll end up with a solar research institute in Washington State and high rise saftefy lab in Nebreska when it's all said and done.

 

[Henry Ford]

sorry Otis but you just come off like a condescending ####### with a narrow minded view of others culture

Shooting an AK-47 on a holiday isn't culture.

True. AK47s are also illegal in the US.

They used to be. Now they're just illegal in certain states.

 

[BassNBrew]

All 31 Pro-Gun Senators invited to be on Meet The Press this morning refused to go on the show

Cowards.

Posts like this are exactly why it was smart for them not to go. The fact the news was even put out there shows they had an agenda.

I don't know about an agenda, but there's certainly a discussion happening right now in our nation about what to do. And if you're only going to defend gun rights when it's easy then maybe you don't have a good position.

Going on TV and arguing with people right now isn't the proper etiquette and you know it. The fact that somebody like Otis or even yourself in this very thread are quick to jump to name calling and refuse to acknowledge another possible position are exactly why it is a good idea to wait for emotions to cool down.This just happened on Friday. The last thing we need is people to be reactionary and not think this through. Change is coming, no doubt about it. Let's just hope that change is good and well thought out.

NO. NO. NO. We must every everyone take a position on a bill that hasn't been intorduced and they haven't read within 48 hours.

 

[Otis]

sorry Otis but you just come off like a condescending ####### with a narrow minded view of others culture

Shooting an AK-47 on a holiday isn't culture.

True. AK47s are also illegal in the US.

They used to be. Now they're just illegal in certain states.

I shot one at Thanksgiving dinner in Georgia. Didn't require much work to get my hands on it.

 

[sporthenry]

All 31 Pro-Gun Senators invited to be on Meet The Press this morning refused to go on the show

Cowards.

Posts like this are exactly why it was smart for them not to go. The fact the news was even put out there shows they had an agenda.

I don't know about an agenda, but there's certainly a discussion happening right now in our nation about what to do. And if you're only going to defend gun rights when it's easy then maybe you don't have a good position.

Going on TV and arguing with people right now isn't the proper etiquette and you know it. The fact that somebody like Otis or even yourself in this very thread are quick to jump to name calling and refuse to acknowledge another possible position are exactly why it is a good idea to wait for emotions to cool down.This just happened on Friday. The last thing we need is people to be reactionary and not think this through. Change is coming, no doubt about it. Let's just hope that change is good and well thought out.

So lets push it off until people don't care as much about it. You know, like we've done after all the other gun tragedies. After 9/11, the AUMF was drafted on September 12, 2001 and passed on September 14th. So when we expand our military power, we can debate/pass everything quickly. But when we take away rights, we have to wait what? A week, a month? When can we talk about this?

 

[Otis]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons: 1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

Thank goodness we've got you here to keep us grounded, Tim.

You're welcome. Based on your posts, you need it. Seriously though, Otis, you're highly emotional on this subject. Nothing wrong with that; we all are. You'd have to be completely insensitive not to react strongly to what happened on Friday. But is it wise to base public policy decisions based on emotion? I don't think it is. When the shooting happened Friday morning, a lot of people compared how they felt to 9/11. Well the emotional response to THAT event was to engage in an 11 year war in Afghanistan which cost this nation billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and no noticeable advantage IMO. I don't think that was a well-thought decision, but the emotion at the time pushed us into it.

I'm not being emotional. I'm seeing low-hanging fruit and not understanding why others are fighting it. We have an opportunity to take something that has very, very limited value to our society, but which has in many instances lead to some of the most deadly killing sprees ever witnessed, and to remove it from the equation. But people refuse. Why? Well, 20 children are great and all, but I like when my dad takes my kids out back to shoot after Thanksgiving dinner. I'd hate to give up that tradition.

 

[Otis]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

 

[BassNBrew]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

Nope...sitting in my plantation trying to figure out why my landscaper is ripping me off and if I need a seperate 10 giga watt generator for the pool house so my wife won't be grumpy if the lights flicker.

 

[Otis]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

Nope...sitting in my plantation trying to figure out why my landscaper is ripping me off and if I need a seperate 10 giga watt generator for the pool house so my wife won't be grumpy if the lights flicker.

Yeah, you might as well make jokes about Hurricane Sandy now too. Between that and the light saber thing, you guys are cruising with the funny.

 

[BassNBrew]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

Nope...sitting in my plantation trying to figure out why my landscaper is ripping me off and if I need a seperate 10 giga watt generator for the pool house so my wife won't be grumpy if the lights flicker.

Yeah, you might as well make jokes about Hurricane Sandy now too. Between that and the light saber thing, you guys are cruising with the funny.

Not making jokes about Sandy, making jokes about your thought processes and world according to Oats mentality.

 

[Glass Joe]

I mentioned earlier that mental health professionals should be able to put patients on a no gun list if they believe a person is a potential thread. Wouldn't have helped in this case. But for that really to be effective, people, especially family members, need to get people to see apofessional should they exhibit any abnormal behavior.

a lot of different opinions on diagnosing someone and who's footing all of these bills?

Taxpayers would end up with the bill. That really shouldn't be a problem though given the apparent desire for a solutionThere would have to be a pretty robust appeal process as well.

F that. No way I should have to pay extra taxes to weed out who should have a gun.Let the buyers pay.

 

[Otis]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

Nope...sitting in my plantation trying to figure out why my landscaper is ripping me off and if I need a seperate 10 giga watt generator for the pool house so my wife won't be grumpy if the lights flicker.

Yeah, you might as well make jokes about Hurricane Sandy now too. Between that and the light saber thing, you guys are cruising with the funny.

Not making jokes about Sandy, making jokes about your thought processes and world according to Oats mentality.

How is this the world according to me? I could have a crap what you and others do for a hobby or do with their spare time, and this isn't about me. I care about the safety of innocents. Including children. And including mine. And I just don't understand the cultural need to have deadly weapons laying around the home, at parties, in shoeboxes, in closets, or whatever. It's just now worth it, and I don't understand any kind of math that concludes "yeah, it's totally worth it."It's not about me or about being elitist. I'm not a raging liberal and I'm not the controlling type. But this is just so nonsensical.

 

[Otis]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

Nope...sitting in my plantation trying to figure out why my landscaper is ripping me off and if I need a seperate 10 giga watt generator for the pool house so my wife won't be grumpy if the lights flicker.

Yeah, you might as well make jokes about Hurricane Sandy now too. Between that and the light saber thing, you guys are cruising with the funny.

Not making jokes about Sandy, making jokes about your thought processes and world according to Oats mentality.

By the way, we sat in our house for a week, me, my pregnant wife, and our sick toddler (who we rushed to the emergency room twice), without power, without heat, in the cold, huddled in front of a fire trying to stay warm. And we had it good compared to other folks in my area. Not sure how you think this is funny or how you scored a point, but I don't see a reason to make this about me. It's not.

 

[Otis]

I'm losing respect for people in here by the second. And frankly, my expectations weren't all that high to begin with.

Yes I know, I'm elitist.

 

[Glass Joe]

I'd venture to say that the number of people who "need" guns for home/self protection is exceedingly low. The reasons for wanting one are various, but they mostly boil down to "because I can".

Doesn't seem like a real need to me. I don't even vaguely see why it needs constitutional protection.

 

[jonessed]

I mentioned earlier that mental health professionals should be able to put patients on a no gun list if they believe a person is a potential thread. Wouldn't have helped in this case. But for that really to be effective, people, especially family members, need to get people to see apofessional should they exhibit any abnormal behavior.

a lot of different opinions on diagnosing someone and who's footing all of these bills?

Taxpayers would end up with the bill. That really shouldn't be a problem though given the apparent desire for a solutionThere would have to be a pretty robust appeal process as well.

F that. No way I should have to pay extra taxes to weed out who should have a gun.Let the buyers pay.

It would never get implemented any other way. The fees would be hundreds of dollars at a minimum. It wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court.Are you guys even looking for possible solutions or are you just throwing out wish lists? The bolt action rifles only, charging hundreds in fees, nullifying the Second Amendmnet, etc. none of that is going to happen.

 

[Glass Joe]

I mentioned earlier that mental health professionals should be able to put patients on a no gun list if they believe a person is a potential thread. Wouldn't have helped in this case. But for that really to be effective, people, especially family members, need to get people to see apofessional should they exhibit any abnormal behavior.

a lot of different opinions on diagnosing someone and who's footing all of these bills?

Taxpayers would end up with the bill. That really shouldn't be a problem though given the apparent desire for a solutionThere would have to be a pretty robust appeal process as well.

F that. No way I should have to pay extra taxes to weed out who should have a gun.Let the buyers pay.

It would never get implemented any other way. The fees would be hundreds of dollars at a minimum. It wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court.Are you guys even looking for possible solutions or are you just throwing out wish lists? The bolt action rifles only, charging hundreds in fees, nullifying the Second Amendmnet, etc. none of that is going to happen.

How is this different from payment of a sin tax? You take the users of said services. Why is that unreasonable?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I once dated a girl from Georgia. We went to visit her family over Thanksgiving. They lived a ways outside of Atlanta. We went to her grandmother's house. It's one of these situations where the grandmother owns a plot of land, and it's subdivided and one kid builds a house on an adjacent lot, and the in-laws build next to that, etc. The arsenal of weapons these people owned was mindblowing. They proudly showed me around the house to the various stashes of guns, pistols, rifles, an AK47, etc. None under lock and key. Children lived all over these homes. After dinner, they got really amped up to go out and shoot the guns. I was so uncomfortable with the whole scene and wanted to play along and be accepted by the family. So out we go, back behind where the pet hog lives. And there's an area in a big field where you go to shoot guns. They set up some logs and some crap as targets.And so we go out back with a collection of shotguns, pistols, rifles, AK47 assault rifles, and other things I don't know the names of. And with a million rounds of ammunition. We took turns; even the aunts and grandma got in on the action. And there I was, a good ol' hillbilly, out in the field, shootin' some guns. All the while I was wondering about a bullet ricocheting; about people far out into the woods who might be going for a walk and get hit by a stray bullet; the kids standing around who might just grab one and start firing randomly. I was stunned at how irresponsible this was, and at how cavalier they were about this. And this was just totally normal and fine for them. I have no double that everyone else in the neighborhood would think this is fine and do the same exact things.Get some horseshoes. A bocce court. Find something else to do after Thanksgiving dinner. This is a ticking time bomb. You're not responsible enough to have a constitutional right to something that potentially deadly.And it dawned on me how widespread this sort of thing probably is in America.So you hypersuperduper ultra elite gun nerds who have fancy guns and keep them in a safe and shoot them in your gun league -- you're right, your gun is probably not the one that will be part of the next tragedy. But it may well be. And if it's not, it may be ones that are far more irresponsibly maintained. And that's the problem.I'm sorry that we're screwing up your Thanksgiving fun, but it's not worth the risk. And I'm not making that decision for YOUR family, I make that decision for MY family.And I bet the parents of those 20 kids sure wish they could have made that decision to keep guns out of Mrs. Lanza's house.This is such easy math. I don't understand the pushback and never will.

I suspect this is a lot more prevalent than the gun guys are willing to admit.

Aside from leaving guns laying around where kids can get them, I'm not seeing the big deal here. Whenever we visit my parents, my dad always takes my kids (10 and 13) out shooting. I find it kind of boring personally, but I can undestand why some people enjoy it.

Of course you're not.They can find something else to enjoy. If the upside is potentially avoiding another incident like Newtown, and the downside is your kids will have to go out and play horshoes with grandpa for fun instead of shooting stuff, how in god's name is there not an obvious right answer here?

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

 

[tommyboy]

We should just divide the country into two, one with guns and one without

 

[Glass Joe]

We should just divide the country into two, one with guns and one without

North-South.

 

[sporthenry]

We should just divide the country into two, one with guns and one without

North-South.

I also think we should have 2 types of air planes. One where they screen everyone using all the technology available, the other where they don't abridge your rights. Personally, I'll get on the plane that strip searches me.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons: 1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

What aren't you in favor of Tim?

As previously stated, I'm in favor of limiting the number of bullets in a magazine, so I like that part. But I'm not in favor of an automatic "assault" weapons ban. First off, I'm not even 100% sure what is and what is not an assault weapon. But beyond that, I'm just not convinced that banning these is going to have any real statistical effect on either (a) the number of these incidents or (b) the number of casaulties inflicted when these incidents take place. We had 10 years of a similar ban with, so far as I know of, no evidence that proves this. Unless someone can present that evidence to me, or, as an alternative, produce a compelling argument as to why it would be different this time around, I am not in favor of restricting the abilities of law-abiding citizens such as yourself to collect these sorts of weapons for personal pleasure.

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

 

[sporthenry]

I mentioned earlier that mental health professionals should be able to put patients on a no gun list if they believe a person is a potential thread. Wouldn't have helped in this case. But for that really to be effective, people, especially family members, need to get people to see apofessional should they exhibit any abnormal behavior.

a lot of different opinions on diagnosing someone and who's footing all of these bills?

Taxpayers would end up with the bill. That really shouldn't be a problem though given the apparent desire for a solutionThere would have to be a pretty robust appeal process as well.

F that. No way I should have to pay extra taxes to weed out who should have a gun.Let the buyers pay.

It would never get implemented any other way. The fees would be hundreds of dollars at a minimum. It wouldn't even make it to the Supreme Court.Are you guys even looking for possible solutions or are you just throwing out wish lists? The bolt action rifles only, charging hundreds in fees, nullifying the Second Amendmnet, etc. none of that is going to happen.

How is this different from payment of a sin tax? You take the users of said services. Why is that unreasonable?

The cost of this will at least be partially if not wholly embedded in the cost to get a gun. The license fees, etc. will cover this. The tax payers will probably have to pay for some of this, but I agree, perhaps this is our answer, just price guns out of the market.

 

[cobalt_27]

I once dated a girl from Georgia. We went to visit her family over Thanksgiving. They lived a ways outside of Atlanta. We went to her grandmother's house. It's one of these situations where the grandmother owns a plot of land, and it's subdivided and one kid builds a house on an adjacent lot, and the in-laws build next to that, etc. The arsenal of weapons these people owned was mindblowing. They proudly showed me around the house to the various stashes of guns, pistols, rifles, an AK47, etc. None under lock and key. Children lived all over these homes. After dinner, they got really amped up to go out and shoot the guns. I was so uncomfortable with the whole scene and wanted to play along and be accepted by the family. So out we go, back behind where the pet hog lives. And there's an area in a big field where you go to shoot guns. They set up some logs and some crap as targets.And so we go out back with a collection of shotguns, pistols, rifles, AK47 assault rifles, and other things I don't know the names of. And with a million rounds of ammunition. We took turns; even the aunts and grandma got in on the action. And there I was, a good ol' hillbilly, out in the field, shootin' some guns. All the while I was wondering about a bullet ricocheting; about people far out into the woods who might be going for a walk and get hit by a stray bullet; the kids standing around who might just grab one and start firing randomly. I was stunned at how irresponsible this was, and at how cavalier they were about this. And this was just totally normal and fine for them. I have no double that everyone else in the neighborhood would think this is fine and do the same exact things.Get some horseshoes. A bocce court. Find something else to do after Thanksgiving dinner. This is a ticking time bomb. You're not responsible enough to have a constitutional right to something that potentially deadly.And it dawned on me how widespread this sort of thing probably is in America.So you hypersuperduper ultra elite gun nerds who have fancy guns and keep them in a safe and shoot them in your gun league -- you're right, your gun is probably not the one that will be part of the next tragedy. But it may well be. And if it's not, it may be ones that are far more irresponsibly maintained. And that's the problem.I'm sorry that we're screwing up your Thanksgiving fun, but it's not worth the risk. And I'm not making that decision for YOUR family, I make that decision for MY family.And I bet the parents of those 20 kids sure wish they could have made that decision to keep guns out of Mrs. Lanza's house.This is such easy math. I don't understand the pushback and never will.

I suspect this is a lot more prevalent than the gun guys are willing to admit.

Aside from leaving guns laying around where kids can get them, I'm not seeing the big deal here. Whenever we visit my parents, my dad always takes my kids (10 and 13) out shooting. I find it kind of boring personally, but I can undestand why some people enjoy it.

Of course you're not.They can find something else to enjoy. If the upside is potentially avoiding another incident like Newtown, and the downside is your kids will have to go out and play horshoes with grandpa for fun instead of shooting stuff, how in god's name is there not an obvious right answer here?

Of course they can find something else to enjoy, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with enjoying shooting. You play video games, right? So you should understand that the challenge of having your hand-eye coordination tested can be entertaining. Recreational target or trap shooting is no different. There are lots of well-education, well-off people who enjoy shooting and/or hunting as a hobby in the same way that another person might enjoy golf.

Yeah, this is a terrible analogy. 20 kids don't get killed because someone wields a Nike driver. I think this, as much as anything, illustrates how naive people are on this issue. Having a lethal weapon as a hobby is insane. Get a pellet gun or play a video game if you want to test your eye hand coordination. Hell, play golf. The culture just has to change. People are getting killed because enthusiasts want to shoot beer bottles in their back yards.

 

[Apple Jack]

Gotta love the guns are entertainment argument.

 

[sporthenry]

Not 100% in favor of what Feinstein is trying to do, but it might work, for two reasons:

1. An assault weapons ban has been done before, so the public knows it can be done.

2. It's an easy simple idea that the public can get behind.

What aren't you in favor of Tim?

As previously stated, I'm in favor of limiting the number of bullets in a magazine, so I like that part. But I'm not in favor of an automatic "assault" weapons ban. First off, I'm not even 100% sure what is and what is not an assault weapon. But beyond that, I'm just not convinced that banning these is going to have any real statistical effect on either (a) the number of these incidents or (b) the number of casaulties inflicted when these incidents take place. We had 10 years of a similar ban with, so far as I know of, no evidence that proves this. Unless someone can present that evidence to me, or, as an alternative, produce a compelling argument as to why it would be different this time around, I am not in favor of restricting the abilities of law-abiding citizens such as yourself to collect these sorts of weapons for personal pleasure.

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

So it will do some? And by banning them, are we abridging people's rights? So if we ban assault weapons and they do stop some shootings, I guess it did its job. There are problems that no solution will solve 100% so saying these things will still happen is terrible logic.And again, what do you support doing? I would hope this isn't the end all of this discussion but it is a good start and the senators calling for a commission to study these incidents is probably the best bet. But I would be for a moratorium on assault weapons until the commission was complete.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Do you guys weld the doors shut on your cars and climb in through the windows?

It's the culture.

Nope...sitting in my plantation trying to figure out why my landscaper is ripping me off and if I need a seperate 10 giga watt generator for the pool house so my wife won't be grumpy if the lights flicker.

Yeah, you might as well make jokes about Hurricane Sandy now too. Between that and the light saber thing, you guys are cruising with the funny.

Nobody in this thread has attempted to be funny more than you Otis.

 

[badmojo1006]

All 31 Pro-Gun Senators invited to be on Meet The Press this morning refused to go on the show

Cowards.

Posts like this are exactly why it was smart for them not to go. The fact the news was even put out there shows they had an agenda.

So they had so little faith in their positions that they couldn't defend it? Wow, that is pathetic

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

It's a good starting point. We aren't going to get to the end game right away. It may not completely stop it but there aren't a lot of positives with making assault weapons readily available either. Seems like its something that both sides if they are being reasonable could compromise on. We can continue to evolve on this issue from there.

 

[parasaurolophus]

All 31 Pro-Gun Senators invited to be on Meet The Press this morning refused to go on the show

Cowards.

Posts like this are exactly why it was smart for them not to go. The fact the news was even put out there shows they had an agenda.

So they had so little faith in their positions that they couldn't defend it? Wow, that is pathetic

Nope. They were smart enough to realize it would turn into a pathetic display of hyperbole and emotion.Good idea to wait until cooler heads prevail.

 

[Glass Joe]

All 31 Pro-Gun Senators invited to be on Meet The Press this morning refused to go on the show

Cowards.

Posts like this are exactly why it was smart for them not to go. The fact the news was even put out there shows they had an agenda.

So they had so little faith in their positions that they couldn't defend it? Wow, that is pathetic

Nope. They were smart enough to realize it would turn into a pathetic display of hyperbole and emotion.Good idea to wait until cooler heads prevail.

Cowards. It will fall from the publics consciousness, and then they'll be ready to talk.

 

[parasaurolophus]

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

It's a good starting point. We aren't going to get to the end game right away. It may not completely stop it but there aren't a lot of positives with making assault weapons readily available either. Seems like its something that both sides if they are being reasonable could compromise on. We can continue to evolve on this issue from there.

I have little doubt assault weapons will now be banned. I think there will be several other changes as well. I don't have any issues with that. I do firmly believe in the 2nd amendment though.

 

[Glass Joe]

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

It's a good starting point. We aren't going to get to the end game right away. It may not completely stop it but there aren't a lot of positives with making assault weapons readily available either. Seems like its something that both sides if they are being reasonable could compromise on. We can continue to evolve on this issue from there.

I have little doubt assault weapons will now be banned. I think there will be several other changes as well. I don't have any issues with that. I do firmly believe in the 2nd amendment though.

How will assault weapons be defined?

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

It's a good starting point. We aren't going to get to the end game right away. It may not completely stop it but there aren't a lot of positives with making assault weapons readily available either. Seems like its something that both sides if they are being reasonable could compromise on. We can continue to evolve on this issue from there.

I have little doubt assault weapons will now be banned. I think there will be several other changes as well. I don't have any issues with that. I do firmly believe in the 2nd amendment though.

How will assault weapons be defined?

I am going to have to leave it to the experts to make that classification and distinction. There were 19 specifically defined the last time around, I am sure there will be more.Asking for anything more than a starting point here is unrealistic. The bill doesn't have to be perfect.

 

[parasaurolophus]

One of the major arguments against an "assault weapons" ban is this sort of law tends to ban particular guns just because they're scary-looking. It's dumb policy. My impression has always been that a lot of gun control advocates privately realize this but still support an assault weapons ban mainly on the grounds that it's better than nothing, from their point of view, but you're right that it's not going to do much to stop rampage shootings.

It's a good starting point. We aren't going to get to the end game right away. It may not completely stop it but there aren't a lot of positives with making assault weapons readily available either. Seems like its something that both sides if they are being reasonable could compromise on. We can continue to evolve on this issue from there.

I have little doubt assault weapons will now be banned. I think there will be several other changes as well. I don't have any issues with that. I do firmly believe in the 2nd amendment though.

How will assault weapons be defined?

Not sure.