***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[ichris]

My honest opinion is that this whole issue of the police having better weaponry than private citizens is not a question of home defense; instead it goes back to the basic fear, among some gun people, of the "tyrannical government". That is why somebody earlier used the term "civilians" to describe private citizens. There is an implicit idea here that private gun owners are in a struggle with the federal government over gun rights, and that giving the police greater firepower would aid the police in seizing guns. It's a paranoid argument which builds upon itself.

The threat of tyrannical government is no less than it was when the country was founded. You can demean the argument by suggesting it's paranoid all you want. But the founders never intended for us to have firearms to preserve hunting rights.

 

[timschochet]

My honest opinion is that this whole issue of the police having better weaponry than private citizens is not a question of home defense; instead it goes back to the basic fear, among some gun people, of the "tyrannical government". That is why somebody earlier used the term "civilians" to describe private citizens. There is an implicit idea here that private gun owners are in a struggle with the federal government over gun rights, and that giving the police greater firepower would aid the police in seizing guns. It's a paranoid argument which builds upon itself.

The threat of tyrannical government is no less than it was when the country was founded. You can demean the argument by suggesting it's paranoid all you want. But the founders never intended for us to have firearms to preserve hunting rights.

So you believe that you need 30 round magazines to protect yourself against tyranny?

 

[ichris]

My honest opinion is that this whole issue of the police having better weaponry than private citizens is not a question of home defense; instead it goes back to the basic fear, among some gun people, of the "tyrannical government". That is why somebody earlier used the term "civilians" to describe private citizens. There is an implicit idea here that private gun owners are in a struggle with the federal government over gun rights, and that giving the police greater firepower would aid the police in seizing guns. It's a paranoid argument which builds upon itself.

The threat of tyrannical government is no less than it was when the country was founded. You can demean the argument by suggesting it's paranoid all you want. But the founders never intended for us to have firearms to preserve hunting rights.

So you believe that you need 30 round magazines to protect yourself against tyranny?

I believe we have the right to firearms with equal power as law enforcement officers and government agents. If criminals and LEOs get to use them then so do I.

 

[jonessed]

Feinsteins bill is everything I was afraid of. I have great respect for her, but she is misguided on this issue. I don't understand why these politicians constantly insist on these complicated bills that try to do everything at once. Polls show that the public is strongly in favor of limiting gun magazines and closing the private sales loophole. Why can't we just stick to those?

just watched a video where a guy got off 30 rnds in 16 seconds using three 10 round magazines and he wasnt even pushing the issue. magazine limitations are laughable in terms of any type of crime prevention.

The 10 round magazine limit laws in states that enacted them haven't made any difference in violent crime rates. "Assault rifles" in general are not involved in a significant percentage of violent crime. That's why banning them won't make an impact in keeping people safe. The AWB is feel good legislation and all they are doing is banning cosmetic features. Either way, if civilians can't own 30 round magazines then law enforcement and government shouldn't either. But the drug cartels armed with AR15s provided by the ATF will still use them, they don't care what the law says.

There are no "civilians" in this country, since we are not at war. Private citizens should not be allowed to own 30 round magazines. Law enforcement and the military should be allowed to possess this and any other weapon necessary for keeping us safe.

Do you not feel that the citizens face the same threats as law enforcement do?

No I dont. Police go looking for scary and violent situations. That's their job.

They come in after to clean up the mess.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

My honest opinion is that this whole issue of the police having better weaponry than private citizens is not a question of home defense; instead it goes back to the basic fear, among some gun people, of the "tyrannical government". That is why somebody earlier used the term "civilians" to describe private citizens. There is an implicit idea here that private gun owners are in a struggle with the federal government over gun rights, and that giving the police greater firepower would aid the police in seizing guns. It's a paranoid argument which builds upon itself.

The threat of tyrannical government is no less than it was when the country was founded. You can demean the argument by suggesting it's paranoid all you want. But the founders never intended for us to have firearms to preserve hunting rights.

So you believe that you need 30 round magazines to protect yourself against tyranny?

That is the whole premise of the 2nd amendment, thank God for the Oath Keepers and the other people that understands the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

 

[zDragon]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

Grenade and rocket launchers have always been illegal for civilians. She puts them in there as scare tactics to make this legislation look more urgent than it is. There are some juicy new twists but I'm waiting for the full text.

Interesting Link

Yeah, I'm guessing a Street Sweeper is exactly the kind of massacre firearm you hillbillies are just hoping to stays on the streets. Maybe get in the hands of someone who can pick off a few elementary school kids.Nice work, guys.

I never said I supported. Yet you blindly attack and insult me. That says a lot about your character. The fact is they are legal as long as you pass you background check, all the hoops, and pay your taxes for them. My only point in this thread is there is a lot of uninformed people making sweeping statements. I hope you support the banning of alcohol to sense it takes so many lives on a daily basis. Have a nice day.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Even New Yorkers get it. Do you think this is really going to fly in Middle America?

New York Gun Owners Flip the Bird to "Assault Weapons" Registration LawNew York Governor Cuomo the Junior may have rushed through his new gun control law with such speed that police will avoid its restrictions only through the blessed miracle of selective enforcement, but he may have a little trouble getting the state's firearms owners to attend his party. The new law requires owners of those scary-looking rifles known as "assault weapons" to register their property (amidst assurances that, oh no, the registration lists will never be used for confiscation), but gun rights activists are actively urging gun owners to defy the new mandate.According to Frederic Dicker at the New York Post: Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned. Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history. “I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.Dicker quotes a Cuomo administration official admitting, "Many of these assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that." Which means that state officials were merely posturing rather than entirely ignorant of history when they penned the law and jammed it through. As I've written before, gun laws traditionally breed massive levels of non-compliance — even in places where you might think people have no strong history of personal arms, or of resistance to the state, When Germany imposed gun registration in 1972, the country's officials managed to get paperwork on all of 3.2 million firearms out of an estimated 17-20 million guns in civilian hands. Californians may have registered as many as ten percent of the "assault weapons" they owned when that state imposed registration in 1990 (though the New York Times put the figure rather lower, at about 7,000 out of an estimated 300,000 guns covered by the law).The reason for such reticence isn't hard to fathom. When gun owners charge that politicians can't be trusted to resist using registration lists for future confiscation, they're not being paranoid — New York City and California have both done just that.Political officials might want to consider those experiences, as well as a recent poll finding two-thirds of Americans willing to defy tighter gun restrictions, before setting themselves up for public demonstrations of their impotence in the face of mass defiance.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Even New Yorkers get it. Do you think this is really going to fly in Middle America?

New York Gun Owners Flip the Bird to "Assault Weapons" Registration LawNew York Governor Cuomo the Junior may have rushed through his new gun control law with such speed that police will avoid its restrictions only through the blessed miracle of selective enforcement, but he may have a little trouble getting the state's firearms owners to attend his party. The new law requires owners of those scary-looking rifles known as "assault weapons" to register their property (amidst assurances that, oh no, the registration lists will never be used for confiscation), but gun rights activists are actively urging gun owners to defy the new mandate.According to Frederic Dicker at the New York Post: Assault-rifle owners statewide are organizing a mass boycott of Gov. Cuomo’s new law mandating they register their weapons, daring officials to “come and take it away,” The Post has learned. Gun-range owners and gun-rights advocates are encouraging hundreds of thousands of owners to defy the law, saying it’d be the largest act of civil disobedience in state history. “I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said Brian Olesen, president of the American Shooters Supply, one of the largest gun dealers in the state.Dicker quotes a Cuomo administration official admitting, "Many of these assault-rifle owners aren’t going to register; we realize that." Which means that state officials were merely posturing rather than entirely ignorant of history when they penned the law and jammed it through. As I've written before, gun laws traditionally breed massive levels of non-compliance — even in places where you might think people have no strong history of personal arms, or of resistance to the state, When Germany imposed gun registration in 1972, the country's officials managed to get paperwork on all of 3.2 million firearms out of an estimated 17-20 million guns in civilian hands. Californians may have registered as many as ten percent of the "assault weapons" they owned when that state imposed registration in 1990 (though the New York Times put the figure rather lower, at about 7,000 out of an estimated 300,000 guns covered by the law).The reason for such reticence isn't hard to fathom. When gun owners charge that politicians can't be trusted to resist using registration lists for future confiscation, they're not being paranoid — New York City and California have both done just that.Political officials might want to consider those experiences, as well as a recent poll finding two-thirds of Americans willing to defy tighter gun restrictions, before setting themselves up for public demonstrations of their impotence in the face of mass defiance.

Yeah, the public is all in favor of gun registration.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

^ this ^

 

[tom22406]

This is an ad about John Barrow(D)GA. that was made by the gun control crowd that doesn't side with them.

Stay classy

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Bullet points for DiFi's bill

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

•All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

•All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

•All semiautomatic rifles and handguns that have a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

•All semiautomatic shotguns that have a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; pistol grip; fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds; ability to accept a detachable magazine; forward grip; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; or shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

•All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

•157 specifically-named firearms (listed at the end of this document).

The legislation excludes the following weapons from the bill:

• Any weapon that is lawfully possessed at the date of the bill’s enactment;

• Any firearm manually operated by a bolt, pump, lever or slide action;

• Assault weapons used by military, law enforcement, and retired law enforcement; and

• Antique weapons.

The legislation protects hunting and sporting firearms:

• The bill excludes 2,258 legitimate hunting and sporting rifles and shotguns by specific make and model.

The legislation strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and state bans by:

• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test.

- The bill also makes the ban harder to evade by eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test.

• Banning dangerous aftermarket modifications and workarounds.

- Bump or slide fire stocks, which are modified stocks that enable semi- automatic weapons to fire at rates similar to fully automatic machine guns.

- So-called “bullet buttons” that allow the rapid replacement of ammunition magazines, frequently used as a workaround to prohibitions on detachable magazines.

- Thumbhole stocks, a type of stock that was created as a workaround to avoid prohibitions on pistol grips.

• Adding a ban on the importation of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.

• Eliminating the 10-year sunset that allowed the original federal ban to expire.

The legislation addresses the millions of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines currently in existence by:

• Requiring a background check on all sales or transfers of a grandfathered assault weapon.

- This background check can be run through the FBI or, if a state chooses, initiated with a state agency, as with the existing background check system.

•Prohibiting the sale or transfer of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices lawfully possessed on the date of enactment of the bill.

•Allowing states and localities to use federal Byrne JAG grant funds to conduct a voluntary buy-back program for grandfathered assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.

• Imposing a safe storage requirement for grandfathered firearms, to keep them away from prohibited persons.

• Requiring that assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices manufactured after the date of the bill’s enactment be engraved with the serial number and date of manufacture of the weapon

There are a few items on here that seem like good ideas, such as banning grenade launchers, but most of them won't do anything to increase safety and a few, such as banning pistol grips and folding stocks, are just silly.

Grenade and rocket launchers have always been illegal for civilians. She puts them in there as scare tactics to make this legislation look more urgent than it is. There are some juicy new twists but I'm waiting for the full text.

Interesting Link

Yeah, I'm guessing a Street Sweeper is exactly the kind of massacre firearm you hillbillies are just hoping to stays on the streets. Maybe get in the hands of someone who can pick off a few elementary school kids.Nice work, guys.

As long as the tax is paid

 

[Sand]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago.

Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

 

[mad sweeney]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

 

[boots11234]

LOL at the president saying the republicans are playing politics with this issue in the house when he knows darn well he may not even have the dem votes in the senate to pass this. What a piece of work.

 

[Sand]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

 

[Dvorak]

Well, so much for the "No one needs an automatic weapon that holds 30 rounds for self defense" argument (let alone a semi-auto AR-15)...

Department of Homeland Security seems to think they are "suitable for personal defense" when they ordered 7000 "5.56X45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapons"

DHS - Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation

Select-fire +

30 round magazine +

Pistol grip +

Collapsing stock

=

Personal Defense Weapon

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, so much for the "No one needs an automatic weapon that holds 30 rounds for self defense" argument (let alone a semi-auto AR-15)...Department of Homeland Security seems to think they are "suitable for personal defense" when they ordered 7000 "5.56X45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapons"DHS - Personal Defense Weapons SolicitationSelect-fire +30 round magazine + Pistol grip +Collapsing stock=Personal Defense Weapon

Personal Defense Weapon is a specific military and government class of firearm, which almost always includes automatic fire. It's not the same thing as saying 'weapon for personal defense' any more than Animal Husbandry is the same thing as marrying a horse.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Well, so much for the "No one needs an automatic weapon that holds 30 rounds for self defense" argument (let alone a semi-auto AR-15)...

Department of Homeland Security seems to think they are "suitable for personal defense" when they ordered 7000 "5.56X45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapons"

DHS - Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation

Select-fire +

30 round magazine +

Pistol grip +

Collapsing stock

=

Personal Defense Weapon

Personal Defense Weapon is a specific military and government class of firearm, which almost always includes automatic fire. It's not the same thing as saying 'weapon for personal defense' any more than Animal Husbandry is the same thing as marrying a horse.

Will you quit lying.Homeland Security seeking 7,000 assault weapons for ‘personal defense’

A report by Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com cites a General Service Administration request for a proposal on behalf of DHS seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

You know it is one thing to be ignorant but totally another when someone lies about something so important. These are not machine guns.

These are NOT personal defense weapons as far as Tim is concerned. They are just AR15's, hey Tim maybe YOU are WRONG in your assessment.

 

[mad sweeney]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Sorry - Nice way to whine away a mistake. Classic. Instead of just saying oops, you go right into a stupid conclusion that has zero purpose, other than as a distraction. Please give a single lucid reason why pointing out one of the deaths you attributed to guns was by a knife means that there's any threshold or acceptable number? I won't hld my breath since there isn't one.

 

[Sand]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Sorry - Nice way to whine away a mistake. Classic. Instead of just saying oops, you go right into a stupid conclusion that has zero purpose, other than as a distraction. Please give a single lucid reason why pointing out one of the deaths you attributed to guns was by a knife means that there's any threshold or acceptable number? I won't hld my breath since there isn't one.

You are correct - there is no acceptable number. But since Chicago essentially bans weapons isn't it the model that we're evidently going after? Isn't this the utopia that is our ultimate end goal? And since this ban has been in place for a number of years shouldn't the politicians leading this charge be making their speeches with Rahm in tow showing us the shining beacon of gun safety that is Chicago?

 

[Henry Ford]

Well, so much for the "No one needs an automatic weapon that holds 30 rounds for self defense" argument (let alone a semi-auto AR-15)...

Department of Homeland Security seems to think they are "suitable for personal defense" when they ordered 7000 "5.56X45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapons"

DHS - Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation

Select-fire +

30 round magazine +

Pistol grip +

Collapsing stock

=

Personal Defense Weapon

Personal Defense Weapon is a specific military and government class of firearm, which almost always includes automatic fire. It's not the same thing as saying 'weapon for personal defense' any more than Animal Husbandry is the same thing as marrying a horse.

Will you quit lying.Homeland Security seeking 7,000 assault weapons for ‘personal defense’

A report by Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com cites a General Service Administration request for a proposal on behalf of DHS seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

You know it is one thing to be ignorant but totally another when someone lies about something so important. These are not machine guns.

These are NOT personal defense weapons as far as Tim is concerned. They are just AR15's, hey Tim maybe YOU are WRONG in your assessment.

Seriously, google PDW. Especially 'select fire' which is included in the bid requirements above. Full auto capability is virtually a requirement of a PDW arm, and it's a military and law enforcement armament distinction.

 

[Henry Ford]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Sorry - Nice way to whine away a mistake. Classic. Instead of just saying oops, you go right into a stupid conclusion that has zero purpose, other than as a distraction. Please give a single lucid reason why pointing out one of the deaths you attributed to guns was by a knife means that there's any threshold or acceptable number? I won't hld my breath since there isn't one.

You are correct - there is no acceptable number. But since Chicago essentially bans weapons

You're allowed to own guns in the city of Chicago. I feel like we've covered this before.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Well, so much for the "No one needs an automatic weapon that holds 30 rounds for self defense" argument (let alone a semi-auto AR-15)...

Department of Homeland Security seems to think they are "suitable for personal defense" when they ordered 7000 "5.56X45mm NATO Personal Defense Weapons"

DHS - Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation

Select-fire +

30 round magazine +

Pistol grip +

Collapsing stock

=

Personal Defense Weapon

Personal Defense Weapon is a specific military and government class of firearm, which almost always includes automatic fire. It's not the same thing as saying 'weapon for personal defense' any more than Animal Husbandry is the same thing as marrying a horse.

Will you quit lying.Homeland Security seeking 7,000 assault weapons for ‘personal defense’

A report by Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com cites a General Service Administration request for a proposal on behalf of DHS seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

You know it is one thing to be ignorant but totally another when someone lies about something so important. These are not machine guns.

These are NOT personal defense weapons as far as Tim is concerned. They are just AR15's, hey Tim maybe YOU are WRONG in your assessment.

Seriously, google PDW. Especially 'select fire' which is included in the bid requirements above. Full auto capability is virtually a requirement of a PDW arm, and it's a military and law enforcement armament distinction.

PDW's were originally not intended for front line troops, but for support personnel such as drivers, engineers and medics to defend themselves in an emergency.The key difference between PDW's and carbines are that PDW's are more compact and lighter. Whereas carbines have more severe muzzle blast and recoil, and are more likely to cause collateral damage due to overpenetration.

 

[Jewell]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

Today I’m going to explain why gun-control is not only entirely reasonable but also certain to be effective. Only the ignorant can deny this.First, some orientation. Cement-headed NRA types need to recognize, and state manfully, that the illegalization of guns is in fact perfectly practical. History has shown this repeatedly. When the government outlaws something that huge numbers of people very much want, the outlawed items immediately disappear from society. This has been shown countless times. When Washington outlawed alcohol, booze vanished overnight and everyone stopped drinking. Can anyone deny this? When Washington banned the use of cannabis, all of those of us made insane by Reefer Madness quit smoking dope, and today there is probably not a town in America in which one might buy a joint. Similarly, Washington made illegal the downloading of copyrighted music—which also stopped immediately. No one now has illegal music. Ask your adolescent daughter.So with guns. They are small, easily smuggled, of high value to criminals and will be of higher value when only criminals have them, so it is virtually certain that they will vanish when the government says so. Mexico, where I live, has stringent laws against guns, which have proved at least a partial success. Criminals have AKs, RPGs, and grenades, while nobody else has anything. That’s a partial success, isn’t it?FRED

 

[Widbil83]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Sorry - Nice way to whine away a mistake. Classic. Instead of just saying oops, you go right into a stupid conclusion that has zero purpose, other than as a distraction. Please give a single lucid reason why pointing out one of the deaths you attributed to guns was by a knife means that there's any threshold or acceptable number? I won't hld my breath since there isn't one.

You are correct - there is no acceptable number. But since Chicago essentially bans weapons

You're allowed to own guns in the city of Chicago. I feel like we've covered this before.

If you go to the class and pay for it. His point was, obviously, that nobody in Chicago who commit all these acts will ever buy a "Chicago Firearms Permit."

 

[Henry Ford]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Sorry - Nice way to whine away a mistake. Classic. Instead of just saying oops, you go right into a stupid conclusion that has zero purpose, other than as a distraction. Please give a single lucid reason why pointing out one of the deaths you attributed to guns was by a knife means that there's any threshold or acceptable number? I won't hld my breath since there isn't one.

You are correct - there is no acceptable number. But since Chicago essentially bans weapons

You're allowed to own guns in the city of Chicago. I feel like we've covered this before.

If you go to the class and pay for it. His point was, obviously, that nobody in Chicago who commit all these acts will ever buy a "Chicago Firearms Permit."

You're saying that 100%the of the gun crime in Chicago is attributable to illegally owned weapons?

 

[Dvorak]

Tim wants to hear from law enforcement professionals regarding the "high capacity" magazines?

Well, here you go. The New York State Sheriffs Association Response to NY SAFE Act:

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

They also weighed in on background checks:

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

I'll sit back and wait for the discrediting of these as not "real" law enforcement officers.

 

[timschochet]

Tim wants to hear from law enforcement professionals regarding the "high capacity" magazines?

Well, here you go. The New York State Sheriffs Association Response to NY SAFE Act:

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

They also weighed in on background checks:

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

I'll sit back and wait for the discrediting of these as not "real" law enforcement officers.

Actually this is eye opening and it gives me some pause. Thanks for posting it.

 

[boots11234]

Tim wants to hear from law enforcement professionals regarding the "high capacity" magazines?

Well, here you go. The New York State Sheriffs Association Response to NY SAFE Act:

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

They also weighed in on background checks:

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

I'll sit back and wait for the discrediting of these as not "real" law enforcement officers.

Takes a big set for this group to come out and say this. I bet the officers in charge of this group now have a target on their backs and if not careful may become part of the not "real" Leo's you mentioned.

 

[timschochet]

Tim wants to hear from law enforcement professionals regarding the "high capacity" magazines?

Well, here you go. The New York State Sheriffs Association Response to NY SAFE Act:

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

They also weighed in on background checks:

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

I'll sit back and wait for the discrediting of these as not "real" law enforcement officers.

OK, two points after reading the entire article:1. Nobody in favor of limiting high capacity gun magazines, (at least nobody rational) is arguing that they will reduce gun violence in general. The proposed ban is designed specifically for mass shooting situations because many law enforcement agencies believe that it will reduce casualties in those situations and thus save lives. The short statement on this issue from the organization here does not touch on mass shooting situations.

2. If the newly proposed background checks only affect law abiding citizens, that's enough for me, because it means that no honest seller will knowingly sell firearms to a dishonest or illegal buyer. This fact alone, absent of any other factors, should significantly reduce illegal gun sales.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Tim wants to hear from law enforcement professionals regarding the "high capacity" magazines?

Well, here you go. The New York State Sheriffs Association Response to NY SAFE Act:

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

They also weighed in on background checks:

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

I'll sit back and wait for the discrediting of these as not "real" law enforcement officers.

Actually this is eye opening and it gives me some pause. Thanks for posting it.

...

Takes a big set for this group to come out and say this. I bet the officers in charge of this group now have a target on their backs and if not careful may become part of the not "real" Leo's you mentioned.

Are you saying their jobs might be threatened? I agree that the LE that has been pushing for gun control are the higher ups of the bureaucratic nature.

 

[tom22406]

Seattle gun buyback program turns comical at one point this weekend.

Link

SEATTLE, Jan. 27 (UPI) -- Seattle police said they sold out of gift cards during a gun buyback program that drew a much larger response than expected.

A two-hour line and traffic jam led to some frustration by residents at the event, the Seattle Times said Sunday. Further complicating the law enforcement effort were gun enthusiasts who showed up offering more money than the $100 and $200 gift cards police were handing out, leading some waiting in line to sell their weapons to individuals rather than police.

A loophole in gun control laws allows person-to-person transactions to take place without a background check.

"I'd prefer they wouldn't sell them," Seattle Police Chief John Diaz said of the people in line making deals with the gun buyers.

He acknowledged the logistical problems at the buyback but said the department had no way of knowing how many people would show up because the city hasn't held a gun buyback in more than 20 years. He said officers gave away $80,000 in gift cards and offered IOUs to those who still waited in line after the gift cards were gone.

And from another article regarding this

People were reportedly, at one point, jumping out of vehicles whilst sitting in traffic – making on the spot deals with the gun dealers.

 

[boots11234]

Tim wants to hear from law enforcement professionals regarding the "high capacity" magazines?

Well, here you go. The New York State Sheriffs Association Response to NY SAFE Act:

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

They also weighed in on background checks:

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

I'll sit back and wait for the discrediting of these as not "real" law enforcement officers.

Actually this is eye opening and it gives me some pause. Thanks for posting it.

...

Takes a big set for this group to come out and say this. I bet the officers in charge of this group now have a target on their backs and if not careful may become part of the not "real" Leo's you mentioned.

Are you saying their jobs might be threatened? I agree that the LE that has been pushing for gun control are the higher ups of the bureaucratic nature.

Yes. And agree with your second point

 

[Hoosier16]

Tim wants to hear from law enforcement professionals regarding the "high capacity" magazines?

Well, here you go. The New York State Sheriffs Association Response to NY SAFE Act:

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence.

The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York.

It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

They also weighed in on background checks:

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

I'll sit back and wait for the discrediting of these as not "real" law enforcement officers.

OK, two points after reading the entire article:1. Nobody in favor of limiting high capacity gun magazines, (at least nobody rational) is arguing that they will reduce gun violence in general. The proposed ban is designed specifically for mass shooting situations because many law enforcement agencies believe that it will reduce casualties in those situations and thus save lives. The short statement on this issue from the organization here does not touch on mass shooting situations.

2. If the newly proposed background checks only affect law abiding citizens, that's enough for me, because it means that no honest seller will knowingly sell firearms to a dishonest or illegal buyer. This fact alone, absent of any other factors, should significantly reduce illegal gun sales.

Agree completely on #2. It isn't so much about enforcement as it is about giving a regular law-abiding gun owner a way to comfortably know he is selling to a legal buyer. That reduces the illegal sales to only those between 2 illegal parties.The interesting part, to me, from Dvorak's post is this line:

The new lawwill unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearmsin New York.

That looks like another angle of attack on how magazine limitations may violate the 2nd Amendment. An argument can probably be made that by limiting it to 7, they have effectively cut out almost all semi-automatic handguns. Unless all of the manufacturers come out with 7 round options for a majority of their handguns, it could be argued that New York has violated the 2nd by infringing on a person's right to own and use a common defense firearm (semi-auto handgun).

 

[Andy Dufresne]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

 

[ichris]

Our highly enlightened President fancies himself as a real outdoorsman sports shooter. In the new spirit of the second amendment, the great unwashed masses will be able to trust he's going to protect our right to hunt.

 

[Apple Jack]

 

[tom22406]

Link

Milwaukee Sheriff Tells Residents Calling 911 ‘Is No Longer Your Best Option’

Mallory Ortberg

The police department in Milwaukee is a little short-staffed after a round of government layoffs. County Sheriff David Clarke Jr. has just released a radio ad in which he tells Milwaukee residents "I need you in the game" (the game is "being police offers").

"With officers laid off and furloughed, simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option," he adds. "You can beg for mercy from a violent criminal, hide under the bed, or you can fight back. ... Consider taking a certified safety course in handling a firearm so you can defend yourself until we get there."

It's possible that unforeseen consequences could arise out of framing gun violence and public safety as a "game" in which calling 911 and relying upon timely police assistance is a "spectator sport." But Clarke doesn't feel that he has any other choice: in an interview with the AP, he said "I'm not telling you to 'Hey, pick up a gun and blast away.' ...People need to know what they are doing if they choose that method - to defend themselves."

But he also said he wanted to call on residents to be law enforcement "partners." He said he could either whine about budget cuts that forced him to lay off 48 deputies last year or he could get creative.

Four years ago, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett incurred "extensive injuries" from being beaten with a tire iron after trying to protect a woman from her attacker. He spent several hours in surgery to repair damage to his hands and face and also lost several teeth.

"A firearm and a plan of defense would have come in handy for him that day," Clarke said.

The executive director of Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, Jeri Bonavia, called the ads "irresponsible," saying Clarke "owes this community an apology. And if he really believes that he's not capable of providing for our public safety he should get a different job." A not unfair point, but of course anyone who replaced Clarke would still be short at least 48 deputies, which would make ensuring public safety a little tricky for anyone.

 

[ichris]

and yet you nor Tim do nothing to refute the claim. The fact remains, police do not face super villains while they are on the job with special powers that makes them immune to bullets. SWAT on the other hand have specialized weapons not reserved for the common LEO and are called in for specific engagements.

Your standard beat cop will face the same type of criminals that any citizen could in their home or in public (ccw). This is a gaping black hole in the gun grabber's defense of allowing beat cops to have access to HIGH CAPACITY magazines as small as 12 rounds since anyone arguing for limiting magazines to 10 is considering 11+ high capacity.

I after NY State passed a 7 round limit and then realized they forgot to give police the exclusion pass making officers empty 3-5 rounds from their weapons to comply with the law.

I don't understand why the argument of a different standard for police or a private citizen is so hard to understand. If there is a bank robbery, or a school shooting, or a gang shooting, it is the responsibility of the police to go to the scene and deal with the situation. Therefore, they're going to need weapons that a private citizen does not. A private citizen needs to be able to defend himself against home invasion. If you want to argue that 30 round magazines are a necessity for home defense, make that argument, but it hasn't been convincing to me so far.

Because it undermines the intent and purpose of the second amendment.

Does it? I'm glad you wrote that, because now we're getting to the key here. Please explain exactly how it undermines the 2nd Amendment.

Did you think my response wasn't worth answering? Am I somehow morally misguided asking to preserve my right to defend myself using the same weapons that law enforcement and criminals alike use?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Tim wants to hear from law enforcement professionals regarding the "high capacity" magazines?

Well, here you go. The New York State Sheriffs Association Response to NY SAFE Act:

Reduction of ammunition magazine capacity. The new law enacts reductions in the maximum capacity of gun magazines. We believe based on our years of law enforcement experience that this will not reduce gun violence. The new law will unfairly limit the ability of law‐abiding citizens to purchase firearms in New York. It bears repeating that it is our belief that the reduction of magazine capacity will not make New Yorkers or our communities safer.

They also weighed in on background checks:

Requirement of NICS checks for private sales (except between immediate family). We believe that this will ensure that responsible citizens will still be able to obtain legal firearms through private transactions, with the added assurance that private buyers are approved by the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We remain concerned that this provision will be very difficult to enforce and will likely only affect law abiding citizens.

I'll sit back and wait for the discrediting of these as not "real" law enforcement officers.

Actually this is eye opening and it gives me some pause. Thanks for posting it.

This is finally getting through your thick skull? Atta boy timmy, atta boy.

 

[timschochet]

This is finally getting through your thick skull? Atta boy timmy, atta boy.

To be honest, I'm worried about the effectiveness of the high cap magazine ban. There are two main concerns I have:1. All the literature in favor of the ban suggests that these mass shooters are taken down when trying to re-load. But it's short on example. The two examples offered most frequently are Jared Loughner and Aurora. In the case of Loughner, it's unclear to me whether he was tackled trying to reload or tackled because his gun jammed. This makes a big difference- (especially if you accept the argument that guns jam more when they use higher magazines.) I don't know what the truth is. In the case of Aurora, it's even less clear. If I lose my rationale that these magazine limits are going to have an effect on these mass shootings, then I lose any justification for having them. 2. Even if the limits work, I don't know whether it's possible to enforce this ban. There are at present, too many of these magazines around. 30 rounds is the standard sold for the AR-15. And there's this new printing technology. So perhaps the ban won't work even if it's put into law. So until I have resolved these two issues to my satisfaction, I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the proposed ban.

 

[17seconds]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

 

[MaxThreshold]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

 

[boots11234]

This is finally getting through your thick skull? Atta boy timmy, atta boy.

To be honest, I'm worried about the effectiveness of the high cap magazine ban. There are two main concerns I have:1. All the literature in favor of the ban suggests that these mass shooters are taken down when trying to re-load. But it's short on example. The two examples offered most frequently are Jared Loughner and Aurora. In the case of Loughner, it's unclear to me whether he was tackled trying to reload or tackled because his gun jammed. This makes a big difference- (especially if you accept the argument that guns jam more when they use higher magazines.) I don't know what the truth is. In the case of Aurora, it's even less clear. If I lose my rationale that these magazine limits are going to have an effect on these mass shootings, then I lose any justification for having them. 2. Even if the limits work, I don't know whether it's possible to enforce this ban. There are at present, too many of these magazines around. 30 rounds is the standard sold for the AR-15. And there's this new printing technology. So perhaps the ban won't work even if it's put into law. So until I have resolved these two issues to my satisfaction, I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the proposed ban.

There are many millions of magazines out there. As a matter of fact I just go 20 more in the mail today along with a high cap 60 rounder! USA, USA, USA! Banning them will remove them from circulation and have an effect in about 100 years is my honest guess and by then we'll probably have laser guns and no need for the mags.

 

[boots11234]

"Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time."Am I really supposed to believe this?Edit: So here's the exchange in the article.

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.FF: The whole family?Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there.

Okay. I can believe he's shot a gun. I can believe that people shoot skeet "all the time" at Camp David.I don't believe for one second that the President shoots skeet all the time at Camp David. A very well crafted answer though, I must say.

How many times would he have to skeet shoot for you to be satisfied?All this reminds me of Reagan and GWB dressing as cowboys. Macho shtick.

At least more than ZERO times? I don't believe for one minute he shoots, much less "all the time". What a liar.

Yes but this lie advances the thought or seed that the 2nd amendment was meant for hunting and sport shooting which is patiently false. He's a good politician that's for sure.

 

[Dvorak]

This is finally getting through your thick skull? Atta boy timmy, atta boy.

To be honest, I'm worried about the effectiveness of the high cap magazine ban. There are two main concerns I have:1. All the literature in favor of the ban suggests that these mass shooters are taken down when trying to re-load. But it's short on example. The two examples offered most frequently are Jared Loughner and Aurora. In the case of Loughner, it's unclear to me whether he was tackled trying to reload or tackled because his gun jammed. This makes a big difference- (especially if you accept the argument that guns jam more when they use higher magazines.) I don't know what the truth is. In the case of Aurora, it's even less clear. If I lose my rationale that these magazine limits are going to have an effect on these mass shootings, then I lose any justification for having them.

2. Even if the limits work, I don't know whether it's possible to enforce this ban. There are at present, too many of these magazines around. 30 rounds is the standard sold for the AR-15. And there's this new printing technology. So perhaps the ban won't work even if it's put into law.

So until I have resolved these two issues to my satisfaction, I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the proposed ban.

A once through of this thread at ar15.com should put to rest the thought that anything short of outright confiscation would have ANY effect on reducing the 30 round AR-15 magazines in circulation...Warning the images above may cause hoplophobes to go into cardiac arrest.

Edit to add: Given the nature of many members at ar15.com, the magazines will need to be confiscated empty... and smoking.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

 

[Apple Jack]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?