Skip to main content

View Diary: How I learned to stop worrying and love the gun. (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I *am* a gun owner. And I think people... (33+ / 0-)

    ...should have the right to own firearms, too. But what kind of firearms is the issue, how they are acquired and what kind of rules apply to the owners. I have, over the past 20 years, become ever more convinced that renewable licensing should be imposed on gun-owners, high-capacity magazines banned, Internet sales of ammunition prohibited and some types of weapons forbidden.

    While I agree with much of your diary, I don't agree at all with this:

    If you own guns presumably you know how to use and care for them, they aren't cheap after all.
    I know too many instances of when this is not the case.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 12:46:41 PM PST

    •  I doubt there is anyone on this site, (13+ / 0-)

      or anyone I know, with whom I agree 100% on everything.  Given the number of times in an average day I change my mind about something, I don't even agree with myself oftentimes.  

      That said, I agree with you, and most of what the diarist said.

      The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

      by Otteray Scribe on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 01:09:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I find it interesting (6+ / 0-)

      That none of the seriously proposed regulations would have much impact on the ability of most here to own a gun, or several.

      At worst it would impose some inconvenience and maybe some modest fees and/or taxes.

      Yet I am still reading how few of the suggestions "will work", because of this, that or the other and the consequence, should we adopt that position, is that nothing will be done.

      I accept that, on their own, few of the proposals are a complete solution, but doing nothing is the worst possible outcome.

      We have to start somewhere and make that the "thin end of the wedge" ... A wedge not necessarily leading to the banning of guns, but the reduction of gun-related incidents.

      Not all "wedges" are negative.

      I still think that the supporters of the right of citizens to own firearms would actually help their cause enormously were they to get behind some comprehensive and tough legislation, even if they don't much like it.

      There has been movement and the members of the RKBA Group here on this site are to be commended for their calm approach to this issue.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      by twigg on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:06:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am convinced that if we move fast enough... (9+ / 0-)

        ...we can get some of these laws passed. Wait too long, however, and our chances slip. As the Daily Kos/PPP poll indicates, there is lots of support even among gun-owners for substantial reform.

        One key area is the ending of private sales without going through a licensed dealer, and thus avoiding a background check. This outrageous "loophole" for gun shows and other private sales ought to encounter zero opposition in Congress, and every congressperson who opposes it should be verbally raked over the coals.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 02:37:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  gun show loophole is private sales (8+ / 0-)

          and by other private sales you are going to have to discuss as well say grandpa's gun inherited/transferred, because that is a private transfer and also currently outside current law.

            While family transfers are a special and yet important case for privacy , emotional and  political reasons, that private sale screening should be demanded for non family transfers.. but maybe not all classes/kinds of guns there either.
             Transferring those sales regulated thru gun shops (more profits for them) those included classes of guns...I suggest investment type antique guns should not be included in this, perhaps guns past a certain age and just a few of the more special cases.
          Making a distinction between transfer screenings as different than proof of ownership/registration would go farther than an all out registration effort...as almost any regulation is described. Record keeping and the purging thereof should be included in proposed legislation..as different than it becoming a defacto registration...sure to be an issue.
             Our Damascus barreled Parker shotguns are valued for their heritage and craftsmanship and art, even tho fire-able, as did grandad at many a dinner duck....but just not modern powder loads....they explode.

          A gun show private sale outside in the parking lot for an Uzi is the kind of thing this should address.

          Another subject is what kind of mental health issue and how would that issue be screened and by who ( back to the veteran's gun seizures issue), and what preventions be described (locks, safes, none in the house) for those mental heath adjudged in the same residence...werds, grrrr.

          And finally, the costs of all these great ideas need to be looked at as the increased costs mean de facto disarming of the poorer classes of people and all that implies.

          This machine kills Fascists.

          by KenBee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:35:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think special provision can be made... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee, high uintas, fuzzyguy, annieli

            ...family transfers. But I believe background checks should apply to such transfers except in the case of  true antiques (I own several).

            I have zero problem with the extra costs involved in purchasing firearms through licensed dealers. Perfectly good firearms suitable for hunting, target-shooting or self-defense can be had for a reasonable price from an FFL.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 03:54:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  mental health screened and in the same home (6+ / 0-)

              1.what are your thoughts there?

              2. and is each state regulating the felon, exfelon non-possession or is that a federal law...and is that exploited by felons by having but saying it's the wife's etc?

              3. what about the right5 to self defense for exfelons, perhaps one for home defense but no legal ability to carry off the property?

              the few I know are MJ possession felons.

              This machine kills Fascists.

              by KenBee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:30:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have a (8+ / 0-)

                nonviolent white collar Federal Conviction (it is no secret I have talked about it elsewhere).  Signing Loan documents that I should not have signed.  Absolutely no record of anything before or after - Not even a DUI/ misdemeanor.  I did 14 months in a Federal Camp with out fences and few guards where I taught GED classes;  and surrendered by law license.

                However, this mandates a permanent life time ban on possession/ownership/anywhere near you of any firearms whatsoever, for not just me but my entire family.  They can not be in the house that I am in, ever.  Saying it is the wife's is not an excuse, you go to prison.  This is a lifetime ban on hunting/self defense/anything.

                This is Federal, but my state also has the ban (Mississippi).  Violation of the lifetime ban in any way can = 5 years in prison.  No questions asked.

                Under Federal law, you can ask to have your gun rights restored.  The Attorney General has the authority to do so after investigation which AG's have assigned to the ATF.  However, Since 1994 the ATF has been ordered by Congress to not spend any money on these investigations.  This was appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled years ago that you have a remedy even though you will not get it, so you are out of luck.

                If it was a state conviction, the Governor could pardon me and my rights would be restored.  However, since mine is Federal it will take a Presidential Pardon.  I plan to ask President Obama for one before he leaves office, and if it is no, every President thereafter until it is granted or I die.

                Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

                by deedogg on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:08:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It is quite well known (7+ / 0-)

                  That I have a similar conviction, yet mine does not prevent my ownership of firearms (I have none, nor have I plans for any although the thought of putting 80lbs of venison in the freezer is very tempting).

                  The Supreme Court has ruled that offences outwith the US do not count.

                  Maybe they should, but them's the rulz!

                  I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                  but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                  by twigg on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:15:31 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I had 3 (8+ / 0-)

                    which I got rid of the week after I got my target letter from the Feds.

                    The Feds do not play, btw, for anyone in the thread that thinks these Federal laws are not enforced.  They did not come get me.  They sent me a letter and told me to come see them, then told me to go to Court and when to come back.  Then after sentencing to go home and they would send me a letter telling me which prison to report to.  My wife dropped me off.  I still have never been handcuffed after going to prison.  They rarely locked the doors and hardly guarded me.

                    My point being, they do not have to come get most of us.  They just say, hey we seen what you did, come here and work out your consquences, or else.

                    Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

                    by deedogg on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 05:25:58 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  according to a recent poll I'm one of the few (7+ / 0-)

                      percent of Americans who support returning gun rights to convicted felons. I also support returning voting rights. I include violent felons also.

                      People change.

                      My next door neighbor got in lots of bar fights as a young guy and failed to appear. Did 2 years. At the age of 60 he was very level headed no matter the circumstances. Guy would not get angry. I never felt anything but safe with my 2 young kids paying at his house with his granddaughter. Had a big assed pistol.

                      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

                      by ban nock on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:19:39 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My point is that I am not (6+ / 0-)

                        a convicted felon.

                        It appears that the US authorities consider your previous history when you apply for a visa (Green Card), but then pretty much wipe the slate clean when they grant one.

                        Yet it is the case that my conviction sounds very similar to the one of deedogg.

                        I guess there aren't many folk in the same position as me, nonetheless ...

                        By the way .... I am all for sensible application of the rules. If we are going to deem certain classes of folk from owning guns, a simple felony conviction is a pretty stupid way of doing it.

                        Crimes of violence ... Persons society needs protecting from should be the only ones treated this way, and the only ones for whom jail is an option.

                        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                        by twigg on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:39:30 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  as I propose below, I believe it could be an advan (8+ / 0-)

                        tage to include non violent felons in that change.

                        To include violent felons is to not get the support for an overall package of thoughtful changes.

                        But I know what you mean, people do change..sometimes.

                        This machine kills Fascists.

                        by KenBee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:43:52 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  well, that's a good explanation of non violent (8+ / 0-)

                      white collar crime re: gun control as applied to non violent released felons....

                      And despite all the 2nd amendment discussion, this is how it is once 'in the system'...and this system is what many want for gun owners...it seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me.

                      For the right to self defense by gun to be taken away from a family this way seems to be a giant overreach, one that cannot be supported for much of any reason except the "guns 'r bad, m'kay" reasoning.
                           A very easy way for liberals to appear reasonable while insisting on other possibly more effective means to control access, and maybe...maybe reduce criminal misuse of guns, would be to liberalize this.

                      That a non violent mj conviction should mean no guns in the house whatsoever means they are a target for home invasions for a clear example.
                        This rule could be amended to allow one shotgun, complying with all public rules, to never be allowed off the premises under the same penalty as previous possession.

                          I suggest that this allowance be granted upon application to the appropriate LOE agency and a small application fee similar to any background check, given and allowing the legal purchase of said firearm.

                        I think that could be part of a package designed to gain greater and more effective support for  control of guns in the public sphere.

                      This machine kills Fascists.

                      by KenBee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:40:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In the UK the an automatic (5+ / 0-)

                        firearms prohibition accompanies any conviction with a jail sentence greater than two and a half years. Even given the difficulty that already exists to get weapons for anyone.

                        However, the convicted person can apply to the original court for those provisions to be waived, and in the case of a non-violent, non-drug conviction that would happen as a matter of routine.

                        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                        by twigg on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:48:07 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  so even the UK is not as strict on this? (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          twigg, deedogg, high uintas, fuzzyguy

                          leads to two opposite views..there's a first!

                          case of a non-violent, non-drug conviction that would happen as a matter of routine.
                          much better...but the routine...I don't think a inexpensive one time simple sheriff/police level review is too onerous either.
                            Maybe a duty to report the theft of such and the serial number if so.

                          Thanks Twigg.

                          This machine kills Fascists.

                          by KenBee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:59:55 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It has to be set against a backdrop (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg, KenBee, high uintas

                            In the UK all handguns are banned. Period.

                            Your were a sporting shooter? Go find another sport.

                            Shotguns can be kept with a "Shotgun Certificate" ... Easily obtained, few checks.

                            Rifles require a "Firearms Certificate". These are not so easily obtainable and the rules are very tight. They cover storage and transport. They include a home visit by a senior police officer, and they don't last indefinitely.

                            Given all of that there is little necessity to pile even mor onerous conditions on non-violent offenders.

                            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                            by twigg on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:08:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  great thread, tips to you all. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            high uintas

                            Seen to late to tip.

              •  I believe that people who are convicted felons (8+ / 0-)

                for non-violent crimes should be able to own a gun. I believe we need to be careful in how we write these laws. I know pot felons and a girl who carries a felony conviction for check kiting from over 15 yrs ago. She has led an exemplary life since. She lives alone with her daughters and should be able to protect herself if she feels the need.

                "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                by high uintas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 06:49:07 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Agreed. Violent felons, however, should... (7+ / 0-)

                  ..have to jump through megahoops to get their rights to possess firearms restored.

                  Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                  by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:20:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes (6+ / 0-)

                    Great big megahoops. There would be no reason to give someone who is a serial abuser any weapon or someone who has used a gun in a crime, without serious reasons and assurances. I would be pretty hard ass about this.

                    "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                    by high uintas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:24:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  speaking politically: not now (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    high uintas

                    that would be a poison pill for any legislation. The non violent can be more safely included as an expansion with less political downside...imo.

                    I am for legislation

                    *  that can be passed

                    *  can work

                    *  doesn't elect a repub in 2016

                    This machine kills Fascists.

                    by KenBee on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:36:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I don't understand. You are saying that... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      high uintas

                      ...keeping violent felons from obtaining guns except by means of strict restoration of rights legislation won't pass?

                      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                      by Meteor Blades on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 11:50:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  non violent felons would be easier than violent (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Meteor Blades, high uintas

                        felons to successfully include in any successful proposed legislation..the pot smoker vs a bank robber.

                        Now maybe we're talking from opposite sides of the premise here, I am saying the ex felons I know are NOT allowed a gun, even for self defense, even on their own property...as is I believe existing law.
                             I am suggesting liberalizing that law to allow ex convicts convicted of NON violent crimes to possess one weapon to be kept on the property only.

                           To include as a reform measure I would NOT include restoration of limited gun possession rights to ex felons convicted of a crime including violennce.

                        (the term 'violent' here in my terms means convicted of a violent crime rather than any non violent type crime...possession of weed, fraud, etc, such review to include any violent prison charges as well).
                            I suggested a sheriff/police level review and permit in addition to the national background check for purchase. The sheriff would have maybe local knowledge that may not have yet been entered into the national database...such as pending/recent arrests, undercover surveillance, etc. and to include any relevant review of prison records.
                           What to do about the ability to challenge the sheriff's refusal I couldn't right now say...maybe a 60 day re-review and then the petitioner's right to some court challenge? not a lawyer, heh...or a sheriff or convict.

                        So, yes, in any gun law package, to include restoring gun rights to the convicted non violent offender is politically easier than supporting laws restoring gun rights to those previously convicted of violent crimes. Voting rights issues for another time but certainly...

                        I am suggesting to include restoration of gun rights to those released ex felons convicted of non violent crimes as part of any gun law reform package...a liberalizing measure amongst the backdrop of the stricter proposals.
                             Those convicted of a violent crime should not be part of any such proposal, politically...and even theoretically, imo.
                            The violent offender has once chosen to be violent already, the non violent didn't in spite of the increased provocations of prison...as determined by his/her 'record'...that record not much of an ultimate measure of a person, but it's what we have to work with until we can mind read..

                        This machine kills Fascists.

                        by KenBee on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:34:46 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Ah. I get you now. And I agree. I was... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KenBee, high uintas

                          ...only saying previously that I think violent felons should have to jump through hoops. Now, in many states, they don't. So I was arguing against liberalizing the law(s) on this.

                          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                          by Meteor Blades on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:38:06 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ha, states different than feds yet again.. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            high uintas

                            so my whole babble was about calif experience, not a federal level reform..
                            ignorance ain't bliss no matter what they tell ya!

                            thanks..

                            This machine kills Fascists.

                            by KenBee on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 01:44:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do think that introducing (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KenBee, 43north

                            this in a federal law would set the national hair on fire. I'm uncomfortable w/it unless there are extreme circumstances as I said in my reply to MB. Like you I had no idea that it is allowed in certain states. In my state it requires the record be expunged.

                            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

                            by high uintas on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:14:55 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  non-violent record vs violent record (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north, high uintas

                            you introduced the non violent record, here at least, then ban nock at 6:19 and MB at 7:20 started up about the violent felons and then confusion...heh.

                            Now it was late and we were tired so there's that, but if three dkos geneii...ok, two, can get crossways that quick in a written discussion (where you can read it), you are probably right: nation's collective hair on fire, never pretty.

                            I was saying as how that non violent offender's rights should be simply and locally restored to add to the likihood any reasonable and well written gun law package could be passed....see, trying to help there as best I can where it hadn't been suggested yet.

                            I had also asked MB's and anybody's opinion on how to screen for mental health issues and we didn't get the perfect or any answer there either...but a good diary, and so far all I have seen are mostly excellent comments, thanks for the contribution, ya done good here.

                            This machine kills Fascists.

                            by KenBee on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 12:30:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  ken well stated. tipped if seen in-time. n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            high uintas
        •  The problems we have seen in terms of children (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, high uintas, KenBee

          being killed in the last few days that I have seen indicates that 22 out of the 25 happened because they had ACCESS to guns.

          If we do NOT tackle that important part with VERY strict storage conditions and liability, we don't get very far in stopping accidents and things like Columbine and Newtown.

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:10:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee, cany

            Kestrel9k talked about that in his last diary. It is vitally important in all homes IMO, whether you have a child or not. You could have a child visit, in my case if I had a gun and was stupid about it, I'm sure my cats would find a way to shoot me. Gawd knows they are out to get me.

            "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

            by high uintas on Fri Dec 21, 2012 at 08:18:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Twigg, this is precisely WHY the gun owners (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, KenBee

        who disagree with the NRA (and they need to scream that, loudly, because if they don't they ARE, defacto, represented by the NRA) need to coalesce and make recommendations.

        When THEY get serious and do something, I will consider them responsible, at least in social terms.

        The second is not a right I use, but it is a right I have to respect. But I am NOT going to help them keep things the same.

        And shame on them if they don't get on with it.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:08:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with all but one... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      high uintas, theboz, fuzzyguy, KenBee

      ...of your ideas, that of internet sales.

      I use my guns for one purpose only, hunting (aside from the occasional groundhog in the garden). I also live in a remote rural area with the only "sporting goods" found within 80 miles being Walmart.

      The one specific cartridge I prefer for deer hunting is never available there. That cartridge is far superior in terms of accuracy to anything sold at the box-store-from-hell.

      I would modify your suggestion to "no more than two boxes of cartridges per year via internet." That would be a total of 40 cartridges for most popular hunting calibers, and 50 for some smaller guns.

      I fully acknowledge that this rule could be fairly easy to skirt, but crooks and kooks usually find a way around most laws if they have a mind to.

      •  That's why we need all voices in this (5+ / 0-)

        There are always exceptions to rules that aren't thought of. We aren't perfect, but we can try to be a perfect as we can when writing these laws. The smarter they are, the more likely they will be obeyed.

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 07:35:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site