Skip to main content

View Diary: Shut Down the NRA group. (281 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't you need to address the differences? (7+ / 0-)
    2) They try to talk about technical aspects of guns that the diarist may not understand--like bullet sizes and muzzle velocities. I have seen it a bunch of times. These comments have got to be ignored.
    Technical differences range from magazine capacity to caliber to different types of safeties, and more! These are important distinctions.

    For example, a 22 LR pistol is primarily a target gun or plinker. They are low powered and rarely the choice for murder. On the other hand, a 22 LR bolt action rifle has been used by snipers.

    I have a nice little DAO piston in 9mm. In other countries the 9mm round is considered a military round and the gun is only available only in AT-380. The 2 rounds are the same diameter, the 9mm is longer and typically hurls a slightly heavier round. In practice is there a significant distinction?

    The expired assault weapons banned didn't ban anything that would have traditionally been considered an assault weapon. Firearms that can be switched to burst fire or automatic fire (Assault Weapons) have been largely banned since 1934 (FFL required.) Is a firearm with a bayonet mount and foldable stock more dangerous than a firearm with just a folding stock? When was the last time you have heard of a bayonet being used in a crime? Is a collapsible stock a factor in a firearms used by criminals? (I have no idea)

    I didn't have a problem with the magazine capacity limits of the assault weapons ban, but how could that be reinstated when there are now a bunch of legal magazines out there that are stamped "Law Enforcement Use Only"? It is important to recognize that a ban doesn't effect pre-ban magazines, that would open a huge legal issue of taking of property and proper compensation for doing so.

    Lastly, if you want to appear educated when entering a firearms discussion please understand the difference between a magazine and a clip. It is one of those simple things that can be used to spot people talking about something they know little about.

    A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by notrouble on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 08:12:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  You need to address the differences if... (9+ / 0-)

      your intended legislation is planning to try and achieve something based upon those differences.  As you point out in your comment, a lot of times, the 'technical distinctions' are meaningless when you address the actual capabilities to do harm.  Two guns with technically different makes, that fire the same round and one illegal and one legal?  Probably a pointless distinction.  2A supporters point out all the time that 'assault weapons' generally are merely different 'looks' to what is essentially another gun, so what point is there in merely outlawing 'assault weapons'?  

      And, again, why should we care about the difference between 'magazines' and 'clips'?  Is there any particular use to banning one but not the other?  Are people shot with guns using clips any more or less dead than those shot with guns using magazines?

      Now your 2A supporters will, rightly, claim that many of the laws suggested are stupid because they ban certain weapons based on such pointless distinctions.  The problem with weapons is not what they look like, is not how bullets are fed into the firing chamber.  It's the fact that they wind up in the wrong hands far too often, and that what aren't the wrong hands one day may turn out to be the wrong hands the next.

      •  Simple answer... (5+ / 0-)
        why should we care about the difference between 'magazines' and 'clips'?
        A new law imposing a 10 round clip limit would surely do nothing to prevent another tragedy like happened today.

        Without some technical learning you can't tell good legislation from feel good legislation that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 08:49:57 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is exactly why (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, Avila, Miggles

          I wouldn't be seeking laws based on such technical differences...

          •  but then you don't get to say (4+ / 0-)

            you aren't restricting hunting rifles.

            It's been a hundred years, isn't it time we stopped blaming Captain Smith for sinking the Titanic?

            by happymisanthropy on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:31:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If I said I was, I misspoke. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mamamedusa, Glen The Plumber

              I'm seeking legislation that will impact the way in which every firearm is accessed.  

              You'd need to address various key points, and it would take years, maybe decades to fully implement, of course.

              First an ongoing 'buyback' program to purchase back weapons on the street for some trivial amount, as well as restrictions in importing weapons and stricter control of manufacturing and sales.

              Obviously details have to be fleshed out, but one possibility would be to require that all weapons not in use be stored in secure locations, controlled by licensed and monitored 'militia armourers' or police, and checked out by owners and users for use in a similar way to checking out a library book, with a central localized database that would ensure that a given individual was only checking out a single weapon at a time, was certified on that type of firearm, and was, in the armourer's opinion at that point in time not visibly distressed or distraught.

              In fact, under such a system, occasional hunters wouldn't even need to own rifles, but would be able to simple pay a nominal subscription fee (ie, hunting license) to use rifles owned by the armoury, and just bring them back after their hunting trip, not worrying about storage or safety the rest of the year.

              If you were checking out a weapon for long-term use, such as a pistol for home protection, you would be required to bring it in at least yearly to verify you still had possession, and would be required by law to have some fairly hard to break into gun safe at your domicile.

            •  I ahve no problem with restricting hunting or (0+ / 0-)

              hunting rifles. Not after yesterday. Yesterday changed everything. The old rules do not apply anymore. The deaths of those children changes the debate forever.

      •  There's some talking past each other here. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Nobody murders 28 people with a revolver.

        People do murder 28 people with semi-automatic pistols, using high capacity magazines.

        I totally agree with you - there are assholes who nit-pick the difference between clips and magazines in order to de-rail discussions.  That's a cheap tactic.

        Unless you want to try to ban all guns (which doesn't make people safer anyway) rather than have sane regulation and restriction, we do have to discuss some of the technical aspects of weapons.

        This place needs a PVP server.

        by JesseCW on Fri Dec 14, 2012 at 09:55:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  See my comment just above. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          I want to limit access more than specific weapons, although you'd probably be denied access if your stated reason for needing the given weapon didn't match the weapon you were seeking to access.  For instance, if you showed up at a militia armoury and sought to check out a pistol because you were 'going hunting', you'd probably trigger a sit-down interview with police.

        •  You are going to have to back up your argument (0+ / 0-)

          that reducing guns does not reduce violence. We will wait for a response but not patiently. You either back that argument up or we will consider it withdrawn. This is not an RKBA group discussion.

          •  I have not made that argument. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            In Ireland, one can easy own a break-barrel shotgun or single shot rifle.

            In the UK, forget owning any sort of fire-arm unless you're very wealthy.

            Nearly identical murder rates, despite one being a poorer nation.

            Finland, with one firearm for every three people, not only has one third our murder rate - only 14% of murders there are committed with firearms.

            You're going to have to refrain from making strawman arguments  if you're going to make any headway on this issue.

            Smart gun laws can actually be passed, unlike total gun bans.

            And they can make us safe.

            This place needs a PVP server.

            by JesseCW on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:54:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Who cares? I am happy to take all of your weapons (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      through the repeal of the 2nd amendment. I do not care what you use your gun for. It does not matter. Only the victims matter. One bullet or a thousand, the victim is still dead.

      •  If you manage to advance a candidate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas

        that supports you goal to the general election I will vote for the other candidate.

        A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by notrouble on Sat Dec 15, 2012 at 08:05:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site