Skip to main content

View Diary: White House task force reviewing gun violence options pushes to meet end of month deadline (235 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anything short of restricting both the kind (9+ / 0-)

    and the number of firearms a person can own will be far short of what is appropriate, but these measures are an excellent start.

    Unfortunately I fear they will be seen as far too draconian as-is. And that's a shame, because compared to gun-fetishists' favorite exemplars of "liberal" gun laws (e.g. Israel) they're laughably light-handed.

    Not that it should matter, but I write this as a gun owner myself.

    •  They will only be seen as too draconian by those (4+ / 0-)

      extremists who see ANY new law as "infringing on their rights"

      •  A law that makes something formerly legal, into (0+ / 0-)

        something illegal, is 'infringing on rights'.
        Just because the implications of what you want to do makes you uncomfortable, doesn't change the meanings of words.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:50:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Huh??? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber
          Just because the implications of what you want to do makes you uncomfortable, doesn't change the meanings of words.
        •  Seems as if you have a logic problem (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tytalus, Womantrust

          Just because something is legal (for example, if the law is silent on it) doesn't mean you have a right to do it. It just means it's not illegal to do it. I'm not an attorney, but to me those are two different things.

          Similarly, if a new law prohibiting that "something" comes into being that is constitutional (as some limits on the second amendment are, according to Heller), then it's not infringing on a right. It's merely making illegal that which formerly was not necessarily illegal.

          Take the 48 ounce drink in NYC (to use a somewhat silly example). No one had a "right" to buy a 48-ounce drink. When that was made illegal by city ordinance (or whatever mechanism was used) it merely made illegal that which formerly was legal. It didn't infringe on anyone's rights because there was no "right" to such a drink.

          •  The right to drink a big Coke is not in the Bill (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy, FrankRose

            of Rights. The right to own a gun is.

            •  Um hmm (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus, glorificus, Womantrust

              But the right to own any kind of firearm whatsoever is not in the second amendment. The right to own any kind of ammunition whatsoever is not either. Neither is the right to carry a gun anywhere and any time. Nor is detail on whom constitutional limitations on firearm ownership may be placed.

              The Constitution is silent on these matters.

              I think my analogy holds.

              •  Well to put it this way, do you feel like your (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                rights to a speedy trial, or freedom to pick your religion, or rights to protest or rights to come on Daily Kos and say whatever you like....do you feel they should be up for local, state or federal regulations or a perhaps even "more defining or details" in which some would say the Constitution is a bit silent on.  What about limitations?  Who has the power to "define it" and what if the people were against it?  To what extreme would you allow "defining" before you felt like your rights were being disturbed?

                Basically, do you think the 2A is just as important as the others?

                Again, buying a big coke is a right in the way my owning a gun is.  My right to own a gun is a guarantee and is the 2nd right I have under the American Constitution and  it is as valuable a right to me as typing this is and posting it to this forum.

                •  Answers (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tytalus

                  1.  Note my use of the term "constitutional":

                  Similarly, if a new law prohibiting that "something" comes into being that is constitutional (as some limits on the second amendment are, according to Heller), then it's not infringing on a right.
                  So -- in response to your question, if a constitutional restriction on the laundry list you've included in your response is passed, then I'm OK with it.  

                  2.  I believe the second amendment is one of the Constitution's fatal flaws. Slavery and withholding voting rights from women were others. Those two have been corrected. We now need to correct the second amendment, to the degree possible in this deeply flawed nation.  

                  So -- in response to your question: I absolutely and positively do not believe the flawed, anachronistic, and frankly stupidly and opaquely worded second amendment is as important as other rights.

                  I know there are those who think otherwise. Some of the them are honest and well-meaning.  Some of them are as stupid and frankly deranged as this Alex Jones character, to whom I would have preferred to not have been introduced. But I disagree with both.

                  We need better gun laws. We need to reduce firearm violence in our nation. There are far too many homicides, accidental shootings, and suicides by firearm in the USA.

                  In short, we need to grow up as a nation and disabuse ourselves of the foolish notion that, in this society, widespread firearm ownership is both positive and non-correctable.

                  •  Ok, thanks for answering. I disagree but respect (0+ / 0-)

                    your view.

                    To me, is part of the Bill of Rights and I want it to stay that way.  Until it is changed, it is as much my right as any of the others....and I value it just as much.  As 40% of gun owners are also Democrats, I am certain I am not the only one on this site who feels this way.  

                    Again thanks for the discussion.

                    •  A thought experiment (0+ / 0-)

                      You are a farmer in 1828 Maryland.

                      With respect to the question of slavery, do you believe that "until it is changed, it is as much my right as any of the others?"

                      Or do you feel that it is wrong and less than, say, freedom of religion or freedom of speech?

                      Again, I'm not equating slavery and our nation's current concept of gun ownership. I'm merely using examples of two institutions that are arguably anachronistic.

                      •  Well as I am black and a woman, I can answer (0+ / 0-)

                        with some emotion and forethought in regard to some of the anachronistic principles in the Constitution that have morphed over time for various reasoning.

                        Slavery was obviously barbaric and went against every other freedom that was guaranteed by the Constitution to American citizens, even though a black man or woman was not considered at the time to be anything remotely equal and free or even a real citizen. Never was slavery a right that anyone could argue had a place in society or should have been protected.  It was present at that time, but even then it was known to be wrong...they just ignored that part of their conscience.  Times changed, however, and enough people decided a change was necessary and a war evolved and changes to the document reflected that our country would be free of slavery.  The process was followed and thus we began a nation free of slavery. Slavery should have never existed in our society and its place in our history ended.

                        The issue of women and their right to vote, same principle, in some regard. It took years of dedication, women protesting, modernization of times etc and in time...the Constitution was changed. Women not being able to vote had no place in our society anymore, and thus the change happened.

                        With guns, however, there was a real purpose, a real need and that purpose and need still exists today. Anti- gun advocates tend to believe they serve no purpose, because in their eyes and experiences, they are unwanted and unneeded but to those of us who do use them...and I say "use" because they are a tool...guns can and do still have purposes in our society.

                         How and why? The obvious are police and military uses...those are a given...and any other occupation that would mandate a firearm.

                         Farming and ranchers are definitely hindered greatly without a gun.  I know this as I grew up on a farm.  Not only are they needed to protect livestock from predators but also for family working in the fields who might encounter the same such issues.  I never worked in the field without one.  Also, when we harvested our food for the year, a bullet was the most humane way to put down the animal for processing.  There really is no other way that is as quick and painless for the animal.  So again, these are givens.

                        People who just live in rural areas and yet have no farm or ranch, what about them?  Yes, they all have guns...why? Again predators is a given but also the sun would set and rise again in my area before our lone sheriff could make it to our place, if there was an emergency. This is common in rural areas and so guns are needed here for protection...just in case.

                        Women who have been abused or who are being stalked or have left a violent partner, do they need guns?  Maybe, and they have a right to protect themselves with them.  Guns and training in self-defense might save a woman's life in these circumstances.  My first marriage was abusive.  I left and he knew I was armed.  It might have saved my life a time or two....can I prove that?  No one really could but I am still here and he left me alone.

                        The elderly who might not be young or able enough to fight off an attacker, should they be allowed to protect themselves?  A gun and training for the elderly can and does save lives.  It has happened many of times that an elderly person saved their own lives from attack because they were armed.  Had they not been armed, they might not have survived the attack. Many people like to say that you have more of a chance of the attacker taking the gun and using it on you...but really how does one prove that?  The attacker is already attacking you...even with no guns in the equation, the attacker is still there to harm you....and likely will.   I would rather have a 50/50 chance than none.

                        Hunters...now here is the one that most people like to focus on.  Why?  Well, this is one argument that people can say is must be a sport or hobby and thus it's easy  to argue that surely we, as a gentler society, can "live without”.  Most people picture hunters as lily white middle aged men who go on winter deer trips to brag about how many Bambis they wiped out in a weekend.   So surely most people do not have to hunt to survive anymore, right?...Well, perhaps, unless you are in the Appalachian Mountains or parts of Alaska or Montana or in the Louisiana swamps or the plains of Texas or in West Virginia and you are very poor and this is the way you get food for your family.  Oh wait a minute...hmmmm... maybe there is a lot of people who need guns to hunt for this purpose.

                        What about those urban dwellers...surely they need no gun?  Well, what if you lived in a crime ridden area with bugler bars on every window and door and you had no right to possess a gun to protect yourself anymore but yet you knew every criminal outside still had theirs.  Would you sleep easy?  Would you feel comfortable knowing that?  See, pass all the laws you want, 310 million weapons are still out there...and those who want them, will have them....especially the criminals.  It's just now the law abiding gun owners will be defenseless.  No one really know how many lives might be saved every day because a criminal decides not to break into one home or another because he or she decided the gamble of walking in on an armed homeowner was just too great.  No one collects data for that....and home robberies that were stopped by a law abiding gun owners, don't seem to make the news as often as the other way around.  Maybe one of these criminals saw one of those signs that says “Robbers will be shot, survivors will be shot again” and decided to move on down the line.  He won’t answer a poll later about his malice activities, so we will never really know how many times that may happen.

                         Not one single thing talked about lately as a solution to mass murders, would have stopped Adam Lanza from killing those children that morning. He could have used a different type of guns, a shrapnel bomb, a chemical bomb or drove his car into the building.  He could have set it on fire or simply did what the Columbine murderers did during the last assault weapons ban and bought them illegally.  Evil minds will find a way....throughout history we know this as fact and it will continue until the end of time.  We must try to lessen it by going after the real evil and the people who would harm others and why they would do so....not just one weapon they might choose to use.

                        So no, I don't see the 2A as anachronistic; I actually see it as a right that should be protected.  See, guns still have a purpose in today's society for law abiding people and that need is not going away anytime soon.  In time, the 2A and the need to have that right might even become stronger and stronger as no one knows how society will change. If there really is a time in our history when guns are completely unneeded and the people are ready to be disarmed and ready to change the Constitution, it will happen as it did before.  Hence the reason it takes so much to change the Constitution ….so our rights would be protected and deserve as much process as it would take.  Since Progressives and Liberals are minds that seek to preserve and protect the rights of others....sometimes I am at a real loss as to why the 2A is not seen in this light by some.  I certainly see it that way...and I know plenty of others who are just as left as I am politically and yet value the 2A as much as every other part of the Bill of Rights.

                        I ought to make a diary of this comment as I put a lot of thought into it....I know you will disagree with most of it but thanks for listening, I tried to answer the best way I could.

          •  The US Constitution does not... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001, FrankRose

            ...discuss drinks (ignoring, of course, the short lived Eighteenth Amendment). Thus, the operative portions of the Constitution are (mostly):

            Amendment IX

            The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

            Amendment X

            The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

            Hence, the right to purchase a soda of a certain size is a right reserved to the states and/or people. The NYC ban is a state level issue subject to state level legislation (I'm assuming the NY Constitution or its penumbras does not address a right to drink large sodas).

            However, the Second Amendment is clearly a right, including the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, protected from infringement by the Federal government (Heller) and by the States (via application of the incorporation doctrine in McDonald).

            So, the analogy is fatally flawed in the context of this diary.

            •  Have you read Heller? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tytalus

              It's clear that even this radical Supreme Court has ruled that regulation of firearms, including banning certain types, is constitutional within limits.

              The second amendment is silent on such topics. Just because one can buy a particular firearm today, and if a constitutional law is passed banning such purchases tomorrow, doesn't mean a "right" has been infringed.

              Rather, the limits of the "right" have been clarified.

              That was my point.

          •  "No one had a 'right' to buy a 48 oz drink" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001

            Geee.....too bad the Right to bear arms isn't in the Bill of Rights or something.

            You really got me there.
            Well played, Matlock

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:36:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you think before your write? (0+ / 0-)

              Or does the bullshit just come out of reflex?

              Please.  Take the time to read and think about what I've written.  Examine the explanations.

              And then check back in when you're ready to have an adult conversation.

              •  "Examine the explanations" (0+ / 0-)

                And your 'explanations' are incorrect.
                The right to keep and bear arms are a right.
                You want to infringe on those constitutional liberties for perceived security.

                But I don't totally disagree with your '48 oz drink' analogy, seeing as how limiting constitutional rights will go over about as well nationally as that idiotic ban would.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 10:32:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Think a little harder (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  tytalus

                  And -- please -- read the Heller decision.

                  What you'll learn is that even this rather extreme (from a pro-gun perspective) court affirmed that limits on gun ownership are appropriate and constitutional.

                  In other words, laws limiting gun ownership do not infringe on constitutional rights.  Got that?  Do not infringe.

                  You can stamp your feet and shake your fists and do whatever you do when you are frustrated, but those are the facts, pal.  

                  And your little bullshit comment about "perceived security" is just another self-delusion on your part.

                  My security is fine.  I'm not concerned.  I'll be fine.  Really.

                  My concern is for those who have to live with, or consort with, idiots who have bought into the whole "guns protect my safety" bullshit.

                  •  I have. I suggest you read a dictionary. (0+ / 0-)

                    "Rights--Noun--. 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)."
                    You want to infringe on things which are currently 'protected by the government and the courts'; Hence, you want to infringe on rights.

                    "Liberty--NOUN: 1)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                        2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                        3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

                    You want to infringe on current liberties.

                    Neither your motive nor your means change the fact that you want to infringe on liberties and rights that innocent Americans currently have.

                    "I'm not concerned"
                    Good. Then try NOT infringing on innocent Americans rights & liberties.

                    ......And I don't have to 'stomp my feet'. I can vote. So can the 47% of households that have a gun in the home. (But where can insulting & marginalizing 47% of the population go wrong, amirite?)

                     How well do you think that taking rights & liberties from innocent Americans is going to work in Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Penn, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Florida?
                    Maybe you should try to put in the 48 oz drink ban while you are at it. Couldn't make it fail more spectacularly.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:10:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  OK (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tytalus

                      You want to posture and yell "Liberties!"

                      I get it.

                      You're not serious.

                      You're not willing to accept what even the most gun-friendly court in quite a long time has determined: that the second amendment is not unlimited and that some restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional.

                      Fine.

                      In that choice, you are placing yourself securely into the spot in which many gun owners reside.  In other words, you're deluding yourself.  You're lying to yourself that the second amendment conveys rights that the Supreme Court has determined it does not.

                      And -- even better -- you're still talking about 48-ounce drinks. Please look up the definition of analogy.  I don't have the patience to explain it any further.

                      As for your recalcitrance: I don't know why I bother with you imbeciles.  Your ignorance and resistance to facts and evidence are impressive. I'm reminded of a barnacle. Or lichen. Or a xenolith imbedded into a rock of which it cannot begin to conceive.

                      In other words, if you choose to be this ignorant, I can't help you.

                      But you'd best not believe the lies you're telling yourself. Reality has a way of lapping people who cling to moronic beliefs.

                      •  I most certainly am. (0+ / 0-)

                        I was serious when the right-wing pushed for warrantless wiretaps & I am now.

                        I have voted strait Dem, except for Nader in 2000.
                        But I will not support nor vote for anyone that infringes on any American liberties.

                        "imbecile"
                        Yes, if only I was intelligent enough to use a 48 oz soda ban to really drive my point home.

                        "resistance to facts"
                        So says the person whom is currently doing his damnedest to argue with the dictionary.

                        "Reality has a way of lapping people who cling to moronic beliefs"
                        The race will be on the next election. I have no doubt that there will be 'morons getting lapped'.
                        Be sure to take a sip out of your 47 oz soda when they pass by.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:40:59 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Good grief (0+ / 0-)

                          You're not only stupid; you're somewhat obsessive.

                          Tell you what: you're safe drinking all the 48 or 64 ounce colas you want.  I won't pry them away from your cold hands. I could not care less

                          But those guns over which you salivate?  Fuck 'em. Some of them are done.  Over. Gun ownership can be limited under the Constitution.

                          And it will.

                          It's just a matter of time.

                          And don't look for sympathy for your stupid Nader vote in 2000.  The torture of the 2000s and the invasion of Iraq will forever stain your hands. I don't care if you were in a "safe" state or not.  You contributed if only in spirit. You were an idiot then and you're an idiot now.

                          If you were hoping to ingratiate yourself to me or anyone else, you failed.

                          Just as your flawed understanding of the second amendment has failed.

                          Run along now and misjudge something else. I need to get some sleep so I can work tomorrow.  

                          Without a weapon in sight.  Or out of sight.

                          Amazing, isn't it?

                          You should try it sometime. It's not nearly as scary as you may think.

                          •  Thanks for your reasoned assessment of my (0+ / 0-)

                            intelligence. I will be sure to carefully file it under 'Things I don't give a shit about'.

                            "you're safe drinking all the 48 oz colas you want"
                            No shit. Thanks for this insightful update.

                            "guns over which you salivate"
                            There are no guns I 'salivate' over.
                            There are rights and liberties I 'vote' for.

                            "sympathy for your stupid Nader vote"
                            Yes, sympathy is what I was going for.
                            'Reading comprehension'--Apparently, not your strong point.

                            "torture for the 2000s and the invasion of Iraq will forever stain your hands."
                            1)Perfectly rational response. Not batshit at all. But thanks for letting us know that 'voting' is also a liberty you loathe.
                            2) The votes that will be lost as a result of the policy you are espousing will cost more votes than Nader ever did. Thus, I assume you will take full responsibility for the next decade after the electoral debacle this will cause.

                            "Run along now"
                            I'd rather not. Watching your meltdown is fascinating.

                            "It's not nearly as scary as you may think"
                            The only thing I find 'scary' is Americans willing to give their rights away for perceived security.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:25:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Oh yes (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          tytalus

                          And this?

                          So says the person whom is currently doing his damnedest to argue with the dictionary.
                          First of all, it's who.

                          Second of all, I'm not arguing with the dictionary. I'm arguing with you.

                          You seem to be espousing the opinion that gun control is both unconstitutional and an infringement of rights.

                          I'm pointing out that both of those views are wrong.  

                          Please read the Heller majority opinion.  Please reflect on how conservative and gun-friendly this Supreme Court is. Keep in mind future Supreme Courts will likely be less so.

                          And even this conservative, gun-friendly court has said the second amendment is not unlimited.  Gun control is most assuredly not unconstitutional.  It is both constitutional and necessary.  The details need to be worked out, but there is no legitimate question about that.

                          If you think otherwise, you're irrational.  

        •  So how come drugs ever got illegal? They did not (0+ / 0-)

          use to be, you know.

          He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

          by Sophie Amrain on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:14:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And that's worked out so well since. (0+ / 0-)

            But why argue?
            "Rights-Noun:. 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)."

            Word meanings don't change because the implications of what you espouse makes you uncomfortable.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:38:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I may be misremembering, but when I had my (0+ / 0-)

          wisdom teeth out I got a lovely painkiller called "DARVON." When I asked for it after more recent dental work, I was told it wasn't available.

          Is this "infringing on my rights" to be pain-free? Percodan and derivatives make me throw up.

          **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

          by glorificus on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:43:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  FDA ordered Darvon and Darvocet (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            Manufacturers to recall these meds as studies proved beyond any doubt their use was associated and contributed to users developing atrial fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm, which can be fatal).  And the FDA had these studies for some years and kept quiet on any action.  Which is why the manufacturers and the FDA are named in lawsuits.  Hope this answers your question.

          •  Well...lets just define the word 'rights' and (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bailey2001

            you make the call.

            "Rights-Noun: 1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)."

            Of course, the Bill of Rights include the right to keep and bear arms....so, the answer as to whether or not gun control is an infringement of rights or not is well beyond your opinion on the matter.

            Words have meanings, they do not change because the implications of your opinions make you uncomfortable.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 06:44:06 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Darvon made ME throw up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            the one and only time I was ever prescribed any.

            Individual biochemistry is weird.

            If it's
            Not your body,
            Then it's
            Not your choice
            And it's
            None of your damn business!

            by TheOtherMaven on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:35:53 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Should my rights be in quotation marks as if they (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy

        don't exist?

         No matter how and where this discussion goes...law abiding gun owners do have rights.....Bill of Rights kind of rights...thus, just as important as our free speech rights, our rights to a judge and jury, our rights to vote, our rights to protest.  Just as important.

    •  There's just nothing to be gained by restricting (3+ / 0-)

      the number of firearms a person can own.

      Restricting the number a person can buy in a given period of time, on the other hand, could help to cut back on the most egregious straw purchasers.

      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

      by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:29:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you figure? Similar reasoning applies here (0+ / 0-)

        as for restricting the capacity of magazines: reducing the quantity of firearms available at any given "event" minimizes the amount of death a psychopath can deal out any given moment, just like reducing the capacity of magazines maximizes the time spent not firing off rounds.

        •  Whether someone has 2 or 20 rifles and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DefendOurConstitution

          shotguns has little to nothing to do with how lethal a mass casualty shooting will be.

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:40:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That isn't true at all. If a person has one gun he (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah

            has to reload more often and therefore necessarily is shooting less often. It necessarily increases the opportunity to stop him and decreases the quantity of violence he can dish out.

            •  Seriously think about trying to carry more than 2 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              liberaldemdave, Womantrust

              long guns in a real world scenario, and about changing from one to another.

              Up to a point, I can see the argument if we're talking about someone with two or three pistols.  I don't see us actually managing to pass laws restricting people to less than that, but I get the point.  

              Changing magazines is almost always going to be quicker than changing weapons, but maybe if someone is carrying multiple revolvers...

              You can't drape yourself in six shotguns and walk into a crowded room and start grabbing weapon after weapon off your back anywhere but a Stallone movie.

              "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

              by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:16:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't have to think about it.... (0+ / 0-)

                A determined individual can carry one such weapon and still tote a carrying device that has ready access to more if he wants to. I'm pretty sure the Columbine kids had exactly that in mind (or actually did it--I don't recall the specific details regarding whether they were able to leverage a 'portable' stash of guns or not).

                •  You're reaching as hard as the "but they can just (0+ / 0-)

                  use something besides guns, like build a bomb" crowd at this point.

                  "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                  by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 01:55:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Columbine kids bought their guns illegally....just (0+ / 0-)

                  like any determined monster who will side step any restrictions you put on how many guns a law abiding citizen can have.

                    The monsters of this world will get as many as they need to kill.

                •  They had 4 shotguns, a rifle, a handgun (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  fuzzyguy

                  one 9mm carbine and one Tech-9.

                  What they actually used on the day of the attack were two of the four shotguns, the 9mm carbine, and the Tech-9.

                  Two weapons each, despite the arsenal they'd amassed.

                  It's generally faster to reload a weapon than to try to dig one out of a duffel bag.

                  "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                  by JesseCW on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 03:37:39 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site