Skip to main content

View Diary: Pulling a Mitt Romney on guns (121 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trumpeter, Inland

    Here

    There are several.  

    •  Fair enough (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meagert, KVoimakas, CydeWeys, FrankRose

      So we ban .50 BMG and other calibers are still used.

      Ban those as well?

      Or do we write a more effective law classifying anything that can blow through a manhole cover as a Class III firearm?

      This is why not knowing how guns work is detrimental. You end up writing silly, stupid laws that have nowhere near the intended effect.

      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
      My Blog
      My wife's woodblock prints

      by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:08:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  At least ban (0+ / 0-)

        Those calibers based off the 50 caliber and specifically designed for sniper use.  

        •  Too vague (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, FrankRose

          This is another thing that pisses me off about falsely so called "common sense gun legislation."

          I can't quantify "designed for sniper use." It's so vague and broad that it could apply to any common hunting arm.

          "Blows through a manhole cover" OTOH can be translated into clear, quantifiable, measurable criteria: Joules, Newton-meters, Pascals, at a given distance. The NRA's base may not like it, but there's no question that the law will do exactly as it is intended to do.

          Again: not knowing what we're talking about leads to silly and stupid.

          ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
          My Blog
          My wife's woodblock prints

          by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:32:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Gun Nerdgasm (0+ / 0-)

            There's nothing that pisses me off more than little boys thinking guns are fun toys they get exclusive province over them because of their obsession with them.

            Use muzzle velocity.  Use range.  Use whatever--just stop pretending that it's unreasonable to restrict firearms that have two uses--killing people and giving nerds something to salivate over.  

            •  What I'm hearing is: (4+ / 0-)

              ...that you're not interested in feedback to make better laws, because "fuck you."

              This is precisely why there's very little common ground to be reached.

              ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
              My Blog
              My wife's woodblock prints

              by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:48:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hear whatever you want (0+ / 0-)

                But what I'm saying is that people who are gun nerds have no special province over the regulation of them. Because you get off on them doesn't mean everyone else has to cater to your hobby.  

                •  Is everything sexual with you? (5+ / 0-)
                  Because you get off on them
                  Because something gives you a stiffy
                  specifics to get off on

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:55:26 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  So... (4+ / 0-)

                  ...if that's your attitude about it, why on Earth should I or anyone else who knows better respect your opinion on the matter? Just because you're Internet Famous and happen to have an opinion that is fashionable to express at the time? Please.

                  ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                  My Blog
                  My wife's woodblock prints

                  by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:55:43 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why Should I Respect Your Opinion? (0+ / 0-)

                    Because you have a weird obsession and thinks it makes everyone else's opinion worthless?

                    Gun nuts dismiss everyone else by trying to get technical on every bit of firearm trivia and make people feel stupid for not knowing everything about a firearm--something that's kind of ridiculous to insist on given guns aren't an everyday tool for anyone, but the military and police.  

                    I've suggested other measures and no one responded--the only defense of 50 calibers are

                    A) other guns are similar
                    B) they are just hunting rifles
                    C) they are fun

                    We restrict many kinds of firearms already.  Why not long range sniper rifles above 3000 ft/second?  Or some other rate.  You aren't serious about a discussion of anything that might make sense-- you just want to play with your toys and make fun of those not gun nerds as being simpleminded fools.  

                    It's a bad strategy because that is how far more restrictive laws will eventually come down.  

                    •  Because they, like 'assault weapons' are used in (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      happymisanthropy, andalusi

                      an extremely small fraction of shootings.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:04:09 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Reading is fundamental (0+ / 0-)

                      You might want to look back up this thread. I proposed a perfectly reasonable set of criteria for banning rifles that might be considered too powerful for civilian use. At first I thought you were pissed off because you were ignorant. Now I'm seeing that you're pissed off because I bruised your ego.

                      Again, not impressive.

                      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                      My Blog
                      My wife's woodblock prints

                      by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:11:52 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Except (0+ / 0-)

                        I argued muzzle velocity was another way as well.  My ego isn't bruised.  I'm just baffled by the nerdgasm you all have over firearms.  You aren't trying to help everyone come up with better laws, you are belittling them and acting like they are beneath you because they don't know  every technical detail of a firearm.  

                        That's a problem for you, not me.

                    •  Still no sensible way to ban "sniping" (4+ / 0-)
                      Gun nuts dismiss everyone else by trying to get technical on every bit of firearm trivia and make people feel stupid for not knowing everything about a firearm--something that's kind of ridiculous to insist on given guns aren't an everyday tool for anyone, but the military and police.  
                      No, all we insist is that you don't get to make laws about something you don't understand, because your efforts are going to fail to address real issues, will have lots of unintentional consequences, and will create a lot of harmful political fallout in the process (like the first Assault Weapons Ban that helped the Republicans retake control of the House in 1994).  It's just common sense that if you don't understand something, you have no business trying to regulate it.
                      Why not long range sniper rifles above 3000 ft/second?
                      You don't seem to understand what makes a sniper rifle a sniper rifle.  It's the accuracy.  Sniper rifles do not inherently have higher velocities than "other" kinds of rifles.  Hell, the .50 BMG, which is a very popular bogeyman of the anti-gun crowd, only has a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps, which makes it very pedestrian, and comparable with most hunting rounds except the magnum rounds, which completely outclass it in terms of velocity.

                      What are you going to do, ban well-made rifles that are accurate?  You realize that's what every hunting rifle aspires to be as well?  Are you also going to ban people who "shoot too well"?  Acquiring a good rifle is the easy part.  The hard part is knowing how to shoot it, especially at long range.  A good shooter with a mediocre gun is much more effective than a mediocre shooter with the best gun imaginable.  It's the training and experience, more than anything else, that count.  And your common thugs that are the cause of most gun violence do not have said training.

                      •  Nerdgasms are Unattractive (0+ / 0-)

                        ===No, all we insist is that you don't get to make laws about something you don't understand, because your efforts are going to fail to address real issues, will have lots of unintentional consequences, and will create a lot of harmful political fallout in the process (like the first Assault Weapons Ban that helped the Republicans retake control of the House in 1994).  It's just common sense that if you don't understand something, you have no business trying to regulate it.

                        And once again, the gun nerds only get to make the rules.  You are making my point perfectly.  Instead of coming up with what might be reasonable restrictions on especially deadly firearms you start throwing around whine tirades about how no one knows anything like the gun nerds and I'm going to try and ban all well made rifles.  

                        You are arguing against strawmen arguments and then expect your critiques to be taken seriously.  The thing is, you aren't serious about making good regulations, you just want to whine about how cool guns are and anyone who disagrees is an idiot not worthy of the discussion.  

                        •  haha. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          CydeWeys, andalusi
                          Instead of coming up with what might be reasonable restrictions on especially deadly firearms you start throwing around whine tirades about how no one knows anything like the gun nerds and I'm going to try and ban all well made rifles.  
                          Especially deadly firearms that aren't used to kill people at any appreciable rate. Yes, let's limit them now! You do realize you look kinda silly on this point right? It's like someone saying "Let's ban especially fast cars that never get driven!"

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:28:16 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

                            That's the principal thing I've been arguing with him about, and he Just Doesn't Get It.  He's focusing on all the wrong things.  Maybe if he focused on things that are actually being used to commit crimes in any appreciable numbers then I'd be able to take him more seriously, but he's not.

                        •  I Have To Go (0+ / 0-)

                          But let's leave the three of you with something--notice that everyone just left and ignored you?  Why do you think that is?

                          Your super intellects won the argument and everyone shut-up?  

                          Or you started hounding people and so they had better things to do than listen to fanboys talk about their guns?

                          This is a pretty classic interaction with the average gun nerd.  Gun nerds come in and talk down to everyone--no one listens to them, and they go on about their business while the gun nerds puff out their chest about how stupid everyone is, but them.

                          Is that effective?  

                      •  You don't need to understand the difference (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        meagert

                        if you intend to come back and ban the rest of them later.

                        the purpose of the second amendment is to promote a well-regulated militia, in the same sense that the purpose of the first amendment is to promote a well-informed electorate.

                        by happymisanthropy on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:45:18 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Lots more misunderstandings here (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              You seem to be under the misunderstanding that military-purpose firearms are in general more powerful than civilian-purpose firearms.  This is not true.  Military firearms are only designed for shooting man-sized animals.  Some hunting rifles are designed for shooting at much larger animals, and are correspondingly more powerful.  Some of the big magnum hunting rounds have very high muzzle velocities, very long ranges, etc., and are yet absolutely necessary for certain hunting purposes like taking brown/grizzly bears.

              If you banned cartridges above a certain velocity you'd be banning mostly varmint cartridges anyway (such as .204 Ruger, .22-250 Remington, or .223 Winchester Super Short Magnum).  Varmint cartridges need to be extremely high velocity because you're shooting at very small, easily-frightened targets (pest animals such as prarie dogs, ground hogs, nutria, etc.) at long range, and the quicker your round gets there the less it will be deflected by wind and gravity, so the more accurate the shot.

              Extremely high velocity rounds aren't nearly as useful against human-sized targets because human-sized targets are much larger, and there are lots of drawbacks to extremely high velocity rounds that make them unsuitable for many other situations, such as short barrel life.

              Long story short, you would propose to ban or set regulations on something without knowing the first thing about it.  You wouldn't let Republicans get away with it when they try to make the day-after pill unobtainable because it's "abortion", so why should we let you get away with it in this situation?

              Exactly how many lives would your purported "sniper" ban save anyway?  Do you have any idea how few people are killed in truly sniper situations outside of warfare?  Even the DC Beltway "sniper" was just using a regular AR-15, at ranges much less than what every single soldier and marine routinely train at -- and the common rifleman is not a sniper, and does not have a sniper rifle.

        •  Arch - they will say ANYTHING to (0+ / 0-)

          keep anything from ever happening.  While rkba members on this site swear up and down that they are not "NRA-types", every single one of their talking points shows up in the NRA "alerts" that are sent out....almost word for word too.  Uncanny!  Give it up and just work around them.  There are a lot more people who want something done than don't.

          David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

          by PsychoSavannah on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:05:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder if any of the people reccing your comment (0+ / 0-)

        would actually say "yes" to this question:

        Or do we write a more effective law classifying anything that can blow through a manhole cover as a Class III firearm?
        There's probably destructive capacities that can be objectively measured, but the problem is, it's the destructive capacities that give gun enthusiasts the thrill and make them refuse to agree to limit them.

        Not to mention the people who insist that they are members of a (very disorganized) militia or need firepower to battle the federal government's potential tyranny.  Why would they give up a weapon just because it can down an attack helicopter?  That's why they would want it.

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 10:51:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Kinda (0+ / 0-)

          Your second paragraph is more accurate than the first. Then again, I don't get much of a thrill from guns. To me, they're useful tools.

          Also, I wouldn't choose a .50 BMG rifle to stop an aircraft. A machine gun, yes, but not a semiautomatic rifle, regardless of the power of that round. The use case for something like that is to blow a hole through an engine block or a tank tread.

          They might not like the idea of turning such devices into Class III firearms, but IMO the case to do so is compelling. If they want to own one, they can go through the paperwork and get their $200 tax stamp. I doubt you'll see too many people push back. The case to do this is, IMO, much more compelling than the case for Feinstein's bill.

          ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
          My Blog
          My wife's woodblock prints

          by maxomai on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 03:17:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not the best list (4+ / 0-)

      The vast majority of those aren't .50 caliber firearms being used in a crime, they just happened to be contraband.  Yes, .50 caliber guns can be stolen and sold just like any other kind of gun, or they can be owned by people that then go on to commit other crimes that makes them ineligible to own guns (just like any other kind of gun).  Nothing there is making a case to specifically target those guns for a ban.

      Anyway, the Barrett M82, the .50 caliber rifle most commonly targeted by legislation, weighs 30 pounds unloaded and unscoped, is nearly five feet long, and each loaded magazine weighs an additional 4 pounds.  It's unwieldy to a degree that you won't even understand until you hold one (or try to; most people aren't physically strong enough to wield one).  And it costs $10,000.  It's simply not useful in crime.  It's the Lamborghini of the firearms world.  Anyone trying to ban them has a serious case of misplaced priorities.  You know what would save more lives than banning .50 caliber guns?  Donating $50 to purchase malaria nets in Africa.

      •  So why ban an RPG (0+ / 0-)

        They are expensive, would be a lot of fun to shoot, and are often contraband?

        Because something gives you a stiffy isn't an excuse for keeping it legal.  We restrict all sorts of weapons that are military grade not because they would be used often, but because they achieve a level of dangerousness with very little other use other than 'having fun.'

        •  0_o (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          meagert, FrankRose, happymisanthropy

          What's the obsession with hard ons dude? (Or dudette?)

          We restrict/ban a bunch of military hardware that isn't covered by the second amendment because it's classified as ordnance, not arms (in the second amendment sense).

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:48:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And 50 Calibers aren't covered (0+ / 0-)

            by the Second Amendment.  So what's your point?  The Court has, at best, ruled common infantry weapons of the time are covered by the Second Amendment with limits even then on automatic weapons.  

            I'm not the one who has some weird nerd obsession with firearms. Gun "enthusiasts" are remarkably like D & D obsessives--lots of jargon, not must substance.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site