Skip to main content

View Diary: Polls hint that campaigns against foes of background checks could have an impact with voters (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Meteor Blades: You seem conflicted on the issue. (0+ / 0-)

    From the above, it looks like you're for public safety legislation.

    But your recent comments on my suggestions sounded more like a gun "rights" advocate.

    I'm confused.

    My suggestions again:

    Limit legal guns to those that require hand-loading, one bullet at a time. No detachable magazines (or ammo containers of any name).

    License and register gun owners and gun purchases. All of them. No exceptions.

    Treat them like cars, etc.

    National buyback of all newly illegal guns and ammo.

    Seriously reducing the lethality of weapons is the most important of all public safety measures (concerning guns) and it's the one no one is proposing. Feinstein's bill doesn't go far enough. Limiting magazine size to 10 rounds isn't good enough. It still provides the commando fantasy for the would-be mass killer, and it provides far too much firepower for "ordinary" criminals as well.

    Ratchet it all down to hand-loaded guns, and we radically reduce the carnage in America and remove a big part of the commando fantasy.

    Not sure why you have a problem with that.

    •  Because the one bullet at a time thing... (4+ / 0-)

      ...will mean confiscation of tens of millions of guns, including the majority of modern handguns, which are semi-automatic with detachable magazines.

      No votes exist for such a confiscation, and not just in the hamstrung Senate. In fact, I'd be willing to be bet that the percentages of people opposed to this part of your proposal are about equal to those who support background checks for all: 80%-90% of Americans.

      As a gun-owner, I have no problem with licensing and registration. But that makes me one of what I suspect is a small percentage of gun-owners.

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

      by Meteor Blades on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 02:09:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have had a bad feeling about this whole thing (0+ / 0-)

        politically from the beginnings of this gun 'discussion'...thankfully discussion not manifested before the election!...and that Bloomberg is attacking a dem first, and there are people here who seem to be supporting this...my misgivings seem to be being realized even now, so far from the 2014 elections.
        Now we have to overcome Bloomberg's money and hyperbole in addition to the NRA's?

        great...just great.

        This machine kills Fascists.

        by KenBee on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 02:22:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good for you on registration and licensing. (0+ / 0-)

        To me, it's just common sense.

        I still don't think we need confiscation if we have a voluntary buyback program.

        And, as mentioned, I'd be against actually removing guns from households after the buyback period ends.

        One or two years.

        We could just let gun owners know that if they don't sell their weapons back, they would no longer be able to call themselves "law abiding citizens." And that seems important to gun owners.

        It would be like driving on expired tags, etc. No one comes searching at your home for those, but if you're stopped for other reasons, you get a ticket.

        We could do the same for guns. Perhaps a warning first, then a ticket, then a bigger ticket. Confiscation would be down the road.

        Anyway, I do understand the issue with the numbers. Tens of millions. It's absurd that we ever let it get to this point. We should have limited the firepower from the getgo.

        Guns should be for self-defense, hunting and target practice. There was never a need for commando firepower.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site