Skip to main content

And every time I see someone talk about how limiting magazine sizes would have saved the eleventh, fifteenth or twentieth victim in a massacre, I want to throw something at the screen.

Follow the logic of your own premise!!!

Let's ban all magazines, period. All of them. Of any size. That would most likely prevent a shooter from ever embarking on a killing spree in the first place, as they would no longer have the ability to quickly replace any number of bullets. Psychologically, they would no longer be in the middle of their own combat movie, trying to turn fantasy into reality. They would be physically and emotionally limited.

(And, for those gun nuts who love to pounce on jargon issues, thinking their "gotcha" is a legitimate form of debate -- it's not -- I'm saying ban all detachable ammo containers, of any size, shape or name. Period. You can stuff your jargon.)

We should limit guns to those that require the loading of bullets by hand, one at a time, only. One bullet at a time, with a limit of six per gun. No detachable ammo container allowed. Period. End of story.

That would save lives. And saving lives trumps the protection of deadly pieces of metal every time.

More after the fold . . . .

 

I would add to the above with this:

*Require licensing and registration for all gun owners and all gun purchases. Guns should be treated like cars, in this way. Require tests and training before getting the license.

*Start a national buyback program for all newly illegal guns and ammo. Citizens would have one year to comply voluntarily. If they fail to sell back their weapons and ammo, they then lose the status of "law abiding citizen." They become illegal gun owners.

That said, since we already incarcerate more people per capita than any other nation, I am against confiscation or jailing of those illegal gun owners. It's enough to lose their status as "law abiding citizen." If, however, they are caught using that now illegal weapon in public, it should be confiscated.

*Remove all liability shields won by the gun industry. People should be able to sue them, just as they can sue any other industry.

*Remove all restrictions on the study of gun violence in America. Currently, the CDS and NIH are banned from the study, because the brownshirts at the NRA got Congress to suppress those studies.

*Remove all restrictions across the nation on gun safety regulations. Some states are actually trying to make it illegal to even offer gun safety legislation. That is anti-democratic and despicable.

                                                  . . . .

And all of the above would fully comply with the 2nd Amendment. Nothing suggested above would infringe on anyone's right to "keep and bear arms." The amendment was never, ever a protection of consumer choice. It was never, ever a guarantee that Americans could buy any gun available, of any capacity or technology. We could ban 99.9% of all guns and ammo and still comply with the SA. As long as Americans can "keep and bear arms" we are in full compliance.

Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 8:05 AM PT: It's interesting that in the comments, some see my suggestions as "extreme." So it's "extreme" to want to reduce the out-of-control firepower now available pretty much to anyone? It's "extreme" to call for an end to the escalation of firepower and weapons capacity in America? It's extreme to want to get rid of the weapons of choice for mass murderers?

Sorry, but that's not extreme at all. That's just common sense. What's "extreme" is the defense of those weapons of mass destruction. Defending the escalation of firepower in America is extreme. Defending the easy access to weapons of mass destruction is extreme. Defending the easy availability of high-capacity weaponry is extreme. Obviously. Self-evidently so. It's extreme to actually defend the existence of weapons that mowed down twenty children in Newtown, along with six adults. That's extreme. That's crazy. That's indefensible.

Originally posted to diomedes77 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  You deserve some credit for thinking outside the (10+ / 0-)

    box. We've got a massive number of citizens in support of limited magazine sizes, I'm pretty sure that number would drop significantly under the "One is enough" approach you proposed.

    But damn, it would send the NRA in to a lather, which would be funny as hell to watch. I don't think it would have a hope in hell of becoming law but it's definitely a way to make a point. Make the other side prove there's a need for 10 shot magazines. Put them on the defensive.

    You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

    by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:37:09 AM PDT

    •  It's time to end incrimentalism. (5+ / 0-)

      Aside from me fully believing that my suggestions would save lives and fully comply with the Constitution, I also think it's smart negotiating.

      Obama and the Dems too often negotiate with themselves before they ever bring anything to the floor. In the case of the background check, for instance, it's absurd that two A+ NRA guys worked out the deal.

      Why not for a change, start with full-fledged progressive -- at least -- legislation and then make the argument why it's the best way to go?

      (I'm a leftist, so I'd prefer something to the left of progressive. But it would be amazing to even get a truly progressive proposal now and then.)

      How can those of us on the left enthusiastically support a center-right compromise of a compromise?

      This was the case with ACA as well. It started out as a Heritage Fund model, and Obama and the Dems asked progressives to back a center-right proposal with enthusiasm.

      This has always frustrated the bejeejus out of me, for so many reasons, and it's something that Republicans never do. They push their own full-fledged policies and expect the "compromise" to go from there. The Dems, OTOH, start with a Republican proposal, too, and then hope they meet in the middle somewhere . . . . which ends up meaning between the center-right and the hard right.

      That's crazy. Not only is it bad policy, it's bad negotiating.

    •  Repeal the Second Amendment. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AdamR510, DerAmi, diomedes77, Bluesee

      Let our citizens in cities, counties, states, and the USA vote on what they want to do about gun-violence.

      2A no longer belongs in the Constitution -- if it ever did.

      I personally support all the measures outlined in this diary, and more. (Mandatory liability insurance, drug tests to get the license, 'DWI' penalties for handling a loaded gun while intoxicated or on drugs, etc.)

  •  So, your solution is (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JesseCW, Dreggas, trumpeter

    the flintlock.  

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:37:29 AM PDT

    •  Well, that would be great. But, no. (4+ / 0-)

      More like the revolver.

      Six shots per gun, max. But you have to load each bullet by hand, one at a time.

      No detachable, removable magazines or drums or anything you want to call them. It would be illegal to add or remove any ammo container from the gun.

      Ban all magazines and drums, and any kind of gun that can use them, at the manufacture, import, transfer, sale or possession stage.

      •  You are the out of touch extremist (5+ / 0-)

        who is used as a boogeyman to turn people against sane and effective regulation of guns.

        If you did not already exist, the NRA would hire PR people to create you.

        I know that you are for real, and I am not accusing you of being any kind of paid operative.

        They don't need to do that.  They have you doing it for free.

        I love you stupid fucking fucks. Now stop poking at the dead cat on the table and get back to the issues.

        by JesseCW on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:47:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh please, the NRA shot down sensible measures (10+ / 0-)

          yesterday. And not because of ideas like this but because they oppose sane measures, ANY measures, that could possible impact gun/ammo sales by 0.000001%. We've failed so often for so long why not use the Overton window on them? Drag the discussion so far to the left that they'll be forced to compromise somewhere in the realm of sanity.

          You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

          by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:54:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ITA (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ontheleftcoast, coquiero

            Who's out there shushing the NRA and half the Senate and telling them they need to be reasonable? Apparently nobody.

          •  Well said. Move the Overton window. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ontheleftcoast, BvueDem, Keninoakland

            Though, again, I don't think my suggestions are extreme at all. Just logical and rational.

            They're only "extreme" to gun nuts, IMO. Because, to them, any restrictions on their ability to buy any weapon they choose is "extreme."

            To me, it's self-evident that their desire to have unlimited capacity (and unlimited consumer choice) is extreme. Physics and history backs me, not them.

            •  Well, I'm hardly a gun nut and I think your (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              BlackSheep1, andalusi

              ideas are extreme. I do not, and never will, own a gun. But I live in a rural area and know people who have a need for them. Thus I support gun ownership with limits not the NRA "Arsenals For All" insanity.

              You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

              by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:07:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  How are they extreme? Be specific, please. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BvueDem, BusyinCA

                You said people need them in rural areas. Okay. I'm suggesting we limit guns to those you have to load one bullet at a time. That means they can still have their hunting rifles, their shotguns, their revolvers, even their 357 magnums.

                I'm not suggesting a ban on all guns. Far from it. Just a ban on detachable ammo containers and guns that can utilize them.

                Seriously. How is that extreme?

                Who needs a weapon with detachable ammo containers, other than mass shooters?

                •  Well, by it's very nature the limit of one is (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  extreme. That's as low as you can possibly go, the definition of extreme or limit. And you even realize it. For example, you allow for revolvers. How is a six shot revolver any different than a magazine? You do realize that a simple plastic clip that holds the bullets in proper alignment will make reloading a revolver nearly as easy as reloading a magazine? So if you're going to allow revolvers and not magazines that's kind of silly.

                  You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                  by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:21:55 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Here's what Diomedes77 wrote: (4+ / 0-)
                    One bullet at a time, with a limit of six per gun. No detachable ammo container allowed.
                    More like the revolver.
                    Six shots per gun, max. But you have to load each bullet by hand, one at a time.
                    No detachable, removable magazines or drums or anything you want to call them. It would be illegal to add or remove any ammo container from the gun.
                    For most of American history, gun capacity didn't exceed six rounds per gun, and everyone had to load bullets one at a time.
                    It improves dialogue to respond to what other people actually say. :-)
                    •  Yes, that's what he said (0+ / 0-)

                      But the reality is quick load revolvers already exist. So that makes a revolver and a 6-round magazine virtually identical. He wants to ban one and not the other. Sorry, but that's just silly.

                      You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                      by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:23:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Most people know nothing about . . . (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Keninoakland, BvueDem

                        quick load devices. And mass shooters, when given the choice, choose their weapons with magazines. They go on their sprees with those, even though they have access to all kinds of other weaponry. They choose the AR-15s.

                        If these things are just as good, supposedly, then why do we never hear of mass shooters using them?

                        Psychologically, this is because many of them have combat fantasies, or game or movie fantasies. And it's pretty rare that you'll see a speed-loading revolver in any of those, but you will see gunmen swapping out magazines.

                        You immediately reduce the sense of power that comes from a high-capacity combat-like weapon when you ban those.

                        And, seriously, how can anything be "silly"
                         when it comes to this subject, other than fighting every single idea to reduce carnage? We're talking about the reduction of firepower in order to save lives, and you think that's "silly"?

                        No one needs magazines or detachable ammo containers in general. No one. Except for people who want to massacre their fellow human beings.

                        Why fight so hard to protect them?

                        •  And there's that extremism again (0+ / 0-)
                          No one needs magazines or detachable ammo containers in general. No one. Except for people who want to massacre their fellow human beings.
                          And I'm on your side, whether you believe me or not. Just don't kid yourself. You're taking an extreme stance with some "creative" logic. But I still applaud your actions.

                          You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                          by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 03:00:05 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, how is that extreme? Don't just (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BvueDem

                            say it's extreme. Demonstrate how it's extreme.

                            Can you honestly say that magazines are necessary?

                            Can you honestly say they aren't the weapons of choice (guns with magazines) for mass shooters?

                            Than how can a ban on magazines and the guns that use them be "extreme"?

                            They aren't necessary for hunting, target practice or self-defense. They are virtually always the go-to weapon for mass killers.

                            Why allow them? They serve no useful purpose other than to make massacres easier. And that's not an "extreme" statement. It's simply factual.

                          •  You make the claim that the *ONLY* reason (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            the one and only reason for wanting a magazine is mass murder and you want me to tell you why that isn't extreme?

                            Wow. I'm speechless. I'm done with this diary. Goodbye.

                            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:08:31 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, come on. I never said "wanting". (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BvueDem

                            I never said the only reason that a person "wants" magazines is to massacre others.

                            I said magazines aren't necessary, except for gun sprees.

                            Are you telling me you can't see the difference between wanting something and its necessity?

                            Come on.

                            Your reading is "extreme". Not what I said.

                          •  You might want (or rather you might need) to study (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            the English language.

                            want [wont, wawnt]  

                            verb (used with object)  
                            1. to feel a need or a desire for; wish for: to want one's dinner; always wanting something new.  

                            2.  to wish, need, crave, demand, or desire (often followed by an infinitive):

                            Need and want are often used interchangeably. While it is the case 'need' can be seen as a 'necessity' it does not carry the same weight in conversation especially when used as a verb. If you're going to go "word lawyer" as your defense you might want to actually check with a source before you do.

                            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:38:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I could teach English, bud. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BvueDem

                            There is a huge difference between wanting something and needing something.

                            My father, the English teacher, taught me that when I was four.

                            But this does help flesh out the absurdity of your entire argument a bit more. It's based solely on a misreading of want and need, a bad splitting of hairs that is totally irrelevant to the topic.

                            It would benefit your argument if you actually focused on the subject of gun safety, instead of your bizarre projections.

                          •  If that's your sole defense to calling people (0+ / 0-)

                            murdering wannabes then have at it. And you will be called "extreme" by more folks than me.

                            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:53:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But I DIDN'T call them that. Sheeesh. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BvueDem

                            Man, take a deep breath, step back from the computer for awhile, and then reread what I said.

                            You won't be able to come to the same conclusion. It's simply not on the page.

                            You. Are. Projecting.

                          •  I don't want, need, or require a gun (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            I don't want, need, or require a magazine. I don't want, need, or have the desire to control people that do. Now, who is projecting? Thanks for playing!

                            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:01:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you want to reduce gun violence? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BvueDem

                            I do.

                            Do you think America NEEDS to reduce it?

                            I do. Most Americans do. The families of the victimized do. The numbers show we do. There are 32,000 gun deaths a year. Actual human beings. Real people.

                            We NEED to reduce that, if we can't eliminate it altogether. I can't think of a reason to not WANT that reduction.

                            My suggestions would reduce gun violence, while still complying with the SA.

                            Why do you WANT to fight against that?

                          •  Psst. Here's a little tip -- most gun deaths don't (0+ / 0-)

                            come from magazines or spree killings. Good old fashion pistols accomplish that. It's not the crazy add-ons, it's the guns -- period. So you need to find a way to get rid of the guns. But the 2nd kind of puts a cramp in that. So you have to find other solutions -- like ending the war on drugs, that would probably save 10,000 lives a year in the stroke of a pen. Reducing poverty and therefore crime would get rid of thousands more. Providing good mental health care to reduce suicides would get rid of thousands more. And not a single gun regulation would be required. Mind you, I still think we should have universal background checks, registration of all firearms, even gun liability insurance. I think those things would be good ideas that would further lower gun violence and deaths. But they're the small potatoes things. Of course they're also the small potatoes things we might be able to achieve. The question for you is do you want to reduce deaths or merely get rid of the guns? I want to focus on the attainable and work for the greater good. But I welcome people pushing the conversation back to the left even if I don't agree with them.

                            You can't assassinate the character of any of modern conservative. You'd have to find where it was buried, dig it up, resurrect it, then kill it. And killing a zombie isn't really assassination, is it?

                            by ontheleftcoast on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 06:08:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •   Lots of common ground there. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm an anti-capitalist egalitarian, an ecosocialist, a radical democrat by choice. Not as in the Democratic Party, but as in democracy.

                            So, yeah, I'm in favor of strong remedies for inequality, a total end to the drug war, a society that provides health care and education and all the rest as a matter of citizenship. As a right. One that views improving quality of life for everyone as the prime directive of government.

                            If I had been there at the writing of the BOR, I wouldn't have included a special set aside right for guns. But I would have included special set aside rights for clean water, safe food, shelter, clothes, quality healthcare, a healthy environment and education. The necessities of life. To me, it's crazy that they had one for guns but NOT for life's necessities.

                            As for the rest. It's a process. Banning certain guns will reduce overall supply, which will reduce overall gun violence, and reduce the perception that more guns need to be bought -- with or without magazines. A gun ban will start a downward trajectory of gun purchasing, to reverse the trend of upward trajectory now:

                            (Fewer homes have them. But more guns are being purchased by fewer people, etc.)

                            Saving lives will have a ripple effect and will start to break the hold of guns on the American imagination. That is the first step in a long process of evolution and growth away from barbarism.

                    •  You need a refresher (0+ / 0-)

                      in lobbing HRs -- but, frankly, no skin off my nose.

                      " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

                      by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:54:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Nothing I propose is extreme. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, BusyinCA

          It's all logical and rational and will save lives. For most of American history, gun capacity didn't exceed six rounds per gun, and everyone had to load bullets one at a time.

          What makes it "extreme" to see that as preferable to detachable magazines and drums?

          Protecting lives is rational. Protecting deadly pieces of metal from regulation is extreme.

          •  How do you imagine (0+ / 0-)

            bullets are loaded into a magazine?

            " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

            by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:16:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm talking about the gun itself. (0+ / 0-)

              You shoot your six bullets, you can't just slap in a magazine with 10 or 30 or 100 rounds.

              You have to put on bullet in at a time, limited to six per gun.

              That, again, destroys the fantasy of living in a commando movie, and physically limits the shooter.

              And it fully complies with the SA.

              That's a far more logical way to go than to limit magazine size, which still allows for the commando fantasy and the quick-load, mass shooting.

              •  I have a Smith & Wesson .22 (5+ / 1-)

                with a 10 round magazine.  I have never thought of using it on a human or animal.  I target shoot.  It is zealots like you who put a face on the NRA fear mongering.

                " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

                by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:42:44 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We shouldn't make public policy based (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BvueDem, Bluesee

                  upon one person or a few. It doesn't matter that you, personally, wouldn't think of using your gun on a human or an animal. You're not everyone.

                  The vast majority of people don't speed, or drive drunk, or rape, or steal. But we still have laws and regulations and restrictions to cover those things.

                  It's bizarre that gun owners continuously trot out the idea that they don't break the law so we don't need any laws when it comes to guns. Using their logic, we shouldn't have any laws, regulations or restrictions on anything, because the vast majority of Americans don't commit X, Y or Z crimes. They're unnecessary, because most Americans don't commit them, blah blah blah.

                  •  I am in one of the most (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BlackSheep1

                    regulated states in the union -- Connecticut.  I backed every single one of those measures.  You want to make public policy that is tailored to your extremist views.  

                    I already had a background check -- fingerprints taken -- took a gun safety course.  Besides those requirements prior to the new law, I could lose my guns and permit for a number of reasons.

                    So, please, save your assumptions about how I feel about needing laws.  You don't know shite about me.

                    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

                    by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:22:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There is nothing extreme in my proposals. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Bluesee

                      It's a centrist compromise position between no guns and no restrictions.

                      Again, as mentioned, the vast majority of the developed world already has similar regulations and restrictions in place, and would consider my suggestions middle of the road.

                      Only in America do some see centrism, in full compliance with the SA, as "extreme."

                      Licensing and registering guns like cars is "extreme"? Not hardly.

                      Limiting the lethality of guns to those without detachable magazines is "extreme"? No way.

                      Offering to buyback weapons is extreme? Ask Australians about that one.

                      It's the sensible, logical, rational compromise between no guns and no regulations.

                •  I think we need a refresher course on HRs and (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  andalusi, gchaucer2, FrankRose

                  their usages...

                  *sigh.

                  "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

                  by auron renouille on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:53:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I was trained on a .38 S&W K-frame (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                andalusi, FrankRose, heybuddy

                a long, long time ago in a place far, far away. Without a speedloader it's possible to put two, three, four rounds (we were taught "stress condition" reloading -- drop in two rounds, rotate the cylinder, drop in three, rotate the cylinder as you close it and take aim -- you won't know which chambers are loaded, which not) into a revolver in one go. I don't doubt that you could in fact get five or six rounds in, with practice.

                So, yeah. I consider your suggestions extreme.
                Unworkable, too.

                LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:03:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your comment makes no sense. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's like you said:

                  "Well, strawberries are really tasty, so that means your gun safety regulations won't work."

                  To say that some people can "speed load" in no way invalidates the rational, logical, sensible idea to do away with magazines -- or detachable ammo containers in general.

                  No one needs detachable magazines or ammo containers except for mass murderers. They serve no purpose other than to massively increase the ability of a killer to kill more people.

                  Doing away with them doesn't infringe upon your ability to "keep and bear arms."

                  It's the most rational compromise between no guns and no restrictions, while keeping in full compliance with the SA.

                  •  Maybe you *should* read up on jargon (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    BlackSheep1

                    Then you would realize BlackSheep 1 was talking about a specific tool used to rapidly load revolvers, not just people who learned how to load quickly.

                    •  Who cares? That still doesn't negate (0+ / 0-)

                      the rationale for doing away with magazines.

                      It's always going to be easier to swap out magazines than to use some kind of additional device to load revolvers. And the psychological impact of carrying a combat-like weapon won't be replaced by that speed loading device. It won't match the shooter's fantasy images, or provoke the sense of increased power due to a high-powered gun.

                      But you keep on stretching, now. Gun nuts just get more and more desperate to protect their "precious" by the day.

                      •  It does change your argument, though (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        heybuddy, FrankRose, BlackSheep1

                        Your point was you only want guns that can be loaded one round at a time. Revolvers aren't in that category.

                        Actually, many if not most semiautomatics with nondetachable magazines aren't in that category either. You can use a stripper clip to quickly reload. That's again not quite as quick as a detachable magazine change, but if you've got the stripper clips already loaded, it is a lot quicker than loading one by one: one quick push of the thumb and the magazine's loaded.

                        This is just me being pedantic, of course. I get your point: you only want guns that are slow and inconvenient to reload. You just weren't aware that even revolvers and older rifle designs aren't in that category. So now you know and can revise your list of what's kosher for people to own.

                        I should point out I honestly don't care if you think we should only have flintlocks and blunderbusses. Just as I don't care if actual gun nuts (and you do not know what one is if you think you see them here on the Daily Kos) go on about blue helmet UN confiscation squads. Their viewpoint as well as yours are not based in anything that is going to happen now or likely in my lifetime, if ever.

                        •  Then we ban those stripper clips. (0+ / 0-)

                          Everything you throw up that says it's actually easier to load than a magazine, we ban.

                          The point is to make it difficult to reload, and to limit the number of bullets.

                          That will save lives.

                    •  didn't have a speedloader. Speedloading by hand (0+ / 0-)

                      I have small front feet, though. Somebody with hands as big as the average NBA player could maybe manage six.

                      LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                      by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:53:30 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  It would be a good place to begin negotiations (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            diomedes77

            Start with 6, move to 8 as a comprise and perhaps settle for 10. Better tactic than starting at ten, then asking if 20 might be a grander bargain and settling for asking "Please Sir, may I have another?"

        •  How long have detachable magazines been around? (3+ / 0-)

          People got along without them for a long time.

          Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:40:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bingo!! We have a winner!! (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BvueDem, Keninoakland, BusyinCA

            That's what I've been saying.

            Why is it suddenly extreme to want to limit guns to the firepower they had throughout the vast majority of our history?

            Who needs a gun with detachable magazines? No one but a mass shooter.

            •  Who needs freedom of religion? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              heybuddy

              Who needs reasonable search and seizure?
              Who needs freedom of speech?

              Your opinions of necessity are irrelevant.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:19:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So you equate freedom of expression, conscience (0+ / 0-)

                and the protection of your personal space from unlawful search and seizure with the ability to purchase high-capacity weapons?

                Hmmm. Yeah, riiiight. They're just the same.

                •  I think that equating Constitutional liberties (0+ / 0-)

                  with.......ya know.......Constitutional liberties is appropriate.

                  And your opinions of necessity are irrelevant for all of them.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 04:32:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  There is no Constitional protection for (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Silvia Nightshade

                    purchasing high-capacity weaponry. It doesn't exist.

                    Your consumer choice isn't protected. The SA doesn't protect your ability to choose from a vast array of weapons.

                    It just says "keep and bear arms" in the context of a well-regulated militia.

                    And even if we ignore the part about militias that no longer exist, you still have zero protections for unlimited consumer choice.

                    We could ban 99.9% of all weapons and still FULLY comply with the 2nd amendment.

                    "Keep and bear arms."

                    It doesn't say "keep and bear any arm I so desire, regardless of lethality, capacity, firepower or technology."

                    •  It says 'keep and bear arms.. (0+ / 0-)

                      shall not be infringed'

                      Banning 99% of firearms constitutes an infringement. An egregious one.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:18:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No infringement at all. (0+ / 0-)

                        Because you would STILL be able to "keep and bear arms." Your right to do so wouldn't be impacted one iota.

                        You're confusing your desire for the widest possible array of consumer choice with what the amendment actually says.

                        It has zero to do with consumer choice.

                        It just says "keep and bear arms" in the context of a well-regulated militia.

                        And my suggestions obviously don't ban anything close to 99% of weapons. There would be thousands of different guns you could still "keep and bear." Thousands.

                        Hence, zero infringement.

                        •  A ban is an infringement. (0+ / 0-)

                          But then you are dealing in absurdities, so why bother with the actual definitions of words?
                          Just keep running with it.

                          This alternate reality of yours is fascinating to behold.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:33:30 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  We already have bans on certain weapons. (0+ / 0-)

                            You can't legally purchase certain kinds of guns right now. You can't legally purchase certain kinds of weapons right now. And you've never been able to purchase them.

                            Can you walk into a store and legally buy a shoulder-launch anti-aircraft gun?

                            We're just talking about degrees and kinds of bans, not the ability to ban weapons itself. It has always been legal to ban certain kinds of weapons.

                            Again, the amendment never says a thing about your right to unlimited consumer choice. It's a very narrow "right" to keep and bear arms, with a stated assumption of regulation. As in, "well-regulated" militia.

                            A ban of certain weapons fully complies with the letter and spirit of the SA. It always has. Always will. Easily. With room to spare.

                          •  But my liberty (0+ / 0-)

                            is infringed since I can't drive 100mph down the highway to work.  WTF is up with that?!  

                            "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

                            by Silvia Nightshade on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 05:31:37 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can drive as fast as you like... (0+ / 0-)

                            Just not on a public road.

                            Analogy fail.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 06:49:53 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  in common usage for civilians, 110 years at least (4+ / 0-)

            The Colt 1903 pocket hammerless is a basic classic semi-automatic magazine fed pistol.

            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
            Emiliano Zapata

            by buddabelly on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:30:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  No you are. (0+ / 0-)

          nah nu nah nu nah nah

          I am not discussing these issues with the NRA anymore. Because I have a seven year old child that has more intelligent conversations with me.

          And because I have a seven year old child.

          Look up the ages of the vicitims.

          This better be good. Because it is not going away.

          by DerAmi on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:40:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Guess you've never seen (0+ / 0-)

        a revolver speedloader.

        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

        by jrooth on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:02:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Prepare to be disappointed (0+ / 0-)

        It's very easy to load all the rounds in a revolver at once:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    •  its the Real Constitutional Solution! (7+ / 0-)

      The weapons that were known at time the constitution was written!

      Anything else isnt covered .... try that original constructionists

      •  Cannons for private citizens, then? (0+ / 0-)

        I believe there were civilians who had cannons at the time.

        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:42:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, for crying out loud. 21 feet ... (0+ / 0-)

        and then you start talking about other options.

        Aaron "Hotch" Hotchner: [indicating the hogtied prisoners] We captured these four.
        Dr. Spencer Reid: Without firing a shot?
        John Blackwolf: [indicating Hotch] Captain America there just had to shoot number 5.
        Aaron "Hotch" Hotchner: And there's a sixth one cut up pretty badly. I don't think he's gonna make it.
        John Blackwolf: At least I didn't shoot him.
        Derek Morgan: I think I'd rather be shot.

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

        by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:12:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Black Powder (5+ / 0-)

      Can be used to make bombs. Has to go.

      Pressure cookers can be made into bombs. They have to go.

      Backpacks can be used to hide bombs. No more backpacks...

      In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

      by boriscleto on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:47:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The same lame false analogies. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DerAmi, BvueDem, Bluesee

        Guns are deadly pieces of metal with no other purpose than to kill. The other items you mention? They are produced for things like cooking and carrying books.

        See the difference?

        And I'm not talking about banning all guns. Just those that can use detachable ammo containers and the containers themselves.

        •  How do you propose (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BlackSheep1, FrankRose

          the government pay for this taking?  Of course, that's if they can actually take, conservatively, 200 million arms.  

          " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

          by gchaucer2 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:14:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tax the gun industry. (0+ / 0-)

            They make their money through death and the stoking up of fear and paranoia. They serve zero purpose in our society other than to make killing others far easier.

            They need to be taxed heavily and treated like the death merchants of Tobacco. They're kissing cousins.

            •  already taxed, it pays for most wildlife (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              conservation. You hate eagles or something?

              How big is your personal carbon footprint?

              by ban nock on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:34:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I know they're already taxed. Tax more. (0+ / 0-)

                We did it with cigarettes. We should do it with guns. Guns kill 32,000 Americans a year. Cigarettes are in the 400,000 plus range. Aside from the costs in human lives, society bears major financial costs due to both as well.

                Gun violence, for instance, is extremely costly for hospitals and doctors, especially emergency rooms.

                I favor putting more of the burden on the industry itself, though, as opposed to the buyer. Neither industry should be able to externalize its deadly costs to society. They should foot the bill.

          •  Democracy. (0+ / 0-)

            Or not?

            This better be good. Because it is not going away.

            by DerAmi on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:44:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I love Democracy. We should do this (0+ / 0-)

              through the vote.

              And if Americans were given objective information about gun violence, they'd vote for the things I propose.

              Unfortunately, the brownshirts at the NRA made sure Americans couldn't get those objective facts, by shutting down studies at the CDC and NIH.

              They then flood the airwaves and society overall with industry propaganda. Similar to the Tobacco industry in the past, and Big Oil and Big Chem today. In keeping with overall Corporate American propaganda.

              Profit before people. Always. That's their motto.

        •  I use mine for target shooting. (0+ / 0-)

          so I guess there's that other use of guns.  It's like pool but with less physics and more chemistry.

          I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

          by wretchedhive on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:57:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  No. In fact it allows semi-automatics. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      andalusi

      This addresses the capabilities of a gun that actually matter to spree killers.

      There are semi-autos with small internal magazines that are reasonable for hunting, would be mistakenly covered by a blanket ban on semi-automatics, but which this proposal would leave in use.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:38:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ideally they should confiscate all modern guns... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and in exchange issue flintlock pistols, black powder and a cutlass.

    Boehner Just Wants Wife To Listen, Not Come Up With Alternative Debt-Reduction Ideas

    by dov12348 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:42:18 AM PDT

  •  Ideas like this (6+ / 0-)

    Are why the NRA is so extreme...

    In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    by boriscleto on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:43:36 AM PDT

  •  It would be easier to get the Constitution (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper

    amended.....

    The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

    by ctexrep on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:43:40 AM PDT

    •  Easier? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ctexrep, BlackSheep1, FrankRose, heybuddy

      It would be easier to stage a coup and include no flintlock muzzle loaded weapon legality in the new Magna Faila of Diomedesia.

       

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:50:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My suggestions fully comply with it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      out of left field

      Nothing I suggest goes against the 2nd amendment.

      That said, I am for the abolition of the 2nd amendment. We are one of just two countries with it. It's unnecessary. People could still buy guns without it.

      And its history is deeply racist and despicable, imposed to protect slavery.

      It was always insane to have an amendment to protect deadly pieces of metal and NOT have them for safe food and water, shelter, health care, education, etc.

      We should have a right to those things, as necessities of life. There is no rational reason to have a right to deadly pieces of metal.

      It's barbaric.

      •  This is the thing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        heybuddy

        you had the courage to admit you would want the 2nd amendment abolished.

        The NRA feeds off of gun control advocates "long fight" because that's disguise for "we want the 2nd amendment abolished" - that turns into - they're going to take your guns.

        You know that.

        I know that.

        That's why they won't give an inch.

        Why everyone keeps pretending is beyond me - violence won't end with background checks - so then after the next mass shooting - there will be calls for stricter and stricter regulations until ultimately, the 2nd amendment is abolished.

        I respect you for your honesty.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:33:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, my suggestions work fine (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bluesee

          within the confines of the SA.

          Easily, with room to spare.

          And, yes, I do support the repeal of the 2nd, as I find it an odious, barbaric, racist and totally unnecessary "right" that never should have been established in the first place.

          But its repeal isn't necessary in order to put in place serious gun safety regulation. The big lie among gun rights supporters is that the 2nd protects their consumer choice.

          It never did. It started out with restrictions in place. Blacks couldn't buy or own weapons. It was put in place, in fact, to suppress slave rebellions and popular rebellions in general -- which is the opposite of the right's line on its origins.

          That said, I think most people who advocate for gun regulation DON'T support repeal of the 2nd. Those of us who do are currently in a minority. But, someday, we'll be in the majority -- if America evolves.

          Regardless, two things are essential here:

          1. Gun regulation is Constitutional.
          2. The 2nd is not necessary for gun ownership.

          We can have gun regulation with the 2nd in place, and gun ownership without it in place.

    •  But both are possible. n-t (0+ / 0-)

      This better be good. Because it is not going away.

      by DerAmi on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:45:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well. . .I think your solution would require (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper, Dreggas, gchaucer2, heybuddy

    the country being taken over by a dictator and a prolonged guerrilla war lasting decades and destroying the world economy and causing countless deaths. In other words--I think we'd be better served doing nothing, which seems to be what we're doing anyway.

    It may be that it doesn't infringe on some interpretations of the 2nd Amendment--but that seems to be the only part of the Constitution left intact.

    “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

    by jeff in nyc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:44:13 AM PDT

    •  Nonsense. Why on earth would it require that? (0+ / 0-)

      People would still be able to "keep and bear arms." They just wouldn't be able to keep and bear military or similar weapons. And their guns would be treated like cars. They'd need a license, and they'd have to register them like cars.

      It's not extreme, and wouldn't cause any civil war.

      •  yeah but you can imagine (4+ / 0-)

        any sort of imaginary scenario, without any possible way of implementing it in this country, and then say that it's realistic. It's not going to make other people join you in your parallel universe, no matter how much you want to drag them there.

        •  Australia successfully implemented part (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BusyinCA, out of left field

          of what I suggest, and gun violence was cut in half. Many European countries require licensing and registration of guns -- like Switzerland.

          Only in America is it seen as "extreme" to do the things I suggest above. In most of the rest of the world, they would be considered centrist "compromise" positions between no restrictions and no guns.

          •  Other countries (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            heybuddy

            Name another country founded via a violent revolution and that has gun ownership explicitly called out in their founding document.

            I respect what you are trying to do, but this is not some pesky county ordinance.  Constitutional law is universally binding and almost impossible to change.

            The challenge is to develop a solution within these parameters not dream up alternate realities where these things magically go away.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:51:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It all complies with the Constitution. (0+ / 0-)

              As mentioned.

              Nothing I suggest goes against the Constitution.

              See the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the 2nd amendment itself.

              It just says "keep and bear arms" and is tied to membership in a state-run, well-regulated militia, which no longer exist.

              Even if we ignore the militia part, all of my suggestions comply with "keep and bear arms."

              We could literally ban 99.9% of all weapons in America and people could still "keep and bear arms." The amendment doesn't say "keep and bear any arm I desire to keep and bear, regardless of firepower or technology."

              It does NOT protect consumer choice.

              There isn't even anything in the amendment to protect loading that weapon. Nothing in there about bullets. And it was assumed at the time that guns would be loaded only as needed. People generally never walked around with loaded guns in the 18th century. They loaded them, one bullet at a time, as needed.

              •  It complies with YOUR reading of the Constitution (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BlackSheep1, FrankRose, heybuddy

                and I hope your senatorial confirmation goes well so you can make rulings from the bench on this.

                Until then, we have 150+ years of Federal jurisprudence telling us differently, most recently with the Heller case.

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:16:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Heller went against 200 years of precedent. (0+ / 0-)

                  Before Heller, the 2nd amendment was seen as a collective right, not an individual right.

                  Scalia and the four other wingnuts on the court flat out invented bizarre tangentials like "in common use", pulling that out of thin air.

                  It is impossible, literally, to derive "in common use" from the 2nd amendment as written. That's totally their projection of their own agenda onto that amendment.

      •  OK, so you are talking about a scenario in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        diomedes77

        a country with popular support for lawfully putting through such changes via democratic processes.

        “liberals are the people who think that cruelty is the worst thing that we do” --Richard Rorty Also, I moved from NYC, so my username is inaccurate.

        by jeff in nyc on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:50:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. Democratically. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bluesee

          And, as mentioned above, I think the American people would go for all of the above if given the proper objective facts about gun violence, and if they see the proposals as they truly are.

          Gun nuts will do their best to alter them, lie about them, distort them. But if the American people read them as is, they'll vote for their passage.

          The biggest distortion is already apparent in the comments.

          I say specifically that the ban would only be on magazines, drums and detachable ammo containers in general, and the guns that utilize them.

          That means, people could still "keep and bear" any gun that can be loaded by hand, one bullet at a time, using internal chambers -- up to six per gun. That means rifles, shotguns, and very powerful handguns like a 357 magnum. It means revolvers.

          No one needs a gun with a detachable ammo container, except for mass shooters.

  •  Amended Jurisprudence by Fiat (5+ / 0-)
    Remove all liability shields won by the gun industry. People should be able to sue them, just as they can sue any other industry.
    That is so mind-bogglingly absurd it almost completely glosses over the HUGE SCARY AS SHIT FACTOR of this even being possible.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:48:17 AM PDT

    •  It's absurd to treat the gun industry like (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      out of left field

      other industries? Really? The gun industry is alone in its protections from citizens.

      Of course, Monsanta, as a corporation, now has won similar protections.

      But the gun industry is the only one fully indemnified from liabilities.

      That's insane and needs to change.

      •  Other manufacturers can be held liable (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1, FrankRose, heybuddy

        when someone uses their product to commit a crime?

        You could sue a knife manufacturer if you got stabbed?

        Could you sue Ford if someone ran over a family member drunk driving a Mustang?

        There answer to these things is of course no, as made clear in endless amounts of common law citations.  And the fact is that Congress has passed laws regarding liability for PLENTY of industries, like small airplane manufactures and vaccine clinics, we also have strict laws limiting liability of volunteer workers and a LOT of liability shields for Labor Unions.

        And you do know the PLCAA (which is the law you are referencing) passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support.  It passed with over 67% of the house and 65 votes in the Senate.  

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:32:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I couldn't care less about so-called . . . (0+ / 0-)

          bi-partisan support, especially when it comes to guns. Both parties are wrong on the issue, with the GOP being extremely wrong. Both parties kow-tow the fascists in the NRA, and the gun industry overall.

          The PLCAA (2005) needs to be repealed.

          •  That is clearly your position (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gchaucer2, FrankRose, heybuddy

            I got that loud and clear.

            I just wanted to point out legal facts regarding Tortial Liability that repealing this will not some how make gun manufacturers liable for murders or mass-murders.

            That responsibility will still rest on the perpetrators, willing accomplices or anyone that acted unlawfully or negligently in a manner that enabled the act.

            Product liability would only exist in cases where a defect or overlooked hazard injured someone while the gun was being otherwise properly operated.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:45:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not true. (0+ / 0-)

              From the wiki entry on the PLCAA:

              In the years before passage of the act, victims of firearms violence in the United States had successfully sued manufacturers and dealers for negligence on the grounds that they should have foreseen that their products would be diverted to criminal use.[2] The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products (i.e. automobiles, appliances, power tools, etc.) are held responsible.
              •  You have to show criminality (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, heybuddy

                That wiki citation is to media matters referencing the DC Sniper shooters.  The suit there alleged a willful negligence against Bushmaster in that they should have known their licensed dealers were clearly breaking the law.  There are laws about this and the claim was that Bushmaster broke them.  Not that they just made the gun that was used.

                Bushmaster just paid to settle and made no admission of guilt and refused to comply with any of the reforms demanded by the plaintiff.  The plaintiffs just took the money and dropped their list of changes.

                The Brady Center has a whole guideline on how and when you can sue manufacturers. You still can, even with PLCAA in place, but its harder.  You have to show criminality or negligence regarding other statutes;  you can't just say this person was killed by an AR-15 and Bushmaster should have known they were manufacturing a weapon of murder.

                Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

                by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:25:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again, not true. (0+ / 0-)

                  It's not limited to Media Matters or the DC sniper. Prior to that shield law, a wide array of lawsuits were filed against gun manufacturers, and many were successful.

                  The NRA lobbied for and won the PLCAA and thanked its toadies in Congress.

                  The brownshirts won that round. They won't in the future. This needs to be repealed and it will be.

    •  Liability protection laws are relatively new (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      diomedes77

      The industry could survive juries deciding whether it was negligent to market a firearm based on its inability to hold fingerprints. The industry survived a long time under normal tort law.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:51:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Grisham Novels and Cusack movies aside (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BlackSheep1, heybuddy

        (Though I thought the Hackman/Hoffman scenes in that were great.)

        There are laws of deliberately marketing tools for criminality but the defense is to show a single legitimate purpose.  

        Its just a nearly impossible leap to link manufacturer liability to something outside of a "no one did anything reckless or criminal and someone still got hurt because of this product" argument.  

        And when someone takes a properly functioning weapon barges into an elementary school and uses it to fire high caliber bullets into the skulls of 6 year olds, its hard to skip over the liability of the shooter and say that this happened because of something a manufacturer did or did not do.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 01:12:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bears saying again: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock, FrankRose, heybuddy
          And when someone takes a properly functioning weapon barges into an elementary school and uses it to fire high caliber bullets into the skulls of 6 year olds, its hard to skip over the liability of the shooter and say that this happened because of something a manufacturer did or did not do.
          Same someone started by murdering a parent in order to obtain the weapon in question and the car to go to the school with. Can we all agree that someone who would commit murder in order to steal a car and firearms is a criminal?
          And when someone takes a properly functioning weapon barges into an elementary school and uses it to fire high caliber bullets into the skulls of 6 year olds, its hard to skip over the liability of the shooter and say that this happened because of something a manufacturer did or did not do.
          When you have a criminal running loose, the problem is not with the makers of the tools the criminal chooses -- or we'd be seeing calls all up and down the FP here to ban x-acto and razor-blade utility knives, after the stabbings at Lone Star College recently. Not seeing those. Not hearing 'em from Chris Matthews or Chris Hayes or any Senators or Congressional Representatives either.

          LBJ, Lady Bird, Van Cliburn, Ike, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

          by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:33:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Umm... (5+ / 0-)
    *Require licensing and registration for all gun owners and all gun purchases. Guns should be treated like cars, in this way. Require tests and training before getting the license.
    You do know that ANYBODY, licensed or not, can purchase a car? And modify said car in any way they like?  Perfectly legally?

    You only need a license to operate on public roads.  Cars only need to pass safety inspection standards if they're operated on public roads.

    The car ownership thing is a really lousy metaphor. Legally, a drunken two year old can purchase a car, and drive it on private property.

    Pretty sure you don't want drunken two year olds popping off a few rounds in the back yard.

  •  Yes, and I want a pony. (5+ / 0-)
    *Start a national buyback program for all newly illegal guns and ammo. Citizens would have one year to comply voluntarily. If they fail to sell back their weapons and ammo, they then lose the status of "law abiding citizen." They become illegal gun owners.

    That said, since we already incarcerate more people per capita than any other nation, I am against confiscation or jailing of those illegal gun owners. It's enough to lose their status as "law abiding citizen." If, however, they are caught using that now illegal weapon in public, it should be confiscated.

    Please tell me more about how you want to use our system of government to turn all your political opponents into criminals.
  •  Severl issues here (5+ / 0-)

    1) you would require someone to get a license to own a gun, that license would probably be a form of ID but you probably don't think someone should need a form of ID to vote (again a consitutional right).

    2) Liability issues: Sorry but can you sue the car maker that made the car that crashes into a crowd of people? No, you can go after the driver but not the car maker (unless there is something faulty in the car).

    3) Forced gun buybacks? Really? That idea is just plain dumb. You are basically saying if they don't comply they'll be treated as criminals that's exactly the type of shit that the NRA uses to scare people.

    Sarcasm: It beats killing people...

    by Dreggas on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:57:59 AM PDT

    •  bah, several* n/t (0+ / 0-)

      Sarcasm: It beats killing people...

      by Dreggas on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 11:58:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's voluntary buy backs. (0+ / 0-)

      Not forced.

      It's up to the gun owner. But if they don't comply, then they can no longer consider themselves as legal gun owners.

      Why should guns, alone, be outside all safety restrictions? It's crazy.

      Sheesh, they took asthma inhalers off the shelf because some kids were getting high with them. And we can't regulate the firepower of deadly pieces of metal that are made to kill in the first place?

      •  Name one other law (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, FrankRose

        where compliance is legal with the only penalty being "you can no longer call yourself a legal gun owner".

        How about I promise to no longer call myself a sober vehicle operator?  Cool?  Great.. pass the scotch.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:49:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you want something more harsh? (0+ / 0-)

          I'm trying to make this transition as easy as possible on gun owners. I'm trying to make it so they don't have to fear confiscation -- at all -- and will willingly comply. They will STILL be able to own guns. And a wide array of guns. Just not those with the capability of exchanging magazines or any other kind of ammo container.

          I don't want to "criminalize" that transition and want it to be a voluntary move away from certain kinds of guns.

          Kind of like our society's transition away from cigarettes wherever you go. Cigarettes in doctor's offices; cigarettes inside public buildings; cigarettes in front of kids, etc.

          Our society will eventually evolve when it comes to guns, too. It will eventually see how dangerous and barbaric it is to insist upon unlimited firepower and consumer choice.

          •  " I'm trying to make it so they don't ..;. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            heybuddy

            ...have to fear confiscation -- at all ..."

            You claim this at the same time you are arguing in favor of confiscating tens of millions of guns if people actually use them.

            So, for instance, nobody can take their semi-auto shotgun pheasant hunting or their semi-auto pistol to the target range. Because, if they do, you would confiscate it.

            There is a word for such an argument: disingenuous.

            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 Apr 18, 2013 at 03:41:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

              They would at that point be illegal guns. They would at that point be banned guns. It would be as if they had a howitzer and tried to use it in public. Currently, the howitzer would be confiscated, under existing laws, right?

              So doesn't it make sense that an ILLEGAL weapon would be confiscated if the owner uses it in open defiance of the law?

              And these now illegal guns would ONLY be those with magazines or drums -- with detachable ammo containers in general. Revolvers wouldn't be impacted. A .357 magnum wouldn't be impacted. No gun that requires loading bullets one at a time, by hand, would be banned. Just those with detachable magazines, etc.

              And the magazines themselves.

              •  Let me try this again: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                heybuddy

                You say: "I am against confiscation."

                But you are not.

                You want to confiscate tens of millions of guns.

                It's okay to admit that you favor confiscation. But don't play games about it.

                And then there is this:

                We should limit guns to those that require the loading of bullets by hand, one at a time, only. One bullet at a time, with a limit of six per gun.
                If you want all bullets to be loaded by hand, you will have to confiscate all the speedloaders for revolvers and, based on your six-guns-only requirement, all the many revolvers that hold 7 or 8 or 9 rounds. Plus, your plan will mark an end to large numbers of lever-action hunting rifles that hold 8-10 rounds in tubes.

                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 Apr 18, 2013 at 04:20:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't play games. I'm upfront about (0+ / 0-)

                  all of this. I want this to be voluntary. A part of the buyback process. A now illegal gun sold back, voluntarily.

                  That's up to the gun owner.

                  If I were for "confiscation", I wouldn't suggest a buyback program or limit the ban to certain kinds of weapons.

                  That said, the people who have to explain themselves are those who are fine with magazines and the laws we have now, not those of us who want to get rid of them and reduce gun lethality.  

                  Explain how they should be allowed, given their history of mass murder and their total lack of necessity for anything else.

                  You don't need them for target practice, hunting or defending yourself. But they do have a history of being used in mass slayings.

                  Explain why you support and defend their existence, please.

          •  what a joke. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

            by wretchedhive on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 06:10:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  just silly fantasies (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose

    Sometimes it's nice to fantasize about your ideal world, which is as removed from the real world as can be. It's the same feeling as when someone starts talking to me about the dream they had last night. I listen politely, but inside I just want them to buzz off with the meaningless nonsense.

    •  Progressive Fan Fiction (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cryonaut, FrankRose

      It replaces "snark" on this site when things aren't going well.

      It often includes calls for "frog marching".

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 12:47:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not a fantasy. It's a centrist compromise (0+ / 0-)

      between no guns and no restrictions.

      It would be seen as such in Europe, in Japan, Australia, New Zealand and most of the developed world.

      Only in America is it seen by some as "extreme" to have gun regulations and restrictions.

      Remember, we're only one of two nations with any set aside "right" to deadly pieces of metal.

  •  well if you are going to go there you should (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlackSheep1, FrankRose, heybuddy

    probably get rid of the revolvers and all handguns too. Long guns no matter what flavor are a tiny percent of the crime rate.

    But then more than half the gun violence mortality is committed without a second shot. Suicide is more than half the deaths.

    I've been re reading Kos' old posts today just for amusement and I think he suggests outlawing magazines period.

    I'm kind of the other way, lived around full auto AKs for so long I know people don't just open up and rat-a-tat-tat every time they get drunk and stupid.

    In the end it's all just unrealistic but you get points for honesty. So many of the gun gra....ers mince their words and talk in half steps when really what they want is to take my guns. You are probably a lot more moderate than many.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:31:30 PM PDT

  •  I dont' know about this part (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cryonaut, BlackSheep1, heybuddy
    They become illegal gun owners
    No one is an illegal owner, just undocumented.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 02:37:06 PM PDT

    •  If this is a play on the term... (0+ / 0-)

      ..."undocumented immigrant", it is offensive in the extreme.

      Undocumented immigrants are not deadly weapons, and comparing them with deadly weapons is hateful right wing bullshit and simply not right.

      Undocumented immigrants are simply people, just like you and I.

      Guns are dangerous weapons.

  •  How? You know, how exactly are all these... (0+ / 0-)

    ...things accomplished? A manifesto may sound good in theory, but show me a path to victory for these proposals of yours.

    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 Apr 18, 2013 at 03:35:38 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site