they are definitely dumb, but no one has shown that they violate rights yet

1/16/2013 11:45:45 AM

i am going to say a good percentage of regular law-abiding citizens aren't going to turn in their magazines either.

1/16/2013 11:46:01 AM

^^SO LET'S JUST BAN EVERYTHING THAT DOESN'T VIOLATE A RIGHT!

Great way to govern.

Any of you that actually read my posts know that I'm not coming from just a 2A point of view. I hate useless, dumb legislation. I hate legislation that won't have true impacts or the proposed impacts. I hate legislation that curtails freedom (if if it doesn't "violate your right) when it's simply not needed.


The NCGA said that outlawing gay marriage didn't violate rights... oh well, whatever Big G says must be true!

I'd still like to see justification for the # of rounds people want the limit to be. Real justification.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 11:47:21 AM

i don't think they should be banned

Quote :

"Any of you that actually read my posts know that I'm not coming from just a 2A point of view."

except that you keep saying they are unconstitutional or that they violate rights

Quote :

" The NCGA said that outlawing gay marriage didn't violate rights... oh well, whatever Big G says must be true!"

NCGA is not the Supreme Court, the court will hear these arguments very soon

Quote :

"I'd still like to see justification for the # of rounds people want the limit to be. Real justification."

me too

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 11:55 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 11:48:34 AM

Quote :

"except that you keep saying they are unconstitutional or that they violate rights"

and I just said I have multiple reasons for not agreeing with magazine bans.

Quote :

"NCGA is not the Supreme Court, the court will hear these arguments very soon"

Your point? Government is government. Corruption doesn't stop just because you get to wear a robe. I don't trust any branch. Sure, SCOTUS makes rulings I like, but my feeling is that many arguments shouldn't ever make it there. Shouldn't even be had.

Most crimes are committed with far fewer than the popular 10 rounds; 1-3 mostly. We should ban magazines that hold 1 or more rounds!

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 12:00:10 PM

A lot of arguments don't make it there

1/16/2013 12:01:56 PM

Obama wants to ban hunting rifles. THIS IS COMMON SENSE AND REASONABLE.

Where are those idiots that called me an idiot for saying Obama would come after guns and come hard during his second term?

1/16/2013 12:19:07 PM

I am one of those people and forgive me for not seeing a massacre of 20 elementary school children coming

and he's not coming for your guns

1/16/2013 12:24:26 PM

Yes. Thanks to Obama you'll no longer be able to hunt polar bears with your military assault rifle.



[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 12:26 PM. Reason : :]

1/16/2013 12:26:40 PM

ha. no one is hunting with M16s or AK47s.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 12:27 PM. Reason : btw, I am not a hunter.]

1/16/2013 12:27:27 PM

Quote :

"magazine restrictions are just plain dumb. the last one had no impact. future ones will have no impact. this is a perfect example of gun control aimed only at eradicating firearms and the second amendment, as the ol' cliche goes... gun control only violates the rights of the law abiding. criminals aren't going to be turning in their magazines."

Don't take this the wrong way wdprice, but I don't think this is the case at all. People think rules like this or the current government attitude regarding weapons is some sinister NWO strategy...

You're correct in these rules being dumb and having no impact (then and now), but the reasoning behind any current or future legislation is not sinister.

It's simply a notch on Obama's belt and those who voted for them. I know I'm occasionally harangued here for painting everything as black/white, left/right, Democrat/Republican, but this issue is easily framed as such.

"Democrats hate guns, Republicans love them, etc." So the issue falls squarely on Obama's legacy and that's just it. If he gets some legislation passed or just issues executive orders on the topic he wins. No questions asked. It doesn't actually matter if it accomplishes anything; it's simply something that goes in the history books.

The actual statistics can be debated into the ground a decade or so later, but by then who gives a shit? The same can be said for Obamacare and pretty much anything else he does. Tangible benefit? Debatable, and even then exactly by who? Same thing here-

It's simply a tallymark on the liberal victory card. As long as Republicans/rednecks/the NRA get screwed then its a success. Dead children were never the issue as far as politicians were concerned, although I'm sure it was critical to some of you guys. I can understand some posters here having a conscience.

Criminals will always be criminals no matter what. They will always have the tools to commit their crimes. Regular people will always be able to defend themselves from these people no matter what; even if it means becoming criminals themselves to accomplish it.

The end result is the government is incompetent and would never be able to enforce this legislation in a non-haphazard manner. They will make examples of some people like they did over Napster, or something. They're not going to break into every single person's gunsafe in every single basement.

On top of that courts and prisons are already overflowing and equally inefficient, so unless you want to nerf gun crimes (or something) and free a bunch of those people... Again, they're just going to turn the other cheek. End result (again) nothing changes.

You will however have to deal with a bunch of liberals patting themselves on the back and a bunch of conservatives buying stacks of weapons and ammo. Which is worse? Its already been illustrated handily in this thread that people probably stockpile these things without the intention or initiative to actually ever use it in a defensive capacity.

I am however still disturbed by the notion that the government harbors no ill-will towards any citizen and will save us from anything. We will never have to defend ourselves from them and the idea is foolish anyway given their firepower, etc. This might be true, but it is also similarly true in different time periods. The US not really having a Navy versus the British... The South not really having trains, repeating rifles, gatling guns, etc (lost but put up a decent fight). Indians not having firearms except the ones they stole.

Maybe poor examples but plenty of similar examples in history. Myself I don't know what I would do in such a situation. Things would have to really hit the fan and even then I would probably only defend my own house. I like to think in the event of such an emergency the government would have bigger fish to fry than me. I doubt a gunship or laser-guided bomb would be wasted on a simple residential dwelling in Bumfuck NC.

tl;dr

Accept that the government, the world at large, isn't really sinister in a NWO kind of way. That might have been true in the past, but today it's just a reality-TV version of itself. This government is analogous to its citizenry. It's mostly lazy and apathetic; it only cares that it appears to accomplish work and is rewarded for doing so. It's a beautiful butterfly that wants its mediocrity celebrated. Its run by a bunch of narcissistic peons who care for nothing but their own job security, and they're basically guaranteed that as long as we're glued to the TV on the couch eating Cheetos. Gun control as its being presented is just another episode in the now shitty sitcom "Everyday Life."

1/16/2013 12:28:39 PM

I like Obama's subtle word play, he didn't call it Gun Control he wants to reduce Gun Violence. The man is a master politician.

So going forward Mainstream media members remember its not Gun Control that title doesn't test well, stopping Gun Violence is the new accepted term.

1/16/2013 12:39:01 PM

Quote :

"they are definitely dumb, but no one has shown that they violate rights yet"

Actually, off the cuff I think I could make a pretty good starting argument that the new requirements are in violation of DC v Heller and unconstitutional. First off, if we agree that the new restrictions are dumb and ineffective in achieving the stated aims of the law, then those restrictions are certainly arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, DC v Heller affirmed and individual right to own guns, a right not connected with militia service, and restated the finding of US v Miller that protected weapons include those in common use for lawful purposes. Considering that something like 5% of the gun crimes in NY were committed with rifles, and given the number of currently legal firearms that would be restricted by this law, it's pretty clear that the weapons being banned are "in common use for lawful purposes."

Quote :

"get back to me when the average citizen: a) holds a position in which more than one of his predecessors has been assassinated and/or b) gets death threats on a daily basis that meme drives me fucking crazy"

To be fair, even if you were in a job where a predecessor had been killed, or you receive constant threats against your life or safety (presumably every person with a restraining order against another person would qualify), unlike the president, you are not entitled to round the clock police protection. In fact, the courts have upheld repeatedly that the police are under no obligation to protect any individual.

1/16/2013 12:45:02 PM

The short version would be, "He's hypocritical."

The short version is, "He's the fucking President."

Even if you dislike him he's pretty damn important.

Don't forget the typical liberal position on basically every issue... We're all just a bunch of damn cattle that doesn't know what's best for us. The benevolent government has to save us from ourselves when we obtain something we're too dumb to use. Emphasis on "we're really dumb!"

1/16/2013 12:47:34 PM

1/16/2013 12:57:36 PM

Here's the list of executive orders,

Quote :

"1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. 3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. 4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. 5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. 7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. 11. Nominate an ATF director. 12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. 13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. 14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. 15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. 16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 18. Institute mandatory cavity searches for all registered gun owners. 19. Take away your guns. 20. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. 21. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 22. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. 23. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations. 24. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health."

1/16/2013 1:04:56 PM

Guns are bad, mkay?

1/16/2013 1:13:35 PM

Haha @ 19

THERE ARE 23 YOU ASS.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/16/here-are-the-23-executive-orders-on-gun-safety-signed-today-by-the-president/

1/16/2013 1:23:31 PM

at 18

the real #18: Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 1:24 PM. Reason : ಠ_ಠ]

1/16/2013 1:23:54 PM

More on what he wants congress to do

Quote :

"He urged Congress: to reintroduce an expired ban on "military-style" assault weapons, such as those used in several recent mass shootings impose limits on ammunition magazines to 10 rounds introduce background checks on all gun sales; currently private sales and some sales at gun shows, constituting about 40% of the national total, are exempt pass a ban on possession and sale of armour-piercing bullets introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals finally approve the appointment of the head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives"

The bolded should be the centerpiece of the legislation I think. Ask for all of it, but eventually drop the AWB and magazine limits to get the GOP votes you need for the background checks to pass. The idea should be to erect as many barriers as possible to gun ownership.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 1:34 PM. Reason : :]

1/16/2013 1:30:39 PM

Quote :

"The idea should be to erect as many barriers as possible to gun ownership. "

So that we can encourage shady folks and future criminals and gangsters to go the much easier black market route instead?

Quote :

"Ask for all of it, but eventually drop the AWB and magazine limits to get the GOP votes you need for the background checks to pass."

What's with the bullshit? If you plan on dropping the AWD and magazine limits, how about instead of wasting time and money, we propose something that'll pass and execute the play? What's with all this "dick around getting nothing done but look busy" and then in the end get something passed that everyone could have agreed on in the first place?

Damn politics...

1/16/2013 1:37:50 PM

Cause nobody ever passes the first version of anything. Give them fluff to eliminate instead of substance.

At least that's the idea...

1/16/2013 1:38:48 PM

Quote :

"the real #18: Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers."

So, basically what the NRA suggested? (not that the NRA is the good guy in this battle, their asinine attacks on video games and media in general are just as stupid and ineffectual as the proposed gun laws)

1/16/2013 1:39:10 PM

Quote :

"What's with the bullshit? If you plan on dropping the AWD and magazine limits, how about instead of wasting time and money, we propose something that'll pass and execute the play? What's with all this "dick around getting nothing done but look busy" and then in the end get something passed that everyone could have agreed on in the first place?"

Sure, in an ideal world with an ideal government we could do that. Unfortunately we're dealing with a congress that couldn't even agree that aid for hurricane victims was a good idea.

1/16/2013 1:47:51 PM

I wonder how the required background checks for private sales works with state permit holders. Would they now be required to go through background checks (again)? For any private transfer: Who does the background check? Can private citizens call in checks for free? Is there a fee? Do they have to go to a FFL? Are blackmarket dealers going to start running background checks?

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 1:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 1:51:01 PM

Quote :

"Are blackmarket dealers going to start running background checks?"

Is asking inane questions helpful to the conversation? We get it, bad people don't follow laws. Does that mean all law is pointless?

1/16/2013 2:00:53 PM

^^you know this, but for the less-informed, i'll say...

if passed, universal background checks would probably be done just like selling private party to private party across state lines is done now. the two individuals meet at an FFL, the paperwork is filled out, the NICS phone call is made, money is exchanged for gun, and the FFL collects a fee (most charge $20 or $25 now. have seen as high as $50.).

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 2:03 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/16/2013 2:02:45 PM

Quote :

"We get it, bad people don't follow laws. Does that mean all law is pointless?"

When the law won't have its state effects, then yes, it is pointless.

1/16/2013 2:19:51 PM

Quote :

"What's with the bullshit? If you plan on dropping the AWD and magazine limits, how about instead of wasting time and money, we propose something that'll pass and execute the play? "

The bullshit is called negotiating...

1/16/2013 2:29:10 PM

Quote :

"When the law won't have its state effects, then yes, it is pointless."

Is the stated effect of a law, "no person will ever break this law ever?"

1/16/2013 2:38:08 PM

The stated effect is to prevent more of these mass shootings. Considering what they are trying to ban weren't used in the mass shootings it's pretty stupid.

1/16/2013 2:59:53 PM

Are you sure that's the stated effect and the only stated effect?

1/16/2013 3:02:02 PM

Well, during Obama's speech today, that was the talking point he came back to over and over again.

1/16/2013 3:07:56 PM

Guess that settles it then. Because you failed to hear "reduce the broader epidemic of gun violence in this country." the whole idea is stupid.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57564298/obama-calls-for-sweeping-new-gun-laws/

1/16/2013 3:11:09 PM

No, I heard it, but he only said that once as opposed to coming back to the mass shootings over, and over, and over again.

1/16/2013 3:14:09 PM

And beyond that, these additional proposed laws will not have the effect of curbing this "epidemic of gun violence" across the country. With literally hundreds of millions of "high capacity magazines" out there currently and the fact that you can make a magazine if you own a press brake it's pretty hard to see how this is going to do a damn thing.

In addition to that , actual assault weapons haven't been available for civilians without absurdly detailed FBI background checks since 1934 and guns manufactured after 1986 can't be legally owned by civilians.

So, what the fuck is this going to do exactly?

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 3:26 PM. Reason : dsdfdf]

1/16/2013 3:24:38 PM

I know that according to the "rules" that as a liberal I am not supposed to say this, but I am opposed to sweeping, broad, reactionary gun control legislation. I know that the administration/government has an image to maintain, but my thought process is that we, as an American society, just need to step up and take responsibility for this.

As a free society with enshrined protections against weapon confiscation (you know, the reason for the second amendment), we need to realize that with a population of 300,000,000 people, there will be mentally unstable people who will, on occasion, gain access to firearms. Instead of bitching about video games, movies or even the guns themselves, policy makers need to stand the fuck up and attribute this correctly to a mentally imbalanced individual. Sadly, he is dead and can't be paraded around to satisfy the need for vindication, and also, this tragedy involved little kids. Yes, it's sad and tragic and unthinkable, but that is the risk we take to enjoy ALL of our freedoms. Call me heartless, but the cost of freedom and liberty is worth the price occasionally paid. Otherwise, what's the point of it all?

1/16/2013 3:25:16 PM

^^Nothing, clearly. Why are you so worked up in opposition to something with no actual effect?

^, Are you saying that mental illness is the sole cause of gun violence?

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2013 3:26:08 PM

Because of the continued erosion of freedom. The same reason I don't like the TSA. It's a massive waste of resources that does nothing but paint everyone as a potential criminal, add onerous and pointless restrictions to what law abiding citizens can own and do.

In addition you know, that it will lead to huge governmental overreach and intrusion into people's lives.

Your argument is basically the same as, "well if you have nothing to hide..."

1/16/2013 3:29:42 PM

^^^ My issue with it is that we have the most lax gun laws in the civilized world. There are plenty of countries with more restrictive gun laws that aren't all "1984" or "Mad Max" as a result of it. I mean guns in Mexico get smuggled FROM the US, would slightly less guns or slightly more trouble to get them really be the end of the world?

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2013 3:30:58 PM

Look, I honestly don't have that big of an issue with the universal background check. It's probably a good idea. It's going to be hard to implement since it's going to require that all criminal records, existing and all future records are accessible from a central database when these universal background checks happen.

I'm really not sure what exactly they mean by "assault weapons" when they talk about new bans, but I see this being poorly put together like the last one.

Again, the "high capacity" magazine thing is a feel good measure, much akin to the airport security horseshit. Go ahead and say, "no more magazines with a capacity greater than 10!" there are already so many out there and so many under current production and they last so long that there will be no shortage of them. At least not for the next century.

1/16/2013 3:37:07 PM

some really awesome folks have already started printing >10 capacity mags on 3d printers

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM. Reason : cannot wait to see the political backlash at midterms]

1/16/2013 3:38:46 PM

Quote :

"^, Are you saying that mental illness is the sole cause of gun violence?"

Not at all. It seems, however, to be a principle contributory factor in this particular instance as well as the shooting in Co.

Gun registries are a tricky subject though. It's worth discussing the merits, but I can't help but be slightly swayed by the "well then they'll know exactly where to go to collect the guns when the black helicopters show up..." minus the tinfoil hat. Especially since "keeping and bearing arms" is not simply a privilege like driving or fishing.

1/16/2013 3:54:02 PM

I'm not a fan of eroding HIPAA

1/16/2013 3:56:51 PM

It's funny, my uncle is a salesman for a large parts company, one of the things they make is springs. He said they've literally gotten in orders for millions of springs for magazines. He sells to some of the larger magazine manufacturers in the country (surefire, etc.) and they almost cannot keep up with the demand. They're not taking orders of less than 100k units at this point. He said he's never seen this kind of demand before.

1/16/2013 3:56:54 PM

Run for president, become gun salesmen? It's a little perverse, and I blame the Right for conflating the issue. The far left isn't helping matters either with talk/action of reactionary legislation.

1/16/2013 4:00:02 PM

^^Fox News/Drudge/Beck et. al drumming up paranoia is funny? It's almost as though they have something to benefit by making people think that Obama is coming for their guns.

1/16/2013 4:17:21 PM

Some of the executive orders Obama signed go to enhancing the background check system and mental health info available.

The executive orders mirror a lot of what the NRA wants, and I think pretty much all of what Neuseriverrat said he would think was appropriate.

And the proposals he said he would support are significantly milder than what New York pushed through.

[Edited on January 16, 2013 at 4:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/16/2013 4:17:27 PM

The executive orders are also inline with what most reasonable people expected, since they were what not-drudge was reporting and talking about.

1/16/2013 4:19:55 PM

In this case, I bet conservatives in NY wouldn't mind federal laws eclipsing state ones...

1/16/2013 4:20:58 PM