I'm worried Bush will let the AWB pass in order to pander to soccermoms

in battleground states the NRA hasn't been able to deliver in the last couple elections like PA, MI, MN, WI and IL, etc With the Bush misadministration in full retreat, DeLay mired in legal trouble, out of desperation, I worry Rove will pull back the curtain on the NRA and reveal it's really a RepuKKKe puppet. I think to start up the "compassionate conservative" as well as the terrorism fighting President, Rove will roll the dice and let this weak AWB pass because the gun nuts have nowhere to go. The NRA will tell it's members that it's better this weak AWB than a stronger one that President Kerry and his buddy John McCain will hammer through Congress.

?

Bush is going to be desperate in swing states and the gun nuts haven't been able to deliver them very well. Remember it took a judicial coup last time to install the NRA in the White House. Demographics have gone against the weapons crowd as American becomes less white and more suburban as well the economic conditions in battleground states. One way or another, it's time to make them walk the plank, make them chew their arm off in order to get out of the steel jaws of the trap. Suddenly the AWB looks at lot different.

Those for reasonable regulation of weapons will listen to reasonable options.

You're the one who says there are loopholes. What are they? Why should they be closed?

Gun enthusiasts go to great effort showing pictures of guns that pass and those that don't. You tell me how to make it uniform, why not ask the experts? You can even put up all those pictures y'all like so much.

but if you really wanted a ban that would do something then you'd have to ban all semi-auto rifles, or all semi-auto rifles with a detachable magazine. For handguns you'd have to go with semi-autos with a magazine outside of the grip. Shotguns? I don't know. Maybe all semi-auto shotguns with more than a 4 round capacity.

The rifle stuff is iffy, because some hunters use semi-autos with detachable magazines for hunting. You could probably get the pistol stuff as I described it, but there aren't very many pistols that have the magazine outside of the grip. Maybe keep the 50oz maximum weight, or lower it. The shotgun stuff you could probably get. Hunters probably won't cry about a 4 round limit. Maybe toss in a minimum barrel length like 22" or something.

Don't be surprised when they start designing guns to get around this ban though. A ban on semi-autos with detachable magazines will almost certainly lead to the return of fixed magazines and stripper clips. Oh, don't forget to put in an exception for government agencies so they can still buy the good stuff.

None of that takes into account the millions of weapons already in circulation, since I was thinking along the lines of another manufacturing ban. If gun grabbers were slightly smarter and had half a clue about guns, what they'd really do is forget about useless manufacturing bans and try and get more weapons covered under the National Firearms Act. The process for getting an NFA weapon is far more in-depth than buying a regular gun in any state. All you'd have to do is amend the thing. Change the minimum barrel length on rifles from 16" to 18" then bring it up to 20". Do the same for shotguns or for rifles and shotguns and overall length. Add requirements for handgun dimensions and weight. People will have to register the guns now covered by the NFA or get rid of them. The NFA originally included handguns, you know.

To make the whole thing more palatable you offer a month or two amnesty period where people can register their guns without having to pay the $200 tax and without having to go through the whole chief law enforcement signature, finger prints, photos, and background check. Without that, no one is going to register their guns. After the amnesty is over, the whole $200 tax thing with background checks signatures and everything is back on. Maybe you could even raise the tax. $200 in 1934 is something like $2600 in todays dollars. But you don't want to make the tax too much or people will be more inclined to ignore the law.

Once you get all this stuff covered by NFA you can pull a Reagan and just cut off civilian production. He only hit machine guns, short barreled rifles, shotguns, silencers, and destructive devices can still be manufactured for civilians. Once you stop civilian production the supply is frozen and prices are going to
skyrocket to the point where only the rich will be able to afford guns. This will take awhile because there are a lot of guns out there and during that one or two month amnesty period the manufacturers are going to be working 24 hour shifts building and selling guns and people are going to be buying and registering them. But sooner or later the prices will be out of the reach of your average joe.

Not to mention once you've got a gun in the NFA it's registered, so you can confiscate them at your leisure. There will be people who don't comply with the registration and bury their guns or whatever, but so what, what are they going to do with buried guns?


On Edit: You seem to be big on getting rid of .50 rifles. Here's how to do it. Change the destructive devices definition from greater than .50 caliber to .50 or greater. Now everytime someone wants to buy a .50 caliber rifle, it will take them months to get it and they'll have to pay a $200 tax, or whatever you increase the tax to (I wouldn't go over $500 personally. You want people to register their guns, not avoid the law.) The thing about doing it this way, is when the manufacturers release the .499 fuck you you can just redefine destructive devices to include that too. Eventually you could get all the way down to your standard .30 caliber rifles or even .22s.

Eventually you could get all guns onto the NFA. Then you've got full gun registration. If you stick in bans on civilian production, prices will be beyond most peoples ability to afford. What you do at this point is pass a law saying that NFA weapons can no longer be transfered to civilians. People can keep the ones they have, but when they die the government gets them.

There you have it, an end to civilian gun owner ship in the US. You could probably pull it off in 50 years. Maybe less, since the harder it gets to get a gun, the fewer young people will get into shooting making it even easier to pass more gun laws.

That'll do it.

Us folks in California are already halfway there.

guns in the US is their stupidity and incompetence. They throw all of this energy into renewing the AWB and for what? Bayonet lugs and flash suppressors. If they threw all that work into getting .50 caliber weapons classified as destructive devices, they might even pull it off.

We're not in love with this AWB bill. There's a better bill out there for both sides. I'll accept a certain amount of grandfathering of things, that's the American way in small business and local government.

Are the loopholes that good for y'all? After all this complaining?

I oppose the current ban and any expansion on principle. I'm sure other people have their own reasons for opposing it. I don't think you'll find many gun owners who will be interested in renewing or expanding the ban. Maybe shotgunners.

The chances of passing a stricter one are slim to none, and Slim just took the last stagecoach out of town.

You have all the buzzwords down pat. 'loophole', 'sniper rifle', and even 'sensible'.

Funny stuff!

Lets just ban all guns now. This incrementalism is tiresome. If we are going to do it, just do it and lets get on with the black market and higher crime rates already.

Rifles
pistols
shotguns

But it's politically unfeasible. Personally I think it's bad politics to even propose it.

Apparently all anyone cares about is the AWB, though.

Mine is simpler.

Mine, while it will take a few years, will work.

Neither one will pass.

If taken one step at a time, in small increments, my plan will work. You could ban guns in less than 50 years. Fortunately for us, as I said, gun grabbers are incompetent and all they really care about, apparently, is the Assault Weapons Ban or some variation of it.

Sounds like Bush's plans for the economy. Sounds like you've got it set up to not effect you at all.

If you try and ban all guns or even just all semi-autos outright you will never get it passed. If you want to actually accomplish something, you take it one piece at a time all the while giving people incentives to actually go along with the law through amnesties and waiving the tax during them. It will start affecting me the same as it will affect everyone else as soon as the laws are passed.

Fifty years is just a number I pulled out of nowhere. It might take 20. I don't know. I said fifty because I figured about one generation or so of gun owners. By the time you get 10 or 20 years into it, gun ownership will become more of a hassle and fewer people will bother. Which will make it even easier to pass more laws.

Just think where we could be if the gun grabbers hadn't spent the last 10 or 15 years wasting all their time and energy on the AWB. Like I said though, gun grabbers are stupid and incompetent.

Do you really think it would stand up through possibly 5 administrations. For any ban to work it would have to be done in 1 administration.

The anti-gun groups have realized this, and that is why their strategy involves incremental bans of different types of firearms.

You pass one law at a time. First increase the minimum barrel length of rifles from 16" to 18". Throw in a maximum of 6 rounds for shotguns. Then lower it to 5 or 4. Then lower it again. I wouldn't go below 2 though, you might piss off the shotgunners. Hell you could stick a one sentence amendment into some completely unrelated law to do it. The laws will almost certainly never get repealed and sooner or later you'll have a complete gun ban, or whatever level of gun control you want. This all at once crap is the very reason the gun control movement is getting nowhere. That and their completely ignorant about federal gun laws and guns in general.

The example you use would be a legislative nightmare. Please give me a example where your one piece at a time legislation has ever worked.

It's how gun control got passed for most of the 20th century.

They started with the NFA and made people register machine guns and short barreled rifles and shotguns. Then the GCA stopped importation of machine guns and required the registration of weapons greater than .50 caliber by making them destructive devices. Then in '86 literally seconds before a pro-gun bill was voted on some jackass from New Jersey, where machine guns were already illegal by state law, adds an amendment to the thing that shut down the whole civilian machine gun industry.

Then the gun grabbers apparently got brain damaged because they gave up on the NFA and got obsessed with the AWB and have spent 15 years or so throwing everything they have behind it and getting nothing done.

When did the NFA start the register?

But no one really paid attention to it until 1968. Who the hell is going to pay a $200 tax on a $10 shotgun or STEN or a $3 silencer. Back then you could buy dewatted machine guns that could be rewatted relatively easily. It wasn't like today where they chop receivers up with a torch. The GCA made things more strict and also offered an amnesty where people could register without having to pay the $200 tax. People took advantage of it. From 1934 until 1986 something like 90-100,000 machine guns were registered through the NFA. Once they cut off civilian production, that number literally more than doubled almost overnight before the cutoff. There are around a quarter million machine guns registered now. There won't be more.

I think you're suggestion is certainly the stategically smarter way to do it, but ... it won't provide the short term financial contributions that raising one "crisis" after another does for these groups.

I think small, incremental steps was their original strategy but now they are becoming increasingly irrelevant to the discussion. They just don't seem to be able to draw the support they used to. Witness the stunning lack of visible congressional support on Sunday.

Now I think they are panicing and flailing about looking for a "magic wand" issue that will inflame and frighten people. Hence the lies about AWB = machine guns in your Wal Mart and .50 caliber rifles that shoot down airplanes, sattelites etc.

With their piss poor turnout last Sunday and the layoffs and bankruptcy of the MMM they have to be bleeding cash right now.

The chances of Brady and her minions still being around for that length of time are very slim.

I spell out exactly how to ban guns and 10 seconds later they're whining about the AWB again. Gun owners are some lucky SOBs that the gun grabbers are so ignorant of federal gun laws and guns in general.

Very well thought out, based on sound technical knowledge, logic, and a rational view of what is and is not politically feasible.

I'm glad you're on the pro-RKBA side, FeebMaster, because that's a scarlet letter to the gun-ban enthusiasts here and everywhere. They'll never listen to you, just as they rejected out of hand my proposal to make NICS available for private-party transfers as a "cockamamie scheme" and "WHO THE FUCK CARES?". Because of who they think you and I are associated with, because of their false assumptions about the origins of your support for the RKBA and mine, they won't ever listen to us even though we know a lot more about the subject than they ever will.

Ain't it fun being a Cassandra?

Just look at the responses. All they care about is extending or expanding the AWB. They could do it using my plan and it would be far more effective, but they aren't interested. I'm not even convinced it's because I'm pro-gun. My plan would take time and they want it all now. Also, my plan requires that they have the slightest clue about guns and they've shown time and again they have no interest in that.


"Ain't it fun being a Cassandra?"

Kind of boring sometimes. At least you get to say "I told you so" a lot.

"Assault weapons", "sniper rifles", "(forbidden word) Saturday Night Specials", "hidden guns", "gun safety legislation", "bullet hoses", guns that somebody told them have "no legitimate sporting use", "pocket rockets", "weapons of war", and on and on and on.

"My plan would take time and they want it all now"

Well said.

It's been a few years since I had to sit through Sociology 141, but I seem to recall the idea of "Delay of Gratification" being used as a measurment of maturity. (e.g. a child wants it right now!, but an adult recognizes that greater rewards are there if they can postpone their need for gratification.)

Fits with the childish name calling behavior too, hmmmm? Possible Masters thesis material here?

How about in my lifetime. This has been going on for 70yrs.

You're a cop. How many times have you been fired upon or threatened with a legally-owned, properly registered machinegun, short-barrelled shotgun, short-barrelled rifle, AOW, or suppressed weapon?

If you look back at my post i told Feeb he had a good idea. I also said neither his nor mine would ever pass. Mine was 4 years, his was 20, and so far its been 70. The answer to your question is never. That might be because we have only 2 of the banned weapons you describe in the whole county. The SO has a Thompson 45, the PD has a Thompson, only 2 weapons registered.

I retired with the Sheriffs Dept. I have never met a cop, I've met Police officers
Agents
Deputy's
State troopers
Constables
Even Rangers, but never a cop

the wheel. My 50 year estimate is for a complete gun ban assuming the gun control movement pulls their collective heads out of their collective ass. You could get your assault weapons ban in 5 or 10 years tops, depending on how you define assault weapon.

I won't use the "c" word on DU forums ever again. Most law enforcement people don't seem to be offended by it, but I'll avoid it for your sake.

I'm not that thin skinned, just old and grumpy.

Gun control really didn't pick up until 1968 with the GCA. Most of that 30 or 40 years has been wasted by the gun control movement, you can't blame us pro-gunners for that.

I'm reaching out to gun experts to tell me how to make the bill uniform

I tried, too. The Canadian legislation/regulations don't seem to cause any problems. Surely it can be done, eh?

If ya don't like the US ban because you think it's flawed, then what can be done to fix it?

If ya don't like the US ban because you think there should be no ban at all, isn't it just plain disingenuous to nit-pick at it over its alleged flaws?

Do let me know if you get an answer to your question!

.

Is to ban all magazine fed rifles. Also, in order for a true ban to be effective there would be no 'grandfather" clause. All existing weapons would have to be confiscated.

My rights are non-negotiable. You can stop me from buying new ones by preventing their manufacture, but confiscation is non-negotiable. There's a reason they don't try widespread confiscation. They would need the U.S. military to enforce it.

That's not to say I have any firearms. Since there are no records -- and for most of what I may or may not own, there really aren't any records -- who's to say what I own or don't own. You can't confiscate what I don't have or what you can't find.

Just wanted to answer Bill's question as honestly as possible. If it ever did come to confiscation I would not comply.

My rights are non-negotiable. You can stop me from buying new ones by preventing their manufacture, but confiscation is non-negotiable.

Can the government stop you from buying new ideas by preventing the manufacture of newspapers? Or is that kind of covered by that "freedom of speech" stuff?

If the govt has no justification for stopping you from buying something, what earthly justification does it have for stopping anyone from manufacturing it?


You can't confiscate what I don't have or what you can't find.

And hey, if nobody finds the bodies of the dead family members that you may or may not have buried in your back yard, nobody can prosecute you for murder, either, eh?

If a law is passed that you regard as an unconstitutional interference with the exercise of your rights, you know what you do, in a mature liberal democracy? You challenge it. In the courts. And/or you work to elect a government that will repeal it.

Unless and until you are willing to say (and can demonstrate pretty good grounds for saying) that you are not living in a mature liberal democracy, all you're saying is that you would break a law because it suits you to break it. Congratulations, eh? You're in fine company there.

.

of Democrats breaking laws that they don't agree with. War protesters purposely obstructing traffic, which is illegal in most jurisdictions, to make their point. However noble their intentions might have been, they still broke the law because it suited their purpose.

Step off of that hobby horse there.

War protesters purposely obstructing traffic, which is illegal in most jurisdictions, to make their point.

... between that AND BEING IN SECRET POSSESSION of a "banned" firearm???

There's none so visually-impaired as those who want to make something look like something else that it doesn't remotely resemble.


However noble their intentions might have been, they still broke the law because it suited their purpose.

And they did it publicly and notoriously.

And besides ... were they really breaking a traffic law THAT THEY BELIEVED SHOULD NOT EXIST? Is there actually some analogy here to (secretly) breaking a law to which one objects, for whatever reason?

Good grief. Someone's own hobby horse appears to be making him dizzy. Forgive me if I don't buy a ticket to ride. I prefer thinking straight.

.

One instance you disapprove of, one you approve of. Depends on your point of view.

You are the one saying you can't have it both ways.

Can the government stop you from buying new ideas by preventing the manufacture of newspapers? Or is that kind of covered by that "freedom of speech" stuff?

If the govt has no justification for stopping you from buying something, what earthly justification does it have for stopping anyone from manufacturing it?

I agree completely. There is no justification for stopping the manufacture, but since I'm not directly suffering aggression, I have no need to directly defend myself. I instead rely on political activism and passive civil disobedience.

For example, hypothetically, I would have no objection to violating the ban on cosmetically-incorrect semi-automatic rifles by, for example, installing a collapsible stock on any AR-15 clone that I might or might not own. (Collapsible stocks are freely and legally available, as are AR-15 clones on which to install them.) Likewise, I would support any broadcaster that chose to ignore the BCRA and broadcast prohibited political issue ads within the restricted period before federal elections.

Unless and until you are willing to say (and can demonstrate pretty good grounds for saying) that you are not living in a mature liberal democracy, all you're saying is that you would break a law because it suits you to break it. Congratulations, eh? You're in fine company there.

The U.S. is an aging, obese Democratic Republic that is dominated by corporations and special interest groups. It long ago lost touch with its roots and became the world's greatest imperialist, both at home and abroad. I no longer concern myself with violating arbitary and irrational laws that serve only to infringe on the rights of honorable citizens.

Also, in order for a true ban to be effective there would be no 'grandfather" clause. All existing weapons would have to be confiscated.

Or perhaps we could all just stop fixating on this (inaccurate) "ban" word, and investigate both the actual and the possible situation.

In Canada, certain weapons have been made "prohibited" or "restricted" over the years; they obviously did not start out being either prohibited or restricted, so obviously there were many of them already in circulation.

There are grandfather clauses in the prohibitions and restrictions that permit owners of existing prohibited or restricted weapons, who would not qualify to own them under the new rules, to retain them, as long as they apply for the proper licence, and register the weapons.

They are then not permitted to transfer them (except to someone who has the appropriate licence to own a prohibited or restricted weapon, and of course by registering the transfer).

The "ban" is in essence a ban on acquisitions of the weapons.

As long as the owners of existing weapons qualify for possession, no weapons would have to be confiscated at all.

And yup, if some people didn't comply with the law there would continue to be some of the weapons in illegal circulation. Just as, despite all our laws, some people still shoplift and commit culpable homicide. But new weapons of the type in question would not be entering the market.

Nobody expects utopia to result from a law.

And the sky really doesn't just automatically fall when one teeny tiny thing is done to rearrange the landscape.

.

Or, rather that your opinion that "sniper rifles" should be banned is a gun grabbing opinion. Every deer rifle would be banned. Every match rifle would be banned. True colors have been shown.

especially if there's a high profile shooting or something. I'll be torn between being disappointed that the AWB was renewed and laughing at the pro-gun Republican voters who voted for pro-gun Bush.

... let's get some more and broader perspective here ...

Let's see him lose the real crazies and the core of his support....that one issue won't win the soccer moms after four years of shit.

Let's see the unelected drunk have a public fight with Tom DeLay...

Let's see the GOP explain to the public why theythink military style weapons belong in stores...

Let's see the NRA look like idiots in public.

I don't see a downside...and at the worst it's a great opportunity to remind America of all the other beneficial and needed bills the GOP Congress has bottled up.

They voted for a repeal. How many Reps. will fall on their sword this time.

BTW, Are you afraid that the AWB will be renewed or afraid soccer moms will be appeased?

Kerry is pulling ahead in battleground states, there are rumors the RepuKKKe congress will let Chimpy fall, it's getting that desperate. Like Carville says, when you got the other guy dowm,you need to put your foot on their neck and this National Republicanrifle ASSociation needs to be defeated and the White House cleansed of it's infection.

the gun crazies are about the only firends this corrupt bunch has....so I don't think he can afford to try to reach out to soccer moms....not that they'd buy a used war from him.

I'd love to raise the issue though and make the unelected drunk twist in the wind...

So what are you going to ban? Any rifle with a scope? Are you going to ban people from owning rifles if they have 20/20 vision? Are you going to ban the use of rifles for hunting snipe?

What do you want them to do?

What's a 'sniper rifle' and what loopholes!? Stop the hysterical drama queen talk about these 'evil guns'.

Define!!! What's a 'sniper rifle' and what loopholes!?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=56802&mesg_id=56802

It's actually right there in the thread headline. How did you manage to miss it???


Stop the hysterical drama queen talk about these 'evil guns'.

Now, *I* seem to have missed the post you're quoting from in which someone called something "evil guns". Can you reciprocate by providing me with a link?

.

Be a sniper rifle when it's never been used as such?

I'm not especially interested, and it doesn't affect me.

I'm just a signpost. You (and not just you) asked a question in this thread that seemed to have a ready, existing answer. I'm sure someone will be interested in discussing it with you, if you now move beyond not knowing (claiming not to know) what's being discussed.

.

I didn't realize he meant 50 cal as being 'sniper rifles'.

The wording is just too bizarre and I missed the other thread.

Amend NFA to cover Assault/Sniper weapons:

1. Any fireaem capable of accepting a self-contained cartridge, or

2. Any firearm wit more than two chambers, or

3. Any device capable of less than 1 MOA at 50 yds at a velocity greater than 1200 fps.

No grandfather. Takes care of gun show loophole. Eliminates "cosmetic changes."

"How many Reps. will fall on their sword this time"
Hell, I hope none of them do! Let them get out and explain on the campaign trail why loonies, terrorists and criminals ought to have a chance to get assault weapons! Tell the soccer moms loud and clear why it doesn't matter that Chimpy's pal evaded the assault weapon ban and armed the Beltway sniper!! Stand by those guns, boys!!<snicker>

rifles." This would be a great way to allow Kerry and McCain to display the new bipartinship that will be the hallmark of the Kerry Presidency.

Your lips to God's ear...

drawn, Commonsense requires that a line in the sand has be drawn about how powerful a weapon the average Joe can carry around. The AWB is a start. Today's guns can kill multiples what yesterday's cannons could. The Constitution is obsolete on this issue.

Amending the Constitution wouldn't change anything. The bill of rights recognizes pre-existing inherent rights, it does not grant rights. Repealing the Second Amendment would not deprive me of my right to keep and bear arms for my defense and security, any more than repealing the First Amendment would deprive me of my right to speak freely and assemble peacably.

It was a joke. No one cares what the Constitution or Bill of Rights say. They pass whatever laws they want.

someone saying MrBenchley knows more about gun control than they do.

I think the bills in Congress now (the Senate version is cosponsored by John Kerry) are an excellent start.

Remember, the present AWB passed a Democratically controlled Congress by just ONE VOTE.

He gave two links to "prove" that AK-47s and Uzis are assault weapons, but actually proved that he doesn't know dick about the subject. Of the five weapons listed on those two sites only ONE is an assault weapon. Three are machineguns, and one is a perfectly legal post-ban Maadi rifle.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=55681&mesg_id=55811&page=

(On edit - fixed the link)

Renewal of the AWB as a pandering measure is a bad thing.

I think too many people lose sight of the ultimate goal here...to reduce gun crime. As many of us have noted, "assault weapons" are used in a very tiny percentage of gun crimes (and .50 cal sniper rifles used in almost none).

In spite of statistics to the obvious contrary, the anti-gun lobby has decided to target these specific weapons for bans because they know that the general public's ignorance and fears will help their cause. They can sell that some guns are "more lethal" than other guns, that some have "no legitimate use."

These anti-gun groups don't hide their intentions. For example, the VPC is very vocal about banning all handguns as well (www.banhandgunsnow.org is a VPC site). Handguns are used in about 85-90% of gun crimes...wouldn't logic dictate that they should concentrate their efforts more strongly on that effort?

But no, their visible efforts all go toward "assault weapons" right now, because a slow, incremental ban process is the only way they'll accomplish their goal.

The goal is a ban on all guns.

But I wouldn't encourage them to go after pistols, cause they obviously want to do that ASAP.

The thing is, they made up a label for certain semi-autos. 'assault weapons'. Of course, when most people are asked about the ban, they think it means machine guns.

It was an unbelievable PR coup. Give something a scary name, and the sheep-like public will fear it.

It has been the accepted nomenclature since WW2. The anti-gun forces just hijacked the word "assault" and the imagery that comes with it.

Just look at the DU threads on the AWB. Every thread has at least three or four people saying, "yeah, nobody needs a machine gun." This is the general mindset people have when you say "assault weapon."

By the way, the next step is "assault pistols." They have already started to inject this concocted term into the vernacular.

are already included in the AWB. Any pistol magazine that holds over 10 rounds is an 'assault weapon'.

Sten
MP 40
...

Renewal of the AWB as a pandering measure is a bad thing.

Did someone actually say that?


I think too many people lose sight of the ultimate goal here...to reduce gun crime.

That may be your ultimate goal. I don't see much grounds for stating it as the universal one, or accusing anyone of "losing sight of" a goal that s/he never adopted.

First, I thought that the *ultimate* goal was to unseat George W. Bush ...

But apart from that -- the, shall we say, penultimate goal of a lot of people is to reduce the harm caused by the use of and access to firearms. And that is a far cry from meaning "gun crime" exclusively.

But hey, I'll bet that a lot of Republicans would agree that the ultimate goal is to reduce (gun) crime.


Handguns are used in about 85-90% of gun crimes...wouldn't logic dictate that they should concentrate their efforts more strongly on that effort?

On that, of course, I absolutely agree. Can I expect you to be clamouring for this measure now?

Or is this just more disingenuous nit-picking at measures that you would not support no matter how many of their alleged flaws were remedied?

Sorta the flip side of the AWB as a measure that many people who support it allegedly don't understand, but would plainly still support if they did understand it ...


The goal is a ban on all guns.

"The sky is falling, and everyone who disagrees with me is an evil authoritarian antichrist (sez I, not hesitating to employ whatever bit of demagoguery I can grasp at in order to get what I want)". Just me, quoting the words I read between the lines in some situations.

.

When the subject is banning mroe guns, why shouldn't we be defensive? The stated goal is banning. And you wonder why some people are worried about their rights?

When you have something to say to me about something I've said, do ring a bell or something.

.

and that isn't a tip-off or anything, either.