Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Let's call them what they are: [View all]benEzra
(12,148 posts)137. How would you get the gun control lobby to sign up to that, or be constrained by it?
"* Ban accessories that serve no purpose other than to transform guns into weapons of mass slaughter, such as attachable drums that carry 100 rounds."
If you haven't noticed, the gun-control lobby is trying to ban common magazines between 11 and 30 rounds, not just 100-rounders or belt-feds. They are currently aiming for a 10-round limit, which is 2/3 of the capacity of mainstream rifles in the 1860's and 1870's.
"* Adopt rules that make it harder for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain firearms."
Gun controllers are primarily enamored of laws that make it harder for noncriminals and the mentally competent to own firearms, it seems to me. No one wants criminals and the small subset of the mentally ill who are dangerous to own firearms, so there's potential common ground there. But if the gun control lobby isn't interested in finding that common ground, why should gun owners?
"* Outlaw the public display of weapons."
Define "public display".
"* Allow the concealed carry of guns using the shall issue standard."
Restricting licensed concealed carry to elites or those granted special political favors is like priority #3 of the gun control lobby, behind "assault weapon"/magazine bans and transfer bans. When that changes, let me know.
"* Stop trying to ban scary-looking add-ons that primarily protect the shooter, but dont make the gun more dangerous to others."
When the gun control lobby agrees to this, let me know. Right now, banning guns based on such features is consistently their top legislative priority.
"* Forget attacks on the armor-piercing bullets."
Acknowledging that AP ammo is already banned in all calibers that matter would be a good starting point, but as the recent M855 debacle shows, the gun controllers aren't even remotely interested in acknowledging that fact.
"* Abandon efforts to outlaw assault weaponsa politically loaded phrase with a mishmash of meanings that pretty much amount to nothing. "
Such rationality would be nice, but as you can see from this and other threads, banning modern-looking rifles is pretty much Priority One of the U.S. gun control lobby. If they want to show good faith in this regard, maybe they can start advocating for the repeal of the recently passed rifle bans in NY, CT, CA, and MA. The Massachusetts ban is particularly egregious, as Massachusetts had only 7 rifle murders out of 1,301 total murders 2007-2014.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
144 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I can appreciate your thoughts on these matters. But this is a culture war...
Eleanors38
Jul 2016
#1
Really? God that's pathetic. How far will gun people go to defend their fetish.
flamin lib
Aug 2016
#19
Jerry Miculek, a professional athlete widely regarded as the fastest shooter in the world,
benEzra
Aug 2016
#76
Trench warfare was a thing of the past by the time the M1 was developed (late 1930's)
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#94
That's what I was wondering. By the time the M1 was adopted, the Army was concentrating...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#95
I've only seen the term used to describe combat shotguns. I'd like to understand the context...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#97
Yeah, 8 vs 10 rounds per clip. Was mixing Enfield with Garand. Thanks for the correction. nt
flamin lib
Aug 2016
#24
The M1 is clip fed, whereas the Enfield is magazine fed. There really isn't any excuse...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#31
"I daresay that I know more about guns...than most gun nuts here on DU"
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#34
Only for bonefide gun nutz. The clip on the M1 is a box loaded outside the rifle.
flamin lib
Aug 2016
#38
No, this is basic technical terminology which someone of your supposed expertise...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#46
What "losing argument"? Correcting your erroneous terminology? It's extremely difficult for me...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#49
You're still deflecting and attacking me instead of addressing the basic premise. nt
flamin lib
Aug 2016
#65
I'm addressing your self professed status as someone highly knowledgeable of firearms...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#85
"If YOU don't understand the internal mechanisms of assault weapons I suggest that you are...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#67
In that particular venue, the Orlando shooter could have shot 103 people with a full-sized pistol,
benEzra
Aug 2016
#79
You're likely right, but I am genuinely curious having owned several M1s over the years...
Marengo
Aug 2016
#142
Because it's an "Evil Scary Gun Term", and "assault weapon" was already taken....
benEzra
Aug 2016
#143
155gr .30-06 is still trading velocity for long range and penetration. Try 110gr.
benEzra
Aug 2016
#33
6mm Remington "worked OK" (in your words) at U Texas. 9mm "worked OK" (again your words) at VT.
benEzra
Aug 2016
#43
Weight is a big issue now, but that was less of an criterion before body armor was general-issue.
benEzra
Aug 2016
#81
The red herrings and deflection in this thread are not coming from your interlocutors:
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#68
"At a time of increasing gun violence in America" Gun crime has decreased markedly in the US
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#106
How can gun violence not be a crime, unless one counts paper targets, clay pigeons...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#108
The *number of media accounts* is on the rise, not the rate. That is what is declining.
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#111
You were talking about a license to own, not a license to carry. Big difference.
beevul
Aug 2016
#113
The book is by a legal scholar...here's some more...there are many cases...it's legal.
Sancho
Aug 2016
#117
Not desiring prior restraint on an enumerated right =/= "(a) desire to allow dangerous people...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#126
I have no problem with carry permits so long as they are given on an objective basis...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#130
Your licensing proposal is flawed, IMO, because of the idea "you can have one IF...
friendly_iconoclast
Aug 2016
#134
How would you get the gun control lobby to sign up to that, or be constrained by it?
benEzra
Aug 2016
#137
All civilian repeating firearms have the ability to kill a lot of people if misused.
benEzra
Aug 2016
#83