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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Triana

(22,666 posts)
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:06 PM Jun 2016

VP Joe Biden Responds to White House Petition to Ban Assault Weapons

Source: White House - Vice President Joe Biden

Just received this in email since I signed the petition:

Over the past few years, we've watched as new horrific shootings have replaced previous ones as the deadliest in our nation's history.

We've waged campaign after campaign to turn our grief into action — each time thinking maybe, just maybe, this will be the one that breaks through. This will be the one that gets through to Congress, which must ultimately act. We've used phrases like Now is the Time. Stop Gun Violence. Enough is Enough.

Folks, enough has been enough for a long time.

You know that. On Monday, in the wake of this latest, deadliest, mass shooting, you started this petition. You worked together, calling on your government to ban AR-15-type weapons from civilian ownership. In the days following, we have seen members of the United States Senate take and hold the floor, refusing to back down, refusing to concede that we might need to wait for an even bigger national tragedy to finally make some changes.

To the creator and signers of this petition, I want to say this as plainly and clearly as possible: The President and I agree with you. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.

When a lone gunman walked into a Century movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, he carried a Smith & Wesson M&P 15 -- a variation of the AR-15 rifle -- modified to hold as many as 100 bullets. He used it to kill 12 people and injure 70.

And when a lone gunman walked into a classroom at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, he carried a version of the AR-15. He used it -- and several handguns -- to kill 10 of his fellow students and injure nine.

And when a lone gunman walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, he carried a Bushmaster XM 15 -- another version of the AR-15 -- and multiple high-capacity magazines. He used it to kill 20 innocent children and six educators with 154 bullets in five minutes.

A single person killed that many people in just a few minutes. Not in a war zone. Here in America -- in a classroom.

These weapons have been used to commit horrific acts. They've been called "the perfect killing machines." They fire bullets at incredible speed that rip through bodies and cause devastating carnage, and can accommodate high-capacity magazines that allow them to effectively shoot up to 45 rounds per minute. We've seen their tragic results play out in our death tolls and in the thousands left wounded, struggling to recover.

As we learned this week from the family of the gun’s inventor, he himself did not intend that this gun be used by civilians, only by our soldiers in combat -- giving them an advantage over the AK-47. He didn’t own one himself. Here is what his family said:

"We think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more, by these events."

Right now, these weapons are on the shelves in gun shops around the country, completely legal for civilians to purchase. They can be purchased in a matter of mere minutes. That should not be so.

Here's a start: We should renew the assault weapons ban that Congress passed in 1994 — but which expired ten years later. That ban, which covered 19 specific assault-style weapons, was included in a comprehensive crime bill that folded together three pieces of legislation. I remember it well. I was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. I wrote much of the bill and led it through Congress — with the help of many others, especially Senator Feinstein on the assault weapons ban. I argued strongly in favor of banning these weapons. What's more, 46 House Republicans voted for that ban in 1994. Forty-six.

So what happened to that bill? To use a somewhat wonkish legislative term, it was "sunsetted." That means that this bill came with an expiration date: Ten years after its passage, it would need to be renewed. Under President Bush and a Republican Congress, the bill lapsed. And it hasn't been renewed since.

But renewing the ban on assault weapons isn’t the only thing Congress should do to help prevent the tragedy of gun violence around the country.

It could require that every buyer go through a background check before getting a gun -- to make sure dangerous weapons don’t end up in the hands of criminals or other people who have long been prohibited from possessing them. It could prevent people who are suspected of having terrorist ties and can’t get on a plane from buying weapons of war -- that’s just common sense. It could ensure that domestic abusers can’t go to the store to buy a gun -- filling the kinds of gaps in the law that leave too many innocent victims dead. It could end the freeze on gun violence research, so our public health experts can collect data and facts that would inform strategies to deal with this epidemic. And it could give law enforcement officials the tools and resources the President requested in his budget proposal -- so they can take dangerous criminals off the street and enforce our gun laws. Our Administration has done what it can. So have many cities, counties, and states.

Now it’s up to Congress to do its job.

They'll have a good opportunity this Monday, when the Senate is set to vote on a number of different gun safety measures -- votes that came about after that 15-hour filibuster, during which a series of Democratic senators refused to cede the floor. The measures they will vote on would address the fact that anyone on a terrorist watch list can still legally purchase guns and explosives. They will address the current background check requirements for prospective gun buyers.

Ahead of those votes, we'd like to invite you to join a call at 1pm EST for We the People signers with Valerie Jarrett on how we can continue to come together as citizens around this issue. Let us know you'll be joining right here — and ask any questions you've got, or issues you'd like to hear raised on the call.

I encourage you to pay attention to Monday's votes. Make yourselves aware. Use your voice. Make yourselves impossible to ignore.

Because you’re not alone in recognizing the need to act -- to take steps, consistent with the Second Amendment -- that will keep our children and communities safe. Here's who else agrees with you: The Department of Justice. Dozens of United States Senators. Faith leaders, law enforcement officials, and responsible businesses. Public health experts. And the vast majority of the American people, including the vast majority of gun owners in the country.

If taking commonsense steps to reduce gun violence had the potential to save even one life, it would be worth doing. But it has the potential to save far more than that.

You know that. And that is why you spoke up. That matters. But the fact is that we have three separate but equal branches of a government for a reason.

And so, to speak directly to those members of Congress who, in the wake of this most recent, most horrific killing of our citizens, might be considering stepping up and getting this done once and for all, I'd like to remind you that this will not stop on its own. It will not stop. In the three and a half years since Newtown, there have been at least 1,002 mass shootings in this country. At least 1,135 people killed, and 3,953 wounded. That includes 49 killed and 53 wounded in Orlando.

You know in your heart that this is the right thing to do. You know that by stepping up, your action has the potential to create a domino effect. Have the courage to do it.

We have done it before. We can do it again.

Finish this.

Joe
Vice President Joseph Biden
The White House
@VP


Read more: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-ar-15-civilian-ownership



Mods - please let this post remain. It's important - the call is at 1:00 this afternoon - just one hour! As many people as possible should see this message from VP Joe Biden about the petition. Thanks.
63 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
VP Joe Biden Responds to White House Petition to Ban Assault Weapons (Original Post) Triana Jun 2016 OP
Right on Joe jpak Jun 2016 #1
OMG! Congress is not doing its job AGAIN? bucolic_frolic Jun 2016 #2
I love me some Joe! longship Jun 2016 #3
So much for background checks. Indydem Jun 2016 #4
I guess you missed this part: TwilightZone Jun 2016 #6
That's what they want to do. Indydem Jun 2016 #10
Are there not already Saviolo Jun 2016 #13
There are. Indydem Jun 2016 #15
I would have no problem Saviolo Jun 2016 #17
So, in the real world... Indydem Jun 2016 #19
Okay, Saviolo Jun 2016 #20
In the "real world" we've had more than enough, long ago. Thanks for your thoughtful response. n/t Judi Lynn Jun 2016 #54
Thank you Saviolo Jun 2016 #55
Use similar to what grandpa had--a hunting rifle SujiwanKenobee Jun 2016 #21
Fine, use printing presses instead of the internet to make your posts. former9thward Jun 2016 #53
ever hear of the M1902 Springfield Rifle?? NoMoreRepugs Jun 2016 #24
*Sigh* Let's get this straightened out. Indydem Jun 2016 #32
Sounds good to me - buy back the hobby assault guns and hi-cap clips jpak Jun 2016 #9
So what is the guideline? Indydem Jun 2016 #12
1791~ guns, period. onehandle Jun 2016 #16
And what would you do with the rest? Indydem Jun 2016 #18
Obviously you know more about guns then many here robbob Jun 2016 #25
Hunting regulations limit you to 5-round magazines for most states. ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #27
Those are some great questions. Indydem Jun 2016 #35
What defines an "Assault gun?" Is a 10/22 rifle banned? What about a handgun? AlbertCat Jun 2016 #33
Yes, ownership. And it's about time. passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #29
Go Joe!!! nt eastwestdem Jun 2016 #5
Since a federal AWB won't be retroactive hack89 Jun 2016 #7
You don't know it won't be retroactive. passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #30
So you think such a thing is possible? Indydem Jun 2016 #39
No, I don't know what is possible in our current state of inability to pass any laws passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #41
I guess we differ on facts. Indydem Jun 2016 #42
Your concern is noted passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #43
The one proposed after Sandy Hook wasn't nt hack89 Jun 2016 #46
That doesn't mean anything except historically passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #50
My Congress-critters are already on the right side of this argument MurrayDelph Jun 2016 #8
Finally! ananda Jun 2016 #11
K&R livetohike Jun 2016 #14
I see it's already exceeded the 100,000 signatures needed Rocknrule Jun 2016 #22
I was just noticing the same thing. Pacifist Patriot Jun 2016 #37
He just called for confiscation. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #23
Really? librarylu Jun 2016 #26
Yeah, let's call for confiscation of all guns but muzzleloaders. That's the way to win elections! Just reading posts Jun 2016 #45
Fine by me librarylu Jun 2016 #48
Well, we can't and won't, so.... Just reading posts Jun 2016 #49
I suppose they shouldn't be hidden on top librarylu Jun 2016 #51
Not if there are young children in the house, no. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #56
Well, there's a good reason to not report anything suspicious. librarylu Jun 2016 #57
A better reason not to call the police on someone legally open carrying is it's well....legal. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #58
The violence was over a period of quite a few years. librarylu Jun 2016 #59
I'm glad you're (literally) in a better place now. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #60
You could find other recreation. librarylu Jun 2016 #61
Why should I? I haven't harmed anyone. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #62
In my ideal world librarylu Jun 2016 #63
No one wants to take all your guns passiveporcupine Jun 2016 #31
Just most of them? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #44
Logic and rational thought are difficult... I empathize with your struggle. LanternWaste Jun 2016 #34
good ol 'fire shotgun off your porch', it's ok with the law lol n/t DustyJoe Jun 2016 #28
45 Rounds a Minute? ... oh, I think some states let ya have mods that allow MUCH faster shooting ... brett_jv Jun 2016 #36
that IS fully auto (in terms of fire rate) in my book, holy fuck AntiBank Jun 2016 #38
Bump Firing Indydem Jun 2016 #40
Please don't be upset with me madokie Jun 2016 #47
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #52

bucolic_frolic

(42,663 posts)
2. OMG! Congress is not doing its job AGAIN?
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:12 PM
Jun 2016

Wonder if the voters will figure this out eventually?

May this be the year.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
4. So much for background checks.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:22 PM
Jun 2016

Good to know Joe is coming out and admitting the truth of the Administration:

"The President and I agree with you. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership."


That doesn't mean a ban on sales. Ownership. Australia style buyback, or confiscation.

TwilightZone

(25,342 posts)
6. I guess you missed this part:
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:27 PM
Jun 2016

"It could require that every buyer go through a background check before getting a gun -- to make sure dangerous weapons don’t end up in the hands of criminals or other people who have long been prohibited from possessing them. It could prevent people who are suspected of having terrorist ties and can’t get on a plane from buying weapons of war -- that’s just common sense. It could ensure that domestic abusers can’t go to the store to buy a gun -- filling the kinds of gaps in the law that leave too many innocent victims dead. It could end the freeze on gun violence research, so our public health experts can collect data and facts that would inform strategies to deal with this epidemic. And it could give law enforcement officials the tools and resources the President requested in his budget proposal -- so they can take dangerous criminals off the street and enforce our gun laws. Our Administration has done what it can. So have many cities, counties, and states. "

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
10. That's what they want to do.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:34 PM
Jun 2016

I'll leave the issue about suspending the constitutional rights of citizens without due process out of this argument.

What he is saying is that the belief of the Administration is that certain guns should be banned from civilian ownership. That's a new policy position, and if that is the policy, that is troubling.

Saviolo

(3,268 posts)
13. Are there not already
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:42 PM
Jun 2016

Are there not already limits on the type of guns that are legally obtainable by civilians? Aren't there already certain weapons that are prohibited from civilian ownership?

I'm asking in all seriousness, because I'm somewhat confused.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
15. There are.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:48 PM
Jun 2016

Automatic weapons and short barreled shotguns are restricted.

The problem becomes in the implementation of the ideas being set forth here. "Assault Weapon" is not an actual term; it has no definition, and therefore, banning them is irrelevant. It's why the old AWB was allowed to expire; almost every single restriction laid out in the AWB had been circumvented by the manufacturers.

So are we going to ban Semi-automatic weapons? Ok. What caliber? Is my 10/22 rifle going to be a banned item? It's semi-auto, and I even have high-capacity magazines, but that gun is generally considered relatively harmless and used mostly for small game and varmints. What about Semi-auto handguns? Are they banned too?

So the issue is filled with a lot of problems on where to draw the line, how the law should be enforced, and what to do with the millions of firearms that would now be "banned."

Saviolo

(3,268 posts)
17. I would have no problem
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:53 PM
Jun 2016

drawing the line at semi-automatic weapons. Handguns and rifles. As far as "relatively harmless," in the context of the last few weeks, it is relatively meaningless to me.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
19. So, in the real world...
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:57 PM
Jun 2016

How do farmers, ranchers, and those who don't live in urban areas address nuisance animals?

Are we going back to 6 shot revolvers?

I've got news for you, you couldn't get support from those efforts from any politician in America. Not because of the Gun Lobby, or the NRA, but because popular sentiment does not support such a move.

Saviolo

(3,268 posts)
20. Okay,
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:02 PM
Jun 2016

So in the mean time, people keep dying. And dying more from the semi-auto handguns than the semi-auto rifles.

Fine to have a negotiation about it, but that's my starting point, as far as I'm concerned. Your starting point appears to be no change to the rules we have.

Also, please dispense with the dismissive "in the real world" stuff. In the real world, people are dying.

Judi Lynn

(160,214 posts)
54. In the "real world" we've had more than enough, long ago. Thanks for your thoughtful response. n/t
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 07:21 PM
Jun 2016

Saviolo

(3,268 posts)
55. Thank you
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 09:46 PM
Jun 2016

I was a little surprised not to see any more snappy rejoinders from the enthusiast, but I felt like I'd said my piece.

SujiwanKenobee

(290 posts)
21. Use similar to what grandpa had--a hunting rifle
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:20 PM
Jun 2016

Farmer grandparents, Hunter Dad used things along these lines. Hell, a .22 for some things.
Marlin 336
Winchester Model 70
Savage 99

former9thward

(31,802 posts)
53. Fine, use printing presses instead of the internet to make your posts.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 06:41 PM
Jun 2016

The internet is far, far more responsible for the Orlando deaths than any gun.

NoMoreRepugs

(9,260 posts)
24. ever hear of the M1902 Springfield Rifle??
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:46 PM
Jun 2016

somehow a 5 round magazine fed bolt-action rifle sufficed for soldiers in WW1 and snipers in the US military in WW2 but a farmer to chase away some coyotes needs a 30 shot semi-auto weapon?? Those kinds of people need to stay in their bunkers and not venture into the dangerous outside world.


 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
32. *Sigh* Let's get this straightened out.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:33 PM
Jun 2016

The M1902 is a 3" cannon - definitely not a rifle.

The M1903 Springfield Rifle is indeed magazine fed, but it is a repeater rifle and can fire as many as 15 rounds a minute. That's a bullet every 4 seconds. It's no AR-15, but it's still a decent rate of fire.

Furthermore, the Springfield uses a heavier bullet at higher muzzle velocity than an "assault rifle." This makes them deadlier in any kind of situation (massacre, combat, hunting). Every person wounded in Orlando would have likely died if the shooter were carrying a Springfield.

Finally, with a heavier bullet traveling at a higher rate of speed, more dangerous accidents are likely to happen. Those bullets can travel 1000 yards - meaning a missed shot trying to kill a raccoon could end up killing the neighbor kid over half a mile away.

Just knowledge. Take it for what you want.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
12. So what is the guideline?
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:38 PM
Jun 2016

You want to add "assault guns" to the 1934 restrictions, I guess?

What defines an "Assault gun?" Is a 10/22 rifle banned? What about a handgun?

Maybe you could be slightly more specific.

OR, you could focus on keeping guns out of crazy people's hands and prosecuting people who violate the law under the current laws that are flagrantly not being enforced.

robbob

(3,514 posts)
25. Obviously you know more about guns then many here
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:55 PM
Jun 2016

Certainly more than I do. But could you please explain why anyone needs a clip that hold 100 bullets at a time? Or needs a weapon that can fire 45 rounds per minute?

What are you hunting with such a weapon?

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
27. Hunting regulations limit you to 5-round magazines for most states.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:11 PM
Jun 2016

The magazine size has nothing to do with "need".

> "can fire 45 rounds per minute"
You just described every "modern" rifle that is not bolt-action, including your grandfather's semi-auto hunting rifle.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
35. Those are some great questions.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:45 PM
Jun 2016

A 100 round magazine is ridiculous. No one should use one. The only positive thing I can say about them is that the fact that they are garbage and jam, saved many lives at the Aurora Co. shooting. When his 100 round mag jammed and he gave up and walked away.

A 30 round magazine does have advantages. I once found a cluster of 5 full grown raccoons in a tree. I used almost every round in my 30 round magazine (on my 10/22) to kill them. If I had to reload 10 rounds at a time, I am fairly certain at least one of them would have attacked me. As it was, the last one charged me, and finally died a few feet from me.

Again, rate of fire is relative. There are situations in the rural world where firing multiple shots in a minute can be critical to removing the issue you are having in the safest way possible. Could I maintain my property with a bolt action repeater - probably. But why should I have to? The technology exists, and I (and 99.5% of gun owners) am no threat to any human.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
33. What defines an "Assault gun?" Is a 10/22 rifle banned? What about a handgun?
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:34 PM
Jun 2016

These questions will be easy to define and answer.... in the bill. They are no obstacle.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
29. Yes, ownership. And it's about time.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:30 PM
Jun 2016
Here's who else agrees with you: the vast majority of gun owners in the country.


Except for a number of very vocal gun enthusiasts here on DU, but your compassion is noted...

hack89

(39,171 posts)
7. Since a federal AWB won't be retroactive
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:30 PM
Jun 2016

thereby allowing all existing rifles to remain in circulation, I think Joe is counting on the ignorance of most controllers that think an AWB would actually ban possession of assault weapons.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
30. You don't know it won't be retroactive.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:32 PM
Jun 2016

We need a buyback program, just like Australia. And we need to enforce the ban, even for current owners. It's too easy for those guns to pass into the hands of people who would use them against other people.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
39. So you think such a thing is possible?
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:56 PM
Jun 2016

You think there is the political will for a buyback?

You think confiscating people's guns will pass scrutiny by SCOTUS?

You think it's going to happen NOW, and not after Newtown?

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
41. No, I don't know what is possible in our current state of inability to pass any laws
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:17 PM
Jun 2016

But if we force a vote, and it doesn't pass, we can start voting out congress people who didn't support it.

Yes, right now with a balance of 4/4, I think it could pass the SC. And if we get one more liberal SC judge on the court it's that much easier.

Yes, there is a political will for a buyback, just not by some diehard gun nuts.

Yes, if Newtown didn't do it (and it should have) each successive mass shooting that keeps getting bigger and bigger (you know it's a competition to see how many people you can kill to get the notoriety, right?)...yes, right now the anger level is as high as after Newtown.

I know there are a lot of people here on DU who are raging about the possibility of their guns being taken away...and you want to know what I think? I know you don't, but I'm going to tell you anyway.

I think that if the country has decided (and it has) that civilians should not own military assault type weapons and large capacity mags that enable mass shootings; and if a law is passed to collect and destroy all those kinds of weapons, I believe that anyone who would refuse to give them up, or even want to die before giving them up...well, you are probably not emotionally mature enough, or mentally intact enough to own a gun in the first place. Especially an assault style high capacity rapid fire gun.


 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
42. I guess we differ on facts.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:41 PM
Jun 2016

There are no polls whatsoever that support your opinion.

There is not a popular majority who want to ban, confiscate, buyback, or otherwise hinder the sale of weapons to those Americans who are responsible gun owners. Reinstating the AWB? Maybe. But the AWB had no teeth, and by the end of it's life was useless. Most Americans recognize that. A poll released Wednesday shows a 57% support for a ban on assault weapons - with absolutely no context. 6 months ago it had only 44% support, and that will be where it falls back to in a few weeks. Specific polls on gun control repeatedly show that the vast majority of Americans don't support it; why do you think even Democrats only give it lip service?

If you honestly think that is the case, I suggest you leave the echo chamber and get out to the rest of the world, even to the rest of the internet. You might be surprised.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
50. That doesn't mean anything except historically
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 05:02 PM
Jun 2016

Moods are getting worse with every mass shooting.

I don't want the old assault weapons ban. I want a new one that covers everything that needs to be covered, including making it retroactive.

We DO NOT NEED these types of guns and paraphernalia in the hands of civilians.

Making ourselves and our guns look more deadly is even part of the problem. Why do you think some of these shooters want to get all decked out in body armor (like James Holmes). They want to look like super bad guys in games and movies, and in the military or swat units. They fetishize the look. Holmes thought he looked awesome and deadly. No, it didn't help him kill more people, but it was part of his game. Now this latest guy may have thought it would keep him alive longer so he could kill more people, I don't know, but things like body armor and other paraphernalia that can make guns look more deadly...sorry, we don't need that in society either, so some of the cosmetic stuff can still go as far as I'm concerned. But I'm most concerned with any gun the can shoot rapidly and hold large amounts of ammo.

I don't know all the technicalities, but I'm sure you get my drift.

MurrayDelph

(5,279 posts)
8. My Congress-critters are already on the right side of this argument
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:32 PM
Jun 2016

otherwise, my letter would be as following:


Dear <name-of-Congressperson>,


Forget "thoughts and prayers," from this point forward, my votes and campaign support (including donations) are with the candidates who support sensible gun safety laws. If that's not you, it will be for your opponent. Your choice.

ananda

(28,782 posts)
11. Finally!
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 12:34 PM
Jun 2016

Higher government speaking for a complete ban on assault weapons...

And that is just a start.

Rocknrule

(5,697 posts)
22. I see it's already exceeded the 100,000 signatures needed
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:22 PM
Jun 2016

But I still want to sign it. Is that still possible? I don't see anywhere to sign.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
23. He just called for confiscation.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:30 PM
Jun 2016
Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.

So much "No one wants to take away your guns".

librarylu

(503 posts)
48. Fine by me
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:40 PM
Jun 2016

if we could actually do it. Of course this isn't about an election - it's about saving lives.

Forget terrorists and criminals for a minute - how can we keep guns out of the hands of toddlers?

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
49. Well, we can't and won't, so....
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:55 PM
Jun 2016


Forget terrorists and criminals for a minute - how can we keep guns out of the hands of toddlers?

By exercising proper handling of firearms. Off body carry (such as in a purse or fanny pack) is a terrible idea. Handguns should be carried holstered.

librarylu

(503 posts)
51. I suppose they shouldn't be hidden on top
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 05:11 PM
Jun 2016

of the refrigerator where the kids couldn't possibly find them or on top of a cupboard since no 5-year-old can move a chair. What about showing off the collection and the kid walks in, picks one up and shoots the wife dead?

Would you support mandatory classes for people smart enough to buy a gun but too stupid to keep the thing unloaded and locked up?

If it's unloaded and locked up what possible protection can it be if the bad guys break into the house while you're home?

I've seen holstered handguns on officers of the law but I would rapidly go elsewhere if I were ever to see one on an ordinary citizen. Would I have to check the open carry laws in my state before reporting him as someone doing something suspicious?

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
56. Not if there are young children in the house, no.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 11:25 PM
Jun 2016
What about showing off the collection and the kid walks in, picks one up and shoots the wife dead?


If I ever had young children in my house (which I never do), I would not leave any loaded gun where such a child could access it.

Would you support mandatory classes for people smart enough to buy a gun but too stupid to keep the thing unloaded and locked up?

No.

1) You shouldn't have to take a class to exercise a Constitutional right.
2) A firearm which is kept unloaded and locked up is useless for self defense at home. It also doesn't allow for concealed carry when not at home.

I've seen holstered handguns on officers of the law but I would rapidly go elsewhere if I were ever to see one on an ordinary citizen.

I'm not a fan of open carry. I prefer concealed carry. Thus, while I may well be armed were you to see me, you wouldn't know that I was armed....so there's would be no need for you to go elsewhere (at any speed).

Would I have to check the open carry laws in my state before reporting him as someone doing something suspicious?

If you call the police on someone for open carrying in a state where it's legal, you could be in legal trouble.

librarylu

(503 posts)
57. Well, there's a good reason to not report anything suspicious.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 11:53 PM
Jun 2016

I would really like to move to Britain or Australia but I'm stuck here. Fortunately I have not seen any open carry in my state (yet) and the local gun store went out of business.

Strangely I have never felt the need to own a gun myself although I've been through two break ins and five armed robberies and have been shot twice. I live alone in a pretty safe area and I just don't worry about it.

I really don't understand why people who aren't part of a well-organized militia think they have a Constitutional right to have guns. Does the mayhem they cause bother you at all? Would your life change significantly if they were all melted down?

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
58. A better reason not to call the police on someone legally open carrying is it's well....legal.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 12:54 AM
Jun 2016
I would really like to move to Britain or Australia but I'm stuck here

As are most people. It's quite easy for some to casually spout, "If such and such happens, I'm moving out of this country!" It's a wee bit more complicated than that in real life.

I have looked at what's involved in retiring in another country, largely out of curiosity. I'd certainly be able to afford to do so in (for instance) Panama or Thailand. And I quite enjoy Thailand. Hm.....

Fortunately I have not seen any open carry in my state (yet) and the local gun store went out of business.

I would speculate that's a function of where you live. Someone who lives in NYC is never going to see open carry by anyone other than law enforcement. In Middle Of Nowhere, Idaho, on the other hand, it might be unusual to see someone who doesn't carry.

Strangely I have never felt the need to own a gun myself although I've been through two break ins and five armed robberies and have been shot twice.

That's an extraordinary amount of violence for one person to experience. My last personal experience with violence was being punched by the class bully in 8th grade forty years ago. Could you provide some context, please?

I live alone in a pretty safe area and I just don't worry about it.

I presume you've recently moved. Two break ins, five armed robberies, and two attempted murders doesn't fit any definition of "safe" with which I'm familiar.

I really don't understand why people who aren't part of a well-organized militia think they have a Constitutional right to have guns.

Well regulated, not well organized, which in 18th Century parlance means "well equipped". As for why: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Seems clear cut to me.



Does the mayhem they cause bother you at all?

Does it bother me that some people are assaulted and murdered? Of course. Is the solution to take away the firearms of law-abiding citizens? Of course not.

I would also point out that over the last quarter century, the number of guns in this country has doubled (at the very leaat), while at the same time the murder rate has dropped in half.

Would your life change significantly if they were all melted down?

Would my life change significantly if the government confiscated tens of thousands of dollars of my property against my will and destroyed it? Yes.



librarylu

(503 posts)
59. The violence was over a period of quite a few years.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 02:14 AM
Jun 2016

I've lived where I live now for 19 years. My house was burglarized about fifteen years ago. There was a series of burglaries in the area, possibly the work of teenagers in another town who were doing it for drugs. More recently I was robbed at gunpoint at work by a young man who was part of a small gang of druggers. They were all caught a week and a half later. The other robberies were in the LA area (hazards of working retail) and were much more professional - no one was caught. The shop was in an area that had a fairly high crime rate. The other break in was while I was building a house in the woods way far away from LA. They took almost everything I owned.

My Nam vet husband shot me one night through the arm and neck - .357 Magnum, hollow point shell. He was in a blackout and had no idea why he was in jail when he came to the next day. He stopped to get more beer on the way to the hospital but neglected to get more gas. The ambulance driver recognized his truck and he was arrested across the river. There followed 12 more years of on and off nightmare. He had episodic dyscontrol syndrome secondary to a series of head injuries. In addition he had full blown, late onset PTSD, failed back surgery syndrome (years of Vicodin may have been the cause of death if he died of kidney failure) and a severe problem with alcohol. And he had guns. The first shooting was my dad's .22 rifle when I was a teen - compound comminuted fracture of the right humerus secondary to a gunshot wound.

I've had to sell 2nd Amendment T-shirts and concealed carry purses and vests when I was working for a really nice boss who, I think, was a member of the NRA. He knew my story but never failed to tell me about his adventures with his guns and trips to gun shows. I lost the job when he retired and now I think I'm eternally grateful for that.

If there was a buy back and you were compensated for your property would that make a meltdown easier to handle? There'd be no chance of those guns falling into the wtong hands if they were molten puddles. No chance of accidents, either.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
60. I'm glad you're (literally) in a better place now.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 10:02 AM
Jun 2016

Perhaps I've lived a relatively sheltered life. I've never experienced a single instance of violent crime.

If there was a buy back and you were compensated for your property would that make a meltdown easier to handle?

It would help, I suppose, but I'd still be outraged if the government bought them "back" (How can they buy something back when they never owned it in the first place?", just as I'd be outraged if the government confiscated my book collection while compensating me for it.

There'd be no chance of those guns falling into the wtong hands if they were molten puddles. No chance of accidents, either.

There would also be no chance of those guns being in the right hands, as they are now. No chance of them being used for recreation or for defense of life and home.

librarylu

(503 posts)
61. You could find other recreation.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 04:26 PM
Jun 2016

Mace and a good security system might make you feel more secure.

I also knew a couple who got into an argument and shot each other dead. Without the guns right there at hand they might have just calmed down and lived. A friend drove to his about-to-be ex's place of work and shot her through the windshield with his shotgun then turned it on himself leaving their 5-year-old orphaned. He wasn't even drunk.

Maybe if all the law-abiding gun lovers hide their guns so the government can't find them they be so secure they won't hurt anybody.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
62. Why should I? I haven't harmed anyone.
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 04:41 PM
Jun 2016
Mace and a good security system might make you feel more secure.

Nothing is as effective as a firearm at stoping a threat. Mace is better than nothing, I suppose, but it doesn't even begin in to compare in stopping power to .45 pistol or 12 ga. shotgun.

As for a security system, I'm reminded of the saying: When your life is on the line and every second counts, the police are only ten minutes away.

I also knew a couple who got into an argument and shot each other dead. Without the guns right there at hand they might have just calmed down and lived.

I also know someone whose house was broken into while he was at home. He got his pistol and confronted the intruder (who was armed with a knife) while calling 911. Luckily, the threat of the pistol caused the intruder to leave. Without the gun right there at hand he might have have been stabbed to death.

Oh, the police showed up, of course. About five to ten minutes after the encounter was over.

We can play dueling anecdotes all day.

Maybe if all the law-abiding gun lovers hide their guns so the government can't find them they be so secure they won't hurt anybody

Or help anybody, either. Bearing in mind that the criminal element will still be armed....

librarylu

(503 posts)
63. In my ideal world
Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:01 PM
Jun 2016

no one would be armed. I wouldn't even have to see guns in movies or video games. I'd had a very sheltered existance right up until I didn't any more.

In one of the armed robberies I was able to get away and run to the nearest store to ask the clerk to let me in to call the police. He wouldn't do it. He'd had a recent robbery too. A strolling couple helped by going across the street to call from a Jack-in-the-Box. It may have taken the police 45 minutes to show up (the station was on the other side of the district, I was told) but they did show up, more than once, and a couple of local kids tried to help identify the guy. There was more to it than just the money but I'd rather not go into that. I must have said something right; I didn't die. I felt pretty good about those kids, too. One said they'd been banging in the gangs since they were 5 but "we straight now" and they wanted to help. I think they were about 10.

Maybe doing more to deal with underlying causes of crime, such as drug addiction, poverty, broken families would help reduce the crime. Not sure how that's going to happen, though.

I think I stopped trying to save the world somewhere around 1975.

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
31. No one wants to take all your guns
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:33 PM
Jun 2016

just the ones that civilians shouldn't have.


And if you can't handle that? Too fuckin bad.

 

Just reading posts

(688 posts)
44. Just most of them?
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:07 PM
Jun 2016
And if you can't handle that? Too fuckin bad.

Oh, I can handle it, especially given that such confiscation will never take place.
 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
34. Logic and rational thought are difficult... I empathize with your struggle.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:38 PM
Jun 2016

Logic and rational thought are difficult... I empathize with your struggle.

brett_jv

(1,245 posts)
36. 45 Rounds a Minute? ... oh, I think some states let ya have mods that allow MUCH faster shooting ...
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:45 PM
Jun 2016

Have a gander at this video ...




Skip to 2:20 mins for the real action.

But hey, this is just 'semi-automatic', doncha know ...
 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
38. that IS fully auto (in terms of fire rate) in my book, holy fuck
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 02:54 PM
Jun 2016


I am very familiar with guns during my youth (hunting father), I am not a "outright banner" (ludicrous position, would start a civil war) BUT THAT gun mod above should so so be outlawed.
 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
40. Bump Firing
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 03:05 PM
Jun 2016

Any mods that allow bump firing should be made illegal under the 1934 firearms act.

And that's coming from someone who generally opposes gun control measures.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
47. Please don't be upset with me
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 04:13 PM
Jun 2016

This old Vietnam vet thinks that these guns talked about here in this should not under any circumstances be legal for just anyone to own. I don't give two shits that many of my fellow men and women own guns but I do care about these particular type weapons. I faced these weapons of war in War.
Please don't be upset with me on this issue
It breaks my heart every time I read a story about a mass killing where these kinds of weapons of war were used.
They're hunting rifles all right but the prey is Human, not animals or inanimate objects rather flesh and blood of humans

Response to Triana (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»VP Joe Biden Responds to ...