What should be the limit on ownership of guns?

[sarisataka]

What is the limit on the right to keep arms that should be considered acceptable?
For purposes of this poll, assume:
-An option includes all limitations above it excepting #1
-we are only considering purchase and ownership, not carry, smart technology or other gun control issues
-all restrictions will be retroactive as much as is possible
-any changes needed to the Constitution or SCOTUS rulings will happen to make these possible


Be brave! Vote your belief whether strict or loose...
At the point of your limit you believe further restrictions on guns will have no appreciable effect and actions other than gun control are needed to reduce crime and deaths

Edit> I did not include any voluntary options, such as buybacks, as 'voluntary' implies it not really being a restriction.

37 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"- cash gets a gun, no questions.
	4 (11%)
	Current system of FFL and private sellers is fine, no change
	20 (54%)
	UBC- all sales must be checked
	5 (14%)
	Mandatory training requirement
	3 (8%)
	Registration of all firearms
	3 (8%)
	Bans on certain guns deemed exceptionally dangerous
	0 (0%)
	Must show need for purchase/ownership
	1 (3%)
	Private ownership allowed but guns stored in armory, a finite time for use outside
	1 (3%)
	No private ownership, mandatory buyback of all guns
	0 (0%)
	No private ownership, confiscation without compensation
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[chemp]

1. Should be able to choose more than 1 option

I insist upon a universal Background check along with (non NRA) safety training.

I am a nongun owner working in the gun industry. There are too many unsafe gun owners.

[sarisataka]

3. Limited options

On how a poll may be set up. That is why I said to assume any option includes'and all of the above'

Still not perfect as someone may want a lower restriction but skipping a higher one. I tried to make it as streamlined increasing set of choices as I could.

[saltpepperdoor]

24. what is wrong with a NRA safety course?

Say the Basic Pistol Shooting course? How should it be improved?

[yeoman6987]

77. I don't own a gun and never will

But I say whatever the 2nd Amendment permits is fine with me. I don't get involved in other people's business. You want to own a million guns, have at it. If you never buy a gun in your life, good on you too. Too much nosiness for my taste.

[ZombieHorde]

2. No public ownership.

Current publically owned firearms are to be given to black people as reparations.

[sarisataka]

5. By publicly owned

Do you mean law enforcement and other government agencies?

[ZombieHorde]

8. Yes.

Maybe they can have their guns back if they learn to respect human life.

[VScott]

4. Current system as is

But, I would also include repealing some current laws.

Eliminating the NFA, repealing EO regarding "sporting purposes, eliminating gun control laws
at the state level (AWB, magazine restrictions, waiting periods, purchase limits, one gun a month,
firearms rosters) etc.

[DustyJoe]

6. ^This^ n/t

[Veganstein]

34. I feel much the same way.

But I ticked option #1. Rather than trying to fix our current system piecemeal, I think a better solution would be to wipe the slate clean and implement those laws which can be demonstrated to be beneficial.

[Prophet 451]

7. I ticked 4

Of the firearms regulations I favor, only three would affect the average law-abiding citizen: A universal background check (to make sure you're not a felon or domestic abuser); passing a basic firearms safety test (don't care whether you learn safe handling from the NRA or your dad) and a ban on the manufacture of magazines above 15 rounds (no ban on the existing ones but they'll gradually leave the market as they age).

[upaloopa]

9. I would like to see a voluntary reduction in gun

ownership. I think that over time gun ownership will be less of a popular choice.
I think much gun ownership is driven by fear. As our country becomes more diversified, the diversity will become less of an issue that creates fear. As fear abates gun ownership will decline.
It may take a generation or two. At that point it will be harder for gun manufacturers and the NRA to drum up the fear it does now.

[oneshooter]

35. Are you willing to show your support for reduced firearm ownership..........

By voluntarily surrendering yours for destruction?

[upaloopa]

36. I am going to a gun store and sell it to a dealer.

[oneshooter]

42. That is not "reducing ownership" that is simply changing ownership.

If you truly believed in what you claim, then you would have your firearms destroyed.
That would be "reducing ownership".

To do less would show your hypocrisy.

[upaloopa]

47. Fine I get a call out from a gunner

[sarisataka]

49. I do not ever recall

an I-own-guns-but-not-for-defense-because-I-am-not-afraid-and-I-haven't-even-fired-any-of-my-guns-in-years-and-don't-even-need-them-and-I-support-every-single-gun-control-proposal who is willing to simply give up their guns.

I have seen some who make the claim and support confiscation but would still sell their guns rather than set an example.

[oneshooter]

54. He is willing to give up his gun.

Just not the MONEY he will get from it.

[hack89]

10. All we need is to add UBCs. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. My recommendations --

* Free NICS access for private sales.

* Free training, maybe in middle school.

* Make a national DB of stolen firearms and make it freely accessible to buyers.

* Drop a bag of anvils on anyone in possession of a stolen firearm.

* Make LE liable for failing to report those who should be reported.

* Drop a bigger bag of anvils for using a gun in a crime.

* LE must abide by the strictest GC standards that apply to citizens.

[The Green Manalishi]

90. Agree EOM.

I would add- ever convicted of using violence against a human being or abusing an animal, no gun, ever.

[Jenoch]

12. When I first saw this post,

I thoight it meant a limit on the 'quantity' of guns owned. I don't think it matters how many guns a person owns, as long as they are safely secured, as in disanled or lock up in some manner. I know people who do not own a gun, people who own fewer than ten guns, and people who own dozens, to over 100 guns. Most of them have their guns secured.

I once worked with a guy who told me he had a .25 semi-auto handgun in his sock drawer and he did not think his three kids, ages 9, 11, and 14 did not know he had the gun. I gave him a trigger lock and told him to ask his kids if they knew about the gun. He was surprised that they had handled the gun (which had a loaded magazine). He thanked me for the trigger lock. I asked him where the key was. The fact that it was in the sock drawer proved he was more of an idiot than I first thought.

[stone space]

13. Given the lack of radio buttons, I'll have to go with registration.

Allowing gun owners the opportunity to register their firearms would help to separate the gun owners who aim to be law abiding and responsible from criminal gun owners.

[oneshooter]

14. "Criminal gun owners" can not be required to register their firearms. n/t

[stone space]

20. But law abiding gun owners can.

That helps to tell the difference.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Why would a law abiding gun owner need to register?

The means for telling the difference between a lawful and unlawful gun ownership is whether or not the gun was employed lawfully.

[stone space]

26. Unregistered guns would be illegal.

Law abiding gun owners would have all of their guns registered.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. What would that prevent?

You've already admitted that a criminal won't register their gun (and legally cannot be made to). That means, then, that the only people that applies to are those who have only law abiding intent will be punished for failing to register.

What would be the appropriate sentence for a competitive target shooter?

Should game hunting with an unregistered weapon be a misdemeanor or a felony and to what degree?

If a woman shot an attacker with an unregistered weapon how long should she go to jail?

A homosexual who brandishes an unregistered weapon to ward off gay-bashers shall spend a minimum of ____ days in jail, not to exceed ____ years.

[stone space]

29. Law abiding gun owners would not be punished.

Their gunz would be registered.

That means, then, that the only people that applies to are those who have only law abiding intent will be punished for failing to register.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. How long of a sentence should a woman serve for shooting a rapist with an unregistered gun?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. I have a feeling...

...that there are some who would think (but not say) a woman with an unregistered gun deserves what she gets.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. The poll is effectively radio buttons. You can only choose one.

If I had to take a wild stab, I'd guess you meant 'checkboxes'?

[stone space]

23. oops...you're right. (nt)

[Eleanors38]

15. I voted for UBC option, but this can be handled at state

level through a FOID (firearms owner I.D.) when an official state I.d. is issued, and a NICS-type b.g. check is done (voluntary), and the I.d. "okay" is embedded with the number.

I have a problem with loaning, family transfers, etc. which might "momentarily" criminalize people when exchanging guns at the range or in the field.

[Jenoch]

17. Would you be okay with a UBC

that allowed for temporary transfers? There was a UBC bill in the Minnesota legislature that had such a provision (the bill never got out of committee).

[Eleanors38]

18. In principle, yes. I don't like "gotcha" laws...

The discussion on b.g. checks -- who is legally able to possess a firearm -- is cheapened by CA's referendum decriminalizing to a misdemeanor theft of a firearm. I wonder if the controllers are even aware of how that wonderously liberal state incentivized theft of firearms.

[Jenoch]

19. Is it possible California made that change in the law

because they don't have enoigh money to incarcerate the people who are convicted of felonies?

[helpmetohelpyou]

16. no restrictions cash buys gun

If you were in jail and paid your dues you get your rights back

[Logical]

21. Really? Convicted murderer gets to own guns and Carry them? nt

[stone space]

27. If gunz have rights, then they should be allowed in prison cells.

No need to wait for the prison sentence to expire.

I believe that Charles Manson has the right to marry anybody stupid enough to marry him. Because marriage is a right.

I also believe that Charles Manson should be allowed to vote from his prison cell, because voting is a right.

However, I do not believe that Charles Manson should be allowed to have gunz & ammo in his prison cell, because gunz are not a right.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. That is one of those rhetorical arguments that is so manifestly ridiculous and beyond the

intrinsic understanding of the term "gun rights" that no rebuttal is necessary; it mocks itself.

[stone space]

32. OK. I'm out.

no rebuttal is necessary

Merry Christmas!

[Matrosov]

37. Confiscation

I voted confiscation, with no private ownership or access allowed thereafter

It's very simple. Groups like the NRA actually make compelling arguments why traditional forms of gun control do not work. Psychopaths who want to massacre school children won't care that schools are designated gun-free. Current laws against felons and the mentally incompetent are worthless when criminals can buy their weapons off the street and when some people simply snap without prior warning and without there having been a chance to declare them mentally incompetent. Banning things like assault rifles and high capacity magazines in certain cities or states is irrelevant when people can smuggle them in from elsewhere, and banning them nationally would be irrelevant when most shootings involve handguns anyway.

Here's the problem. The pro-gun answer is to have people buy even more guns, as though all law-abiding citizens are going to be carrying with them at all times, and then criminals and crazies will get gunned down by the 'good guys' before they ever have a chance to hurt someone innocent. Aside from the fact that relatively few people legally carry weapons with them even in the states with the most lenient firearm laws and consequently the 'good guy with a gun' is extremely elusive in most shootings, solving the problem of our insane amount of gun violence with more guns makes as much sense as telling a smoker with lung cancer to smoke some more and hope for the lung cancer itself to develop cancer of its own and die.

Which leaves us with the other extreme, which is confiscation and forbidding anyone who isn't military or law enforcement from even touching a gun (though trigger happy police in places like Ferguson make me wonder how many officers should even be armed).

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. The absence of guns doesn't lead to the absence of violence and crime. It may actually lead to more.

[Matrosov]

44. Guns facilitate crime and suicide

It's much easier physically and mentally to kill family, coworkers, and school children, or to rob banks and convenience stores, with a gun than with a knife or a baseball bat.

Suicide is also an easier choice when a suicidal person knows they can die instantly with the pull of a trigger than take their life in a slower or more gruesome way. Furthermore, whereas there is still some hope for someone who is caught in the middle of a suicide attempt with a rope or with pills, there is almost never something you can do for someone who blew their brains out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Why, then, does largely gun-free Japan have such a high suicide rate?

The OECD gives a rate of 19.4/100,000 inhabitants (via Washington Post)

The US rate is 10.1/100K

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/suiciderate.html

In fact, Japan's suicide rate is higher than the *combined* US suicide and homicide
rates. Per the World Bank:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/VC.IHR.PSRC.P5

Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)

the US murder rate is 5/100K people

[Matrosov]

66. It's a cultural issue in Japan

For starters, Japanese culture is generally much more tolerant of suicide. In some cases taking your life is even seen as the most honorable action you can take, such as when samurai in feudal Japan took their own lives in response to failure or when Japanese kamikaze pilots in WWII turned their planes into guided bombs.

These days some Japanese feel suicide is an acceptable response to poor academic performance or losing one's job. The extreme expectations related to academic and job performance also lead to higher rates of mental illness, and consequently suicide, as well.

Japan is a good example of how a gun ban would obviously not eliminate suicide, as firearms make killing easier but don't drive someone to suicide in the first place, but at least it would help to save a few more lives.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. Less than 5% of sexual assaults involve an attacker with a gun. Why ban protection for women? nt

[Matrosov]

67. Because it's about much more than sexual assault

I'm not going to deny that access to guns has prevented some crimes and saved some lives. Unfortunately, guns have also been used in many more crimes and, most importantly, cost many more lives.

If we look at the practical value of firearms (crime prevention, live saving) and look at the societal cost associated with private gun ownership, it's clear the cost is far greater than the benefit.

This is in contrast to something like transportation (cars, airplanes), where even though there are tens of thousands of deaths each year as well, the practical value is far greater than than the societal cost (car crashes, plane crashes, pedestrian accidents)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. How many defensive gun uses occur annually?

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Let us know when you (or your children) will be volunteering to do the confiscating.

I expect that will be right around the time the sun burns out...

[Matrosov]

45. Why should I volunteer?

I'm not law enforcement.

I'm also against things like murder, drink driving, and many other things. Should I volunteer to conduct murder investigations and sobriety checks?

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Advocating for others to do risky things, but won't do them yourself?

Or encourage your kids to do them? You've got plenty of company:

[Matrosov]

64. That goes for a lot of things

Law enforcement work in general is risky. So is firefighting. So are many things other things. I wasn't aware that only those who volunteer for these jobs can also advocate them.

I'm not volunteering to confiscate guns because I'm not in law enforcement and because I'm not going to make a major career change over one single issue. It's as simple as that.

Besides, why should it be risky when I always hear that gun owners are so "law abiding"? Maybe then there are more who have "SHTF scenario" and "vote from the rooftop" wet dreams than I assumed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. John Fogerty and CCW described your mindset well:

Besides, why should it be risky when I always hear that gun owners are so "law abiding"?

>99% of them are-but there are 80 million of them in the US, and if one-tenth of one
percent decide not to play nicely with authorities this country will have problems
that will dwarf the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

You're awfully glib about the prospect of sending *other people* into harm's way.

Not only that, you seem to think that ca. 23% of the population will simply
acquiesce to the idea of giving up their property. Apparently, you've never
heard of...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_longest_suicide_note_in_history

[Straw Man]

40. The Lame Analogy of the Month award.

... solving the problem of our insane amount of gun violence with more guns makes as much sense as telling a smoker with lung cancer to smoke some more and hope for the lung cancer itself to develop cancer of its own and die.

Which one of these statements is true?

A) No one has ever successfully defended himself/herself with a gun.
B) Cancers aren't attacked by other cancers.

Take a wild guess. You've got a 50/50 chance of getting it right.

[Matrosov]

43. Hardly

It's hardly a lame analogy when the proposed answer to gun violence is yet more gun violence. The RKBA crowd always talks about the "good guy with a gun" and thinks if most people were "good guys with guns," then criminals and crazies would stand no chance.

It's a fantasy at best. I live in place in the deep South that is extremely pro-gun and where gun laws are relatively weak. There's no reason why the majority of the people can't walk around armed. Despite that, the "good guy with a gun" is almost never around when there is a shooting or another crime.

Consequently it ends up being that guns are a tool for crime and not for self-defense. That is our reality.

Besides, you wouldn't want everyone to walk around armed. Even lots and lots of gun enthusiasts, the people who should know the most about guns and about gun safety, are so dimwitted they shouldn't even be allowed around sharp objects.

[beevul]

46. You aren't fooling anyone.

"It's hardly a lame analogy when the proposed answer to gun violence is yet more gun violence."

Except theres one little problem with your theory:

We as a Society have decided that the default response, that is the standard operating prodedure, to respond to gun violence, is to call someone armed with a gun.

"Consequently it ends up being that guns are a tool for crime and not for self-defense."

It ends up being no such thing. Just because you're too ideologically blinded to see the positives of gun ownership doesn't give you the right to expect such blindness of others.

[Straw Man]

48. The emphatic adverb.

It's hardly a lame analogy when the proposed answer to gun violence is yet more gun violence.

Hardly? I'm underwhelmed...

The immediate and appropriate solution to gun violence against one's person (or any potentially deadly violence against one's person) is gun violence emanating from oneself or from an armed agent of the State. As some wag once said, "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy."

No one should be forced to "take one for the team" because of some misguided trickle-down theory of disarmament. It's a personal-freedom thing. You wouldn't understand.

I live in place in the deep South that is extremely pro-gun and where gun laws are relatively weak. There's no reason why the majority of the people can't walk around armed. Despite that, the "good guy with a gun" is almost never around when there is a shooting or another crime.

My, my. You just made the case for more citizens being armed. Did you mean to do that, or was it an accident?

Besides, you wouldn't want everyone to walk around armed. Even lots and lots of gun enthusiasts, the people who should know the most about guns and about gun safety, are so dimwitted they shouldn't even be allowed around sharp objects.

Spoken like a true elitist. Yet I would imagine you consider yourself a progressive.

How do you feel about all these "dimwits" driving cars and having babies? Lot of potential for damage there. Do you propose to put a stop to those activities as well?

[Matrosov]

65. No, it's a fantasy

I didn't make the case for more citizens being armed. I made the case that when even here in the South - where people give each other shotguns and deer rifles for birthdays and Christmas, where firearm laws are much more lenient compared to places like CA and IL, and where concealed carry is much more culturally acceptable and advocated than elsewhere - so few people arm themselves on a regular basis that the "good guy with a gun" is almost never around. They have the freedom to arm themselves and yet they don't.

In other words, you'll never reach the number of armed citizens you'd need for them to make any appreciable impact on violent crime. Most gun owners are interested in shooting deer and paper, not criminals. On the other hand the criminals who are motivated enough to break the law in the first place are going to be the first who'll want to be armed. We already have plenty of gun laws that are meant to stop them but they don't, gun owners aren't going to stop them, and there isn't enough police around to stop them.

So the least we can do is to make their lives a little more difficult, and we accomplish that by removing guns from our society.

As for my 'elitism,' it's not elitist of me to expect gun owners to behave responsibly with their weapons. I'm sure some do, and I've also seen plenty blatantly ignore basic safety rules, like the time I went to a shooting range on an invite, so I could at least say I had some firearm experience myself, and people were sweeping their muzzles all over the place, were goofing around, and the range officer couldn't be bothered to toss them out or at least give them a warning.

[Straw Man]

72. Misconceptions galore.

Last edited Thu Dec 11, 2014, 06:32 AM - Edit history (1)

In other words, you'll never reach the number of armed citizens you'd need for them to make any appreciable impact on violent crime.

I'm taking about self-defense, not vigilantism. The violent crime that I'm concerned with making "an appreciable impact on" is the one that happens to me. Remember when I said it was an individual freedom thing? I knew you wouldn't understand.

On the other hand the criminals who are motivated enough to break the law in the first place are going to be the first who'll want to be armed. We already have plenty of gun laws that are meant to stop them but they don't, gun owners aren't going to stop them, and there isn't enough police around to stop them.

"Gun owners aren't going to stop them" because much of this crime is gang-on-gang violence in which neither party is a legal gun owner. And you've just admitted that more gun laws won't stop them.

So the least we can do is to make their lives a little more difficult, and we accomplish that by removing guns from our society.

Just for the record, are you advocating for a 100% ban on civilian ownership of firearms? And how do you propose to accomplish that? You've already said that gun laws don't stop criminals. Are you banking on the gun owners of America being docile enough to just trot on down to the police station to turn in all their firearms? Is that why you and your ilk are so hot on registration schemes? Because they will facilitate an eventual total ban and confiscation? And yet we are repeatedly told that gun owners are paranoid, and "no one wants to take your guns."

A more likely scenario is that previously law-abiding people would become scofflaws. Public trust in government would be further eroded, and the political divisions ripping our country apart would become even more bitter. Is that what you want?

And, of course, the criminals would still be armed. I suppose you think that their guns will eventually wither away through attrition. I have handguns -- revolvers and semi-autos both -- that are over 100 years old. Cared for properly, they will last another 100. How long are you willing to wait for your gun-free utopia? How many people who might otherwise have defended themselves with a legal firearm will either fall victim to a violent crime or fall afoul of the legal system by defending themselves with an illegal one?

As for my 'elitism,' it's not elitist of me to expect gun owners to behave responsibly with their weapons.

Of course not, but that's not you said -- you said that "lots and lots" of gun owners were "dimwits" who were incapable of behaving responsibly. That has not been my experience. You have taken one incident and used it as an extremely broad brush. Your posts positively ooze elitism.

[Eleanors38]

70. While "good guy with a gun" is overwrought as social policy

(Wayne LaPierre doesn't speak for me), the principle reason, beyond collection & trade, is self-defense. SD is not really social policy unless it can be shown to have effected a positive good in terms of crime rate reduction. But SD is quite enough a reason to have a gun. Or more.

For all the massive spread of legal carry across the country, the number of gun toters remains small over all, so it is difficult to gauge what effect the phenomenon has, though it can't be shown to have caused crime to go up.

[DonP]

41. Another "hand wringer" that preferes a "comfy" police state

The good news is you can start working on your Op Ed about how horrific a police state is, with a monopoly on the use of force. But others have believed as you do. Start with Il Duce.

"Which leaves us with the other extreme, which is confiscation and forbidding anyone who isn't military or law enforcement from even touching a gun (though trigger happy police in places like Ferguson make me wonder how many officers should even be armed)."

That is a piece of priceless (and pretty much thoughtless) circular logic

[upaloopa]

51. In my opinion historical guns and replicas

are ok and guns designed for target shooting and hunting are ok.
I will not go into gun lore here because I am not a gun person though I own a .22 revolver.
I don't think it is a good idea that people carry pistols and AR15 type guns around concealed or not.
I think any gun should be secured when not in use and if someone is shot "accidentally" with your gun you should face jail time. And much more which I am not going into.
We don't need to support gunner talking points here by answering every stupid self serving reply to our posts.

[oneshooter]

53. So if you don't want discussion and opinion that differs from yours.

You can post in BansaLot, there is plenty of echo room there.

[upaloopa]

56. Don't define me don't put words

In my mouth don't tell me what I think don't tell me how to act
I replied to the OP
I'm not here to support your gun fetish.

[oneshooter]

57. In other words,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

LALALALA I can't hear you!!!!!

So typical of the control crowd.

[DashOneBravo]

58. Typical

That poster puts you on ignore when you start calling out his bullshit.

[upaloopa]

60. Can't you control yourself? You are a bully

Just stop!

[oneshooter]

61. Cry me a river. Let use know when you have had your firearms destroyed.

Till then your hypocrisy is out for all to see.

[upaloopa]

62. Leave me alone

[kioa]

59. You will be surprised at what guns you just banned...

Bolt-action Mausers = Banned
Winchester M-70 & Remington M-700 (Bolt action, typical 'hunting rifles') = Banned (currently used as sniper rifles for both military & police)
Remington 870 & Mossberg 500 (pump action shotguns) = Banned (used both militarily & by police)

Civilian AR-15s = Not Banned (Designed specifically to not be select fire & made solely for civilian use. Is not & never has been in use by the military of any nation)

I think any gun should be secured when not in use

I don't think you have any business in my home. Especially since your opening statement shows that you are painfully ignorant about guns.

[Eleanors38]

71. I actually agree with the highlighted quote...

Guns should be secured when not in use in the home. I worry about A Law requiring it, as you could end up systematicly disarming a population (except for crims). This was done in D.C., prompting the Heller decision.

Better has been the wide scale campaign by the SAF and others to encourage safe storage. Gun ownership has gone up, and the number of guns in civilian hands has increased by as much as 130,000,000 over only the last 15 years; yet childhood (under 15 yoa) accidental deaths-by-guns is down to 63/yr! And it's been falling for years!

A lot of controller/banners refuse to recognize how a problem is being dealt with as a community, even as they wail about passing another law with a demonstrated potential for abuse.

[upaloopa]

78. Not painfully ignorant about guns. It isn't

painful at all. There are many things I have little knowledge of but it isn't painful or ignorance.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. "There are many things I have little knowledge of but it isn't painful or ignorance."

Pssst! You might want to look up the meaning of the word 'ignorance'...

[American_74911003]

73. You should not own any kind of a gun.....

you could hurt yourself or others, from what you seem to know about guns.

[upaloopa]

79. Is it some badge of honor to know about guns.

That gun knowledge slam seems to be the latest gunner put down. So much of what is said here is a duplication of what some other gunner said.
You can believe me that most people don't have your knowledge of guns. Also they don't give a shit about that point nor do they see you as some elevated type being because of your gun knowledge.

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. Willful ignorance of a subject one opines about is not a virtue

Just FYI...

[Straw Man]

82. The "gun knowledge slam"

That gun knowledge slam seems to be the latest gunner put down. So much of what is said here is a duplication of what some other gunner said.

Yes. Facts don't change, at least in the reality-based community, so occasionally they are repeated.

You can believe me that most people don't have your knowledge of guns. Also they don't give a shit about that point nor do they see you as some elevated type being because of your gun knowledge.

Nobody is claiming to be "some elevated type." The simple fact remains that someone with knowledge of the matter at hand can argue more effectively than someone who is ignorant. You'd think the gun banners would have figured this out, but most haven't. It's a point of pride for them.

For a classic example, try Googling "the shoulder thing that goes up."

[upaloopa]

83. We all are citizens of this country.

Each one of us gets one vote supposedly.
Your gun knowledge and my lack of gun knowledge doesn't change that one bit.
If and when people can vote for gun restrictions it won't matter what you think of their gun knowledge.
Also most of us are not interested in gun debates. Especially based on gun lore.
I have a couple of hobbies and some personal likes that I probably have more knowledge about than does the average person so by that we are similar. If these average people want to pass laws against my hobbies they have as much to say about it as I do and they are not interested in what I know about the subject.
You'll say the constitution protects your right as does the SCOTUS. Well that is true as long as a right wing court is seated. A couple of more progressive judges could change all that by re interpreting the 2nd amendment.
What those judges know about guns most likely is limited.

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. You yourself have noted that exploitation of low information voters...

...is a Republican tactic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022841297#post1

The repukes have no other tactic but to keep the
low information voters fired up.

So why should we not attempt to enlighten the ignorant?

[Straw Man]

85. So you're OK with laws and rulings based on ignorance?

Because that's what you just said. I for one don't see how that leads to good legislation or policy. If you know nothing about what you're regulating, how can you ever hope to draft fair and effective regulation?

I refer you again to "the shoulder thing that goes up." The esteemed legislator was convinced that barrel shrouds needed to be banned, yet she obviously didn't know what they were.

[upaloopa]

86. Why do you reply by telling me what I think?

That is not a good thing to do.
This a game for you. You twist everything into knots so as to support your point of view.
It turns people off to gunners.
I wasn't going to say this but I will.
At the gun store this weekend there were four or five other people. I was obvious they liked guns by their speech and actions. They also seemed kind of stupidly introverted. It supports my contention that gunners really do live in some kind of fear. I think guns are some kind of elixir for them.

[Straw Man]

88. I'm telling you what you said.

That's the window into what you think.

It seems that you often don't realize the implications of what you say. I'm not "twisting" anything. I'm merely restating what you have said in order to show you the apparent folly of it.

Don't you find it ironic that you don't what me to tell you what to think but you seem to feel justified in doing a character analysis of random strangers based on your eavesdropping? They indicated by their speech and actions that they like guns? You were in a gun store; what did you expect? And how do you get from liking guns to "stupidly introverted" to "living in fear"? Your contentions seem pretty baseless to me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

74. I already voted but...

...I'd like to add a write in for "the opposite of whatever Fred Sanders suggests".

[sarisataka]

75. Ah, the person who defines

who is liberal and progressive. Yet promotes the ideas of a person who wants to remove voting from the hands of the people and create a government by a self defined elite.

No conflict there

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. "person who defines"

It's a tough job but someone has to do it.

[DonP]

87. IIRC, We've had a pretty steady stream of these self appointed zampolits down here

Defining who is and isn't a "Good Democrat". (Hint: if you disagree with them on anything, especially the 2nd amendment, you aren't a "Real Democrat&quot

They tend to rant and rave when you dare to disagree with them and eventually burn themselves out either here or in another forum ranting at others. My favorites are the really dumb ones that lecture Skinner on what he "must not allow" on DU. That's always entertaining.

This one is just the latest arrogant and ignorant flavor of the month.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

89. I tend to think that...

...anyone who accuses another of not being a "real" Democrat, probably isn't a Democrat.

[jimmy the one]

91. good methodology doesn't override internet polling forum

Well formulated poll, sari, even tho it's still non scientific internet & thus not truly representative except here. This is still essentially a gun board you know.

sari: For purposes of this poll, assume: -An option includes all limitations above it excepting #1

any changes needed to the Constitution or SCOTUS rulings will happen to make these possible

Huh? I must assume this? I can surmise scotus would be the only way to 'make it happen', ain't no dreamer.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

92. For the picture post group