Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If an assault weapons ban was passed, would that be the end of any

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
C......N......C Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:01 AM
Original message
If an assault weapons ban was passed, would that be the end of any
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 12:02 AM by C......N......C
further attempts at gun control laws? Is that the goal or is it the elimination of all private gun ownership?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. No....
The "gun Controllers" always say, just ONE MORE LAW, is all we want...Just ONE MORE....

They lie, at least now, they have a short list, of "wants" and it never is enough, they consider ANY advancement of their twisted insane ideas, to be the "next step" and a "new start"

Their goal is clear....They are loosing......They need to be crushed.

I am sick of good Democrats, getting there asses handed to them, election after election, because they actually believe these Republican gun grabbers...

5 Minutes of research proves that most of the Leaders of the gun control movement are, or where Republicans....Even Caroline McCarthy was a Rethug..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. The goal actually is personal ownership
not gun trafficking of guns that kill kids. If private gun owners would help craft laws that would attack illegal gun trafficking, everybody would be happy. The problem is that private gun owners won't do that because they're being bamboozled by the NRA which is nothing more than a lobby for the gun industry that just wants to sell guns no matter the consequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spoony Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. What laws do we need to support?
You say, "If private gun owners would help craft laws that would attack illegal gun trafficking, everybody would be happy." As you state, illegal gun trafficking is...illegal. Would these new laws say, "no really, we mean it this time" at the bottom? I don't see how it's gun owners' faults that existing laws aren't enforced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Thats a specious claim at best
The Brady bunch have occasionally owned up to their true agenda which is the elimination of private ownership of firearms. HCI and others were pretty forthright about it.

We have all the laws we need, they need to be enforced, which they plainly are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Much of the time gun charges are bargained away in plea bargains.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 01:39 AM by old mark
At least 2 of the guys on parole/early release who killed a Philadelphia cop while they were robbing a bank had had gun posession charges that were bargained away. They got lighter sentences for pleading to lesser crimes and then released on parole early. If they had still been in prison, their later crimes would not have happened.
Judges/DA's must enforce the existing laws.

mark

ADDED: The Democratic Party is now in conference with the NRA - that is the NRA is giving them money - and the "new AWB" is dead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. And why aren't they?
Because enforcing gun laws always runs the risk of a law suit from the NRA. Keeping people and guns off the streets after Katrina was a no-brainer - except to the NRA. Recording sales of guns like we record sales of cars, another no-brainer. Hell I've seen people mad that they couldn't carry a rifle in their car in a no hunting area, or at night and out of season. The stupidity of a small percentage of gun owners is endless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Your dislike of guns allows you to disregard the Constitution? Sad.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 02:07 AM by friendly_iconoclast
Keeping people and guns off the streets after Katrina was a no-brainer - except to the NRA.


So you approve of the sort of thing shown here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

I'd expect something like your statement out of John Ashcroft or Dick Cheney. They didn't let the
Constitution slow them down, either.

Hey look, Ashcoft just provided one! Great minds think alike:

Ashcroft: Some forms of waterboarding might be legal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5346201
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:07 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. I don't know that woman
Women have mental illness. Women are capable of irrational killings too.

When did I say I don't like guns? I've got no problem with guns. I've got a problem with maniacal gun owners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Ever heard of the phrase "due process of law"?
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 02:26 AM by friendly_iconoclast
And people wonder how Bush & Company got away with what they did for so long...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Ever heard of harm to self or others
:shrug:

Maybe she was nuts and threatening to kill people. How are the cops supposed to do their jobs when their civil system has been destroyed. Martial Law should have been declared and the NG should have been sent in under the direction of the governor. Right wing nuts did nothing but get in the way and cause death and destruction in New Orleans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. Once again, truth is not your friend
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 03:26 AM by friendly_iconoclast
I guess you missed the following statement from Police Superintendant Eddie Compass:

“No one will be able to be armed. Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”


You sure have been in here swinging away. I have to admire that kind of misguided vigor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-31-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #14
49. quiet, don't mention the testimony............
from New Orleans cops that were confiscating guns after Katrina that they kept the best ones for themselves and threw guns they thought were cheap into the river.

No wonder Mayor Nagin and the NOLA PD denied for 2 years they held any confiscated guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rq4a Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #6
24. Small precentage
I agree. The most stupid ones I can think of who carry guns are in this photo:



I think if these two lived in New Orleans they would have carried guns during Katrina. What do you think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
26. I think it's more because jail is expensive
It cost, what, $30k, $40k a year to put somebody in jail? And the jails are perpetually full and crowded. New prisons fill up immediately. And $35,000 per inmate per year times 2,000,000 inmates equals $70 billion a year spend on keeping people behind bars. That's a lot of federal, state, county, and local money going into a rabbit hole. That's four times NASA's budget!


I would *love* to see the jails emptied of non-violent drug offenders so that we could put the truly dangerous people in there for full, no-plea-deal prison terms. I want to see child molesters and gun dealers and wife beaters and identity thieves serving their FULL terms behind bars.



As to Katrina, well, mercenaries were storming into people's houses and confiscating their guns during a time of post-diaster anarchy. And then the New Orleans police decided they were going to keep the guns they confiscated until they damn well felt like giving them back, whatever year or decade that was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
28. Couched in subtle language...
Couched in subtle language, is your appearance of aproval of the confiscation of privately and legally owned guns, during katrina.

You say that "Keeping people and guns off the streets after Katrina was a no-brainer" and maybe it was, however, you seem to aprove of "Keeping people and guns off the streets" via going into peoples homes and taking thier guns away.


You do of course know that THAT is exactly what happened during katrina, dont you?

Oh, and your evil boogieman nra sued on behalf of the people whos guns were illegally taken... you know that right?


I have gone rounds with you in the past, and had pretty much made up my mind that there was no discussing this issue with you. Heres your chance to prove me wrong:

What are your thoughts on guns being taken not off the streets, but from people in thier homes, during and after katrina, and what are your thoughts on the nra sueing on behalf of those whos guns were taken?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
33. A little clarification seems in order...
The Brady Campaign is Handgun Control Inc. A fact that they normally try to fudge, but they grudgingly admit.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/history.php
In honor of Jim and Sarah Brady and their commitment to make America safer from gun violence, Handgun Control is renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence is renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.


Still, their goals remain the same, only the name has changed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Govt. on all levels has been lax on prosecuting illegal gun sales and posession
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 01:45 AM by friendly_iconoclast
The BATF (the Federal agency in charge of gun laws) has a reputation similar to that of the TSA.

The one time the Feds made a point of going after illegal posession (Operation Exile) , the NRA was
supportive.

So your characterization of the NRA's position isn't quite accurate. After all, gun manufacturers
don't make any money from used gun sales...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. The one time?
Gee, that kind of makes the point. The One Time.

The ATF only has about 1500 agents. Not enough to enforce the laws that are on the books, especially when they also have to deal with illegal alcohol sales, tobacco tax, etc. The NRA just supported Wyoming in expunging domestic violence convictions for the pure purpose of buying a gun.

About half the people who buy a new gun raise part of the money from selling their used gun. Of course the gun manufacturers care that it's easy for guns to be sold like candy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Where do you need a background check to buy candy?
Of course the gun manufacturers care that it's easy for guns to be sold like candy.


Thus providing another example of my theory:

Gun controllers and creationists are the two sets of people who regard ignorance of fact as a
positive virtue.

You know, you could actually, y'know, like, research the subject you post so passionately
and inaccurately about. Discover little things like accurate quotes, what gun laws really say,
the NRA's actual positions on various issues. Try it, I promise you won't get any gun
cooties on you.

Or, you could just keep on with the Maude Flanders schtick. Up to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
15. The NRA supports background checks?
Yeah, sure they do.

Gun cooties? And you want to pretend you're willing to honestly engage in an effort to reduce gun deaths? Right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 03:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yes, they do. But why let facts interfere with a good rant?
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 03:13 AM by friendly_iconoclast
Guess we're supposed to believe you and not our lying eyes.

Like I said:

For some, ignorance is a positive virtue


http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.html

At the state level, NRA has worked with legislators to write laws requiring computerized "instant" criminal records checks on purchasers of firearms and those who carry firearms for protection in public. Because crime can be reduced by correcting deficiencies in criminal justice laws and policies, NRA has worked with legislators and citizens' groups in many states to increase the length of prison sentences for violent criminals, to sentence violent criminals to prison rather than probation, to prevent the parole of the most violent convicts, and to expand prison capacity.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901080.html


...Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, said yesterday that the organization will strongly support the legislation as written. "We've been on record for decades for keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally adjudicated. It's not only good policy, it's good politics," he said. But Cox warned that if the legislation becomes a "gun-control wish list" as it moves through Congress, the NRA will withdraw its support and work against the bill....










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #9
27. If the ATF needs more agents, then they should get more agents
Adding more laws for them to enforce is inferior to getting them the agents they need to enforce the current laws.



There's a similar parallel to the people that are upset because state and local police won't investigate and arrest people that are here illegally. When they make that assertion, I look at them and say "So you want your taxes to go up so the police can hire more officers and build more jails to hold them?"


If we want more agents to enforce the laws, then we need to grit out teeth and pull out our wallets to pay for it. Double the size of the ATF. Hell, triple them! 260 million guns being watched by 5,000 people? Millions of new firearm sales a year... with a handful of people processing them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
21. NRA and their ilk supported the brady bill
I know it isn't sexy to the antis, but the NRA supported the NCIS check system, and continues to support laws that deter _criminals_ from getting their hands on guns.

Pardon me, did I nudge those preconceptions a bit? Sorry, won't happen again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #2
25. I don't want illegal gun trafficking either
What sane person wants that?


The issue, I believe, is how to take on trafficking.


I don't think that trying to take away guns from everybody in the hopes that it cuts the supply to the criminal element will work. It hasn't worked for drugs, and drugs are a consumable good, not a durable good like firearms.



In addition, the problem that we have is that we as a nation have chosen to craft laws that produce massive criminal enterprises, which creates a demand for a variety of things such as guns.


Trying to reduce the pool of non-governmental guns in this country to zero in order to starve the criminal element is something that in addition to being a very long-term goal would affect the law-abiding first and foremost and the law-breaking last and least.

However we can sharply and immediately reduce the demand for gun trafficking by radical changes in our national drug policies. Legitimizing recreational drugs would drop their prices through the floor and immediatly gut the gangs that formally controlled the trade.

We have the largest jail popoulation on earth, both in total numbers and per-capita. I'd really like to see policy changes that got people out of jail rather than put more of them in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
12. There is no clear goal.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 02:24 AM by ContinentalOp
I hate guns, don't know anything about them, and in my ideal utopian society there would be no guns. So maybe I can help explain the enemy point of view. :P

Every time there's a school shooting or some other such tragedy, people want some sort of response. This is a natural, human emotional reaction. The action taken doesn't have to be something rational, it just needs to appear that something is being done. See the post 9/11 invasion of Iraq for example. The goal is not to end armed robbery or keep organized crime from getting guns but to try to stop these occasional tragedies. In fact, it's almost exactly like 9/11. These sensationalized shootings happen only rarely and yet they are so etched into our consciousness via the media that they take on an enormous importance in our minds.

And yet the pro-gun crowd won't even give an inch. Appeals to the second amendment are patently absurd considering that gun proponents seem fine with the fact that machine guns are outlawed. So we're not talking about an absolute issue - any and all arms, or no arms at all - Allowing private ownership of nuclear weapons vs. going door to door confiscating every bb gun. We all agree that the second amendment isn't absolute and that a line is drawn somewhere. We're only arguing about exactly where that line is drawn.

If groups like the NRA actually worked together with gun control advocates to try to come up with solutions that would crack down on illegal guns without infringing the rights of law abiding gun owners, maybe there be some kind of compromise. But the stupid, intractable absolutism of the anti-gun-control crowd makes the rest of us bristle and think, fine, if it's all or nothing for you then I don't really give a shit about your "second amendment rights."

People who are opposed to gun control should actually support the AWB, precisely because it's a stupid empty gesture. I mean, if it's so pointless and only regulates cosmetic features then why do you even care?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. The trouble is, you want it all, and in trying to get it, the GOP wins
We could read HR 1022, and HR 45 just fine. You exaggerate for effect. You play the "ASSAULT WEAPONS,
ASSAULT WEAPONS, ASSAULT WEAPONS" song over and over, just like the Bushies played "TERROR, TERROR, TERROR" to great effect. We know what a moral panic is. And we know that people in politics do,
in fact, gin them up for political gain. Like the one that was used to pass the last AWB.

People here remember that. And we can read statistics. Rifles of any sort are nowhere near
as dangerous as people like you make them out to be.

The trouble is we see the factual inaccuracies, the exaggeration. We see them and post them on the
Net. You treat us like we have no sense of history. The Republican party certainly has a sense of
history, and they'd love to see it repeat with another attempt at a AWB.

We might well be using the phrase "former President Gore" right about now if it wasn't for the first
AWB. Remember, one defintion of insanity is: "Repeating the same action and expecting a different
result"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:58 AM
Response to Reply #12
20. Well..
And yet the pro-gun crowd won't even give an inch.

Wrong, the NRA and most gun owners support(ed) NICS and 1934 NFA yet daily the gun control crowd posts lies as you have here. The problem is that the gun owning public gives an inch and the gun controllers try to take a mile (see Brady). The NRA supports more accurate reporting to NICS by the states, never mentioned by gun controllers or if it is it just isn't good enough.

We all agree that the second amendment isn't absolute and that a line is drawn somewhere. We're only arguing about exactly where that line is drawn.

The line is and has been drawn since 1934. There is no compelling reason to move the line. Read the 1934 NFA (again supported by most gun owners and the NRA now and at the time). What you appear to be advocating is periodic movement of the line in a more restrictive direction which amounts to incrementalism, and yes most gun owners and the NRA oppose this tactic.

If groups like the NRA actually worked together with gun control advocates to try to come up with solutions that would crack down on illegal guns without infringing the rights of law abiding gun owners, maybe there be some kind of compromise.

Don't you mean, 'When groups like the NRA actually worked together with gun control advocates...', as they have concerning NFA, the Brady Bill, and strengthening of NICS. The NRA is always painted by gun control advocates and those whose "utopian society there would be no guns" as never supporting any controls which is either ignorance or blatant lies.

But the stupid, intractable absolutism of the anti-gun-control crowd makes the rest of us bristle and think, fine, if it's all or nothing for you then I don't really give a shit about your "second amendment rights."

Again, more ignorance, lies, or simple inability to understand the issue (see examples above for exceptions to your absolute statement). I especially like this, "I don't really give a shit about your "second amendment rights." This type of consideration of rights is unbelievable to me, My 2nd Amendment rights?, it is Our 2nd Amendment rights even if you choose not to exercise them and would gladly sacrifice them in favor of a police only approach to firearms.

People who are opposed to gun control should actually support the AWB, precisely because it's a stupid empty gesture. I mean, if it's so pointless and only regulates cosmetic features then why do you even care?

Uh, because many gun owners like those cosmetic features. The question should be 'why are we proposing "stupid empty gesture" legislation"? Why would anyone support "stupid empty gesture" legislation? Anyone with any perspective can play out the enactment of "stupid empty gesture" legislation. Claims are being made that this "stupid empty gesture" legislation will have X effect. Shortly after enactment when X doen't happen then more "stupid empty gesture" legislation will be proposed, and after that more...this is the coarse of incrementalism.

Again, you have been told several times in this thread what most gun rights advocates position is, that is that existing laws are not being enforced yet you want more laws which duplicate existing laws. A prime example is the fact that NICS transfer declines are almost never pursued by law enforcement. Why is that? I sure as fuck can't figure it out. Here is the scenario, a person goes into a gun store to buy a gun. This is obviously a person in the market for a gun. The person picks out the gun, fills out the BATFE form, the dealer calls the NICS (ran by the FBI) and gives the info from the form. The NICS operator issues a decline meaning the buyer is disqualified for firearms ownership for some reason. Now a few of these declines are based on errors like names which are the same as a prohibited person, but a good number are because of an issue outlined on the BATFE form which the prospective purchaser answered dishonestly. This dishonest answer is equivalent to perjury, you remember the same offense which nearly got President Clinton impeached? Further, now you have a prohibited person who is obviously, actively, trying to buy a gun. Yet fewer than 1% of these declines are even investigated since the enactment of the Brady bill, including on Bill Clinton's watch. Now we want more laws designed to "crack down on illegal guns without infringing the rights of law abiding gun owners". My answer is, we have given you the tools and you refuse to use them, stuff your "crack down on illegal guns without infringing the rights of law abiding gun owners" up your ass. There are countless other examples of existing gun laws not being enforced, and proposed gun laws simply duplicating these unenforced existing laws. Why don't gun control advocates demand of their legislators funding and enforcement of existing laws instead of pushing more "stupid empty gesture" legislation??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
22. Look at it this way
Pro gun rights people have been loosing ground consistently for years, and it looks like there is no intended stopping point in the anti-gun rights crowd. We are already loosing inch by inch and we are fighting against it. We can't give an inch in addition to the inch which is being taken from us.

If we thought the other side would be reasonable, we would be more agreeable, but they are not.

We can't make anybody enforce the laws which are not being enforced. And the funny thing is that it is the existing laws not being enforced which are causing the problems,enforce those laws and the problems would be fixed. New laws would only hurt us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. So far, so good.
Edited on Sun Mar-29-09 12:30 PM by beevul
"So maybe I can help explain the enemy point of view."

You already have, in a nutshell: "I hate guns, don't know anything about them, and in my ideal utopian society there would be no guns." (Reminds me of McCarthy and the "shoulder thing that goes up".)

To that, you could add "dont know what the laws are where firearms are concerned", seeing as automatic weapons (machineguns) are NOT, I repeat NOT outlawed.



"If groups like the NRA actually worked together with gun control advocates to try to come up with solutions that would crack down on illegal guns without infringing the rights of law abiding gun owners, maybe there be some kind of compromise. But the stupid, intractable absolutism of the anti-gun-control crowd makes the rest of us bristle and think, fine, if it's all or nothing for you then I don't really give a shit about your "second amendment rights."

Groups such as the nra HAVE worked with legislators along the lines of what you said, but its never enough. The bradys and thier ignorati keep coming back and wanting to take more.



You also said the magic weaselword: Compromise.

In the arena of gun discussion and legislation, the word compromise takes on an entirely new and different meaning than one would expect to see in a dictionary.

When "we" (the gun rights advocates) compromise with "you" (the gun control advocates that hate guns and dont know anything about them) what happens is that "you" dont get to take as much as you'd like to away from us. And "we" lose more than we wanted to, but slightly less than "you" wanted to take. But "you" still take, and "we" still lose.

Some "compromise" eh? Oh, did I mention that "you" will be back next legislative session trying to take what you didnt get this time, plus some more, and asking for "we" to "compromise" with you again?

If "you" actually gave a shit in the first place, even a really small one, about the second amendment rights that are important to "we", you wouldnt do such a thing in the first place.


"And yet the pro-gun crowd won't even give an inch."

Over 22 THOUSAND federal/non-federal gun laws on the books, yet "we" can somehow still be percieved as "won't even give an inch". :eyes:

Tell me more about that "stupid, intractable absolutism", and more specifically, on the part of whom exactly has it been manifest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. How is it possible that I've never seen an "assault weapon" in real life?
I was in a gun store the other day. I don't know if I saw an "assault weapon" or not, since I was looking in the case at some pistols. I know for a fact that I have never seen anything remotely looking like a machine gun on the street or in any home I have had the privilege to visit. I have seen handguns, my granddad use to keep one on top of his dresser. I have seen hunting rifles, they were everywhere. Boys had "22" rifles when I was a kid, they shot pigeons and squirrels, I thought it was cruel. I have surely seen shotguns in private and public.

Why are these machine guns an issue? If I've never seen one, then they must only come out for target practice or perhaps never at all. if some guy wants to own a machine gun, I couldn't care less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. You probably have.
By some definition, you probably have seen what the LAW said or proposed Legislation says - is an assault weapon.

Machineguns have nothing to do with the whole "assault weapons" issue, other than the fact that people are deliberately misled into thinking otherwise.


So called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic weapons, not fully automatic weapons. Machineguns on the other hand have been tightly controlled since 1934.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. So is a 9mm pistol an "assault weapon"?
I've actually fired one of those. Nice piece of machinery (once you learn not to let it bite your hand) but not something I would carry around. I like those little plastic guns, Kal-tec or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #39
45. Yes
Edited on Mon Mar-30-09 04:54 AM by Caliman73
Certain 9mm pistols are assault weapons according to AWB. The Intratec Tec 9 is an assault weapon even though it shoots the same round as the PF-9 or P-11 that you may be interested in from Kel Tec. In California, the PLR-22 and Sub 2000 (made by Kel Tec) are considered assault weapons. The PLR fires a 22lr round and the Sub 2000 fire your 9mm round. Now if you can give me a good reason why these firearms that fire the same round at the same rate of fire (note, that you can actually conceal the PF-9 or P-11 that you like, better than the others)are treated differently, then you will have one up on the legislators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
32. Good to know
don't know anything about them

It is good to know that you admittedly base your opinion on ignorance, so I can ignore it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Furyataurus Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
37. Jeez
People like you should have only ONE goal, and that is TOTAL CIVIL DISARMAMENT. You should put a sign in your window that says "I have NO guns in my house/apartment, I am unarmed and defenseless".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #12
41. Crickets


There have been some responses to your post. Most of us here know that failure to respond to the issues your post raised means either you are or have reconsidered your position or (usually) that you are sticking to your position even in light of the overwhelming erroneous assertions/statements made therein.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 04:37 AM
Response to Reply #12
44. How is it that you can say, "And yet the pro-gun crowd won't even give an inch."?
There are extremists on both sides of the argument. The problem is as you say, that the emotional and irrational responses of people to human tragedies, is not a good foundation for policy. You can see what the irrational need for a response got us into after 9/11 can't you? Instead of waiting, gathering evidence, and using the goodwill of the rest of the world, we let fear and anger lead us into 2 stupid and pointless wars because we "want to see something being done". If we want to feel safe then we need to lift the standard of living for everyone. Giving people a reason to live and work, and to follow the laws we create as a society is going to be longer and harder, but much more effective in stopping violence than trying to ban firearms. Ban money. Money is typically the motivation for much of the crime in which firearms are used. Ban stress and fear, they lead to suicide and murder.

The NRA and a large majority of gun owners do support background checks and other measures that would keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and unstable people. Most gun owners do not support measures that have no effect than to restrict access to something we would use responsibly anyway.

Finally, before you call an entire group of diverse people with diverse opinions "stupid and intractable", you should really look at what your side of the argument is saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C......N......C Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 07:48 AM
Response to Original message
19. There is a group that tried to get rid of strip clubs where I live.
They managed to pass laws hampering the strip clubs, like setting distances from Churches and schools, couldn't sell liquor, made te girls get licenses. These laws did not satisfy them, they wanted the strip clubs gone. The strip clubs had a constitutional right to exist. The strip clubs are still here and operating as before. The anti strip club people managed only in the end to have gotten some temporary laws passed and cause a fair amount of problems for the strip clubs for s short time. I want cheap or free universal health care, strict financial regulating agencies and other benefits for the middle and low and no income people. I don't see pursuing gun laws aiding any of these programs. I see the gun legislation as helped Newt and hurt Al. I don't see any other reason for the results of Newt andAl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
23. What well-funded, powerful lobbying group has ever self-dissolved?
Has ever said "Hey, we've accomplished our goals, we're shutting down and going to the pub for appletinis"?

I can't think of any offhand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmg257 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
29. Was it the end when the AWB was in effect? Hardly. One of the reasons why it is so opposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Furyataurus Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
35. This is what the Anti's/gun grabbers REALLY want.
Handgun Control Inc. 5 Year Plan

In December of 1993, this document was leaked by a Handgun Control Inc.

volunteer, and exposes the ultimate goals of elite anti-gunners;

The eventual elimination of ALL guns and ALL hunting!



(NOTES AND MINUTES OF MEETING OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1993)

ROUGH DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR

INTERNAL MEMO AND FIVE YEAR PLAN

(OF HANDGUN CONTROL INC.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT IS PENDING NOW AND CAN BE LAW IN 1994

* Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
* Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.
* Ban of possession of parts to convert arms into military configuration.
* Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to more than 5 shots without reloading.
* Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shotguns/rifles and assault weapons.
* Banning of Saturday Night Specials.
* Banning of Non-Sporting Ammunition
* Arsenal licensing (for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition)
* Elimination of the Department of Civil Marksmanship.
* Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.
* Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.
* The right of the victim of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and perhaps, aided with money from government programs.
* Taxes on ammo, Dealers licenses & guns to offset the medical costs to society.
* The eventual ban on all semiautomatics (regardless of when made or caliber).

WHAT WAS ONLY A DREAM TEN YEARS AGO CAN BE REALITY AS EARLY AS THIS YEAR

(After the meeting the following ideas were the result of a brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control initiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years. The following list is condensed from our meeting in which we considered the best ideas for public safety expansion. The time is right for action.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIVE YEAR PLAN

LICENSES:

1. NATIONAL LICENSING OF ALL HANDGUN PURCHASES
This is at the top of our list, however, the political climate may be right to initiate this step immediately. Please refer to our memo outlining our ideas on how this should be executed.

2. LICENSE FOR RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS
We should take our cues from Great Britain. Strict licensing should be mandatory -- for all firearms whether handguns or not.

3. STATE LICENSES FOR OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS
We want to take a workable idea from Great Britain, whereas, we should require the states to issue strict licenses for possession and require the licenses to be signed by at least three public officials --i.e., the police chief, city attorney and mayor, for example, to eliminate ownership by dangerous individuals. It is reasonable to require that all individuals must prove to the signers that they require a firearm. This should be attached to any legislation requiring purchasers to show a need for a firearm.

4. REDUCTION OF THE NUMBER OF GUNS TO REQUIRE AN ARSENAL LICENSE

Right now the proposed Arsenal licenses which Senator Feinstein should be pushing for, requires an "Arsenal License" for those people who feel they need more than 20 guns and 1000 rounds of ammunition. We feel that number is too generous, due to the fact that any number of guns constitutes a grave threat to the safety of the community; we suggest Strongly that this license limit be reduced to possession greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.

5. ARSENAL LICENSE FEES
It is not unreasonable to require a yearly fee for an Arsenal license to be at least $300, with a cap of $1000. The money collected can be used to defray the immense medical costs directly attributed to these deadly weapons.

6. LIMITS ON ARSENAL LICENSING
No Arsenal Licensing to be permitted in counties with populations of more than 200,000.

7. REQUIREMENT OF FEDERALLY APPROVED STORAGE SAFES FOR ALL GUNS
We should follow Great Britain's lead on this. All licensed gun owners should be required to have a storage safe which meets minimum federally mandated requirements. This step would reduce the tragic accidents which claim the lives of tens of thousands of children a year and make it more difficult for burglars to steal the guns.

8. INSPECTION LICENSE
Another good revenue source would be mandatory inspection licensing of all safes. Each safe would be registered with a specific serial number and the serial numbers and types of weapons stored would be on file with federal and state authorities. Since unannounced inspectors can insure that all declared weapons are being properly stored, all safe licenses should have an additional yearly fee to offset the cost of these spot inspections.

PUBLIC SAFETY REGULATIONS:

9. Ban ON MANUFACTURING IN COUNTRIES WITH A POPULATION OF MORE THAN 200,000
Guns are being built all the time and the number of licensed manufacturers it too great to justify the threat to public safety. This is a small step to reduce the number of these shops where, anything, even machine guns, are being built every day.

10. BANNING ALL MILITARY STYLE FIREARMS
The pending national ban on all Assault Weapons, based on a point system can be expanded to eventually cover any firearm with a remotely military appearance. We feel that this aggressive appearance appeals to the type of dangerous individuals who are a definite threat to public safety. We hope that this point system can eventually be expanded to high powered airguns and "paint ball" weapons, which can inflict great damage, and with a little effort can be converted to real guns.

11. Banning OF ANY MACHINE GUN PARTS OR PARTS WHICH CAN BE USED IN A MACHINE GUN
Periodicals such as "The Shotgun News" particularly cater to individuals who wish to build illegal machine guns. If Senator Feinstein's courageous section of the crime bill is successful in banning all machine gun parts expect for police and military, then there would be no legitimate need for machine gun parts except to build illegal weapons.

12. BANNING THE CARRYING OF A FIREARMS ANYWHERE BUT HOME OR TARGET RANGE OR IN TRANSIT FROM ONE TO THE OTHER
We should institute a federal mandate to the states to strictly regulate the carrying of a firearm.

13. BANNING REPLACEMENT PARTS (MFG, SALE, POSSESSION, TRANSFER, INSTALLATION) EXCEPT BARREL, TRIGGER GROUP
Thousand of people are building illegal weapons every day. We can put a dent in this by banning parts and parts kits, except those items like the barrel and trigger group, which are most likely to wear out due to use.

14. ELIMINATION OF THE CURIO RELIC LIST
A gun is a gun. Even an old gun can kill people. This a loop hole in the federal law which was allowed thousands of dangerous weapons to be distributed unchecked. This regulation, if enacted, would automatically eliminate the need for a Curio or Relic collector's license. All handguns, rifles and shotguns would fall into the same category as their modern counterparts.

15. CONTROL OF AMMUNITION BELONGING TO CERTAIN SURPLUS FIREARMS
Senator Moynihan has already proposed a tax or ban on .22 LR, .32 ACP, and 9mm ammo,however, it has been pointed out to us that there is an extreme proliferation of high powered surplus rifles (i.e.,the Mosin-Nagant series and Enfield series) in which the wholesale prices are as low as $45 to $75. We suggest that to control the proliferation of violence associated with the large number of these types of weapons entering this country that we ban the importation of their ammunition. 7.62x54R and .303 surplus ammunition.

16. EVENTUAL BAN OF HANDGUN POSSESSION
This may be closer to reality than many of us think. Handguns are becoming increasingly unpopular and we think that within five years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.

17. BANNING OF ANY AMMO THAT FITS MILITARY GUNS (POST 1945)
With the proliferation of high powered weapons, including semiautomatics and automatics from World War II, we suggest following the lead of Mexico, by prohibiting the sale, manufacture, possession or transfer of any caliber fitting a military firearm in service with a recognized military force after 1945.

AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES:

18. BANNING OF ANY QUANTITY OF SMOKELESS POWDER OR BLACK POWDER WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE MORE THAN THE EQUIVALENT OF 100 ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION
With the bombing of the World Trade Center, it has been made clear that we must reinforce the above proposed regulation with this additional notation. It is arguable that no one has any real need to have so much dangerous material on hand.

19. BAN ON THE POSSESSION OF EXPLOSIVE POWDERS OF MORE THAN 1 KILOGRAM AT ANY ONE TIME
Gun nuts are notorious for circumventing the intent of the law, so we can reinforce the above proposed regulation with this additional notation. This additional language can be useful in preventing "bomb-makers" and other dangerous individuals.

20. BANNING OF HIGH POWERED AMMO OR WOUNDING AMMO
In addition to the banning of military calibers, there is a plethora of dangerous rounds which are too high powered for sporting use. This includes the highest calibers of pistol and rifle ammunition (of note are the monster calibers for rifles and pistols, like the .50 caliber Desert Eagle Bullet). We should not forget the lessons learned with the insidious Black Talon Ammo. Hollow points, Glaser killing rounds and other types of ammunition designed specifically for maiming should be prohibited.

21. A NATIONAL LICENSE FOR AMMUNITION
This is an idea whose time has come. We should look at a Federal License for purchasing of ammunition of all kinds. A special form should be forwarded to a new federal office to track those who are purchasing too much ammunition. Remember that a gun is useless without ammunition.

22. BANNING OR STRICT LICENSING OF ALL RELOADING COMPONENTS
Ammunition regulation laws can be regularly bypassed by home loaders, creating an underground cottage industry of ammo manufacture. Possession or purchase of reloading equipment and machines should be restricted and those who wish to use specially loaded ammunition can go to a federally licensed reloader.

23. NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF AMMUNITION OR AMMO BUYERS
Fees collected from the national licenses should go toward a nationwide database of ammo buyers with a possible background check to eliminate the purchase of dangerous ammo by felons or mental patients.

24. REQUIREMENT OF SPECIAL STORAGE SAFE FOR AMMUNITION AND LICENSING
Like the storage safe for guns, there should be a national requirement for special safes to store ammo. These safes should be tamperproof and fireproof and be registered themselves so that on the spot inspections can be held. Again, the costs for these inspections can be absorbed by the license fees.

GUN RANGES:

25. RESTRICTING GUN RANGES TO COUNTIES WITH POPULATIONS LESS THAN 200,000
The obvious threat to public safety of shooting ranges and stray bullets has been lost on many states and counties. We can initiate a federal mandate or incentives to get states to prohibit any kind of shooting range within a county with a population of more than 200,000.

26. SPECIAL LICENSING OF RANGES
Those ranges which conform to the previous requirement should get special licensing above and beyond that which is required now. Additionally each existing or new shooting range must get in writing the permission of all property owners within a radius of seven miles.

27. SPECIAL RANGE TAX TO VISITORS
Additional revenue can be a surtax on ranges, requiring the collection of a minimum of $85 per visit per person. This can be in addition to required membership fees, upon which the state and local governments get a sizable portion, to help defray the immense cost of gun violence.

28. WAITING PERIOD FOR RENTALS ON PISTOL RANGES
It has been suggested in the past that felons can acquire pistols and other automatic weapons without a background check by renting a gun on a target range. Deranged individuals are basically being given a license to practice hunting humans at these so called "sporting ranges." We think that a national waiting period for gun rentals is yet another idea whose time has come.

ACTIVITIES WHICH PROMOTE GUN VIOLENCE:

29. BANNING GUN SHOWS
Illegal transfers and the sales of assault weapons and submachine guns is a common event at these so called gun shows. A huge dent can be made in the illegal trafficking of weapons by banning these shows altogether.

30. BANNING OF MILITARY REENACTMENTS
The questionable "historical" value of these events has escaped the public scrutiny for too long. Many of these so called historical events are mere excuses for gun nuts to blast the countryside with automatic weapons. What is to keep them from loading live bullets and having those stray bullets kill innocent children? What lives in the future will be lost due to this paramilitary training going on right under our noses? We propose the prohibition of survivalist/paramilitary, World War I and World War II and Civil War Reenactments on federal land, and hope to encourage the states to prohibit them from state and county lands as well.

31. MAKING UNLAWFUL THE ASSEMBLY OF MORE THAN FOUR ARMED INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT PEACE OFFICERS OR MILITARY
Since most hunting parties consist of four, we recognize the need to eliminate the currently legal assembly of shooters for paramilitary training on private lands. This is just one good suggestion for our elimination of the "gun culture" from the mainstream.

32. BEGIN TO CURB HUNTING ON ALL PUBLIC LANDS
Blood sports are an anathema to a civilized society, however, it has been a political reality that the hunters and their ilk have too strong of a stranglehold on Congress. We feel that the impending defeat of high tech assault "killing machines" will open the door to restrictions. With the diminishing number of hunters, we feel that perhaps in five years we can open up much more of our country to campers and hikers, and eliminate the threat to families and camping, by looking at much more restrictions as to what parcels of land will allow hunting. This will not infringe on sportsman's' rights to hunt on private land.

33. MAKING GUN OWNERS RECORDS AND PHOTOS MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD
We would have to assemble a legal team in order to investigate the balance of the right to privacy and the right to safeguard public. We fully endorse the photographing and fingerprinting of all gun owners, however, the records are usually relegated to law enforcement only. We think that it would be a good idea to make these records public, so that the communities can have the knowledge of who poses a danger to their community before disaster strikes. We realize that this proposal would probably be controversial, thus a long public affairs campaign would have to be initiated in order to build public support and ease the transition of such an idea. We feel that this idea has merit, and can be justified via the past publication of the names of water wasters during the drought, customers for prostitution, and deadbeat parents who are delinquent on child support.

34. RANDOM POLICE CHECKS FOR WEAPONS (LIKE SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS)
This idea was floated before in California in 1989, where some thought it would be a great deterrent to gang-related crimes for police to do sweeps for gang weapons. Right now this idea may have some resistance; however, the political climate can become right to initiate these random vehicle stop and checks at all levels and in all types of neighborhoods. If we continue to mainstream the pressure we can make this a reality.

THE NEXT FIFTEEN YEARS:

With all that is going on, who knows what is possible in the next few years? With murders in the streets, the public fed up, and the once mighty thugs of the Gun Lobby whimpering in impotence we have an opportunity to change the face of America for the better! Previously we thought that it would take at least a century to eliminate dangerous weapons and guns from the public hands, but now with allies in the White House and Congress, we can accelerate this trend, and make the barbaric NRA extinct!!! Here are some ideas to consider for the long term:

BANNING OF MILITARY ACCOUTREMENTS

Essential to the Neanderthal gun culture are the typical military clothing, camouflage, pouches, boots and other combat gear. They euphemistically refer to this as "militaria." Elimination of the future sale of these items will cripple the culture of violence well into the 21st century.

STRICTER GUIDELINES FOR VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION AND THE MOVIES

We should look at the possibility of victims of violence by copying an act on television and the movie or video screen, suing the makers of such shows for compensation to their suffering. If the industry cannot regulate itself, we may have to eventually look at an independent branch of government to determine which scenes cause more harm than good to the public and regulate the numbers of violent acts portrayed.

THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ARMS FROM SOCIETY

We cannot survive into the 21st century unless we remember the need to expand our wave to new thinking to the total disarmament of America. With much of the public we can become more like Great Britain, where we can also eliminate the need for much of our police to be armed. This would take a long time; however, a concerted public relations campaign can pressure local law enforcement to give up their arms, when the time comes. Weapons would be available to special units like SWAT or the military.

CONTROL OF DANGEROUS LITERATURE (BOMB MAKING,MACHINE GUN CONVERSIONS, ETC.)

Too much irresponsible material is purportedly covered by the First Amendment, however, the time will come when our nation has to agree that some literature does not belong in a safe society, like instruction manuals on how to kill, or how to make homemade explosives or nuclear bombs. We must realize that there can be such a thing as too much freedom where such literature poses a serious threat to the public safety.

1994 SOUNDS THE DEATH KNELL FOR THE BULLY TACTICS OF THE NRA AND THE CULTURE OF VIOLENCE IN AMERICA!!

We are pressing on all fronts and much of this can become reality sooner than we expect. With the loss of power and clout of the NRA and their various smaller crony organizations crumbling to dust, we eliminate a 200-year-old license to murder into history, and enter the 21st century a safer place for our children and children's children.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Attachment 1:

(Confidential Information for use by Lobbyists or Senior Officers ONLY!)

I. Proposed License Fees - 1994-1995 Gun Control Proposals

These listings and the documentation used to calculate these suggested fee schedules will be made available to federal law enforcement authorities and U.S. Department of the Treasury for review, when the time is right. Additional material will be made available to key politicians when proposing any fee-related legislation. These suggestions will be instrumental in determining the nature of future gun control legislation and proposals.

A) Handgun License Fees:
Year 1 to 2: $50-$75 annually.
Year 3 to 4: $150-$250 annually.
Year 5 to 8: $550-$625 annually.

B) Penalties for noncompliance:
(a) Failure to acquire license -- $1,000/6 months jail, revocation of ability to own
(b) Failure to maintain license -- $5,000/12 months jail, revocation of ability to own
(c) Failure to turn over guns for destruction after lapse of license --$15,000/18 months jail, revocation of ability to own.

Failure to renew license or notify issuing authority of change of status would be considered a felony. All firearms owned would be then considered contraband, and confiscated. State or local authorities would be prohibited from retaining or reselling any confiscated firearms. Record of destruction to be issued to federal government not later than 60 days after confiscation.

C) Rifle-Shotgun License:
Program begins at $30 or at cost to maintain federal records on ownership and registration. Fee: $30-$148 annually.

D) State Licensing:
The Department of Justice for each state will initiate programs at state level, with fees equivalent to federal.
Fee: $74-$150 annually.

E) Local Licensing:
The cost of annual license to reflect the cost of records-maintenance and enforcement.
Fee: $48-$113 annually.

F) Arsenal License: (20 guns or 1,000 rounds ammo).
Fee: $300-$1,000 annually.

G) Penalty for Noncompliance of Arsenal Licensing Law:
$5,000/8 months jail, confiscation of all firearms-related property, revocation of ability to own firearms. (Disposition to be determined by Department of Justice and the state/federal legislatures.)

H) Safe License:
Fee: $228-$392 annually (based on calculations of set up of computerized records system, enforcement, registration processing).

I) Ammunition Registration & License:
Fee: $55-$117 for license to buy ammunition (based on calculations of set up of computerized records-keeping system, enforcement and registration processing).

J) Federal license for Reloading (or possession of reloading equipment) .
Fee: $130-$175 annually.

K) Ammunition Safe License.
Fee: $55-$75 annually.

L) Range License (new federal license on target, outdoor/indoor ranges).
Fee: $12,100-$15,500 annually.

M) Range Tax (imposed on Federally licensed gun ranges).
Fee: $85-$100 per person, per visit.

N) Inspection License: (verifying records of guns and storage) To defray cost of inspection and firearms safes in business or private homes.
Fee: $588-$678 annually.

II. Suggestions To Be Made Immediately Available to Key Politicians And Secretary of U.S. Treasury

A) Increase Dealers License (Federal Firearms License 01 and 02) to $600-$750 annually.

B) Increase Title 1 Manufacturing License to $6,200-$9,400 annually.

C) Increase Title 2 Manufacturing License to $13,405-$18,210 annually.

III. Estimate Of Fiscal Impact Of Licensing On Firearms Ownership


Worst Case
Best Case

Federal Handgun License:
$50
$625

Fed. Rifle & Shotgun License:
$30
$148

Local Gun License Fee:
$48
$113

State Gun License Fee:
$74
$150

Arsenal License Fee:
$300
$1,000

Safe License Fee:
$228
$392

Ammunition License Fee:
$55
$117

Reloading License Fee:
$130
$175

Ammo Safe License Fee:
$55
$75

Ammo Inspection Fee:
$588
$678

Total Annual Cost:
$1,558
$3,473


This cost is not unreasonable, since it would offset considerably the estimated $60 billion dollars in medical and social costs related to gun violence.

IV. Reduction Of Gun Owner Population And Potential Yearly Revenue

The federal government estimates 65-75 million Americans own guns. These fees and the licensing requirements would allow us to take guns out of the hands of an estimate 30 million unsuitable or ineligible individuals. Fees for the remaining would reduce the number to about 14 million. Estimated revenue would constitute a minimum of $21.8 trillion dollars (worst case) to an estimated $48.6 trillion (best case) annually. Our eventual goal is to reduce the number of licensees to zero. The revenue itself can be utilized to achieve this goal.

V. Possible Uses for the Revenue

(A) Institute mandatory national, comprehensive educational campaign in schools (K-12) to deglamorize guns and gun ownership and tell the truth about the Second Amendment.

(B) A well-funded, concerted campaign to eliminate the Second Amendment via constitutional amendment.

(C) Provide revenue source for enforcement of new laws.

(D) Provide offsetting monetary fund for medical and legal services to victims of gun violence.

(E) Establish nationwide system of toll-free numbers for reporting violators of new gun restrictions and non-licensees, a sum set aside for cash rewards for tips resulting in conviction.

Additional Revenue sources listed:

Range Licenses: $12,100 annually.
Range Tax: $85 per person, per visit.
Gun Dealer License: $600 annually.
Title 1 gun Mfg License: $6,000 annually.
Title 2 Gun Mfg License: $13,400 annually.

Revenue calculations concerning the above fees will depend on how the numbers of gun ranges, gun range visitors, gun dealers and gun manufacturers are affected by increased fees. It is not unreasonable to predict a 40% drop by the end of the first year, another 35% drop by the year after that.

VI. Legal action and possible new revenue sources

Pending issues to be given at the appropriate time to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility, implementation and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions be made public before we can ascertain the current public reaction and provide the results of these studies to the LCAV attorneys.

These are some ideas which are ahead of their time and would only be feasible through a concerted P.R. campaign over time. A P.R. campaign includes press releases, press conferences, direct lobbying and constant pressure via the national media. We must change the way America thinks in regard to guns and gun owners in order to achieve a safe society for our children in the upcoming century. We realize that one cannot implement every good idea overnight, however, the following proposals have been forwarded for investigation as to possible enaction within the next few years. A continued P.R. campaign with the general public as well as the legal and judicial community, will enable us to finally get groundbreaking rulings which can change the violent face of the American landscape for years to come.

Legal Point 1:
Making possible the suing of owners of guns, as a group, for monetary compensation for victims of gun violence:

Once gun owners in America have been identified through a verifiable source, i.e., the pending national computer registry, it would be possible to seek further compensation for victims of gun violence through legal means. As a group, gun nuts would constitute an identifiable entity for class-action suits and other legal actions for compensation to victims of gun violence.

Legal Point 2:
Suing Gun Organizations under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organization) statute:

It would be expected that gun groups and lobbying groups such as the NRA would encourage noncompliance. Thus nationally recognized groups will be technically "organizing to break the law." Once this can be proven, these groups will be vulnerable to lawsuits based on the RICO statute and drained of the financial resources through repeated legal action.

Legal Point 3:
Suing the makers of toy-replica guns, toy weapons and violent entertainment:

One of the purveyors of violence to society, companies which profit from violence would eventually be identified and made legally responsible for the violent acts inspired by their products. A study would have to be created to link these companies to those actions taken as a result of their products. Threat of legal action would convince many manufacturers and distributors that other nonviolence-related recreational materials and toys, would make them fiscally accountable for the cost to society incurred as a result of their merchandise. Items could include: violent video games, television shows, movies, videotapes, water guns, super soakers, electronic noise guns, replica guns, toy weapons like swords, batons, martial arts items.

Tort law as we know it may not have to undergo a change in order to facilitate these actions. As many people know, it is not necessary to actually win in order to affect change, since the constant threat of legal action will induce change in the way people do business. People all know that the real fiscal effect of repeated legal actions can bankrupt a peddler of violence just as well as winning a large settlement.

Any additional ideas or proposals should be directed to our Washington D.C. office for collation, investigation and discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. WOW, I had forgot about that document!!!!!
Those ASSHOLES where feeling "giddy" in 1994 weren't they..

Boy, glad to see that for the most part, they have been neutered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Furyataurus Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Can you guys IMAGINE
no more CMP!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iktomiwicasa Donating Member (942 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Jeebus H Christ on a crutch...
...reading all that makes me want to go buy a couple more guns :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #35
43. That document
really deserves a thread of it's own if for no other reason than to counter the mantra "nobody wants to take your guns away" oft heard right here.


I find the fee structure comical. Where did these masters of intellect get these numbers? Just guessing they had to wash and deodorize them before they could actually publish them.

Fee: $30-$148 annually.

Fee: $74-$150 annually.

Fee: $48-$113 annually.
etc


Why not $30.22 - $148.63 while were at it..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #43
46. Very true
Kind of goes against their argument of wanting "reasonable legislation" doesn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #35
48. Hey, somebody clue in Hillary and Eric..............
"17. BANNING OF ANY AMMO THAT FITS MILITARY GUNS (POST 1945)
With the proliferation of high powered weapons, including semiautomatics and automatics from World War II, we suggest following the lead of Mexico, by prohibiting the sale, manufacture, possession or transfer of any caliber fitting a military firearm in service with a recognized military force after 1945."


How can they be smuggling military style guns to Mexico when there's no bullets for them down there?

Oh wait, Sandinista surplus from Nicaragua or El Salvador doesn't count. Mexican drug lords are stupid and will pay exorbitant retail for a semi-auto clone from Arizona instead of getting them by the crate for 50 bucks each from the FARC. Who is stupid enough to think RPG's are crossing into Tijuana from San Diego in the bottom of tourist luggage instead of the container full across the Yucatan coast?

Is this where we cue yet another You Tube video of Congress-moron and anti-gun luminary, Carolyn McCarthy committing conspicuous stupidity in a public place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-29-09 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
40. The bottom line is that all Democrats should own guns, it will freak the GOP out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-30-09 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
47. Fire extinguishers would be next
Reference the attempts to ban them from homes in England.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC