dagblog - Comments for "OK, let's try this gun law thing another way: High-capacity magazines."

It's not trivial.. Related

demunchained — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:13:40 +0000

In reply to http://www.seattlepi.com/news

It's not trivial.. Related story: years ago, I recall this was around 1987, Indiana legislators finally got fed up with the numerous accidental gun deaths where 6 year old Billy gets hold his dad's loaded handgun and shoots 7 year old neighbor Tommy dead. they decided it was time for stiffer penalties for the clearly irresponsible owners of handguns.

The NRA got wind of this, came in and spread some money around the legislature; that was the end of the legislation.

I don't have all the facts, but I think it's safe to assume this scenario was repeated in several states over the last twenty-five years.

I can only conclude that both our political "leadership" and the NRA are in favor of irresponsible gun ownership, and thus these horrible deaths will continue. There are larger implications here, but will save for another thread.

I do not understand how my

moat — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:36:37 +0000

In reply to I get it Moat, you want to

I do not understand how my description of your argument that restricting ownership of certain kinds of weapons is part of a process that will lead to no private citizens having guns is different from your argument that exactly that outcome is inevitable if such limitations are put in place.

Your position is not some mind bending idea that no one else can comprehend. Maybe it would be good for you to post your own thing about these matters so that you can defend your ideas directly.

Probable cause is different

erica20 — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:18:37 +0000

In reply to Where do you suppose the PD

Probable cause is different from saying "Suspect may be armed and dangerous."

Where do you suppose the PD

Resistance — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:11:40 +0000

In reply to "We have probable cause

Where do you suppose the PD might get the idea "Suspect may be armed and dangerous"

Do you think some police agencies issuing the alert, might get the information off of gathered information?

Matlock: It says here you own a .38 special and the recovered bullet that killed the clerk was shot from a .38 special

Suspect: Who says I own one?

What was wrong with the

Resistance — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:02:00 +0000

In reply to Okay. That one poor old guy

What was wrong with the simplistic, "shall not infringe"?

Your idea will lead to more layers of rules and regulations.

Enforce the laws already on the books.

It is already established law, individuals who have been declared unfit or have had their rights taken away by the courts, cannot have firearms in their possession.

All other law abiding citizens, who haven't committed disqualifying acts, should retain their guaranteed 2nd amendment rights.

"We have probable cause

erica20 — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:32:01 +0000

In reply to I get it Moat, you want to

"We have probable cause because he's a known gun owner"

Said no police officer, ever.

Okay. That one poor old guy

erica20 — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:28:35 +0000

In reply to I disagree.

Okay. That one poor old guy who needs his trusty six-shooter to protect himself in a bad neighborhood gets grandfathered in, if he promises there will NEVER be a child in his home.

I get it Moat, you want to

Resistance — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 13:36:40 +0000

In reply to It is difficult to locate my

I get it Moat, you want to lessen the legal right, of lawful citizens to own particular guns.

Eventually; the only crime committed by lawful citizens, will be the ownership of a particular gun. Not that it was used illegally, just the ownership.

Moat wrote : The only way to lessen

interest in buying ever increasingly effective guns is to reduce the overall supply of military grade weapons.

You want to reduce the supply. Isn't that a commerce issue?

You want to attack the 2nd amendment by abusing the Commerce clause, granting a power that was never intended.

If I misread your statement I apologize,

I understand that you consider any limitation on deadly force to be only a ruse to completely disarm individuals

Why do you keep insisting on micharacterizations.

My objective is to point out; that every incremental step, towards LIMITING the lawful citizens rights, should be jealously guarded against.

Next thing you know, each new additional law or phrasing of the law, gives the Gun Ban advocates, the tools to advance further in their goal.

TO DISARM THE PEOPLE

Next thing you know, because you registered your gun, the police will just be allowed to enter your house, because they'll be looking for newly banned guns.

"We have probable cause because he's a known gun owner "

It may not be your objective, but the folks who do want to ban guns, will look upon many with favor, as they see unwitting pawns, advancing their agenda.

It is difficult to locate my

moat — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:06:58 +0000

In reply to The only way to lessen

It is difficult to locate my comment in your reply. I understand that you consider any limitation on deadly force to be only a ruse to completely disarm individuals. My proposal assumes that is not the case but doesn't try to prove it. You are advancing against an undefended position.

The insistence that any limits placed upon ownership of deadly force can only be the first step toward a complete ban invites the question of how much force one is talking about. Perhaps a couple of assault rifles with lots of rounds would allow me to defend myself for several hours against a small group of armed assailants. But what if they have a rocket launcher? Well, it would be really helpful if I had a rocket launcher too. What if they have a tank? I will have been disarmed by the law if I can't have my own tank.

The only way to lessen

Resistance — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:47:57 +0000

In reply to In terms of slowing down the

The only way to lessen interest in buying ever increasingly effective guns is to reduce the overall supply of military grade weapons.

It's no wonder the stores have seen a large jump in the sale of guns.

The Gun supporters and buyers, who said the government was coming after the more popular sought after guns, were correct.

The government, not liking the limits and constraints of the delegated powers; will try to take more power away from the people, through the Commerce Clause loophole.