my 3-point gun control plan

[Bono]

And if someone steals that gun and uses it to commit a crime, should you be held responsible?

I would say yes.  If you want the gun, you need to take the responsibility of keeping it in your possession at all times.

Red herring.
And depends, but unless there was gross negligence, probably not. Shoud be decided in a case by case basis though.

[MasterJedi]

Typical gun grabbing Republican.

Why don't you talk to a lot of members of your "former" party about that.


And Mitty as usual has a horrible plan.

[AkSaber]

What a horrid idea!!! This is not the USSR!!!! Or something.....

But I do have a question. Why all the hatred for handguns? I always thought that gun control advocates wanted to get rid of all guns.

[Colin]

I could handle having hand guns and hunting rifles.. but everything else?  yes, they should be illegal.  Give me ONE legitimate reason why someone needs an automatic weapon.

Automatic weapons as most people who know anything about guns knows were banned in the 1930's. These are machine guns, M16s, MAC10s etc.

The Automatic Weapons Ban actually just outlawed a few semi-automatic rifle, ie a rifle where you do not have to cock the gun after every shot, you aim and shoot the trigger without having to pull a bolt as in a bolt-action rifle. Even there it didn't even ban all semi-automatic weapons, since that's probably about 80% of the gun market in the United States basically the only weapons that aren't semi-auto are long distance sniper and range rifles which are usually bolt-action. What this bill did was just ban those with things like wood-grain triggers, bayonet attachment points, certain types of teloscopic lenses, and certain types of barrels. It mostly just banned anything that looked scary or "military" in any way. That of course has no affect on the gun at all, the gun makers just made the guns without those aesthetic features.

So in conclusion the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban was really nothing more than banning certain aesthetic features that looked "scary" and really had nothing to do with the lethality or the crime rates associated with different types of guns.

[David S]

I could handle having hand guns and hunting rifles.. but everything else?  yes, they should be illegal.  Give me ONE legitimate reason why someone needs an automatic weapon.

How about shotguns?

Also what exactly do you mean by "automatic"? Fully automatic means a machine gun which fires continuously at a rapid rate as long as you hold the trigger. For the most part those are already illegal or at least require special permits to own.
Semi-automatic means the gun fires one round with each pull of the trigger. Those are very popular in rifles, handguns and shotguns. What's so bad about that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My suggestion would be that you make a list of the lawmakers who say that and vote for them. Honestly what sense does it make to ban law-abiding people from carrying guns? Criminals and lunatics will carry them even though its illegal. That tendency for breaking the law is what makes them criminals. Only law abiding people obey the law. So if you make carrying guns illegal you disarm the honest people and leave them completely defenseless against armed thugs who don't give a damn about the law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it wasn't for the NRA the right to own guns would have been lost long ago. You should have more respect for the 2nd amendment. Its the only one which has any teeth to it, and the only one that gives the people a means of defending the rest of their rights from tyrants who would like to take them away.

[adam]

Typical gun grabbing Republican.

Why don't you talk to a lot of members of your "former" party about that.

Yeah really, if you think the GOP is the party of gun control nuts, than you are sadly mistaken.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Typical gun grabbing Republican.

Why don't you talk to a lot of members of your "former" party about that.

Yeah really, if you think the GOP is the party of gun control nuts, than you are sadly mistaken.

The gun issue isn't important to me, I just can't resist bashing on extreme gun grabbing Republicans.

DNC chair Howard Dean had an A rating from the NRA.

[Everett]

Typical gun grabbing Republican.

Why don't you talk to a lot of members of your "former" party about that.

Yeah really, if you think the GOP is the party of gun control nuts, than you are sadly mistaken.

Why don't you talk to a lot of members of your party about that too, particularly the person who started this thread. Typical blame-shifting Republican.

[A18]

Typical gun grabbing Republican.

Why don't you talk to a lot of members of your "former" party about that.

Yeah really, if you think the GOP is the party of gun control nuts, than you are sadly mistaken.

Why don't you talk to a lot of members of your party about that too, particularly the person who started this thread. Typical blame-shifting Republican.

What 'blame-shifting?' He's pointing out that most gun control proponents are liberals, and so it's a bit ironic to accuse Republicans of being 'gun-grabbers.'

[Beet]

This plan goes too far, IMO. The point isn't to restrict the use of guns for its own sake but to ensure that they are used as safely as possible, just as we would enact regulations to make sure that vehicles have safety mechanisms or that the food we can sell in a grocery store is clean. That is not called "car control" or "food control." Background checks, trigger locks, I support; waiting periods possibly. Restrictions on guns in bars and airplanes yes. Assault weapons-- that depends on how many lives per year are saved by a ban. The same goes with concealed carry.

Honestly, I find the NRA types to be paranoid. Mitty is one of the most pro-gun control people here, and even he does not touch rifles.

[AuH2O]

Just a note, mitty's plank (3) would destroy the US legal system and economy. You can't just hold gun makers liable for tort when their product is used, it would effect every manufacturer in every industry.

So, needless to say, we're not talking about a serious approach here. I oppose gun control, but this is a joke.

[Bono]

Mitty is one of the most pro-gun control people here, and even he does not touch rifles.

Does not touch?
You must have missed the registration and licensing part.

[David S]

Just a note, mitty's plank (3) would destroy the US legal system and economy. You can't just hold gun makers liable for tort when their product is used, it would effect every manufacturer in every industry.

So, needless to say, we're not talking about a serious approach here. I oppose gun control, but this is a joke.

The gun control lobby does this already. They file lawsuits against gun dealers and gun manufacturers because guns they made or sold were used in crimes even though the defendents did everything in accordance with the law. The real objective of such suits is to bankrupt  the gun industry with legal fees. Unfortunately the gun industry does not have deep pockets like the auto industry or tobacco industry, so they could in fact be ruined by continuous lawsuits.

[David S]

If you want to get an idea of what gun confiscation looks like click on this link http://www.givethemback.com/ and then click on the tabs on the left. This is a total violation of the law by the people entrusted to uphold the law.

[MODU]

As far as the manufacturer goes, it is quite simple that they are not involved with any crime committed by a gun user unless they physically walk down to the user, gives them a gun, and sends them somewhere to commit a crime.  Legislation protecting the manufacturers from most lawsuits are reasonable and expected.  Where they can be sued is if the gun itself malfunctions, injuring/killing the gun user due to a mechanical defect.  If it is the ammo that is defective, the gun manufacturer cannot be sued (but rather the ammo manufacturer) since it wasn't the gun makers fault.

[David S]

As far as the manufacturer goes, it is quite simple that they are not involved with any crime committed by a gun user unless they physically walk down to the user, gives them a gun, and sends them somewhere to commit a crime.  Legislation protecting the manufacturers from most lawsuits are reasonable and expected.  Where they can be sued is if the gun itself malfunctions, injuring/killing the gun user due to a mechanical defect.  If it is the ammo that is defective, the gun manufacturer cannot be sued (but rather the ammo manufacturer) since it wasn't the gun makers fault.

That is sensible but unhappily that's not how the anti-gun crowd sees things.

[7,052,770]

I think police should be allowed to use handguns.

Other than that, I think Mitty is correct.  Maybe lower the shotgun/rifle age to 19.

[The Constitarian]

id be interested to know what the foreigners think of my gun control plan.  i suspect most would find it reasonable.

only in america would such a moderate plan be labeled as 'radical'

You can ask the people of Brazil how "moderate" your plan is

[MODU]

As far as the manufacturer goes, it is quite simple that they are not involved with any crime committed by a gun user unless they physically walk down to the user, gives them a gun, and sends them somewhere to commit a crime.  Legislation protecting the manufacturers from most lawsuits are reasonable and expected.  Where they can be sued is if the gun itself malfunctions, injuring/killing the gun user due to a mechanical defect.  If it is the ammo that is defective, the gun manufacturer cannot be sued (but rather the ammo manufacturer) since it wasn't the gun makers fault.

That is sensible but unhappily that's not how the anti-gun crowd sees things.

hehehe . . . they just need a swift kick in the pocket book to change their minds.    I say we sue them for being stupid.  *laughs*  Of course, it also depends on who you are calling "anti-gun."  I have my own gun restrictions that I support. 

[Wakie]

I think the phrase gun control is misleading.  It really is about weapon control.  Obviously no rational person would ban steak knives (even though they are weapons).  And no rational person would want to allow a wealthy oil heir to be able to purchase a nuclear weapon.

So this issue is really about finding a happy medium.