Where did the gun regulations sticky go?

[zuckerman]

>Zukerman, realize that all those federal regulations you talk about are pre Heller and'McDonald, so propose something and tell me why you think it would be constitutonal right now, not in 1992.
I realize that is kind of unfair, as I have a degree in this field, but you are the one telling me that a federal solution will work, so let's hear it.

so you are saying that it is impossible to change the law? that it is impossible for the federal government to make rules about guns that the states have to follow?

that ultimately, it appears you argue that no limits on guns in America is a good thing. (I have a problem with this statement, but I want to let it stand to find out what it is you say)

>If you want to change the subject to how money influences politics in this country. I would be happy to agree with you. Taking the money out of politics is fine with me, as long as you do it across the board. Don't want the NRA influencing public policy in this country? Fine, just as long as the public employee unions can't donate either, and your buddy Obama is no longer allowed to accept foreign cash, through untraceable credit card donations.

I had not even thought of nra when I wrote that. Wisconsin just came off a brutal political campaign where tens of millions of dollars were spent .. and the federal campaigns? geeze...

and you do NOT know who I voted for. don't assume.

>Along with taking the cash out of the legislative process, we need to repeal the 17th amendment, and pass another one where the States and districts pay their representatives and senators, and Congress can not pass laws that exempt themselves.

I'm not sure of the 17th, but the change that the Congress cannot exempt itself is a winner. look, I did not come to this thread (and the mourned lost one before it) on TT with the position I am at, at the start of this thread, I just felt something is needing to be done, that the very idea that more guns is the answer, didn't make a lot of sense. As I read, and I wrote, I began to go from relatively undecided and uninformed to a place where 'more guns is the answer', is abhorrent to me, that argument avoids far more than it defends. The argument that we need guns to resist a tyrannical government is also abhorrent, we HAVE that ability, its called the vote. given that our voting record is 50%! or thereabouts, we need to work on that too, a voting day off would go far, but my guess is that the corporations would nix that, not wanting to pay anybody for the privilege of a vacation day to vote.

>If you were serious about reducing the power of special interests, you would want that too, but that isnt what you really want, is it?

assuming again...

>You want to hamstring the organizations, and people you disagree with, while allowing the ones you agree with to dominate the debate. Correct?

and again...

Look, I'm just a guy, I shoot an air pistol, sometimes I do it rather well.. I do not have 5 or 6 years to study constitutional law to argue with you, my positions are ones that mostly are a gut feeling, its wrong to allow corporations the ability to spend basically unlimited funds to influence votes. its wrong to allow unlimited guns. why? because it feels wrong to me, that's why. do I have much more than a gut feeling to back that up, no, not with much more than the information that I have already written and is available to me. sometimes you just gotta go on that feeling.
and this missive (and/or all the rest of them)? I do not have Gerards ability to dash off 150 wpm in a free thinking cohesive, intelligent and pertinent (sometimes) article, this answer has taken all the time since you posted, as I write,edit, rewrite, edit, and on and on..
I'll tell you one thing, my son is frightened for me, my writing on this topic. no offense, please, I'm letting you know where it is I'm at.

[bpscCheney]

I've always been intrigued by people who own multiple of the same rifle, i.e. the ever popular AR15. I've never seen a purpose to owning, for example, 4 AR15s but I will wholeheartedly support your rights to do so. Personally, when I finally turn 21 and can then buy pistols, I'll start buying pistols out the wazoo but never multiple of the same firearm.

Anyone else on here feel the same way or those of you who have multiple of the same firearm care to elaborate as to the reasoning? Not saying I hate you for it I just wish to understand.

[Richard H]

No one I believe has suggested asking teachers to be armed, the only thing I've seen is allowing teachers who want to carry to be allowed to carry. It only takes a couple sheep dogs to protect the herd of sheep.

[Gerard]

When I was a kid, half the vehicles in the high school parking lot were pickup trucks and half of those had a rifle in the gun rack. At least half the boys carried Buck knives on our belts. No one ever felt unsafe. The very occasional fistfight never involved a knife... [snip] ... Can you imagine that happening in a high school today?

Yup, ditto to a lesser degree here. I was born in Vancouver in 1961, and in 1969 I had a Daisy 300-shot underlever repeater BB rifle from my stepdad and walked all over my neighbourhood with it after school or on weekends. It was just something to play with sometimes. Other times I had a glove and ball, or just my 2-blade jack knife which was always in my pocket no matter where I went. These days I'm careful to turn the 'Pardini' label on my pistol case inwards toward my backpack when strapping it on to bike or bus out to the club, lest someone recognise the brand and panic and call the police. More and more often I actually just wrap one of my air pistols in my bench rest towel and stuff it into my little shoulder pack to avoid even the risk of someone identifying it as a generic pistol case. Fear of guns, of street violence, has grown to be more and more part of the general awareness over the years and it'd be messy to find myself identified with that publicly, even just having to answer an officer's questions. Young idiots with CO2 replica pellet guns going around shooting cats or breaking church and home windows, as crops up in the news all too regularly these days, are only further heightening the specific social stigma of shooting air pistol, no matter how careful and disciplined my own practice might be.

I don't like this change. I miss that time, when it seemed there was more common sense around here. Should I have been firing a BB rifle around the 'hood before I turned 8? Probably not. My stepdad should have been more thorough in my safety lessons and should have made clear the boundaries. I made some mistakes along the way, killed birds I later regretted having killed. Had to learn the painful way about limiting my fun to harmless sorts. But these days a kid wanting a gun is almost automatically assumed to be an 'at risk youth' by teachers or police or community organisations. There's almost no middle ground. Who's to blame? Well I've gone on at length about my thoughts there... no need to repeat.

What we've lost and how are questions bigger than we're equipped to address and off-topic for this forum.

I'll respectfully disagree. It seems every place where people of varying backgrounds meet online or in person is an appropriate place. This is a discussion which is better had sooner, and often over the coming years, both while in the heated emotions of reacting to the slaughter of children and later when it's become at least a slightly less immediately painful memory. All rational discussion should be encouraged, relevant to a particular forum's nature or not. This is central stuff, important if any sort of sea change is to be undertaken in the re-routing of our society.

To RichardH; my apologies if I mis-labelled you as being a US citizen somehow. You might take offense at this, but frankly, from my perspective it's at times difficult to remember you're in Canada, considering your more frequently rather distinctly American opinions. Or perhaps my 'left coast' persuasion is showing too prominently there? Anyway, politics aside I will try to pay more attention to the left-hand column with the locations posted there.

[BenEnglishTX]

I've always been intrigued by people who own multiple of the same rifle...I just wish to understand.

Good for you. If you don't have the collecting bug, you'll live a happier life.

The mentality of the collector, though, is that there are rare or special or appealing things that they wish to own. Mostly (especially in the case of ARs) there are minor variations from sample to sample and completeness of a collection entails obtaining every obscure variation. If you actually got a close look at all the ARs owned by someone who has 10 or more, you'd most likely find that they are not identical. Given how easy they are to customize, it's tough to find 10 identical ARs, period, unless you're the FFL who ordered them.

OTOH, there are reasons to buy identical things. There is a particular single-shot rifle that I fell in love with as a kid. It was expensive, a failure in the market, and few were made. I spent 25 years looking for one. A couple of years ago, in a string of luck, I stumbled across three of them in three different places over a short period of time. I bought them all. In that case, it was pure emotion. I'd wanted it for so long that I couldn't help but take full advantage of their sudden, unexpected availability.

Another reason to buy identical things is that they wear. I have three copies of COSO-5005 (Any LP collectors here?) because they are rare and just listening to them can wear them out. While I can minimize that problem so that one or two will last the rest of my life, I can't guarantee I won't accidentally scratch one. So I've bought that LP every time I've run across it over the years, despite the fact that it hasn't held up over time. There's one cut on the album that was sublime and about the best in the world recording of a female voice...back in the 1970s. Today, better recordings exist. Still, if you're a certain age and you love records, this is one of those "I want it just because I want it" kind of things.

Any help?

If you want to discuss this further, please PM me. It's pretty off-topic for this thread unless you think it has some bearing on the "arsenal" prohibitions that are currently being discussed in some quarters.

[Isabel1130]

"So you are saying that it is impossible to change the law? that it is impossible for the federal government to make rules about guns that the states have to follow?"

No, what I am saying is that is is extremely easy to do simple things, that will do nothing substantive, but make life more difficult, and expensive for law abiding gun owners, while at the same time doing nothing to either halt or reduce gun "crime"
The reason for this is the United States is not a democracy, but a Republic, and The federal government has to find a handle to get states to cooperate in Federal policies that the states don't want to codify or enforce. One handle has been the Commerce Clause, which will allow the federal government to regulate sales that cross state lines, but not ones that occur totally inside state lines.
Without getting too windy, this is how the feds got states to impose a 55 mile an hour speed limit, and a 21 year old drinking age. They used the withholding of federal highway funds to states which did not comply with the mandate to pressure them into compliance. The feds cannot directly mandate a drinking age in any state or a speed limit, or a ban on high capacity magazines, or a certain type of gun. It is beyond their powers.


"ultimately, it appears you argue that no limits on guns in America is a good thing. (I have a problem with this statement, but I want to let it stand to find out what it is you say)"

No, this is a strawman. I think the gun laws that are on the books now are enough, and no further federal legislation will do anything to make anyone "safer" statistically than we already are. I don't see anything wrong with strengthing the reporting system to allow better background checks, but I also recognize that this would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook.

People are emotional creatures, and our zeal to do "something" however ineffective means that bad laws get piled on top of bad laws, which inevitably make a problem worse, and life a little less free than it was before, with no statistical increase in safety for anyone.
I think the number of guns, and types of guns in this country have as little relationship to crime with guns, as the number of cars on the road has to do with drunken driving.

In the history of the world, we live in a very safe country and I think people who lose sight of that in their zeal to do "something" about a rare event, however terrible, believe that if they can pass laws controlling something it will solve a problem. Most people "feel" safer getting into the drivers seat of a car to make a cross country trip, than they do getting on a commercial airline. Are they safer? Actually no, they are not. Your chances of being killed in a car accident are at least 400 times greater than being in a plane crash. So can we agree that "feeling" safe is not the same as "being" safe? And that maybe passing laws to make people "feel safer" are not necessarily a good idea?



'I had not even thought of nra when I wrote that. Wisconsin just came off a brutal political campaign where tens of millions of dollars were spent .. and the federal campaigns? geeze...

and you do NOT know who I voted for. don't assume."

I assumed nothing of the sort but let me repeat your statement here, and then you can tell me what organization you were thinking of.

" it is unfortunate that there exists a zombie that now lives forever in our country, one that has the right to an unlimited freedom of speech that includes the 'right' to pour unlimited amounts of money into our political system, to the detriment of our freedoms."

Who, or what is the "Zombie" and how, in your words does this undermine our "freedoms"?


" The argument that we need guns to resist a tyrannical government is also abhorrent, we HAVE that ability, its called the vote. given that our voting record is 50%! or thereabouts, we need to work on that too, a voting day off would go far, but my guess is that the corporations would nix that, not wanting to pay anybody for the privilege of a vacation day to vote."

Again, the vote is nice, but in a true democracy, without constitutional protections it leads to a tyranny of the majority, where 51 percent get to remove everything, if they chose, from the 49 percent who are not with them on a particular issue. So, far, we don't have that in the US, we have a republic, which has existed historically in many places and times, but has not proven particularly durable. I know I should not invoke Godwin's law here, but Hitler and Mussolini were both originally elected.

I could care less how many people vote. If a person really doesn't have a grasp of the issues, or understand that this is a republic, with a two party system, cemented in by state and federal statutes, I would just as soon, the "voter" stayed home.

If you live in a state where you think the gun laws are too lax, by all means, talk to your representative and see what your state is willing to do. I would appreciate it though, if you didn't tell your senator and congressman that they need to "do something" about the gun laws in Wyoming, (or anywhere else) because you would "feel safer" in Yellowstone, if our state didn't allow high capacity magazines.

I am extremely sorry that your son seems to feel that discussing these issues would make either him or you feel threatened. Does this mean that you think people who own guns are less stable and more prone to violence than people who do not? I have found the opposite to be true, so I wonder where this stereotype comes from.

[BenEnglishTX]

It seems every place where people of varying backgrounds meet online or in person is an appropriate place. This is a discussion which is better had sooner, and often over the coming years, both while in the heated emotions of reacting to the slaughter of children and later when it's become at least a slightly less immediately painful memory. All rational discussion should be encouraged, relevant to a particular forum's nature or not. This is central stuff, important if any sort of sea change is to be undertaken in the re-routing of our society.

In principle, I agree. As I've said, your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to live in a country that may soon be subjected to new laws that were not discussed rationally, where the slaughter of children was not a trigger for rational discussion but an excuse for totalitarians-at-heart to ram through truly evil legislation because the fog of emotion provides them sufficient camouflage to do so. Some people with very bad judgement have cynically latched onto this moment to push their longstanding, anti-freedom agendas. They don't give a damn about re-routing our society to something better. They merely see a crisis they can exploit.

The kind of talk you want happens over the long haul. I hope it does happen. But at the moment, the only talk that matters is being done in conference rooms in and around DC and with the people who work and cast votes there.

I want, like you, to see the world change for the better. If that is to happen, though, there is an immediate need to make sure the world doesn't change for the worse...which is likely the only direction any change will take in the short term where this issue is concerned.

[FredB]

Thanks to Ben and Isabel for their patient and reasonable responses. FWIW I agree with just about everything they have said, and would be saying the same if I had the patience, time and inclination to reply to statements that have already been made multiple times.

Here are just a few of the issues that seem to continually get lost:

1. There is no evidence that gun restrictions of any kind result in lower levels of violence. You can't prove a negative, but the CDC's analysis of 51 studies was forced to come to this conclusion, which is as close to proof as one can get. Therefore, none of the proposed laws are at all likely to do what Zuckerman and Gerard assume they will do.

2. All of the proposed new federal laws have been in effect in California for nearly 20 years. Has California become a national exemplar of a non-violent, or even a less violent, society? Hardly. So what is the response to the current "opportunity" from the California politicians? They have already introduced even more highly restrictive laws, which will again affect only law-abiding citizens. Unlike the federal balance of power, California's has become truly one-party, and these laws will be passed, again with no worthwhile results.

3. I believe there is a fundamental moral issue with one person or group telling another person or group "you don't need that," when "that" is something the first party has no use for. IOW the act of mandating another's sacrifice, at no cost to oneself, should be very closely examined for motive. If it could be clearly shown that the proposed laws had every chance of working, then maybe - maybe - they could be justified as necessary for the common good. However that is decidedly not the case here, and the primary motive appears to me to be emotional self-satisfaction. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I can't think of any other reason for advocating something that will cause you no pain, but will force sacrifice on others, and will not improve the common good. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this?

4. Just a correction to a statement made earlier, I can't remember by whom, that the proposed national laws would not affect target shooters. This is false, in that Feinstein's "assault weapon" law would ban all handguns with magazines inserted outside the grip, no matter how few rounds the magazines hold. This would include all of the current preferred ISSF 25M pistols (Pardini, Walther, Morini, etc.). You know, those guns that are so frequently used to hold up 7-11s.

FredB

[Rover]

Delightfully clear. Nicely reasoned.

[Richard H]

Its always easier to give up others rights.

[Gerard]

Therefore, none of the proposed laws are at all likely to do what Zuckerman and Gerard assume they will do.

My take on this - as a non-member of any anti-gun lobby group and only recently a participate in a few discussions such as this one - and of course I cannot speak for zuckerman - is that anything limiting or eliminating I might suggest has more to do with long term ideals than short term solutions to the shooting spree problem. I'd like to live in a world without a need for guns, plain and simple. A world in which guns might well exist, as I see no harm at all in safe use of firearms besides potential accidents, lead in the ground water (which I understand is for the most part a non-issue, though lead shot is still killing a lot of raptors and other top-of-the-chain predators incidentally), relatively manageable stuff like that.

(Funny side note; while picking organically grown strawberries a few years ago my then 4-year-old son ran up to me and spat something into my hand, something he'd bitten on in a strawberry he ate while picking. It was birdshot. I was more than a little bit pissed off at shotgun users that day.)

But as to any legislation around magazines, gun types, whatever, I do not at all believe there is any potential that this discussion is going to have the slightest impact upon what Biden, Feinstein et al come up with and put into law. It's an interesting discussion. Diverse notions of what's necessary, what defines 'freedom' and the like come to the surface, and that's interesting. I am enjoying the back and forth, and don't mind at all any personal jibes as they are pretty much inevitable and perfectly understandable given the rather direct impingement of the upcoming changes in law which will affect some shooters' weapon ownership, perhaps quite soon.

And I don't think it's very likely that anyone involved in this forum is a danger to anyone else in this forum or outside it. We're a responsible lot it seems. I think that plays a huge role in the way so much of this discussion has been so very civil (Rover's at times very strange links to Russian alien-worshippers and the like notwithstanding)

So to respond directly to the quote snipped above; I agree, it is unlikely that any proposed restrictions on guns or accessories will significantly change the rate of deadly attacks on innocents in the USA in the short term. It will take a lot more than a few twistings and turnings of the law to make a better society. But the discussions on the table are not about improving society, they're about appeasing a frantic public. People are scared. See pretty much anything Noam Chomsky has written about US media and politics for simple explanations of why a state of fear is so useful for political and corporate interests. Look to Newtown and gun sales across the USA spiking in the following weeks for a fresh example of cause and effect - it's no wonder conspiracy junkies are having a field day with that event, in a display of bad taste almost without parallel. But if gun owners are going to have a chance of conserving a significant percentage of their current collections and rights-to-purchase and use weapons, I'd suggest staying engaged with discussions like this one. People need to sort out priorities, come to some set of compromises or consensus on what's reasonable in a modern society.

If it could be clearly shown that the proposed laws had every chance of working, then maybe - maybe - they could be justified as necessary for the common good. However that is decidedly not the case here, and the primary motive appears to me to be emotional self-satisfaction.

Nope, wrong. Nothing smug or superior going on here for me at least. Just chewing the fat, trying to help form a better understanding of what's working and what's not working. I'm not exactly in a position to change US law, am I?

This is false, in that Feinstein's "assault weapon" law would ban all handguns with magazines inserted outside the grip, no matter how few rounds the magazines hold. This would include all of the current preferred ISSF 25M pistols (Pardini, Walther, Morini, etc.). You know, those guns that are so frequently used to hold up 7-11s.

I believe I've made clear earlier in this discussion how little respect I've had for Dianne Feinstein since about 1980 or maybe a bit earlier. Unbelievable piece of work she is, and I feel for you in the US that you have to deal with her on these sensitive issues. She's not exactly approachable from a rational perspective. More along the lines of a religious zealot, politically speaking. Good luck with that, really. She's altogether too likely to force legislation which makes absolutely no sense and has no consistency to it, as she's a technophobe. Doesn't want to know, just wants to control people. My own hopes for improving society might at times align with her expressed views, but that's purely coincidental.

[JamesH]

Thanks to Ben and Isabel for their patient and reasonable responses. FWIW I agree with just about everything they have said, and would be saying the same if I had the patience, time and inclination to reply to statements that have already been made multiple times.

Here are just a few of the issues that seem to continually get lost:

1. There is no evidence that gun restrictions of any kind result in lower levels of violence. You can't prove a negative, but the CDC's analysis of 51 studies was forced to come to this conclusion, which is as close to proof as one can get. Therefore, none of the proposed laws are at all likely to do what Zuckerman and Gerard assume they will do.

2. All of the proposed new federal laws have been in effect in California for nearly 20 years. Has California become a national exemplar of a non-violent, or even a less violent, society? Hardly. So what is the response to the current "opportunity" from the California politicians? They have already introduced even more highly restrictive laws, which will again affect only law-abiding citizens. Unlike the federal balance of power, California's has become truly one-party, and these laws will be passed, again with no worthwhile results.

3. I believe there is a fundamental moral issue with one person or group telling another person or group "you don't need that," when "that" is something the first party has no use for. IOW the act of mandating another's sacrifice, at no cost to oneself, should be very closely examined for motive. If it could be clearly shown that the proposed laws had every chance of working, then maybe - maybe - they could be justified as necessary for the common good. However that is decidedly not the case here, and the primary motive appears to me to be emotional self-satisfaction. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I can't think of any other reason for advocating something that will cause you no pain, but will force sacrifice on others, and will not improve the common good. Maybe someone can enlighten me on this?

4. Just a correction to a statement made earlier, I can't remember by whom, that the proposed national laws would not affect target shooters. This is false, in that Feinstein's "assault weapon" law would ban all handguns with magazines inserted outside the grip, no matter how few rounds the magazines hold. This would include all of the current preferred ISSF 25M pistols (Pardini, Walther, Morini, etc.). You know, those guns that are so frequently used to hold up 7-11s.

FredB

So what useful proposals do you have?

We're at this point because all we hear from the pro-gun crowd is "we can't do anything because freedom/2nd amendment/its won't achieve anything".

Something is going to be done.

[Isabel1130]

So what useful proposals do you have?

We're at this point because all we hear from the pro-gun crowd is "we can't do anything because freedom/2nd amendment/its won't achieve anything".

Something is going to be done.[

My first useful proposal is that people who don't understand the American form of government need to realize that we have plenty of firearms laws on the books already, and the federal government is not structured so they can, wave a magic wand, and make the rest of us fall in line with just erasing the Second amendment by passing some draconian gun regulation scheme.
The federal government can affect the future sale and transfer across state lines, of firearms, and darn little else. It is beyond their federal powers to ban or confiscate. This would violate not only the Second Amendment, but several others.

Why do we need any proposals? My senators and representative are not going to vote for some radical gun control law. They would lose their next election with a primary challenge if they did.

Your demand that we on this board "propose something" is a non sensical one. What do you think that would accomplish? Your attempt to stampede gun owners on this board into some kind of consensus on crime prevention is strange. You don't live here, and you don't vote here.

[FredB]

The federal government can affect the future sale and transfer across state lines, of firearms, and darn little else. It is beyond their federal powers to ban or confiscate. This would violate not only the Second Amendment, but several others.

The federal government can affect the future production, importation, sale and transfer across state lines of firearms. It can also require registration and impose punitive taxes. It can effectively ban. Not saying that it should.

Why do we need any proposals? My senators and representative are not going to vote for some radical gun control law. They would lose their next election with a primary challenge if they did.

In a previous post I answered JamesH directly and at length about why it would be futile and indeed counter-productive for us to preemptively propose any of the kinds of laws that the anti-gun people want imposed. And as far as my state goes, to paraphrase Isabel, my senators and representative are going to vote for radical gun control laws. They might lose their next election with a primary challenge if they didn't. And they aren't interested in what I have to say about it, unless it mirrors their polling results. Which say, mostly as a result of unprecedented media hype, "Just say no to evil looking gun things (and we'll all feel so much better about ourselves)."

FredB

[Isabel1130]

FredB wrote "The federal government can affect the future production, importation, sale and transfer across state lines of firearms. It can also require registration and impose punitive taxes. It can effectively ban. Not saying that it should. "





Fred, you are absolutely correct on the federal government's ability to affect the future importation, sale and transfer of firearms across state lines.

What I believe you are wrong about is they can not directly affect production, cannot directly impose federal registration, and cannot retroactively ban anything. Congress could theoretically do this, but only some of it would pass a challege in court for several reasons.

Here is a link to one of the better legal analysis of the constitutionality of firearms regulations. The writer is a democratic voter, so I tend to trust that she has been less swayed by her emotions over the issue.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... html[quote][/quote]

[Richard H]

Hmmm, sounds safe to me,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... GaDAThOHhA

The interesting fact is this was posted Feb 2011

[JamesH]

Why do we need any proposals? My senators and representative are not going to vote for some radical gun control law. They would lose their next election with a primary challenge if they did.

In a previous post I answered JamesH directly and at length about why it would be futile and indeed counter-productive for us to preemptively propose any of the kinds of laws that the anti-gun people want imposed. And as far as my state goes, to paraphrase Isabel, my senators and representative are going to vote for radical gun control laws. They might lose their next election with a primary challenge if they didn't. And they aren't interested in what I have to say about it, unless it mirrors their polling results. Which say, mostly as a result of unprecedented media hype, "Just say no to evil looking gun things (and we'll all feel so much better about ourselves)."

FredB

All I'm asking is if you have any ideas on how to reduce spree shootings and the generally high murder rate with firearms.

The anti-gun people have plenty to put forward, if the pro-gun people are going to do nothing but drone on about the finer legal points of ancient documents then as they are the only proposals on the table the anti-gun suggestions are likely to be implemented. The 2nd amendment has been steadily whittled down, it will be whittled down once again.

I don't think armed guards or stronger doors will acheive much, the next nut will simply pick a different vulnerable population centre, I'm guessing a library or hospital. You can bet there will be some stiff legislation going through congress if/when a maternity ward gets shot up - and there'll be no chance whatever to have any rational input if its left until then.

[BPBrinson]

As unpopular as it is...NRA said it. The only solution that can possibly make a difference, NOW or in the very near future is removing the "Gun Free Zones" and allowing carry by "good guys with guns." I have three sister-in- laws that are teachers. One says, and always has said, "pick them all up". She is the idiot of the family that has never had an original thought of her own. One has always hated the "gun free zones", has a CHL and is ready tomorrow. The other had never thought about it, but now wants to get her CHL and to hell with the gun free zones. Any legislation that could possibly make a difference will be months, but probably years, before any benefit could be seen. I do not think that arming all teachers is the solution, but only the competent ones that choose to and only if they can pass a course that is special tailored for schools. Of my three sister in laws, the idiot wants to quit and hide in her house. The one that wants to get her CHL is probably not a person that could act if put in a minor confrontation. The one with the CHL...well...woe to the person who messes around in her range of influence. She is very competent.

[BPBrinson]

As unpopular as it is...NRA said it. The only solution that can possibly make a difference, NOW or in the very near future is removing the "Gun Free Zones" and allowing carry by "good guys with guns." I have three sister-in- laws that are teachers. One says, and always has said, "pick them all up". She is the idiot of the family that has never had an original thought of her own. One has always hated the "gun free zones", has a CHL and is ready tomorrow. The other had never thought about it, but now wants to get her CHL and to hell with the gun free zones. Any legislation that could possibly make a difference will be months, but probably years, before any benefit could be seen. I do not think that arming all teachers is the solution, but only the competent ones that choose to and only if they can pass a course that is special tailored for schools. Of my three sister in laws, the idiot wants to quit and hide in her house. The one that wants to get her CHL is probably not a person that could act appropriately if put in a minor argument. The one with the CHL...well...woe to the person who messes around in her range of influence. She is very competent.

[justadude]

Changing the subject back to legislative action:

I read this morning that new legislation that has passed in New York State will define an assault weapon as having just a single military feature. A bayonet lug, flash suppressor, telescoping stock or a pistol grip. Wow, just a pistol grip and it is an assault weapon. This means that every one of my single shot, bolt action Anschutz target rifles is now (or will be as soon as the bill is signed) considered an assault weapon in the State of New York.

Next, maximum magazine capacity is now 7 rounds, down from 10. You have a year to dispose of all of your magazines with greater than 7 rounds capacity. Congratulations New York State, my M1 Garand which has a bayonet lug so by your law is now an assault weapon also uses an 8 round clip. This is the only shape these clips come in, 8 rounds. I doubt the minor technical difference between the fact that a M1 uses a clip and an AR-15 uses a magazine would even register on the folks who put this one on paper. BTW my M1 Garand, considered in NY State to be an assault weapon, is recognized by the BATF as a Curio and Relic piece.

The only parts of the new NY State legislation that makes any real sense is greater authority for law enforcement to work with mental health care professionals to restrict access to firearms of people who make threats against other persons or the public at large and also greater penalties for gun owners who do not properly secure their firearms.

Unfortunately, much of what they have written that pertains directly to the firearm appears mostly moronic. Not that I expected greater from a bunch of lawmakers.

'Dude