Beavah

In the 1990s, Germany (which had (and has) extremely restrictive gun control) had a per capita mass murder rate in schools that was higher than ours during that time. Yah, thanks for grabbin' that, CalicoPenn. Close as I can tell it's another lying BS statement, and I don't mean "Boy Scouts". Folks, our first obligation is to be Trustworthy about data in public discussions, eh? As close as I can tell, I can't find any English-language news reports about mass shootings in da German schools in the 1990s, including in reports that purport to list all the worldwide school mass shootings. Germany did have some Columbine-copycat school shootings in the last decade, in Erfurt and Stuttgart. So this is either a complete fiction, or da report is based on some really unrelated statistics in the former East Germany, which of course was being re-integrated with the west during the 1990s. That's hardly a fair comparison. Of course, there seems to be no sense of honor in da firearms lobby these days. Reportin' fiction or cherrypicked "facts" in such a way would shame an honorable man or group. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... not sure why yeh would think background checks would be unconstitutional, boomerscout. Da liberal thinktank CAP seems to have come out with some recommendations accordin' to news reports, though their website doesn't show any statements yet. Here's what I'm able to guess from da reporting (why is all modern reporting so poor?): Universal background checks / close the private sale loophole (even some of da more moderate firearm lobbyists are now in favor of this it seems). Assault weapon and high capacity clip ban (on sale, manufacturing, transfer, or importing; apparently no buyback). Modernizing databases to track gun sales and enforce existing laws (I think even da NRA has been saying this for years). End ATF as a separate agency and absorb it into the FBI as an FBI division (this kind of reduction of bureaucracy and duplication of effort seems remarkably sensible). Require firearms dealers to report people who make multiple semi-automatic assault rifle purchases within a 5-day period, the same as the current requirement for handguns. (gotta love the reporting. If they're banned, how can yeh have multiple purchases?). Remove the restrictions on data collection and research. I count that as being six things, but da reports mention 11 total, so I'm not sure what I'm missin'. Beavah

Not a distortion, Eagle732. A parody. Or perhaps a reductio ad absurdum. The point is that exactly the same argument for "freedom" can be applied to dynamite, or any number of things, eh? High explosives are arms, and da 2nd Amendment makes no qualifications on limiting arms whatsoever. So yeh have to explain, in light of not wanting to limit freedom and da fundamental right to bear arms, why dynamite, automatic weapons, mortars, light artillery and da like should be controlled and regulated, but not other arms. Why is that? I believe yeh are being duped, eh? Duped by some very skilled PR folks in a special interest lobby whose fictional text you are buying into without doin' your homework. I might be wrong. If so, demonstrate it. Explain da difference above. Employ a careful reading of the documents of da Founding Fathers and a knowledge of history to make your own case. Spend half of your time talkin' about the responsibility that goes with rights, the obligations that come with liberty, the way we teach in Scouting. I'm a gun owner and hunter. I never needed a 30-round magazine to go hunting. I'd be embarrassed to fire a second shot at my prey. My personal freedoms aren't goin' to be affected by requiring me to do a background check before I sell a gun to make sure I'm not selling to a criminal or unstable person. I always kept my firearms and ammunition secured from my kids. Don't you? Why would that affect my freedom? It's just bein' responsible. Research on firearms is a good thing, eh? It may tell us that in fact firearm ownership reduces crime. Why prohibit such research? And I, like you, never want to see another child killed. So can't we engage with our fellow citizens and work toward reasonable solutions that both protect freedom and ensure safety and responsibility? Beavah

The law is ignored or fabricated arbitrarily by powerful men (big guns), equal justice under the law is disappearing. ATF, the Justice Dept, and Operation Fast and Furious are but one example. Well, those sound like three examples, actually. Easy there, RememberSchiff. Honesty first, always honesty first. Presume da best of your fellow citizens as a starting point, not the worst. Da reasons laws in California and many other states gave discretion on how to administer CCW permits to the county sheriff was the time-honored conservative principle of local control, eh? Never let a bigger branch of government co-opt what a smaller unit of government can handle. Presumably the local sheriff knows the conditions in his jurisdiction, and is a better judge of what makes sense in his area than some politician off in da state capitol, eh? That is sound reasoning. Just because some county sheriffs abuse that discretion also doesn't mean that we should necessarily preempt local control. Often it's far better to let the local electorate decide da issue by replacing the county sheriff, rather than creating statewide or federal law. Don't yeh think? Beavah

"It is popular for certain politicians and others of dubious qualification to ask "Why does anyone need dynamite? In response, let's first get down to fundamentals. The USA prides itself on being a "free" country. It is those who would curtail freedom that must justify their actions. "Why do you need your freedom?" So, indeed, "why do you need dynamite?" is an absurd and subtly tyrannical question. The proper threshold question goes the other way, from the free man to his government: "what is your compelling reason for denying my freedom to stockpile dynamite?" So let's start by addressing the PROPER question. Of the 12,996 murders in the USA, almost none of them are committed with explosives. And the numbers of accidental deaths and injuries from explosives are less than those from ladders. Hmmmmm . . . not really a compelling case for infringing on the freedom of innocent people, is it? So, having utterly failed to provide a compelling reason to deny people their freedom in this way, the argument should be over. However, since the average media dupe is going to insist that "something must be done" after a fellow takes his dynamite stockpile and blows up an elementary school (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster), here we are. But suppose you regulated purchase and use of such explosives? You still would have the possibility of acquisition by theft and diversion from approved holders (such as mining operations) and, more importantly, through the black market and smuggling. While it might be theoretically possible to convince the law-abiding to disarm themselves, only a fool thinks criminals will comply. Only problem is, we did choose to regulate dynamite and other explosives, eh? Yeh can no longer buy it over the counter the way Andrew Kehoe did. And yeh know what? We havent had other folks blowing up schools with dynamite. Weve had lots of folks try to blow things up with improvised devices, but they mostly fail to do anywhere near as much damage. Yeh see, the vast majority of criminals, and even terrorists, just use da stuff that is easily available and purchasable in ways that can't be tracked. Joe bank robber ain't goin' to be smuggling rocket launchers in from North Korea. Da narrative youre parroting from lobbyists, Eagle732, is a pretty typical bunch of BS. It takes a few elements of truth, mixes em in with a shallow retelling of history that conspicuously avoids da actual writings of the Founding Fathers, blends in some falsehoods from just bad research and tries to whip up an emotional conclusion. Do yeh actually believe that opposition to all gun control is the most fundamental of all freedoms? Hogwash. Democracies are being sustained just fine around the world without our level of gun violence, and dictators are being sustained just fine in countries around the world despite an armed population. As for domestic research, before yeh trust that I reckon we should lift the laws prohibiting collecting data and funding independent researchers. You have been duped by cynical writers from a special interest lobby, who are preying on your sentiments and fears to get yeh to buy a bunch of crap. Over in da other thread, we are discussing the actual proposals being floated, eh? Theres nothing about gun confiscation, nothing about banning all weapons, nothing about substantially curtailing freedom or any of that B.S. NOTHING. Theres talk of background checks, mechanisms for securing firearms so they cant be used by others without the owners authorization, ways of reporting borderline mental health issues to prevent sales, etc. And yah, theres talk of minor controls on large-capacity mags or modern urban assault rifles, which Ill agree is probably da least likely to achieve anything. Thats why as gun owners we must join the conversation as responsible fellow citizens and not as a bunch of blithering idiots spouting lobbyist hogwash. The latter gets us (properly) dismissed as a bunch of nutjobs. But if we join the conversation as fellow citizens who share the concern but who have a higher level of expertise on the safe use of firearms, then we contribute to solutions that actually might help. You know, Citizenship. Da stuff we try to teach the boys. The stuff the Founding Fathers really stood for. This wont be my last post on da subject, because I believe in discussin things with my fellow citizens and workin on solutions, not unloading a rant and retreatin to my bunker. I believer that with rights and freedom come responsibilities and obligations. I expect on reflection, youll come and join me. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, what skeptic said! One of da things in my mind that distinguishes Eagle Scouts is that they step up to do what needs to be done. While others are all about themselves, a scout recognizes that helping the disabled find a seat, helping the wounded veteran get to a porta-john, helping da Secret Service by managing lines so that folks aren't out in the cold too long - those things matter, and a man steps up. A Scout Salute to the lads who step up to serve their country by servin' their fellow citizens, and a nod to the President's inauguration team for knowing the right group of young people to call upon for cheerful service. Beavah

JoeBob, yeh aren't really tryin' to defend Lott, are yeh? A fellow who appears to have committed repeated research fraud, who is a clearly biased lobbyist makin' his living off this stuff now? You're goin' to quote his "research"? Our first obligation is honesty, eh? If yeh want any of your fellow citizens to believe your view is credible and consider it, yeh can't be pushin' stuff that's functionally outright lying by special interest groups. I'll stick with my explanation of da rationale behind gun-free zones, eh? I didn't say I agreed with it completely, but I think there's merit to da rationale which should be considered. I think we want the police to be able to stop the lad who is entering the school with a gun before he shoots someone, and be able to prosecute him so that he doesn't come back next week to do it. I think we want da police to be able to arrest da fellows in da churchyard in the same way. I reckon that's a lot more realistic than fantasies of self-defense gun melees in da sanctuary. That doesn't mean that there aren't other factors to consider, but it does mean that this concern has to be taken into account. Plus personally, as a Christian, I think reverence before God means that yeh come into a house of worship with your head and your hands bare. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Since I'm not running for office, I have no need for grand, sweeping changes which get my picture in the paper with Joe Biden. LOL. Yah, I'd pay money for that photo of you. Rick_in_CA, yeh highlight da principal reason I strongly favor "shall issue" laws with respect to CCW permits. Too often yeh get county sheriffs who are just politically random about how they deal with citizens and carry rights. Much as I'm in favor of local control in most things, sometimes uniform fairness is preferable to local whimsy. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Now yeh lost me, TwoCubDad. Da only way your strict liability / insurance notions would work is if it's possible to establish da provenance of a gun used in a crime or accidental shooting. That requires some form of documented registration/title/ownership. Beavah

In da media frenzy over the most recent school shooting in California, it was nice to read of the bravery of Eagle Scout and teacher Ryan Heber. Not only did he face down the student with the loaded shotgun and disarm him, he did it in the bravest and most compassionate way possible, eh? Without defense, without threats, without hurting either the disturbed young man or anyone else. Scout Salute! Yeh done us proud. And someone in his council please check if he's still a member and submit his name for da Honor Medal with Crossed Palms. Beavah

Someone breaks into my house, steals my guns, and I'm the criminal? Nah. Nobody has said anything about criminal penalties. But under TwoCubDad's scheme, yeh would be strictly liable if the real criminal used your gun to shoot someone else. So it would be prudent for you to purchase insurance. If you chose to store 20 AR-15s with 20,000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition in your basement, I expect you would have to pay more for insurance, because of da additional damage the criminal could do with those guns. But maybe not, if yeh installed a state-of-the-art built-in gun safe. Your actuarial risk might even be less. Someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a gun. Are you to fight back risking harm or even death? Or do you go along with the perpetrator hoping for the best. Well da rational answer to that is "it depends". I don't reckon I'm goin' to try to load my muzzleloader to take on a fellow with a semi-automatic. I don't see the point you're tryin' to make, though, jblake. There would not be any issue under TwoCubDad's proposal if you used a weapon in true self-defense. Now, if you shot the neighbor who was just checkin' on your place because you were so afraid he might be that gun-toting rapist that's got yeh all in a twitter, then yep, you are liable, and yeh better have insurance or his widow is goin' to own your house. Beavah

Yah, SP, can we try to stay on topic in this thread? Just as a favor. If yeh want to start a thread about how stupid Democrats are, I'll join in.

Yah, so if I could try to bring this thread back around to its original intent. I think JoeBob's repeat of a right-wing commentator's repeat of a ridiculous claim by a lobbyist widely believed to have engaged in research fraud has been debunked. We're talkin' about what we're seeing of da possible Biden proposals being leaked. So far, there seems to be majority agreement on the first three: IN FAVOR Closing the gun show loophole in some thoughtful way Lifting restrictions on research in favor AMBIVALENT limits on high-capacity magazines are seen as mostly cosmetic and problematic without a buy-back. Now we're talkin' about another leak, increased penalties for gun-free zones. Let me respond to a point of JoeBob's a while back, since I was explainin' da rationale for gun-free zones. One of da most common gun-free zones is prisons, eh? I wonder if there's anybody who disagrees that in visiting a prison, surrounded by bad guys, it's best to leave your firearm outside. Other gun-free zones include airports and public carrier airplanes, as well as government facilities. Does anyone really believe that it's prudent to lift those restrictions? In the case I mentioned, the 18-year-old high school student was of course not a minor, and not subject to minor-in-possession laws as JoeBob claims. To what extent he is subject to other laws varies by state, but they really don't have teeth in most places. Let's step back a bit, though, and consider. Billy Shooter (age 18) tells his friend Johnny Do-Good that he's had it with da jerks on the football team and implies (but doesn't quite say outright) that he's goin' to take his father's pistol and end the lot of them tomorrow at school. Johnny Do-Good drops a dime and calls the cops. Billy Shooter shows up at school open-carrying his father's pistol. Absent a gun-free zone, Billy may well be legal, eh? Aside from the threat he sort of didn't make to Johnny (likely hearsay), there aren't clear grounds on which law enforcement can hold him. Trespass can't stick, he's a student. Gun free zones at churches seemed prudent because with various carry laws, it would be perfectly possible for a group of white supremacists to legally carry into a black church, again with no clear basis on which to stop them. So the point of da gun-free zone laws are to provide a mechanism for stopping who is entering public places with a firearm, and a presumed (but perhaps not "beyond a doubt" provable) intent to do mischief. Stiffer penalties provide a means of detaining them for a longer period of time. Da places chosen to make "gun free" are those with lots of people that have been attractive targets in the past, or otherwise pose higher risk. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, JoeBob, that's not a citation, eh? That's a commentary piece by a far-right fellow (John Fund) who is himself quoting a Fox News commentator and gun lobby blogger (John Lott) who used to be an economist, sort of, but was drummed out of academia on suspicion of research fraud. Irresponsible journalism, to be sure, eh? Again, it's a patently ridiculous claim, since gun-free zone legislation did not really exist between 1950 and 1990. It's even more preposterous given that da article references the Mother Jones piece. So here's the Mother Jones piece, listing all of the mass shootings: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2 Your homework is to count the number that did not take place in a gun-free zone. The claim is proved false in 2012 by itself. You allowed yourself to be lied to. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, perdidochas, that's only one of da big problems, eh? TwoCubDad and sailingpj and a few others have provided nice lists of all of the problems. Surely we can address some of da problems, and reduce deaths by half or so, without havin' to solve every problem at once? One of da things we don't know at the moment is where most of the firearms come from that are used in drug/gang criminal activities, eh? They aren't imports, they're domestic, so how do these folks get 'em? If we had that research, we might well be able to address da issue yeh mention responsibly. Of course, da gun lobbyists got Congress to prohibit that sort of research, eh?

You want to give private citizens the ability to do background checks on people at no cost/requiring no approval from the person? So when my son turns 18, you think it is a good idea that I be required to give him a background check before giving him the shotgun that my great grandfather gave to my grandfather who gave it to my father who gave it to me? Hiya perdicochas! I don't reckon I've ever said anywhere that I "want" anything. As a responsible gun owner, I just feel that I should be a participant in da national conversation with fellow citizens. This thread is talkin' about the proposals (though it got off track pretty quickly). One proposal is eliminating the private sale exception for background checks. I'm not sure I "want" that as a solution, but I have no problem with it. Someday as yeh get older you may want to sell your guns, even if yeh don't sell to strangers now. Or your son may want to sell his gun to pay for medical school books. Who knows? At the point yeh do, you should click on your smart phone and run an instant background check before yeh sell it to someone. That's not a big enough inconvenience to spend any time worryin' about, eh? Heck, just typin' these messages takes more time. And yep, yeh should do it for your kid, too. Just to be a good example, the way we do things to be a good example for the Scouts. Takes 5 minutes, shows your boy that ownin' a gun means being responsible in who yeh give it to. B

Yah, sayin' that da NRA was forced into political advocacy is like sayin' that the NEA was forced into unionism. I think da proper way to think about it is that there was money available, and interest, and it was exciting. And, to be fair, advocacy is a service that associations often provide. The NRA, like many associations, has a separate PAC that funds politicians and political and issue campaigns, as well as a large lobbying group within da NFP organization itself which does legislative tracking, advocacy, and membership and general "issues education." Da reason for the PAC is to be able to pay politicians and campaigns directly, which is what the NFP can't do. Where it gets a bit odd is when da positions the Association advocates aren't in line with da actual sentiments of the organization's general membership, or da organization lobbies its own membership to take more extreme positions. That happens with da teachers' union, and it's happening with the NRA. I don't think da executive leadership is really takin' the same line that da majority of responsible gun owners would take. Perhaps that's because many responsible gun owners have left the NRA. Vol_Scouter, TwoCubDad is takin' a fine and very principled conservative position, eh? He's arguin' that gun ownership should be treated legally under a strict liability framework. If yeh own a gun, you are personally responsible for it. Same as a contractor owning explosives. You're responsible for safe use, for safe transport, for safe and secure storage. If you do harm with it, or if someone else gets a hold of it and does harm, you are personally responsible. Either accept the risk, or purchase insurance to distribute da risk, or choose not to accept the risk of owning that kind or number of firearms or ammunition. In other words, be responsible, and don't expect other folks or the government to pay to bail yeh out when you're not. I have to admit, I'm findin' that approach increasingly attractive. Seems far preferable to complex regulations or "bans" on this, that, or the other thing. Allows folks their freedom so long as they accept full financial responsibility. If yeh want to leave your loaded guns around because yeh fear your neighbors, fine, but yeh accept all da responsibility for that. Only thing I would add is an insurance requirement or surety bond of some sort, tied to the purchase of guns or ammunition. Yeh need that to try to get da judgment-proof who don't have any assets to be able to meet their responsibility. Either that, or yeh need to attach criminal penalties so that such folks go to jail for quite a while, but that seems a bit counterproductive. Plus, da NRA might actually like it if they thought about it, eh? They could provide insurance, which they would actually make money off of if their members were really safe. And it would encourage 'em to focus on training and education, because that would improve their insurance bottom line. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BS-87, I reckon yeh do need a refresher on Plato. But yeh do realize that all these things are works of fiction, right? In most cases, they aren't even really works of political theory or philosophy. Tryin' to defend yourself against da assault of a work of fiction seems a bit odd, don't yeh think? But since you're so afraid of statism, let me ask this. Why are yeh part of an organization that teaches children to pledge their allegiance to the state, and makes its mission an oath of duty to God and country? An organization that salutes da flag of the state at almost every gathering? That makes kids give up individual expression in favor of uniformity? Doesn't that seem a might contradictory? I mean, that's da sort of stuff kids in North Korea do! Even worse, Scouting is a worldwide movement and therefore must be part of da conspiracy to create a New World Order!! Aieeeee!!!!

No idea about the research either. I wonder what research they are refering too? There are apparently legislative bans in place that prevent the CDC and other federal agencies from both collecting data and funding independent research. That would be like tellin' the National Institute of Health it can't collect data on or fund research on lung cancer. The Biden proposal will increase penalties for violating a gun-free zone. Anyone care to explain the logic behind that? Sure. Lots of folks get caught with what is believed to be a clear intent to harm carryin' into a gun free zone. Take for example a student whose friend reports that they talked about shootin' people today. Da police stop the lad, an 18-year-old high schooler, and discover he's got two handguns with him goin' into the school. Now what? Yeh can get him on da minor concealed charge, maybe. Or maybe he says he forgot he'd put da guns in his backpack or whatever. But it's frightfully hard to prove intent to harm unless you wait for him to brandish, eh? So this gives another tool to law enforcement and prosecutors in those cases where we (temporarily) prevented a bad thing from happening, and need to pursue it aggressively. I heard this morning that all mass shootings since 1970 have happened in 'gun-free zones' with only one exception. Does anyone know differently? Yah, JoeBob, try the "smell test". Gun-free zone laws only came about in the early 90's. All yeh need to do is pause for a moment and think "Hey, Representative Giffords was shot in a mall parking lot, and there was that other fellow at Ft. Hood" to dismiss this stupid claim. A quick skim of da list of mass shootings from the last 20 years I'd guess GFZ shootings were less than 25%. And of course where would yeh want to construct gun free zones? Well, in places where da risk of shooting was high. You guys really need to stop gettin' your "facts" from lobbyist sources. They make yeh look really goofy. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Nah, Callooh Callay, nation of men first, eh? The amendment was just an amendment. The document begins "We the People..." BS-87... yah, hmmmm.... Can I ask yeh a question? Have yeh ever actually read Plato's Republic? Or for that matter, Brave New World, Island, or A Modern Utopia? Have yeh ever ventured into any of the other utopian novels? Thomas More, Francis Bacon, Edward Bellamy? B.F. Skinner? Perhaps some of the more modern sci-fi folks like James Hogan? Because, yeh see, none of 'em really proposes da cradle-to-grave-whatever nonsense that you mention. Not one. They're all much deeper, explorin' a lot of interestin' notions of how people and societies relate. Yeh should try readin' 'em again, if it's been a while. So my guess is you're gettin' that cradle-to-grave state nonsense from somewhere else. It's a bit of an amusing fiction, just because it's so much shallower than any of these other works, eh? Do yeh really want to associate with that? Tyranny is far more often created by revolution, eh? Da French Revolution ended in Napoleon, da Russian Revolution in Lenin and Stalin, China in Mao, Venezuela in Chavez, Cuba in Castro, Iran in da Ayatollahs, on and on, eh? Mostly, when revolutionary fervor occurs in a culture awash in weaponry, da result is a 3rd-world junta, eh? Just look at da sad histories of Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. A minority opposition mostly gets slaughtered but often damages and sometimes destroys their country in da process. The ones you're thinking of - the rare exceptions - were all revolutions of hope, not fear. Da cornerstones of da revolutions were philosophical principles supported by social factors, not weapons. Washington & America, Gandhi and India, the mostly peaceful 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe and the like. Don't buy the crap someone is feedin' yeh. It's a bunch of malarkey. Beavah

Did anyone else hear the rummor that fixed blade knives are on the banned list as well. NOOOOOOO!!! Yeh can take my chef's knife when yeh pry it from my cold, dead fingers! Where do you guys get all this nutty stuff? Next we're goin' to see da chain emails saying "President Obama adopts Boy Scouts of America Safety Plan: Federal Ban on all toy guns or any simulated firearm!" Followed by "Paintball markers and ammo sold out nationwide as Americans prepare for the results of the government takeover!" I bet da paintball and lasertag lobby is just dyin' to start that rumor to take advantage of da gullible! Beavah

For a tyrant who has an army fit with muskets, a free man must not expect to remain free while armed with a sling and pebbles. Yah, hmmmm.... Well, BS-87, if da POTUS becomes a tyrant, then I reckon he's goin' to have an army fit with thermonuclear missiles. Are yeh really suggesting that a free man in order to remain free must maintain his own nuclear weapons stockpile? Do yeh think that would make us all more safe? Fact is that real tyranny is stopped primarily by social forces. Democracies fall because of extremism in the population leading to conflict and chaos, because that's when people are willing to voluntarily surrender their liberty to a dictator, and when the soldiers are willing to follow the dictator. So if yeh truly are a patriot who wants to avoid tyranny, oppose tribalism and extremism in all its forms. Work for civility and honesty of discourse. Beavah

Yah, since details now seem to be coming out on some of the direction the Biden Proposal is going to take, it seemed like a good time to consolidate some discussion into a new thread. As a favor, I'd ask this thread be used to explore options, tweaks, unintended consequences, parts that should be dropped or enhanced. "Ban all guns" rants or Second Amendment/Dictatorship rants we can perhaps try to confine to da other threads. At least for a day or two. So far, here's what seems to be being floated: 1. Background checks for all gun buyers (i.e. closing the private sale / gun show loophole). This one to me seems reasonable, eh? Folks have the ability to do this stuff from their phones now. It's no longer a significant burden to regular citizens. 2. Ban on high-capacity clips. I'm not really convinced this accomplishes very much. Slows a fellow down very briefly I suppose; gives law enforcement short windows of time to move safely. Some of the mental cases or amateurs might not be well-skilled in changing clips. On the other side, it does restrict hobbyists a bit (whipping off 100 rounds is ridiculous, but sort of fun in a safe environment), but really doesn't affect home defense, hunting, or sport shooting. Da folks preparin' for zombie apocalypse will scream bloody murder, though. So not much safety gain, not much freedom loss, probably not worth doin' just because of the hullabaloo created by da zombie crowd gettin' in da way of more important items. 3. Possibly lifting the restrictions on research Yah, I wasn't even aware that the reason we have so little research on guns and violence is because Congress over time has prevented da CDC and other federal agencies from funding any research or collecting most relevant data. That anti-science stand should be removed entirely. We shouldn't be afraid of information. Notably missing thus far are any efforts toward mental health. Or school guards! Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Registration is not prior restraint. Nor is taxation. A nearby town requires registration of bicycles, just because they've had a lot of problem with bike thieves and it helps 'em get a handle on it. That's not a prior restraint on bicycling. I'm curious, TwoCubDad. Humor me a moment. Is it anyone's dang business how much dynamite you own? Should it be anyone's dang business that you store the dynamite you own safely and properly? Dynamite used to be much more readily available with fewer restrictions, and it certainly is also a form of "arm" that yeh can bear. We live in a country with other people, and sometimes other people don't want a fellow with a basement full of old, leaky, unsecured dynamite next door, even if it once was legal. Even though there are legitimate uses for dynamite, we Americans chose to regulate it because we learned that doing so helped keep everyone safer. One of the ways we learned that was when a fellow used his personal supply of dynamite to blow up an elementary school, eh? Da largest mass-murder of school children in da nation's history. Can yeh imagine what would have happened over da years if we had not regulated dynamite? Da two kids at Columbine wanted very much to blow up da school, but they only had silly propane tanks which didn't work as explosives. Regulation worked over time, eh? Even though now it's harder to defend our homestead against a tank assault. We can't keep sayin' no to everything. What we should want is a regime that allows plenty of freedom for hobbyists and other folks while also regulating appropriately and prudently so that we partially address some obvious risks. That's somethin' I think a significant majority of Americans would like to see. Beavah

Beavah, the anti-gun lobby and the liberal politicians they write legislation for are the ones who defined what an assualt weapon was, and it was all based on appearance. Nah, SR540. Congress wrote da legislation, eh? Lots of folks, well fed by lobbyists of all stripes. It was all based on appearance and mostly useless, which is why it passed if you'll recall. Like any aggressive special interest lobby, da NRA can't win them all directly. Passing a do-nothing "assault weapons" bill is da next best thing. It doesn't change much, and yeh can whip up your supporters with how scary and dumb the opposition is. However, if I have a certain legal gun in my house that with the swipe of an irresponsible president's pen, all of a sudden overnight, I'm a criminal???? Well, of course it would require a vote of both houses of Congress and then da swipe of the president's pen, but don't let me stop yeh from foamin' at the mouth a bit more. New laws get passed all the time which make things which used to be legal into crimes. Yeh used to be able to drive your car anywhere. Now we have all kinds of laws about registering your car and needin' a license to drive and requiring insurance and not drivin' whereever yeh want in your 4x4. Henry Ford and da early auto pioneers would be "criminals". So would Wilbur and Orville. So would Sigmund Freud and Coca Cola with their cocaine habits back when that was legal. Many of us would like to do the same thing for abortion that you are talkin' about for guns, eh? Make something that is currently legal illegal. We responded after Enron and the last financial meltdown with legislation and regulation that made things that used to be legal for businesses illegal. 50 votes, 218 votes, and a signature is how we do things in the USA. If someone commits murder, whether they used a knife, gun, baseball bat, bomb, poison, their bare hands or whatever, it doesn't change the criminal act at all. That's certainly true. Problem is that it's not the issue. Whether someone is high on meth or drunk on beer doesn't change da DUI criminal act either, eh (another one that was at one time legal)? But we choose as a society to put more restrictions on the purchase of meth than beer, because the potential for harm is greater for one substance over another, and the legitimate uses are less. Beavah