PDA

View Full Version : My Congresswoman has challenged me!!!


taperxz
01-24-2011, 1:10 PM
Dear Mr. XXX:

Thank you for your email to Congresswoman Speier, and I’m glad you were able to participate in her recent telephone town hall. She certainly takes questions on the issues whether she agrees or not. We’re only limited by the number of questions we can get to during a single call, so next time feel free to ask a question and she’ll do her best to get to it if she’s able.

You and the Congresswoman apparently agree on the need to have some kind of common sense system in place to combat violent crimes involving firearms. But I’m not sure you’re right to assume that the punishment does not already suit the crime – it usually does. I think it’s safe to say the shooter in Tuscon is going to get the book thrown at him, and whether he was aware of the consequences of his actions or not, his crime will probably yield a steep punishment. You point out that some people abuse their Second Amendment rights without regard to the consequences. But if you can’t control the mind of the shooter, then how would a stronger “deterrent” change anything? Murder is different from drunk driving – it is often an act of great ill-will or desperation, not of simple bad judgment.

Therefore, is there not something to be said for the ease with which someone premeditating a violent crime can get hold of not just any sidearm, but one with a 30-plus round extended mag? This is the kind of question that makes gun control a legitimate issue. You’re right – we can threaten potential perps with all the harsh punishment in the world, but that won’t stop them. Placing common sense checks on their access to the most destructive weapons, however, would at least make it harder for them to go on a killing spree. That’s why the public overwhelmingly supports the federal ban on assault weapons which we had in place for many years until 2004, and why Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush, not to mention virtually all of law enforcement, have said it’s a good idea.

The Congresswoman believes that standing up to the gun lobby is important, especially when it takes extreme positions on even the simplest of proposed gun control measures. She would do the same with respect to any powerful lobby if she feels it stands in the way of the interests and safety of her constituents.

Thank you again for your email. The Congresswoman appreciates hearing from you on this issue even if there is honest disagreement.

Best,
Peter

P.S. I would respectfully challenge your analogy to Prohibition, mainly because it succumbs to the oft-spread fear that gun control is about completely doing away with anyone’s right to own a firearm. When we talk about gun control, we’re not talking about gun prohibition – we’re talking about coming to broad agreement on limiting the most dangerous and destructive firearm types. Instead of one over-arching law to ban guns, most people support smaller and more fine-tuned limits on those weapons that are used as tools for mass murder, like assault rifles and extended magazines. The fact is that such laws do exist in several states and have often made it harder for criminals to get their hands on such weapons or for individual assailants to claim as many lives as they otherwise would.

This is the e mail i got back from the office of Jackie Speier, I would like to make a comprehensive reply to her 2A beliefs. How about a little help.

They did invite me to reply, so i would like some constructive info.

Keep in mind, for you folks that don't know, Jackie was gunned down in Jonestown , along with the late Congressman Leo J Ryan. I want to formulate a good reply to this staffers arguments so pleeeeez no jokes or snide remarks. Just the facts.

zhyla
01-24-2011, 1:15 PM
I think you'd be better off pointing out how well anti-gun politicians fared last election. Otherwise you're wasting your breath.

taperxz
01-24-2011, 1:19 PM
I think you'd be better off pointing out how well anti-gun politicians fared last election. Otherwise you're wasting your breath.
Ya maybe you are right. I should throw in the towel and give up..

They win, all of america will end up like CA, I should have known we can't win.:(

Patrick-2
01-24-2011, 1:28 PM
You are going to need to pull stats about the rates of so-called "assault weapons" and their use in US crimes. They are generally quite low compared to handguns.

The argument is then turned around to explain your concerns: as a person knowledgeable about the real facts of the issue (AWs are not used in crimes despite being readily available just about everywhere but a select few states), you are concerned. Because if you can ban items that are not commonly used in crimes, how does that preclude you from also banning those weapons that are commonly used in crimes (handguns)?

Remember, do not talk tactics (mag swaps and speed changes). Focus on the fact there are 270 million guns in America...probably 100 million pistols and maybe more than 100 million "high cap" magazines above ten rounds (need to confirm these guesses). How can a simple law effectively put that genie back in the bottle without making law-abiding citizens criminals?

But the big weakness in their argument is the fact that banning items with relatively low incidence of crime opens the door to banning anything used more often, if they use the mantra of statistical modeling. You can use this to respectfully explain that despite assurances to the contrary, banning handguns has got to be on the future list, because - by the numbers - they are much more "dangerous" than an AR-15.

You will need an argument to counter the "potential damage" postilion, but my opening there is that despite awful tragedies that occur in rare times, the fact is that AWs are not statistically dangerous compared to items with lesser "potential". Simply put, if AWs had the potential she says they do...crooks would be using them in great abundance and this is simply not the case.

Remember these folks are believers in their cause. You will not change their minds any more than they will change yours. You are setting the discourse that will be used to define the cause for all those who are undecided. Don't let an extremist opinion define us all (obviously not something you would do considering you are asking the advice in advance...but this is more general advice to all reading this).

ocspeedracer
01-24-2011, 1:29 PM
Personally I think it's hard to argue with feel good legislation.
That said I think you need numbers if murders that happen on the 11th round vs the 10 others, and just destroy it like that.

There is no need to li
it capacity of magazines, but to argue you can use murderers are typically set on 1 person as a target or two tops(typically) and whether using a knife or an ak with a drum mag you don't need too many tries.

Sorry if I have typos, doing this on phone.

Another thing is how much money for this stupid legislation is being wasted doing this verses something for those she represents that might make a difference.

stix213
01-24-2011, 1:30 PM
I would include something along these lines off the top of my head:

"30 round magazines are banned in California but if I wanted to break the law and get one I would have it by the end of the day for certain. So in effect the only people the ban will affect are the victims of crimes - the law abiding, not people who already have choosen to ignore the law. A ban as such creates a situation where the criminal will have the 30 rounders and the victim at best has 10. Is putting the victims of crime at a disadvantage to the criminal really the goal here? Because it certainly will be the effect.

30 round magazines by nature are so simple in design they can be made at home with scrap metal and the most very basic of tools even if all 30 round magazines on the planet suddenly disappeared tomorrow. Banning them is like banning pre-made paper airplanes and thinking that now its impossible to get a paper airplane anymore. Its just lunacy"

paul0660
01-24-2011, 1:31 PM
That is quite a well reasoned and articulate reply, and personal as well. I am impressed by Peter, and impressed that he works for Speir, who was previously known to me as a humdrum Demo who was actually Leo Ryan's mistress at the time of his murder.

Personally I think this is a time to negotiate. Firearms are already limited, despite the expansive language of the 2A, and the recent SCOTUS rulings, although favorable, still allow for "reasonable restrictions" (which will be politically determined) AND were decided by a bare majority.

I would be happy for magazine restrictions that allow for the mags for which a gun is designed, and that instead of "hi cap" we would arguing over "extended". That idea would allow for mags of more than 10 capacity for many pistols, and make illegal those that stick out the bottom..............so to speak.

Untamed1972
01-24-2011, 1:32 PM
"Placing common sense checks on their access to the most destructive weapons, however, would at least make it harder for them to go on a killing spree. That’s why the public overwhelmingly supports the federal ban on assault weapons which we had in place for many years until 2004"

I would challenge her statement and say "Firstly you appraoching this from the failed notion that laws/bans will actually keep the intended item out of the hands of criminals. The fact is that the guns and magazines already exist and will continue to exist in the hands of of public. So banning new ones from being made or sold in reality does NOTHING to stop the criminal-minded individual from obtaining them by some illegal means if they so desire. After all, that is what criminals do.

Secondly, statistically speaking "AWs" account for a miniscual fraction (Id go find a good stat if you can find one) of firearms related crimes and murders. The stats simply do not support them as being the dangerous and scary weapons that the media, LE, and elected officials are constantly trying to make them out to be.

When the issue of control arises those arguing for more control always fall back on 'well if it saves just one or a few lives then it's worth it.' I reply to that with the states and cities in the country with the strictest gun control laws also, without question, have the highest violent crime rates. So my question to you Ma'am is 'If your proposed gun control laws come at the cost of even ONE innocent life, is maintaining the illusion of control worth it to you? Would it be worth to you if the life lost because of your common-sense gun control was one of your own family members?"

That's what I would say.

choprzrul
01-24-2011, 1:32 PM
105 page document that debunks gun myths here: http://gunfacts.info/

.

jdberger
01-24-2011, 1:34 PM
1) The "gun lobby" is comprised of 4 million dues paying NRA members. That breaks down to about 10,000 members in each Congressional district. It doesn't include members of pro-firearms organizations who refuse to join the NRA because they're "too soft", compromise, etc.

2) 30 round magazines have some utility. Reginald Denny probably would have found one useful. He could have used it to deter the mob who dragged him from his truck and crushed his skull with a concrete block. He would still probably find it useful as he's now handicapped and doesn't have the physical dexterity to quickly reload a pistol in time of distress. A 15 or 30 round magazine could be the difference between life and death for a person with limited mobility.

3) There's much said about "reasonable regulations". Other than the regulations struck in Heller and McDonald could you tell us what regulations you consider unreasonable?

vintagearms
01-24-2011, 1:45 PM
The FBI did a study on the effects of the AWB and it was clear it did little to deter crime. They did note that gun related crimes were already on the decline nationwide as a whole before the bill was enacted, but did find that the most crimes per capita were in those states with the most restrictive gun laws.

erik_26
01-24-2011, 1:55 PM
I have a problem with this statement.

[QUOTE=taperxz;5681320]The fact is that such laws do exist in several states and have often made it harder for criminals to get their hands on such weapons or for individual assailants to claim as many lives as they otherwise would.QUOTE]

I would like to know what happened to innocent until proven guilty? A lot of gun laws are made with the presumption that by procuring a specific type of firearm that we automatically have malicious intent. In other words, deeming us a would be criminal.

Isn't this a violation of our rights?

I agree with screening for people with mental disorders, criminal back grounds, legal status in the United States.

I would like to add a general display of safety and competence to the purchasing process.

But after you meet the basic requirements there shouldn't be further governing controls on the type of firearms you can obtain.

There should be zero laws controlling the type of weapon, magazine capacity, ammunition or accessories.

paul0660
01-24-2011, 2:00 PM
Reginald Denny probably would have found one useful.

Not much of an argument. A five shot snubby would have saved Reggie from that beating.

Librarian
01-24-2011, 2:01 PM
I'd argue with this part:Placing common sense checks on their access to the most destructive weapons, however, would at least make it harder for them to go on a killing spree.

What is a 'most destructive' weapon? What is the measurement that allows some weapon to get such a label?

It can't be deaths.

Automobile drivers consistently kill and injure more people than gun users - those licensed drivers using their registered vehicles. The numbers seem to be quite comparable: there were 256 million vehicles (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html) at the end of 2008, and the estimated number of firearms is around 250 million.

Automobile deaths and injuries are almost all due to accidents that occur on government designed, maintained, policed and subsidized special locations for vehicle use (called 'streets' and 'highways').

If one wishes to place "common sense checks on their access to the most destructive weapons" one does not control the objects, one controls the dangerous persons. There are fewer of them than the objects. The objects are just lumps - or otherwise used appropriately - when access to them is only by (relatively) not-dangerous persons.

taperxz
01-24-2011, 2:05 PM
I'd argue with this part:

What is a 'most destructive' weapon? What is the measurement that allows some weapon to get such a label?

It can't be deaths.

Automobile drivers consistently kill and injure more people than gun users - those licensed drivers using their registered vehicles. The numbers seem to be quite comparable: there were 256 million vehicles (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html) at the end of 2008, and the estimated number of firearms is around 250 million.

Automobile deaths and injuries are almost all due to accidents that occur on government designed, maintained, policed and subsidized special locations for vehicle use (called 'streets' and 'highways').

If one wishes to place "common sense checks on their access to the most destructive weapons" one does not control the objects, one controls the dangerous persons.

PERFECT! can i use your quote in part of my response in my reply e mail? I want a bullet proof reply to the congresswoman! All i want them to be able to say when i am done is "uhhhhhhhhh"

paul0660
01-24-2011, 2:12 PM
one controls the dangerous persons.

They will be happy to do that too. Remember.......only a 5-4 majority at this point. I would trade mag cap limitations for revisiting that "militia" idea. But that is just me.

Vtec44
01-24-2011, 2:20 PM
I'd challenge her to provide statistics of gun laws, from an unbiased source, that actually reduce and prevent crimes.

CEDaytonaRydr
01-24-2011, 2:22 PM
The Congresswoman believes that standing up to the gun lobby is important, especially when it takes extreme positions on even the simplest of proposed gun control measures. She would do the same with respect to any powerful lobby if she feels it stands in the way of the interests and safety of her constituents.




:rolleyes:

Yeah, right...

You mean any of the lobby groups that she doesn't take money from, correct?

That would be my retort: "So, are you saying the congresswoman takes no money from any lobby group?" :mad:

audiophil2
01-24-2011, 2:27 PM
OP, Could you post the email you sent?

Rivers
01-24-2011, 2:35 PM
While I personally wouldn't resist the opportunity to throw facts back at her, I know deep down that it will do no good. A zebra can't change its stripes, and Speier is going to spread her propaganda as long as she has an audience.

Keep in mind that as part of Rep. Leo Ryan's congressional investigative team to the Peoples Temple/Jim Jones cult, she was shot five times by cult members prior to the 900+ deaths in the mass suicide at Jonestown in 1978. Tragic as that was, she WAS shot. Had she been able to protect herself (but out of country, probably no weapons allowed), maybe she wouldn't be on a crusade to protect everyone else today.

vladbutsky
01-24-2011, 2:35 PM
I would start with agreeing with her that common sense gun laws are indeed needed. but we already have virtually all of them on the books. I'm talking about laws like prohibition of discharging firearms in cities (except for self defense) or using guns to kill or threaten other people. The question I would debate really is if we need more laws on top of what we already have.

She already agrees that most gun crimes are premeditated and criminal spent some time preparing to the action. For criminal guns are critically important so they will do what ever is necessary to obtain tools they need. Making it a little more difficult to obtain certain tool or part will not deter them from obtaining it because it is not an option for criminals to be unarmed. From this the logical conclusion would be that unless we find a way to completely exterminate certain guns or magazines, we will not reach our goal. Keep in mind that modern firearms (and their parts) have exceptionally long life even with minimal servicing so even if we completely stop producing new ones, it will take generations before we could phase out existing stock. During this time criminals will compete for disappearing stock of tools and take them away from whoever has them: civilians, police or army. The key here is to realize that if someone plans to commit a violent crime and needs a gun, he will get it. It is naive to assume that additional difficulty will deter people from committing crime. Otherwise it would be too easy to fight it.

Another front of attack would be to educate her on what "assault weapons" are. In her response she mentioned assault rifles. I bet she believes that assault rifle is the same thing as assault weapon.

yellowfin
01-24-2011, 2:39 PM
The most people killed by gunshot by a single person was over 500...all done with a bolt action rifle w/a 5 round magazine made 70 years ago and designed 120 years ago. And all in sub freezing temperatures. So these ****faces have absolutely no rational argument whatsoever.

Quser.619
01-24-2011, 2:40 PM
I'd say that CA has had a 10 round limitation for the better part of 2 decades, has it really reduced the number of gun related deaths. If safety is such a concern why is it that we are allowed to drive cars - kills more people than firearms & the right to drive isn't enumerated in the Constitution.

taperxz
01-24-2011, 2:48 PM
I would start with agreeing with her that common sense gun laws are indeed needed. but we already have virtually all of them on the books. I'm talking about laws like prohibition of discharging firearms in cities (except for self defense) or using guns to kill or threaten other people. The question I would debate really is if we need more laws on top of what we already have.

She already agrees that most gun crimes are premeditated and criminal spent some time preparing to the action. For criminal guns are critically important so they will do what ever is necessary to obtain tools they need. Making it a little more difficult to obtain certain tool or part will not deter them from obtaining it because it is not an option for criminals to be unarmed. From this the logical conclusion would be that unless we find a way to completely exterminate certain guns or magazines, we will not reach our goal. Keep in mind that modern firearms (and their parts) have exceptionally long life even with minimal servicing so even if we completely stop producing new ones, it will take generations before we could phase out existing stock. During this time criminals will compete for disappearing stock of tools and take them away from whoever has them: civilians, police or army. The key here is to realize that if someone plans to commit a violent crime and needs a gun, he will get it. It is naive to assume that additional difficulty will deter people from committing crime. Otherwise it would be too easy to fight it.

Another front of attack would be to educate her on what "assault weapons" are. In her response she mentioned assault rifles. I bet she believes that assault rifle is the same thing as assault weapon.

My solution to her for more guns laws was to put violent offenders away for so long that even they might think twice before using a firearm in a crime.

Assault weapons is going to be an easy thing for me, My question will be, "please explain to me what the difference is between an AR-15 and a Remington model 7400 other than looks?

taperxz
01-24-2011, 2:50 PM
The most people killed by gunshot by a single person was over 500...all done with a bolt action rifle w/a 5 round magazine made 70 years ago and designed 120 years ago. And all in sub freezing temperatures. So these ****faces have absolutely no rational argument whatsoever.

Enlighten me. I am taking notes.;)

stix213
01-24-2011, 2:53 PM
I'd also ask her why Law Enforcement needs more than 10 rounds if they are only used to murder massive numbers of people. Last I checked murder is not in the job description. Every bad guy a LEO interacts with and needs protection from is also someone the average joe has the potential to interact with every day. Bad guys don't generally hang around police stations all day after all, and police are generally the last choice as the next potential victim of a bad guy. Why as just a citizen is my life treated as less important?

OC-Indian
01-24-2011, 2:56 PM
Liberals all seem to think "If it can fire more thaqn 10 times without reloading it must be an AW". Bottom line is politicans are NEVER going to side with facts, only public opinion. The NRA should be doing more to change the public perceptions. Seems to me like the NRA spends waaaaay too much time preaching to the choir

bbguns44
01-24-2011, 2:59 PM
How about posting your original email & also Peter's email for replies..

paul0660
01-24-2011, 3:05 PM
Enlighten me. I am taking notes

Rooskie sniper. Not on the same day,

mosinnagantm9130
01-24-2011, 3:06 PM
Enlighten me. I am taking notes.;)

Simo Häyhä. His nickname among soviet troops was "The White Death".

It was during the Winter War (1939–1940), between Finland and the Soviet Union, that he began his duty as a sniper and fought for the Finnish Army against the Red Army. In temperatures between −40 and −20 degrees Celsius, dressed completely in white camouflage, Häyhä was credited with 505 confirmed kills of Soviet soldiers, 542 if unconfirmed deaths are included. The unofficial Finnish front line figure from the battlefield of Kollaa places the number of Häyhä's sniper kills over 800. A daily account of the kills at Kollaa was conducted for the Finnish snipers. Besides his sniper kills, Häyhä was also credited with over two hundred kills with a Suomi KP/-31 submachine gun, thus bringing his credited kills to at least 705. Remarkably, all of Häyhä's kills were accomplished in fewer than 100 days with a very limited amount of daylight per day.

Häyhä used a Finnish militia variant, White Guard M/28 "Pystykorva" or "Spitz", of the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, because it suited his small frame (5 ft 3 in/1.60 m). He preferred to use iron sights rather than telescopic sights to present a smaller target (the sniper must raise his head higher when using a telescopic sight), to prevent visibility risks (a telescopic sight's glass can fog up easily), and aid concealment (sunlight glare in telescopic sight lenses can reveal a sniper's position). Another tactic used by Häyhä was to compact the snow in front of him so that the shot would not disturb the snow and reveal his position. He also kept snow in his mouth so that when breathing the vapor would not give him away.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

choprzrul
01-24-2011, 3:12 PM
This article will provide you with numbers and demonstrate the dismantling of a NYT's anti-gun junk science: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/cooking_the_gun_homicide_numbe.html

.

Spec4Guy
01-24-2011, 3:24 PM
Enlighten me. I am taking notes.;)

This guy Vasily Zaytsev :D




http://http://www.badassoftheweek.com/zaitsev.jpg

RRangel
01-24-2011, 3:41 PM
Personally I think it's hard to argue with feel good legislation.
That said I think you need numbers if murders that happen on the 11th round vs the 10 others, and just destroy it like that.

There is no need to li
it capacity of magazines, but to argue you can use murderers are typically set on 1 person as a target or two tops(typically) and whether using a knife or an ak with a drum mag you don't need too many tries.

Sorry if I have typos, doing this on phone.

Another thing is how much money for this stupid legislation is being wasted doing this verses something for those she represents that might make a difference.

What? Their arguments fail the test of logic on its face. A child can see it. It's all emotionally driven. Their "solution" will not prevent crime because that's impossible, yet they argue as if it makes a difference to criminals, for the purpose of pushing restriction. Not to mention that our ability to our own defense is at stake. These people are doing what amounts to throwing the citizen under the bus over their failed ideology.

What kind of government would you live under, if that government could control every firearm in the nation, if that were even possible? A fantasy to them, but even a government that pretends it can, has too much in common with a police state. The very reason the founders of this nation wisely left us a Constitution.

sreiter
01-24-2011, 4:00 PM
I'd mention how knife deaths have increased in place like england where they had total bans. And how somesome in a crowd could easily kill 5-10 people just as easy. Point to "surviving edged weapons" video

taperxz
01-24-2011, 4:05 PM
I'd mention how knife deaths have increased in place like england where they had total bans. And how somesome in a crowd could easily kill 5-10 people just as easy. Point to "surviving edged weapons" video

I appreciate you bringing that up but i am looking for replies they can't argue with. I can hear it now " OH, well a knife is a knife and it doesn't hold 30 rounds of bullets and only a crazy person could kill lots of people with a knife"

Eagle Eyes
01-24-2011, 4:08 PM
Just want to point out the most obvious failure of gun control involving assualt weapon bans and magazine limits.

The Brady Bill and the Federal Assualt Weapons Ban Bill were both signed into law in 1994.

The North Hollywood Shootout at the Bank of America where 2 armed gunmen with banned Assualt Rifles, Banned Magazine Drums and banned Armor Piercing ammo happened on Feb. 28 1997. So approx 3 years AFTER they past all these bans 2 criminals fire over 1100 rounds in a 44 minute period that became THE most hair raising police shootout in the history of U.S. Law enforcement.

PLUS

Alot of the officers on scene had been issued the 92F Berettas with 15 9mm round magazines. Many of them went throught several magazines and still were not effective in stopping the gunmen ( in fact almost 700 rounds were fired by police). So basically not only did the law not prevent this horrible crime from happening ....but if these were civilians with 10 round magazines and limited to how many magazines they could carry, they would of ran out of bullets long before the gunmen.


Plus the multiple police files on suspects hopped up on LSD and other drugs that took officers in some cases over 15 rounds before the suspect ceased to be a threat. In some of those cases the officer could not reload because the suspect was physically on top of them and trying to take the gun away.

So I would think this would be a question to pose to any anti-gun person:

Is someones life worth not providing that 12th, 13th etc bullet if in a situation where every bullet counts and you might be confronted by multiple criminals or persons high on drugs that in MANY cases multiple rounds are needed to stop just one aggressor from further aggression??

Of course the response from anti -gunners would be " those happen very rarely and the chance of it happening to the average citizen is rare ". The response to that should be " So you are saying it WILL happen rarely to average citizens .... so which citizen's life are you willing to rarely sacrifice then?"

Librarian
01-24-2011, 4:10 PM
PERFECT! can i use your quote in part of my response in my reply e mail? I want a bullet proof reply to the congresswoman! All i want them to be able to say when i am done is "uhhhhhhhhh"

Imprimatur.

Old Catholic school kids will recognize that one - Church used to have an approval process for religious texts - means 'it may be printed'.

Yes, that is. Be sure to check the stats so you know where to find them; I rather like WISQARS (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html).

taperxz
01-24-2011, 4:14 PM
Crap, you had to bring up Catholic school! "OUCH! thank you sister i'll have another OUCH! thank you sister i'll have another..........

anthonyca
01-24-2011, 4:25 PM
I should write and see if I get the same letter. Where are you located? I'm in San Mateo.

tabrisnet
01-24-2011, 4:26 PM
I appreciate you bringing that up but i am looking for replies they can't argue with. I can hear it now " OH, well a knife is a knife and it doesn't hold 30 rounds of bullets and only a crazy person could kill lots of people with a knife"

"A sword [or knife] never runs out of ammo."

scarville
01-24-2011, 4:30 PM
I didn't see anything about gun control on her website. Maybe I'm just too suspicious of politicians (if that is even possible) but this prompts me to think she doesn't want any official position publicized. Make it plain that all correspondence may be posted to a publically accessible bulletin board and see what happens.

However you proceed, do not get dragged into a private debate. That's like wresting with pigs in the mud: You'll get filthy and the pigs will love it.

Librarian
01-24-2011, 4:31 PM
Making it a little more difficult to obtain certain tool or part will not deter them from obtaining it because it is not an option for criminals to be unarmed. From this the logical conclusion would be that unless we find a way to completely exterminate certain guns or magazines, we will not reach our goal. Keep in mind that modern firearms (and their parts) have exceptionally long life even with minimal servicing so even if we completely stop producing new ones, it will take generations before we could phase out existing stock.

The late Preston Covey had several pieces quite appropriate: http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/09/can-gun-control-reduce-violence.html, www.saf.org/journal/6/6_Covey.pdf
and here's one buried in the archives of the fnfal mailing list (http://www.mail-archive.com/fnfal-l@raven.cc.ukans.edu/msg01200.html)

Definition: A selective gun ban is one by which you propose to ban
> only some firearms, or some types of firearm, but not all firearms or
> all types of firearms.
>
> Case in Point: The "assault weapon" ban proposed by Governor Casey et
> al. This proposal is on the table, so it's as good an example as any.
>
> The Governor proposes to ban certain types of firearm, which he calls
> "assault weapons." I have rejected this language as irrelevant
> weaselcraft. More plainly, the targeted guns fall into three categories
> of combat weapons: "military-style" shoulder weapons, "high-capacity
> pistols," & "small-capacity pistols."
>
> One obvious question is: What justifies banning these, or only these,
> types of firearm? I intend this question to cut both ways:
>
> If I'm a law-abiding gun owner, I want to know why you're banning this
> or that gun of mine. On the other hand, if I'm against civilian gun
> ownership, I want to know: Why are you *****-footing around; why not ban
> them all? Either way, on either side of the issue, a selective gun
> ban requires justification.
>
> Only if we know the true purpose of the ban, can we assess the criteria
> for discriminating against the banned guns and the good citizens who
> wish to own them.
>
> Many purposes are attributed to this & other selective bans. I take the
> most fair-minded attribution of motive to be this:
>
> To reduce access to these guns by criminals, to reduce gun violence, &
> thereby to reduce criminal violence overall.
>
> Given this purpose, we have an obvious criterion for banning some guns:
> that a given type of gun is especially popular with criminals or figures
> prominently in gun violence.
>
> Notice that this criterion says nothing about whether law-abiding
> citizens have any legitimate use for the gun in question. This is a
> separate question, which must be brooked when it comes time to JUSTIFY
> the proposed ban. When it comes to liberty-limiting policy, this is
> what I teach our kids in school: The civic & moral duty to justify
> coercive constraints imposes, at least, the following requirements:
>
> Burden of proof: The burden is always upon the invaders of liberty to
> show their right of way: you cannot take away liberty, or impose cost or
> harm on innocent citizens, without showing cause. For example, you
> cannot just destroy a liberty because it doesn't happen to matter or
> appeal to you, or to some majority of people. That is unprincipled;
> that is tyranny by majority. The specific burdens of proof are at least
> four-fold:
> 1. Efficacy: You must show that the ban will in fact achieve its stated
> purpose.
>
> 2. Fairness in balancing costs & benefits, the interests & rights of ALL
> stakeholders: You must show that, effective or not, the benefits of the
> ban outweigh its costs & harms -- and that those costs & harms are fair.
> In so doing, you must weigh the interests as well as the rights of
> negatively affected law-abiding citizens at least as carefully as we
> safeguard the rights & interests of criminals. Conflict resolution also
> dictates that the interests of all stakeholders must be taken into
> account before any resolution is attempted; like procedural justice in
> policy making, this means minority interests cannot be summarily
> dismissed.
>
> 3. Evidence: The standard of proof required to show either efficacy or
> fairness is a preponderance of the best available evidence, as weighed
> by the best available methods, on the most rigorous standards of
> fairness.
>
> 4. Consistency: Both logic & fairness demand consistency, that any
> discriminatory policy must treat like things alike, whether the subject
> of discrimination is a person or a gun. For example, you don't punish a
> child for what you're willing to let other kids get away with, without
> showing a morally relevant difference. You don't ban one gun for being
> "bad" & let other guns that are equally "bad" or "worse" in the same
> respect go free.
>
> I submit to you, that the proposed ban would fail each of these modest
> requirements miserably. I believe the failure & unfairness of the
> proposed ban can be shown by an overwhelming preponderance of the
> evidence, by the best available methods, in any evidentiary court that
> would commit to try the disputed facts & weigh the values at stake.


(Historical note for the relative youths: "> " is a marker used in newsgroups/email to indicate text quoted, usually from another message. It's relatively out of fashion with modern email systems that provide "| " or color or simple indentation to serve the same purpose.)

taperxz
01-24-2011, 4:39 PM
Thanks for the help guys, i am putting this together, some of your thoughts and some of mine. The Charles Whitman shooting is going to part of my arguments also. He used a remington 700 with a 3x9 leupold. Your basic hunting rifle. Proof its not the weapon but the person wanting to do what they want to do. I think he killed 16 and wounded 32? Those darn hunting rifles!!

taperxz
01-24-2011, 4:40 PM
I didn't see anything about gun control on her website. Maybe I'm just too suspicious of politicians (if that is even possible) but this prompts me to think she doesn't want any official position publicized. Make it plain that all correspondence may be posted to a publically accessible bulletin board and see what happens.

However you proceed, do not get dragged into a private debate. That's like wresting with pigs in the mud: You'll get filthy and the pigs will love it.

LMAO "Make my day"

Uriah02
01-24-2011, 4:45 PM
I would approach the angle in favor of encouraging good people to deter crime than using legislation to deter crime. Does she want to support legislation which implies that she does not trust her constiuents or does she want to support legislation that enables her consituents?

emtnsocali
01-24-2011, 4:47 PM
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

cmichini
01-24-2011, 5:01 PM
Not talking about prohibition?
CA safe roster, AW weapons ban?


What is the justification for infringing the rights of law abiding citizens because someone MIGHT commit a crime? Innocent until proven guilty?

Shall not be infringed?

"The fact is that such laws do exist in several states and have often made it harder for criminals to get their hands on such weapons or for individual assailants to claim as many lives as they otherwise would."

Has she been watching the news in Oakland? There are many crimes that are perpetrated with assault weapons. The laws prohibiting them have not made it harder for them to get, but impossible for LAW ABIDING taxpayers to get, used for legal means.

How about police officers? They have standard cap mags, AW's and they are often less knowedgable about firearms and equally unsafe as non-LEO's.

I don't have the quotes but isn't the 2A to enable the citizenry to protect themselves from tyrannical govt.

taperxz
01-24-2011, 5:05 PM
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

^^^^^^^^this is a great site!! I guess after i write my reply i will have to remember how to footnote! It's been a while for me.

Manolito
01-24-2011, 5:23 PM
There are great points made about gun control and limiting magazine capacity.
If we follow that line of reasoning then Mothers agains drunk driving should ask for legislation banning the sale of any container that holds more than two drinks. I am sure by doing that we will eliminate drunk driving. Restrict beer sales to two cans of eight ouces per person per day. No quarts or lliters of alcohol can be sold to an individual. We could go on and on.
I would also ask what if I carry three glock 19's instead of one and each gun has ten rounds?
Why did the legal system allow the shooters conviction to be expunged from his record? he would have been denied a weapons if the conviction had stood.
Good luck and thank you for not giving up.
Respectfully,
Bill

Carlosa
01-24-2011, 5:33 PM
You are going to need to pull stats about the rates of so-called "assault weapons" and their use in US crimes. They are generally quite low compared to handguns.

The argument is then turned around to explain your concerns: as a person knowledgeable about the real facts of the issue (AWs are not used in crimes despite being readily available just about everywhere but a select few states), you are concerned. Because if you can ban items that are not commonly used in crimes, how does that preclude you from also banning those weapons that are commonly used in crimes (handguns)?

Remember, do not talk tactics (mag swaps and speed changes). Focus on the fact there are 270 million guns in America...probably 100 million pistols and maybe more than 100 million "high cap" magazines above ten rounds (need to confirm these guesses). How can a simple law effectively put that genie back in the bottle without making law-abiding citizens criminals?

But the big weakness in their argument is the fact that banning items with relatively low incidence of crime opens the door to banning anything used more often, if they use the mantra of statistical modeling. You can use this to respectfully explain that despite assurances to the contrary, banning handguns has got to be on the future list, because - by the numbers - they are much more "dangerous" than an AR-15.

You will need an argument to counter the "potential damage" postilion, but my opening there is that despite awful tragedies that occur in rare times, the fact is that AWs are not statistically dangerous compared to items with lesser "potential". Simply put, if AWs had the potential she says they do...crooks would be using them in great abundance and this is simply not the case.

Remember these folks are believers in their cause. You will not change their minds any more than they will change yours. You are setting the discourse that will be used to define the cause for all those who are undecided. Don't let an extremist opinion define us all (obviously not something you would do considering you are asking the advice in advance...but this is more general advice to all reading this).

i like this the best, so far...
the worst thing you can do is response with redirect or cheesy slogans, which many who have the opportunity to speak in behalf of the gun owners of America turn too.

I also think that the argument made about the handicap or people with disabilities benefiting from hi capacities magazines is a good one..

cheers,
Los.

kcbrown
01-24-2011, 7:29 PM
If the legislators can't even, through numerous laws with steep penalties, prevent the average non-violent cokehead from obtaining his fix, what hope have they of preventing the average violent criminal from obtaining any weapon he wants?

The answer is, of course, none whatsoever.

Why should the very large number of law-abiding firearm owners sacrifice their freedom so that legislation aimed at the much less numerous piece of cr*p criminals will have no effect whatsoever on his ability to obtain the things forbidden to law-abiding firearms owners? In other words, why should a large population of law-abiding people surrender their freedom in order to slightly inconvenience a much smaller number of worthless criminals?

Sgt Raven
01-24-2011, 8:09 PM
It doesn't matter what you say to Speier, as she's a 'true believer'. Google her, Ryan, and Jim Jones then connect the dots. :rolleyes:

MontClaire
01-24-2011, 8:16 PM
You can also point out that if they start breaking laws ( consitution for one), we, the law abiding citizens will take it as a good example to do the same. By precedent. throw away our bullet buttons, reach for normal capacity magazines and spit on carry laws. They can't punish us all if we don't comply. There are millions of us and tens of thousands of them. Enough is enough.

intl1911
01-24-2011, 8:27 PM
The congress woman that was shot in Arizona has a glock pistol (posted in newyork times) Part of my thought is if she had the damn thing why was she not carrying it.

The incident may have turned out differently. I see it now in the news congress woman packing gun shoots lunatic with her own gun news at 11:00.

Also let her know that Reagans view on banning guns were exactly this "stupid". He often spoke that doing such was a bad idea. He opted for better education what a concept.

Sgt Raven
01-24-2011, 8:28 PM
I didn't see anything about gun control on her website. Maybe I'm just too suspicious of politicians (if that is even possible) but this prompts me to think she doesn't want any official position publicized. Make it plain that all correspondence may be posted to a publically accessible bulletin board and see what happens.

However you proceed, do not get dragged into a private debate. That's like wresting with pigs in the mud: You'll get filthy and the pigs will love it.

The Brady's give her an 'A' and the NRA an 'F'.

Jonl
01-24-2011, 8:30 PM
A limit on the number of rounds a magazine can hold is irrelevant in preventing murder or crimes. If 30rd mags are made illegal, there are already thousands in circulation and would still be available legal or not. A criminal could also carry 3 guns with the "legal" 10 round mags and still have 30 rounds "legally" to fire off. How about a bill to mandate all politicians conceal carry?

taperxz
01-24-2011, 8:32 PM
It doesn't matter what you say to Speier, as she's a 'true believer'. Google her, Ryan, and Jim Jones then connect the dots. :rolleyes:

Your at 85/101 and im at 92/101 I will still do what ever i can to convince my congresswoman of her of her short comings;):D

Don29palms
01-24-2011, 8:37 PM
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! No where in the 2A does it say "with reasonable restrictions". How about infringing on some of the Brady bunch's 1A rights and telling them to STFU!

taperxz
01-24-2011, 8:55 PM
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! No where in the 2A does it say "with reasonable restrictions". How about infringing on some of the Brady bunch's 1A rights and telling them to STFU!

Actually reasonable restrictions applies to almost everything in life including the 2A i think the words in the 2A are "well regulated" correct me if i am wrong.

Mendo223
01-24-2011, 9:24 PM
good responses guys, i like this "collective" arguing....mrs. spears argument is actually well written IMO, she doesnt come off like a super anti gun libby, but somewhat sensible. we just have to sensibly explain that "standing up to the gun lobby" is not in the best interest of her constituents, its more a political move for her which is not right.

Werewolf1021
01-24-2011, 9:29 PM
Actually reasonable restrictions applies to almost everything in life including the 2A i think the words in the 2A are "well regulated" correct me if i am wrong.

The meaning of what "well regulated" means has been debated for some time.

The main problem is determining what is reasonable and what is not. Huge point of contention.

For example, background checks, to me, are perfectly acceptable. Banning something (magazines, MGs, "assault weapons", etc) does not seem reasonable. Waiting periods, especially after the purchase of one firearm, are not reasonable. Non-issue/may issue ccw practice is not reasonable.

Basically, where each person draws the line leads to heated debate.

Phouty
01-24-2011, 9:29 PM
The most people killed by gunshot by a single person was over 500...all done with a bolt action rifle w/a 5 round magazine made 70 years ago and designed 120 years ago. And all in sub freezing temperatures. So these ****faces have absolutely no rational argument whatsoever.

Charles Joseph Whitman killed 16 and wounded 32 on Aug. 1st. 1966
in Austin using "ordinary" weapons, such a Remington 700 bolt action rifle, among the others.
Hardly an assault weapon!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

You could also point the fact in your replay, that it is impossible to tailor the sensible laws based solely on a "danger factor" of particular weapon!

DocSkinner
01-24-2011, 9:31 PM
I would say also talk about "Their access to" Who are they that THEIR is referring to? Why not restricts THEIR access and leave everyone else's alone. This guy was clearly a nut job that nobody wanted to do anything about or report to the state, and THAT is the issue. How do we keep people wioth clear mental disorders from attaining dangerous weapons (note I didn't say ARs, 30 round mags, etc).

It is a common problem of making rules based upon the exceptions rather than the majority of examples/instances. If you look solely at exceptions, bathtubs injure and kill far more people (especially children) than firearms do. There is no real utility in having bathtubs over showers and wash basins, therefore we could do more good protecting lives (constituents) and saving children by banning bathtubs.

As others have said - as long as she thinks that is what will get her elected you will not change 'her opinion'. Best option is to get highly involved finding someone to run against her and beat her in the elections (primary or main).

taperxz
01-24-2011, 9:37 PM
good responses guys, i like this "collective" arguing....mrs. spears argument is actually well written IMO, she doesnt come off like a super anti gun libby, but somewhat sensible. we just have to sensibly explain that "standing up to the gun lobby" is not in the best interest of her constituents, its more a political move for her which is not right.

Ohhhhh NOOOO, She is not an ally in any way shape or form. My e mail to her was sound and non confrontational. I want to convince her with facts that her current policies are dead ends. My goal is to prove to her that "gun control will not help society" Facts are, i may not be able to. She is my congresswoman and all i can do is try though.

hoffmang
01-24-2011, 9:39 PM
It doesn't matter what you say to Speier, as she's a 'true believer'. Google her, Ryan, and Jim Jones then connect the dots. :rolleyes:

She is not an ally in any way shape or form.

Getting shot in your twenties by a crazy kool aid serving maniac at least gives her bonafide reasons to not like guns...

-Gene

taperxz
01-24-2011, 9:42 PM
I was well aware of her experience. I am also very familiar with the park named after Leo J Ryan. It will be an uphill battle:D

Oh, wow, I hit a thousand posts. Do i get to find out the secret handshake now? Anybody?

15thaf5thbw
01-24-2011, 9:44 PM
Just use the real data compiled by our OWN GOVERNMENT to refute her claim (in the 01/16/11 Sacramento Bee) when she said "More semiautomatic weapons won't stop violence; they will only increase the likelihood that innocent people will die by gunfire."

Here is data from the FBI and BATF ...

Crime Info
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/documents/09tbl01.xls

Firearms Info
http://www.shootingindustry.com/Pages/07FAReport.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

You take it, put it into a spreadsheet, graph it, and present it to her and ask her if she can post-rationalize some BS response that might make you believe she has even an inlking of a clue about what she's talking about.

A picture is worth a thousand words ...
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz269/sonof15af5bw/VC-vs-FP1990-2009-TableData-1.jpg
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz269/sonof15af5bw/VC-vs-FP1990-2009-Chart.jpg

I'm eager to see what 2010 & 2011 will show ...

By the way, if you are into math and statistics, these are HUGE %-decreases in the rate of VC ... HUGE!!

There is ALL kinds of stuff like this on the Internet ... you have to be careful and validate the information, or go directly to the source like I did and build it from scratch. It ain't hard.

sreiter
01-24-2011, 10:19 PM
I appreciate you bringing that up but i am looking for replies they can't argue with. I can hear it now " OH, well a knife is a knife and it doesn't hold 30 rounds of bullets and only a crazy person could kill lots of people with a knife"

As opposed all the sane people who could kill lots of people?

the point being, people intent on murder, or who go on murderous rages do so regardless on weapon. Murders have been mass killing long before firearms were used.

the huns, vikings, etc. etc. history is full of the slaughter of 10,000's at a time without the use firearms

scarville
01-24-2011, 10:23 PM
Getting shot in your twenties by a crazy kool aid serving maniac at least gives her bonafide reasons to not like guns...
Now ask me if I care.

N6ATF
01-24-2011, 10:27 PM
Actually reasonable restrictions applies to almost everything in life including the 2A i think the words in the 2A are "well regulated" correct me if i am wrong.

In the minds of the victim disarmers, they are "reasonable restrictions... to prevent criminals from being shot or deterred from committing crimes" and "well regulated, out of the hands of the law-abiding."

Getting shot in your twenties by a crazy kool aid serving maniac at least gives her bonafide reasons to not like guns...

-Gene

Not psychologically sound reasons.
"Ohh, I got shot, this is great! I want to be shot again! Defend myself? HA! Nobody should be able to! Only criminals should be armed so everyone can experience the pleasure of being shot!"

scarville
01-24-2011, 10:33 PM
Not psychologically sound reasons.
"Ohh, I got shot, this is great! I want to be shot again! Defend myself? HA! Nobody should be able to! Only criminals should be armed so everyone can experience the pleasure of being shot!"
You may have a point. She wants to get even with somone for her being hurt and she is taking it out on peacable gun owners. That is consistent with a "damaged goods" hypothesis.

taperxz
01-24-2011, 10:45 PM
You may have a point. She wants to get even with somone for her being hurt and she is taking it out on peacable gun owners. That is consistent with a "damaged goods" hypothesis.


Ridiculous thinking, backed by no knowledge of your own. Her staffer has allowed me to engage in convincing her office about firearms restrictions. whether she accepts my ideas or not is up to her. However she could have just as easily deleted my e mail and not responded at all. They also encouraged me to engage her in our town hall meetings regarding my concerns.

AT LEAST, my congresswoman is listening to those people in her district.

I was actually surprised to get the response i got. It sure as heck wasn't a cookie cutter reply.

Sgt Raven
01-24-2011, 11:37 PM
good responses guys, i like this "collective" arguing....mrs. spears argument is actually well written IMO, she doesnt come off like a super anti gun libby, but somewhat sensible. we just have to sensibly explain that "standing up to the gun lobby" is not in the best interest of her constituents, its more a political move for her which is not right.

From Wikipedia

Gun Control

Speier believes in a stricter view of gun control. According to her answers on the NPAT (National Political Awareness Test) she would like to require safety locks on all guns, and background checks on prospective buyers. As well as, ban certain guns except for use in hunting and strengthen state restrictions on buying and owning guns.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Speier#cite_note-VoteSmart.org-19) To show that her legislation currently follows what she answered on the NPAT when the Gun Owners of America graded Jackie Speier they gave her an ‘F’ and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Jack Berman Advocacy Center gave her a 100%.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Speier#cite_note-VoteSmart.org-19)[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Speier#cite_note-VoteSmart.org-19) Other organizations that gave Jackie a low grade on loosening the restrictions on gun use include: the National Rifle Association, and Gun Owners of California.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Speier#cite_note-VoteSmart.org-19)

DocSkinner
01-25-2011, 12:22 AM
Getting shot in your twenties by a crazy kool aid serving maniac at least gives her bonafide reasons to not like guns...

-Gene

Gives her bonafide reason to not like crazy kool aid serving maniacs. Does she also want to ban kool aid?

Shoots some, poisons some - what the common connection? The crazy person.

And just think how bad it would have been if instead of getting a 30 round clip, he decided to just load a 55 Gallon drum of diesel and fertilizer in his truck and pull up on the corner, hop and blow it.

The we could ban Diesel fuel and fertilizer.

hoffmang
01-25-2011, 12:45 AM
Gives her bonafide reason to not like crazy kool aid serving maniacs. Does she also want to ban kool aid?

Nobody served her koolaid. It's not a way to make public policy, but it's something to consider when interacting with her.

-Gene

only10x
01-25-2011, 12:49 AM
tag

N6ATF
01-25-2011, 12:56 AM
So we shouldn't dress like this... got it.

http://nominex.com/livejournal/koolaid.jpg

Wrangler John
01-25-2011, 1:43 AM
Jackie Speier, like most liberals, suffer from a defect of the DRD4 gene that renders them incapable of comprehending certain types of social information. It's a brain defect. "DRD4 is controlled by dopamine which affects the way the brain deals with emotions, pleasure and pain and can therefore influence personality traits," according to some experts in psychiatry. Liberals can't comprehend rational arguments that disprove their preconceptions. Speier also was shot in the arm during the assassination of Congressman Leo Ryan at Jonestown, Guyana. Talking to Ms. Speier is a complete waste of time. You can send her a letter, but one to Santa Claus would be more productive.

taperxz
01-25-2011, 7:25 AM
Jackie Speier, like most liberals, suffer from a defect of the DRD4 gene that renders them incapable of comprehending certain types of social information. It's a brain defect. "DRD4 is controlled by dopamine which affects the way the brain deals with emotions, pleasure and pain and can therefore influence personality traits," according to some experts in psychiatry. Liberals can't comprehend rational arguments that disprove their preconceptions. Speier also was shot in the arm during the assassination of Congressman Leo Ryan at Jonestown, Guyana. Talking to Ms. Speier is a complete waste of time. You can send her a letter, but one to Santa Claus would be more productive.

You seem to know much about psych and the congresswoman, please explain your expertise in both. In particularly your knowledge of ms. Speier. I am sure your knowledge could help me formulate my response.

You also say talking to Speier is a complete waste of time. LOL, do you always give up before you try? Or is this what people tell others when they don't have the guts to do it themselves. Nothing ventured nothing gained!

Hell I might just go straight to the president and visit the supreme court while I'm at it.

Yaaa. I not the right person to tell I can't succeed JMO

sonnyt650
01-25-2011, 8:15 AM
The fact is that such laws do exist in several states and have often made it harder for criminals to get their hands on such weapons or for individual assailants to claim as many lives as they otherwise would.

This statement resigns us to the notion that inconveniencing everyone involved in order to inconvenience a few people is the best solution that can be expected. Another recent example of such a policy: on one fateful day box cutters produced far larger death tolls than large capacity magazines, so the current implementation of airline security is to randomly pat down or x-ray some of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of innocent air travellers to catch the miniscule number intent on doing harm.

Similarly to inconvenience a handful of criminals and mass murderers, it is proposed that the firearms owners of America need to be limited via an absurd assault weapon feature list and an arbitrary cutoff rounds per magazine. Known criminals shouldn't have access to any sort of firearms whatsoever, so really these limits are targetting the vanishingly small number of mass murderers with clean police records. Is this really the best our government can do?

donw
01-25-2011, 8:45 AM
IMO, most in congress/state legislatures are NOT open minded to solutions at all. all they're interested in in is PUNITIVE measures. their interest lies in CONTROL...period...not just "gun control"...the goal is not just "gun control"...it's COMPLETE control. "gun control" is just the first step.

legislators fear the thought of facing armed constituents. especially if they're armed with AR's...they fear losing their power. it's that simple.

guns are not the 'enemy'...legislators are...they're the ones who created the mess.

B Strong
01-25-2011, 8:49 AM
You are going to need to pull stats about the rates of so-called "assault weapons" and their use in US crimes. They are generally quite low compared to handguns.

The argument is then turned around to explain your concerns: as a person knowledgeable about the real facts of the issue (AWs are not used in crimes despite being readily available just about everywhere but a select few states), you are concerned. Because if you can ban items that are not commonly used in crimes, how does that preclude you from also banning those weapons that are commonly used in crimes (handguns)?

Remember, do not talk tactics (mag swaps and speed changes). Focus on the fact there are 270 million guns in America...probably 100 million pistols and maybe more than 100 million "high cap" magazines above ten rounds (need to confirm these guesses). How can a simple law effectively put that genie back in the bottle without making law-abiding citizens criminals?

But the big weakness in their argument is the fact that banning items with relatively low incidence of crime opens the door to banning anything used more often, if they use the mantra of statistical modeling. You can use this to respectfully explain that despite assurances to the contrary, banning handguns has got to be on the future list, because - by the numbers - they are much more "dangerous" than an AR-15.

You will need an argument to counter the "potential damage" postilion, but my opening there is that despite awful tragedies that occur in rare times, the fact is that AWs are not statistically dangerous compared to items with lesser "potential". Simply put, if AWs had the potential she says they do...crooks would be using them in great abundance and this is simply not the case.

Remember these folks are believers in their cause. You will not change their minds any more than they will change yours. You are setting the discourse that will be used to define the cause for all those who are undecided. Don't let an extremist opinion define us all (obviously not something you would do considering you are asking the advice in advance...but this is more general advice to all reading this).

You can bet that there are at least ten high-caps out there for every pistol manufactured that would accept a high-cap magazine.

It's significant to note to the uninformed that the so-called AW ban wasn't, really.

SupportGeek
01-25-2011, 9:08 AM
Just use the real data compiled by our OWN GOVERNMENT to refute her claim (in the 01/16/11 Sacramento Bee) when she said "More semiautomatic weapons won't stop violence; they will only increase the likelihood that innocent people will die by gunfire."

Here is data from the FBI and BATF ...

Crime Info
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/documents/09tbl01.xls

Firearms Info
http://www.shootingindustry.com/Pages/07FAReport.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

You take it, put it into a spreadsheet, graph it, and present it to her and ask her if she can post-rationalize some BS response that might make you believe she has even an inlking of a clue about what she's talking about.

A picture is worth a thousand words ...
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz269/sonof15af5bw/VC-vs-FP1990-2009-TableData-1.jpg
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz269/sonof15af5bw/VC-vs-FP1990-2009-Chart.jpg

I'm eager to see what 2010 & 2011 will show ...

By the way, if you are into math and statistics, these are HUGE %-decreases in the rate of VC ... HUGE!!

There is ALL kinds of stuff like this on the Internet ... you have to be careful and validate the information, or go directly to the source like I did and build it from scratch. It ain't hard.

I actually dont see this argument as a strong one anymore.

Look at your chart/graph through a gun control politicians eyes:

"You are correct that the violent crime rate was dropping before and after the AW ban, but during the AW ban, the rate dropped well over 2x faster, so we can clearly see that while the AW ban was not solely responsible for the drop in Violent Crime, your chart shows me that it had a significant role to play in its reduction."

Just like that, our argument becomes ammo for their side.

The Shadow
01-25-2011, 9:24 AM
Just use the real data compiled by our OWN GOVERNMENT to refute her claim (in the 01/16/11 Sacramento Bee) when she said "More semiautomatic weapons won't stop violence; they will only increase the likelihood that innocent people will die by gunfire."

Here is data from the FBI and BATF ...

Crime Info
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/documents/09tbl01.xls

Firearms Info
http://www.shootingindustry.com/Pages/07FAReport.pdf
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

You take it, put it into a spreadsheet, graph it, and present it to her and ask her if she can post-rationalize some BS response that might make you believe she has even an inlking of a clue about what she's talking about.

A picture is worth a thousand words ...
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz269/sonof15af5bw/VC-vs-FP1990-2009-TableData-1.jpg
http://i834.photobucket.com/albums/zz269/sonof15af5bw/VC-vs-FP1990-2009-Chart.jpg

Well done. This is good information. Now combine that with the fact that most military arms are developed and made by private companies, and use the same ammunition available to the public. Considering the fact that an AR15, that only shoots semiautomatic, versus a Ruger mini 14 that uses the same ammunition, how is it that the AR15 is classified as an assault weapon and the mini 14 is not ? How is a semiautomatic rifle, that is classified as an assault weapon and shoots 7.62 (.308), which is also considered a hunting round, different from a semiautomatic rifle that is not classified as an assault weapon ? Besides looks, what makes a tec-9 9mm pistol more dangerous than any other 9mm semiautomatic pistol ? I would assert that hunting rifles, used by madmen, can be every bit as dangerous as a so called assault weapon. In fact, I would assert that a bolt action hunting rifle, using 30-06 ammunition could be more deadly because they shoot a great distance, ergo the reason that military and police have adopted the hunting rifle platform to be used as a sniper rifle. And then there is the .50 BMG rifle that has never been used to commit a crime, because they are too heavy and too expensive to use. In my opinion, it's only the ignorant and emotionally driven individual that has absolutely no knowledge of firearms, or the political opportunist with an agenda, that would ban weapons because of how they look, and so called assault weapons look scary which is why it's so easy to hate them.

Of course their counter to the argument would be, if there's no difference, then why would we be so adamant about having them ? And my counter to that is because the materials they use are usually more durable and weather resistant, which has nothing to do with how they shoot. And the fact that they use hunting rounds makes them perfect for hunting. The number of rounds they hold makes sense when you consider that one rifle can be owned and carried for both hunting and self defense while in the field.

Now, if I wanted to get up close and personal with people that I want to kill, my choice of weapons would be a shotgun, using 00 or #4 buckshot, and a pistol. 00 buck has nine .32 caliber rounds leaving the barrel at the sametime which makes it perfect for taking out 2-3 people at a time, or #4 buckshot that has 12 .25 caliber rounds that could do the same job. Considering the fact that I could be secure in knowing that all of my victims will be disarmed, except for the occasional person that might have a pocket knife, getting up close and personal to do the deed is a no brainer. It amazes me how politicians can stand on their soap boxes and proclaim the things they do, and feel good about themselves when they say it.

vmwerks
01-25-2011, 9:32 AM
On the face of it, arguments that point out heinous crimes commited by single shot rifles etc do more harm than good IMHO. What you will end up with is either this:

http://www.sniperworld.com/DisplayPic.aspx?PIC=286313

or this:

http://www.parkeradesigns.com/sparks/images/images/chipmunk22youth.JPG

and the argument could be made that your right to own a gun was not infringed. We will be stuck with single shot rimfire sub .25 caliber guns. The argument used against high capacity semi-auto guns is that there is no "sporting" purpose. If you want a gun why not just buy a rimfire single shot .22?

Additionally the argument that cars are potentially more dangerous than guns is also going to hit a stone wall. Cars have a useful purpose in society and are used for the purposes of personal transportation and commerce. Their abuse whether intentional or not, is not enough to warrant banning cars. The automotive industry limits the top speed of it's cars to make them "safe", the top speed on my M3 is 155mph yet the legal speed limit is not much more than 70 in open areas. Is the 10 round limit the same thing? In some ways it is... I can speed load and keep shooting well beyond my 10 round limit. Team me with another good shooter and we could lay down suppresive fire indefinitely. I can also hit 155mph, very quickly :)

The best we can do is to insure that we, as a society, take reasonable steps to insure that we are safe from other PEOPLE not guns, cars, or knives.

In an earlier post someone mentioned that a Zebra will never change it's stripes. The plain fact is that as long as Jackie Speier and those like her are in office we are in danger. The best solution is to vote, vote early, and vote often. Get them out of office as quickly as possible. :)

There are a lot of smart people on this forum, much more than I. However when I read some of the arguments I am startled and the simplistic nature of some of them. Statistics don't matter much to a politician beyond the voting rolls.

The Shadow
01-25-2011, 9:35 AM
On the face of it, arguments that point out heinous crimes commited by single shot rifles etc do more harm than good IMHO. What you will end up with is either this:

http://www.sniperworld.com/DisplayPic.aspx?PIC=286313

or this:

http://www.parkeradesigns.com/sparks/images/images/chipmunk22youth.JPG

and the argument could be made that your right to own a gun was not infringed. We will be stuck with single shot rimfire sub .25 caliber guns. The argument used against high capacity semi-auto guns is that there is no "sporting" purpose. If you want a gun why not just buy a rimfire single shot .22?

Additionally the argument that cars are potentially more dangerous than guns is also going to hit a stone wall. Cars have a useful purpose in society and are used for the purposes of personal transportation and commerce. Their abuse whether intentional or not, is not enough to warrant banning cars. The automotive industry limits the top speed of it's cars to make them "safe", the top speed on my M3 is 155mph yet the legal speed limit is not much more than 70 in open areas. Is the 10 round limit the same thing? In some ways it is... I can speed load and keep shooting well beyond my 10 round limit. Team me with another good shooter and we could lay down suppresive fire indefinitely. I can also hit 155mph, very quickly :)

The best we can do is to insure that we, as a society, take reasonable steps to insure that we are safe from other PEOPLE not guns, cars, or knives.

In an earlier post someone mentioned that a Zebra will never change it's stripes. The plain fact is that as long as Jackie Speier and those like her are in office we are in danger. The best solution is to vote, vote early, and vote often. Get them out of office as quickly as possible. :)

There are a lot of smart people on this forum, much more than I. However when I read some of the arguments I am startled and the simplistic nature of some of them. Statistics don't matter much to a politician beyond the voting rolls.

Simple argument, because a single shot .22 is not an adequate self defense firearm, and you can't hunt deer with it.

jdberger
01-25-2011, 10:04 AM
Getting shot in your twenties by a crazy kool aid serving maniac at least gives her bonafide reasons to not like guns...

-Gene

Not really. Does getting mugged in your twenties by a black man give you a bonafide reason to not like black people?

The experience may have had an influence and we can empathize, but it doesn't absolve the holder of violating someone's civil rights.

AMDG
01-25-2011, 10:15 AM
Don't forget, if AZ had a prohibition against concealed carry, Jared Loughner wouldn't have been able to get his firearm to his target. Oh yeah, and if 33 rounders were illegal he would have only used 10 rounders... and if murder was illegal.. oh nevermind.

chuckles48
01-25-2011, 10:18 AM
One thing you might want to do is ask specifically what gun control measures Ms. Speier considers reasonable, and which ones she considers unreasonable. You would do well to use questions to drive the nature of the debate - find out where _her_ limits are.

If they're asking the questions, and you're answering them, you're letting them control the conversation.

SupportGeek
01-25-2011, 10:40 AM
Not really. Does getting mugged in your twenties by a black man give you a bonafide reason to not like black people?

The experience may have had an influence and we can empathize, but it doesn't absolve the holder of violating someone's civil rights.

I think you are trying to attack a strawman there, he only said it was a bonafide reason for her to hate guns, and I can see that.

He didnt say it was a valid reason for her to violate civil rights, no one is.

Oh and yes, often people attacked, assaulted etc by a certain ethnicity often DOES lead to them not liking that same ethnicity.

nicki
01-25-2011, 1:15 PM
I would approach Congresswoman Spiers from a different approach.

What I would do is focus on things you can agree on and then as you agree on issues, hopefully it will become apparent that if she is going to make progress on important issues, she can't allow herself to get side tracked on red herring issues.

Rather than getting into the gun argument, I would take the position that the real issues that must be dealt with are why the shooter did what he did in the first place.

Acknowledge that we all feel the need to do "something", but before we do "something", we need to look at the law of unintended consequences.

I would point out that the shooter already had shown in the past that he would go outside the law to get anything he wanted (Drug Convictions).

There is already a "Black Market" in this country for "real military arms" and even if we could ban hi cap mags and had 100 percent compliance with current legal owners surrendering what they have, bad people would still be able to get these arms.

Currently England has a booming black market in arms. Black Market arms tend to be illegally manufactured or smuggled in stolen military arms.

Currently England is being flooded with handguns and machinepistols.

Tell her that why you know that you and her are going to disagree on gun ownership, that you hope that you could agree on fixing things like reporting of "mental health".

In fact what I where I would go with her is the state of "Mental Health" in our country and what we can do to fix things.

We have many people in our country with treatable mental and emotional health issues that aren't being treated.

Many things went wrong in that young POS's life that set him up on a path to commit mass murders.

In his life he was insignficant, but when he resorted to violence and killed alot of people, he become significant in everyone's life.

He has gotten more than just 15 minutes and now with him taking a "not guilty" plea, he will be in the news and in our faces for months.

While I believe in freedom of the press, with freedom comes responsiblity and the more exposure this guy gets, the more it encourages others like him around the country to copy him. It is a vicious cycle.

I would close with her that she has an opportunity to reach across the political isle to get things done on "mental health issues" provided she doesn't get herself arguing with the people across the isle on gun issues.

Nicki

vmwerks
01-25-2011, 1:18 PM
Simple argument, because a single shot .22 is not an adequate self defense firearm, and you can't hunt deer with it.

Go ahead and make your argument to a Congressman with that. You missed my point altogether. Simply put it does not pay to argue with elected officials, they follow votes.

VOTE THEM OUT - end of problem, the others will fall in line

However you did prove my point.. over simplistic views on the subject only serve to hurt the cause, not help.

jaymz
01-25-2011, 2:53 PM
weapons that are used as tools for mass murder, like assault rifles

I believe DOJ and/or FBI crime stats repeatedly debunk this myth.

scarville
01-25-2011, 4:49 PM
In fact what I where I would go with her is the state of "Mental Health" in our country and what we can do to fix things.
If she is really still obsessing over an incident that happened 33 years ago maybe you don't want to mention mental health. :TFH:

taperxz
01-25-2011, 5:02 PM
I don't think Jackie Speier has taken her position because of what happened. I do think she is involved in the politics of the day and taken the position of her peers in congress locally.

DocSkinner
01-25-2011, 7:53 PM
Nobody served her koolaid. It's not a way to make public policy, but it's something to consider when interacting with her.

-Gene

didn't serve HER, but...


And I think you probably then mean there is a reason she might have incorrectly formed a bias against guns. Not that there are bonafide reason to hate inanimate objects?
In that case yes - it is always important to remember where people's irrational thoughts originated. To call them bonafide reasons I would say is a little too much, and legitimatizes the "guns are bad" line of thought (makes it down right bonafide!).

Wrangler John
01-25-2011, 8:43 PM
You seem to know much about psych and the congresswoman, please explain your expertise in both. In particularly your knowledge of ms. Speier. I am sure your knowledge could help me formulate my response.

You also say talking to Speier is a complete waste of time. LOL, do you always give up before you try? Or is this what people tell others when they don't have the guts to do it themselves. Nothing ventured nothing gained!

Hell I might just go straight to the president and visit the supreme court while I'm at it.

Yaaa. I not the right person to tell I can't succeed JMO

Use your Google search function for the information, there is a growing body of evidence that certain forms of liberalism is a organic mental defect. It is not merely a mind set, an ideology, rather it has been found to be associated in some forms with ADHD.

Ms. Speier started as a San Mateo County Supervisor in 1980 at a time when I worked for the county. Her liberalism knows no bounds. She is not amenable to logical argument, or factual statistical analysis. This is not a condemnation of her personally, rather a factual statement based on observation.

I often hear the argument, "...how do you know if you give up before you try?" Arguing with people who consider themselves superior to you, those who consider themselves the elite that deserve your fealty, is an exercise in futility. The only effective way to deal with these individuals is to either defeat them at the polls, or isolate them in a minority position where they have no practical political power. Still, it never hurts to try. Let us know how you do.

One of my most treasured gifts is to be proven wrong about people.

jamesob
01-25-2011, 8:51 PM
mexico has a prohabition and look at that mess. the fact is a criminal can get any weapon they want faster than you or me in fact faster than a licensed dealer.

dfletcher
01-25-2011, 8:53 PM
In order to convince her that guns are OK you're going to have to convince her that adults are reasonable and responsible. Honestly, I don't think that can be done.

John-Melb
01-26-2011, 4:23 AM
Regarding the claim made by the staffer that "gun control" isn't about taking everyone's firearms.

Tell this staffer that his words were read by an Australian, formerly a keen competition pistol shooter at club level, who lawfully owned pistols used in competitive target for almost twenty years prior to 2002. "Gun Control" is about taking everybodies firearms, one class of firearms at a time. It is a slippery slope designed to eventually ban the private ownership of firearms completely.

Tell the staffer that this Australian says he's a bloody liar!

jnojr
01-26-2011, 4:47 AM
Dear Mr. XXX:


P.S. I would respectfully challenge your analogy to Prohibition, mainly because it succumbs to the oft-spread fear that gun control is about completely doing away with anyone’s right to own a firearm. When we talk about gun control, we’re not talking about gun prohibition – we’re talking about coming to broad agreement on limiting the most dangerous and destructive firearm types. Instead of one over-arching law to ban guns, most people support smaller and more fine-tuned limits on those weapons that are used as tools for mass murder, like assault rifles and extended magazines. The fact is that such laws do exist in several states and have often made it harder for criminals to get their hands on such weapons or for individual assailants to claim as many lives as they otherwise would.

It's exactly like Prohibition... bans blame the item instead of the actions of the individual. And once we accept that the gun is to blame, there is no end to "reasonable gun control". See the UK for a perfect example. Here, look at California, and look at Virginia... Virginia has almost no gun laws. California has lots. Now compare the crime rates. Unless you can show that Virginia has dramatically worse crime, you have to accept that gun laws are not about "preventing crime". Further, how much gun control is "enough"? At what point do those who call for gun control say, "You know what, more gun laws aren't going to do anything positive." Never, that's when... we always need just a few more laws.

dfletcher
01-26-2011, 1:02 PM
^^^
Unlike Prohibition, where once used the product is used it's gone and the entire black market scheme to replenish must produce more, a gun can be used over and over again. Once the illegal gun gets in the black market pipeline it does not leave of its own accord but goes on and on. It seems to me a black market in such a durable good is especially hard to eliminate.

GaryV
01-26-2011, 1:42 PM
P.S. I would respectfully challenge your analogy to Prohibition, mainly because it succumbs to the oft-spread fear that gun control is about completely doing away with anyone’s right to own a firearm. When we talk about gun control, we’re not talking about gun prohibition – we’re talking about coming to broad agreement on limiting the most dangerous and destructive firearm types. Instead of one over-arching law to ban guns, most people support smaller and more fine-tuned limits on those weapons that are used as tools for mass murder, like assault rifles and extended magazines. The fact is that such laws do exist in several states and have often made it harder for criminals to get their hands on such weapons or for individual assailants to claim as many lives as they otherwise would.

Her questioning of your analogy is wrong. She's created a false dichotomy. You could easily say that the two prohibitions are equivalent because the 18th Amendment didn't prohibit all beverages, just those deemed to be "dangerous". The point is that, exactly like prohibition (or the war on drugs) making something illegal in order to prevent those who want something badly enough, especially if they are also already predisposed to break the law, does nothing to prevent the possession of the banned item/substance, and instead creates a black market and criminal culture that meets a demand no longer filled through the legitimate market.

Also, you could point out that the MOST dangerous weapons are already banned/strictly regulated. For example, fully-automatic firearms, which US v. Miller indicates should be protected arms under the 2nd Amendment, are already strictly regulated, as are all weapons that have been declared DDs and AOWs. So what she's really advocating is the banning of what she and her comrades have labeled the NEXT most dangerous weapons. And once that's done, the same argument could then conveniently be used to go after some other class of guns, as the next most dangerous, and then the next, and so on, exactly as it was done in the UK. So her rhetoric about the "most dangerous" guns is nothing more than a disingenuous appeal for "reasonableness" to disguise an agenda of creeping incrementalism.

The Shadow
01-26-2011, 2:14 PM
Go ahead and make your argument to a Congressman with that. You missed my point altogether. Simply put it does not pay to argue with elected officials, they follow votes.

VOTE THEM OUT - end of problem, the others will fall in line

However you did prove my point.. over simplistic views on the subject only serve to hurt the cause, not help.

Sometimes things are just that simple.

Tom Gresham
01-26-2011, 3:18 PM
Offer this as a "common sense" proposal for gun control, and ask if they would accept these restrictions.

1. All gun makers must be licensed.

2. All gun dealers must be licensed, and their premises can be visited by the Feds whenever they want.

3. All firearm purchases done through federally-licensed gun dealers must be approved by the FBI.

4. Each person buying a firearm from a federally-licensed gun dealer must undergo a background check prior to purchase (see point 3 above).

5. Persons who have been convicted of a felony can not purchase or possess a firearm.

6. Persons under the age of 21 can not purchase handguns from a dealer.

7. Persons under the age of 18 can not purchase long guns from a dealer.

8. All firearms must be marked with an individual serial number, and each time that firearm is transferred from a gun maker to a dealer, that move must be recorded.

9. Each firearms purchase from a dealer must be recorded.

10. All laws outside gun shows will be in effect inside gun shows.


That's a very restrictive list, and while I don't agree with many of these restrictions on our gun rights, see if your elected official would agree that these are some worth trying.

(Of course, the point is that firearms already are heavily controlled and restricted, and that all the "proposals" above are already law.)

Deucer
01-26-2011, 3:20 PM
I would include something along these lines off the top of my head:

"30 round magazines are banned in California but if I wanted to break the law and get one I would have it by the end of the day for certain. So in effect the only people the ban will affect are the victims of crimes - the law abiding, not people who already have choosen to ignore the law. A ban as such creates a situation where the criminal will have the 30 rounders and the victim at best has 10. Is putting the victims of crime at a disadvantage to the criminal really the goal here? Because it certainly will be the effect.

30 round magazines by nature are so simple in design they can be made at home with scrap metal and the most very basic of tools even if all 30 round magazines on the planet suddenly disappeared tomorrow. Banning them is like banning pre-made paper airplanes and thinking that now its impossible to get a paper airplane anymore. Its just lunacy"

Just quoting this because I really like this line of thinking. I think the most compelling arguments against the mag cap limits and assault weapons bans are made by putting things in terms of victim's firepower vs. criminal's firepower and pointing out that laws only restrict law abiding citizens.

Dreaded Claymore
01-26-2011, 3:49 PM
Offer this as a "common sense" proposal for gun control, and ask if they would accept these restrictions.

1. All gun makers must be licensed.

2. All gun dealers must be licensed, and their premises can be visited by the Feds whenever they want.

3. All firearm purchases done through federally-licensed gun dealers must be approved by the FBI.

4. Each person buying a firearm from a federally-licensed gun dealer must undergo a background check prior to purchase (see point 3 above).

5. Persons who have been convicted of a felony can not purchase or possess a firearm.

6. Persons under the age of 21 can not purchase handguns from a dealer.

7. Persons under the age of 18 can not purchase long guns from a dealer.

8. All firearms must be marked with an individual serial number, and each time that firearm is transferred from a gun maker to a dealer, that move must be recorded.

9. Each firearms purchase from a dealer must be recorded.

10. All laws outside gun shows will be in effect inside gun shows.


That's a very restrictive list, and while I don't agree with many of these restrictions on our gun rights, see if your elected official would agree that these are some worth trying.

(Of course, the point is that firearms already are heavily controlled and restricted, and that all the "proposals" above are already law.)

This.

510dat
01-26-2011, 5:29 PM
Offer this as a "common sense" proposal for gun control, and ask if they would accept these restrictions.

1. All commercial gun makers must be licensed.

2. All gun dealers must be licensed, and their premises can be visited by the Feds whenever they want.

3. All firearm purchases done through federally-licensed gun dealers must be approved by the FBI.

4. Each person buying a firearm from a federally-licensed gun dealer must undergo a background check prior to purchase (see point 3 above).

5. Persons who have been convicted of a felony can not purchase or possess a firearm.

6. Persons under the age of 21 can not purchase handguns from a dealer.

7. Persons under the age of 18 can not purchase long guns from a dealer.

8. All commercially made firearms must be marked with an individual serial number, and each time that firearm is transferred from a gun maker to a dealer, that move must be recorded.

9. Each firearms purchase from a dealer must be recorded.

10. All laws outside gun shows will be in effect inside gun shows.


That's a very restrictive list, and while I don't agree with many of these restrictions on our gun rights, see if your elected official would agree that these are some worth trying.

(Of course, the point is that firearms already are heavily controlled and restricted, and that all the "proposals" above are already law.)

Let's not give them extras.

tonelar
01-26-2011, 9:56 PM
anyone else point out to Peter's misuse of the term "assault rifle"?

respectfully remind him of how assault weapons and high capacity magazines have been banned in CA for over twenty and ten years now, yet criminals are often caught in the possession of these devices. write them how in san francisco and oakland incidents police officers were murdered by AK wielding criminals.

it's exactly like prohibition and the war on drugs; limit the general public's access to anything and you strengthen your average bad guys supply of the same items you're maligning.