Gun-advocates threaten civil war to protect their guns.

[MKSheppard]

BTW, the VA AWB this past spring that failed had no provision for grandfathering in it.

No; it failed because the special gun control session called by Red Ralph was closed after 90 minutes by RINOs. The session resumes on November 19th, after the VA elections; which the democrats expect to win.

Recently at Lobby Day in January of 2019; VCDL members were straight out told by a VA Delegate that (paraphrasing):

"Well, we know that all these bills we're proposing don't have a chance of passing, but that's okay, because we're gonna win it all in November, and we'll be back with them next January."

Basically, the Virginia House of Delegates flipped from being pretty solidly Republican to a razor thin margin of about 1 or 3 votes in 2017; as a result of major anti-Trump backlash from Northern Virginia and the larger Virginia cities (Richmond and Norfolk); along with Red Ralph Northam being elected.

Basically, the Democrats expect to win everything in November in Virginia -- they'll have:

Virginia Governor
Virginia LT Governor
Virginia Attorney General
Virginia House of Delegates (currently 51–49 in favor of R, a few votes will flip it)
Virginia Senate (currently 21-19 in favor of R)

From ballotpedia: "If Democrats win both chambers of the legislature, they will have a trifecta and full control of the government during redistricting. Gov. Northam will serve through 2021 and can veto new maps."

[MKSheppard]

Any ban would be on the manufacture, sale, purchase, import, (etc) of (whatever type of) new firearms, parts for same, ammo, and support devices.
But with a grandfather cause for existing firearms (etc) that were legally purchased, or in a non-operable condition.

Existing Gun-owners would get to keep their guns. New gun owners would be limited in what they could buy.
Toss in expanded background checks and the like, and EVERYONE WINS.

Actually, the children of the gun owners don't win.

What if the person owns a German WWII Gewehr 43? They're a rare historical artifact; and would be banned under any AWB as it's a detachable magazine semi auto.

Prices for G43's are also trending upwards, making them a appreciating investment.

2006: $1,375.00
2010: $1,800.00
2019: $2,500.00

A lot of people buy guns with the intention of their children inheriting them.

[Lonestar]

No; it failed because the special gun control session called by Red Ralph was closed after 90 minutes by RINOs. The session resumes on November 19th, after the VA elections; which the democrats expect to win.

I didn't list why it failed you shaved gibbon

[MKSheppard]

I didn't list why it failed you shaved gibbon

The matter of fact remains, the bill is not 100% dead (yet); as that special session resumes in November after the elections.

[Lonestar]

Yes, and it's because the state GOP is unable to read the room and have managed to tank the party in the state over the past 10 years.

Congrats on digging in on screaming about transpeople,The Gays and "muh heritage" while actively turning reliably red districts to blue ones.

[MKSheppard]

Yes, and it's because the state GOP is unable to read the room and have managed to tank the party in the state over the past 10 years.

A lot of that is due to the explosive growth of NoVA since 2001 due to FedGov decentralization of offices out of DC, war on terror spending etc; upending the old traditional dynamics of Virginia politics, in which there used to be enough deep red rural areas to counterbalance the deep blue urban centers of Norfolk, Richmond, etc.

A similar dynamic is kind of playing out in Maryland -- Baltimore for a long time drove MD -- what Baltimore wants, Baltimore gets. Only now MoCo and PG County have enough explosive growth to remove much of Baltimore's political power. Still the same bunch of progressive idiots running things in MD though -- it's just that they have D-Montgomery after their name, instead of D-Baltimore.

[Solauren]

Any ban would be on the manufacture, sale, purchase, import, (etc) of (whatever type of) new firearms, parts for same, ammo, and support devices.
But with a grandfather cause for existing firearms (etc) that were legally purchased, or in a non-operable condition.

Existing Gun-owners would get to keep their guns. New gun owners would be limited in what they could buy.
Toss in expanded background checks and the like, and EVERYONE WINS.

Actually, the children of the gun owners don't win.

What if the person owns a German WWII Gewehr 43? They're a rare historical artifact; and would be banned under any AWB as it's a detachable magazine semi auto.

Prices for G43's are also trending upwards, making them a appreciating investment.

2006: $1,375.00
2010: $1,800.00
2019: $2,500.00

A lot of people buy guns with the intention of their children inheriting them.

Grandfather clause. Exiting Gun-owners get to keep their guns. New gun owners would be limited IN WHAT THEY COULD BUY.
Inheritance is not buying.

They could inherit the guns, they just couldn't resell them. (Except possibly to a museum)

And people invest in stuff that turns out to be worthless all the time. It's a risk that's part of any investing.

[madd0ct0r]

I get annoyed with that argument on vocab Fenix, because it remains a deflection from the core question of why gun owners are allowed to impose costs on the rest of the population?

You, uh, you mean like with alcohol consumers and other drug users?

Could you expand on that lonestar? I assume your not talking about illegal drugs, or usa's draconic rules on drink driving or walking drunk?

I get annoyed with that argument on vocab Fenix, because it remains a deflection from the core question of why gun owners are allowed to impose costs on the rest of the population?

That's YOUR core question, not mine and not anyone who actually wants progress. You're asking the wrong question unless, like I mentioned before, you just want to virtue signal and/or rage against the machine.

I think i said back on the first page i do not believe there is any level of technical knowledge or argot awareness that would make a gun owner accept any significant form of control, and thus accepts the continual deaths. Toddlers and toys remains unanswered in this thread.

You're wrong. If only because I exist and I would. But I'm not about to sit here and make post after post of emotional appeals and my "feelings." If crying kids and mothers couldn't get something done in the decades since Columbine, it's not going to just start working at some point. Or at least at a point where I'm not worm food, thus passing the problem on to my son.

There's overwhelming support when you mention the term "background check expansion" and it dwindles to nothing when you mention "ban." Hell, there's even major support for raising the minimum age for anything gun related to 21. Hmmmm, this is MAYBE because people want to help but are also selfish assholes. When they feel they have to give up something and also don't feel it's justified: they balk. Whatever their culpability in this problem is: pointing a finger at gunowners and saying "you suck, I hate you, I want to destroy you" without ANY provisions to keep those people from voting? Shit like that only exists to get "likes" on Facebook or whatever social media garbage you spew your shit onto.

Like I said: the GOP targets minorities the way they do because they systematically look for and implement ways to mitigate the impact on getting their people (re)elected. Meanwhile, Pelosi (who I'm sure WOULD grab guns if she could) is instead trying to put a bill to Congress to expand the background check in preparation to rake the GOP through the coals when they inevitably fight it.

You know, because she's not a fucking moron. She understands the American voter, which obviously a lot of gun control advocates do not.

Eh. Im a brit. No chance of input in this.
But im glad you admitted that it comes down to people being selfish assholes. Thatthe minority of gun owners do see the status quo as worth it, and lobbying a fair way to stop other peoples unjustified selfish motives (not wanting to be shot).

Its nice you said it instead of hiding behind different varieties of language complaints. Hiw long do you think this staus quo will last?

[Broomstick]

Could you expand on that lonestar? I assume your not talking about illegal drugs, or usa's draconic rules on drink driving or walking drunk?

Leaving aside "walking while drunk", I'm curious what you consider "draconic" about the US drunk driving laws?

[Gandalf]

I thought US drink driving laws were pretty lax?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I thought US drink driving laws were pretty lax?

It varied from state to state. Some states having ANY alcohol in your system is illegal if you are impaired. Any by any, I mean "the test cannot actually detect it, but the officer arbitrarily determines you are impaired".

[Broomstick]

Well, that's the US for you - at least fifty different laws regarding drunk driving.,,,

... which in some states is not framed as "driving under the influence of alcohol" but rather as "driving impaired". Meaning "impaired by anything". If peanut brittle causes you to be impaired you could be charged with driving under the influence of candy or something of the sort. Although most states do list a maximum permitted blood alcohol level, above which you're breaking the law no matter how functional you may be.

So... it's the definition/interpretation which is draconian more than the punishments?

[Gandalf]

I thought US drink driving laws were pretty lax?

It varied from state to state. Some states having ANY alcohol in your system is illegal if you are impaired. Any by any, I mean "the test cannot actually detect it, but the officer arbitrarily determines you are impaired".

Breath/blood testing isn't universal?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I thought US drink driving laws were pretty lax?

It varied from state to state. Some states having ANY alcohol in your system is illegal if you are impaired. Any by any, I mean "the test cannot actually detect it, but the officer arbitrarily determines you are impaired".

Breath/blood testing isn't universal?

Oh, it is. But the legal limits for BAC vary from 0.00 (with "impairment" determined by the officer's "good word") to 0.08

[Gandalf]

So a driver declared drunk by officer can't demand a blood/breath test to cover themselves?

Also, 0.08? That's nuts.

[TheFeniX]

But im glad you admitted that it comes down to people being selfish assholes. Thatthe minority of gun owners do see the status quo as worth it, and lobbying a fair way to stop other peoples unjustified selfish motives (not wanting to be shot).

This applies anywhere: "I got mine, fuck you." The U.S. has taken steps to make a Driver's License less of a hand-out. Do you think this applies to people who already have their license? Nope: they get a free pass.

Its nice you said it instead of hiding behind different varieties of language complaints. Hiw long do you think this staus quo will last?

Until gun control proponents pull their head out of their ass and put forth legislation that is both effective and will pass. Revamping the background check system is a big single issue bill they could either hammer through Congress or hammer the detractors. Instead they consistently add a bunch of riders that get DINOs and other weak-kneed cowards scared and the NRA kind of makes a motion like they are going to stand up and so Democrats dive under their desk and pray for forgiveness. The Democrats need a solid gun control win that would be political suicide to let (or even be allowed to) expire. Have a background check revamp nab a couple would-be shooters and the system solidifies itself and people will be asking "ok, what more can we do?"

My memory is off because I've mostly checked out of the debate, but IIRC the Virginia Tech shooter failed 2 background checks before finding a store where he passed the check. I'm finding it hard to care if failing a background check got you a visit from the police immediately, failing two would be a crime in of itself as you're intentionally trying to purchase something illegally.

Instead it's like "derp, ban the most popular rifle in the country! That will solve it!"

I'm going to come right out and say: if a ban DID pass, you shouldn't celebrate. Even if you are the most gun hatingest person out there. You should be mad because we're going to waste 10+ years waiting for it to fail to stop shootings and then just get the axe during the next election cycle, and we're right back here with nothing to show for it except more dead bodies, millions in wasted tax dollars, and yet ANOTHER example of failure gun nuts will bring up when Democrats mention gun control.

So when someone like Beto is out there screaming like he was: We should be telling him "Shut the fuck up and do something useful."

[madd0ct0r]

Why do you sincerely believe that the ban would fail to stop mass shootings but the background checks would?

[Broomstick]

A ban on the AR-15 will fail to stop mass shootings because there are so many other guns and gun types available in the US. The AR-15 may be the "most popular rifle 2019" but it's far from the only gun out there.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why do you sincerely believe that the ban would fail to stop mass shootings but the background checks would?

What Broomstick said. It's used in shootings because it is common, not because it is especially well-suited to mass shootings in a way that is unique among semi-automatic rifles. And trying to ban semi-automatic rifles is a political non-starter. Closing loopholes in background checks putting red-flag laws in place, that has near-universal support except among the hard-core nuts. And its efficacy lies in the fact that mass-shooters have certain statistical patterns. They often engage in domestic violence, for instance, but often plead felony domestic battery offenses down to misdemeanors. So by catching the misdemeanors in a background check, you not only protect their spouses, but make it more difficult for them to become mass shooters later.

People who do mass shootings also tend to blab about it beforehand, so if they start ranting about how they want to start shooting mexicans, someone can report that to the police and there's a legal basis for said police to drop by and say "Hey bro, we're taking your guns"

[Lonestar]

Could you expand on that lonestar? I assume your not talking about illegal drugs, or usa's draconic rules on drink driving or walking drunk?

I'm not sure how else to simplify that, it's pretty self-evident.

You claimed that gun owners are "allowed to impose costs" on everyone else. No shit? Just like nearly everything else on the planet?

I referenced alcohol because it really fits the best from a imposing physical harm standpoint. Alcohol consumers "impose costs" on everyone else. Most people would argue that that doesn't mean alcohol should be banned, even though it only takes a responsible consumer of alcohol once to ruin his day and the day of a lot of other people. You could apply that to other drugs as well, illegal and not, but I think that all drugs should be legalized and taxed with the revenue going to social programs.

More broadly, "I can't believe we get costs imposed on us by others" is like someone ranting about public options for healthcare because they don't want to pay for a fatty nerd's heart surgery.

Why do you sincerely believe that the ban would fail to stop mass shootings but the background checks would?

Not Fenix, but I sincerely think that focusing on mass shootings is missing the bigger picture.

Even using the dubious mass shooting tracker that the anti-RKBA guys like to use, the incredibly vast majority of "mass shootings" use handguns. AR-15s or AKs are black swan events, and make soccer moms worry about little Jimmy in school but not in the least about Ray-ray three towns over, whose urban school district just shuttered 10% of public schools and saw a corresponding jump in homicide(usually with handguns).

But even if you aren't thinking of gangland shootings, you have things like the VA Tech or Sikh Temple shootings where the shooter used handguns, or the WNY where the shooter used a manually fed shotgun.

on the other hand, if you could do a UBC that addresses registration concerns, continue to improve NICS(yes I know that Fix NICS was finally passed last year; I submit that there's always room for improvement), that would go a long way.

Even more effective would be adding people who engage in violent misdemeanors to the prohibited persons list, at the very least for a set period of time. Domestic violence is the #1 indicator of gun violence(other than gender!), and frequently DV charge is plead to a more generic "violent misdemeanor", or it isn't counted as DV because some jurisdictions don't consider it applicable to non-married couples. The cops wouldn't like this, as nearly a third of them end up with DVs and get it changed to a more generic violent misdemeanor charge, but hey, fuck 'em. Of course the country has no problems with cops killing more Americans in 2018 than in all school shootings from 1980 or so to 2018, so I'm sure that they would get a carve out anyway.

I would also send cops out for a visit if someone attempts to purchase a firearm and fails a background check. The majority of the time, a prohibited person who does this is violating a court order/sentence, which is a crime in of itself. At the moment, Oregon is the only state that does this.

[Lonestar]

Goddamn Alyium are you copying my FB/Twitter rants word for word now

[TheFeniX]

Why do you sincerely believe that the ban would fail to stop mass shootings but the background checks would?

Other people have covered it better, but I want to say that my Sandy Hook was Columbine. A Mass Shooting done with a hodgepodge of garbage weapons. I'm not big on attacking the supply side of a situation, I can't recall it ever working out well in the U.S. You attack the demand. You need to identify these people and slow them down long enough because they want "what that other shooter used" to get law enforcement to pick them up.

The entire media frenzy around the situation was sickening. The lies and poor reporting. They weren't bullied introverts who played too much Counter-Strike. They were monsters who were making videos about killing a bunch of people. They were bullies, even in school. They tortured and murdered animals non-stop. They were on the police radar forever. But being two middle class white kids (not scary "urban" youths) it was labelled as "boys will be boys" up until they started killing people.

But that early reporting of two "bad kids, but they were fighting back against bullies" lead to a lot of shit I think we're still seeing the impact of: "Life sucks? Kill the people you feel wronged you!"

Because as long as the media digs into EVERY. SINGLE. MINUTE. detail of the shooter and treats the victims like an afterthought: sick people are going to look at the news, then reflect on their loneliness, insecurity, whatever and they're going to think "man, if I kill a bunch of people, they'll remember me forever!" That's not a problem that can be fixed by banning a thing.

I'm not even going to say that "AR-15 illegal to buy tomorrow" wouldn't stop a shooting. Copycat killers are by nature irrational and maybe they HAVE to have THAT GUN to make their own CoD wannabe video to be shared around the web and not having it means they just.... abuse a cat or something while dying miserable and alone. However, the political capital burned and the blowback to go with it is just not worth it IMO as after the first shooting using <other gun> will just make the time and effort spent look laughable.

[MKSheppard]

Closing loopholes in background checks putting red-flag laws in place, that has near-universal support except among the hard-core nuts.

If closing the background check "loophole" has near universal support; explain to me how in Maryland, a place where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2:1 (at least); that universal background checks and registration for Long Gun (Rifle and Shotgun) sales was tabled?

Basically, in early 2019; Maryland Democrats tried to move via HB786 and SB737.

The original SB737 mandated:

Registration via:
A.) If you bought/transferred a rifle/shotgun, you had to provide the state police with the caliber, make, model, and serial number of the firearm.
B.) If you moved into MD, you had 90 days to register your rifles and shotguns with the state.

You couldn't transfer the rifle/shotgun, until a background check was completed.

You couldn't buy more than 1 rifle or shotgun a month.

You had to wait 7 days after purchasing your rifle/shotgun to pick it up.

You now needed a "LONG GUN QUALIFICATION LICENSE" to purchase/transfer a rifle/shotgun.

Basically, they intended to copy and paste the handgun restrictions on Marylanders onto Rifles/Shotguns.

It went down in flames, along with an attempt to finally ban most AR15s in Maryland via repealing the Heavy Barrel (HBAR) exemption for "Match/Sporting" rifles used in competitions.

[MKSheppard]

I think two reasons that bill failed was:

1.) Disobedience -- several Maryland Sheriffs outright said they would not enforce or comply with the bill(s).

Gun owners also chartered a plane to fly over Annapolis with the message:

"#We Will Not Comply! How About You Larry?"

They also wore shirts saying nothing but:

"We Will Not Comply"

2.) The Hunting Lobby.

From the Milton Reckord Papers at University of MD -- General Milton Reckord was EVP of the NRA for a period in the 1930s and he was Marylands' longest serving National Guard commandant. Here, General Reckord recounts orally a gun control bill at the federal level:

I remember one bill that was never enacted into law was before the Senate committee and a doctor from New York was the senator. His name slips me for the moment but I happened to know that he was a duck hunter and every fall he would come down to Havre de Grace which is up near Bel Air and go to what they call the flats, the Susquehannah Flats, to hunt ducks.

They had a bill before his committee which would have required him to not only register his shotgun but to in some way register or account for the fact that he had gone through a dealer and bought shotgun ammunition.

I remember my method of killing that bill. His name was (Royal S.) Copeland. I was before the committee and I said, "Doctor or Senator, if you pass that bill next fall when you want to hunt ducks in Maryland on the Susquehannah Flats of Havre de Grace, you'll have to not only register your shotgun but you'll also have to register the fact that you bought and carried your shotgun ammunition from New York to Maryland."

He said, "Oh no, nothing like that in the bill."

I told him to turn to page number three or four (whatever it was) line number so and so and read the bill. I waited while he did that and with that he saw that I was correct.

He cracked the old gavel down on the desk and said, "Gentlemen, this committee is adjourned." And as I said, that killed the bill.

It never went any further.

That was a personal incident with the chairman of that committee who happened to like to shoot ducks and didn't want the conditions to be such as they would have been under that legislation. I remember that very distinctly.

[madd0ct0r]

Could you expand on that lonestar? I assume your not talking about illegal drugs, or usa's draconic rules on drink driving or walking drunk?

I'm not sure how else to simplify that, it's pretty self-evident.

You claimed that gun owners are "allowed to impose costs" on everyone else. No shit? Just like nearly everything else on the planet?

I referenced alcohol because it really fits the best from a imposing physical harm standpoint. Alcohol consumers "impose costs" on everyone else. Most people would argue that that doesn't mean alcohol should be banned, even though it only takes a responsible consumer of alcohol once to ruin his day and the day of a lot of other people.

Um, no, you are going to have to spell it out. Different cultural background going on here. I am sort of wondering if problem drinking in the USA is an average weekend in Cardiff, or if you are drawing analogy to someone getting drunk and acting violently?

Re the argument comparing to healthcare costs, perhaps I shouldn't use the word cost. Perhaps I should use the phrase, 'unpredicatable, unavoidable, small risk of being killed by accident'. Unusually for a Brit, my school had a shooting range. Guns were treated with respect, but not much more. So it is not irrational fear of the thing, it's just puzzlement why you all accept the current situation.

For the rest (this should work to give you a notification). Broomstick, Alyrium Denryle, TheFeniX; there's a general misunderstanding here. I am not looking to ban 'scary assualt rifles'. I agree that is an irrational posistion. I would like to see a blanket ban (exempting rural and wilderness licenses where they are tools not toys.). This includes mostly de-gunning the cops, apart from specialsit units who recieve actual training. This would not be an overnight thing. I'm sure some people would bury their prize toys, but that's fine. It's not going to do anything there and it's unlikely to be stolen to be used by others.

I can hear the laughter of diseblief from here, but it's a solution that works fine in most developed countires of different levels of belligerence, and I can't see you learning to be as polite and restrained as Switzerland. I don't think the status quo is good enough.