What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Old Pio said:
That's soon gonna be "Senator Jodi." LOL

Another "Great Moment in Iowa Politics." Check out the Mortimer Snerd grin on Harkin's face as Howard Dean unspools on national television. Priceless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5FzCeV0ZFc
Click to expand...

It amazes me how people will actually vote someone into power who openly advocates a 2nd Amendment remedy to anything. Boggles the mind is understating. And, yes, she will be elected.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
It amazes me how people will actually vote someone into power who openly advocates a 2nd Amendment remedy to anything. Boggles the mind is understating. And, yes, she will be elected.
Click to expand...

At this point Braley needs a thunderstorm on election day. He leads the early voting, but not by enough to offset the likely gop turnout on actual election day.

What's really shocking is that a state that went relatively easily for Obama could end up with just 1 democratic congressperson in 8 days.
 
Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Jimjamesak said:
1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons with an exception to semi-auto pistols 9mm caliber and under and limit to ~6 round clips.
2. Rifles and shotguns must be limited to a size that prohibits concealment.
3. All owners must submit to full background check, undergo mandatory written and practical testing, and carry a photo ID card with owned weapons listed. Must be renewed every 5 years.
4. Each person limited to owning 1 pistol, 1 shotgun, and 2 rifles.
5. All weapons mist be stored with a trigger lock and in a locked safe.
6. Any violation is a felony and carries a minimum five year sentence.
7. 6 month buyback period for all illegal weapons, an additional 6 month amnesty period.
8. Allow for gun ranges and similar businesses to have and allow to people use certain semi-auto and automatic weapons for sport use but under tight restriction.

Basically, gets rid of the weapons that aren't needed for personal use (if you need a semi-auto AR-15 to hunt, you don't need to hunt), forces people to register and be trained (like we do with cars), forces people to keep good track of their weapons, and stops people from owning arsenals.
Click to expand...
It's arguments/proposals like this that are the reason gun control advocates never succeed.

The knee jerk reaction is to take away guns. Whether it's literally taking them away, or implementing absurd buying limitations, that's always the proposal. It's a non-starter, it's constitutionally questionable, it plays into the NRA's "they're trying to take our guns away" argument, and maybe most significant, most people realize they are ineffective.

Here's what I'd do.

1. Require insurance on all guns. Mandatory minimums. Crime if you don't carry it.
2. Civil liability if one of your guns is used in the commission of a crime. Call in the Financial Responsibility Act for guns, similar to what we do for cars.
3. Criminal liability if you let, intentionally or accidentally, one of your guns be used in a crime. We don't have to make it a death penalty case. But substantial criminal sanctions.
4. Substantial taxes on guns and ammunition. Do like they are doing to tobacco.

You won't get rid of guns. You won't get rid of crime. But you will certainly remove casual gun purchases because it will be too **** expensive. And on top of it, we'll have someone to parade into court every time one of these clowns shoot up a school but save the last bullet for themselves.
 
St. Clown said:
What's so scarier about the AR-15 when compared to other semi-automatic rifles on the market today? Is it based upon the aggressive look, because it's not a traditional hunting look to it? The caliber of bullet is smaller than many rifles, using a .223 ammo. Being hit by a bullet from an AR-15 is less likely to kill you than a "standard" bullet from a 30-06.
Click to expand...
I used the AR-15 as an example because it is prominent, I did say that all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, with an exception to pistols 9mm caliber and under with small magazine sizes, should be banned. Outside of a small caliber pistol, there is no practical use for them.
 
SJHovey said:
It's arguments/proposals like this that are the reason gun control advocates never succeed.

The knee jerk reaction is to take away guns. Whether it's literally taking them away, or implementing absurd buying limitations, that's always the proposal. It's a non-starter, it's constitutionally questionable, it plays into the NRA's "they're trying to take our guns away" argument, and maybe most significant, most people realize they are ineffective.

Here's what I'd do.

1. Require insurance on all guns. Mandatory minimums. Crime if you don't carry it.
2. Civil liability if one of your guns is used in the commission of a crime. Call in the Financial Responsibility Act for guns, similar to what we do for cars.
3. Criminal liability if you let, intentionally or accidentally, one of your guns be used in a crime. We don't have to make it a death penalty case. But substantial criminal sanctions.
4. Substantial taxes on guns and ammunition. Do like they are doing to tobacco.

You won't get rid of guns. You won't get rid of crime. But you will certainly remove casual gun purchases because it will be too **** expensive. And on top of it, we'll have someone to parade into court every time one of these clowns shoot up a school but save the last bullet for themselves.
Click to expand...
My proposal removes everything that isn't reasonable for civilian use. Like I said, if you need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, you don't need to hunt. It puts the ownership and use of guns on the same level as motor vehicles. I absolutely agree with the provisions about insurance and criminal liability, but that's not enough. It'll be a bitter pill to swallow for this country, but it is what is necessary. The weapons need to go. I'm fine with allowing people to be paid fair value for the weapons they own now legally, but there is zero civilian use for semi-automatic weapons.

I'm not about police knocking down doors looking for them either. If that law passes, ok you have one year to turn them in, if you don't want to, fine. Just know that you'll be committing a felony at that point if you get caught.
 
Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

And the limits for what caliber of pistols and number of guns owned are just starting points. But those do need to be limited.

The problem with the "price it out of existence" plan is now you take them away for legitimate uses like protection and hunting for normal people. People should be able to go hunting, be able to protect themselves, but only as long as their licensed too.
 
Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Jimjamesak said:
1. Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons with an exception to semi-auto pistols 9mm caliber and under and limit to ~6 round clips.
2. Rifles and shotguns must be limited to a size that prohibits concealment.
3. All owners must submit to full background check, undergo mandatory written and practical testing, and carry a photo ID card with owned weapons listed. Must be renewed every 5 years.
4. Each person limited to owning 1 pistol, 1 shotgun, and 2 rifles.
5. All weapons mist be stored with a trigger lock and in a locked safe.
6. Any violation is a felony and carries a minimum five year sentence.
7. 6 month buyback period for all illegal weapons, an additional 6 month amnesty period.
8. Allow for gun ranges and similar businesses to have and allow to people use certain semi-auto and automatic weapons for sport use but under tight restriction.

Basically, gets rid of the weapons that aren't needed for personal use (if you need a semi-auto AR-15 to hunt, you don't need to hunt), forces people to register and be trained (like we do with cars), forces people to keep good track of their weapons, and stops people from owning arsenals.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with most of that. #2 - You left out handguns. Are we to assume you'd also void all CCW permits? #3 - Get rid of the weapons list and it's fine. #4 - Limiting the number one can own is guaranteed to be struck down in court. #6 - Making any violation a blanket 5-year felony is...excessive, at best. You'll need tiered sentencing for different types of offenses.

That said, #1 will just never happen (well, other than full automatics - those are already prohibitively expensive and have too many hoops to jump through for most civilians). First of all, it's impractical to enforce. Second, I've argued with friends for years that, "No one needs to own a pseudo-military rifle with a 20-round clip - let it go. No one but the nuttiest minority is coming after our 12 gauges." I get accused of caving to the liberals/slippery slope/blah blah blah every frickin' time. I've given up. :p Some people just swallow the NRA propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Third, you'll never get anyone to agree to a cutoff caliber.
 
Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Jimjamesak said:
Because after a certain point you're past the point of protecting and into the realm of danger to the public.

edit: What that point is, is open for debate.
Click to expand...
And limiting calibers and number and type of firearms you're allowed to own accomplishes this how?

Are you any more dead because you get shot with a .40 round instead of 9mm? What about .22 semi-automatic pistols? Why are they apparently more deadly than 9mm?
 
Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

unofan said:
At this point Braley needs a thunderstorm on election day. He leads the early voting, but not by enough to offset the likely gop turnout on actual election day.

What's really shocking is that a state that went relatively easily for Obama could end up with just 1 democratic congressperson in 8 days.
Click to expand...

Showing contempt and disrespect for Chuck Grassley, because he isn't a lawyer (and is, gasp, a farmer!) is a big part of it. Grassley's well respected and I'm guessing all but the most partisan Iowans thought Braley's comments were uncalled for and over the line. She has a good biography. And has run a comparatively error free campaign for a rookie. Plus the seat is open because the great war hero ("who flew combat missions over Vietnam") is retiring.
 
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I'll agree with most of that. #2 - You left out handguns. Are we to assume you'd also void all CCW permits? #3 - Get rid of the weapons list and it's fine. #4 - Limiting the number one can own is guaranteed to be struck down in court. #6 - Making any violation a blanket 5-year felony is...excessive, at best. You'll need tiered sentencing for different types of offenses.

That said, #1 will just never happen (well, other than full automatics - those are already prohibitively expensive and have too many hoops to jump through for most civilians). First of all, it's impractical to enforce. Second, I've argued with friends for years that, "No one needs to own a pseudo-military rifle with a 20-round clip - let it go. No one but the nuttiest minority is coming after our 12 gauges." I get accused of caving to the liberals/slippery slope/blah blah blah every frickin' time. I've given up. :p Some people just swallow the NRA propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Third, you'll never get anyone to agree to a cutoff caliber.
Click to expand...
For #2, if people go through the proposed licensing and training, I see no need for CCW permits. Part of the testing would be going through laws showing when and where you could conceal and carry. You have your license on you, I see no problem.
#1 has to happen, it'll be bitter pill but the buyback would help.
#3 with the weapons list was an idea to just make things easier. An ID with your photo and the serial numbers of what you own would just make things easier with law enforcement. Maybe it's wrong, I dunno.
#4 Something does need to be done to quit having people own arsenals, maybe heavy taxes after a certain number.
#6 was a starting point. Again.

But the issues with #1 are the real problem. It is this culture of dressing up these semi-autos to look like military weapons, with the rails and scopes and lights and attachments, that's a huge problem. There isn't any necessity for it other than "it looks cool."
 
MinnesotaNorthStar said:
And limiting calibers and number and type of firearms you're allowed to own accomplishes this how?

Are you any more dead because you get shot with a .40 round instead of 9mm? What about .22 semi-automatic pistols? Why are they apparently more deadly than 9mm?
Click to expand...
I will not pretend that I know all the answers to those questions, like I said it's open for debate.

But at a certain point, with a certain number rounds, at a certain caliber or higher, with a certain sized magazine, you're no longer protecting and are now threatening. That's what I'm getting at. We need to sit down and figure out where that line is but people don't want to do that. And there is a line, to deny that there is one is insanity.
 
Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

There is reasoning for what I chose by the way. I understand the necessity of a semi-automatic pistol for personal protection. I chose 9mm as the limit as that is, from my understanding, the general standard issue police caliber. 6 rounds being the standard size for a revolver. Basically, you should be able to have it, but not at any size greater than a police officer.
 
Re: Nice Plant #7: Get me off of this planet

Jimjamesak said:
There is reasoning for what I chose by the way. I understand the necessity of a semi-automatic pistol for personal protection. I chose 9mm as the limit as that is, from my understanding, the general standard issue police caliber. 6 rounds being the standard size for a revolver. Basically, you should be able to have it, but not at any size greater than a police officer.
Click to expand...
You think police officers carry 6 round 9mm revolvers?
 
MinnesotaNorthStar said:
You think police officers carry 6 round 9mm revolvers?
Click to expand...
No. And I'm not talking about revolvers. Revolvers would not be restricted.

The basis was restricting magazine semi-autos, 9mm being the police standard caliber, six rounds being a standard revolver size. Like I said, it's a starting point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top