U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-24-2013, 09:01 PM
 
1,316 posts, read 1,177,327 times
Reputation: 1932

Advertisements

Anybody want to guess how many mags with a capacity of over 15 are currently in circulation in the USA right now..?.
Well, I estimate that if the Federal gubmint bought them back for a buck apiece, it would add another .05% to the National debt.

 
Old 03-24-2013, 10:28 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 25,777,680 times
Reputation: 9132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaffeetrekker View Post
Anybody want to guess how many mags with a capacity of over 15 are currently in circulation in the USA right now..?.
Well, I estimate that if the Federal gubmint bought them back for a buck apiece, it would add another .05% to the National debt.
Well, since the US Government debt now stands at $16,762,761,449,489, that would amount to, at $1 apiece, 838,138,072 clips, or approximately 2.8 clips for every man, woman, and child in America.
 
Old 03-24-2013, 11:06 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,111 posts, read 4,881,407 times
Reputation: 5429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
No one is infringing on anyone's rights to own any of thousands of makes and models of firearms; long or short barrel, rifled or smooth bore, muzzle or breech loader, or how many of them. If I want a hundred generic hunting rifles, it'll still be perfectly legal for me to do so.

The issue here really is one of "where do we draw the line" on what is a reasonable weapon to own. IMO owning M1 tanks is not reasonable, nor howitzers, nor MRAPs, nor Bradleys, etc. Where we draw the line is not an easy issue to define and then fix our limits. Nor do I want a civilian version of an M1 tank or self-propelled howitzer. The only successful civilian version of Army hardware that quickly comes to mind is the HUMMER version of the HUMMV, but I see a lot fewer of them these days; fuel costs probably got them, but IMO they're much closer to being "industrial vehicles" than a family cruiser for a Sunday drive in the park.

But the zany ones out there have taken the "where do we draw the line" aspect and turned it inside out into a nutjob rant of "the guv'mint is gonna take all yer gunz." I visualize the "Floyd R Turbo" character of Johnny Carson days.

No matter the topic, those who can't maintain a civil, intelligent, logical stream of thought don't belong here.
I agree totally, but I would like to add that in the rush to preserve what many perceive to be an unlimited right, the majority of the gun enthusiasts forget that with each right comes responsibilities. And when people do not live up to their responsibilities, the government create laws in an effort to enforce responsible behavior.

There is a two-fold problem with any sort of gun control: 1. any laws that are not created at the federal level are useless as people move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and 2. there are too many guns already out there for gun control to be effective.

If it were up to me, this is the regulation I would make:

1. Anybody can own a single shot firearm. This was the firearm available to the colonists at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, so this is the firearm they had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. There are no restrictions as to who can own a single shot firearm.

2. If you want anything more powerful than a single shot firearm, then you must go jump some hurdles:
a. all multiple shot firearms must be registered.
b. all multiple shot firearms must have liability insurance.
c. all multiple shot firearms must have their "ballistic fingerprint" on file.
d. all multiple shot firearms must have a "title" that must be shown when buying ammunition.

3. All owners must have a license. To get a license, a person must undergo a background check and complete a general gun safety course. This would enable a person to get a handgun that fires up to 8 bullets/shells before it needs to be reloaded.

4. People who want to own firearms with a capacity greater than 8 bullets/shells need to undergo a psych evaluation as well as take an advanced safety course.

5. All owners must renew their licenses every 3-5 years.
 
Old 03-24-2013, 11:38 PM
 
20,836 posts, read 39,046,511 times
Reputation: 19073
David, I agree, that should help a lot and makes too much sense for our politicos to ever do something like this.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 03:55 AM
 
Location: Indianapolis
3,895 posts, read 4,553,072 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by ELCO5280 View Post
I have no idea how they would police these bills.

And with 3D printing of magazines available, having a ban on 15 round capacity is frivolous IMO.
I read an interesting article about that on Foxnews
With 3D printers coming up now Magazine limits may become as frivolous as Prohibition was in the 1920s.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 04:11 AM
 
Location: Coos Bay, Oregon
7,142 posts, read 8,840,949 times
Reputation: 7732
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Now, there are certain circumstances where citizens of this country do have to surrender their rights--being convicted of a felonious crime is one of them. Therefore, I stand by my statement that the way to take guns from the hands of criminals is to remove criminals who use guns to commit crimes from society, either by lengthy or lifetime incarceration, or by the death penalty.

Locking people up and and killing them, simply doesn't work. Some crack head wanting to get money to support his habit, is not thinking about the consequences of robbing a convenience store and killing the clerk. He just want to get money for his drugs now, at any cost. The only way to stop him is to make sure he can't get a weapon to carry out the crime. Removing him from society after the fact, doesn't bring the convenience store clerk back to life.

We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world, and after China one of the highest rates of capital punishment. Yet we still have have the most violent crime and murder in the developed world. Having a ridiculously high prison population is unfair to law abiding citizens who have support all those prisoners.

But if you still want to have half the population of this country locked up in prison, then I proposes massive taxes and licensing fees on gun owners to pay for all those prisons. If you want to continue to flood this county with all your damn guns, then you pay for the results. Don't expect non-gun owners to pay for the mess your gun culture creates.

 
Old 03-25-2013, 04:27 AM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,626 posts, read 11,019,566 times
Reputation: 13847
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post

1. Anybody can own a single shot firearm. This was the firearm available to the colonists at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, so this is the firearm they had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. There are no restrictions as to who can own a single shot firearm.
So let me get this straight. The Founders had the foresight to build an experimental type of government, the likes of which had never been seen in the world, yet they lacked the ability to foresee that firearms would someday be able to carry more than one shot? Laughable. I don't think that the Founders had any specific gun in mind at all. They didn't produce the 2nd Amendment because they liked guns, they did it to protect against government abuses.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 04:45 AM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
10,626 posts, read 11,019,566 times
Reputation: 13847
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidv View Post

1. Anybody can own a single shot firearm. This was the firearm available to the colonists at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment, so this is the firearm they had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights. There are no restrictions as to who can own a single shot firearm.

2. If you want anything more powerful than a single shot firearm, then you must go jump some hurdles:
a. all multiple shot firearms must be registered.
b. all multiple shot firearms must have liability insurance.
c. all multiple shot firearms must have their "ballistic fingerprint" on file.
d. all multiple shot firearms must have a "title" that must be shown when buying ammunition.

3. All owners must have a license. To get a license, a person must undergo a background check and complete a general gun safety course. This would enable a person to get a handgun that fires up to 8 bullets/shells before it needs to be reloaded.

4. People who want to own firearms with a capacity greater than 8 bullets/shells need to undergo a psych evaluation as well as take an advanced safety course.

5. All owners must renew their licenses every 3-5 years.
And how does any of this stop the illegal flow of firearms? How does this do anything but provide the evil doers with a decided advantage in everything from magazine capacity to not having to worry about the bureaucratic red tape. How much would it cost to implement these programs? What if the current gun owning population will not comply as the laws are passed? Are you going to turn 100,000,000 Americans into criminals with the stroke of a pen?

Ultimately the stated purpose of gun control laws, at least those passed in Colorado, is to make the public safer. Earlier in this thread I asked one member how one bill made the public safer and he acknowledged that it wouldn't but that he was in favor of it anyway because it's a good idea. Newsflash: A good idea that won't work toward its stated purpose is not a good idea.

The steps listed above do little to nothing to limit gun violence as much of the gun violence done in the U.S. involves weapons that are obtained illegally; either through black market sales or theft from legal gun owners. The ideas listed above provide nothing but bureaucratic red tape that infringes on the rights of gun owners who enjoy their hobby in a responsible manner.

I can start taking the anti gunners seriously when some of their ideas become directed toward the actual problem rather than them simply imposing their values on gun owners because they themselves do not like guns.

This article may seem off topic, but the mental framework described herein is consistent within the gun debate as well, even in this very thread:

Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton | Watts Up With That?

I specifically think you can link the catch phrase, "common sense reforms/legislature/changes" to the article. The VP, Hick, and a whole slew of other elected officials have pushed for "common sense reforms" (or variations of the phrase) as if to suggest that those opposed to the new gun regulations are somehow lacking in common sense. When you cannot recognize that your ideological opponent has a legitimate point of view and choose to invalidate it before discourse even begins, is it any wonder why we cannot seem to have a civil debate on this matter?
 
Old 03-25-2013, 04:47 AM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,943 posts, read 7,302,240 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanneroo View Post
I agree as well and there are civilians that own old tanks as well as jet fighter planes.
It's is true, but I should clarify, I meant a tank with an active main weapon.
 
Old 03-25-2013, 04:54 AM
 
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,943 posts, read 7,302,240 times
Reputation: 1690
and for the love of God, they are called MAGAZINES, not clips. Clips are thin strips of metal that hold a predetermined amount of ammunition, designed to be strip loaded into the top of a breech loading firearm such as a M1 Garand or SKS. They stay in the firearm in a Garand, and make an audible "ping" and get ejected when the gun is empty, much to the dismay of our USGI's.

Please learn gun terminology and how firearms operate if you expect to have any credibility when debating. Magazines are usually a square or tubular device, separate from the firearm, most often made of metal or plastic, and contain a follower with a spring behind it to feed the ammunition into the breech.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:34 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top