rosie. that hypocrite can s*** my c***

gendoikari87 wrote:rosie. that hypocrite can s*** my c***

KVoimakas wrote:I just disregard the official stance on the AWB.

Support for AWB? Not me.

Ditto! I dont know why I like saying that Ditto! Ditto!

ABNinfantryman wrote:

rolandson wrote:Ever been asked why somebody would need so many bullets? I don't have a ready answer to that question myself, except to say that a responsible shooter is going to continue to be responsible whether the gun holds one or many, and that the irresponsible shooter is dangerous within the same parameters.

Yes, I've been asked that, and there is a ready answer anyone can use. If you're arguing for self defense, you say it's for the same reason cops carry extra mags, because shit happens. The mag in your weapon can break, or you could run out of ammo while someone's still shooting at you. Why should you keep potable water somewhere in your house? In case a tornado, a hurricane, an earthquake, what have you cuts off or pollutes the water going to your house you have something to drink to survive. You probably won't need that water, but you store it anyway, just in case. Why do you keep a spare tire in your car, it's just added weight and makes your gas mileage lower. Because you might run over a nail or something else that pops one of your tires. If you're arguing sport, Three Gun Shooting matches use military-esque rifles, pistols, and shotguns, where you're not only rated based on accuracy, but also speed. High cap mags save time due to the frequency of reloads being less. And if the person says "Well what about some irresponsible shooter..." that's what we have laws for, to punish individuals who infringe on the rights of others. If that irresponsible shooter hurts someone he's guilty of negligence and/or manslaughter which have pretty stiff sentences attached to them AND he would lose his right to ever own or use a firearm again, so what more do you want?

The answer's not to appease them, because there's no appeasing them, the anti-gun crowd doesn't care if you're for or against high cap mags, they don't like guns period. Put it like this, the Brady Campaign was started to pass a law that would require a background check on anyone buying a firearm from a dealer, they got it, so why are they still around? Because now they campaign for taking other shit away from gun owners with the ultimate goal of banning all firearms from civilian use. So, why appease them? Also, why appease them when more and more Americans are swinging back to a pro-gun stance, even if they don't own one?

Oh and yeah you should be able to figure out my stance.

What do 'I' want? Why Peace, love and happiness of course. But I don't really think any of this is about me. I thought it was about the LGC position on high capacity magazines.

What I like about the position of this organization is that it doesn't take a condescending, disrespectful attitude toward the anti gun position of the left...that the LGC doesn't dismiss or invalidate the anti-gun left in the same manner as the right loves doing.

However, if that isn't suitable, then consider what happens should the left again regain control of the White House and both houses. The AWB wasn't repealed, it expired. Don't think for a second that it couldn't come back. Appeasement might take on a whole new meaning. Telling them to piss up a rope now might very well eliminate any hope of future discussion.

On this topic, someone over at Huffington posted an interesting link to the Better Business Bureau's Charity review section for the Brady Center which fails to meet 6 BBB standards. They have no treasurer to manage funds on their board of directors and two of their directors are compensated monetarily putting them over the no more than 10% of the board members will be compensated for their work with the charity standard. Oh and what's the compensation for the president of a charity that takes in three million a year? Mr. Helmke was compensated just under $250,000 for his time. Pretty cool he took a 12th of the charity's income. http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/nati ... on-dc-1136

rolandson wrote: What do 'I' want? Why Peace, love and happiness of course. But I don't really think any of this is about me. I thought it was about the LGC position on high capacity magazines.

That was a general "you", not specifically you.

What I like about the position of this organization is that it doesn't take a condescending, disrespectful attitude toward the anti gun position of the left...that the LGC doesn't dismiss or invalidate the anti-gun left in the same manner as the right loves doing.

However, if that isn't suitable, then consider what happens should the left again regain control of the White House and both houses. The AWB wasn't repealed, it expired. Don't think for a second that it couldn't come back. Appeasement might take on a whole new meaning. Telling them to piss up a rope now might very well eliminate any hope of future discussion.

You're right, but there are ways to tell people to piss up a rope without coming off as condescending, I generally don't care to take the time to do so though. It's all about how you frame the argument. If you look at the Brady Campaign's site on their position against high cap mags, it only retorts self defense points, it completely steers clear of the sport or fun issue, because it's a lot more difficult to make an argument where you have to explain why someone shouldn't be able to do something that harms no one else without coming out and calling them a potential psycho. The LGC position could be "We don't believe in the high cap mag ban because we believe there is a viable use in different firearm sports." That's a position which has nothing to do with the apocalypse or the self defense issue and distinctly separates LGC from that crowd. It also doesn't side one way or the other on how much harm they may cause in their use in violent crimes.

rolandson wrote:

Caliman73 wrote: Finally, to rolandson...the desire to possess higher capacity magazines is not indicative of any intention to arm oneself for Armageddon...

Caliman, from the perspective of the anti-gun left, that is exactly what it represents. From Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, to Springsteen's 'American Skin (41 shots)', magazine capacity is an issue of major significance. We wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not.

Ever been asked why somebody would need so many bullets? I don't have a ready answer to that question myself, except to say that a responsible shooter is going to continue to be responsible whether the gun holds one or many, and that the irresponsible shooter is dangerous within the same parameters.

Personally I hold that the position of the LGC represents a moral high ground to that issue without consequence or cost and thus it is acceptable to me.

I get what your saying and therefore I change my mind. I agree that it's more important to hold the position and to work on this level for the benefit of our organization and what we represent than it is for me to excersize my right to carry enough ammo in one mag to mow down an army of boogymen. I could then put an effort into knowing better my firearm by spending more time practicing, shooting, etc.

So basically, as long as we obey the state and federal laws on magazine size, all is good. Makes sense to me. Not that I'd carry a California-legal AR-15 while in Missorui, mind you. If I start to scare anti-guners, I'll change the topic to women's choice or sensable improvements to helping folks learn how to save their money better and get off of welfare. I have no need to scare them but if I show them that we have common ground and I'm not some guy who's two bad hours away from Falling Down maybe just maybe they won't be as afraid of all gun owners. Hearts and Minds can work as long as the interactions are approached the right way.

ABNinfantryman wrote: The LGC position could be "We don't believe in the high cap mag ban because we believe there is a viable use in different firearm sports." That's a position which has nothing to do with the apocalypse or the self defense issue and distinctly separates LGC from that crowd. It also doesn't side one way or the other on how much harm they may cause in their use in violent crimes.

One thing ABN, the LGC does not support ANY ban on magazines due to capacity. The position of the club is that magazines with capacities higher than 20 should require an additional background check. That is not a ban it is an extra check to make sure that unstable people or criminals are not loading up on 100 round drums. People can disagree or agree with the argument, but we have to make sure that the club's position is clear before we debate it.

The idea of not pissing off the anti-gun left is not a very scary thing. They are not a majority at all. 80 million of the 120 million voting eligible people in this country own a firearm. We are obviously not all on the same page with regards to regulation, but still, the most left faction of the anti-gun movement is the one that wants all guns melted down. I would rather have a reasonable discussion as well, but not at the expense of continually giving ground, especially when the answer to every gun crime is to restrict guns in some way rather than working to eliminate poverty, legalize drugs, improve mental health, improve information sharing to keep guns away from criminals. The answer by our anti-gun brethren is to limit ammo, limit the type of firearm, limit the accessories and magazines. That is not reasonable.

Also, the AWB expired because there was no political will to extend it. It was attempted in 2007 and 2008, both years with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and the legislation went nowhere. Democrats controlled both houses in 2009 and 2010 and the only legislation passed was to extend carry rights.

An example of political will, which was very unfortunate, was the Bush tax cuts, which were set to expire automatically in the very same way but they did not because there was an active effort to extend them.

Perhaps there may be another societal shift in the future, but the pendulum has swung in the direction of maintaining or increasing liberties as related to firearms. That said, it is better to be civil, but that needs to be addressed on both sides of the debate. I have been called all manner of names by fellow liberals because I support fairly hands off laws. The worst I have ever said to an anti-gun person was that they were arguing irrationally based mainly on emotion.

I'm 100% against the AWB. I'll vote Republican the next time any national politician brings it up...

Ok, I have been away and missed this but I think its actually better that I was gone - its a good discussion. A couple of points:

Nowhere do we advocate an AWB or a ban on LCMs (large capacity magazines).

After much thought about this, and hearing from some lefties that wanted to reinstate the AWB, I found the DOJ report on the effect of the ban. Their study specifically states that:

The banned guns (assault weapons {AW}) and magazines (large capacity magazines {LCM}) were used in up to a quarter of gun crimes prior to the ban.
The ban”s success in reducing the use of AWs and LCMs was mixed
- AW usage dropped
- LCM usage increased, the researchers argue that this is because of a huge stockpile of exempted pre-ban LCMs
While they don’t think continuing the ban would have resulted in significant drops in crime, they do argue that it would result in fewer victims
- attacks with LCMs and AWs result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms

Based on these facts we wondered what pro-AWB arguments could be made and the only thing that we came up with was that when you have LCMs involved, there are more victims and more damage per victim. That is a fact. So, if that is the case then one could argue that LCMs represent an increased risk to the public vs standard capacity magazines. However, as these items should not be banned, what is a reasonable compromise? It seemed obvious that we could simply do a NICS check on people who want to buy an LCM.

And for what its worth, an internet poll of the most active LGC members probably isn't representative of all members. However, a poll of members might be an interesting thing to do.

Mark, that 25% number has to be bullshit. Rifles were only used in like 9% of firearm related violent crime if memory serves.

KVoimakas wrote:Mark, that 25% number has to be bullshit. Rifles were only used in like 9% of firearm related violent crime if memory serves.

LCMs and "AWs" combined. The estimate varied depending on the source but for AWs its between 2 and 8% prior to ban and for LCMs it is between 14 and 26%.

Remember too that these are those weapons deemed as AWs under the ban - that is the working definition. Also, an LCM was defined at the time as having more than 10 rounds.

KVoimakas wrote:Mark, that 25% number has to be bullshit. Rifles were only used in like 9% of firearm related violent crime if memory serves.

I have to agree, I'm guessing a lot of times the use of a Glock with a factory standard mag becomes an assault weapon. In my lifetime reading about crimes committed with assault weapons have brought me to the same conclusion almost every time, after reading about the appalling amount of ammo expended for almost zero effect that this class of weapons are inherently inaccurate and the shooters have no idea what they are doing.

eelj wrote:

KVoimakas wrote:Mark, that 25% number has to be bullshit. Rifles were only used in like 9% of firearm related violent crime if memory serves.

I have to agree, I'm guessing a lot of times the use of a Glock with a factory standard mag becomes an assault weapon. In my lifetime reading about crimes committed with assault weapons have brought me to the same conclusion almost every time, after reading about the appalling amount of ammo expended for almost zero effect that this class of weapons are inherently inaccurate and the shooters have no idea what they are doing.

These were specifically those items banned under the AWB.

mark wrote:

eelj wrote:

KVoimakas wrote:Mark, that 25% number has to be bullshit. Rifles were only used in like 9% of firearm related violent crime if memory serves.

I have to agree, I'm guessing a lot of times the use of a Glock with a factory standard mag becomes an assault weapon. In my lifetime reading about crimes committed with assault weapons have brought me to the same conclusion almost every time, after reading about the appalling amount of ammo expended for almost zero effect that this class of weapons are inherently inaccurate and the shooters have no idea what they are doing.

These were specifically those items banned under the AWB.

Yes and now its part of the lexicon describing almost any gun used in a violent crime. The bullshit after madame congressman Gifford was especially disgusting. That clowns malfunctioning 30 rd mag was the reason they were able to disarm him while he attempted to clear the jam.

I've stated this many times in past threads, but in keeping with this one: I disagree with the official statement of the LGC regarding magazine capacity. However, since the suggestion is just for a NICS check, and not banning or restriction beyond what is in place for the initial purchase of the gun that uses the magazines in question, it's not worth surrendering my membership in a club whose other opinions I agree with by and large.

One concern I have expressed in the past is that of cost. There is no reason that a person should have to pay any appreciable amount of money to have this check performed (in Fl I believe the phone-in NICS check costs $5), and certainly there should not be a per item fee for multiple purchases in a day from the same vendor. There should also never be a "Transfer Fee" assessed. Financial restriction is an easy trap to fall into; it doesn't restrict those who can afford it, and seeks to unfairly restrict (oppress) those who cannot. Additionally, those who hold a valid, up to date CWL or similar (FOID, permit to purchase a handgun, any other permit/license requiring a background check, etc) should be exempted from the need to pay for an additional NICS check beyond what would otherwise be needed to buy that gun. Additionally, I hold that the same check performed to buy a weapon shall (if this were ever actually implemented) act as an umbrella for any magazines purchased at the same time.

Mark, how would you go about polling all of our members? Perhaps an email, combined with a paper letter instructing folks to log into the site using their unique member number to access such a poll, in order to prevent a mass visit from some "other" forum?

KVoimakas wrote:Mark, that 25% number has to be bullshit. Rifles were only used in like 9% of firearm related violent crime if memory serves.

Remember that they were using the made up "assault weapon" definition in looking at the statistics. Rifles were not the only item considered an "assault weapon". We are talking Tec-9's, Semi-auto Uzi's, Semi-auto shotguns like the Streetsweeper, and various other weapons that were not rifles. Basically any firearm that had features like a pistol grip (forward or rear), bayonet lug, flash hider, folding or telescoping stock, and could accept detachable box magazines.

Look you can blame the tool but even if guns were never invented in the first place it would NOT be a peaceful society today. In fact it would not even be as civil as a society as today. In any human interaction there are two ways I can pursuade you to do what I want you to do. Logic, or force. Guns take the second one and make it less of an option than say if we were all back to using swords and lances.

My point is Crime will be committed, with or without guns. They are simply the most expedient way as of now. Luckily they work both ways, and are as good in the hands of the wheelchair bound as they are in the hands of the hulk. AW and LCM are in the same category, banning them is redundant and ridiculous. Redundant because the thieves will simply pick up something else. If you want to reduce crime, don't punish the tools, go after its roots.

get to the point where you ban all firearms and you've suddenly created a situation where the average individual cannot protect themselves, because that guy whos trained for years witha sword will kick your ass if you don't have a gun or that same level of experience.

What distinguishes this group from most other similarly dedicated organizations is a willingness to accept reasonable firearm regulations. This position keeps open avenues of communication and perhaps some influence with the more entrenched anti-gun element of liberals.

The position that the LGC has taken on magazine capacity is both eloquent and simple. Eloquent in that it acknowledges the concerns of the left without actually giving up anything and simple in that it merely suggests an alternative other than a return to the outright ban of the 90's.

rolandson wrote:What distinguishes this group from most other similarly dedicated organizations is a willingness to accept reasonable firearm regulations...

Hmmm...From the recent poll, there's only a few who accept them.

I have not accepted the suggested "reasonable firearm regulations" (primarily the mag/NICS issue) since day one.

Xela

Xela wrote:

rolandson wrote:What distinguishes this group from most other similarly dedicated organizations is a willingness to accept reasonable firearm regulations...

Hmmm...From the recent poll, there's only a few who accept them.

I have not accepted the suggested "reasonable firearm regulations" (primarily the mag/NICS issue) since day one.

Xela

Ummm? You saw this while joining up didn't you? http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/who/

Why, pray tell, would anyone sign up with an organization that is right up front in support of a policy they object to? Just asking...no sarcasm intended...You see it is this position that convinced me to join and to donate.

I suppose one could take the issue up with the board of directors...is there a board of directors? eh! maybe not...

I have no problem with the LGC stance on hi cap mags and reasonable regulation.

rolandson wrote:

Xela wrote:

rolandson wrote:What distinguishes this group from most other similarly dedicated organizations is a willingness to accept reasonable firearm regulations...

Hmmm...From the recent poll, there's only a few who accept them.

I have not accepted the suggested "reasonable firearm regulations" (primarily the mag/NICS issue) since day one.

Xela

Ummm? You saw this while joining up didn't you?

LGC.png

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/about-us/who/

Why, pray tell, would anyone sign up with an organization that is right up front in support of a policy they object to? Just asking...no sarcasm intended...You see it is this position that convinced me to join and to donate.

I suppose one could take the issue up with the board of directors...is there a board of directors? eh! maybe not...

Good point. This perhaps calls for a timely/minor clarification. I'm not an LGC member. I noticed the position from the get go, way before joining the discussion boards.

Mark is a fine gentleman, and he's been very cordial with his reminders to join, that's why I have not taken joining the LGC off the table.

On the other hand, I hope participation on these boards does not require LGC membership. I may have missed that.

Aside from the positions, this is a fine group (I've hanged out at gun shows with a couple of forum participants), and would hate to part ways if I were required to be an LGC member.

And pardon if my tone was combative, that was not my intention.

Xela

I am a member and can abide by the suggestion on LCMs for now. If it gets put to a vote, that is another matter. I found this much less onerous an issue than several that I have with the NRA so joining was a 'no-brainer' for me. I just wanted clarification, wasn't trying to make any sort of a 'point' with this thread.

ErikO wrote:...wasn't trying to make any sort of a 'point' with this thread.

No worries. This issue keeps popping up now and then.

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

For my part, I always enjoy and welcome the open exchange.

Xela