Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Also

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php

Found more linkage for you Kan

Which brings up another point.

I can find NO mention of that quote prior to the timeframe for the AWB expiring.

Unless I am utterly and completely missing something, it just seems to not exist.

Miss my first link?

Here I'll repost it: http://www.rkba.org/antis/feinstein.60-minutes.5feb95

If you right click and check "Check Page Info" you'll see that particular page was last modified in February of 1995...

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Also

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/2nd-Amendment-Mr-and-Mrs-America-turn-them-2813319.php

Found more linkage for you Kan

Which brings up another point.

I can find NO mention of that quote prior to the timeframe for the AWB expiring.

Unless I am utterly and completely missing something, it just seems to not exist.

Miss my first link?

Here I'll repost it: http://www.rkba.org/antis/feinstein.60-minutes.5feb95

If you right click and check "Check Page Info" you'll see that particular page was last modified in February of 1995...

And even THAT is a "Here is a verbatum, as best I could do it, transcript of the most
chilling part of CBS's 60 minutes interview with Fienstien. Suggest
all read and re-read this very carefully."

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they state:

OK, OK, enough mail...I went back to the tape of the show I got off
satellite. It was the show I saw, but sometimes, the feed does not
match the over-the-air version. The sat feed usually has more info.

It is, however, worth noting that there is a bit of context which makes it sound less like "Take all the guns!"

This clip was after the discussion of how manufacturers are skirting
the gun ban by changing the "cosmetics of the guns". There was some
dicussion of the PC AR-15 from Colt, and the new TEC AB-10(after ban -10)
showing how the guns are the same, but a cosmetic feature is changed, and
sales continue.

But it directly refutes your claim that this quote only seemed to come out during the time near the AWB being lifted...

I posted a link from 9 years before the ban would be lifted... that definitely counts as, "prior to the timeframe for the AWB expiring."

You can't believe this is just a giant conspiracy 20 years in the making can you?

 Alfndrate wrote:
You can't believe this is just a giant conspiracy 20 years in the making can you?

If it were going the other way, I am sure there are a few people in the USA who would entirely believe in the evil anti-gun 20 year conspiracy

 Alfndrate wrote:
But it directly refutes your claim that this quote only seemed to come out during the time near the AWB being lifted...

I posted a link from 9 years before the ban would be lifted... that definitely counts as, "prior to the timeframe for the AWB expiring."

You can't believe this is just a giant conspiracy 20 years in the making can you?

First off:
I did not think to check the page info on that, since it was all text.
Second off:
As I JUST bloody said...

And even THAT is a "Here is a verbatum, as best I could do it, transcript of the most
chilling part of CBS's 60 minutes interview with Fienstien. Suggest
all read and re-read this very carefully."

I find it hard to take someone seriously when they state:

OK, OK, enough mail...I went back to the tape of the show I got off
satellite. It was the show I saw, but sometimes, the feed does not
match the over-the-air version. The sat feed usually has more info.

It is, however, worth noting that there is a bit of context which makes it sound less like "Take all the guns!"

This clip was after the discussion of how manufacturers are skirting
the gun ban by changing the "cosmetics of the guns". There was some
dicussion of the PC AR-15 from Colt, and the new TEC AB-10(after ban -10)
showing how the guns are the same, but a cosmetic feature is changed, and
sales continue.

That reads to me more like people taking something out of context years later to justify the constant bashing that goes on with pro-gun individuals against those who they view to be "infringing their second amendment rights".

Silver, I agree

and Kan, I was writing my post before your edit...

The article is decent proof that it's not just people going, "SHE GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!" without some level of evidence backing it up. Regardless of whether or not she wants to take all guns away, there is a decent "second hand" account of someone during that time period that copied down what the person heard. And it's fine that you didn't check the page info, most people don't. It's a great thing to look at when you're doing online research.

Edit: To be fair though, since it's all text and it looks like it was from the mid 90s, it probably was

 Alfndrate wrote:
Silver, I agree

and Kan, I was writing my post before your edit...

My bad.

But the context of that allows for me to read it, objectively, two different ways:
1) That Diane Feinstein is for banning all the guns, period.
2) That Diane Feinstein is for banning loopholes allowing for firearms manufacturers to continue to produce the same guns post-ban as they did pre-ban with minor cosmetic differences.

In regards to the poll: Yes. America's gun laws strongly deter me from immigrating to the US. Though the OP was actually asking about the opposite scenario.

I wouldn't move to a place that has too restrictive gun laws. As it is now I have to keep several of my firearms at my grandfather's house in New Hampshire since they're illegal here.

Can't wait to leave this hell hole.

Though I will say that the OP's friend is everything that's wrong with a lot of gun owners. He really wants to shoot in the back yard of an apartment building? What a maroon.

I'm all for another "Assault Weapons" Ban. It'll make the ones I own now substantially more valuable.

Unless its illegal to keep them of course, then you're instantly committing a felony.

 Frazzled wrote:
Unless its illegal to keep them of course, then you're instantly committing a felony.

They're generally grandfathered in if you already own them.

Either way, I know the laws and go far out of my way not to break them.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
In regards to the poll: Yes. America's gun laws strongly deter me from immigrating to the US. Though the OP was actually asking about the opposite scenario.

I think I'd agree with this.

What firearms legislation would improve the situation in the USA is tricky at this point since there are so many around, and serious US criminals certainly don't seem to avoid them in the way they do here in the UK

The best bet probably to buy & destroy guns and limit the number imported/sold to slowly reduce the number in circulation

And if anything is banned outright (eg assault weapons) don't let anbody keep them by 'grandfathering' them in, require them to to sold (at current market price) for destruction or permenantly inactivated

and maybe toss in 'negligent gun ownership' laws of some sort requiring safe storage reporting of loss to the police, recording of sales

It seems to me that a lot of the gun problems in the USA would be solved by the following measures:

1. Compulsory training before a gun can be legally bought. In other words, a license as you have to drive a car.
2. Registration, and reporting of lost/stolen weapons.
3. Sales only through licensed dealers.
4. Guns to be kept in suitable locked cabinets to prevent theft, etc.
5. Heavy penalties on unregistered guns and unlicensed dealers.

This would allow law-abiding citizens to own whatever weapons they liked, as long as they were trained to use them safely. Responsible users like Frazzled and Seaward would ace the licence test, so they would have no fear of not being able to own their guns.

The objection as far as I can make it out is that the NRA has driven anti-gun-control to the extent that it is considered unconstitutional to have any compulsory training and registration, thus eliminating my points 1 and 2.

Obviously a few nutters would slip through the net to commit mass murders, like in the UK, but that is the price you have to pay.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Unless its illegal to keep them of course, then you're instantly committing a felony.

They're generally grandfathered in if you already own them.

Either way, I know the laws and go far out of my way not to break them.

Assume nothing in that regard.

In Ohio we have the following laws:

For your CCW: You need to take a class (The one at the local gun club says you need 120 dollars + the price of the license, 50 rounds of ammunition, and a holster for your weapon) which lets you apply for the license (which costs money)

You are required to report any stolen or lost firearms so that if they wind up being used in a crime they can track them and you'll be cleared (for the most part).

Those take care of the first two (though you want to expand it to all firearms, which is understandable).

The second one is decently enforceable,

But the last two are hard to enforce.
How do they know if I have a safe or not? Or that they're locked away?
Again, how do the cops know I have an unregistered gun if I take care of it and follow all laws but the registering one.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

And if anything is banned outright (eg assault weapons) don't let anbody keep them by 'grandfathering' them in, require them to to sold (at current market price) for destruction or permenantly inactivated

What if they don't turn them in?

 Frazzled wrote:
What if they don't turn them in?

You have men in black helicopters, surely?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What if they don't turn them in?

You have men in black helicopters, surely?

That might get some guys and black helicopters to be shot...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What if they don't turn them in?

You have men in black helicopters, surely?

Black Helicopters are a myth.

The men who used to fly the black helicopters now pilot the Chemtrail Jets.

 Alfndrate wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What if they don't turn them in?

You have men in black helicopters, surely?

That might get some guys and black helicopters to be shot...

There's always someone with a bigger...helicopter?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What if they don't turn them in?

You have men in black helicopters, surely?

That might get some guys and black helicopters to be shot...

There's always someone with a bigger...helicopter?

Frazz has weiner dogs...

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that a lot of the gun problems in the USA would be solved by the following measures:

1. Compulsory training before a gun can be legally bought. In other words, a license as you have to drive a car.
2. Registration, and reporting of lost/stolen weapons.
3. Sales only through licensed dealers.
4. Guns to be kept in suitable locked cabinets to prevent theft, etc.
5. Heavy penalties on unregistered guns and unlicensed dealers.
.

I'd be in support of all of these IF:
1. Training has to be inexpensive and not unreasonable. Some states have these laws and have made it so difficult, its an effective ban. Translation: If Texas wrote the program I'd be fine. If Illinois did it I might as well go ahead, bury my firearms and call them in as stolen.
4. Again I am ok if they generally have to be in something locked. But the requirement of a full on bolt down safe (look up the prices and you'll see why I object). Additionally if it gave the police the right to randomly enter your residence you just started American Civil War Two.
But oif these items are reasonable then I'd be 100% behind them.

(Whats funny is I am taking a class like that on the 27th)

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What if they don't turn them in?

You have men in black helicopters, surely?

That might get some guys and black helicopters to be shot...

There's always someone with a bigger...helicopter?

I don't know about that but there is always someone with a bigger chopper, or so people tell me.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Advocating gun control while owning a gun is not necessarily hypocrisy.

Sorry. I should have said, "while having previously stated that she would ban all firearms if she could."

Can you source this statement?

I'm genuinely intrigued to see the context of when she made it. I've only been aware of Feinstein as advocating a renewal/broadening of the "assault weapons" ban.

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."

I'm still very skeptical on this; especially given the ellipses which are used to denote omitted material.

Here... you're welcome:
http://www.therightscoop.com/turns-out-both-harry-reid-and-diane-feinstein-have-carried-guns-for-their-protection/

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
What if they don't turn them in?

You have men in black helicopters, surely?

More of a really dark green I think, but my color hues aren't so hot.

Interesting stats on firearm related deaths here, it seems the tighter gun regulation in the UK really works as they have statistically some of the lowest fire arm related death rates internationally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Okay... then:

I'm guessing you have a point, but it's overshadowed by just how unrelated those two arguments are to each other.

What I wonder, is why does anyone even need a car?

I mean c'mon! You have two feet to get where you want, and the state provides a suitable transit system. If it doesn't work to your needs, then you still have your feet!

Why does anyone NEED a car?

Or a tv? Who needs one of those?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems to me that a lot of the gun problems in the USA would be solved by the following measures:

1. Compulsory training before a gun can be legally bought. In other words, a license as you have to drive a car.

What would you do with the states that would use such a provision to effectively deny the right to ownership, such as Illinois, California, and Maryland?

2. Registration, and reporting of lost/stolen weapons.

You're already supposed to report stolen property.

3. Sales only through licensed dealers.

Fine.

4. Guns to be kept in suitable locked cabinets to prevent theft, etc.

Why do I need a locked cabinet? If I'm not at home, my gun's with me. If I'm at home, I don't need it in a safe.

The objection as far as I can make it out is that the NRA has driven anti-gun-control to the extent that it is considered unconstitutional to have any compulsory training and registration, thus eliminating my points 1 and 2.

That's a determination for the courts to make, but I'm pretty sure I know what they'd have to say about it.