Bad News for the NRA - people are fugging serious

[malaise]

about gun control this time around.
I raely recommend the Daily Mail but the Gifford article is must read

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2258987/Gabby-Giffords-Mark-Kelly-launch-gun-initiative-second-anniversary-Tucson-shooting-emotional-visit-Sandy-Hook.html
Bravo Gabby Giffords! Bravo Mark Kelly





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2259125/Tucson-shooting-Roxanna-Green-mother-Christina-Taylor-demands-lawmakers-address-gun-control.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Bravo Roxana Green!

[99Forever]

1. K&R

[spanone]

2. k&r...

[onehandle]

3. Nothing is going to stop gun control from advancing. Not this time. nt

[malaise]

4. Yep the slaughter of those kids and their teachers as well as the way

in which all the daily murders are receiving attention suggests that the the camel's back has been broken.
No society can tolerate 87 murders a day. I live in a murder zone of the planet and most of the weapons are illegal.

[Bake]

6. Nothing except, perhaps overreaching and name-calling

If DU is any indicator, at least.

Bake

[Hekate]

7. 'Scuse me? You think DU is overreaching and will cause gun reform to stop?

I'm not sure I understand you -- could you please explain? Do you think maybe we should not have gun reform? maybe continue to nibble around the edges once every two decades? have reforms that sunset?

I know, I probably misunderstood your intent.

[Bake]

8. I think many on DU are overreaching

Myriad calls for banning ALL gun ownership, for example. That's not realistically going to happen, and frankly, I would oppose any such total ban.

What really sets me off, though, is the name-calling ("Delicate Flower," "gun nuts" and worse) directed toward anyone who does not agree with a total ban. I've been called names that I will not repeat here, and frankly, the name-calling doesn't add to the discussion; it simply polarizes it.

I think GD has recently turned into the Gungeon.

Bake

[lastlib]

9. I, for one, am DONE being nicey-nice to the gun fanatics/worshipers

and their NRA/gun lobby/gun maker enablers. The blood of the Newtown children is on THEIR hands, and the only way to cleanse it is to accept strict controls on their precious toys. I DON'T CARE if they don't get to caress or fellate the barrel of their favorite Bushmaster or whatever every night--life as they knew it is OVER. If it hurts your feelings, tough--deal with it. It's a helluva lot easier than dealing with the senseless, needless death of a child. NO MORE NEWTOWNS, period. Help or get out of the way.

[Indydem]

14. Thank you for making their point.

And adding clarity

You are out of the mainstream and your insulting comments prove it.

[Skittles]

15. massacres are just to be expected!

BUT NO INSULTS PLEASE!!!

[Bake]

20. Skittles, that's bullshit and you know it.

I'm tired of being insulted here. As I've said repeatedly, I'm willing to accept reasonable gun control measures. But I don't even want to talk about it until your side cuts the bullshit.

Bake

[Skittles]

24. nope, I see REALITY

that is EXACTLY how it is - for the GUN NUTS.....if you accept reasonable gun control you are not a real gun nut

[Bake]

31. I never claimed to be a real gun nut.

In fact, I've denied it a few times. But that hasn't stopped DUers (especially the newbies, I just LOVE that!) from calling me that and a lot worse. My favorite, by the way, was "pussy." That would get a post hidden in any other context. In re gun control, apparently that's now acceptable on DU.

Bake

[Skittles]

35. 20 massacred children brings out the emotions

it just seems strange that so many DUers seem more upset over being called names than by the endless massacres

[Bake]

38. As a responsible gun owner, yeah, I'm sick of the endless massacres too.

Sick of them.

But this is a discussion board, presumably for discussing issues. You can't have rational discussion when one side is throwing insults. If that makes me a PUSSY, then I don't need to hang around this place right now.

But I'll be goddamned if I get run off from DU by a bunch of ill-tempered brats who don't have the slightest idea of common courtesy on an internet discussion board.

Bake

[Mojorabbit]

62. Well said. nt

[Hoyt]

30. The gun culture's idea or "reasobable" is often just more of same.

[Bake]

32. You've made pretty clear what YOUR idea of "reasonable" is.

And you're dreaming. What you want will never happen.

Bake

[Hoyt]

45. I don't have to get 100% to slow down proliferation of guns, public toting, and the

celebration of lethal weapons we've had to watch for way too long.

[Skittles]

50. CORRECT

and frankly, America is SICK of then running the show with the predictible grisly results

[LibGranny]

99. If you can't stand the heat . . . . . . .

you know the rest! Buh bye

[Bake]

117. I can indeed stand the heat, newbie.

And I don't need a lecture from someone who hasn't even made it to the 700 Club.

Learn some manners. It'll make your (perhaps brief) stay here more pleasant.

"Buh bye"

Bake

[samsingh]

125. exactly. nothing to see here

[RoccoR5955]

18. Thanks for that lastlib

I am done with being nice to these folks too! They have blood on their hands, and they KNOW it! They are trying to live in their fantasies. They put up straw man arguments, like guns don't shoot people. I say, NO, people WITH guns shoot people. And what part of "well regulated militia," don't you understand, bunghole!

[Bake]

21. There's no blood on my hands.

Bake

[Robb]

34. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I mean yeah, one purchase at Walmart doesn't by itself destroy the fabric of America.

But I'm still not going to shop there.

[RoccoR5955]

84. Keep denying it, and perhaps

some day it will be true!

[Undismayed]

58. How about the part where words sometimes have meanings that are deeper

than face value. Well regulated means well equipped. Also, according to the militia act of 1903, the militia consists of ALL males ages 18 to 45. Implying that lawful gun owners have blood on their hands is laughable. By that logic, if you own a car and have ever consumed alcohol, you have blood on your hands because of the actions of drunk drivers. You will no doubt say this is a false equivalency. That's just how you rationalize things. Of course, you believe that guns are special because they are designed to kill. A gun is designed to accelerate bullets to high speeds and a car is designed to accelerate itself to high speeds. In the end, the operator decides what the use will be.

[handmade34]

71. ???

guns ARE designed to kill

a car is designed to transport people/things from one place to another... very few cases of deaths caused by people deliberately ramming into someone

for what it's worth... I think cars should be regulated much more strictly also

[Undismayed]

72. Guns are not designed to kill.

They are designed to emit a projectile. The user decides what the use is. Killing may be a result of the use of a gun just like a crash may be the result of driving an automobile.

[RoccoR5955]

86. I call BS

You know that guns were designed originally to hunt, and KILL animals.
Stop with the straw man right wing talking points!

[NYC Liberal]

109. Oh please. That's like saying a nuclear bomb is merely designed to split

atomic nuclei.

Guns were designed to kill or injure. You can argue that individual cases of killing or injuring were justified (shooting a burglar vs shooting an 10 year old innocent child), but that doesn't change the purpose of a gun.

[ThoughtCriminal]

73. Irregulars

are not "well regulated". Gun cultists are living in the 19th century.

To use the automobile analogy, If guns were cars, the NRA would be against requiring drivers to be licensed, pass tests and be insured.

[Recursion]

101. Cars aren't required to be licensed and insured except on public roads

You can drive an untagged car without a license on your back 40 all you want. (Your state my still excise it, but that's a different question.)

Similarly, in most states there are significant regulations about who can carry a gun in public and where.

[ThoughtCriminal]

114. How many running automobiles are not registered?

certainly we're looking at less than .001%.

Arizona is a model for what the NRA wants (no permit required for concealed carry). The gun lobby in this state gets pretty much anything (Guns in bars was OK with the GOP controlled legislature, but even Jan Brewer thought that was too far).

[RoccoR5955]

83. WRONG!

Guns are designed to kill things. Cars are designed to transport people.Plain and simple. I am tired of these old similes that are simply false! Your logic is a massive fail!
At the time the Constitution was written, well regulated meant regimented.

[malaise]

85. Jon Stewart agrees

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-january-8-2013-stanley-mcchrystal

[Gothmog]

102. Stewart made a good case last night

Stewart was in good form last night despite the fact that he was sick and had no voice.

[malaise]

103. He was excellent

[Bake]

19. You just lost me.

Your rhetoric is over the top. I'm willing to accept reasonable gun control measures, and have stated so repeatedly. People like you make me sick with the name-calling, and I ASSURE you I am not a "gun fanatic" and I don't have "precious toys" (well, I do, but they are NOT firearms). No reasonable gun owner is going to trust someone who can't discuss the issue rationally, without the name-calling. Your language makes us suspect you're really one of the "gun-grabbers."

Bake

[Agschmid]

23. If it's OTT alert on it... see what happens. n/t

Your language makes us suspect you're really one of the "gun-grabbers."

And loose the quotes... just call them that instead of hiding behind some strange faux liberal thing.

[Bake]

27. What's apparently de rigeur these days on DU, and what actually furthers discussion

Are, sadly, two different things, newbie.

And yeah, I think you're a gun-grabber.

Bake

[Agschmid]

40. And blocking another gun lovah...

Hold on to that barrel hard since it seems to be the only thing thats important.

[LanternWaste]

48. I also find it more convenient and much easier to hold others

"...don't have the slightest idea of common courtesy on an internet discussion board. "

"I think you're a gun-grabber..."

I also find it more convenient and much easier to hold others to higher standard than I hold myself. However, I'm quite certain you will rationalize your own pejoratives to yourself if not others.

[lastlib]

74. I didn't call you any names.

If you're willing to accept effective gun laws to stop the madness, then I have no problem with you. The Alex Joneses of the world, I have a problem with. But if "grabbing" guns is what it takes to stop the killing, then count me as a gun-grabber. It HAS.TO.STOP! If you have a reasonable, effective solution, I'll listen to it; hell, I'll hand-carry it to Congress myself, or help you--whatever works. If you aren't willing to work to get effective laws enacted, you're going to get run over, because change is coming. Give us your idea of "reasonable" measures, or you'll get someone else's idea of "reasonable"--maybe mine.

[Agschmid]

55. Well count me in to the

non-mainstream then.

I should not have to fear getting shot everyday at work, or just out and about. And no I should not have to buya gun to defend myself... that would kinda be a like a gun tax huh?

Gosh I'm over the gunners.

[Socal31]

69. Ignoring just how extreme and unlikely your post is, I still would like to put it in prospective.

I guess blood is on YOUR hands if you have ever purchased anything mind-altering from the street. We all know that most of the homicides that are ignored, which number far more than spree deaths, are due to drug crime.

Hell, anyone who has purchased a dime bag of crappy Mexican brick weed has the blood of tens of thousands of people right across our Southern border by your "theory." (Not sure who is smoking that garbage when CA has such quality, but watch Border Wars and that is all they catch).

Your position is a detriment to REAL reform. I dismissed your post as quickly as I would a nutter's post spouting off about how he needs a .50BMG rifle for hunting. And that means that most reasonable gun owners, who include a lot of voting Democrats and politicians, will as well.

No proposal that Biden's committee presents to Obama can guarantee no more Newtons or VTs or Columbines. Every day that we move away from the tragedy, the American public 24hr new cycle causes our amnesia to set in. Right about the time Biden proposes their committee's findings, it will be all fiscal-cliff talk, all the time again. People start to remember that there is a SCOTUS and a large-cross section of responsible, mentally healthy, legally armed citizens, as well as politicians that don't live in SF or NY, and would like to be re-elected.

If we lose the chance to get realistic gun reform passed in this country due to your over the top, (also homophobic, btw), out-of-touch, extreme disarming idea being all that is on the table, then the blood is on YOUR hands.

This is a chance for THOROUGH mental screening of gun buyers. Just like my Dr. would have to notify my state DMV if I had a seizure or dementia, I think anyone diagnosed with a major psychiatric problems should be red-flagged. Not automatically denied, but looked into a little more. The side effects of the crap that BigPharma shove down people's throats alone mean we need more monitoring.

This is a chance for a broader discussion of mental health in general as well. Please don't ruin it with name calling, generalizing, and frankly impossible proposals.

[lastlib]

75. Sorry to break your heart, but I've never bought any of that sh*t...

so, nope, no blood here.

If all you're proposing is mental screening, then I look forward to seeing your name in the database right under Wayne LaPierre's, Ted Nugent's and Alex Jones'. That's not gonna be enough. An outright ban on "military-style" (for lack of a handier short-hand term) weapons and high-capacity magazines is needed NOW. We can't wait for another twenty kids to die. You can help us get it, or you can get out of the way.

[Socal31]

79. I apologize if I assumed your goal-posts were not where I interpreted them to be.

There is broad support for laws like my home state (CA). I assumed from your tone, which I admit typed text does not have, unless bolded, capitalized, or underlined, that you were for an all-out ban.

It is obvious though you do not understand what a "military" style weapon is, or how one is defined by current state and previous federal law. Even some of the bills floating around would not significantly change the weapons on the market.

If your goal is to give no crazed human being the ability to kill multiple people in a short period of time, I am sad to say that is impossible. Confiscation of "military" style weapons is impossible, and I don't think any legislator or LEO is volunteering to be the first one knocking on doors in Juneau or Helena. Forget solid (R) territory, I don't think any politician in rural Oregon or Washington is willing to end their career for a failed over-reaching bill either. Even Diane's bill includes grandfathering.

If you can name something that is out-right illegal, other than items that only governments have ever possessed (weapons, pathogens, etc), I can show how to get it in your mailbox in 5 days or less if you pay extra. No bill or ban will ever protect your child from someone who is sick and has the determination to kill. Only an alert society re: mental health, and legal gun-owners keeping their guns safe from theft (bio-metric safes) can reduce the chances of something like this happening.

It wasn't that long ago a deranged man in China went on a stabbing spree (last month maybe?). Unguarded children are a major weakness. In any state, in any State, on any inhabited continent in the world, no matter the gun laws. I am sure the Dutch, Mexicans, and Norwegians can attest to this.

I am all for progressive laws to wards screening who owns and what they own depending on their background. Hell, I think even NRA members are for these ideas.

But hey, it isn't like we would ever regret blindly giving up civil rights due to tragedy, right? (Looking at you "Patriot" Act).

On a side note, you didn't really address my comparison. If someone here on DU has bough a product that reached this country via Mexico, do they have the blood of the 13,000+ shot, tortured, and beheaded Mexican citizens in 2011 alone?

We all (mostly) want the same thing. Both fringes are coming out losers in this one. Lets get some real measures in place before the 2014 election is all any politician thinks about.

[greyghost]

100. Beautiful post, I share your anger and resolve. eom

[lastlib]

115. Thank you. And may the Force be with you!

Maybe we can't get rid of all the assault weapons out there, but, ferchristsakes, we don't have to make it EASY for every Joe Redneck to get one--or two or ten. And I'm NOT going to throw up my hands and say it's hopeless to get change because of the big, bad NRA. If they're going to get in the way of effective change this time, they are going to get run over by a very large and powerful truck. I'm determined that Newtown will be the LAST time kids are murdered because gun fanatics wail and scream about someone taking their toys. Let them have their tantrum, or grow up and let a little sanity in.

[graham4anything]

12. I don't advocate a total ban. People can keep em in your home, with a sign on the door

but I want a total ban in the streets

protecting your home has nothing to do with someone bringing a gun into a bar, restaurant, movie theatre, supermarket, etc.

zimmy wasn't protecting himself, being that he was not in danger when he called cops and they told him to back off
(and in reality, Mr. Martin, according to the law, would have been quite proper in getting a gun and using against zimmy as Mr. Martin's life was in clear danger from the zimmy who just shot him to watch him die.

[Hoyt]

33. The carrying in public has really gotten out of control.

[Undismayed]

70. You can squirm and rant all you like, but you've lost on that issue.

The recent appellate court decision regarding Illinois' ban on CCW shows that this is a decided issue.

[calimary]

98. As "decided" as Roe v Wade?

The answer, as we've seen - even with cases that have gone all the way to the Supreme Court, is: not necessarily.

And Welcome to DU, btw. Some of us have rather deep feelings about this issue. Rather deep, indeed.

I really like what I just heard our Vice President say - about how tragedies like the Newtown CT massacre "awaken the conscience of the country." They do indeed. And I think it's been WAY too long in coming.

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. Precisely.

The continual name-calling, the tiresome, idiotic sexual references, the horseshit amateur psychoanalysis...you'd think the more strident pro-control side was comprised exclusively of poorly-socialized middle-schoolers. They're getting in the way of responsible people on their side just like the hardcore teanderthals get in the way of gun owners who support reasonable regulations.

Fortunately, they're also massively over-represented here at DU. The adults will actually be the ones to determine the way forward.

[Berserker]

16. + 100,000,000

Well said.
Gifford and her husband both own guns and support the 2A. Damn lucky they never tried to post on DU with that attitude they would be bombarded with name calling and told to fuck off by the gun grabbers on here.
In the interview they both state that some form of gun control is just a start of solving the problem. Not the problem solver.

[Bake]

22. +Infinity

Well said.

Bake

[Robb]

36. How dare those poorly-socialized middle schoolers call me names!

Protip: while it's great for piling bullshit high, you cannot find the moral high ground with that shovel.

[Lizzie Poppet]

80. Not looking for moral high ground.

I mean...I'm posting here, after all. If I was "better than that," I wouldn't indulge in counterattacks...and I do. Only human...

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. I will ask AGAIN the same question you are unwilling to answer

How many of these DU'ers calling for an outright ban on ALL gun ownership in the United States has the ACTUAL power to actually IMPLEMENT this policy change?

That is your reality check.

Registration, and 100% background checks is NOT GUN OWNERSHIP BANNNG.

You are tired of the insults? Use the ignore feature if you want to hide your head in the sand...change is coming. At this point, all protestations to the contrary, you equate any change, to gun banng.

Once again, none is coming for your pea shooter, or mine for that matter.

[malaise]

59. +1,000

[daschess1987]

53. You may be right. Perhaps a total ban on guns is unrealistic.

Maybe we should just set our sights on eliminating the gun show loopholes, banning assault rifles or high-capacity magazines. I say we hit all three and then slice off some more salami with a total ban as the primary target.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. Total ban is a dream

There are actually valid uses to guns. In the ranch they are but one more tool...serious. And I live in a city and grew up in one as well.

Look at Canada, if you want to shoot high in regulations, no pun.

[onehandle]

82. The gungeon is pro-gun. Most DUers are pro-gun control, but were not allowed to talk about it in GD.

Almost no pro-gun control person would even go in there.

Now we can talk about what the Majority of DU wants.

Sensible gun control.

I won't go back to being silenced. And I will Never go into the gungeon.

[pipoman]

87. Promise?

[morningfog]

52. Concern noted.

[Politicub]

106. Your post is quite useless

Maybe if the NRA wasn't so packed with douches people would pay attention to what they say.

I put them in the same category as high capacity magazines - absolutely useless unless your goal is to shoot to kill masses of people.

[samsingh]

124. did you see the guest on Morgan's show on CNN?

[PatrynXX]

10. can only hope so

this discussion usually dies in a couple of months

[Deep13]

76. Nope. The free for all is over. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. You said the same thing 3 1/2 years ago, and it didn't happen

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022155570#post3

Nothing is going to stop gun control from advancing. Not this time. nt

[graham4anything]

5. The NRA is dead. They just don't realize it was from a wound that can't heal.

it may take time,(most likely 6 years to have a complete election cleansing cycle of the senate and 3 trips at bat for the house to come,and each governor, but each death is on the hands of the NRA and those that back them

[PatrynXX]

11. NRA is only dead if..

they continue to fail to listen to their own members

[Hoyt]

37. Their members aren't what they are there for.

And sorry, a whole lot of their members are right wing bigots perfectly happy with the NRA's right wing agenda.

And, they don't let people walk around with guns at their events, like we are forced to put up with through laws passed with help of NRA lobbying funds.

[Undismayed]

66. "Their members aren't what they are there for"

The profit margins on an ar-15 probably aren't that much different from a bolt action rifle. If you are implying a corporate conspiracy, your evidence is lacking.

[Hoyt]

68. Bolt actions don't get yahoos excited. They are not sexyalethal enough for those who covet guns

[SQUEE]

90. The vast majority of people at the range would disagree with you.

My most precious Precious is a Bolt action .338 Lapua.
Also my most lethal, and its the one everyone outside of a total banner is ok with me having. Odd that. dont you think?

[Hoyt]

96. Go look at what is being sold at gun stores/shows.

Do you have any semi-autos, and/or carry in public? That's really where concern is.

Who wants yahoos like this walking around in town, or living upstairs?

&feature=related

[SQUEE]

97. I have previously discussed that yes I have semis and have a CCW

I have it for convenience to transport to and from the range, facilitate instruction and as a proof to people that do FTF sales of my legal standing. I do not generally carry as it is too strenuous psychologically to have to maintain the proper level of situational awareness that SHOULD be kept while carrying. It basically gets in the way of enjoying myself while I am out.

[Undismayed]

54. Fantasy is fun, but please try to stay within reality when you post.

[pipoman]

94. Nonsense.

The louder the gun controllers yell, the more memberships the NRA sells. They aren't going anywhere soon.

[Cha]

17. Gabby and Mark came back from

gun Violence Hell to help our Nation move forward on Sensible gun laws.

She's come so far and is such a miracle.. look how healthy she looks now!

Thanks malaise

[malaise]

25. Yes her resolve on this matter is inspiring

but in reality she is lucky to be alive. What a great couple.

[Hoyt]

26. Hopefully they'll pass something tough, and not just some crud that keeps guns flowing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Closing the loophole and 100% background checks

Will actually go a long way. That means the end of straw purchases at the usual places.

[jmg257]

39. Nad, How does banning private sales & 100% background checks end straw purchases?

That I do not see...???

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Straw purchases are covered by background checks

But also the 40% of private saes with zero background.

[jmg257]

46. I think if combined with registration, theres a better chance. Otherwise straw buyers,

already knowing they are breaking the laws, will just pass them along check be damned, won't they?

What the heck am i missing!?

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. That it will reduce it.

Saturday night specials will continue to flow.

But this reduction will show in less gun violence.

[Ikonoklast]

116. If that firearm ends up in the hands of a criminal because you didn't check his elegibility to own,

you will have broken a Federal law.

If it is registered to you, they will know where to find you.

None of this, "I lost it" crap.

No police report on a theft, no declaration of loss, better have a good attorney.

[jeff47]

104. Could easily add some other rules to help with that

A couple top-of-the-head ideas:

The registered owner is liable for the gun until they report it stolen. So the straw purchasers get to go to jail too.

After (number to be determined) times you report your guns stolen, you're banned from buying any more.

[Hoyt]

41. We need to take the excitement and callousness out of "Guns."

Need to turn guns into the cigarettes, animal fur coats, polluters, etc., of this decade. Need to get rid of stand your ground laws, SEVERELY restrict public toting. Tax heck out of ammo, an annual tax on each gun (especially semi-autos) over first, and more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Yeah, but there are steps

And developing momentum. In my mind California laws should be the basement for Federal laws...patience.

[jmg257]

47. New York seems like they are about to get ALOT tougher too. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. New York, Cali, Ct.

Incidentally less gun violence too.



Cali and NY have closed those loopholes as well.

[malaise]

63. Just head on Lawrence - 85% of children who die from guns on the planet

are in the United States. That is frightening and the pro-gun nuts want to give property rights to day old female eggs

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Which is an incredible statistic

Isn't it?

[malaise]

65. Shocking! n/t

[pipoman]

88. Likely actually is "incredible" lacking a source..

[malaise]

89. Here

https://twitter.com/Our4thEstate/statuses/288906225880551424

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. A third-hand argument from authority

[malaise]

140. Huh?

One thing for sure - more people are serious this time. Change is coming!

[SQUEE]

91. Also insurance and training requirements

I even think a tiered ownership level, as long as you can keep the education and training "term neutral" and the insurance reasonable and non punitive.

[pipoman]

95. The realities of this are, well, realities..

Without the states making background checks mandatory for intrastate private sales, this isn't going to happen. Most states don't have the budget to implement their own background check system, and there is no reasonable way for private sellers to access the existing NICS system. If anything at all is going to be done about private, intrastate sales, I believe it will start out looking something like this..

[malaise]

43. I think this time will be different

[riverwalker]

67. we can help

this is her organisation

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/

[Demo_Chris]

77. We were also serious about single payer healthcare and tax hikes for the wealthy

More so actually. We are not even united as a party in favor of significant gun control, nor did President Obama run on the issue. I'll give you this much: I believe our President is probably almost as committed to gun control as he is to protecting social security or fixing any of a hundred critical issues facing us today.

Anyway, if you want to see serious action on gun control you first need to do at least one of these two things:

1. You need to stop attacking gun owners and instead open a line of communication and get them on board.

2. You need to think outside the box and come up with a plan that allows Goldman Sachs to make a profit off the idea. Do that and BOTH parties will vote for it.

[libdem4life]

78. Is the second photo of Gabby? Sure brings it home hard...wow. Count me in, Gabby.

[malaise]

81. Yes

Click the link

[libdem4life]

110. Thanks. I often don't click the links when it's a hard subject.

[2ndAmForComputers]

92. I admit. I squirmed.

[pipoman]

93. As with all legislation

it must be constitutional based on case law and SCOTUS precedent. Of coarse the other option is a constitutional amendment, and if enough people are in fact serious, that shouldn't be a problem. Of coarse there are some things which can be done constitutionally, but many who are most vocal on the topic of gun control can't or won't consider them...things may change, they will not satisfy those who refuse to see the issue as it really is.

[Politicub]

105. Gabriel Giffords is my hero

What an inspiration.

[malaise]

107. Indeed

I'm on her side here

[SunSeeker]

108. All guns should be required to have registration stickers.

Hell, cars are required to have registration stickers that you must renew every year.

These gun registration stickers would have a bar code that can be scanned by any smartphone. It would provide the registered owner's name, address, results of background check, and a list of other weapons owned. It would also provide the information for making claims against the gun owner's liability insurance, which all gun owners would be required to have in order to own a gun--just like you must have to drive a car.

Any guns found without stickers would be immediately confiscated. Owners would have a certain period of time--60 days or so--to show the gun was registered but the sticker fell off. All unregistered guns would be destroyed.

[libdem4life]

113. Tax, register, re-register on a regular basis, insure, VIN number heat-stamped, background check

attend a training class...one for proper gun usage and storage, and a second to include children if there are any in the home.

Heavy fines and/or legal consequences and likely confiscation if the gun is involved in any crime and a Police Report taken and filed. The owner, if not reported stolen, will be charged. Insurance is required for each firearm, cost dependent on capacity to kill...single shot, vs multiple shot war machines. Payouts to victim/s and for property damage incurred and must carry an insurance card, along with registration card to show, if needed. No weapon or ammunition that is meant primarily for multiple-shot murder or war...NONE.

As to those currently in distribution, strict laws regarding their updated registration, taxation, and storage. Added legal ramifications for a domestic/family crime...intended or unintended such as a child accidentally killing or wounding someone, the owner of the gun is liable...see insurance...and other injured may also sue for damages. Situations involving guns and alcohol or drugs...legal or illegal...heavier penalties. Un-registered and un-insured guns are confiscated.

Other than some inconveniences, in theory, and taking responsibility for the entire gun community...like automobile drivers are...any law-abiding gun/s owner should not object too much to this.

The insurance factor is spreading the costs across the base...like car or health insurance. The taxpayer...a majority of whom do not own guns, ultimately pay for it through higher healthcare insurance rates, damage to public property, survivor's crisis, public legal ramifications or the businesses whose livelihood are disturbed or destroyed. Insurer's who feel they were hurt by Obamacare, can go after this market...apparently it is huge.

It is ludicrous to task the mental health industry ...counseling and temporary mental hospital stays and pharmeceuticals...with this responsibility as there is nothing significant it can do, as an industry. Family Law folk, especially, understand the desired task is to stabilize the person or defuse the interaction, and return them home. Neither can anyone be arrested "before they actually do something".

Earlier posts have described the nigh impossibility of declaring someone "mentally ill" or "incapacitated" and the tremendous financial and public legal costs. And one can't just go around and label someone mentally unfit for the hell of it...there are slander laws that prevent that unless a judge has declared it legally. The money is better spent in gun management.

And vowing to "do something" about the society of poverty and racism and video games and violent movies et al, is doomed. Any positive movement in those areas would be helpful, but again, the gun community must come to terms with the fact that with rights come responsibilities.

Unless one is as bat shit crazy as Alex Jones and fear FEMA or and UN or the government-is-coming-after-us-Waco-types , there are only two main reasons I can see to own weaponry...one for in the home self-protection, and the other for hunting or target ranges, etc.

Good luck, Gabby and Mark. Your work will raise our consciousness.

[LibGranny]

119. Maintain a national data base on guns much like the one for

criminals and if a gun is used in a crime, you may find out where it originated or who is the owner. I think ANYONE who needs to hunt using a high-capacity magazine SHOULD NOT be hunting. By the time they're finished shooting the prey, there would be nothing left! Those guns and magazine are for killing people - not animals and should only be availabe to the police and military!

[davidn3600]

120. Why does a police officer need a high capacity magazine?

How many times do they have to shoot a suspect?

[libdem4life]

122. Uniformed police have an uneasy relationship with this issue which I haven't even heard

mentioned this time around the gun management issue. Internally, probably because they are first responders and see the carnage, especially in domestic violence cases, they are usually in favor of getting guns out of the hands of the average person. OTOH, many are right wing/conservative which at this point in time creates a political conflict.

[LibGranny]

137. Well, actually, I guess they don't except to use them against the

assault rifles/high capacity magazines which will probably remain in the hands of criminals and kooks.

[samsingh]

118. these are true heros

not the assholes from the nra who didn't give a shit about children and other people getting shot

[malaise]

121. 100% correct

and there will be change this time

[samsingh]

123. thanks

[libdem4life]

126. In a very perverse way, the NRA gets stronger after each televised murder/attack.

As does the weapons industry. Frightened people race out and buy weapons...probably money needed to take care of their family, but the change in priorities fearing for their lives. So, new and more weapons for the family.

What is missing, is consequences...as in liability...expensive insurance for each weapon...reregistration. Just the simple act of an auto knocking down a street light...that person's insurance must pay for it and if one does not have adequate insurance, the City may pursue the individual. Consequences are geometrically increased if drug or alcohol impaired.

Now, think of the cost to the Newtown community, or even a "small" gun crime. And what happens? People's lives are ruined, physically and emotionally, children lose parents, parents lose spouses, perhaps can't go back to work, SS disability, lose homes, businesses lose crucial business, repairs, police hours, overtime, lack of attention to other cases, etc. But, voila !! The NRA and weapons manufacturers actually get richer and become, as a result, more powerful.

How hard would it be to require weapon insurance? The higher and faster the shot capacity, the higher the insurance. For each incident, not only a police report, but a dollar figure emerges and is presented to the shooter. Has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd Amendment or the rights to keep and bear guns.

[malaise]

130. Consequence is very important issue - the problem is that

no one pays if the person is uninsured and kills himself as part of the slaughter

[libdem4life]

133. Not so fast. It is the gun that is insured. Not necesarily the person.

If someone steals a car (gun) and has a fatal accident (suicide/murder) ... licensed or unlicensed, expired registration or not, drunk or sober, and if the car was not reported as stolen, legally the owner would be liable ... same for his/her weapon. Also, there is Uninsured Motorist (uninsured or stolen gun/owner) insurance which is another source of revenue/coverage which at worst, would avail the victim's family. The action may be pursued against the shooter's estate, as there is often a life insurance policy if not personal/family funds, and if a minor, the parents.

In the end given the cost of purchase, licensing, registration, high-priced ammo, liability insurance for the life of the weapon, not even a criminal would be nearly as likely to chance even "suicide by police"...which describes most of the mindsets of the most psychotic...just envision "going out in a blaze of glory". Kind of hard to do with just a "little" gun or a hunting knife.

I doubt under these rules, Nancy Lanza, or any normal but paranoid person, would have purchased/hoarded multiple weapons of protection/murder. Yet, her estate and life insurance payout will likely bring a tidy sum of money to comfort her family. How many 6-year old's lives were insured and famies financially comforted?

In any case, I argue not for banning or even too much controlling other than increased costs for purchase, upkeep, financial responsibility and liability. There would be many fewer gun crimes based on the high cost/liability/responsbility...even for "criminals". And the criminal punishment, absolute minimum prison time of some number of years to max of life. The added space in jail needed could be accomplished by letting out and not further pursuing non-violent pot users.

I believe that we, as a nation, would soon determine by default, just how many weapons are truly needed for personal/family protection or hunting.

[malaise]

136. Interesting

[farminator3000]

127. the nra is starting to sound more desperate all the time

In a radio interview this week, NRA President David Keene criticized Biden and President Obama over their anti-gun violence efforts, calling it a political project.

"I think they're being disingenuous," Keene said, CBS News reported. "I think that they see this as an opportunity to go after the Second Amendment, which they've wanted to do for years, if not decades, and I think they're going to do everything they can to strip Americans of their right to keep and bear arms."

Biden and Obama have said they respect the Second Amendment right of gun ownership, but are looking for ways to keep weapons out of the wrong hands in the wake of last month's elementary school shooting in Connecticut.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/01/10/obama-biden-david-keene-national-rifle-association/1822637/

***

Why can we open our front doors with our iPhones and have cars that drive themselves, but we can’t make a gun that doesn’t fire unless its registered owner is using it?

“We can,” Dr. Spitzer said. “These safety options exist today. This is not Buck Rogers type of stuff.” But gun advocates are staunchly against these technologies, partly because so many guns are bought not in gun shops, but in private sales. “Many guns are bought and sold on the secondary market without background checks, and that kind of sale would be inhibited with fingerprinting-safety technologies in guns,” he said.

I called several major gun makers and the National Rifle Association. No one thinks a smart-gun will stop a determined killer. But I thought Smith & Wesson and Remington, for instance, would want to discuss how technology might help reduce accidental shootings, which killed 600 people and injured more than 14,000 in the United States in 2010. The gunmakers did not respond, and neither did the N.R.A.

A Wired magazine article from 2002 gives a glimpse of the N.R.A.’s thinking. “Mere mention of ‘smart-gun’ technology elicited sneers and snickers faster than a speeding bullet,” the magazine wrote. It quoted the N.R.A.’s executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, as saying, “Tragic victims couldn’t have been saved by trigger locks or magazine bans or ‘smart-gun’ technology, or some new government commission running our firearms companies.”
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/disruptions-smart-gun-technology-could-prevent-massacres-like-newtown/

[samsingh]

128. kick

[farminator3000]

129. "Big donors hope to challenge NRA on gun control "

Texas attorney Steve Mostyn, who along with his wife donated about $5 million to Democratic super PACs last year, gave $1 million Wednesday to the new super PAC set up by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly.

-skip-

Mostyn told Reuters he hopes to raise “enough money to compete on an even-keel basis with the NRA on the cycle, which would be $16 to $20 million.” The NRA spent nearly $18 million during the 2012 election, and through September, it spent more than $2 million on lobbying the federal government.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/big-donors-hope-to-challenge-nra-on-gun-control-86003.html

[malaise]

132. Great news

The fight back is on in earnest

[farminator3000]

131. "Joe Biden and NRA have long history of antagonism"

But during the general election campaign, Biden sought to play up his blue collar roots and the fact that he owned guns.

“I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” Biden said in rural Virginia, according to ABC News. “Don’t buy that malarkey. They’re going to start peddling that to you.”

“I got two,” Biden said. “If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem. I like that little over and under, you know? I’m not bad with it. So give me a break. Give me a break.”

* Later in the campaign, the NRA ran a tough ad in Pennsylvania, the state when Biden was born, criticizing his record on guns.

“Joe Biden wants you to believe he shares your values because he was born in Scranton,” the ad says. “But Pennsylvania gun owners and hunters don’t share his values.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/10/biden-and-nra-have-long-history-of-antagonism/?wprss=rss_campaigns

the bold part sounds like an onion article! is he being slightly pervy by accident? go uncle joe! the NRA!

***

http://www.theonion.com/articles/biden-says-life-better-than-it-was-4-years-ago-but,29477/

Dressed in a slightly ripped Lynyrd Skynyrd T-shirt, Biden tapped the top of an Icehouse tallboy, cracked it open, and then informed the 20,000 people in attendance that while the economy is no longer hemorrhaging jobs as it was in 2008, nothing, “not even that little trip I took to Thailand in ’92,”...

[farminator3000]

134. the old Doc on Gunsmoke (ironically) just summed it up in one line

i just caught a brief moment- he said to a lady something like-

"guns save more lives than they take"

which WAS true at some point, but CERTAINLY isn't anymore...

just throwin' that out there...wonder if you could pinpoint where that changed?

st. valentine's day?

[farminator3000]

135. Biden gives hints on guns; NRA criticizes after meeting with VP

But Biden on Thursday cast the coming recommendations as coming from the groups he has met and not the administration. He said he's repeatedly been told there's a need for universal background checks on those who purchase guns, and that a ban on high-capacity magazines is necessary.

"There is a surprising — so far — a surprising recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks, not just close the gun show loophole but totally universal background checks including private sales," Biden added.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/276539-biden-gun-violence-proposals-will-hit-obamas-desk-by-tuesday

***

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/nyregion/new-york-nears-gun-control-tightening-laws.html?pagewanted=1
In his State of the State address Wednesday, the governor told lawmakers it was their duty to “stop the madness” of violence.

“Forget the extremists — it’s simple,” Mr. Cuomo said to a crescendo of applause. “No one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer.”

***

"I can't imagine a better team," writes novelist Douglas Anthony Cooper in a Huffington Post op-ed Wednesday titled "Now We Know Who's Going to Take Down the NRA." Bloomberg alone has "singlehandedly demonstrated that the NRA can indeed be conquered in the manner proposed: by doing precisely what [NRA chief lobbyist Wayne] LaPierre's militia does, with comparable funding, and – here's the crucial difference – principles."

-skip-

Meanwhile, Giffords, Bloomberg, Cuomo, and a handful of other high-profile figures are expected to ramp up a well-funded ground campaign to try to challenge the NRA and its opposition to any kind of gun control.

"If they continue to make it a priority, it could succeed," says Spitzer.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0110/Gun-control-dream-team-is-born-Can-it-rival-NRA-for-political-firepower