HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Gun Control? We Need Dome...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:37 AM

 

Gun Control? We Need Domestic Disarmament (Huffington Post)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/gun-control-we-need-domes_b_2718536.html

Nowhere is the defeatist liberal approach to American politics more evident than in the post-Newtown campaign for gun control. Liberals are rushing to repeat, like a devout incantation, hand on one's heart, that "we believe in the Second Amendment" -- in an "individual's right to own a gun." Half of the legal and moral battle is lost right there and then. Instead, liberals should emphasize that throughout the total American legal history until 2008, the Supreme Court -- which at times has been very conservative -- has always held that the right to own guns belongs not to the individual but, as the Second Amendment states, to a "well regulated militia." (For details on the cases involved, go here). That the right to own guns is a communitarian right, not an individualized one. True, the Roberts Court recently ruled otherwise, but liberals are still free to urge the court to reconsider this ruling and fashion arguments that will make it easier for the Court to fall back in line with all who preceded it. It would also help to recall that other civilized societies hold that the fewer guns there are out there, the fewer people will be murdered by guns.

...

As someone who fired guns for over two years in combat, I hate to tell you that the conservatives are right when they argue that banning big magazines and assault rifles -- the current "liberal" opening gambits -- will make very little difference. It takes only a second or so to replace an empty magazine with a loaded one, and there are so many assault rifles out there that it would take at least a generation (assuming no new ones were sold nor imported nor smuggled in nor stolen from military bases) before these guns would become significantly less available than they are at present.

...

A true liberal position, the place to start, is to call for domestic disarmament. That is the banning of the sale of all guns to private parties coupled with a buyback of those on the street (Mexico just moved to so control guns). Collectors can keep their guns as long as they remove the firing pin or fill the barrel with cement. Gun sports can be allowed -- in closed shooting ranges. And hunters can be allowed to have long guns (if they pass background checks) with no scopes, which are not sporting. But, these exceptions aside, liberals should call for a gun-free nation and point out the much lower murder rates and fewer deaths due to accidental discharge of fire arms found in those civilized nations where most guns have been removed from private hands -- and often even from those of the police.

(excerpt, full article at link)

102 replies, 5781 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 102 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun Control? We Need Domestic Disarmament (Huffington Post) (Original post)
Peter cotton Feb 2013 OP
NaturalHigh Feb 2013 #1
RC Feb 2013 #8
roxy1234 Feb 2013 #14
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #90
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #10
malaise Feb 2013 #94
Taverner Feb 2013 #34
mattclearing Feb 2013 #96
Brainstormy Feb 2013 #2
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #3
MadHound Feb 2013 #4
slackmaster Feb 2013 #5
Mojorabbit Feb 2013 #28
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #6
ZombieHorde Feb 2013 #51
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #52
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #59
Scuba Feb 2013 #7
DollarBillHines Feb 2013 #80
krispos42 Feb 2013 #9
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #11
dairydog91 Feb 2013 #21
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #23
dairydog91 Feb 2013 #25
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #35
MicaelS Feb 2013 #12
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #17
Kolesar Feb 2013 #29
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #45
closeupready Feb 2013 #13
Puzzledtraveller Feb 2013 #100
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #15
hack89 Feb 2013 #16
dairydog91 Feb 2013 #22
Lurker Dave Feb 2013 #24
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #63
OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #30
IveWornAHundredPants Feb 2013 #82
actslikeacarrot Feb 2013 #18
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #19
rrneck Feb 2013 #20
graham4anything Feb 2013 #26
Ghost in the Machine Feb 2013 #47
whatchamacallit Feb 2013 #98
OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #27
dairydog91 Feb 2013 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #32
IveWornAHundredPants Feb 2013 #83
SpartanDem Feb 2013 #33
mwrguy Feb 2013 #36
oneshooter Feb 2013 #37
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #38
mwrguy Feb 2013 #42
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #43
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #39
OceanEcosystem Feb 2013 #40
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #41
oneshooter Feb 2013 #46
guardian Feb 2013 #49
NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #44
closeupready Feb 2013 #54
guardian Feb 2013 #48
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #50
guardian Feb 2013 #70
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #75
Hoyt Feb 2013 #53
closeupready Feb 2013 #55
Hoyt Feb 2013 #56
Cork Feb 2013 #58
Hoyt Feb 2013 #60
Cork Feb 2013 #61
Hoyt Feb 2013 #64
Cork Feb 2013 #66
Hoyt Feb 2013 #102
CTyankee Feb 2013 #68
Cork Feb 2013 #69
CTyankee Feb 2013 #71
Cork Feb 2013 #72
CTyankee Feb 2013 #73
Cork Feb 2013 #74
Cork Feb 2013 #57
Hoyt Feb 2013 #62
Cork Feb 2013 #65
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #67
rdharma Feb 2013 #77
wercal Feb 2013 #76
valiberal26 Feb 2013 #78
uppityperson Feb 2013 #79
actslikeacarrot Feb 2013 #81
Abq_Sarah Feb 2013 #84
X_Digger Feb 2013 #85
valiberal26 Feb 2013 #86
X_Digger Feb 2013 #87
valiberal26 Feb 2013 #88
Rhiannon12866 Feb 2013 #89
Abq_Sarah Feb 2013 #91
Rhiannon12866 Feb 2013 #92
closeupready Feb 2013 #101
dballance Feb 2013 #93
X_Digger Feb 2013 #97
JVS Feb 2013 #95
DanTex Feb 2013 #99

Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:45 AM

1. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."

I'm going to stick with that and say good day, sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:07 AM

8. It is not so simple.

 



As apposed to this:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #8)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:07 PM

14. What a ridiculous thing to say

 

You know what else they did not include, the right to eat, take a dump etc etc. They might that thought that those things were commonsense ideas that they didnt have to explicitly write it down as an amendment. But the line from the declaration of independence should at least reassure you that they were not all women killers like you imagine em to be.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

It is also very telling how your are only concerned about protection of women and children because we all know men dont need any of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roxy1234 (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 02:08 AM

90. What a fucking stupid thing to say.

Saying that women's rights are implied in the Constitution, in fact, may be the fucking stupidest thing anyone has EVER said. Commonsense ideas my ass. The fact that women couldn't vote until the 1920s, that women were considered property, and that men could rape their wives at will should tell you something about "women's rights" in colonial times. My god. Can you really be that dumb?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:21 AM

10. Per usual the two clauses, of which that is dependent, are ignored

Last edited Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Please try not to ignore the other two clauses, or the history that gave rise to it. Trust me, Jefferson and Madisson, polar opposites in many ways, would be rather confused by the Heller decision. (The heart of the argument of the OP)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:17 AM

94. 100% correct

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:54 PM

34. Where is your well regulated militia?

 

There is a second part ya know

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NaturalHigh (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:35 AM

96. Nevermind the bit about a well-regulated militia? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:46 AM

2. Finally

someone has stated MY position. Every time I hear someone with a puny proposal mumble, "but of course we don't want to take your guns away," I think, I do. I do! I would love to live in a gun free nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:49 AM

3. Meh.

Fill barrels with cement, eliminate scopes, turn in or sell all guns?

These thing will never happen here.

Nor should they ever happen here.

We should just put all our faith in the National Guard, State Police, and the US Army?

Nope, I don't think so.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:50 AM

4. Perhaps the reason that there is no call for all out disarmament is very simple,

 

There is no public support for it. At any given time, even now after the shootings at Newton and Aurora, two thirds to three quarters of the American public support the right of Americans to own guns.

You have to accomplish what can be done, which is gun control. Trying for drastic, dramatic, undoable measures like getting rid of all guns in private hands only alienates a lot of people, and makes it much harder to achieve the doable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:51 AM

5. Complete disarmament, EXCEPT of course for government employees

 

Typical authoritarian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:14 PM

28. and dressing it up all the while as a liberal cause.

Weird. The latest plank I can find for the Democratic party is
We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms.
http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/democratic_party_gun_control.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:47 AM

6. And some here claim that no one wants to take them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:49 AM

51. Those who wish bans like this are an extreme minority. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #51)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:58 AM

52. The question is how much of a minority

Yes they are extreme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:41 AM

59. Yep. Controller talking point, excepted as gospel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:52 AM

7. Nah, that's just scare tactics from the NRA. I'm as liberal as they come ...

... and a gun owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #7)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:02 PM

80. Yep

Same here.

There is no way - under no conditions - that I would voluntarily surrender any of my firearms.

I cannot understand this hysteria. The problem is certain people coupled with certain societal sicknesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:13 AM

9. The RKBA was effectively an individual right pretty much through our nation's history anyway.

It's not like the 2008 decision tore down roadblocks to buying guns for the general public.




And I don't know of any other "communitarian rights". I've heard this argument before and still don't understand it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:23 AM

11. If the Second Amendment wasn't about an armed citizenry, why the hell did they write it?

An armed police force or army was a given.

The author argues for "communitarian rights" but doesn't seem to be interested in describing what that would look like.

Would he accept a non-governmental militia, like a well-regulated "shooting club", with a well-regulated arsenal?

I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:41 PM

21. Additionally, there is a major question in the "State's Rights" argument...

What if a very rural, very red state like Idaho declares that all citizens over the age of 18 are members of the Idaho People's Militia, with a narrow exception for people who have shown themselves unfit for militia service (History of violent behavior or such)? Furthermore, what if Idaho declares that such members of the Idaho People's Militia may purchase and keep at home arms appropriate for frontline military service, including machineguns and rocket launchers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:53 PM

23. Then heads would explode.

Their arguments fail.

Proponents of an outright gun ban and confiscation, like the other and some DU members, want us to believe that these are different times, that we don't need the Second Amendment, and that we can trust the police and the army for all our needs, forever and ever!

I call that crazy talk right there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:05 PM

25. I think the Second Amendment should be amended.

Realistically, I imagine the only thing that could get through the Amendment process would be an Amendment which prohibits most Federal-level gun laws while leaving states broad latitude to regulate (Federal gov. probably limited to banning interstate transfers of weapons into states which have laws against them).

I agree with the proposed "ends" of the "state's rights" or "collective rights" argument, namely that states should have broad authority to choose their own gun laws. I think that reading the existing Second to allow for broad gun control or gun prohibition requires one to resort to interpretive methods which are of dubious credibility and which are potentially destructive to other Constitutional rights; For example, reading a right "of the people" to only protect a right of the states or of a select group of people who are members of state-controlled entities. The other Constitutional rights belonging to "the people" protect all Americans, not just specific subgroups of Americans chosen by the state or Federal governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dairydog91 (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 05:46 PM

35. Rocket launchers are completely legal.

A rocket launcher is nothing more than an empty tube with a battery, a switch, and some wire. If your rocket is big enough you can make a rocket launcher from a piece of rope and a couple of trees. It is the rocket that is tightly controlled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:46 AM

12. Next time someone here says "they" don't want to ban all guns...

I can point to Etzioni's opinion piece.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:18 PM

17. Both sides have fringe folks who scream loudly

But you knew that.

Regardless, the sacred texts do have the concept of change in them, and they were not given by god to man at mt. Sinai. I know this s shocking, but the originalist position, (Jefferson) is for these documents to...I know shocking, evolve and change with the times. He, in fact, believed a new Constitution was needed every generation.

Not this generation, but as the US becomes an increasingly urban culture I can see a serious change in the Second...countries do evolve.

I at times think a historian who once said democracy came too early to the US might have a modicum of a point. In some ways whole swaths of the population are still stuck in the 17 century...why things like national health care and a safety net are seen as "un american."

Yes, even the view of the second is changing...and a few, more than a few, are looking at the Second and actually taking a more we look at it, instead of I, which Heller did not get rid off either. It still gives the state the right to regulate and an AWB is not against that ruling either.

Nor does it mean anybody is coming to take away my guns.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:14 PM

29. Slavery was the other fatal flaw in our 18th century Constitution

...Who or what were the framers of our government, that they should dare confirm and authorise such high-handed villany—such flagrant robbery of the inalienable rights of man—such a glaring violation of all the precepts and injunctions of the gospel—such a savage war upon a sixth part of our whole population?—They were men, like ourselves—as fallible, as sinful, as weak, as ourselves.

By the infamous bargain which they made between themselves, they virtually dethroned the Most High God, and trampled beneath their feet their own solemn and heaven-attested Declaration, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights—among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They had no lawful power to bind themselves, or their posterity, for one hour—for one moment—by such an unholy alliance. It was not valid then—it is not valid now. Still they persisted in maintaining it—and still do their successors, the people of Massachusetts, of New-England, and of the twelve free States, persist in maintaining it. A sacred compact! A sacred compact! What, then, is wicked and ignominious?

William Lloyd Garrison

http://fair-use.org/the-liberator/1832/12/29/on-the-constitution-and-the-union

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:41 PM

45. Yup, and the winner takes all

system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:51 AM

13. The true liberal position is to support empowerment of the individual,

not his disarmament at a cost of empowering the state and its own lethal machinery over the individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:36 AM

100. hear, hear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:13 PM

15. Sounds good to me. At the very least, because gun nuts are annoying...

 

And it will feel good to take things from them.

Most importantly, though, it will save a lot of lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:17 PM

16. So you support taking civil liberties away from annoying people?

That is a right wing attitude that has no place here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:43 PM

22. Who needs fancy-pancy rights when you can have raw tribalism?

Wog is from the Red Tribe. Red Tribe bad. Therefore, Wog bad. Therefore, it is good to take stuff from Wog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 02:47 PM

24. I've always had a sneaking suspicion...

"At the very least, because gun nuts are annoying...
And it will feel good to take things from them."

...that this sentiment is what's really at the heart of the gun control movement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurker Dave (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:47 AM

63. Huxley noted that emotion in his first novel, Crome Yellow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:15 PM

30. By that same logic, someone could say:

 

"Feminists/environmentalists/teacher's unions/labor unionists/etc. are annoying, and it would be good to hand them a political defeat."


It's little more than us vs. them reasoning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #30)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:53 PM

82. Someone could say that, but they'd be wrong.

On the other hand, gun nuts are extremely annoying. What is this attraction to popguns, anyway? Seriously, I want to know: what is the big draw?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 12:19 PM

18. I love how the author...

...included his time in combat as if it gives his argument more weight. There IS a middle ground between what we have now and what the author is proposing. Full background checks are a good starting point. What the author suggests, is ludicrous.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:11 PM

19. There is nothing liberal about eliminating or reducing a civil liberty.


My favorite part that almost made think this was an Onion piece.

A true liberal position, the place to start, is to call for domestic disarmament. That is the banning of the sale of all guns to private parties coupled with a buyback of those on the street (Mexico just moved to so control guns).


Mexico? With a homicide rate over 4 times ours?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 01:20 PM

20. ...



Eta: "Amitai Etzioni is proud to announce that he just made the NRA anti gun enemy list. For more discussion see his book My Brother's Keeper."

Right. Just another load of red meat bullshit for the consumption of those who don't care to think overmuch about anything beyond the care and feeding of their own ideology. And cheering their favorite talking heads in the clash of bullshit flingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:06 PM

26. Wow, someone is echoing my thoughts completely

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:57 PM

47. Well, things *are* known to echo through hollow canyons...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #47)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:34 AM

98. Lol!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:13 PM

27. Unless the Second Amendment were actually overturned, I don't see how this could happen.

 

It would be almost politically impossible, I think, to repeal that Amendment within the next decade or so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:24 PM

31. I think it could be amended.

However, most calls for amending the Constitution seem to be political temper tantrums rather than serious proposals. "That law was overruled under the such-and-such Amendment?!? Overrule that amendment!"

Currently, I could imagine an amendment which forbids most federal regulation of guns, except for interstate transfers, while allowing for broad state-level laws. Total removal of the Amendment, with no protection for a right to keep guns, is a political non-starter; in order to kill a proposed Amendment, you only need to get 1/4 of the states to veto it. I can pretty strongly guess that Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, North/South Dakota, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee will vote against the total removal of the Second, hence any prohibition-type amendment will fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:28 PM

32. You're a liberal? A person with a "true liberal position"?

 

And you have a ready made set of rules for all liberal Democrats who own firearms?

Apparently you reason that no true liberal Democrat would own a firearm.

Are you familiar with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:56 PM

83. Clearly you keep that one handy in your sporran for just such occasions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 04:39 PM

33. So much for "we don't want take everyone guns"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:03 PM

36. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither is a gun-free society. It will take a few generations.

We will get there eventually, and every interim step is important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 06:17 PM

37. But it will not be a "gun free society"

As both law enforcement and the military will be armed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:53 PM

38. Within that time, there will likely be a societal breakdown, a revolution, natural disaster...

...or some other derailment of the unlikely scheme you envision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:32 PM

42. zombies etc...

All the gun nut fantasy scenarios.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwrguy (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:39 PM

43. Oh, OK.

Well, good luck with your fantasy about a country without a second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 07:55 PM

39. Disarm all police and sheriffs, the FBI, DHS, TSA, NSA, and all involved on US soil

 

and I'll support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:00 PM

40. So, then................

 

How are the police supposed to handle violent crime situations if they do not have firearms?

Get the cops to talk the bad guys down?


Send out a SWAT team armed with Tasers against criminals armed with rifles and shotguns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 08:13 PM

41. You are implying that gun control laws will result in only criminals and cops having guns.

 

A bad place from which to start, because cops are criminals too. Anyone involved with or having closely watched the Occupy movement will fully understand this, much less if they've paid attention to how the poor, homeless, and people of color are often treated.

DHS are purchasing hundreds of millions of hollow-point rounds of ammunition, and they are domestic terrorists by the FBI's own definition. I won't stand for it! BULLSHIT on disarming the general public while the monsters militarize. Not enough people are paying attention and are swallowing this exceedingly dangerous "Disarm" meme hook, line, and sinker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OceanEcosystem (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 11:47 PM

46. There is one poster that says all he ever needed

was a nightstick and a firm voice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #46)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:28 AM

49. If you want to read something really funny

 

follow the link. One OP suggested using a SuperSoaker and tobasco sauce.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2061427

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:40 PM

44. +1

Unless you implicitly trust your state police and national guard for eternity, then it's a bad idea to extinguish the right to bear arms, individual or communal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #39)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:17 AM

54. +2. The author of this is insane and delusional, but of course,

that's never stopped people from posting such rantings here on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:07 AM

48. Someone please tell me again

 

how 'nobody wants to take away your guns'. Come on. Tell me again. Anyone who promotes that antigunner LIE is a LIAR.

Per the OP "...A true liberal position, the place to start, is to call for domestic disarmament. That is the banning of the sale of all guns to private parties..."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #48)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:37 AM

50. Cause I am not going to retype...

17. Both sides have fringe folks who scream loudly


But you knew that.

Regardless, the sacred texts do have the concept of change in them, and they were not given by god to man at mt. Sinai. I know this s shocking, but the originalist position, (Jefferson) is for these documents to...I know shocking, evolve and change with the times. He, in fact, believed a new Constitution was needed every generation.

Not this generation, but as the US becomes an increasingly urban culture I can see a serious change in the Second...countries do evolve.

I at times think a historian who once said democracy came too early to the US might have a modicum of a point. In some ways whole swaths of the population are still stuck in the 17 century...why things like national health care and a safety net are seen as "un american."

Yes, even the view of the second is changing...and a few, more than a few, are looking at the Second and actually taking a more we look at it, instead of I, which Heller did not get rid off either. It still gives the state the right to regulate and an AWB is not against that ruling either.

Nor does it mean anybody is coming to take away my guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #50)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:48 PM

70. Just how often

 

do you have to pull your head out of sand to take a breath?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guardian (Reply #70)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:14 PM

75. I see, welcome to the ignore list

I no longer alert, but I don't tolerate personal attacks either.

Ciao, have a good long life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:06 AM

53. There is nothing liberal about yahoos like this:





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #53)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:19 AM

55. Nonsense.

You don't know what liberalism is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #55)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:31 AM

56. I know a bunch of ole racist/bigoted gun cultists aren't "liberal."


And to keep a few so-called "liberal" folks armed up is a pretty high price for allowing yahoos like that to walk around polluting our society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #56)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:39 AM

58. Are they doing anything illegal?

 

All I see are a bunch of people posing for a picture with their weapons.

If they're not doing anything illegal, why do you care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cork (Reply #58)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:42 AM

60. Sorry, I don't find racists, confederate flags, guns, etc., worthy of applause.


I see a bunch of armed bigots, probably republicans and freepers.

Lots of things are legal, yet reprehensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #60)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:45 AM

61. But. Are. They. Doing. Anything. Illegal.?

 

And what about the middle picture? How can you tell what they're political leanings are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cork (Reply #61)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:49 AM

64. That's what we are discussing here, changing the friggin laws that allow yahoos and right wing


bigots to parade around in public with a few lethal weapons from their precious cache.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #64)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:53 AM

66. So you admit that they're fully within the law?

 

And how do you know if they have a weapons cache? Have you visited their homes? Are you friends with these people and know how many weapons they have?

What do you consider a weapons cache?

Are you for civilian disarmament?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cork (Reply #66)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 06:55 PM

102. Bye, Corky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cork (Reply #58)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:03 PM

68. Tee hee, but they sure are funny! I just love the pic of the guy with his gun slung right

down between his legs! That's just asking for a caption that the gunners just hate to hear...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #68)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 12:10 PM

69. I can see where the anatomy joke would come in.

 


I wouldn't parade any of my weapons open like that, but if they're within the law and are being peaceful, so be it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cork (Reply #69)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:24 PM

71. maybe they think women wll think they're "well hung"...when they're probably laughing at them...

I sure would laugh and point...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #71)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:26 PM

72. Well Hung.

 



Too, too funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cork (Reply #72)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:29 PM

73. well, take a look at them...not the brightest looking bunch...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #73)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 02:35 PM

74. True dat.

 

But I tend not to judge people's intelligence by their looks.

But them carrying their weapons openly like that may be legal, it's not the smartest thing to do and not something I would do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #53)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:35 AM

57. How can you tell what political leanings the people in the middle are?

 

Are you just assuming that they are right wing yahoos just because they own/carry firearms? Are liberals not allowed to own/carry firearms?

What leads you to believe that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cork (Reply #57)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:46 AM

62. Bigot detector is quite accurate. Tbag flag should convince even you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #62)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:49 AM

65. Bigot detector?

 

What's that? And where can I get one? Or is that your personal thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #62)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:56 AM

67. You have a 360° radar AND a 360° blip! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #53)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:41 PM

77. Is that "Dueling Banjos" I hear playing in the background?

 



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:25 PM

76. Repeal the amendment

Why don't advocates of gun control quite trying to intrrpret the second amendment....and just repeal it?..

Because the will of the people would never pass it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:44 PM

78. I am in favor of this.

 

I've always believed that government derives its ultimate authority by having a monopoly on force. That's why every lawful international organization and most nations actively try to prevent nuclear arms from falling into unauthorized hands; its the ultimate force of violence. But WMD's are outside the scope of gun control in the United States of America but the principle is the same.

We no longer have to fear raids from Native Americans, nor a foreign invasion landing on our shores. Most of us don't have to worry about large predators killing our livestock, nor do we have to hunt to put meat on our table. The times have changed and so should our culture. We have well established law enforcement to deter, if not always prevent crime; and courts to bring us justice. There is no reason the common man should have any weapon at his disposal; much less firearms. On the rare occasions the common man must make violence, then sticks, stones, and fists are adequate for his needs.

The state is the rightful holder of deadly force; it alone has the authority to use violence for any lawful cause. The threat of violence implied or inherent, be it the weapons of war (tanks, bombs, artillery), or the weapons of security (tasers, clubs, handcuffs); are what gives the government the ability to enforce its laws upon its citizens. Having an armed citizenry gives them the ability to resist the will of the government. In a righteous society this cannot be tolerated.

I'm not drawing the line at firearms either; knives, swords, stun guns, archery equipment... All of that gives the common man the ability to subvert the state's monopoly on violence and thus should be removed from the citizenry. A sensible nation cannot take one thing while allowing another on this.

So yes, I am in favor of total civilian disarmament because I want a peaceful, well ordered society in which to live. Your so-called recreational shooters can find another hobby to fill their time; and those in fear of the world should find other means to cope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valiberal26 (Reply #78)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 08:48 PM

79. If all my knives were confiscated, how could I cut up my carrots?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valiberal26 (Reply #78)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 09:15 PM

81. you forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valiberal26 (Reply #78)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 10:59 PM

84. Are you also in favor

Of allowing the "State" to do your thinking for you?

Seriously, that's one of the most insane and demented screeds I've ever read and I'm surprised to see it on this forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Abq_Sarah (Reply #84)

Tue Feb 26, 2013, 11:12 PM

85. 7 post newbie (joined 4 hours ago) with 'liberal' in the username..

all 7 posts seem to be extreme.. I'm thinking.. not serious.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2432543
A long term fix to our economy...

Would actually be to encourage women to have more children and for families to have six or seven children as opposed to just one or two. In an ideal world, the government would have free daycare and other support programs to help alleviate the cost of raising children so it would be more feasible to have large families again.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2433106
The only good man with a gun...

Is wearing a government uniform. There might be a few bad police officers or military personnel, and there might be a few good armed civilians; but the OP shows why I viewed armed citizens as nothing less than dire threats to an established government.

Aside from the fact that lawful violence is the domain of the state; this illustrates why civilian disarmament is the only logical end to the gun control debate.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2432717
That was my point actually.

We need to encourage reproduction through some sort of government action; either by making it easier financially to have and raise children, or perhaps even paying women for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #85)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:37 AM

86. I am rather serious on all those accounts.

 

I do tend towards ideals that are in the realm of current liberal thought; I'm very proud to be progressive. I stand for gun control, social programs, and social equality amongst other things. My solutions might be considered extreme by some, but they are quite heartfelt and I feel that they are the best solutions.

The definition of conservative and liberal as I was taught them is as follows... A conservative wants to maintain the status quo, whereas the liberal seeks change. I voted for change when I cast my vote for President Obama in 2008 and again in 2012; and it is change I want to see.

I do not believe that civilians should be armed in any capacity; and I do believe that we need more future taxpayers to fund government programs in the future. My first point might be reasonably argued, but you cannot reasonable argue the second point; gentrification isn't a solid plan for the future. Yes, I also believe that the state is the only legitimate wielder of violence. The ability to force the citizens in a certain direction makes a nation; a handful of armed civilians a nation does not make despite the blustering of the Tea Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valiberal26 (Reply #86)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:52 AM

87. *pat* *pat* *pat* Whatever you say. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #87)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:58 AM

88. You know nothing of me sir

 

In your opinion, what am I, if I am not liberal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valiberal26 (Reply #88)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 01:18 AM

89. Take this test to find out! I ended up somewhat to the left of Gandhi, LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rhiannon12866 (Reply #89)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 03:57 AM

91. I'm guessing

They'd fall into the authoritarian category.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Abq_Sarah (Reply #91)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:06 AM

92. Worth a try

There's nothing like finding out where you really stand...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valiberal26 (Reply #88)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 12:23 PM

101. You are most definitely NOT a liberal. Authoritarian? Yes.

Very much so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #85)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:10 AM

93. And Who Appointed you Arbiter of What's Good and Right and "Enough" Posts?

I'm rather tired of people here using the low post count of others to attempt to impugn them. I don't care if one has only one post or several hundred-thousand posts. Their opinion may be just as valid either way or just as worthy of being hidden either way.

Why anyone finds some superiority in having a large number of posts here on DU is beyond me. I have recently seen people with many thousands of posts be banned by the admins.

One's genital size is not demonstrated by the number of posts one has on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dballance (Reply #93)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 10:33 AM

97. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..

We seem to get two kinds of disruptors- those who take positions opposite the majority of Democrats on many subjects (those tend to flame out pretty quickly thanks to MIRt); and those who caricature our party's positions, thereby ridiculing the Democratic party in a reductio ad absurdum.

Seriously? Proposing that the government pay women to have five or six children? If that doesn't make your spidey sense tingle, I can't help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 04:24 AM

95. No. We've given up enough rights in the last 13 years. Restore all the ones we've given up and...

I'll consider whether it is worthwhile to give up another. So you can get back to me when the warrentless wiretapping is over and we can sue the phone companies for being stoolies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peter cotton (Original post)

Wed Feb 27, 2013, 11:35 AM

99. A broad gun ban is roughly equivalent to single-payer in the healthcare debate.

In both cases, such policies have been effective in other nations, but I'm not sure it's the right thing for the US. Beyond that, neither single-payer nor a handgun ban are politically feasible in the US, at least not anytime soon. However, this article brings up a valid point in that by taking liberal positions off the table from the get-go, it moves the window of policies considered "acceptable" to the right.

The media, of course, has been complicit in this -- as much as right-wingers like to complain about an "anti-gun media", in order to even be allowed to speak about gun control in the MSM you have to start your sentence with "I'm a gun owner" or "I support gun rights".

However, progressives and Democrats must share some of the blame for this. And it's a repeating pattern. For example, with the stimulus, it was obvious from the start that what Obama was proposing was too small, and what ended up happening is the economy didn't recover quickly enough, giving the GOP the opportunity to argue that the stimulus was a failure and what we really need is austerity. Similarly, although Obama's proposed gun control measures are a step in the right direction, they probably aren't enough to achieve large reductions in gun violence, particularly after the GOP drills loopholes through them, which might open up the charge that gun control is ineffective.

One thing the GOP is very good at is getting right-wing policies into the national debate. They get their think-tanks to produce "studies" and get right-wing pundits to talk about things like flat tax or privatizing social security, and even though these are well to the right of what the American people want, they become part of the national dialogue. In contrast, the Dems often seem scared that if they discuss policies that are too liberal, they will be painted as socialists and rile up the right-wing base.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread