Watch out, no mourning for the dead allowed

[BainsBane]

Caring about death is merely a ruse to use against the precious rights of the Almighty Guns.
Say you care about the loss of life? You're lying. You only want to make poor, persecuted gun owners feel bad.

You might say, hey, I know gun owners who think the current situation is every bit as crazy as the "gun grabbers" do, who support increased gun control through background checks and bans on certain high capacity weapons. No, they aren't real gun owners. The only true gun owners insist that deaths like these are mere pretext, because what really matters is the Sacred and Inviolate right to accumulate weapons of death, and to ensure the corporate merchants of death reap unfettered profits. (Yes, gun companies are corporations too, even though they merely profit from murder as opposed to usury.)

God Bless the United States of Guns, where the right to kill trumps all others. In Guns we Trust.

[nc4bo]

1. I'm a bit taken aback at how many people are so quick to say "heal". HEAL?

We go through this shit so often that the first set of scars haven't healed before the scabs are ripped off.

It's really asking a lot, perhaps too much, to want to move on to healing when bodies are still warm.

Sick of this.

[Ed Suspicious]

13. Right on!

[nolabear]

21. So what, then? What do we do?

[nc4bo]

36. We are afraid to even broach the topic. Why is that?

It's not even about personal protection or hunting for food anymore. It's like collecting stamps or keeping up with the nutter Jone's who had to build a special room to hold it all, can't be upstaged by the neighbor don't you know.

Some nutters have stockpiled arsenals of firearms and ammo..... for?!

The horse has left the barn, the stockpiles are out there now, the run on ammo was so mindblowing at one time that bullets were becoming scarce.

All that's left is education, legislation and the balls to enforce it. Good luck with that because I fear there are thousands of Clive Bundy types and quite a few states like South Carolina out there.

What to do? I have no freaking idea. I just know we have a big problem.

Let's keep talking about it in between slaughters.

[nolabear]

78. I think you're right. We have to keep talking and stop yelling.

And that's hard.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

173. "We are afraid to even broach the topic. Why is that?"

I'm not.

I'm still for banning handguns and assault weapons.

I'd START with high capacity mags first.

Want to play with that stuff? Join the Army.

[MoonRiver]

190. We vote for politicians who will fight against the NRA.

It's pretty simple.

[Quayblue]

51. and this is a fucked up thing to say to anyone who's mourning

You got this spot on.

[hamsterjill]

75. It takes time.

It takes time. For me, personally, when something like this happens, there's almost a period of disbelief. Hoping it really didn't happen. Then, it takes time even as someone who didn't know the victims to process the loss. The human beings who left their homes this morning and won't ever come back to them. The names, the faces, their stories.

I can only imagine the pain and anguish of the families and friends of those victims.

[hatrack]

103. Yes, like a televangelist barking at you to put your hands on the TV set . . .

"Heal!! Heal!!!! I Jesus' Name, Ah say HEAL!!!"

[oldandhappy]

115. I had the same thot as I watched Nikki

refer to healing. Heal? Really? Someone kills some one you love -- and you heal? I think we just get used to the fact that someone killed someone we love and that person is no longer in this life with us. Maybe forgive eventually, have to do that for self healing. Donno --

[sheshe2]

2. I don't like guns.

I have my own reasons for that,BainsBane.

That said responsible laws must be put in place. I will say this, no person needs an arsenal. There have been calls to demilitarize the police. I agree. However, I think we need to demilitarize our citizens as well.

[BainsBane]

3. precisely

The heavily armed police are at least in part a response to the heavily armed population.

[calimary]

32. I do, too, she.

For my own reasons. And no shit, no person needs an arsenal! What the HELL??? Just how big a paranoiac does one have to be to want to amass a lot of guns - aside from being a collector, but I would assume one wouldn't actively use a lot of those because they'd be up on the wall, mounted and framed or some such thing.

[sheshe2]

41. "I do, too, she. For my own reasons."

I hear you, calimary.

[lovemydog]

133. So true. No person needs an arsenal.

Very well-said sheshe2.

[GGJohn]

135. Need has nothing to do with it,

it's called choice, as in, I choose to own numerous firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Besides, when did the US govt establish the Dept. of Needs?

[hrmjustin]

4. .

[CTyankee]

5. I posted about my grieving for the lost and of course got the usual from the gun

people. I know it's all defensive but right now it is unseemly to complain before the grieving relatives have a chance to grieve. It's like they don't know what is right and what is not right to say on such an occasion. I am ashamed of them on DU. And they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

[pintobean]

8. I'm ashamed all of those

who exploit tragedies to advance their agenda. We can all morn without doing that. It's the same every time, though. We really haven't learned anything from Sandy Hook.

[CTyankee]

10. I don't really have it in me to fight with you or anyone right now...

all I can think about is the personal tragedy of those in the line of fire that died last night in Charleston. that is all I can say...

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. I hear you,

plus you'd just be wasting your time, anyway.

[hack89]

24. So emotionally attacking gun owners is an appropriate response on such an occasion?

"fuck the NRA", "ammosexuals", "gun humpers" are all perfectly fine ways to express sadness over this tragedy? Really?

[HERVEPA]

26. Sadness, and anger with gunners are both totally reasonable and can and should exist simultaneously

Yeh, fuck the gunners is right.

[hack89]

30. Because every gun owner is responsible?

ok. Another dual standard hypocrite.

[HERVEPA]

33. Because you don't need the fucking guns.

And I think you may have worded your subject incorrectly, if I understand your alleged point.

[hack89]

39. That is the beauty of civil rights - need has nothing to do with it.

"because" is a perfectly acceptable answer when challenged about exercising constitutional rights, don't you agree?

[HERVEPA]

45. I agree that you're clearly in love with your guns

I hope you and they will be very happy together. And ignore.

[bettyellen]

57. Quick to anger, eh? Awesome.

[Lilith Rising]

109. Yeah. It's too bad that so many people (guys) seem to

get worked right up when someone expresses their distaste for guns and the damage they do.

If it's not about 'you' then it's not about 'you'.

[HERVEPA]

147. Just what one wants in a gun owner.

[corkhead]

169. I had a go around with this one in another post and he suddenly went silent

now I know why...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=163437

[Duckhunter935]

179. Hack will be fine

Tends to happen when you have an alert stalker. Same thing happened to me. I had mine alert on an apology to him.

[kcr]

159. See, if you are going to say something like

That is the beauty of civil rights - need has nothing to do with it."

Then don't wonder why you get attacked as a gun owner when these tragedies happen. There's your problem, right there.

[beevul]

83. Thats not for you to determine for everyone else. N/T

[GGJohn]

140. And again, need has nothing to do with firearm ownership,

it's called choice, same as your choice to not own any, I choose to own numerous firearms of all types and thousands of ammo, that's my choice.

[HERVEPA]

146. Amd a truly sad one

[GGJohn]

148. That's your opinion,

my opinion is opposite of yours.

[CTyankee]

28. sadly, as you know I never used those terms. It is why I am sad.

[hrmjustin]

29. Fuck the nra is always appreciate!

[hack89]

31. Standard opening salvo in the culture war battles

its what you say when you have nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

[hrmjustin]

34. Well i may or may not have anything intelligent to say. I leve you all to judge that.

But considering the blood the NRA has on its hands it think it is appropriate to say;


FUCK THE NRA!

Thus endeth the lesson!

[hack89]

35. There are good reasons gun control is a smoking wreck in America

have you ever considered that you are part of the problem?

[geek tragedy]

38. Why does it upset you to see people attacking

a far-rightwing, partisan Republican organization like the NRA?

P.S. Fuck the NRA and its members.

[hack89]

46. It is hard to be upset from where I stand

I just was using the "fuck the NRA " line to point out the hypocrisy of certain controllers.

[hrmjustin]

40. I don't think gun control has ever been given a real chance.

And i am sick and tired of gutless politician who either worship at the altar of guns and the NRA or are too afraid to take them on.

Time to get serious about this public safety issue.

[hack89]

47. What in your mind is "gun control" ? nt

[hrmjustin]

49. Assault weapons ban for one.

[hack89]

53. Why?

why chose the weapon least likely to be used in a murder? That's not what is killing people. Isn't saving the most lives possible your goal?

[hrmjustin]

55. Why should people be allowed such weapons?

[hack89]

58. That is not an answer

if people like me are not harming others with them, what is the point in taking them away from us?

[hrmjustin]

59. Why wouod you want it or need it?

[hack89]

62. Because it is the most common rifle used for competitive target shooting

you don't understand how civil rights work, do you? I don't have to justify exercising them. If the government wants to restrict my right, they have to justify it. Take off your authoritarian hat for a second.

[hrmjustin]

63. I assure you as a gay man who has fought all my life for my rights that I understand how

civil rights work.

I am done addressing you.


AND FUCK THE NRA!

[hack89]

64. Then your hypocrisy is appalling. Nt

[hrmjustin]

66. Your advocacy for assalt weapons is appalling.

[ThoughtCriminal]

77. +1

Seemingly here every day, all day, for one reason.

[GGJohn]

86. What's an assault weapon?

This?



Or this?



Maybe this?



I know, it's this.



My point is that just about anything can be labeled an assault weapon.

[hrmjustin]

88. Nice try. A for effort.

[GGJohn]

92. Well, it is the truth,

any item I use as a weapon against someone is an assault weapon.

[GGJohn]

82. Why should we have to justify why we want or need it?

When was the Dept. of Want's and Need's created?

[hrmjustin]

84. Because they are obscene!

Do you think you should have nukes?

[beevul]

85. What precisely makes them "obscene"? N/T

[hrmjustin]

87. If you don't know i can not help you.

[beevul]

91. Hey bud, its your viewpoint.

If you can't be bothered to explain it, on a discussion board , the problem isn't mine.

[hrmjustin]

95. Well bud I think most on thix site get it.

[beevul]

99. Thats not an explanation.

Its an appeal to a perceived majority.

On edit: Is it like the flying spaghetti monster, something that's simply a deeply held belief ?

[hrmjustin]

102. It is reality.

Have a nice night.

[GGJohn]

89. Obscene is in the eyes of the beholder.

Ah, drag out the old "Do you think you should have nukes?" meme.

[hrmjustin]

90. Can you defend not giving people the right to nukes?

[GGJohn]

94. I don't need to defend an obvious ridiculous meme. eom.

[hrmjustin]

98. Maybe because you agree with not allowing citizens the right to have these arms.

If so then you agree there are limitations on the 2nd amendment.

[GGJohn]

101. Of course there are restrictions on the 2A, I've never said otherwise,

however, what's reasonable to one person is unreasonable to another person.

[X_Digger]

96. And *that* is why such legislation fails.

Because they are obscene!

You wish to ban something that functions the same as other non-banned items, just because you think 'they are obscene'.

Funny, for someone who's fought for civil rights, one would think you'd have a more rigorous reason.

[hrmjustin]

100. Fighting for assault weapons has nothing to do with civil rights.

[X_Digger]

104. But someone involved in a civil rights struggle should surely know the criteria for restrictions. nt

[hrmjustin]

106. I favor the Clinton ban on assault weapons. Should never had been allowed to expire.

[X_Digger]

107. Right.. it resulted in turning over congress to the Repugnicans and increased AR-15 sales.

Good job!

NOT!

[div class='excerpt']"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life


From the Clinton DOJ report on the AW Ban:

[hrmjustin]

108. I would have kept the ban in place.

[GGJohn]

110. Why?

It wasn't even a real ban, all it did was ban some cosmetic features of the rifle, and studies after it sunsetted suggested that the ban did nothing to reduce firearm violence.

[hrmjustin]

112. Assult weapons are obscene.

Things that fire multiple bullets in a few seconds are obscene and shoukd not be legal.

[Duckhunter935]

181. What's the difference in firing rates

Of an assault weapon and and a non assault weapon in semi-automatic?

[hrmjustin]

183. I have no clue.

[Duckhunter935]

185. None is the correct answer

The function and rate of fire is the same. Only difference is cosmetic like a bayonet lug, flash hider or pistol grip.

[hrmjustin]

186. Ok.

[X_Digger]

111. So you're for selling more of them? (You do realize that the 'ban' was cosmetic, right?)

If I said that the Honda Accord was banned and Honda made a new model, 'Baccord' that is exactly like the now-banned Accord, do you think sales will falter appreciably? (One provision of the AWB banned certain models of guns by name- mfg changed names.)

How about a ban on Hondas that have spoilers, low profile tires, and those loud can-type mufflers, but the same model Honda without the spoiler, tires, and muffler is A-OK?

The Clinton AWB was political theater.. theater that cost us (you know, the party we support) seats in congress, including control of the House.

[hrmjustin]

113. Make the ban stronger then.

[X_Digger]

114. Lets hear your suggestion.

Lawmakers ran into the problem that they couldn't sufficiently differentiate the targeted firearms. Too broad, and grandpa's hunting rifle would be affected (you feel free to step on that land mine if you wish, but I wouldn't recommend it.)

So let's hear your proposal, then we can discuss if the impact is worth the political capital it would cost.

[hrmjustin]

116. Anything that spews out a lot of bullets in a second or two should likely be banned.

I don't know gun names. I have never touched one.

[X_Digger]

118. That's mighty vague. I can't address a vague proposal other than to say..

.. the end result would likely be increased sales.

An interesting aside- even as sales of 'assault weapons' went up during the 'ban', their use in crime (and crime in general) continued to fall, and has continued to fall in the years since it expired.

So you've got an uphill slog trying to justify a new (vague) ban, since in the interim, they've become the most popular centerfire rifles in the US.

US v Miller's "in common use, for lawful purposes" really does include previously "banned" guns.

[hrmjustin]

119. Well it is my opinion.

[X_Digger]

121. You're absolutely entitled to it.

In the meantime, I'll be pushing for both social and economic reforms, as well as tearing down our prison industrial complex and an end to the stupid war on drugs-- I think one of our approaches has the possibility of actually saving lives.

[hrmjustin]

123. Ok.

[GGJohn]

120. So you would ban something you know nothing about? eom.

[hrmjustin]

122. Yes. I would ban assult weapons.

[GGJohn]

124. So you would ban

Baseball bats? Knives? 2x4's? Fists?
After all, those can be assault weapons also.
C'mon, you are usually much more thoughtful that this.

[hrmjustin]

125. I don't know the names of guns.

If we went through them individually i could give you an answer.

So lets just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

[GGJohn]

126. Ok, we'll agree to disagree.

[Logical]

131. He is totally iriotic comparing those to guns....

It is so easy to tell a normal gun owner versus a crazy gun owner.

[GGJohn]

138. Did you mean to address the other person?

BTW, are you calling me a crazy gun owner?
That's pretty harsh dude.

[beevul]

105. Spot on. N/t

[treestar]

157. Because they are dangerous?

And have little use but to kill?

You have to justify a lot of things. Driver's license. You have to qualify for many things and they are restricted. And they are less dangerous and have other uses.

Why do you think you should have whatever you want - does that extend to other things the government tries to control?

[GGJohn]

160. A gun is no more dangerous than a brick,

without human interaction, it just lays there, it's a human that determines how dangerous it is.

[treestar]

161. Bricks can be used to build buildings

Guns are just for shooting at things. Targets, game, humans. There is a difference.

[GGJohn]

162. Bricks just lay there until there's a human interaction to use it,

same with a firearm.
A brick can, and has, been used as a weapon to kill also.

[Eleanors38]

177. Problem: The RKBA is a constitutionally-protected individual right....

The "many other things" you consider worthy of restriction -- including driver's licenses -- are not.

The Constitution doesn't address the question of "you think you should have whatever you want?" The federal government is accorded certain powers, the states have powers, individuals have Rights.

[Liberal Veteran]

134. Let's look at this from another direction.

I am not a fanatic about guns. They are a tool.

That being said, I own one.

I grew up around guns. I worked on extremely large guns in the Navy (the kind nobody could conceal or carry). I carried smaller ones from time to time as part my duties on ship. Truth to tell, I can barely hit the broadside of a barn despite my extensive background with them.

I am no gun grabber.

If you want to know why gun control is a smoking wreck in the USA, the NRA has a good deal to do with that. Every. Single. Time. sensible gun control is suggested, the NRA is at the forefront to water down and block the effort, usually with the refrain that it puts an "undue burden on responsible gun owners/dealers". And god help the politician that finds themselves going up against the NRA (unless they have an extremely liberal district or one highly gerrymandered or both) and wants to get re-elected.

And lets not pretend. If the NRA really supported decent gun control legislation, they have the lobbying power to basically WRITE the supposed gun control laws and to some extent done just that. Don't blame people who want to see decent gun control legislation for the "smoking wreck". Blame the NRA.

When an NRA board member makes the statement that if one of the victims had not voted against concealed carry legislation, someone in the church MIGHT have had a gun and stopped the shooter and expressly singled out a particular victim as being partly at fault, something is wrong with the organization as a whole. Just let that sink in: YOU SHOULD NEED A CONCEALED GUN IN A HOUSE OF WORSHIP TO FEEL SAFE! And that just scratches the surface of the pathology that permeates such an uttered absurdity.

There are not enough "what the fucks?" in that statement to express how utterly baffling it is to not only hear that coming from the top in the organization, but to suggest that people with that kind hard line attitude about guns would offer anything remotely helpful to contribute in the way of sensible gun control legislation is ludicrous.

[Eleanors38]

178. Every. Single. Time controllers poison the well with unending bans and controls.

Merely look at this thread alone and you see it. THIS is what makes gun control a smoking wreck; the NRA's job is too easy.

[LanternWaste]

153. Or all perfectly fine ways to express frustration over those who feel innocent deaths...

" are all perfectly fine ways to express sadness over this tragedy..."

Or all perfectly fine ways to express frustration over those who feel innocent deaths are merely a price we pay for the second amendment.

No doubt, we'll all infer the statement in such a way as to better validate our biases. Really.

[Eleanors38]

176. Respectfully, the controller/banners were in this firstist and mostist..

In, as you say "the usual manner."

Yet you have chosen to reproach one side in what has become a post-after-post blowout hate fest.

Finding the truth -- and not deflecting toward the usual anti-gun doctrines -- is what we should be looking at. I am NOT ashamed of that, and WILL continue my efforts in that regard.

I would add that the dense layers of hatred expressed here are not synonymous with compassion; frankly, I have seen -- and STILL haven't seen -- much compassion from these mean-spirited folks.

Some controllers and banners are searching for a Narrative built on shaming and quick exploitation of tragedy (these are Explicit strategies), and hatred of millions of people. Don't you think as a society we have had quite enough of that?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. I stand with you on this awful issue.

And I mourn the dead.

[BainsBane]

7. Thank you, California Peggy.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. I mourn the dead

I will further assert that Mr. LaPierre and his followers have a little more blood on their hands today than yesterday afternoon. And no, I do not include all gun owners in that vile category.

[MerryBlooms]

11. Coverage of the terrorist attack in Charleston is smoke and mirrors, because

TPP!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026861002

Some serious heinous shit being paraded there.

[BainsBane]

12. What do you even say to something like that?

[MerryBlooms]

23. Honestly, I have no idea... I just still feel sort of stunned.

I'll have to give it some thought.

[BainsBane]

42. Me too

and I am rarely at a loss for words.

[Hekate]

70. Well, I alerted on it, but it had already survived 2-5. At least my effort means it gets....

.....kicked upstairs for review.

[MisterP]

27. at least he's off the "cloud seeding RIGHT FUCKING NOW" bandwagon

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE

[frylock]

15. is there a thread(s) you can link to for a little background?

[BainsBane]

17. Ummm

I'll link to the original post, and you can figure out the rest from the responses.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=169125

[frylock]

19. thanks

[pintobean]

20. Dragging the gungeon into GD is productive.

Why on earth would you direct DUers there at a time like this?

[Eleanors38]

180. Coulda sworn this was the "Gungeon!"

[aikoaiko]

44. That's your example of an OP on mourning?

A straight anti-gun screed in a group dedicated to the vigorous discussion of gun laws?

:shrug;

[BainsBane]

50. The OP is not the issue

I choose not to call anyone out.

[hack89]

25. They went to the Gungeon to stir up shit, got the result they wanted

and are now in GD complaining about those insensitive gun owners.

BB was told to wave the bloody shirt somewhere else and got upset.

[Hekate]

71. What a piece of work you are as you hopscotch through this thread.

[Eleanors38]

182. Well, you got the Gungeon in GD, now. I'll hop right on by...

[99Forever]

16. Tho we have had our differences, in this I stand with you...

Last edited Thu Jun 18, 2015, 08:24 PM - Edit history (1)

... resolute and beyond determined to end the reign of terror in America, visited upon us by the insanity of the gun culture and it's minions.

[BainsBane]

18. It is indeed a reign of terror

and in fact a war that is seemingly without end.

[etherealtruth]

22. There is nothing wrong and everything right with using horrific events as calls to action

Horrible tragedies have spurred extraordinary reforms.

The folk that are sick are the ones that sit back and say: Oh this is bad but, but .... don't exploit the tragedy and use it as a call to action to prevent this from happening again.

I wonder if the same folk would have called the quest for reform following the Triangle Shirt Factory fire, exploiting the tragedy (there were plenty of factory owners that did just that).

The Dhaka factory collapse spurred the same kind of exploitation of a tragedy (reforms calling for safe working conditions for workers, many factory owners continue to fight this).

I realize that there are significant chunks of our population that want to blame this on anything but gun culture .... and an equal amount of idiots that want to blame this on anything but raw deeply ingrained racism.

Until we admit that US society has a big problem with both (the overlap sickeningly played out Charleston), this will play out over and over.

In order to mourn and honor the innocent lives lost we need to assess the issues leading to this, and try to prevent its potential to happen again (and again, and again)

[Fred Sanders]

37. A massacre in Australia spurred them to sensible gun control that has worked....tragedies

occurring that are preventable SHOULD indeed be "exploited", as Australia did, to prevent others.

Nothing wrong with that, everything wrong with again ignoring a tragedy.

Remember the children of Sandy Hook.

[etherealtruth]

74. Exactly

A fitting tribute to victims is doing everything possible to prevent it from happening again.

[BainsBane]

76. If you want to end them, yes they should

But that's the problem. Some don't want to stop such massacres.

[GGJohn]

139. But that's the problem. Some don't want to stop such massacres.

And just who are those "some"?
Because I don't believe a word of that.
I know of no one who's not horrified by the mass shootings, but that is absolutely no reason to punish those firearms owners who have fuck all to do with these incidents.

[BainsBane]

141. The NRA and its supporters

Put it this way, they don't care enough about ending it to do a fucking thing about it, not even background checks which they fought against tooth and nail.

I know of people who are more horrified that people are horrified by the shootings. In fact, I heard from several of them today. But as we know, this will all work out for them in the end because the gun lobby always manages to turn these things into opportunities to sell more guns and promote more death. It's what they do. It's all they do. It's who they are.

[GGJohn]

142. ...

I know of people who are more horrified that people are horrified by the shootings. In fact, I heard from several of them today.

I haven't seen one post yet that supports your claim.

[BainsBane]

143. Bullshit

Now, I am asking you once and once only that you never again speak to me. I may not be able to control the damage done to this nation by the gun lobby, but I do get to choose my own associations.

[GGJohn]

144. You can say bullshit all you want, that doesn't change the fact that what you claim

isn't supported by the facts.

This is an open discussion board, I'll address you as I see fit, if you don't like it, ignore is your friend.

[LanternWaste]

163. More accurately, "isn't supported by what you yourself may or may not have seen."

"isn't supported by the facts..."

More accurately, "isn't supported by what you yourself may or may not have seen" (and no doubt, we often fail to see that which doesn't support or validate our biases). Unless of course, you'd like to continue the pretense you have absolute knowledge of all sentiments expressed on DU.

[GGJohn]

164. She was asked to provide links to any pro 2A threads started since the massacre in SC,

so far, crickets, so at this point, the facts don't support her claim, of which she has a habit of doing on the discussion of the 2A and guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

145. If it's as bullshit as you claim it is, kindly provide some links to those posts

[BainsBane]

166. I already did

elsewhere in the thread. Try reading it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

172. You linked to another thread, with no quotes from any posts therein. Try again

[laundry_queen]

128. Exactly! nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. ...

[BainsBane]

52. The creation as imagined by the NRA

sigh.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

56. Explains the tiny penis too.

[BainsBane]

68. . . .

[tblue]

54. So perfect, what you said.

Could though.

[valerief]

61. The Unidead Stats of Ammomerica. nt

[bigtree]

65. rec

[mercuryblues]

67. oh no

Mourning the dead is demanded by racists, when you bring up that outright racism bears the brunt of the most recent massacre.
yes on other boards people are saying let the families grieve before we discuss that- All white.

[BainsBane]

69. Exact same argument

I'm shocked.

[Hekate]

72. KnR

[Dont call me Shirley]

73. I fucking HATE guns.

[GGJohn]

127. Well, you're free to not own them,

meanwhile, I'm free to own them, and I do.

[BainsBane]

129. Unfortunate, we are not free to not be shot by them

As this incident shows, and all the ones before it. Killers on the other hand, are free to kill, and the NRA makes sure they have guns and as often as possible get away with it.

[GGJohn]

130. What a load.

Killers are not free to kill, murder is a felony, it's not a freebie.

[HERVEPA]

149. What a load. Exactly.

[GGJohn]

150. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[HERVEPA]

151. Your stupid fist-bump aside, of course you know I wan't agreeing with you.

[GGJohn]

152. Really? Gee, and here I thought we

were making progress.
Oh well, 1 step back, 2 steps forward.

[HERVEPA]

156. For gunners. 3 (excuse me, 9) steps back, 0 steps forward.

[GGJohn]

158. Not the way I see it,

and facts are on my side.

[LanternWaste]

154. Actually, people are free to kill. Consequences of that action however, are another thing.

Actually, people are free to kill. Specific consequences of that action (as with all things) however, are another thing.

[GGJohn]

155. Actually, you're right

Someone can freely go kill, but they better be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.

[Logical]

132. I don't think you're helping the gun cause at all. Nt

[GGJohn]

136. I disagree, and I'm just posting my opinion on a website. eom.

[Dont call me Shirley]

165. Tell that to the little kid who shot his friend with the loaded gun he found in daddy's dresser.

Tell that to the parents of teenagers being gunned down by cops in cold blood.

Tell that to praying people being assassinated in their sanctuary.

Tell that to the small townspeople in Iraq who have been massacred in the night by the machine guns of soldiers.

Tell that to the family of President Kennedy.

Tell that to the parents of the children at Columbine and Sandy Hook.

Tell that to millions of survivors of gun violence.

Honestly, take a moment to reflect in self-honesty, John.

[niyad]

79. k and r

[awoke_in_2003]

80. The same ones her who claim to support

more background checks, etc, are full of shit because the minute you bring up universal background checks they scream about it while pointing at the second amendment. They want no change, and they are part of the problem.

[BainsBane]

81. Exactly

I learned that the hard way.

[awoke_in_2003]

97. The blood is on their hands, too. nt

[SaranchaIsWaiting]

93. hillary clinton voted for death.

[lovemydog]

137. Try anything and everything.

Mothers Against Drunk Drivers did, and now rates of auto fatalities caused by drunk drivers is way lower than it was before they formed. Sure, some drivers drive home drunk and don't kill anyone. Sure, some people will violate the law and kill people on the road. Sure, some have opposed their efforts. But we need an all-out assault against gun violence. If one doesn't agree, then do something else to stop gun violence and tell us what you do. Don't just piss on everyone who really wants to reduce gun violence. As President Obama says, we can do better.

[beevul]

167. Is that what you guys were doing in the gun forum thread?

Watch out, no mourning for the dead allowed

Is that what you guys were doing in the gun forum thread? You know, the one started in the gun forum by the anti-gun crowd? The one that started before the sun was even up in places in the US, Thursday morning?

Is that what you guys are doing when you call us "gun humpers", mourning?

Is that what you guys are doing, when you propose this that or the other gun control measure, before the facts of the event are fully known, mourning?

Uh huh.

[Left coast liberal]

168. We are so fucked up...

[Arugula Latte]

170. Fucked up ...

and just plain fucked.

[BainsBane]

171. My thoughts exactly

Proper fucked

[Skittles]

174. so sick of having to cater to the whims of COWARDS

gun humpers can FUCK THEMSELVES

[Duckhunter935]

184. So nice you are

[Eleanors38]

175. Oh Bains. Who was all over this with gunz, gunz, gunz, first?

But you must serve your Narrative©.

[BainsBane]

188. Did the killer use a swimming pool this time?

He used guns because he wanted to kill, and guns are the most efficient way to kill many people in a short period of time.

Yes, it's terrible of me to talk about how they died. We must lie, lie, lie, lie in order to protect the Precious and Almighty gun so that the paranoid and weak don't have to fear going out to buy a carton of milk without the capacity to wipe out the entire grocery store.

In countries like Australia where people don't like to see mass murders, they have responded to such tragedies by implementing gun control. Here, everything is but an opportunity for more profit for the gun manufacturers, who in turn sell more guns so that more people can kill. Everything works precisely as planned. This is about a culture of murder, which under no circumstances be impeded.

Now spare me your bullshit about how you love your fucking guns. We all know. They are Sacred. They come first, before any and all human lives.

Now, one of the fearful leaders of the #2s was quick to place the blame on gun control, because the problem of course is that more people aren't shooting each other and more people aren't dying. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1121859
We get it. Murder comes first. Nothing new there. Always the same story. The right to kill must not be abridged, especially the right to kill black people. It's the American way. The gun lobby ensures it.

[Eleanors38]

189. Actually, you & your buddies are using the new banner approach:

Take advantage of and exploit tragic gun-only deaths with the firstist and the mostist. There are banner sites which explicitly promote this; I'm sure you are quite aware of them, and you may think they are behind the curve, when compared with DU's prohibitionists.

Funny, all I hear is hatred, denigration, smear, attack, penis talk, etc. when the big pounce occurs. Compassion? Look long and hard for it. I have to explain to you that the two groups of emotions are not the same, though you would probably disagree. You really need to take a good look at how your argument comes across: It seems that the Almighty Gun is so great a concern in your arguments, and that anti-gun doctrine takes such a priority, questions of racism and legitimized racism seem less important. Those questions seem of greater importance to quite a few in DU, more than the instrumentality of murder (ever heard of Bombingham?)

A question: Would you deny by law the right of worshippers to attend church while armed? If you are interested, I wouldn't; that is up to churches or any other community organization to decide. But would you remove that option by law? I'll await your answer.

NOTE: This post did not engage in personal attack, and views were expressed in a civil manner.

[NaturalHigh]

187. BS. We ALL mourn the loss of life.

I just hold in contempt those whose obvious agenda is to use this tragedy to push their gun control fetish. For some, expressing concern about this heinous crime truly is a ruse to push a political agenda, and you know that as well as I do.