HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Exactly what is "an ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:17 AM

Exactly what is "an open and honest conversation about guns"?

I keep reading that phrase from the gun-control side. Exactly what do they mean? People who are interested can already post on internet forums, post comments to newspaper articles and editorials, write letters to the editors, make and post video on youtube without any restrictions. Newspapers, magazines, and TV stations can do editorials and special news reports. Various organizations such as Brady, VPC, NRA, SAF, GOA, and a bunch of others can, and already do, issue press releases, update their web pages, and spam the internet. All of that stuff is already being done in abundance.

What more, specifically, does the Democratic Party and the Federal government need to do for such a conversation?

I have a feeling that "open and honest conversation about guns" is gun-controller code-speak for introduce new gun-control legislation and try to get it passed.

102 replies, 8545 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 Exactly what is "an open and honest conversation about guns"? (Original post)
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 OP
HockeyMom Sep 2012 #1
glacierbay Sep 2012 #2
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #7
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #27
Vincardog Sep 2012 #54
gejohnston Sep 2012 #57
Vincardog Sep 2012 #60
gejohnston Sep 2012 #62
Vincardog Sep 2012 #63
gejohnston Sep 2012 #68
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #74
Clames Sep 2012 #3
upaloopa Sep 2012 #4
MercutioATC Sep 2012 #8
sarisataka Sep 2012 #16
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #9
slackmaster Sep 2012 #24
Clames Sep 2012 #38
Simo 1939_1940 Sep 2012 #83
Missycim Sep 2012 #5
rDigital Sep 2012 #26
ileus Sep 2012 #6
Missycim Sep 2012 #48
DanTex Sep 2012 #10
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #14
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #53
beevul Sep 2012 #64
ManiacJoe Sep 2012 #66
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #76
gejohnston Sep 2012 #78
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #80
gejohnston Sep 2012 #81
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #86
rrneck Sep 2012 #85
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #87
rrneck Sep 2012 #88
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #89
rrneck Sep 2012 #90
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #91
rrneck Sep 2012 #92
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #93
rrneck Sep 2012 #94
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #95
rrneck Sep 2012 #96
ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #102
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #98
spin Sep 2012 #70
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #77
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #73
JoePhilly Sep 2012 #79
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #99
oneshooter Sep 2012 #101
Missycim Sep 2012 #84
sarisataka Sep 2012 #17
DanTex Sep 2012 #19
sarisataka Sep 2012 #20
DanTex Sep 2012 #43
sarisataka Sep 2012 #46
DanTex Sep 2012 #49
gejohnston Sep 2012 #51
DanTex Sep 2012 #52
gejohnston Sep 2012 #56
DanTex Sep 2012 #59
gejohnston Sep 2012 #61
DanTex Sep 2012 #65
gejohnston Sep 2012 #71
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #100
sarisataka Sep 2012 #69
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #22
Clames Sep 2012 #39
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #44
friendly_iconoclast Sep 2012 #42
spin Sep 2012 #72
Atypical Liberal Sep 2012 #40
tosh Sep 2012 #11
glacierbay Sep 2012 #13
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #15
tosh Sep 2012 #45
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #47
spin Sep 2012 #75
bad sofa king Sep 2012 #12
glacierbay Sep 2012 #18
bad sofa king Sep 2012 #21
GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 #23
bad sofa king Sep 2012 #32
glacierbay Sep 2012 #37
bongbong Sep 2012 #33
bad sofa king Sep 2012 #35
bongbong Sep 2012 #36
Reasonable_Argument Sep 2012 #25
rDigital Sep 2012 #28
liberal N proud Sep 2012 #29
bongbong Sep 2012 #30
ZombieHorde Sep 2012 #31
discntnt_irny_srcsm Sep 2012 #41
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #34
Missycim Sep 2012 #50
orpupilofnature57 Sep 2012 #55
jody Sep 2012 #58
socialindependocrat Sep 2012 #67
cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #82
Clames Sep 2012 #97

Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:23 AM

1. You won't change our minds

and we won't change your minds. I guess we hare just going to have to accept that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:27 AM

2. Yes

 

but, we can do it w/o the insults and name calling that seems to happen all the time. Not you, I don't believe I've seen a post by you thats demeaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:36 AM

7. Occasionally some minds do change.

It is rare, but I can remember a few who came to the gungeon as antis but had open minds and became pro-RKBA.

But I still am asking, "What is an open and honest conversation about guns" as mentioned in the platform, on a national level?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:44 PM

27. I am open change my mind on gun issues.

At least more open than many other issues, such as marriage equality, SS, food stamps, war on drugs, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HockeyMom (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:44 PM

54. That is what they mean. "An open and honest conversation" = "agree with our side.

It is the same as the GOP saying "we are happy to work with anyone who wants to pass our policies".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:51 PM

57. and your side is being honest?

last time I checked, it amounted to "we will crush you sorry hicks"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #57)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:13 PM

60. Excuse me; which side do you think I am on? What side is "your side"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #60)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:20 PM

62. at first I thought were agreeing with Hockeymom

I humbly apologize if I assumed incorrectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #62)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:24 PM

63. I agree that nobody wants to change their mind. My comment was what the phrase meant

I own several guns BTW. I do not have or want a CCP.
I think guns are like abortions they should both be legal safe
and if you don't want one don't have one.

I am not looking to start any fights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #63)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:40 PM

68. same here

although my collection probably slightly smaller than yours.
We agree on all fronts, including personal choice on CCP,
My bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #54)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:41 PM

74. I think your observation is correct. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:32 AM

3. You should try looking up the...

 

"We Are Better Than This" cause on Facebook. Supposedly a place for such open discussion by the Brady Campaign. Talks of compromise yet it seems they want a one-sided arrangement on that part. Nothing new from them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:34 AM

4. Gunner side, "the second amendment means that anyone can own and can carry any type of weapon

any where they want to."

An honest conversation means we can openly state that the gunner point of view is bull shit!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:36 AM

8. Perhaps it also involves educating the anti-gun people

 

...so they understand the mechanics of what they're talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MercutioATC (Reply #8)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:04 PM

16. There are a noticeable number

of pro-control supporters who admit a lack of knowledge of firearms mechanics and have stated they do not desire to learn more. Their opinion is all they need to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:39 AM

9. None of the gunners here have advocated that.

Neither the NRA, GOA, nor the SAF advocate that.

I would think that an honest conversation on guns would mean that you would not lie about the other side's position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:41 PM

24. A truly honest conversation would not include that kind of dishonest hyperbole

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:35 PM

38. Anti-gunner side, "the second amendment means only regulated militia (e.g. National Guard) can own..

 

..weapons period.


Anti-gunner point of view is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 03:36 AM

83. Actually, this post demonstrates why honest conversation is moot.

As long as pro-restrictionists continue to destroy their own "cause" with blatant misrepresentation/lies about the attitudes of pro-gun rights supporters, gun control will continue to lose what little support it has left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:35 AM

5. It means you better agree with us (gun grabbers)

 

and if not you are bitter clingers that strap one or two on before you leave the house, oh and you hate kittens and America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Missycim (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:42 PM

26. Hey, I love cats! ; ) nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:35 AM

6. open and honest is you agreeing to controllers demands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:23 PM

48. +10000

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:45 AM

10. It probably means without all the extremism, fearmongering, and misinformation from the right.

Kind of like "an open and honest conversation about income inequality" would mean without the constant cries of "class warfare" from the very same right-wingers that promote extremism, fearmongering, and misinformation about guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:00 PM

14. I notice that you omit the extremism, fearmongering, and misinformation from the gun-controllers.

In this thread there is already misinformation posted by a controller. See post #4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #14)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:43 PM

53. Would you agree that the licenses for weapons should be graded, much like we do for automobiles?

For instance, I can drive any passenger vehicle with my current license, but I can't legally drive an 18 wheeler, or many other commercial vehicles unless I demonstrate sufficient skill.

If we are being reasonable ... doesn't a similar approach make sense for the ownership of weapons? I think it does. You can own any weapon you want, but you need to demonstrate proficiency and obtain the appropriate license.

Or is my position "unreasonable"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:26 PM

64. This again?

Comparing ownership (of firearms) with public use (of automobiles)?

If we are being reasonable ...which passenger vehicle or "18 wheeler" or even plane ot train, do you require a license of any sort simply to own?

If the answer is "none of the above" - and it most certainly IS - you're asking for a whole lot more than any parallel to vehicle ownership, and trying to look "reasonable" doing it, in a most disingenuous way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:32 PM

66. This could be interesting. What levels/grades do you have in mind?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ManiacJoe (Reply #66)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:52 PM

76. Fair question.

What I would do is bring in experts from the police and military professions, and then model the skill levels and certifications based on their knowledge and expertise.

For instance, the police have various grades for their officers. And so, SWAT team officers have a higher level of weapons training.

Same is true in the military. They grade your skill with hand guns, machine guns, sniper weapons, so on.

And so ... you reach out to these EXPERTS, and you design a grading system specifically for a civilian population.

Then, in a free market model, you certify teachers at local gun ranges. So they make some money training and certifying those who demonstrate proficiency.

Honestly, I'm fine to allow YOU to own a rocket launcher within such a model, but only if you've based an official certification courses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #76)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:59 PM

78. personally,

I like the current model for rocket launchers and machine guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #78)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:06 PM

80. I included that because Scalia recently said he was "unsure" about rocket launchers ...

because they are "hand held".

In his weird model, if you can HOLD the weapon in your hand, it might be OK.

I guess her never saw Star Trek, never saw an phaser set to kill.

But I digress. My main point is simply that we could, if we wanted to, develop a model so that an individual could own almost any weapon.

And God forbid some one invent a hand held nuke with a 10,000 mile range, Scalia would be open to that for house hold defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #80)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 10:17 PM

81. he and Kagan are hunting and shooting buddies

or at least they were for awhile. I think it referred to individual small arms like a rifles or pistols.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/small+arm

Like I said, the current NFA (which registers each rocket, not so much the launcher. Each rocket is a separate form, finger printing, background check, and transference tax) and there isn't market for them, is working. Last thing we need is to create one.

Personally, I would class the rifles that use the .50 BMG round as NFA and make short barreled rifles title I (and allow handguns with shoulder stocks). Why should a .22 rifle with a 15 inch barrel be as tightly controlled as a machine gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #81)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 02:27 PM

86. That's a good start.

I'm not a gun expert, so that's why I'd reach out to those who are. Your last sentence makes a key point.

All such weapons are not equally deadly.

There are also issues around correct storage and maintenance.

My main point is if there is to be a reasonable discussion, this might be one of the paths to having it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #76)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 01:14 PM

85. If I'm not mistaken the NRA already does that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #85)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 02:29 PM

87. So the NRA has worked with the government to codify their certification system into law?

I don't think they have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #87)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 02:38 PM

88. No. But i think they designed firearms training progams

for police departments all over the U.S. I understand they have been the go to guys for firearms safety for a long time. I could be wrong though.

If you want to codify such training into law, the NRA will get credit for it and all that entails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #88)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 02:41 PM

89. And?

I don't care who gets "credit" for it.

And from what I can tell, the NRA does not want credit for doing something to ensure that those who own guns have demonstrated that they are actually proficient with those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #89)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 02:51 PM

90. The NRA is a lobbying organization whose objective

is making money. They developed the training programs, and they will get the contract for the training. That means a boatload of your and my tax dollars will go to an organization that largely supports our political opponents.

I seriously doubt the VPC would even place a bid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #90)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 02:56 PM

91. They are all ready making that money.

What's missing is the legal requirement for certification.

And ... thanks to capitalism, groups outside the NRA could work with the government to become accredited to provide the training.

I believe that if formal certification was required, fewer crazy people would get access to the more dangerous weapons because the process would slow them down and some one, whether the certifying body, or others, would become aware of their larger, more dangerous intent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #91)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 03:05 PM

92. There's nothing wrong with certification

but at a time when privatization of government services are a major cause of our current socioeconomic difficulties creating a federal subsidy tailor made for our political opponents would be a huge mistake.

Is there a liberal organization that we could get to provide such training?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #92)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 03:16 PM

93. I think you and I are talking past each other.

First, the government would decide on the specific elements of the certification, and provide the licensing requirements. The government would also determine the criteria through which any group (conservative or liberal or governmental) could become certified to provide the official training.

My kids paid for private driving school (required by law), and then took a test at the DMV (government).

This would be similar. It could be like a car inspection. Government sets the rules, and then grants certification rights to private entities. Or it could be a mix.

Bottom line ... these are details that can be worked out. And sure, a liberal group could engage. Heck, the Gun group here on DU could do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #93)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 03:32 PM

94. The government could do it,

and lhat would be just fine. But in the pantheon of things that need to be done, I would consider such a policy pretty far down the list. We have a lot of work to do to turn all this Freidman/Norquist bullshit around before we pick up the NRA/firearms training hot potato. Guns are an icon for conservative ideologues and anathema for liberals. When the left creates a place for guns in its ideology and gains some ground in the return of government to the people, we will be in a better position to deal with it. But I don't see it happening for at least ten years or so. That's why I asked about a liberal training organization. There ain't one because liberals can't find a place for guns in their thinking right now for the most part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #94)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 03:43 PM

95. Maybe ... the question was ... "can we have a reasonable discussion?".

I think we can. And this approach would be a path forward.

And again, plenty of liberals are gun owners. Interestingly, even here on DU, some of them are totally against a proposal like mine. They don't even want to discuss it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #95)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 03:59 PM

96. We're having a reasonable discussion now.

I've always thought CCW laws were progressive because they require people to get training in safety and rules of engagement to carry. Education is progressive.

I also think firearms ownership should be anonymous because, well, there is a fascist running for office of the president right now. Do I expect a pitched battle against the 82nd Airborne wielding my trusty 1911? No. But I haven't forgotten the Patriot Act, TIA, and the rapacious greed and paranoia on those assholes on the right. There is tremendous data mining potential in anything that can be used as a gun registry, and they don't have to shoot at you to oppress you. I'd rather keep 'em guessing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #91)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 11:31 PM

102. The problem is requiring certification to exercise a right

We don't require that for voting, publishing, assembly, etc. Why should firearms ownership be markedly different.

That said I am a firearms trainer and believe very strongly that without good training and regular practice, safety decreases.

At this point, the constitutional approach would seem to be to allow ownership without training or ratings, but strongly encourage it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #76)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 05:04 PM

98. It is legal to own a rocket launcher, they are no big deal.

A rocket launcher is nothing more than an empty piece of pipe with a trigger attached. If your rocket is large enough then all you need is a piece of rope tied between two trees to launch the rocket.

It is the rocket itself that is tightly controlled, as it should be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:48 PM

70. Your idea could provide some interesting discussion in this group. ...

Perhaps you could start a thread on this topic. If you do please include some examples of what would be required.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #70)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:54 PM

77. See my response #76.

I'm not a gun expert, and I think what you need to design the certification model are experts, law enforcement, and military.

I think they could design the structure, and turn it into a model for training and certification that turns a profit AND leads to a greater appreciation of what it means to own, and use, any fire arm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:39 PM

73. I don't see where that would serve any purpose.

I have been an 18-wheel driver trainer, meaning I taught truck driving. (I loved the actual driving, but the life-style of an over-the-road driver sucks, big time.) And I have fired every type of gun except a sub-machine gun, and most of the calibers of pistols. (.22 .22Magnum .32 .380 .38 .357 9mm .44Magnum, .45ACP & .45LC) A CCW is a license to carry a concealed handgun. There just isn't a whole lot of difference in basic skill from one handgun to another. So once a person is able to fire one type of handgun, with only modest practice they should be able to transition to another. Much like buying a new car, you don't have to get a new driver's license.

I am undecided about whether or not to require a license to own a gun at all. I can see the need for any owner of a gun to be educated about gun safety and self-defense law. I have certainly seen idiots with guns. However, I do fear incrimentalism from gun-controllers. Camel's nose in the tent type of thing. I am convinced that the leaders in the gun-control movement do want a total ban on civilian firearms, and even a ban on self-defense of any kind. (After all, some states have outlawed pepper sprays, and the UK is trying hard at knife control.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #73)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:59 PM

79. I was not limiting my statement to hand guns.

I'm talkiing also about semi-auto rifles.

Some weapons are designed for home defense. Some better suited for street defense.

Part of the requirement to prove you know how to use the weapon helps ensure that a crazy person can't just buy one.

You will easily prove you are capable and not crazy ... an imbalanced person is more likely to struggle, and maybe fail.

You get a certification which proves your skill ... and the crazy get blocked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 05:28 PM

99. Rifles are rarely used in crime.

Every year, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, twice a many people are murdered by hands and feet (beaten, kicked, or strangled to death) than are killed by all types of rifles combined.

Since rifles are so rarely used for crime (About 3% of gun crimes) any attempt to regulate them would use up enormous political capital for next to no gain.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a fraud. It actually banned nothing except for some cosmetic features on some rifles. (Flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc.) The real pupose of the AWB was increminalism. Get some minor things banned, then slowly widen the scope of the ban until it was an all encompasing ban. Both sides thought they would gain by requiring the AWB to be renewed in ten years. The NRA types thought that they would have enough political muscle in ten years to kill any renewal. The controllers thought that in ten years they would introduce and be able to pass a renewal ban that had teeth to it. They did introduce H.R. 2038 in 2003, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.+2038: and it did have teeth, but it died a nonpartisan death as Democrats and Republicans alike ran from it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #79)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 06:59 PM

101. "You get a certification which proves your skill"

Eight years in the Marines (311) the last three as a Small Arms Training NCO on the range at Paris Island.

Is that enough"certification" for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #53)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 06:27 AM

84. I am getting tired of grabbers comparing a

 

Drivers lic to owning a gun, RKBA is a constitutional right. How about we need a lic to vote or to use our first amendment rights? You should pass a background check and thats it. Now I am all for stringent background checks and tightening of reporting mental illness to the proper agencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:06 PM

17. Do you think

the proven falsehoods of pro-control groups should be called out and refuted in the same manner as the false statements the NRA promotes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #17)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:15 PM

19. I don't really buy the "both sides do it" line on guns or on most other issues.

The fact of the matter is that the right-wingers and teabaggers are off in their own fantasy world, and whatever small errors or exaggerations that progressives and Democrats may be guitly of are nothing compared to the extremism and sheer lunacy of the Republican party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:25 PM

20. IMO only

I believe the left is far more guilty of 'cooking the numbers'. Brady, VPC etc. have been found to take 'liberal interpretations' such as calling anyone under 24 a 'child' to out right lies much more often than the pro-gun side.

I agree the extremism and fear-mongering trophy is solidly in the grip of the RW side of the debate. If anything they are pulling away.

To have an 'open honest discussion' however we must be willing to admit when 'our' side is wrong and accept, not necessarily the opposite is automatically correct, that the truth is not where we wish it would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #20)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:03 PM

43. I haven't been impressed by the examples of "gun control lies".

I've often drawn a comparison between gun control and global warming. In both cases, the right gets red-faced as they go on about the supposed lies and distortion and propaganda from the left. And, sure, maybe that one chart from "An Inconvenient Truth" didn't tell the whole story, and maybe there has been some alarmism, but overall the facts and the science very heavily support the fact that the earth is getting warmer due to greenhouse gas emissions. Even the "climategate" emails, which many on the right trumpeted as the smoking gun, when taken in context, add up to basically nothing at all.

And the same with guns. I'm sure some people have distorted and exaggerated in defense of gun control, and I'll concede that the evidence isn't as one-sided as on climate change, but still, the bulk of the evidence is on the side of tighter gun laws.

ETA: I noticed that right below, someone has repeated the NRA talking point that there are 20,000 gun laws on the books already. This is a great example of the kind of vacuous argument that you see from the right. The total number of gun laws is a useless statistic, because it doesn't measure anything meaningful. And yet I've seen it presented over and over as evidence that we already have plenty or too much gun control and we don't need any more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:04 PM

46. Both sides have to be willing to give up their myths

The control side needs to admit that despite predictions and intuition more guns has not led to more gun crime; the trend is going the other way. Mass shooting, while horrifying and tragic are the anomalies and to a great extent cannot be completely prevented. If all guns were banned and gun crime dropped to the best European levels but assault, rape and 'hot' burglaries all triple is the gun ban really worth it?

The gunner side needs to acknowledge that how much we would like to believe shall issue has pushed that trend, it cannot be ascertained with any degree of confidence. Background checks need to be as tight as possible to keep the cracks in the system as narrow as possible; if there is doubt about a person there needs to be a deeper check. That may mean buying a gun is not always cash and carry but is it really an undue burden? As registration will be a non-starter, what can be done to close off the 2% pipeline of dealers with no scruples who supply guns with a wink and a nod to people? If a gun is lost or stolen, how much responsibility should the rightful owner have?


Neither side will like everything, but that is a part of compromise- nobody goes home completely happy.

I have seen the 20,000 number and while impressive the question needs to be made- How many do any good? It is not that we need more or less gun laws, we need good gun laws that respect rights while promoting public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #46)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:26 PM

49. But you have repeated several pro-gun myths in that post.

It is simply not true that Europe suffers from three times as much rape, assault, and "hot" burglary as the US. Western Europe has about 1/4 the homicide as the US, but their rates of other violent crimes are not remarkably different from the US. For example, according to UN rape statistics, the US rape rate is actually higher than most (but not all) European nations, so I have no idea where you got your information from. There are some nations that have high rates of certain particular crimes, but as any criminologist can tell you, a lot of times the biggest differences are due to differences in the way different crimes are legally defined in different countries. But still, according to official statistics, the only place where the US is out of the range of normal is homicide.

You have also neglected to mention the fact that the big drop in crime in the US occurred during the 90s, at the same time as a major drop in gun ownership rate. So if anything, that would support a positive correlation between gun ownership and crime.

And so on.

All the indications are that if guns were more tightly controlled, there would be less gun crimes in the US, and therefore less homicide, but overall crime rates would remain unchanged, or perhaps drop slightly. The evidence for this is not just international comparisons, but also statistical studies about the relationships between guns and crime within the US.

And the thing is, unlike whatever "lies" that the gun control advocates have made, the misinformation pushed by the pro-gun side actually distort the argument. Ignoring the fact that gun ownership rates dropped during the big crime drop of the 90s isn't some irrelevant detail. Pretending that Western Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. have sky-high rates of violent non-gun crimes because people don't have guns to defend themselves is not just a harmless exaggeration, it is a blatant lie that distorts the entire argument. Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #49)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:33 PM

51. one problem with the poll you cite

is IIRC, it is a face to face poll, while the Gallup one was by telephone. If some strange person came to my door asking me, for example, if I own any diamonds, guns, or any other valuable, the chances of me being totally honest is greatly diminished if I owned any of those items.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #51)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:40 PM

52. Gallup also showed a drop in gun ownership in the 90s.

Also, face-to-face polls aren't "some strange person coming to your door". In fact, people have done research into accuracy of polls and have found that face-to-face polls are in fact more accurate. That people are more willing to honestly disclose, for example, that they used drugs to a face-to-face interviewer than in a telephone survey. There are also other areas of quality where GSS will come out on top, like sampling design, less non-respondents, etc. This is why scholars pretty much universally agree that GSS is the "gold standard" in terms of measuring gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #52)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:50 PM

56. all scholars or just scholars come up with results

you like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #56)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:58 PM

59. Oh yeah I forgot. NRA talking point #37: "peer review" is just a liberal conspiracy to take away

your guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:16 PM

61. Oh yeah, Brady talking point five

independent scholars who happened to get results, and publish them in peer review journals, that doesn't fit my ideology they must be the ideologues.
Canadian crime rates are also falling. If gun sales is your pet theory, fine. There are several.
http://io9.com/5933173/three-strange-theories-about-why-americas-crime-rate-is-so-low
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/292565/20120203/violent-crime-robbery-rape-murder-obesity-health.htm




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #61)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:29 PM

65. Who said gun sales are my pet theory?

I don't think the drop in crime has much to do with guns at all. There are many other factors involved. Just pointing out that the NRA talking point about how gun ownership has skyrocketed while crime has dropped is false. Gun ownership dropped at the same time as crime dropped. More recently gun sales have increased. But basically this big picture doesn't tell us much at all about the relationship between guns and crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #65)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 06:14 PM

71. I don't know about any talking point

but I do know instructors who have first time gun owners, or claim to be, signing up in droves. If there is a drop, it looks like it is going back to the levels of the 1950s. I don't see that as either a good or a bad thing. In short, the "gun culture" remains constant but fewer what I would call casual gun owners. The guy who fears rising crime, buys a pistol and throws it in the sock drawer for 40 years. I can picture that rise through the 1960s and 1970s. Kids discover it when mom or dad goes to the old folks home or passes away. My inlaws were like that. They were not gun people by any stretch of the imagination. They bought some "ring of fire" revolver when my wife and siblings were kids, we guess. The rounds were corroded and could not be removed and I was not about to fire it. We dumped off on the cops. If was taken care of and made by a company that valued craftsmanship, he could have sold it to an FFL for a couple of hundred bucks. He did have a CCW for a few years and carried a different pistol, a small .32 ACP, when he had business where he handled a lot of cash, legally. When he sold the business he sold the pistol and let the permit expire.
Personally, I think rising crime, or perception of, increases causal gun ownership to some degree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #65)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 05:49 PM

100. One thing that you are leaving out, CCW expansion.

Prior to 1987, for a civilian to have a CCW was rare. Begining with Florida a wave of CCW legislation swept throught the country with dozens of states becoming shall-issue. Millions of ordinary citizens began to carry concealed. Then stories of ordinary citizens who happened to be legally armed at the right time and place and stopped a crime by killing a criminal began to appear in the news. How much effect that had on the crime rate is a subject for debate, but millions of citizens carrying a gun can't be ignored. They definately were not carrying them before the shall-issue wave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #49)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:41 PM

69. I did not claim to be citing statistics

merely throwing out an example of unintended consequences. I am working off my phone so I pretty much made up the example.

You point out the differences in crime reporting yet throw out any differences except homicide. Many European countries, including the UK I believe, base their crime statistics off convictions. Also if a person is convicted on more than one charge, only the highest offence is tallied. This will lowball their numbers compared to the US which bases its numbers off crimes reported. In any case yes, the US homicide rate from guns and pretty much all other causes is greater than the majority of Europe.

And the drop in crime began in the 90's, but with little variation has continued. The usual talking point is more guns= more crime, which is not true. The numbers for gun ownership vary greatly but to say less gun ownership= less crime may be true, yet that is not the same as less guns will = less crime. In either case it is the mirror image of the pro-gun claim that shall issue has caused the crime decline. It cannot be said for certain that a decrease in gun ownership is a major factor either.

And the thing is, unlike whatever "lies" that the gun control advocates have made, the misinformation pushed by the pro-gun side actually distort the argument.

Here is the breakdown of open honest discussion. Your implication that "lies" by the control side do not distort the issue compared to the pro gun side. Take for example the Brady CCW killers. It is known that not every case involved a CCW holder. Suicides are included. While suicide by gun is a serious issue as well, the causation of self-inflicted violence is completely different from violence done to another. To lump those numbers together and claim that there is one solution is disingenuous at best.
The trouble with comparing the US to the countries you have mentioned is that the US is not the same as those countries. The background, history and social psyche is very different. Somethings they have done may work here. Somethings they have done don't really work even for them. The honest part is needing to admit what does not work and be willing to give up a fruitless path.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:37 PM

22. So you give your side a pass to lie.

If you give anyone a pass to lie, even so-called small lies, then you have destroyed all hope of an HONEST discussion.

FWIW, Brady and VPC have told some huge lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:38 PM

39. Then you really have no point in participating in this topic of discussion.

 

Because if you don't think the anti-gun/pro-gun-control extremists resort to fear mongering, gross misrepresentations, outright lies and propaganda then you really need to extract your head from whatever sand pit you have it buried in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Clames (Reply #39)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:12 PM

44. "When your cause is just you cannot allow yourself to be constrained by empirical evidence"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=69038

Yeah, I know 4th Law of Robotics was being facetious- but that does tend to be the unspoken rule of thumb....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:47 PM

42. So a small amount of faith-promoting rumor is acceptable from the "good" guys?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #19)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 07:51 PM

72. You seem to totally ignore the fact that many Democrats own firearms and support RKBA. ...

To you this is simply a inconvenient truth that you prefer to ignore. It is however reality and not simply a NRA talking point.

I will agree that the Republican party has grabbed the issue of gun control and used it effectively to win offices for their party members in close elections. This strikes me as strange as the Republican party is largely the party of the rich and powerful and often opposes civil liberties. Gun control was founded in racial discrimination and has been used largely to oppress minorities. For example in the South members of the KKK used their firearms to terrorize black communities. It was difficult for minorities to obtain firearms in order to effectively resist.

I suggest you carefully read this entire article but of course you will simply dismiss it as right-wing propaganda despite the fact that it paints Republicans in a bad light. I will just post a short excerpt. (Please note that The Atlantic is considered to be a liberal publication by Wikipedia. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org)/wiki/List_of_political_magazines


The Secret History of Guns
September 2011 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight

***snip**

Civil-rights activists, even those committed to nonviolent resistance, had long appreciated the value of guns for self-protection. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in 1956, after his house was bombed. His application was denied, but from then on, armed supporters guarded his home. One adviser, Glenn Smiley, described the King home as “an arsenal.” William Worthy, a black reporter who covered the civil-rights movement, almost sat on a loaded gun in a living-room armchair during a visit to King’s parsonage.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/1/


I found this article to be informative, educational and fair. You may disagree. I linked to it merely to explain why some Democrats support RKBA. I personally have always had a hatred for those who discriminate based on race. That's why I strongly support "shall issue" concealed carry over "may issue." "Shall Issue" does not discriminate! I live in an area of Florida where once the KKK ruled. Racism still exists here but the racists never terrorize the black community for good reason.

I have been accused several times in this group of being a racist because I support RKBA. I have also received numerous other insults but to me this is the most irritating. I have often also been labeled as a right-winger but the fact is that I come from a long line of Democrats some of whom worked in the steel mills of Pittsburgh and stood on union lines to fight against corporate greed. Many of those Democrats I descended from owned firearms and used them for target shooting, hunting and self defense.

I feel you have every right to support strong gun control. We may disagree on this topic but please don't try to define a good Democrat as only one who believes that draconian gun control is necessary. Our party is a large tent and we often disagree on issues.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #10)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:12 PM

40. Banning assault rifles is a classic example of extremisim, fear mongering, and misinformation.

 

All rifles combined kill only about 300 people every year. Half as many as hands and feet.

Trying to ban assault rifles in the face of those facts is the epitome of extremism, fear mongering, and misinformation.

There is a reason why the anti-gun folks have moved from handgun violence (Handgun Control Inc) to rifle violence (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence), in spite of the fact that handguns constitute the bulk of firearm-related crime.

That reason is simple: They figured they would gain a lot more traction going after what was a niche firearm market and scary-looking military-style rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:46 AM

11. One scenario

is that some people on BOTH sides of the issue might recognize and acknowledge a problem (ie: mass shootings in public places) and then move on to a discussion about possible ways to solve that problem or at least curtail it in which NEITHER side feels that their rights are being unreasonably limited.

That scenario is rare.

I have always wondered at the numbers of people who take the attitude that it is simply NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION when it seems to me that these are exactly the ones who should want to take part, to make sure that their side is fairly represented.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tosh (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:56 AM

13. +10000000

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tosh (Reply #11)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:01 PM

15. How can the Party or the Feds facilitate that?

Such a discussion would be a good starting point.

Perhaps DU could play a part, but there is so much uncivility on this topic here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #15)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 03:38 PM

45. I wish I knew

and I could not agree more about the incivility. It is here and it is in real life.

Someone once suggested in Meta that we need a separate "group" to discuss gun rights/policy that had rules to prohibit the name-calling and talking points. As far as DU is concerned, I think that could be a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tosh (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:04 PM

47. Thank you a civil discussion.

I think people who can't be civil should be shown the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tosh (Reply #45)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 09:50 PM

75. How do you define talking points?

I have posted statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report and they have been labeled as right-wing talking points. But often those who support another assault weapons ban state that there is no reason to allow a civilian to own a machine gun and they are useless for hunting.

I politely point out that a black rifle "banned" by the previous assault weapons ban was not a machine gun but is instead a semi-automatic rifle mechanically identical to many semi-automatic firearms used by hunters and target shooters for decades. I link to articles that discuss hunting with a "black rifle" and also mention that most states limit the number of rounds in a magazine to only five while hunting game such as deer. Once again the facts I present are frequently viewed as right-wing propaganda.

In my opinion the strongest arguments that the gun control side of the debate use are based largely on emotion and often lack basic knowledge of firearms and how they mechanically function. There is no doubt that firearms do cause tragedy and often are misused by irresponsible owners and consequently many people suffer. That may be an emotional point but it is very valid.

The strongest arguments that the pro-gun side present are based primarily on facts and statistics. Sometimes posters on the RKBA side do link to conservative sites but since the more liberal and therefore "acceptable" sites rarely publish any articles that are pro-RKBA, it is in my opinion only reasonable. I will agree that linking to extremely conservative sites is inappropriate but usually the same info can be found on more middle of the road sites.

I feel that both sides of the gun control debate have excellent points to make. I feel that I could argue for strong gun control far more effectively than many of the posters who support this idea in the Gungeon, but I choose not to as I am a strong supporter of RKBA. It is sad that many of those who support the gun control side of the issue are unwilling to actually research the subject. That failure destroys many intelligent discussions.

I will totally agree that name calling and insults serve little purpose in any honest and intelligent discussion. Perhaps posters who engage in this practice should be blocked from posting in the Gungeon. Of course this might possibly hamper the pro-gun control side far more than the RKBA side. If you support RKBA and are impolite you have a far higher chance of being banned or blocked on DU than if you are on the other side as DU is a very liberal and progressive forum. Gun control is very popular among those who define themselves as very liberal and progressive. Posting here in favor of RKBA is a lot like being a member of the Pittsburgh Steelers when they play a game in the Cleveland Browns' stadium. You can expect to be harassed by the Dawg Pound.

To be honest, I don't mind being insulted as it shows me that I am winning the debate. I have a very thick skin.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 11:51 AM

12. there are already roughly 20,000 gun laws on the books in America. We have given you enough

 

and we're not giving you anything more. Hope that's open and honest enough for you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bad sofa king (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:08 PM

18. Uhh

 

GreenStormCloud is pro-2A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #18)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:31 PM

21. .........

 

thank you for pointing that out glacierbay but I was not really talking to him as much as I was just responding to him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bad sofa king (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:39 PM

23. That's OK. I figured out what you meant.

It is fairly easy to tell a person's position rather quickly by their posting history.

BTW - I liked your "blood in, blood out" post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #23)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:52 PM

32. thank you

 

I was surprised I didn't even get a nibble on that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bad sofa king (Reply #21)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:22 PM

37. Ok I got it now.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bad sofa king (Reply #12)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:53 PM

33. LOL

 

Another NRA Talking Point!

The "20,000" number is arrived at by counting the repeats of the same few gun-control laws for every municipality, etc that has them.

Nice, accurate parroting of the NRA's Talking Points Manual! We get that a lot around here!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:09 PM

35. That reminds me,

 

my new edition of American Rifleman should be here any day now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bad sofa king (Reply #35)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 01:18 PM

36. Good!

 

You'll have more Talking Points (AKA, Big Lies) to spew all over here before you get your pizza!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:42 PM

25. The problem is

 

The pro and anti 2nd amendment factions don't even have a common starting point. The pro RKBA group starts from the understanding that the 2nd amendment is about having an armed populace to prevent tyranny. The anti RKBA groups, by and large, don't like the 2nd amendment and feel it's a relic from a different time in history. They know they can't repeal the 2nd amendment so they try to redefine it as a hunting and self-defense amendment. They then put forth a proposal based off of that stance. When told "no" based on the actual language of the 2nd amendment they come back with, "why can't you just be reasonable". Until they come out and say they just want to repeal the amendment or alter their stance on its purpose the anti-RKBA will never be able to have a true discussion about gun control with the pro-RKBA groups. Simple as that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:46 PM

28. Unfortunately gun-prohibitionists don't want an honest or open conversation. They want to take your

 

gun rights one bite at a time until nothing is less. Giving anything more to them than has already been given is akin to a deal with the Devil.

Enforce existing laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:47 PM

29. When you have two sides who are unwilling to change their views even the slightest, it is impossible

Just like it is impossible to talk to Republicans, it is just as difficult to talk the gunnut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:49 PM

30. Answer

 

From the gun-religionists: NRA Talking Points, and anecdotes about brave (sic) gun-religionists who killed somebody who was trying to steal a loaf of bread.

From the Liberals: Rational appeals for newer gun-control regulations to prevent endless murders & massacres.

From me: Appeals to the Liberals to not try so hard for new gun control laws, since too many gun-religionists will never leave home, and thus starve, if they can't be armed every single second they are outside of their "Fortress Of Solitude"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:50 PM

31. I would like us to stop calling each other names.

Pro or anti-RKBA is a fine label, but many of the labels I see are counter productive. When we call other people names, we make it more personal. Making the argument personal often only cements the original position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #31)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 02:20 PM

41. That would be an element of progress :)

IMHO, there would be nothing more helpful in an honest exchange than an inquiring mind from each side, respect for answers and the opinions behind them along with a lot more inquiring and a lot more respect and for when the inquiring isn't quite enough to expand understanding a short interval of respectful silence would be good.

Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 12:56 PM

34. "Shut up while I tell you why guns are responsible for all the evils in the world and why

 

you're a murderer and racist for thinking otherwise".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:28 PM

50. Why should Pro-2nd people talk to gun-grabbers?

 

I never hear them willing to give something up to get something, like a federal reciprocity law. I'd allow more stringent background checks for that, maybe even a waiting period

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:50 PM

55. Your last sentence is what the conversation is partially about

2nd amendment paranoia, as a Liberal suspicious person I want law abiding citizens to have guns, one of the keys to a free society, no doubt. Secondly I don't want the police, military and criminals to be the only ones with guns because of the danger. Third is where we part way's, We don't live in 1770's, we don't have a militia,we don't depend on hunting, or our safety ( I can already hear the arguments on that ) and so I've made the mistake in the past of calling guns " Deadly Toys " in 90% of the homes in America, I don't anymore. Is that open and honest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 04:55 PM

58. Dem platform "we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms." page 53

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Tue Sep 4, 2012, 05:37 PM

67. I think both sides need to list their beliefs

and we need to come to some reasonable agreement as to what is true and what is fiction in order to start on the same page.

Second, each side needs to list their beliefs regarding the second amendment and owning guns. We need to see what we are close to agreeing on and where we diverge.

Then we need to explain the importance of each belief - if not evident.

We are all Democrats - at least it's not like discussing the issue with a Repuke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 12:48 AM

82. One that doesn't include the mention of my dick or its size. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Wed Sep 5, 2012, 04:02 PM

97. Simple answer: Bigger echo chamber

 

Pretty much all those who ask for this national conversation want is just a larger echo chamber. There is no desire for open discussion or compromise, this is just another page of misrepresentation in the same book. Last chapter was Common Sense Laws® and this just the same pile of crap with the same smell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread