HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » My point of view on the R...

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:02 PM

My point of view on the RKBA or where I stand. This OP is not intended to start a fight but if it

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:36 PM - Edit history (1)

is not appropriate please delete it.

I have a purpose here and that is to point out that there is space between the two extremes of banning guns and unlimited availablility of guns. We need to get to some kind of understanding I think. I think some agree with that here.

There is a point to this believe me.

My feelings about guns are these. I am not a gun grabber. I do believe the 2nd Amendment grants the right to keep and bear arms. Though I donít believe the right is absolute, that is I donít believe laws restricting gun ownership are unconstitutional. Even the SCOTUS said that in their recent decisions. They said someone would have to bring up the restrictions and they would rule on them, I am not quoting here but I think that is close to what Scalia said.
My gun history is this: as a kid I went hunting with my dad. He had several shotguns and he would give me his Winchester model 12 shotgun to use. We hunted pheasants and rabbits. It was not my most favorite thing to do mostly because he made me clean the rabbits and birds. Also I did not like the taste of the meat and at times there was buckshot in it. Today I am a vegetarian and that experience was part of what led me to that choice. My dad loaded his own shells and did so for some of his friends. I would go trap shooting with him at the fish and game club. Before that we kids in the neighborhood played cowboys and Indians and soldier with our toy guns. I always wanted the most realistic toy gun for Christmas. Mattel made most of them. You used greenie stickum caps placing them on the bullets and they were pretty realistic to me as a kid.
When I was 18 I bought a Colt .22 single action pistol. I think it was called a frontier scout. I got drafted and we were not permitted to take guns to boot camp so I sold it just before I went to Ft Knox.
There I learned to use the M-14. I was not a sharp shooter but I could hit the target occasionally. I was sent to Vietnam and during my year there I used the following weapons in combat or carried on duty: M-14, M-16A1, Browning .50 Cal machine gun, M-60 7.62 machine gun, M-79 grenade launcher , M-1911A1 .45 automatic pistol and grenades and smoke grenades.
I am not a stranger to guns and I own a gun now. Although is just a Ruger .22 single action pistol that I use to use for target practice when I had twenty acres in the lower Sierra Nevada mountains. I also owned a Colt single action army which I sold when I was broke and needed money. I like certain kinds of guns, mostly single action pistols and lever action rifles. I am not into the guns people buy for protection today. I respect the idea that you want a gun for protection; I am a supporter of historic gun collectors, black power shooters, hunters and just about any kind of sport use of guns.
So thatís it for me and guns.
I donít want to own anymore guns. My wife is very uncomfortable around guns and I respect her feelings. My pistol is in a case with the cylinder removed and a gun lock on the frame. The key is not with the gun so Iíll never use it for self-defense. I donít fear that someone will use gun violence on me any more than I fear driving my car or riding my motorcycle which are equally as dangerous in my way of looking at it. I donít spend time worrying about it. I use to work in Los Angles in the 80ís and had to go to Watts to visit clientís offices. I had an apartment on Western Ave in a school next to the American Film institute in exchange for being a night security guard checking that the doors were locked. I was unarmed but the guards at the Film institute were armed and offered to protect me if I needed it in exchange for doing errands for them. I moved to Highland Park where the high school that was the basis for the movie ďStand and DeliverĒ was right up the street. I knew and interacted with local gang members on occasion. We did not go outside or apartment building at night during gang initiation month. We could hear the guns going off in the neighborhood. To join a gang you had to shoot someone. Our managerís husband was shot one morning getting into his car to go to work. I am not a stranger to living in high crime areas yet I never felt the need to own or carry a gun.

The point to all of this is to show that I am not some pansy assed gun hater or anything like that. I do hate the growing gun culture that we have in our country today. I think the latest SCOTUS rulings on gun ownership were the result of activist right wing judges doing the bidding of ALEC and the NRA. I donít think the interpreted the 2nd amendment but rather forced the right wing gun point of view on our country. I think that was a very bad thing for this country. I came to that conclusion by reading and fighting the gudgeon wars on this site. I did not feel this way before the last year. Gun owner DUers brought me to my conclusion and it is this. The gun culture in this country is having a very detrimental effect on our society.
When I read the threads about some gun violence and the gunners use the treads to support their gun rights issues I see how we have gone from being in shock and awe about gun violence and shootings to a ďwait and get the factsĒ kind of thinking. I am use to this kind of reaction to gun violence. People are appalled and want some kind of answer to why. There was recognition that a tragedy had taken place and should not have happened. There are emotions involved. It was what Bob Costas was talking about this week.
I am afraid that with the growing gun culture we are losing the ability to feel the emotions that we should when there is gun violence. It is becoming an everyday occurrence. Stand your ground now tells us to donít act or feel but wait until we know if the shooting was justified. I donít want our society to become that cold and calculated. I donít want it to be a common sight to see people walking around anyplace in town or out wearing guns on their belts. Inside I know that is not good for our society. So yes there is a 2nd Amendment and people do what I wish they didnít. I wonít accept that it is a done deal and will work toward more gun restrictions. I think the gun lobby would do themselves a favor to join in the support of ďreasonableĒ gun legislation. I canít define that concept by myself here today. But I am sure as I am writing this that our society agrees more with me than they do with the idea that there should be no restrictions on guns. My hope is that rather than fighting for unlimited gun availability and total gun elimination gun owners and those against gun ownership will do what is in the best interest of all of us.

With this I hope I can restrain myself and no more get into the gun debates on DU since they really have no purpose other than to entertain our need to fight with someone.

36 replies, 2630 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 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply My point of view on the RKBA or where I stand. This OP is not intended to start a fight but if it (Original post)
upaloopa Dec 2012 OP
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #1
upaloopa Dec 2012 #9
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #14
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #20
discntnt_irny_srcsm Dec 2012 #21
jody Dec 2012 #2
upaloopa Dec 2012 #4
jody Dec 2012 #8
Jenoch Dec 2012 #24
upaloopa Dec 2012 #32
Jenoch Dec 2012 #34
oldhippie Dec 2012 #28
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #3
upaloopa Dec 2012 #6
gejohnston Dec 2012 #5
upaloopa Dec 2012 #7
slackmaster Dec 2012 #10
upaloopa Dec 2012 #11
sarisataka Dec 2012 #12
rrneck Dec 2012 #13
upaloopa Dec 2012 #15
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #16
upaloopa Dec 2012 #18
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #25
upaloopa Dec 2012 #27
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #17
upaloopa Dec 2012 #19
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #22
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #23
graham4anything Dec 2012 #26
SQUEE Dec 2012 #29
graham4anything Dec 2012 #30
SQUEE Dec 2012 #31
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #33
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #36
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #35

Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:11 PM

1. Good to read some thoughtful criticism. If you had your druthers,

what would you have the law say on ownership and self-defense? Seems to me that you seek a middle ground not too far distant from what I'd like to see, and I'm curious what you consider the ideal.

By the way, I'm glad you've reached an arrangement with firearms that satisfies you and your wife -- a lot of people can't compromise, and suffer for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:35 PM

9. I think there is a right to ownership and self defence

but maybe we should be very tough on misuse of that right. And we should be very careful about who gets to own a gun to protect as much as possible society from those who would be a threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:50 PM

14. Take a look at Texas CHL statistics.

Texas publishes the stats online: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm#

We have over 500,000 people with CHLs. (Concealed Handgun License) Of that half million, only about one a year is convicted for murder. Our conviction rate for any violent crime is far below that of the general population.

This year I have posted several news stories of CHLers who have used their guns in self-defense. Texas averages about 50 justified homicides per year. So there you have proof that CHLers are saving more lives (Mostly their own or family members.) that the one that is wrongfully taken. You desire to stop the carrying of guns by selected citizens would result in greater deaths. Violent crime is a reality, and self-defense is a natural right. So having effective tools of self-defense is also a right. The most effective tool is a gun.


Any adult with a clean record should be able to own a gun, and with training in self-defense law and gun safety should be able to carry one, concealed or open.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #9)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:07 PM

20. I like to think I'm in the middle of this issue,

though my "middle" is more pro-gun than not. I'll pitch these proposals out, and see what your take is:

Ownership

Almost everyone over 18 should be able to legally purchase and possess a firearm, including semi-automatic rifles and handguns. Every seller should be required (and be provided with convenient means) to check the background of purchasers and ensure their eligibility.

The ban on production and importation of fully-automatic firearms for the civilian market should be lifted, but purchasers should be subject to a more thorough background check and registration, as well as the current requirement that they must be under the owner's control at all times.

Carry

Every adult who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry it (in the manner prescribed by their state), contingent on the person's successful completion of a training course (low or no-cost, available in many locations or online) and test on when deadly force can and cannot be used.

Disqualifications

An adult should be disqualified from owning a firearm if they are a fugitive or criminal (felon or misdemeanant for a 2+ year offense) have a history of violence or substance abuse, are subject to a protective order forbidding them from possessing firearms, are currently serving probation, or have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or committed to inpatient mental treatment involuntarily, OR for more than ten days. In all cases except fugitives, the disqualified person should have the right to petition the court to restore their right, and present evidence that they are not a threat to public safety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glaug-Eldare (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 08:57 PM

21. re: Disqualifications

Except for your fugitive exception, I'm good with all of those. I believe that fugitives should always be allowed into the courthouse, state police building... whereupon filing such a request will immediately change their status from "fugitive" to "incarcerated".

But seriously, I've read about folks being "fugitives" because of the combinational effect of a lost library book and failure to correct the address to which the library card is registered. I can't imagine a case where a state law enforcement agency would have cause to deny a person a carry license on the basis of fugitive status and also not just take that person into custody so that he's no longer a fugitive.

What's your take?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:14 PM

2. What law would you add to federal law? Thats the only avenue to control firearms in all states.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:25 PM

4. I think we need a long discussions in this country

about this issue. I don't have any answers today. I don't feel I have enough insight yet. I need to hear more from both sides but not from the extremes. I'm am hoping that we begin the discussion this year on this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:33 PM

8. After browsing DU threads on RKBA, I will be surprised if you find any significant aspect missing.

 

There are several divisive, polarizing political issues for which compromise seems unattainable.

For example abortion, Second Amendment.

Jump in to reading and discussing the topic in this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:32 AM

24. You say you want insight and discussion

on the gun issue yet in your OP you take exception to RKBA supporters wishing to wait for all of the facts before issuing decrees on incidents involving guns. I don't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jenoch (Reply #24)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:34 PM

32. I guess I'm not making my point clear

My main idea is that as the gun culture grows we are becoming insensitive to gun violence. That is what so many people feel Is happening and they feel it is a bad trend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #32)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:01 PM

34. It's not a 'gun culture' that leads to violence.

It's a culture, but don't blame the guns. 'Gun culture' is not the reason gangbangers are killing one another. 'Gun culture' is not the reason the Kansas City Chiefs player killed his wife and then himself. Guns might be a way to kill someone, but guns are not the reason for the person killing someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:25 AM

28. I think we have been having a long discussion in this country ....

 

... on the subject for 200+ years. What new issue or more insight do we need?

You may need more info to form your position, but the rest of us in the country have been discussing this forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:25 PM

3. In defining your "middle ground," please consider the "extremes" may not be...

the contesting views on gun ownership and bearing. The "extremes" may be how we solve the problems of violence, esp. the violence by repeat offenders. This will likely involve looking at problems like persistent poverty, poor family life, bad education, discrimination and possibly gang culture. Such an approach may be "in the best interest of all of us." Approaches depending on the narrow and failed model of prohibition policy are not likely to solve much of anything, except to fulfill a need to murder-mouth the opposition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #3)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:26 PM

6. I agree with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:26 PM

5. Let's see if I get this right

You grew up in the gun culture. So, I'm guessing it isn't the gun culture per se, but you see it evolving into a kind of "paramilitary lunatic fringe"?
There is less gun, and knife, violence than 20 years ago. I think everyone is for reasonable gun control, the difference is the definition of reasonable. That isn't to say there are not extremes like Josh Sugarmann and, I guess, Larry Pratt. They just happened to be on the fringe.

Do I have that right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:30 PM

7. I am not sure. I feel we are not moving in the right

direction but we can't get anywhere by not working together. It may seem like I am coping out but I am only trying to get the talks started. I don't have an answer today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:42 PM

10. Thank you for your post. It alters my image of you.

 

Civility and honest disclosure are always conducive to productive discussions, unless you admit to...

...ah, let's not go there again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #10)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:46 PM

11. Fine by me I don't feel good after the fights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:05 PM

12. Alright drop the gloves



Now that is done I can say thanks, my impression of you jumped a lot.

IMO there are many people who are less than extreme but take the positions in response to opposite extremism. Almost no one would support guns in the hands of felons or the mentally ill, and I suspect there are equally few that seek a total ban. Unfortunately that gets lost in almost every debate.
Whenever we hear of a shooting, whether justified or not, each side comes out with 'but if...' to support their side. (guilty as well)
It is proper to ask for details when none are known before condemning the shooter. When an argument escalates to lethal force everyone should support full prosecution.

If we can tone down the rhetoric we can focus on making everyone safer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:40 PM

13. Your feelings are perfectly justified.

But feelings are not workable public policy. That's why we argue so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:01 PM

15. There is a reason humans have feelings. They are similar to the

senses. They give us information about our environment. They enable us to make decisions. They are not infallible nor should they be ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:02 PM

16. Until this thread, I haven't seen you debate or discuss.

Until now all I have seen from you has been hostility, derision, sarcasm, and lies. How do you think people will respond to those kind of posts. Yes, you did lie, thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/117280286#

The tone of your OP is a welcome change from what I have come to expect from you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:23 PM

18. I don't claim to be perfect and I don't always accept

others definitions of my self my actions or statements. I do recognize the same in others. None of us can claim sainthood.
As imperfect as we are we come to the debate and hope to make a better place. I don't like the methods of the gunners debate which is mostly force the other side prove a point or ask question after question designed to make your opponent support your point of view with their answers or more to the point your attempt to control the debate. I have seen the stock answers on RKBA sites that are used here. If I ask stock questions and you give stock answers are we really talking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:42 AM

25. While nearly rendered obsolete by the majestic mediocrity of the InnerTube,

most of the argumentive method you decry is pretty close to good debate form, given the limitations of the format. It is sad but no surprise that some of the better arguments/research/even sloganeering come from the conservative side, not because a strong 2A is inherently a "conservative" issue, but because liberal thinkers have done a poor job of analysis of "gun rights" (or ignored the issue) and let the unseemly traffic in cultural stereotyping run rough shod over serious intellectual inquiry. The Bellisiles affair you may have read about is a most horrendous blow to intellectual and ethical rigor, a blow which fell most heavily on liberal thought. The Bellisiles affair, IMO, put the torpedo below the forward stack regarding gun control's "intellectual" underpinnings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #25)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:54 AM

27. I'm going to take some time to read and re-read your post

to get what you are telling me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:20 PM

17. A serious question for you.

You said: I was unarmed but the guards at the Film institute were armed and offered to protect me if I needed it in exchange for doing errands for them.

So your morals no longer allowed you to be armed but did allow you to accept the protection of those who were armed. Don't you see a problem with that stance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 07:34 PM

19. It had nothing to do with morals. One time I came home

at night and there were several cars in the parking lot with gang types who were drinking and partying. I was supposed to keep them away from the school. I was taught by another guard to put money on the tops of the pay phones around the school. I knew the armed guards could see my every move from their tower at the Film institute.
I shown my head lights on the group so they could not see me in the light. I told them I was the guard and they had better leave because I was going to call the cops. I started toward the phone and the armed guards hoping the cars would leave and that is what happened. I was prepared and I was not afraid. I find that things like that don't scare me a bit. So yes I used the armed guards and did not arm myself. Not out of morals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:53 PM

22. I believe your OP is an honest attempt to engage and hopefully you will accept my comments.

I think its important that to be seen as a moderate you have to recognize that most of the DU members who post in this forum are also moderates.

You have, successfully in my mind, described your position as moderate, but you describe the position with which you differ as extreme.

Except for a few DU members who said extreme positions about banning guns (or large classes of guns) or no infringements on gun ownership what so ever (most of them tombstoned), most of us really are moderates who support restrictions on those who have proved to be dangerous or unreliable.

An area where I think a lot of people agree, is that we could do a better job of identifying the prohibited. I'm all for identifying and keeping arms from the prohibited as long as there is due process when doing so.

Federal law establishes the baseline regarding the types of persons who are ineligible to purchase firearms. The federal Gun Control Act of 1968, codified at 18 U.S.C. ß 922, prohibits the sale of firearms to any person who:

Is underage;2
Has been convicted of, or is under indictment for, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;3
Is an illegal alien;
Has been dishonorably discharged from the military;
Has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order restraining him or her from harassing, stalking or threatening an intimate partner, his or her child or a child of a partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child;4 or
Has been convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence.5


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 09:57 PM

23. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to upaloopa (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:14 AM

26. The problem with all gun control is- it is the legal guns in the street that stop effective control

 

and it's like other areas

when they realize it is coming, they want to do it themselves.
self-regulation because they know major change is in the air

step by step
inch by inch

it is coming.

First Mayor Mike
then the election of a anti-NRA over a pro-NRA
then the football player
then Bob Costas

the day is coming.

It is funny that in some ways it is like a negotiation in a movie

the nra being the one holding the politicians as hostages

the other side being the people trying to free the hostages

The NRA has already lost. They may not yet know it, but like the Knights who said Ni, it is over.
Their reign of terror is coming to an end.

And without the million dollar suits and ZERO response from the other side that is not offset,
they have nothing. They are the Wizard behind the curtain now it has been opened.

They are Fox, now exposed as propagnada it is.

They are sweating bullets.

I like my proposal. But of course it has been derided here 1000 times.
But if I wasn't repetitive, I wouldn't be accused of being repetitive, so I will be repetitive yet again

The poster in the OP collects a gun, and its locked and safe and sound. Fine. Nobody in the world will take that gun away. Collectors can keep their gun.

A person who wants to go to a shooting gallery can go and shoot their gun kept at the shooting gallery in a locker, like a bowler who isn't a cheapskate keeps their ball in a locker at the bowling alley. Nobody is taking the shooting gallery away

A person claims they want to hunt.
Fine.
The Native Americans led the way on hunting.
They used bow and arrows.
Nobody is taking your bow and arrow away.

NO gun regulation will work to rid the SUPPOSED problem you all talk about on these threads.

Because I did Columbo bumbling like come across the hidden truth so hidden so many years

IT IS THE LEGAL GUNS IN THE STREET, THAT MAKE GETTING RID OF THE ILLEGAL GUNS IMPOSSIBLE.
It is so simple a concept.

And though other countries may have more guns, we have a culture of idolizing the gun
"I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die" (c) Johnny Cash, says it all.
(yet if a rapper sings something similiar that is ugly and violent and the problem they claim).
Johnny Cash is the Man everyone loved on all sides (unless they are lying.)
Liberals claimed him as liberal
Conseravtives as conservatives
Gun lovers as pro-gun
Gun haters as anti-gun
A man for everyone, his death created the biggest outpouring of love since Pope John Paul or John Lennon.
In fact Johnny Cash probably was loved by more people than John Lennon as he was not polarizing.

Americans idolize the Cowboy, the Westerns, the Gunslinger. The gun culture has their end of the world love where a gun rules
(though in the real world, a gun slinger is always gunned down by a faster gun slinger than them.

well

Mayor Mike and his novel idea at countering the NRA reminds me
He is the man in the square in China, singlehandedly stopping the NRA tank

and a change is a brewing

it may take a decade, but with hundreds of billiions in petty cash, all to be spent before
he dies (and his mother died at 102, so he has great genes and is in perfect health)


and in the end, it will be the NRA that made a self-inflicted hit on themselves.
Backing the tea party and their stroking their pieces outside town halls
DIRECTLY leading to an event everyone knew would come and it did

The death of a judge and the almost death of a democratic house member who was up and coming.

There is a peaceful revolution happening.

and it's time for real change.

all it will take is a change in SCOTUS and a change in ridding the congress of the bad dems and replacing them with good dems and having the bad repubs all be ousted at the polls.

then adding a law or three (as described in other threads)

AND IF THE people who say they actually care about SAFETY as opposed to their gun itself
actually care about safety, then there are ways to rid the streets of all guns.

but not until the legal guns are kept in a house and that would make ALL guns on the street illegal.
Very easy then to root all of them out providing a few more laws are on the books

and the laws are handled fairly (and NOT against blacks and other minorities as they are now)
But handled so that everyone is EQUAL like our Declaration states.

NO other form of gun control will work.

And to think I stumbled Columbo like onto this, mostly from arguing with all of you guys on this thread (and guys meaning men and women).

You gave me this idea, with your rote repetitive NRA million dollar suits answers both here and on the board I was on prior (CGCS) where much tougher people used the same sound bytes for 8 years til that place closed.

I found the achilles heel. And more and more people are picking up on this.
Including the private citizen who is mayor who soon will just be a bored major billionaire with no official job taking up his time, who can devote his entire rest of his life to continued good.

After all, who in their right mind would have thought that there could be a concrete oasis in the middle of Broadway and the hustle and bustle of NYC, but it's there and NYers love it.

the brain is smarter than the gun.
it always was.
Now the one thing the NRA had that the other side didn't was the ability to counter act their million dollar suits.

Now they do.

A bigger sheriff has finally come to town.
And like Andy Griffith's sheriff, no gun is needed.
Just the old noggin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:25 AM

29. Incrementalism is not compromise..

When your plan is to slowly take the rights we have today away from us, your plan is still to take away rights. Recently gun owners have realized they are the frog in the pot. There has been a lot of give from people who have firearms, and I see none on your side. Common sense regulations that would promote safety AND civility are blasted by anti gun extremists (suppressors for example). We have given, and talked and listened, and gave some more. Now we refuse to go one step further until we get something in return, and for that we are maligned and attacked as uncaring, or even sick.
At least you admit your goal is complete disarmament, though you call it something else, allows me with open eyes and clear conscience to completely reject anything you have to say on the issue of the 2nd Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SQUEE (Reply #29)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 11:41 AM

30. Abortion and guns are equal in the constitution

 

why is it OK to limit abortions from being done 24/7/365 anywhere,anytime in all 50 states

yet it isn't for guns.

As you guys admitted the other day, ALL the amendments and rights are EQUAL
one holds no sway over the others

(from this very section of this board that was determined.)

As such, if its okay to narrowly define abortions, it is okay to narrowly define guns

If you care about safety you have to admit, any gun in the street is stopping the streets
to be free from guns.

Is it safety or guns?

And no, the strawman above is not necessarily true.

What you would get in return is- complete safety in the streets from the threat of guns if NO guns are in the street.

The right of peaceful assembly means the right not to be scared a gun is there, necessitating more guns to stop that gun.

The technology to keep all guns out of a specific place, and a parking lot, and all is available with minimal concern for anybody (long as that is not abused or stereotyped.)

Again, depends if you all actually want real security or not.

And its people like Zimmerman in Florida that will make it so much easier to apply it.

Becasue all these incidents prove there is no regulations for the streets that make any regulation of just partial % of guns that gets rid of the problem.

And yes, law enforcement would have the guns, whoever that would entail.
But that is the way it is suppose to be anyhow.
Better training, better checks on who becomes a law enforcer can also lead to less bad people
(that would entail nationwide data banks to do).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:04 PM

31. There was this guy..

Really smart fellow too, and yeah he had his imperfections. But overall he was a pillar of intellectual strength among the founding fathers. Ben Franklin addresses the whole security vs freedom thing far better than I.
I don't want or need the state to provide me security. which is the word I think you are looking for. Luckily, as it has been established that it has no duty to do so.
I do believe it is my responsibility and duty to protect myself and others that would trust me with their defense, I keep and bear arms for that purpose. I have a CCW in my state, but do not carry in public other than trips to the gunsmith and to the range. It is too tiring for me to carry that much responsibility on my hip or in my courier bag. I find the time I spend in public while armed far too strenuous when I am carrying, having to be ever vigilant of my surroundings. But I believe that also is a choice. The constant "cowboy" characterization of legal carriers is purest B.S. I know many people that carry concealed and they have agreed with my observation of the responsibility inherent in carrying a defensive weapon.

As for abortion, as a male it is not my place to comment on it in any way merely to ensure that each woman is empowered to choose her own path and to protect that choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 01:49 PM

33. Which number is the abortion amendment?

 

I missed that in Civics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:15 AM

36. You cannot use or possess guns 24/7/365 anywhere,anytime in all 50 states either.


You really need to work on your analogies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 7, 2012, 10:14 AM

35. I think you're overly optimistic about what Mike can accomplish



The argument that you must keep lawful people from having guns so that unlawful people will have a more difficult time acquiring them no longer works.

The method of using a tragic event doesn't work either. Those who would expand restrictions tried and failed to use the Tucson shooting/murders to bolster support for magazine caps and failed. Even magazine caps failed.

These tactics just don't work any longer.

And I'll let you in on a secret. The reason the NRA failed to get their politicians in was because the other politicians weren't talking about expanding gun control. As long as politicians continue to back off gun control, the NRA won't have much success in elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread