HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » "Itís not easy being...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:53 AM

"Itís not easy being a leftist who loves guns..."

Itís not easy being a leftist who loves guns. Itís like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Rightís oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. Itís exhausting to always feel like Iím apologizing for the other ďsideĒ.

This article takes a point of view, but aims to do so in a way that members of both sides of the political spectrum can understand. Iíll try to give some idea as to why we on the political left roll our eyes at the rhetoric of the NRA, and how we in the ďgun cultureĒ can possibly defend something called ďassault weaponsĒ.

We all know the cycle by now: Tragic incident occurs, both sides attempt to use it for their political gain, both sides act shocked that the other would attempt to use it for political gain, insults are flung, statistics are cherry-picked, rinse, repeat.
..
..
(more)


http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Fairly lengthy blog read from a few months ago, but especially relevant right now.

He ends with some hard-hitting questions:

- Why ban cosmetic features?
- Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?
- Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?
- Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?
- How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?
- How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the banís expiration?

Why and how indeed.

86 replies, 7519 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 86 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Itís not easy being a leftist who loves guns..." (Original post)
LAGC Dec 2012 OP
gejohnston Dec 2012 #1
intaglio Dec 2012 #2
gejohnston Dec 2012 #4
rbixby Dec 2012 #28
Hudjes Dec 2012 #49
rbixby Dec 2012 #59
gejohnston Dec 2012 #60
rbixby Dec 2012 #61
gejohnston Dec 2012 #62
rbixby Dec 2012 #67
gejohnston Dec 2012 #70
rbixby Dec 2012 #78
gejohnston Dec 2012 #79
bobclark86 Dec 2012 #53
intaglio Dec 2012 #57
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #63
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #81
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #82
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #84
villager Dec 2012 #3
gejohnston Dec 2012 #5
villager Dec 2012 #7
gejohnston Dec 2012 #8
villager Dec 2012 #9
gejohnston Dec 2012 #10
villager Dec 2012 #11
gejohnston Dec 2012 #12
villager Dec 2012 #13
gejohnston Dec 2012 #14
villager Dec 2012 #22
gejohnston Dec 2012 #23
villager Dec 2012 #24
gejohnston Dec 2012 #29
villager Dec 2012 #31
gejohnston Dec 2012 #33
villager Dec 2012 #34
gejohnston Dec 2012 #36
villager Dec 2012 #37
gejohnston Dec 2012 #38
villager Dec 2012 #39
gejohnston Dec 2012 #40
villager Dec 2012 #41
gejohnston Dec 2012 #42
villager Dec 2012 #43
gejohnston Dec 2012 #44
villager Dec 2012 #45
gejohnston Dec 2012 #46
gejohnston Dec 2012 #15
PavePusher Dec 2012 #19
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #26
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #64
ellisonz Dec 2012 #6
Hudjes Dec 2012 #50
SEMOVoter Dec 2012 #58
ralfy Dec 2012 #16
jeepnstein Dec 2012 #17
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #32
jeepnstein Dec 2012 #35
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #54
gejohnston Dec 2012 #55
ralfy Jan 2013 #86
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #18
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #20
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #21
Eleanors38 Dec 2012 #25
spin Dec 2012 #56
ann--- Dec 2012 #27
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #30
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #48
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #65
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #69
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #71
gejohnston Dec 2012 #72
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #73
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #74
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #75
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #80
holdencaufield Dec 2012 #83
amuse bouche Dec 2012 #85
Tuesday Afternoon Dec 2012 #47
upaloopa Dec 2012 #51
raquel69 Dec 2012 #52
Ashgrey77 Dec 2012 #66
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #68
southernyankeebelle Dec 2012 #76
Ashgrey77 Dec 2012 #77

Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:15 AM

1. the problem with gun rights is

the left hates guns and the right hates rights,
saw that on a bumper sticker once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:19 AM

2. Ohhh dear

Why ban cosmetic features? - Like flash reducers? Bayonet lugs fair enough but flash reducers?

Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime? - Perhaps because it might drop the rate of crime just a little and make the crimes a little less deadly?

Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with? - Tell that to the parents of Sandy Hook or the families in Aurora. Statistically insignificant does not mean it's OK. The deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "statistically insignificant" but that does mean that we should not work to ban nukes?

Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention? - H'mmm, maybe because those magazines were meant for military use and their use by civilians is unjustifiable.

How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)? - and when was Loughner brought down? Every magazine change is a chance for the killer to cock up and for mechanical failure. Every 3 seconds gives chances better for evasion, escape and intervention.

How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the banís expiration? - Ever heard about weapon buy back? Ever thought about stopping the replacement and marketing of these weapons. Yes it would take time.

This person may or may not be a "liberal" but he is certainly an enabler for child and cop killers, just like the NRA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:27 AM

4. Might as in, it won't

been there done that, no. If it did, Chicago would be the safest place in the US, and CT does have a ban on such rifles. Loughner was brought down when his gun jammed. The guy in Colorado's gun jammed quickly, he did most of his mayhem with a shotgun. Changing magazines isn't likely to bring mechanical failure.
Past 30 rounds, the military doesn't use them.
Buying a gun worth several hundred dollars for a 50 dollar gift card is a joke and you only get guns that don't work. Plus, you can't "buy back" what you never owned.

BTW, compare the nuke deaths with the Tokyo and Dresden firebombing deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:22 PM

28. 2% of crimes, but what % of murders?

That's the real question

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbixby (Reply #28)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:03 PM

49. Take a look for youself

 

Source of statistics is (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf) Milwaukee reported 6% of firearms recovered in murder investigations were "Assault weapons". As far as I can see no other jurisdictions reported that stat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hudjes (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:21 PM

59. I'd be willing to bet that RPGs are used in very few murders here as well

Should we legalize those?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbixby (Reply #59)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:48 PM

60. they are

just highly restricted under NFA, amended in 1968. Before that, they were not. No market for them, no problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:18 PM

61. So since they're outlawed, only outlaws have RPGs!

We obviously need to arm every teacher with one for protection

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbixby (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:34 PM

62. Yeah, but nobody had them when they weren't

during the 1968 amnesty, you got the forms from the post office the stuff and register what NFA stuff that was supposed to be before (machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns). Each window had chart of what had to be registered. I remember going once as a kid during that time. Some folks apparently thought it was a registration of all guns, because I remember folks bringing their guns to the post office. The guy in front of my mom and I showed up with his hunting guns. The clerk used measured the barrel lengths, and said they didn't need to be registered and showed the guy the chart. The guy, and I, looked up the chart of pictures of mortars, machine guns, grenades, and other military stuff. The guy stuffed his guns back in the cases and remarked "I didn't even know any of that shit was legal."
moral of the story,
no market, no crimes committed with legally purchased ones, never saw one for sale, no problem. Perfect form of control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #62)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:48 AM

67. Sounds like a good plan, lets require registry of semiautos this way too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbixby (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:22 PM

70. standard semi autos under NFA rules is asinine

The short barreled rifle rules as written as borderline asinine. For example, a single shot or bolt action rifle with a 15 barrel is regulated the same as a machine gun. I'm against registration because it is expensive theater that doesn't do anything other than make a list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:42 PM

78. It does serve to separate the wheat from the chaff though

Find a semi-auto that's possessed by a person without a license, confiscate and send 'em to jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rbixby (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:48 PM

79. given the way we enforce current federal gun laws

you are being optimistic. It will be the first to be plead out. Convicted domestic abusers and felons in possession cases rarely find their way to federal court. Straw purchasers can get up to ten years, but they usually don't see a federal court room either. If the person is a felon, can't be touched for having an unregistered gun.
As structured in 1934, the NFA imposed a duty on persons transferring NFA firearms, as well as mere possessors of unregistered firearms, to register them with the Secretary of the Treasury. If the possessor of an unregistered firearm applied to register the firearm as required by the NFA, the Treasury Department could supply information to State authorities about the registrantís possession of the firearm. State authorities could then use the information to prosecute the person whose possession violated State laws. For these reasons, the Supreme Court in 1968 held in the Haynes case that a person prosecuted for possessing an unregistered NFA firearm had a valid defense to the prosecution ó the registration requirement imposed on the possessor of an unregistered firearm violated the possessorís privilege from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Haynes decision made the 1934 Act virtually unenforceable.

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #2)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:11 PM

53. Let's see if I can help...

1) "Flash Hiders" have nothing to do with hiding a flash... they reduce felt recoil by doing the exact opposite.

Here's how it works:
A gun uses a propellant which burns at a very fast rate (powder in most firearms is NOT an explosive, but a propellant... older "black powder," however, is an explosive). When the bullet leaves the barrel, the remaining pressure in the barrel comes out the front. Like a rocket, the escaping gas shoves the gun backwards. Now, if you take that same exhaust gas and fan it out (off above, below and to the sides), the gun doesn't recoil as much.

Great idea, huh? Only problem is that excess gas is still there, it's just now radiating out and spreading the sound and light energy to the sides. You gain a softer recoil, but at the expense of MORE flash and MORE sound. Go to a gun range and stand next to somebody with a muzzle brake or a flash hider. It's not fun. I don't mind them being banned because they're ANNOYING, not because they are making a gun more lethal.

In fact, all except the collapsible buttstock don't really do much (which, BTW, isn't found on an AR-15, as it needs a tube in the buttstock to push the bolt back into place). Collapsible buttstocks make it easier to conceal, but an adjustable buttstock makes it so two people of different sizes can use the gun well.

2) Then ban handguns... oh, wait. You can't (SCOTUS said so). This whole "tell it to the families" bit is a fallacy. Tell it to the thousands killed annually in DWI accidents. Tell it to the tens of thousands dead in Syria because we won't just launch a drone strike against the government there like we did in Libya.

3) Compare that to the families of the 7,000 people killed annually by handguns, or the 800 people kicked to death every year. But nobody cares about them. Why?

Well, out of the 12,664 people murdered in 2011, 6,329 were black, with 5,204 were white and the rest were something else. Let's face it... nobody in the national media or in Congress seems to care unless it's a little white girl (blonde pigtails are always a bonus). Google "Missing White Woman Syndrome" sometime. Pay attention to the handling of Natalie Holloway. Statistically, the average gun crime is a criminal black manin a city shooting one to four shots into another person (most commonly a black criminal, but sometimes a white guy), but we never see that on the national news. Not-so Fun Fact of the Day: Men are murdered about 3 to 1 more often than women, btw.

4) I'll give you that... they were meant for killing people. That's why they are used by cops, the military and people wanting to protect themselves. They are also ideal for shooting up movie theaters and schools. The only problem is this: banning is OK, and I agree with it, but how effective will a ban be unless it's retroactive (which Diane Feinstein already said it won't be)?

-a) with literally billions of magazines in the world, do you think you can round up every one? AR-15 30-round magazines are a shade bigger than the clicker to my cable box. Handgun ones are about the size of a stick of butter. Some will get hidden and end up in criminal hands. Then what?

-b) What will you give for them, as the government can't seize them without paying for them. At $20 a pop for a billion magazines, that's more than the entire budget of NASA. That's a low estimate. Nobody should scream "fuck 'em!", because the same right is what stops the government from just taking land for hydrofracking.

The point remains, logistics are the problem.

5) Very good point. Untrained crazies need them, otherwise they'd have to practice and learn how to do stuff. Too bad most police don't even fire their guns more than once a year.

6) Yes, and those who buy booze are enablers for child and cop killers in DWI accidents, just like every frat boy and wine taster. Was it Kierkegaard or Dick Van Patten who said "when you label me, you negate me"?

You want to do something? Report mental health crimes to NICS, get your family to see mental help if they need it, support security at your school (not necessarily guards, but decent doors, cameras in the atrium and so on), lock up your guns and ban new high-cap magazines. I'm all right with all of those.

I live in NY anyway, so it won't impact me at all. We (or I, at least) do all of this already. State that sends mental health checks to NICS? Check. Don't stigmatize mental health and help friends who need help? Check. Support building projects to beef up security at my school? Check. Lock up my crap and don't leave the key/combo out? Check. Don't buy high-cap mags and leave them around to be stolen? Check.

Not that it will impact the 7,000 annual mostly-black handgun deaths in the cities (with everything from absolutely no control to no legal ownership... the top 10 cities for murder rate are all over the map on that spectrum), but it will help cut down on the white suburban rampages... even if they are about 2.55 percent of all murders and 0.001 percent of all deaths in the country for 2011.

I'd rather we do something about obesity and smoking, but I want you to know I do understand your point and your frustration. I'm not really that callous, and I want to help fix the problem through debate, rather than knee-jerking (which, with circle jerking, is the least useful kind of jerking). These debates have helped my views change in recent days from "bans are all retarded" to "Hmm, I see your point...let's see if we can work something out?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #53)


Response to intaglio (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:24 PM

63. Why would it be hidden?

 

Just because you called someone who belongs to your own political party a "moronic little enabler of mass slaughter and a cheerleader murder machines."

I'm sure you meant it in a nice way, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #63)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:56 PM

81. Yeah, but Holden, it was just 4-2. Sounds "fair & balanced" to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #81)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:45 PM

82. I'm not sure what you would have to say ...

 

... about anyone who takes a pro-RKBA position to get a 6-0 hidden post -- but, I'm sure it would have to involve animal rape and some sort of derogative remarks about his or her parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #82)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:02 PM

84. I've gotten a 6-0 for historical inquiry. So there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:20 AM

3. Why would any well-balanced person "love" guns, anyway? Given their main intent

...is to kill, that really means "loving" a killing machine.

Which is a little... off. "Leftist," or otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:30 AM

5. One of my high school teachers once said

man puts most of his artistic work in his religious institutions and his weapons, his churches and his guns. This was a guy from NYC. Imagine history, mechanical engineering, and art rolled into one.
Do you feel the same way about someone who like swords or archery? If not, why not? If not, you are being inconsistent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:34 AM

7. somehow, I still prefer Shakespeare.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:36 AM

8. I'm more of a Murasaki Shikibu and Edward Abbey

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #8)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:37 AM

9. I love Abbey too -- Desert Solitaire, The Monkeywrench Gang, etc.

Still don't see them as excuses for unchecked gun proliferation, however.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:38 AM

10. has nothing to do with it

I grew up with a house full of guns, cops, union working class tree hugging outdoorsy types in Wyoming. Abbey was a natural fit. Doesn't explain or excuse any of it. All of it is an accident of my history that made me who I am and formed my politics. More of the politics evolved as I traveled with the empire. It is one thing to listen to Thom Hartmann explain how stronger unions and raising the minimum wage would lift all boat, it is quite another to be in South Korea and see it happening before during and after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:48 AM

11. And Wyoming gun politics, writ large, don't really work for the nation as a whole

As we have come to find out.

Be like putting cattle ranchers in charge of the Interior Dept.!

Oh, wait....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:54 AM

12. But letting just the cops and gangsters

have guns works great for Chicago and DC, right? Last time I checked the statistics, El Paso is still safer than Toronto.
Like the head of the Criminology Dept at Florida State put it, "it isn't the number of guns, it is who has them".

Better the ranchers than oil companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:56 AM

13. Yeah, it's that "my six shooter will solve everything!" view that worries me

And you can't really shake it, can you?

But I agree -- places where there are too many guns still have too many problems.

And where did you find out that cartel-plagued El Paso was safer than Toronto?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:03 AM

14. doesn't work that way

Never had to solve anything, although I did supplement my mom's food stamps hunting small game with a revolver. Lever action rifle for deer of course. Never had a problem that had to be solved with force. We left our doors unlocked at night, guns unloaded and secured, and I could ride by bike anywhere in the city as a kid.
FBI and Statistics Canada
El Paso's murder rate is 0.8 per 100K
Toronto is 1.5
Canada's murder capitol is Thunder Bay, ON, is 4.6

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:05 PM

22. Schools in El Paso closed today due to threats of gun violence

Are the schools in Toronto closed for similar reasons?

And as you know, the homicide rate in the US -- thanks mostly to guns -- is 4x higher than in Canada. But the fact you use discarded NRA sophistry to try and make a proliferationist argument means -- well, means those arguments are about as credible as the NRA itself after today's LaPierre rant.

And unfortunately, your particular childhood memories don't make for good gun policies either, in the wake of recent events, the lethality of what's oh-so-easily available, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:49 PM

23. actually three times

and it was not discarded NRA sophistry nor was I making any argument. Simply stating a fact.
I saw no such thing in the news. They closed for Christmas vacation.
So, why does USVI, with its strict gun laws, have a murder rate of 60 per 100K?
Recent events aside, that many people are murdered every week in Chicago. Most of them are criminals killing each other. Much of it is the drug trade. The way I look at it, coke heads and pot smokers who fuel and fund much of the US and Mexican gun and knife violence, have gallons of blood on their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:57 PM

24. "Schools will be let out early due to threats"


http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/news/yisd-schools-will-let-out-early-due-threats-rumors/nTbN6/

And no, the threats weren't someone threatening to start a "knife fight."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:25 PM

29. a rumor but this BBC video

gives a forensic psychiatrist's thoughts on how the media creates copy cats, using a German school shooting as an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:36 PM

31. You're really desperate to assign blame everywhere but on the weapons used in the crime, aren't you?

A gun that can pump six bullets a second into a child's body is not a "neutral" aspect of these horrific events.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #31)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:50 PM

33. not desperate at all

placing blame on an inanimate object is irrational. That's like blaming the Rwanda genocide on machetes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:05 PM

34. Ah there it is - the ultimate NRA apologia. So we can let any weapon, anywhere, be available anytime

After all, it's all the peoples' fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:21 PM

36. didn't say anythig about any weapon anywhere

but yes, it is the individual's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:23 PM

37. and of course, the fault of individuals who advocate for easy access to weapons...

...especially for those who are too ill-balanced in their souls/hearts/minds to use them.

The blood is on the hands of the shooter, and on every pair of hands that routinely applauded the shooter's easy access to guns...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #37)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:40 PM

38. so, is every home invasion murder

in an area with strict gun laws the fault of gun control advocates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:08 PM

39. how you can keep repeating NRA talking points after this morning...

...is beyond me.

Well, maybe not. They tend to be so deeply internalized, they're hard to see past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:17 PM

40. not repeating NRA talking points

I don't know what they are, but it sounds like you are repeating Brady talking points written by Bill Bennet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #40)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:37 PM

41. Another NRA talking point!

Perhaps they're so deeply internalized, they're invisible to you now...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #41)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:43 PM

42. show me in the list of talking points

where that is a talking point. Simply calling something a talking point is not evidence of anything.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/talking%20point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 03:57 PM

43. For starters, pay attention to what the NRA is saying to the rest of us. Like this morning.

It's back to your first repeated talking point: It's not the guns! It's the people!

A neat trick to avoid the fact that your side has made sure that "those people" -- the ones who do the shooting -- have very access to the guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:06 PM

44. which may or may not be in

compliance with CT law. But I fail to see how any rational person can claim that a trigger pulls a finger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #44)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:24 PM

45. Or how a rational person wants to keep making all kinds of triggers easily available to all kinds

...of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #45)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:28 PM

46. never said that

I support current law, and added a few prohibited persons. You might have missed my OP. I think every state should develop a mechanism for private sales, since federal law prohibits private sellers to use NICS, I don't see the NRA or ACLU letting that change.
I would add more violent misdemeanor convections and juvenile animal cruelty convictions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 04:33 AM

15. one more thing about "six shooters"

The first revolver I used was an eight shooter my brother bought in Germany, legally in both countries at the time.
That is Wyoming's self defense law. All of it. What Wyoming common law on the issue is, I don't know and I have no desire to find out first hand. Don't have a law library on hand. Everything in the statute refers to in your house.
ARTICLE 6 - JUSTIFICATION

6-2-601. Applicability of article.
The common law shall govern in all cases not governed by this article.
6-2-602. Use of force in self defense.
(a) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to himself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury to another if:
(i) The intruder against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, another's home or habitation or, if that intruder had removed or was attempting to remove another against his will from his home or habitation; and
(ii) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring.
(b) The presumption set forth in subsection (a) of this section does not apply if:
(i) The person against whom the defensive force is used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident of the home or habitation, such as an owner, lessee or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;
(ii) The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(iii)The person against whom the defensive force is used is a peace officer who enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation in the performance of his official duties.
(c) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter another's home or habitation is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(d) As used in this section:
(i) "Habitation" means any structure which is designed or adapted for overnight accommodation, including, but not limited to, buildings, modular units, trailers, campers and tents;
(ii) "Home" means any occupied residential dwelling place.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:29 AM

19. Shakespeare? That guy who wrote violence porn?

 

Seriously, did he write anything that didn't have several violent, bloody deaths?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #19)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:15 PM

26. "Thrown of Blood" was an appropriate name for Macbeth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:26 PM

64. Yes, but didn't Shakespeare

 

bear arms?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:31 AM

6. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:28 PM

50. That's not really a thing.

 

People may enjoy using firearms, cherish the right to do so, or prefer to have them should an emergency arise. But I haven't heard of a gun "lover". Some people do enjoy the aesthetics of firearms, particularly old guns or ones with engraving or artwork done on them. Some people enjoy guns with history to them, or exceptional design innovations (such as the 1911, popular for its history and role in the design lineage of handguns). But feelings of affection in the same style as a filial, sexual, or romantic relationship (if that isn't what you mean by love I'm afraid I've been misled by word choice) aren't really a thing, so far as I know. Personally, I find firearms to be fascinating. Using them is a challenge much like any other sport. Regardless of the task for which a machine is designed, it can be admired for engineering excellence. I also admire well-designed cars, trains, bridges, cameras, computers, and many other mechanical and electronic devices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to villager (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 04:21 PM

58. Exactly. Although I love my mattress because it makes my back feel better.

Love seems a little strong in context of gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:37 AM

16. Gun Control <> Gun Ban

I don't understand why gun owners equate gun control with gun bans. The first does not have to lead to the second.

In this case, if there is a strong reason why a gun owner needs a particular type of weapon, and if he can justify that need, register, go through background and other checks, and receive proper training for using that weapon, then he should have the right to own and use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ralfy (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:49 AM

17. It's simple, really.

Proponents of Gun Control are quick to point out that their ultimate goal is a ban. Just listen to what the pro-gun control posters have to say on this board. They are not the least bit shy in saying they want lawful citizens disarmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #17)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:37 PM

32. I don't want them disarmed

They should be allowed to have the exact same weapons the Founding Fathers had.

After all, what else could they be talking about in the 2nd Amendment?

And didn't the Founding Fathers say the weapons should be housed in the owners home?

What's all this carrying about business? Where did that come from? Activist Supreme Court justices and their faulty interpretation?

And what part of 'well regulated' do the wing nuts not understand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #32)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 02:16 PM

35. So you're OK with posting on DU with a quill pen?

That's all you're entitled to, that and an old-school printing press.

"Well-regulated" doesn't mean what you want everyone to think it does. That dog just doesn't hunt at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeepnstein (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:50 PM

54. What Amendment did the Founding Fathers mention Quill pens or any pens?

I guess I missed that.

Go right ahead and explain what 'regulated' means

I would like to see the 2nd Amendment re examined. I do believe there is some over reach in interpretation. For example, where does it say guns can be carried around rather than kept in one's home?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #54)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:57 PM

55. the word bear means carried around

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

No previous SCOTUS decision said any different. Heller overturned no precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 02:47 AM

86. Militia Acts

The meaning is not found in the Federalist Papers but in the two Militia Acts that followed the Second Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ralfy (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 10:08 AM

18. There have been more than a few posters here on DU calling for outright bans on private firearms

"Every gun owner has blood on their hands" kind of statements as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ralfy (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 11:09 AM

20. Your requirement to justify a "need" is tryanny.

In a free country I don't have to justify something to a government official. In states where concealed carry has to be justified there are many cases of people who have had death threats against them being denied carry, then being murdered.

I will determine what kind of firearms I need and will not seek a bureaucrat's approval.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #20)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 12:04 PM

21. Wrote Judge Benson Everett Legg

"A citizen may not be required to offer a Ďgood and substantial reasoní why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rightís existence is all the reason he needs."

Too bad we aren't hearing this kind of gem from many Democratic appointees. Rights is rights is rights, and they ain't privileges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ralfy (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:10 PM

25. "It's a start," "It's a beginning," "For now, we'll take..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ralfy (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 22, 2012, 12:23 AM

56. During the time period when those who support strong gun control were riding high in the saddle ...

A leader in the movement mentioned that slowing down the manufacture of handguns was just the first step and the ultimate goal was to stop most American citizens from owning handguns.

This brief honesty hurt the gun control movement.


We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, "This is a great law. The problem is solved." And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with a half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal.
Nelson T. "Pete" Shields
"A Reporter At Large: Handguns", New Yorker, at 53, 58
Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.
1976-07-26


Is it at all surprising that gun owners distrust gun control supporters?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 01:33 PM

30. He lost me at the 'loves guns' part

How can a sane person love a gun? I don't see how that is possible.

Love a shooting..killing machine? Give me a break

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #30)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:47 PM

48. the same way people blame guns. It is a literary device known as

Anthropomorphism or personification

Anthropomorphism or personification is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities. The term was coined in the mid-1700s. Examples include animals and plants and forces of nature such as winds, rain or the sun depicted as creatures with human motivations, and/or the abilities to reason and converse. The term derives from the combination of the Greek ἄνθρωπος (Šnthrōpos), "human" and μορφή (morphē, "shape" or "form".

As a literary device, anthropomorphism is strongly associated with art and storytelling where it has ancient roots. Most cultures possess a long-standing fable tradition with anthropomorphised animals as characters that can stand as commonly recognised types of human behavior. In contrast to this, conventional Western science, as well as such religious doctrines as the Christian Great Chain of Being propound the opposite, anthropocentric belief that animals, plants and non-living things, unlike humans, lack spiritual and mental attributes, immortal souls, and anything other than relatively limited awareness.

more at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personification

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #30)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:29 PM

65. More people have been killed by James Dean's car...

 

... than by my guns.

Apparently the Porsche is a much more effective "killing machine"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:24 PM

69. Do I really need to remind you that

for most people a car is a necessity? It is a machine designed to transport. A gun is designed to kill.

Why compare apples to chicken?

Truly a dumb defense..... Not to mention pathetic and obnoxious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #69)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:34 PM

71. Car a necessity?

 

Not at all. Many people around the world -- most in fact -- live their entire lives without a car.

The freedom to own a car cost tens of thousands of deaths per year in the US alone -- many of them children. Each person should have to justify their need for a car to a government panel and no one should be allowed to own or operate a car that is beyond their demonstrated need. After all, who really needs more than this ...



There is no right to drive in the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:01 PM

72. that's before you get to health problems related to air pollution

and climate change caused by their emissions, suburban sprawl, big box stores with huge parking lots, and all of the other side effects.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:04 PM

73. Very true ...

 

... my guns never killed anyone or caused a species to go extinct through second-hand smoke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:57 PM

74. Like I said

dumb pathetic and obnoxious. Just like republiclowns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:01 PM

75. You keep using those words ...

 

... I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

If the analogy is specious -- explain, if you can, without resorting to ad hominem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #75)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 09:03 AM

80. Nah

I have zero respect for your type, so I won't bother

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amuse bouche (Reply #80)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:46 PM

83. Too bad ...

 

... I was really hoping we could become friends.


P.S. My daughter and I just got back from the range -- want to see her target? Perfect grouping.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #83)


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 06:44 PM

47. it ain't easy being green.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 07:45 PM

51. More gunner propaganda

It's always dressed up at first. Such as the professor with a 10 mile long string of titles and accomplishments and this time the I'm a leftist.
That bullshit is to soften the reader up then you hit them with the same old gunner talking points we've heard over and over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Fri Dec 21, 2012, 08:19 PM

52. You are spot on on your OP.

When I found out that Columbine happened during the last assault weapons ban and gun sales are skyrocketing now (just heard on the radio that gun sales in my state are up over 200%), then I gotta say our lawmakers are going about it wrong.

Criminals and people intending mass killings don't give a crap about any laws. What they do or plan to do is illegal.

I don't know why we don't pay more attention more attention to mental health issues which is what seems to be the common denominator among all serial/mass murder killers from Ted Bundy to Columbine to Adam Lanza. That would require common sense I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to raquel69 (Reply #52)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:15 AM

66. Naw, they want to do something to make themselves feel good.

But not something that will actually do anything about violence in our society. They just wanna ban certain models of tools with certain features they find scary. 500,000 people die a year from heart disease and from cancer. That's 1 million a year just from that and you don't see them going after anyone who's responsible for those deaths with the fervor they go after gun owners. Hell they barely even go after the companies that make the objects they so detest, nope the owners of said object invoke their ire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:57 AM

68. Who actually coined the terms "gun nuts & gun lovers"?

 

Some people are passionate about life. We have chocolate lovers, coffee lovers, nookie lovers, shoe lovers, wine lovers, beer lovers.

How about shop-a-holics?

I've seen people make love to their cars as they wash and wax them.

Personally I get lost in the hand tool section of Home Depot/Sears/Rockler. An anti-tool nut would accuse me of "fonding" tools as I inspect hammers and saw blades. I also play with metal work so Mig welders and torch sets are just as appealing to me as a Beretta White Wing or a Springfield M1A.

There are people who have no passion in life and spend their time getting into other peoples business. Some of my cranky old aunts are going to die old and lonely because they live to tell other people how to live and spend their days gossiping and twisting stories to embelish them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Original post)


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:26 PM

77. You have no idea what you are talking about from your own admission.

But you want people to take your ideas, bad spelling, bad grammar and all seriously. And at the same time you say, you don't care, and no one can change your mind. No one is ever going to listen to anything you have to say if you put it like that. Ignorance is not something to be proud of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread