Changing tactics with the anti-gun crowd.

[Tim01]

I don't know what the numbers really are, but I think I have a pretty good idea.
There is a number of us pro-second amendment folks, and that number is growing.
There is also a small number of anti-gun people.
Then there is a very very big number of average people who really don't care that much either way.

The anti-gun people don't listen to reason and resort to insults, because they have nothing else. They will not change their mind and will not stop arguing. They just *feel* really strongly about guns so they want things to be a certain way. It isn't a good use of my time and effort to argue with them unless they are influencing members of the "average people" group. So I am mostly going to try to ignore them or stay out, or get out of disagreements about penis size or how scary guns look or bazookas or whatever.

The "average people" don't follow these things too much. They just don't care. They want things to be fair and right but that's about it. When they hear over and over "assault weapons are bad, assault weapons are deadly, assault weapons are evil, we should ban assault weapons and cop killer bullets and high cap mags", well after a while they believe it. Not surprising, the lies are the only information they are getting.
I have influenced democrats in real life recently. People who should know better really, hunters, competition shooters. But they didn't keep up with what was true and what was not. I actually had to explain to a former member of the army pistol team that hunters are not going after deer with fully auto rifles. And I had a hard time convincing him. I did get him straightened out, and he's kind of pissed now. He feels he has been tricked. So we now have a new pro-2nd amendment democrat who is getting the word out to others. This was a good use of my time and effort. And so this is where I am going to try to focus my effort ,where it can do some good.
This is just what I am going to try to do.

[jody]

1. I understand but IMO there is no compromise on an issue where one side adamantly opposes a right

whether that right is to keep and bear arms for self-defense or the right of a woman to unilaterally say whether she wishes to abort a pregnancy.

Some political issues are divisive and polarizing and IMO for opposing sides there can never be a compromise.

[Tim01]

7. I have no intention of compromising,

I'm going to ignore people who just want to screech and sling insults. There are more effective uses of my time.

[whistler162]

10. You are going to ignore yourself!..... OKAY whatever floats

your boat!

[jody]

15. Makes sense to me, I use DU's ignore function and find it a very effective repellant for

for dung-beetles who want to post unsupported assertions profusely sprinkled with statements that violate DU's rules:

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

WORKS

[Political Heretic]

2. Frankly I find it sad an insulting that some people are so obsessed about gun rights.

I wish people that seem to get all wrapped up in fringe issues would put as much of their time and passion into combating poverty.

But that's just me.

EDIT - sorry came here from the main page, didn't realize this was a topic in the "Gun" forum.

[jody]

11. What you call "obsessed about gun rights" is the attitude the majority of voters have about all

natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing rights enumerated in our Constitution or unenumerated but protected by the Ninth Amendment.

I speak only for myself but every one of those rights are of equal importance.

It disturbs me that any one would try to argue that RKBA protected by the Second Amendment is less important than other civil rights.

[Political Heretic]

19. What does "well regulated" mean to you?

[jody]

23. For me the important thing is what the law of the land says about “well regulated. That means

SCOTUS in D.C. v. Heller and I quote their decision below.

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . .”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “ilitias are the state- and congressionally- regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12.

Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all ablebodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a wellregulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

[beevul]

27. The constructional argument is an interesting one.

But it doesn't lead far.


The Second Amendment reads :

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

Compare the free-press clause of the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution:

“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject.”

That language — not unlike the Second Amendment’s — of course does not mean that the right to publish one’s sentiments protects only the press. It protects “any person,” and one reason among others that it does so is that a free press is essential to a free society.


Now, tell me, why should the second amendment should be interpreted how you appear to say it should be, which is contrary to my factual and real example of something constructed essentially the same, yet unquestioned in its meaning?

[Political Heretic]

39. I wasn't making that argument at all

I was simply asking what well-regulated means, and in response I got quoted a bush appointee SC hack.

Anyway, I'm done with this, because I'm actually one of those people who doesn't give a shit about this subject. There are plenty of guns in our house. I don't care if the government wants to restrict some of what we can own, or require special registration or whatever else - I simply DONT CARE.

I got here by mistake, though this was some general board post and I have no interest in some big long debate about guns for fuck sake.

Have at it. God with God. Whatever.

[paulsby]

42. the honesty is refreshing

you don't care about civil rights, or if our govt. restricts yours.

[jody]

49. The quote I gave from the "bush appointee SC hack" is the law of the land whether you like it or not

You failed to reply to my post answering your question so you must not have wanted an accurate answer.

I take you at your word "I'm actually one of those people who doesn't give a shit about this subject".

That's sad to see any DUer dismiss one of our most important civil rights in such a disdainful manner.

I wonder if you treat rights protected by the First and Fourth Amendments the same way?

[X_Digger]

50. Well regulated like your colon, not your bank. n/t

[gorfle]

61. hahahahahah

Good one.

[beevul]

24. Try to see it ...

or at least see that there are other points of view.


What you call a "fringe issue" might be important to someone else. The issue after all, concerns the ownership of private property, or potential private property, of others. I think that point gets lost on some of you on the other side of the issue to a degree. If it were you folks on the other side of the issue who were in those shoes, many of you might see this just a bit differently.

As far as being "obsessed", you'll note one thing about most of those of us on MY side of the issue.

We are only as obsessed as is required to attempt to hold what ground we have left - trying to keep things at a reasonable point - from those seeking more "compromise" .

Which is just a bit more obsessed than those trying to take yet more ground from us - ergo farther limiting our choices and/or ability to exercise our 2A rights/and/or farther limit what private property we may or may not own - under the guise of "reasonable" or "compromise" or "common sense".

[gorfle]

60. You know what they say...

I wish people that seem to get all wrapped up in fringe issues would put as much of their time and passion into combating poverty.

"A man with a sword is never hungry."

[Captain Hilts]

3. 49% want stricter control of firearms.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Recent-Shootings-Gun-Control-Support-Fading.aspx

[spin]

13. However that does not mean that 49% favor laws like the AWB...

I'm very pro-gun and yet I would have answered yes to the poll question:



1. I favor improvement of the mandated background check (NICS) especially to stop those with potentially dangerous mental problems from legally buying firearms.

2. I also favor a requirement that all private firearms transactions also require an NICS background check.

But I do not favor a new AWB or other useless "feel good" laws that accomplish nothing. Nor am I in favor of ideas such as micro stamping ammunition, smart locks for firearms, federal gun registration, or liability insurance policies for firearms owners.

[virginia mountainman]

14. too bad they don't vote that way... And notice the trends in the data..

The push for Gun Control, has destroyed many Democrats, I INTEND TO SEE THAT STOP.

[jody]

16. That poll is flawed by the questions asked. See DU thread below for example of Joyce Foundation

buying poll questions for the prestigious General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago to support Joyce's anti-gun agenda.

Old paper worth rereading, “The Assault Weapon Panic”, October 10, 1991

[rl6214]

54. And that number is coming down every year

Down from a high of 78% in 1990.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. I think you need to get laid. nt

[Captain Hilts]

47. We have a winnah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No jokes about penis size/gun rights advocates.

[dashrif]

5. Me Too

[walkaway]

6. Gun love + paranoia = dangerous

[jody]

17. And "Gun hate + paranoia = even more dangerous" n/t

[SteveM]

58. I think this is a fart-n-run comment (nt)

[safeinOhio]

8. Truth be told.....

2nd Amendment will fly out the window if some right wing crazy does the unspeakable to our leader. Just like Kennedy and Reagan. That was when we had the most restrictions put on gun ownership. Some asshole will screw us all up. The truth is if you want to protect your rights you best do everything possible to corral the crazy sniper. If that means making it possible to trace sniper rifles or new ways to pick out nut cases and keep them from weapons, then you best be working on that if you want to keep what you have. Sorry, that is the way it is, and ain't no one talking about it in the NRA. They are letting us down and they will be the ones to blame. That is what scares me the most about all the black and white, either or, arguments about gun rights. Both sides are missing the point, nothing ends up being black and white, only different shades of gray.

[Tim01]

12. Very good points,

I don't think there is any chance at all of controlling hunting rifles and handguns. Maybe,MAYBE we can keep the nutcases away from the weapons, but I doubt it. I know the FBI has already shut down people who were up to no good, but were not YET in enough trouble to be in jail or a mental facility. The FBI can't get all of them.

You've outlined real problems.
Any solutions?

[safeinOhio]

18. Yes

Write your congress critter and DEMAND more funds and staff for the Secret Service.
Demand screening of buyers and an end to the gun show loop hole.
Push for the public to bring to attention anyone that is a gun owner that makes crazy statement about the President.
Make the NRA address this threat, as this is the greatest threat to the 2nd Amendment.

Don't believe me? Look what 9/11 did to the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments. The same will happen to the 2nd if we have another Kennedy. In times of national disaster, rights and Amendments go out the window. Do your part and address my suggestions and come up with your own to add.

[Tim01]

20. Gun show loophole?

That has nothing to do with gun shows, you must know that already, right? In some states there are no restrictions on a person buying or selling a gun. Not at garage sales, not between neighbors or family members, not in the paper, and not between private individuals at the gun show. Is the what you are talking about?

The secret service is a good point, as is your suggestion that if somebody shoots the president our rights are going down the drain.

[safeinOhio]

25. Yes, I bought a pistol at a yard sale last Friday

I would gladly give up that right and fill out some paper work to keep some mental case or escaped convict from doing the same. I have nothing to hide.

I'm not calling my idea a suggestion, I'm calling it a fact and you all had better wake up. You saw how fast you lost your rights because of 9/11, well that ain't nothing. So, you guys go ahead and bitch about how any change in the law will destroy the 2nd Amendment. By the time the NRA figures it out it will be too late.

[jody]

28. You do know that a "yard sale" is not a "gun show", don't you? n/t

[safeinOhio]

31. It doesn't change my point

gun show, yard sale either one can be the death of the Second Amendment as you know it.

[jody]

35. I assume your point is all private sales of firearms must go through a FFL dealer. IMO there is a

substantial number of the 80+ million firearm owners who agree with you.

If such a policy became federal law, then a private seller should not be held criminally or civilly responsible for any sale that has been approved by an expanded NICS.

[Tim01]

38. We have discussed this exact same problem here recently.

Most of us (possibly all of us, I don't know) favor of a way to make it so that a person can't get a gun if they are prohibited from having one.
You are preaching to the choir.

To expand on this we would like to see a system so that when you come to my house to buy a gun, I call a 1-800 number and they tell me if you are authorized to buy a gun or not. IF you are not allowed to have a gun and I sell you one, I am in a shitload of trouble. IF you are allowed to buy a gun, then what I sell you(if) is just between you and me. No paper trail, no registration. But all sales have to be checked FIRST. I would support that, I think it is reasonable. Many gun guys would.

[safeinOhio]

45. Great that is a start.

Now help come up with other ways to help stop the unthinkable. Reasonable laws are just that. You'll always win more convert with reasonable compromise than with strict ideology. What is the NRAs view on private sales?

[Tim01]

52. The NRA is a for profit corporation. I don't care what they call themselves.

And the security if people like the president is the specialty of professionals.I doubt they want my help.

Every nutcase in this country has a girlfriend, or cousin, or coworker who will get them one of the millions(billions?) of guns if they want it.
And don't forget Oklahoma City.

[pipoman]

53. The problem with NICS and intrastate sales

isn't going away. The Federal Gov. has no jurisdiction over intrastate personal property transactions. This is why the issue has not already been resolved. Some states require NICS for personal sales. I believe that the feds could require FFL dealers to do NICS checks for a statutory fee, say $20. At the same time add protection from civil and criminal prosecution if a gun which has been transferred through NICS is used in a crime. Then do a wide spread ad/information campaign to let people know this is an option. Most people who are selling a gun would like to know they are not selling it to a prohibited buyer.

Another reasonable change in business as usual would be for the Feds to fully fund BATFE enforcement of current laws, particularly investigation of NICS denials. Most of the time an NICS denial means that the attempted purchaser has at least committed perjury and is actively trying to buy a gun. This seems like a no brainer.

[rl6214]

55. And how do you

intend to police private sales? Not how you are going to prosecute after the fact but how are you going to prevent private sales from happening?

[Tim01]

56. The same way we prevent murder

and prevent burglary, and prevent robbery, and prevent rape, and prevent speeding, and prevent embezzlement, and prevent drug use.

[rl6214]

57. So in other words it's not going to happen because

We don't prevent burglary, robbery, rape, speeding, embezzlement or drug use, we just respond to it after it happens but we both knew that already.

[patriotvoice]

59. "I would gladly give up that right"... one cannot give up rights: they are inalienable.

That's why it's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.

[AlinPA]

33. It seems entirely reasonable to assume that many could become nutcases long after

they acquire guns so it is impossible to stop potential killers from getting guns. But, a lot of the killers are not mentally ill. I'm tired of the use of mental illness for all shootings- they know what they are doing. The guy in Pittsburgh who shot the 3 cops knew precisely what he was doing. He said he was going to protect his 2nd amandment rights and was ready for the police who he knew were going to tell him to give up his gun at the incident.

[safeinOhio]

46. If that isn't the definition

of crazy, what is?

[virginia mountainman]

9. Well, Tim, We see some of the Anti's in here already!!

I agree, we should seek out those that can be swayed by logic and reason...

And we should leave the rest to Sara Brady, Di Fi and Caroline McCarthy.

They are lost, too far gone to even be able to understand basic concepts, backed by facts.

They are much like the zombies, in old black and white films, except these say things like...

"THINGSSSSSS THAT GO UP"........ "GUNNNZZZZZZZZZ KILLLLLLLLLLL'..."BRAINSSSSSSSSS"

[Tim01]

21. No reason for today to be different than any other day.

[virginia mountainman]

22. Just remember..

We are clearly winning....

[beevul]

30. Hahaha...

OT, but...


When I read where you wrote "Well, Tim,..."


This picture popped into my head of Al from home improvement...




No offense intended, just made me laugh and I thought I'd share.

[Tim01]

34. Oh, hell. That IS funny. nt

[AlinPA]

26. I"m one of those who don't much care about it, but in the list of "lies", you

have "assault weapons are deadly" as a lie. They are very deadly weapons. In the hands of some people, they can be lethal. So I don't think it's a lie to say they are deadly weapons. While as a rule, I live and let live with respect to guns, my attention has been raised lately, 3 cops in Pittsburgh killed with something much more deadly than a 22 pistol and 3 women not far from here killed with a 22. The guy in Pittsburgh claimed he was protecting his 2nd amendment rights but really ambushed the police. More gun laws won't help - America's culture has a lot of killing built in. Guns just make it easier and faster.

[jody]

29. And some cultures have homicide rates 7 times that of others but all have the same access to guns.nt

[Tim01]

32. Fair enough, let me explain.

"Assault weapons" are portrayed as almost magical killing machines tearing through police body armor, cars, buildings, you get the idea.
It is true they have more rounds than most other rifles. Is is equally true they are less powerful than almost any deer rifle or duck shotgun any hunter his in his closet.
Assault weapons are not as deadly as any common deer rifle, not even close. Most hunters would consider an assault rifle round inadequate for hunting. The .223 and 7.62 x 39 will kill deer, but there are much more powerful,much more popular choices.
If the media said somebody had been shot with a very powerful and deadly .338 Win mag single shot rifle, I would agree with them. But a single shot rifle just doesn't look that threatening.


Deadly, yes. Capable of killing, yes. But not the way the media make it sound.

[AlinPA]

37. No problem with what you say here.

[paulsby]

41. don't conflate

ASSAULT RIFLE with assault weapon, as you do above.

assault rifle has an entirely different meaning.

[benEzra]

48. The argument that "assault weapons" are more deadly than comparable non-"assault weapons"

is indeed a falsehood.

Yes, any centerfire rifle is more lethal than a .22 rimfire. But a .22 centerfire with a black aluminum receiver and a protruding handgrip (AR-15) is NOT more lethal than a .22 centerfire with a stainless steel receiver and straight wooden stock (Ruger Mini-14, Remington 7615, etc.).

The difference between an "assault weapon" and a non-"assault weapon":

[tularetom]

36. Guns are useful, guns are practical, guns are fun to use

Loonies with guns are a big problem.

Frightened people with guns are almost as big a problem.

You don't appear to be a loony. I hope you aren't frightened.

By the way I don't support any restrictions on gun ownership. But I'm curious - why do you oppose a ban on "assault weapons"? Are you planning to assault someone?

[paulsby]

40. how many times in how many threads does this have to be explained

so called "assault weapons" as defined in the AWB are guns with essentially cosmetic differences from other guns that remain(ed) legal.

it wasn't about the power of the gun, its lethality, etc.

it was about aesthetics.

this has been extensively explained ad nauseum.

[tularetom]

43. You don't get sarcasm very well, do you?

I'm fully aware of the definition of "assault weapons" in the AWB.

I'm just curious why someone who supports the ownership of such weapons would use the term "assault weapons"?

Likewise I'm sure most people oppose the use of "cop killer" bullets. But the OP uses that term in his post. Does he support killing cops?

[paulsby]

44. my skillz are slow today

the OP is using the terms that his opposition uses. he is taking away their power, so to speak.

iow, i know what assault weapons are, and thus don't fear them.

the only "cop killer" bullets i will likely face otoh are those from high powered rifles (which my vest won't stop) except those are primarily standard fare deer rifles, not "assault weapons"

so, i get his point

[X_Digger]

51. I think more and more 'average joes' do care..

I've had two work acquaintances approach me recently for recommendations on both how to obtain a concealed handgun license and what firearm would be good for home protection. Last week I had one of them over to demonstrate safe handling of firearms, and I went to the range this weekend with her to try out a few different handguns. (She really liked the Springfield XD sub in 9mm.)

While we were waiting for a spot on the range to open up, we talked about different firearms and their uses. She wants to try out my AR-15, since she's had a bad experience with the kick from a shotgun. We talked about the AWB, what it covered, what it didn't, and compared the power of different guns in relation to each other (nothing like being in a gun store for comparisons of both guns and ammunition.) To top it off, she's soccer-mom / SUV driving with obligatory save the planet stickers / Texas big hair woman.

The other co-worker- well, he's a bit of a nutcase. Doesn't listen to RW hate radio, but the rest of his friends do. He has aspirational politics- he knows that the republicans are the party of the rich, and he wants to be rich, therefore he's a republican (I know, didn't make a damned lick of sense to me, either.) He thought that assault weapons were all full automatic. He's coming over sometime next week to check out the feel of a shotgun vs SKS vs AR-15 vs ..