Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Taking on Guns

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:22 PM
Original message
Taking on Guns
Aug 08
Taking on Guns
Political Heretic

I dont usually write on second amendment issues, gun rights or gun restrictions or the debate over the right to carry weapons in our society. But the issue is coming to a head right in my backyard, so Ive decided to comment.

The Oregonian is reporting that the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation filed suit in the Oregon Court of Appeals asking the court to rule on the legality of the University of Oregons ban of firearms on its campus.

This is an example of an advocacy group taking an extreme corner case example, and attempting to exploit it. The extreme corner case in question is the tragedy of the Virginia Tech shooting. The OFEF is of the opinion that had there been no ban on firearms on campus, that tragedy would have been minimized or prevented.

As Oregon is now my home state, and I live in the city in which the University of Oregon is located, I have this to say:

If people could separate the fanaticism out of their pro or anti-gun positions, we would ALL be able to accept some truths and use them as a framework for responsible policy.

For the seven sensible points on guns, see:
http://practical-vision.blogspot.com/2009/08/taking-on-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
billyoc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. All the sensible points in the world won't conjure up a Democratic Congress that will support them.
Try to get them all to stick their hand in a blender, that would be easier.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Of course the so called sensible points are not as adversitied
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Then take them on, and let the reader decide who's more sensible.
Let's go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Libertas1776 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. ...
"If people could separate the fanaticism out of their pro or anti-gun positions, we would ALL be able to accept some truths and use them as a framework for responsible policy." That is a very sane and lucid statement. If only more people thought like that. I wish these people would realize the gub'mint ain't comin' to take your precious guns away. There is just no reason to be packing in a place like a University campus. It is just absolutely ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-11-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
97. The Democratic Party STILL has its call for an AWB in the platform...
This firearm is now the most popular center fire rifle in the U.S. In fact, more people own the miss-labeled "assault weapon" than who hunt, by some millions. When one of two major political parties has this IN ITS PLATFORM, you can forgive millions of Americans if they think "...gub'mint... comin' to take your precious guns away." It's there. Read it.

Incidentally, it was not illegal to carry concealed at Virginia Tech a few years ago. The law was changed to outlaw CCW just before Cho went on his rampage (no one accused Cho of being illiterate).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 02:31 PM by DainBramaged
All they can teach is one lesson, guns kill. What a stupid name for a front organization for the spread of the gun religion. Like Fundies, they are trying to force everyone everywhere to put up with their religion of carry, because the whole world is filled with boogie men.

Why is it that only white men (most of the time rich) try to push guns on everyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Why the bigoted assumtion that only white men support the RKBA?
RKBA has a much broader spectrum of support than just that demographic.

Recall also that gun control was originally targeted at non-whites and the poor. Gun control today maintains its racist and classist roots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Because it matches hard statistics?
Not "only" white men - that's not accurate. Statistical super majority white men? Yeah, that's accurate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
98. Yes, we can't forget the millions of armed women, too...
You may wish to visit this site:

www.georgiacarry.org and do a local search in court cases for the "Heller Brief." Georgiacarry submitted an excellent history on the racist foundation of gun control laws, from Colonial times, through the Southern Antebellum era, through Jim Crow and into the first half of the 20th century. Many laws seeking to restrict the right to keep and bear arms had their "prototypes" in the South. The aim of these laws in the South? To disarm blacks. So prevalent were these laws that by 1868, the Congress passed the 14th Amendment, that stalwart of the modern civil rights era, so that blacks would have the "privileges and immunities" of a citizen of the U.S. Most prominent was the right to keep and bear arms, since various Southern states were ignoring or even sanctioning armed bands (including state militia) to invade the homes of blacks to, among other things, confiscate firearms.

The movement to strengthen and expand the right to keep and bear arms is best seen in the context of the modern civil rights era. Like a lot of other laws and rulings discriminating and restricting blacks, women, GLBTs, Hispanics, Native Americans, and those accused of crime, the gun-control laws of the South crumbled like a row of plantation columns made of chalk. Ironic, don't you think, that Jim Crow gun laws have moved north, while the RKBA is now defended by a bunch of Georgia Crackers?

(Of course, women represent the fastest growing demographic within the gun-owning community. No doubt this growth rate is spurred on by the feminist movement at least as much as any individual threat to safety.)

Here is a quote from journalist Robert Sherrill, an early advocate for gun control, upon passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968: " to shut off weapons access to blacks... while leaving over-the-counter purchases to the affluent." To be sure, there is no indication that Sherrill approved of the Act's intent, but in any case he recognized the method if not the motive for gun control.

I think we can both agree that blacks, women and other groups which suffered de jure discrimination now have much freer access to firearms for their defense. I can only assume that you agree they should have that access -- just like "white men."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. hahahaha

(Of course, women represent the fastest growing demographic within the gun-owning community. No doubt this growth rate is spurred on by the feminist movement at least as much as any individual threat to safety.)


Hahaha. Yeah. Feminists like Mrs Kim du Toit (her choice of name). Yee haw.

Gun militants exploiting women in service of their own agenda. Just like they've been exploiting African-Americans.

They obviously think women and African-Americans are really dumb.

Yes, the solution to our problems is to buy guns. Not to demand that the problems be addressed by public policy. And not that the problems in question can be solved with guns anyhow.

Gun militants, advancing the racist, misogynist, right-wing agenda everywhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #98
100. got any proof of that assertion?
"spurred on by the feminist movement"

what feminists are promoting gun ownership for women?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-12-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. nonono ... what he really means is

Feminism has EMPOWERED women.

Empowered women go out and buy guns.

Then they festoon themselves in them before heading off to the kids' soccer games.

Bugger equal pay for work of equal value and the fact that women are throughout their lives at greatest risk of harm and death from their intimates. Guns. Empowered women want guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DainBramaged Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Why is it that only white men try to push guns on everyone?
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 03:11 PM by DainBramaged
If you don't realize that you need to get your eyes examined. We're talking NRA here, and to call ME a bigot for calling it what it really is IS simply ludicrous. Maybe you should mosey on over to Stormfront and see what racism is really about.

Examine these pictures, find the African-Americans.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. I spotted a woman!

Looks kinda accessory, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
79. Ok you aren't a bigot. You are ignorant.
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 09:14 PM by Fire_Medic_Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. you'd better quote that request pretty quick

I doubt that it will save the accusation, but you can try.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #80
82. It's always so interesting to see the legitimate questions you don't respond to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #82
84. nice save, dave

No one asked you or anyone to call them a bigot.

You just decided to call someone a bigot.

Nice to see you thought better of it.

What any of that has to do with me, I wouldn't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #84
87. It's just your penchant for skipping any substantive question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #87
89. and your mother wears army boots
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #89
90. How nice insulting someone's ill mother. You are a real class act.
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 11:51 PM by Fire_Medic_Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
94. WA has legal guns on campus
WA is, geographically close to oregon, has similar demographics, similar geography (mostly rural states with a couple of urban areas of roughyl similar size), etc.etc.

if guns on campus are such a bad idea, why isn't WA state suffering from allowing guns on campus?

is somebody less safe on an oregon campus than a WA state campus?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
5. Stop retail commerce in new guns and ammo. Turn off that spigot to a worsening problem.
I don't think of this as a fanatical position. I think of it as a sensible step in the correct direction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Its an anti freedom anti rights position, not suitable for a liberal or progressive
Bigotry, even anti-gun bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. You can't be bigoted against an inanimate object.
Stop using inflated rhetoric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... for the full up citation. Anti gun bigot is a proper use of the word, and quite fitting
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Now PP it's not nice to use facts against rants. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. and if you could point

to any intolerance or prejudice here, your assertion would be ... well, what I was just talking about in this very thread.

A classic right-wing provocateur manoeuvre, attempting to confuse the good "liberals" into thinking the right wing shares its values.

Anti gun bigot is a proper use of the word

Not unless guns have sprouted human DNA since last time I looked. The word "bigot" has never been applied to anyone's perspective on cheeseburgers or ANY other inanimate object in the history of language, as we know you know.

If you want to say someone is bigoted in respect of people who possess firearms, why not take that one out for a test drive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
74. No, you are not correct. Again.
As the rest of the definition says points out that it "especially" refers to one who regards or treats members i.e. persons of a group (further clarifies - racial or ethnic - that's persons) with hatred and intolerance.

Originating in the 1600's it would never have occurred to anyone to interpret or use the word in the misguided way that you are attempting, and other definitions of the word by additional sources, also continue to confirm, not undermine, the truth that the word refers to attitudes towards persons.

No one ever expected that some lunatic would ever be confused about the fact that the word refers to persons, just like no one ever imagined that corporations could claim rights under the 14th amendment as "persons."

There's really no reasons to get into a tizzy about this. If you want to call me bigoted against gun OWNERS or gun ADVOCATES (people) because of their love of guns or their defense of gun rights, that would be consistent with the definition.

So I mean, if you want to namecall, you can still call me a bigot and not look like an idiot who doesn't get what words mean. So I'm not taking any power away from you to insult me. Still free to call me a bigot.

The bigotry however, is against people for their membership in some class or group, not against and inanimate object. Gun's don't belong a racial or ethnic group. You can't be "bigoted" against a thing, only a person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
75. PS - further dictionary definitions reinforce my -correct- interpretation
Dictionary.com
bigotry
- 2 dictionary results
big⋅ot⋅ry
  /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation Show IPA
Use bigotry in a Sentence
noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.


Oxford English Dictionary

bigot

/biggt/

noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.


In every case, the implications are about attitudes toward - the living - not inanimate objects
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. removed
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 04:09 PM by iverglas
not relevant after all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. There is a ban against certain harmful digital images. Guns and ammo cause more harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I thought you'd given up that silly analogy..
child porn is analogous to assault with a deadly weapon. When you want to ban cameras, then it's valid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. really??

child porn is analogous to assault with a deadly weapon

Possessing an image of a child you have never seen in real life and have done nothing to, ever, is equivalent to assault???

Strange alternate universe you live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Read up on previous conversations..
.. abusing the rights protected by the first amendment compared to abusing rights protected by the second amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. hahahahaha

Do your own research.

I don't need to go find some idiotic previous conversation about "abusing" rights to spot bullshit when I saw it. And see it I did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. I don't need to research, I was there..
If you want to plop into the middle of a semi-long running conversation and pretend that you know what the fuck we're talking about, be my guest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. I know what I'm talking about

Reading someone else's inane and uneducated drivel about it doesn't interest me.

I haven't entered a conversation and made allegations about what you or anyone else had to say about anything. I don't actually care. The parallel between limitations on the exercise of one right and limitations on the exercise of another right doesn't depend on what any dungeon denizen may have had to say about it, I assure you.

Possessing and viewing child pornography that one has not participated in HARMS NO ONE.

And yet civilized socities prohibit it. And rightly so.

If you have an explanation for this that doesn't involve falling on your face for lack of a leg to stand on, I'd enjoy reading it. Of course, I'd enjoy the one that does involve you falling on your face for lack of a leg to stand on, the only one I can imagine you offering, even more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. *sigh* Let me catch you up..
In threads going back into your 'sabbatical', sharesunited compared banning child pornography to banning guns (ie, if it's constitutional to ban one, then there should be no problem banning the other.)

When it was pointed out that no, analogous items would be-

cameras/computers -> guns (tools)
taking/distributing child porn -> murder with a gun (criminal usage with a tool)
criminal misuse of a right protected by the first amendment -> criminal misuse of a right protected by the second

He had backed away from the silly position of comparing a tool to a criminal act using a tool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. sorry ...

When it was pointed out that no, analogous items would be-

cameras/computers -> guns (tools)
taking/distributing child porn -> murder with a gun (criminal usage with a tool)
criminal misuse of a right protected by the first amendment -> criminal misuse of a right protected by the second


Where do I see "possession of child pornography" in that list?

I'm not sharesunited, y'know.

I don't know whether s/he fell for that idiot noise, but you surely didn't expect me to.

criminal misuse of a right protected by the first amendment -- that's idiot noise.

Rights are exercised. They are not "misused", except in your opinion maybe. I wonder what happens when our opinions differ ...

Something is criminal if it is defined as a prohibited act in a penal law. So, leaving aside the idiot "misuse" noise, I think you've just constructed yourself a tautology.

A crime is equivalent in its nature as a crime to a crime. Hey. No shit.

But gosh. I wonder how it became a crime in the first place??

So if "possession of child pornography" is a crime -- even though the act of possessing child pornography HARMS NO ONE, what equivalent that has something to do with firearms would you propose?

Don't bust your brain. And don't imagine that I'll fall for some drivel about how there is no equivalent so that's an end to it.

There is no exact copy of "possession of child pornography" when it comes to the right to a jury trial, or the right not to be tortured, either.

The fact is that in LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES it is considered that there are JUSTIFIABLE LIMITS on the exercise of virtually all rights.

The prohibition on possessing child pornography is one justifiable limit (of many) on the right of free speech.

And there are all sorts of justiifable limits on the right to possess any property, including firearms, even if it has a fancy name in somebody's constitution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Equivalent..
So if "possession of child pornography" is a crime -- even though the act of possessing child pornography HARMS NO ONE, what equivalent that has something to do with firearms would you propose?


Possession of an unregistered machinegun, possession of parts capable of creating a rifle with a barrel less than 16" without NFA tax stamp, or civilian possession of a firearm with a rifled bore larger than .500" (that isn't exempted due to age / antique status).

The fact is that in LIBERAL DEMOCRACIES it is considered that there are JUSTIFIABLE LIMITS on the exercise of virtually all rights.


Who said there shouldn't be any limits on the exercise of the right protected by second amendment? Some straw person over there, eh?

JUSTIFIABLE LIMITS don't include banning (as sharesunited has proposed, repeatedly), not in any LIBERAL DEMOCRACY that I'd want to be a part of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. okey dokey

So if "possession of child pornography" is a crime -- even though the act of possessing child pornography HARMS NO ONE, what equivalent that has something to do with firearms would you propose?

You say:
Possession of an unregistered machinegun, possession of parts capable of creating a rifle with a barrel less than 16" without NFA tax stamp, or civilian possession of a firearm with a rifled bore larger than .500" (that isn't exempted due to age / antique status).

I say:
Possession of handguns.

Wow. That was productive.

I have this sneaking suspicion that you're going to say that possession of child pornography is illegal, and possession of the things you listed is illegal, but possession of handguns is not.

Allow me, if that's the case, to issue a preemptive Duh. And ask whether you are familiar with laws, and how things become "illegal".


Who said there shouldn't be any limits on the exercise of the right protected by second amendment? Some straw person over there, eh?

Uh ... who said anybody said that? That is indeed a fine straw thingy. I hope you're very proud!


JUSTIFIABLE LIMITS don't include banning

Huh! So you don't think that the possession of child pornography should be banned??

Well. How about the possession of anthrax?

not in any LIBERAL DEMOCRACY that I'd want to be a part of.

Looks like you're needing to move. Don't know where, but let me know how you make out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #57
60. And you step in the same pile of shit that sharesunited did..
Here, you'll need this tissue to wipe that off.

In sharesunited's scenario, the parallel would be banning cameras, memory cards, or computers (the tools sometimes used to produce, store, or distribute child pornography) just as banning all guns would be banning the tools sometimes used to commit crimes like armed robbery, brandishing, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

Banning all guns would effectively gut (or seriously infringe) the right protected by the second amendment. Just as if you banned all the surgical instruments required to perform an abortion that would fall afoul of the unenumerated right highlighted by Roe v Wade, or you banned radio and television transmitters, printing presses, and routers; that would be a serious infringement of the first amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. huh

In sharesunited's scenario, the parallel would be banning cameras, memory cards, or computers

And this would somehow be a justifiable limitation on the exercise of a right?

I'm thinking I'm glad I missed that punch and judy show.


Banning all guns would effectively gut (or seriously infringe) the right protected by the second amendment.

You're talking to me here. Could you focus? I have never proposed banning all guns. I have expressly stated that I oppose such a thing, as if such a thing had ever been a matter for serious consideration, and as if such a statement were necessary.

**I** am talking about justifiable limitations on the exercise of rights. Neither banning all cameras nor banning all firearms would be such a thing.

The possession of child pornography is banned.

I'm trying to figure out why you support that ban -- if you do -- and how you explain the justification for it.

Once we've established that, we can move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. You joined the movie late, then complain..
.. when I won't tell you what you missed? Harumph!

For the record, I don't support sharesunited's proposed total ban on all guns and ammunition (because they might be used in the commission of a crime)- no more than I would support a total ban on cameras, etc (because they might be used in the commission of a crime.)

You can say that 'no, thing A is analogous to thing B' without supporting banning of either. I was simply pointing out that his 'guns = child porn' (paraphrased, lest you get all testy) line doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. I really wish we could get you to focus

Maybe it's just too late on a Saturday night.

I'm not interested in whatever production you put on in the past, and in what the cast of characters are.

In this thread, sharesunited said:

There is a ban against certain harmful digital images. Guns and ammo cause more harm.

There is indeed a ban on certain images. Can you just tell me whether you support that ban - the prohibition on the possession of children in sexualized poses or contexts?

You can say that 'no, thing A is analogous to thing B' without supporting banning of either.

You can indeed.

I'm asking you whether you support a ban on Thing A here.

Then we can move on to what justification you see for that ban. Or you could just include that to start with.

I was simply pointing out that his 'guns = child porn' (paraphrased, lest you get all testy) line doesn't make sense.

And I'm trying to find out what JUSTIFICATION you see or offer for the child porn ban.

THEN we can see whether there is any analogy to be established between child porn and some aspect of firearms, in that there is some aspect in which the same sort of justification might apply.

Unless and until you do this, all your assertions about analogousness and nonanalogousness are just hollow rustling.

(That's a T.S. Elliot allusion, for anyone interested. He was born in the US, even if he left.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Use the search, Luke..
The conversation crossed about ten different threads, feel free to find em if you like.

I couldn't care less what you're trying to find out- you stepped in the middle of a conversation and then tried to drag it in another direction. Have fun with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. if I had wanted to participate in that conversation

I would have done so.

I have asked you a very simple question several times now.

You have pretended that my question relates to some other conversation in some other place.

I assure you, again, that it does not.

That conversation apparently had to do with cameras, and computers, and maybe cabbages and kings, for all I know. (That's a literary allusion too. Don't let them scare you.)

This one does not. This one has to do with the possible justifications for limitations on the exercise of a right, specifically on the right to possess something.

Maybe if you take a look in the light of day you'll grasp this really not very fine point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tim01 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Guns are way far behind alcohol and tobacco. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. The amount of guns is increasing dramatically while gun violence is decreasing
Worsening problem? What are you smoking? Crime is decreasing and there are historically high rates of firearms ownership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. gosh

I wonder what you all need those bang-bang things to protect your wimminfolk and chilluns from then ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Well golly
I wonder why you want to grab up all my bang-bang thingys when all the wimminfolk and chilluns are safe and gettin safer by the minute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. sadly, of course

The person women and children are at most risk of harm at the hands of is big daddy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Well then, we better ban that
No more large men
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. LOL! Excellent. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #49
52. don't know your Tennessee Williams really well, do you?

Sigh, it falls to the foreigners to make AmLit jokes ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #52
54. Tennessee Williams was dead when I was an infant
I'm not brushed up on things that were antiquated before I was born.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. sigh

It's really too bad about that educational system of yours.

Couple of weeks ago, watched the last episode of something I'd theretofore paid no attention to.

http://www.cbc.ca/triplesensation/inspirationperformanc...

Triple sensation: a reality show about a competition for budding musical production stars: singing, dancing and acting. I've watched about two of those "Idol" type thingies in my life -- what a waste of time, but hey, what an opportunity to have pointless opinions ... But this one was worth watching.

We tuned in just as one of the final contestants was delivering a monologue from Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. I, of course, knew the name of the playwright and the play as soon as we started listening. Got to admit I can't remember the character's name, though ... I've never seen it live (just The Glass Menagerie, on that score) and can't stand Elizabeth Taylor so have never watched the movie through.

But how could one expect a product of the US school system to recognize an allusion to one of the most famous characters in one of the most famous plays by one of their nation's most famous playwrights? I guess some old dead white guys are more worth knowing about than others. Well, not that I'd say so -- I'd hardly want not to know about your old dead founders and framers, myself -- but I guess you would.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. What is your education?
Starting fall, I'll be a senior at U of M. My degree doesn't require American Literature, and I'm too busy with required classes to take anymore personal enjoyment classes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. B.A., LL.B.
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 09:45 PM by iverglas

B.A. in French language and literature and philosophy. With a third major in political science completed after graduation. I was only 17 when I finished my undergrad coursework. Couldn't get a job. Went back to school. And some sociology and economics much later on.

No English lit in my postsecondary studies either. Just a well-rounded life.


I think my point was that I couldn't believe someone would not have studied Tennessee Williams in high school in the US, or at least have heard of his iconic characters.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. I spent all of high school
In Physics, Math, and auto shop classes. I wasn't taking extra Literature classes, not my thing. Those creeps wouldn't let me go to college while in HS. I had been going for a Mechanical engineering, Mathematics double major, now I've switched and I'm going for two degrees, one Economics and the other Mathematics. If I get over 90 percentile on the LSATs next year then I'm going to Law School.


I've seen A Streetcar Named Desire, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, and The Glass Menagerie. I don't remember offhand who wrote them and I don't pick up references from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. well, good luck

I got in the 91st percentile overall (higher on the English bit, of course!). But then I was a hung-over 20-yr-old pothead who'd spent the whole day before on the road and the night before ... well, that will be obvious ... and had never heard of things like prep classes and practice tests ... I'm sure you know better. ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
71. Of course, fanatics rarely think of themselves as such
That's why organizations that give themselves names like "the Evil League of Evil" only appear in comic books, or parodies thereof. Nobody thinks of himself as "extremist," "fanatical" or "evil."

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether or not your position is fanatical, the mere fact that you don't think it's fanatical does not constitute evidence that it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. Your "seven sensible points on guns" have the following weaknesses.
#1. Unsupported assertion.
#2. Unsupported assertion.
#3. Unsupported assertion.
#4. True as SCOTUS said in D.C. v. Heller
#5. Not true as SCOTUS said in D.C. v. Heller
#6. So! They also could not have imagined any of the technology we routinely use today when exercising our rights.
#7, OK but apply that reasoning to all the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing rights. SCOTUS said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), {t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. 1, 2, 3 are stupefyingly well supported,
5. isn't talking about what the SC ruled, its saying the SC is wrong, making emotion based decisions based more in its political leanings than impartial decision making. Like I said, if you could take the emotion out of it, you'd get to these points.

6. which is why our constitution grows more and more out of touch with the conditions of modern society

7. All laws that we make should be based on evidence. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Please provide links to credible reports proving 1, 2, 3. Five is your opinion that is contrary
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 03:04 PM by jody
to the law of the land.

Re 6, So you want to abolish some of our natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing rights?

Are you willing to rely on a simple majority to decide what rights are abolished and what retained?

Who will protect a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.

Re 7, if you really support laws based on evidence, then why ban firearms when evidence proves such inconvenient truths as homicide offender rates are seven times higher in one ethnic group than others when all groups have the same access to guns and laws obviously make no difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #15
27. jody just cannot make up his mind

So you want to abolish some of our natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable or pre-existing rights?

I can't speak to this "natural" crap, but if something is INHERENT or INALIENABLE/UNALIENABLE then, BY DEFINITION, it cannot be taken away.

And yet ... that is exactly what happens to people convicted of crimes. Their "right" to possess firearms is TAKEN AWAY.

Now, taking away rights makes no sense to me; it's a vestige of what's called "civil death". Civil death results in the removal of CIVIL RIGHTS - the right to own property, to contract, to vote, and like that.

Civil death doesn't exist anywhere else in the civilized world. In the US, criminal convictions still result in elements of civil death: possession of firearms and, in many instances, the vote, are denied.

So ... if the "right" to possess firearms is TAKEN AWAY, then it is NOT INHERENT or INALIENABLE/UNALIENABLE.

So ... what the fuck is jody jabbering about??

Ask him, if you like. He won't tell me. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
31. Political Heretic please reply to #15 so there is at least one intelligent response to it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
33. You seem to be an honest person, trying to find the truth...
or a reasonable approximation thereto. That's the best any of us can do.

I disagree with some of your premises, however.

The second amendment is in many ways, arcane. The constitution also says that black men count as only three fifths of a "real" person - you don't believe that part of the constitution should still be honored or guide our social decisions or laws today do you?


No, the Constitution does not say that Barack Obama (who has more than 1/16 Kenyan blood) is 3/5 of a person. The offending text may still be in the document, but it has no binding authority, having been clearly overruled by the 13th and 14th Amendments. That means that the Constitution--taken as a whole--says no such thing. Your argument seems to be based in emotion and not in reality, as I am fairly sure you are aware of this.

There are many things in the constitution which simply do not work with the conditions of our modern society. The second amendment interpreted to mean a universal right to carry weapons in any situation is certainly one of those things - the right needs to be revisited.


This hyperbole seems to be emotionally based as well. No one has ever believed in a "universal right to carry weapons in any situation." That is a straw man position. Imagine prisoners on trial for murder carrying weapons in the founder's time. Imagine convicts carrying arms on the way to the gallows. There never has been such a universal right, and there never will be. No sane person has ever contemplated such a right.

#7 Whatever new laws we make in support of a right to carry weapons or restricting such a right should have an evidence-based. I'm tired of constantly making policy based on peoples emotions about an issue! We have a problem with gun-based violence in this country. That's simply a fact.


Once again, "I'm tired" appears to be an expression of emotion, over and against logic. That is ironic, given the immediate context. Carrying weapons is, as far as I know and as another poster said, perfectly legal on Oregon college campuses. I have a good friend who has carried on Oregon and Washington college campuses. No laws were broken and no one was killed.

You say that laws should be evidence based, and apparently you would like to see Oregon law with respect to college carry changed. So I respectfully ask you to back up part of your linked post, so that I can see the factual basis for your policy preferences:

#3 Simply arming everyone, or encouraging a culture in which everyone is carrying a weapon, exponentially increases the changes of harm and violence on a day to day basis, while only helping the situation in a tiny fraction of extreme abnormal situations. And we actually have good data on this.

The number of incidents of people killed or wounded by stay bullets fired by a law-abiding citizen discharging a weapon he or she was carrying staggeringly outweigh the tiny number of instances in which a law-abiding citizen carrying a weapon has made a dangerous situation better by using that weapon.


Do you have any evidence to back this up? You claim to, and I would very much like to see it.

I'll offer a contribution of my own: If you are near a defensive shooting where an ordinary civilian is shooting you are in much less danger than if you are near a police shooting. This was discussed in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... . See the OP and posts 6 and 57.

I look forward to seeing your evidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
40. Excellent.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
45. you seem to be an adolescent male

attempting to patronize a stranger.

Let's see how it works for you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #45
48. You seem to be a pathetic old woman
who hypocritically objects to other people "butting in" to her conversations.

If the "stranger" has data, I would like to see it.

What's your problem--do you doubt the data exists? Or do you just have a preference for substance-free snark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #33
69. agreed. excellent. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. Actually...
"#7 Whatever new laws we make in support of a right to carry weapons or restricting such a right should have an evidence-based."


The problem being that the O.P. used NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.



Thus endeth their credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virginia mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
17. Most people would rather..
Take on Gun CONTROL....

I am so sick of the bullshit lies that good democrats keep regurgitation from the likes of Sara Brady, Paul Helmke, Bloomberg...

ALL REPUBLICANS

I stand for the BILL OF RIGHTS, ALL OF THEM...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackson1999 Donating Member (320 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
20. This group is not exploiting anything!!
It IS legal to carry concealed on campus in Oregon public universities. The are just getting the court to reassert what is already in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. taking on the gun dungeon ...

Good day, and good luck. ;)


If people could separate the fanaticism out of their pro or anti-gun positions, we would ALL be able to accept some truths and use them as a framework for responsible policy.

There is no fanaticism among gun control activists. There is no need to denigrate the partisans on both sides of an issue so as to look fair and balanced or something. The problematic people/groups in this sitation are not gun control activists, they are gun militants.

Gun militants are not fanatics. There is nothing irrational about them, their activities or their leaders.

They are a well-organized, coordinated, carefully managed network that is one manifestation of, and thoroughly integrated into, the right wing of politics in the US.

They are provocateurs, as one element of their carefully conducted campaign. Their goals are the same as the "free speech" provocateurs, and many of their targets are the same. "Free speech" provateurs target university campuses, with their attacks on policies against hate speech and their anti-choice exhibitions. Gun militants do the same. In fact, organizing gun clubs on campus has been identified as a tool for recruiting young Republicans. Here's a discussion of these efforts:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006149

The right wing is beating its chest and testing its strength. Its goal is to squat on all the public spaces of your country. To have nowhere left that is not touched by its demonstration of its power: white men with guns in the classrooms and supermarkets and children's sports fields, white men with loud voices "expressing their opinions" about GLBT people and religious and other minorities in the campus press and the student union, right-wing shit spread all over every inch and in every corner of your environment and your life.

And good "liberals" are the ones backed into the corner, because who can object to speech, or the great USAmerican tradition of guns, or all that good stuff? Good "liberals", I'm pretty convinced, don't object to much if anything.


The OFEF is of the opinion that had there been no ban on firearms on campus, that tragedy would have been minimized or prevented.

And I keep waiting for the OFEF or one of its fellow travellers to NAME the students or staff members within shooting distance of that incident who would have been carrying a firearm if they had been permitted to.

The Canadian instructor who was among the dead would not have been. Anyone got a name?

Why let this scum get away with this? Why doesn't anyone call them on this shit?

Their interest is not the public interest. And that is really pretty easily demonstrated.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
37. Unfortunately for you, there's no group exception to the US Constitution
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 07:27 PM by friendly_iconoclast
So even the Dreaded White Males get to exercise it.

It might help your blood pressure if you accepted the fact you just aren't going to be consulted by us USAians on
how to run the country as much as you might like.

You know, you could help remedy the situation you decry here..

Help repeal the Mulford Act in California!

After all, it *was* signed into law by that notorious White Male Ronald Reagan in order to disarm the Black Panthers.


I'm sure some will find your theories about the right wing and guns eminently believable, and they will make no apologies for believing it.

Now you need to do something else: Explain to us why the right wing isn't running Vermont. They have very few restrictions
on the carriage of firearms, so by your metric the place should be a cross between 1938 Germany and witch-trial era
Salem, Massachusetts: "Look, a gay person. We'll teach them not to let the sun set on them in Burlington!"

Do try to keep the wharrgarbl and hyperlexia to a minimum in your reply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #37
42. unfortunately for anyone unlucky enough to click on your posts
Edited on Sat Aug-08-09 08:02 PM by iverglas

You still haven't learned to make sense.


After all, it *was* signed into law by that notorious White Male Ronald Reagan in order to disarm the Black Panthers.

Whatever. Perhaps you think I'm in favour of public displays of loaded firearms.

I can't think of where you would have got that idea.

By my rough count

http://www.joincalifornia.com/election/1966-11-08

the Democrats held a majority in the California Assembly that year.


typo fixed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #21
77. One sided.
Edited on Sun Aug-09-09 05:15 PM by raimius
"There is no fanaticism among gun control activists."
(If I missed the sarcasm, my apologies.)

Accusing one side of being completely reasonable, in this debate, goes against the evidence. Neither side is completely reasonable. There are fanatics on both sides.


"I don't care about crime. I just want to get the guns."
~ Former Senator Howard Metzenbaum, D-OH during Brady Bill debates.


"We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
Mary Ann Carlson
State Senator (VT)

"To hell with the constitution..."
Mike Roos
on the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos assault weapon ban
Assemblyman (CA)
1989

"...the only people who use them (so-called assault weapons) are mass murderers..."
Charles Schumer
PBS debate with Bill McCollum
U.S. Senator (D-NY)
1996


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. indeed, the fanaticism is one sided

A dandy collection of quips you have there. Did you do that research yourself? I'd be interested to see the full passages from which you have extracted them. Can you direct me?

I mean, I'd hate to think you'd just copied and posted them from some gun militant website without making some effort to ensure you weren't misleading anybody.

I tried ...

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22I+don%27t+care+a...

but I can't seem to find any credible source ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #21
83. That's hysterical, funniest post ever ivy. That shit is priceless. Great fiction.
There is no fanaticism among gun control activists.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Wait, wait I can't breathe.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



Damn I almost peed on myself. Good shit, ivy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #83
92. There's one extremely fanatical character around here
who believes that if one single person with a concealed carry permit anywhere in the US at any time has ever committed a suitable offense with a gun, that justifies denying the entire civilian population (save police, of course, and armed guards and perhaps a few super special cases like rabidly anti-gun California politicians) the ability to carry guns on their persons in public.

I wonder if iverglas is aware of that fanatic? If so, how could she make such a statement? Is she dishonest, or just blind?

Or, hey, is she just practicing her comedy routine?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. She might be Lisa Lampinelli in real life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #92
95. well there sure are a lot of people who can't tell the truth

believes that if one single person with a concealed carry permit anywhere in the US at any time has ever committed a suitable offense with a gun, that justifies denying the entire civilian population (save police, of course, and armed guards and perhaps a few super special cases like rabidly anti-gun California politicians) the ability to carry guns on their persons in public.

Doesn't stop them from doing otherwise at great length though, does it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
34. 31 posts and no one that I saw had anything to say about the militia being
the reason for the guns in the first place.

"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."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TPaine7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. The militia isn't the reason for the guns or for the right to keep and
bear them.

People had guns (and other arms) and the right to keep and bear them before America split with England.

The need for the militia is a reason for the government not to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And, not coincidentally, that is what the Second Amendment actually says.

The idea that the right was created by the founders in the Second Amendment in order to protect the state is a gross misreading of history, and has been been emphatically countered by the Supreme court many decades ago and as recently as last year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #34
39. So, the First specifically says it doesn't apply to the states
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law. Specifically applies only to congress and not to the states directly in its wording.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. Good point except the OP referenced that issue in #5 of its source to which I responded. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #34
72. Because that is simply not true
The right to keep and bear arms was recognized before the Second Amendment was written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 06:43 PM
Response to Original message
35. Let me see
Right now, anyone who wants to carry a gun on a campus for nefarious purposes could. There is absolutely nothing stopping them. There is only a piece of paper asking them nicely not to do it.

I'm not sure how that could be considered better than letting the people with a lower crime rate than the police carry guns on campus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Political Heretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-08-09 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
66. Well, reading the full post will help you understand that.
Or not, but its certainly addressed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
70. #6 is a lie. #3 begs a source.
"#6 Regardless of whether or not an unregulated, unrestricted, universal right to own and carry any sort of personal weapon ought to be honored, it is simply an undeniable fact that no one involved in writing the second amendment could possibly have imagined a modern world full of millions of handguns and rifles, or a world in which some would hope to be able to walk down the street and into any public place strapped and armed to the teeth. That would have stuck them as obscenely uncivilized."

Not only did the 'founding fathers' envison a world where most households had a firearm, or multiple firearms of varying quality, but they LIVED in that world. They also had an excellent preview of the weapons to come. In 1791 we ratified the 2nd Amendment. Ten years prior saw the development of the Girandoni Repeating Rifle. An expanding gas powered 20 shot rifle. The Austrians used it against the french. Meriwether Lewis caried one on the Lewis and Clark expedition. You make bold statements about what would or would not have struck them as 'uncivilized', considering duels were acceptable practice at the time. (To say nothing of slavery or child labor).


Please provide a source to support #3. I can think of several prominent cases where an armed non-police first responder failed to halt an active shooter, but no cases where an armed non-police first responder injured any bystanders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gorfle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
73. Guns on campuses.
I have no problem with CCW permit holders carrying firearms on college campuses.

Here are the rules for CCW in Oregon:

http://licenseinfo.oregon.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=lice...

In particular, you must be 21 years old or older.

If a 21-year-old or older can walk down mainstreet with a concealed firearm, surrounded by hundreds of his fellow men, women, and child citizens, there is no reason why he cannot safely do so on a college campus. CCW permit holders have been shown to be many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than your average citizen, and they have been shown to be more accurate hitting criminals and less likely to hit innocent bystanders than the police.

In short, a person with a CCW permit is very likely to be one of the most responsible people in the world in terms of bearing firearms. There should be no problem with such people carrying on a college campus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raimius Donating Member (201 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
76. interesting points.
I do like this idea: "If people think that revising gun laws or passing new guidelines for or restrictions on their use, these laws should have sunset provisions, and be written with funding included to support the gathering of RESEARCH to establish an actual evidence-base about the success or failure of such laws."
I am not supportive of most restrictions, but this at least gives a credible way to study them.

From what I have read, Oregon has preemption laws which the University or Oregon ignored. Some of OFEF's reasoning may be off, but I think the law is on their side.

Would legal CCW have prevented the VT shootings? Probably not, since only a small percentage of people carry. Would it have given people the option of using equal force to defend themselves? Most definitely. Would the incident have been minimized/prevented? No one knows. Could it have been minimized? Potentially.

The big thing I have against "gun-free zones" is that they are not going to stop people intent of committing violent crimes! It is an artificial safety. Those who would murder/rape/steal with guns are probably not going to care about the policy buried in the student handbook. On the other hand, those who care about following the school's rules and would otherwise CCW will be disarmed.

If a person is deemed capable of carrying a firearm in Wal-mart or an office building, why not the University of Oregon? Do we actually think these generally trustworthy people will become unstable when they cross the property line of the university?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
81. Just a couple of points.
#6 "Regardless of whether or not an unregulated, unrestricted, universal right to own and carry any sort of personal weapon ought to be honored" There isn't any single legitimate group that has argued this point. The NRA isn't for an unregulated, unrestricted, universal right to own and carry.

Please post your good data on #3. The number of incidents of people killed or wounded by stay bullets fired by a law-abiding citizen discharging a weapon he or she was carrying staggeringly outweigh the tiny number of instances in which a law-abiding citizen carrying a weapon has made a dangerous situation better by using that weapon.


I'm sorry that is simply false. There is no data to suggest anything of the sort.

David
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #81
85. so INFRINGEMENT is okay

#6 "Regardless of whether or not an unregulated, unrestricted, universal right to own and carry any sort of personal weapon ought to be honored" There isn't any single legitimate group that has argued this point. The NRA isn't for an unregulated, unrestricted, universal right to own and carry.

Even though the second amendment thing says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Okay then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #85
86. Aren't you supposed to be a legal secretary or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #86
91. not as far as I know

but then what you might decide to suppose is hardly my concern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-09-09 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
88. I'm rather leery about describing one's own points as "sensible"...
...rather than saying "these points seem sensible to me," but let me assume that that was what your meant, Heretic.

Your item #1 is rather vaguely worded, but I interpret what you say to mean that a situation in which a person brings a firearm into a location where he is prohibited from doing so, there is an elevated risk that he intends to do something else illegal with it, given that he's already broken one rule by bringing the weapon into that location. I'll grant you that point, though I will add the caveat that "elevated risk" does not mean "certainty."

This point, however, reinforces the observation that "gun free zones" are respected only by people who have no criminal intent, whereas persons with criminal intent invariably ignore them.

Your item #2, I will also grant, but again, caveats need to be provided. The fact that the chances are very slim that one will not be confronted with a criminally inclined gunman during four years on campus is not the result of "gun free zones" on campus; rather, it is simply consistent with the fact that the chances are very slim of being confronted with a criminally inclined gunman over a given four year period almost anywhere in the United States. If anything, your chances of being at the location of a mass shooting in progress are--small as they are--higher in a mall or at an educational institution than they are elsewhere in the U.S.

Item #3, I'm not willing to accept without citations.

Item #4; agreed.

Item #5 I'll grant, assuming that by "organize and army to respond to threats," you meant "organize and arm," rather than "organize an army." If a colonial-era settlement was under attack by Indians, bandits or pirates, the townsfolk didn't muster into militia companies before taking action.

Item #6... Assuming, for the sake of the argument, that you are correct, and that the Second Amendment is an anachronism, the correct course of action is to agitate for a constitutional amendment.
The constitution also says that black men count as only three fifths of a "real" person - you don't believe that part of the constitution should still be honored or guide our social decisions or laws today do you?
Technically, the Constitution no longer says that: that provision has the equivalent of a think red line drawn through by a little something called the Fourteenth Amendment. Similarly, the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) is no longer in force because it was repealed by the adoption of a subsequent Amendment, the Twenty-First. That's how it works: if you think a particular provision of the Constitution is no longer desirable for whatever reason, you can push for a constitutional amendment to get it repealed or otherwise changed. But unless and until you get that amendment passed, you do not get to ignore that provision, no matter how it conflicts with your personal worldview.

Let me put it this way: suppose some cheerleader in the Global War On Terror argued that "it is simply an undeniable fact that no one involved in writing the fourth and fifth amendments could possibly have imagined a modern world in which non-state actors would murder non-combatants in an effort to force their governments to make concessions, and that these non-state actors would pass themselves off as members of the general public to escape detection, claiming the freedoms from warrantless search and seizure, and self-incrimination. That would have stuck them as obscenely uncivilized." Would you consider that a compelling argument to ignore the Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

But if you think the Second needs to be repealed or altered, by all means, try to get a constitutional amendment to that effect passed. But unless and until you do, it's part of "the supreme law of the land."

Item #7: public policy with regard to firearm should be evidence-based. Yeah, no argument from me. Problem is, the only available research is--and will continue to be--by definition statistical in nature, because there's no ethical way to conduct a randomized double-blinded clinical trial in this area. And a large amount of the existing research on the effects of firearms is ideologically motivated, and consequently biased.
We have a problem with gun-based violence in this country. That's simply a fact.
It is, but it's an incomplete fact. In spite of the attention paid to mass shootings, the overwhelming bulk of firearm violence both in the U.S. and in "peer countries" is committed by members of those ethnic groups most likely to be socio-economically disadvantaged to the point of being marginalized and most likely, as a result, to be involved in the illegal drugs trade. Social marginalization and involvement in the drugs trade have a combined corrosive effect to make homicide the method of choice for conflict resolution; initially over "business disputes," but this expands to even the slightest personal slight (showing "disrespect" in American terms).

In the Netherlands (which has pretty tight firearms laws), the district of Amsterdam South-East (built in the late 60s and early 70s as a "model" residential neighborhood, but when it proved unattractive to the intended residents, it became mostly populated by the socio-economically disadvantaged, and turned in effect into the European version of an American housing project) has seen at least 10 incidents involving firearms discharges in the past three months, of which one resulted in a fatality (a 15 year-old boy). This is emblematic of a problem occurring throughout urban areas of the Netherlands, and indeed the rest of western Europe, of (by now) third-generation immigrants (descendants of "guest workers"; West Indians in the UK, Moroccans in the Netherlands, North Africans in general in France, Turks in Germany) feeling little connection to their families' country of origin, while also being excluded by their host society (leading to reduced employment, difficulty acquiring social services, et al.). They're extremely vulnerable to being drawn into the criminal circuit, especially at the retail end of the drugs trade.

Western Europe has definitely seen an increase in violent crime, particularly firearms crime, in the past fifteen or so years. While the supply of firearms (mainly from eastern Europe) has increased, this has mainly been in response to demand. The real problem is that Europe has, to a large extent, created a socio-economic underclass that finds itself in a comparable position to that of American blacks some forty years ago, while an increasingly competitive (and violent) drugs trade offers the members of that underclass a quick and certain way to wealth, albeit at the risk of an early grave. In spite of western Europe's tight gun laws, criminals have no problem acquiring firearms when they want them. The fact is that more of my friends and family (myself included) have been in close proximity to shootings in the Netherlands than in the United States, respective gun laws notwithstanding.

The fact is, social inequality plays a much larger part in crime figures than availability of firearms. Social inequality in combination with a large market for illicit substances is a powder keg. In the present conditions, the U.S. would have a massive gun violence problem even if guns had been tightly controlled for the past century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-10-09 09:52 AM
Response to Original message
96. K&U because of item #3, which presents a straw man and an unsupported "factoid"
#3 Simply arming everyone, or encouraging a culture in which everyone is carrying a weapon, exponentially increases the changes of harm and violence on a day to day basis, while only helping the situation in a tiny fraction of extreme abnormal situations. And we actually have good data on this.

Nobody is advocating arming everyone or encouraging a culture in which everyone is carrying a weapon.

The number of incidents of people killed or wounded by stay bullets fired by a law-abiding citizen discharging a weapon he or she was carrying staggeringly outweigh the tiny number of instances in which a law-abiding citizen carrying a weapon has made a dangerous situation better by using that weapon.

That is not supported by hard data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC