Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What I don't understand about the gun control faction is

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
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:04 PM
Original message
What I don't understand about the gun control faction is
How?

I mean this, seriously, in practical terms.

Legislating against gun ownership is 1) unconstitutional and 2) a losing electoral strategy. Obama had to fight the image of a "gun-grabber," whether it was fair or not, real hard in 2008. Why make him re-fight that battle now? And who would he even fight it with a GOP House of Reps?

But let us assume, for the moment, that gun control advocates are correct in their descriptions of gun rights advocates with monikers of "paranoid" and nuts".

Why would the gun control advocates, who are presumably unarmed, willing to antagonize heavily-armed paranoid nuts who are on guard against gun seizures?

What do they do for an encore? Take ventriloquist lessons and hang out in rooms filled with schizophrenics holding sharp objects?


In other words, it's either a really dumb plan of action or a wildly gross mischaracterization of the pro-rights side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. Are you saying so-called gun "rights" advocates might shoot someone who is opposed to more guns?
Edited on Wed Feb-02-11 07:12 PM by Hoyt
Good reason to start restricting them right now. Glad someone is finally beginning to recognize the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You are always helping the pro gun side Hoyt, with those lovely posts
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Except the gun control advocates aren't advocating holding the line
they advocate disarming people.

I mean, you can't even draw cartoons for fear of antagonizing some folks. So if we have a no antagonizing rule, let's enforce that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. mischaracterization
"Why would the gun control advocates, who are presumably unarmed, willing to antagonize heavily-armed paranoid nuts who are on guard against gun seizures?"

because some things are more important than myself. I realize that this novel concept doesn't translate well for the "I want guns--fuck everyone else...ME ME ME ME ME" crowd.

There are no "gun grabbers." Gun control advocates also aren't trying to disarm any law-abiding person. On the side of sanity, we merely want to decrease the proliferation of guns, and make certain weapons and associated items extremely difficult for criminals and the disturbed to purchase.

I am categorically against any law that empowers any agency to grab any gun from a law-abiding owner. Not that it really matters, it's unconstitutional anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Sorry. Gun control supporters are trying to disarm us, this deceptive tactic is well recognized
You can keep saying it and I'll keep pointing out that at each step along the way to a total gun ban there are people willing to support it and to lie and deceive in order to trick other people to support it.


"because some things are more important than myself. I realize that this novel concept doesn't translate well for the "I want guns--fuck everyone else...ME ME ME ME ME" crowd."

Change out gun for burka or piata. There is nothing wrong with strongly fighting a culture war directed against you. When culturally insensitive people are trying to ban the burka I'll respect them when they are "selfish" and fight to keep their culture intact and uncensored.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. wow paranoia
on display.

I'm not trying to disarm you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lawodevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. you may or may not support the next step toward a total ban after your pass you step
But someone will be there to support the next step along the way to a total ban as is what happened in the UK. It's not paranoia, it's truth.

But trusting someone who oft expresses hate toward gun owners would not be wise. Most gun control activists will support a total gun ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. See post number ten.
"I'm not trying to disarm you."

You might not be, but you're more than willing and happy to enable those that would.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. It is not paranoia, as the evidence has been demonstrated to you several times.
At this point you are apparently only here to disrupt, lie, and attempt to obfuscate.

Good day to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. "There are no "gun grabbers."" I guess some of these folks were lieing then...
I guess some of these folks were lieing then...

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. some of those quotes
Represent proposals that are clearly unconsitutional and which I would never support...because--this is important--they are unconstitutional ex post facto legislation. So what I think isn't really all that important...there is no way that these pass constitutional muster. Thus, there is no worry that these proposals would ever become US law.

Some of those persons, like Ms. Feinstein (my senator) and Mr. Schumer (used to be my senator) are democrats that I despise and vote against whenever I have the opportunity.

Some of the other quotes there, such as the one from Major Owens, advocate gradual longterm reduction and registration of all guns...but not "grabbing" any gun which is owned legally. This is the position I endorse. Some of the quotes are probably taken out of context. I wonder where you found this information, I'd be interested in a link.

I'm certain that many of the most absolutist gun control quotes there come from people who are frustrated with the extremism and absolutism on the other side. I understand that frustration. The greatest danger that the gun crowd faces from absolutists on the other side is their own absolutism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Heres what he said.
""We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose."

Thats what Owens said.

Additional bans and aquisition of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.

Thats confiscation, hidden in nicer terminology. What did you think "aquisition" really meant?

You support that, in your own words.

"Some of the quotes are probably taken out of context. I wonder where you found this information, I'd be interested in a link."

Tell me which ones you think need additional context, or which ones would mean different than they say under different context?

As far as a link, there is no single link. You can research them to verify that they're factual if you really feel the need.

I collect such quotes. I have for years now. Over a decade in fact. Because I got tired of people saying that "nobody wants to take anyones guns"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. no, no its not
"Thats confiscation, hidden in nicer terminology"

That's a defition of confiscation that you embrace because it suits your rhetorical purposes, but it is not the actual legal definition of the word...nor is it gun grabbing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. "acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose"??
How, pray tell, do you 'acquire' handguns and rifles from people? Ask nicely?

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Are you noticing a trend?
"He didn't say what he said"

"He didn't mean what he said"

Taking them at not just their own words, but also taking into account things they have tried, is a slippery slope argument.

"aquisition" isn't confiscation hidden in soft language.

Denial?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Must be. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Its a distinction without a difference.
You don't get to define "gun grabbing". The people who would lose the guns do.

In any case, you yourself said you support what owens proposed.

Tell you what, what do YOU think the word "aquisition" meant as he used it?

Beyond, that, I flat out proved you wrong, when you said "there are no gun grabbers".

You still haven't addressed that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. How long before the 10 round magazine limit becomes 6 ......
That's what happened the last time the 10 round magazine limit was imposed. See Brady II. The ink wasn't even dry on the AWB and its strongest proponents were foaming at the mouth to impose even more ridiculous restrictions.

It wasn't until the pro-RKBA community realized the anti's would never be appeased, that the tide began to turn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Exactly. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HankyDubs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. ah yes
slippery slope, all the time every time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Its a DEMONSTRATED factually historic slippery slope.
You simply can not deny history, and in doing so make it go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. And if there is no gun control will there be a slippery slope of gun violence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. How do you "decrease the proliferation"
of something free people may acquire freely?

Someone might as well say they aren't anti-gay marriage they just want to decrease the proliferation of gay marriages.

Are you for free speech but just want to decrease the proliferation of speech you disagree with?

As my OP started, how does that even work in practical terms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RSillsbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
30. Gun control advocates also aren't trying to disarm any law-abiding person.
The gun control advocates seem to disagree w/ you

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Its kind of like playing both sides...
Its kind of like playing both sides of the issue.

Claim that nobody needs X.

Take actions that bans Y and X.

Claim people that see you attempting to ban Y are "paranoid" and "nuts".


As to it being a losing strategy?

They do not care. They really do not care.

Some of them have said as much point blank. The sentiment was, if I recall correctly, that losing some elections would be worth it.

The strategy has not changed since the 90s. Though they have learned how to (mis)use the terms "reasonable" and "common sense" a little better.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pullo Donating Member (367 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Now there's the attempt to rebrand "gun control" ......
Edited on Wed Feb-02-11 08:39 PM by Pullo
..... as "gun saftey"

The anti's realized a while ago that "Handgun Control Inc." was not a good name for their public advocacy group. Its finally beginning to dawn on them that the policy of gun control is radioactive politically too.

So now they're trying to rebrand a policy and hope nobody notices.

They're a quick bunch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:05 PM
Response to Original message
12. Because gun control advocates are driven either by
their fear of guns or their need to have control over other peoples lives.

They are losing judicially, recent court rulings are affirming the rights of those who own guns.
They are losing legislatively, states around the country are liberalizing their gun laws.
They are losing financially, the NRA and other gun rights organizations have plenty of funding while gun control organizations are begging for money.
They are losing factually, as crime continues to drop despite the increase in gun sales.

They are willing to risk giving control of Congress and the White House back to the Republicans to push an agenda that even a majority here on DU don't want pushed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
beevul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I would wager...
"their fear of guns or their need to have control over other peoples lives."

I would wager there is significant overlap between the group that "fears guns" and the group that "need to have control over other peoples lives"



Like that, but with more overlap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. If you haven't noticed, the Republicans have control of Congress...
and it often seems, the White House as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lurks Often Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-03-11 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
31. No they don't
They have a majority in the House.

That the Republicans seemed to be able to work the system to further their general agenda is an entirely separate issue and if you think it is bad now, wait until they have complete control in Congress and the White House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-02-11 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
26. It's a matter of faith. nt
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 Wed Aug 27th 2014, 11:30 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