Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are Guns the Left's Drugs?

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-22-09 11:56 PM
Original message
Are Guns the Left's Drugs?
Back in the 80's I remember reading a column by William F. Buckley in favor of drug legalization. In it he admitted that in the 60s the drug war was appealing as a way to strike back against "the counterculture" and that many backed it for no other reason than as a way to stick it to the hippies.

Could it be that the knee-jerk reaction among some liberals against guns is the mirror image of that? A way to stick it to the rednecks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
1. Liberals aren't Wm. Buckley, who was CIA and probably ...
involved in JFK assassination --

The revolution of the 1960's wasn't simply about "sex" -- in most part it was about
overturning discrimination against anyone -- changing our medical system to something
more humane - anti-war ... natural, healthful foods . . . childbirth at home.

As far as I see the gun issue . . . it's the GOP's NRA . . . just as it's the
GOP's "pro-life" murderers -- and the GOP's fascist anti-health care rallies.

NRA has certainly targeted many Democrats over the years -- successfully!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. Could be for some, but I doubt many would admit to this motivation. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting proposition...
...but, based solely on personal experience, I think the knee-jerk reaction is based on the same things EVERY knee-jerk reaction is.

Fear and ignorance.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proteus_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
5. i think so
many of the arguments the left makes against gun rights are eerily similar to arguments that many on the right make against some other civil liberties, and especially when it comes to ignoring the constitution.

i grew up in a liberal household. I lived basically on a college campus (a liberal east coast institution). gun control was a GIVEN. i personally heard the way people talked about those who believed in gun rights and it IS a cultural thing. especially among urban liberals, guns are associated with all sorts of (generally) false stereotypes about southerners, rural residents, etc.

after college, i spent years as both a firefighter and a cop. i also (for the first time in my life) became exposed to ACTUAL firearms rights proponents (not caricatures), real life everyday people who carried concealed and/or owned firearms. i saw tons of street crime as well, but it was almost always thug convicted felons (already prohibited by law from carrying) and not licensed CCW'ers.

i did a lot of constitutional research, and soul searching. and changed my mind. i am honest enough to admit that even though i like to think of myself as being ruled by rationbality, if i was unlucky enough NOT to be exposed to REAL people with guns and other personal experiences, i might to this day discount gun rights and gun rights advocates just like so many on the left currently do.

anti-drug laws also have much in common with anti-gun laws. they both have a history of strongly being influenced by racist ideas (with dtugs, it was fear of black culture (mj smokin black jazz musicians for example) that became the impetus for many anti-drug laws for instance).

many TRUE conservatives are strongly against the drug war. buckley as you mentioned, and national review magazine (the conservative flagship) have advocated for legalization/decrim for DECADES. it's sad that the "mainstream" of both major political parties are equally terrible in regards to the drug war.

again, in regards to my views on drugs, my experiences play a part. i spent YEARS working deep undercover (mostly drugs, but also weapon and general intel investigation). it was my experience in law enforcement and amongst REAL druggies that helped convince me that the "throw em in jail" approach is simply bad policy.

it really disgusts me, especially in this economic environment that politicians won't consider decrim'ing and TAXING marijuana, and moving towards a harm reduction approach for "hard drugs" vs. expensive and counterproductive punitive approaches.

all one has to do is spend 5 minutes looking at the posts of the anti-gunners in this very forum to see that much of the arguments about gun rights involve ad hominem attacks on gun rights advocates (gun loves, penis substitute references, redneck references) as well as blatant logical fallacies, etc. it's so sad that so many anti-gunners can't see what perfect comparison can be made between many of them and the freepers that they so condemn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
12. paulsby
how much of the gun violence you saw as a cop could be attributed to drug prohibition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. it is of course hard to draw direct causal relation
but i would say a "significant portion" of it.

recall that back in the 80's , when we were suffering as a nation, a MUCH higher violent crime rate than we have now, a very significant portion of that crime had to do with crack dealers establishing territory, taking out competition, etc. this made its way into popular culture (new jack city) etc. and is just inarguable.

it wasn't CRACK that caused it. it was primarily crack dealers (and to a lesser extent users) engaging in violence either to procure drugs, procure territory, etc.

look at marijuana, for instance. NOBODY, not even the most ardent critic of MJ, would say that MJ encourages violence. MJ encourages people to laff at dumb jokes, eat cheezy poofs, and make statements that they think are profound, but are actually hippy stoner philo-quackery :)

but it CERTAINLY doesn't cause violence. in fact, imo, it arguably DETERS violence. "mellow" people don't go out and shoot other people.

but marijuana prohibition has resulted in LOTS of violence. dealers taking out other dealers, growers in california defending their grows with booby traps, etc. now certainly mj dealers and the MJ trade (at least inside the US) is not nearly as violent as the crack trade was, but there's more than a fair share of dead people due to violent MJ trade concerns.

again, i can't give a #, obviously, but i suspect (disclaimer: wildly educated WAG (wild assed guess) here) that we would see AT LEAST a 20% reduction in violent crime if we decrim'd marijuana and moved towards a harm reduction philosophy in regards to "hard drugs".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vickers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #5
16. Great post.


:thumbsup:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:16 AM
Response to Original message
6. not when kids are accidental killing each other playing with a gun they found hidden somewhere
the idea that guns and drugs can be equated in any way is offensive to me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Drugs never killed anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. you are kidding me right?
accidental firearms deaths are at an ALL TIME HISTORICAL low, and are not even NEAR the top of the list in regards to accidental deaths by kids.

more kids die from drowning than die from firearms accidents.

more kids die playing school sports than during school shooting, btw.

don't tell em drugs don't kill kids. one of my good friends was killed by a drug overdose when i was in high school.

do you realize how rare accidental shooting deaths of kids are? very rare. when you see how many kids are kiled in auto accidents, falls, drowning, etc. it's not even close.

guns and drugs have many similarities. when misused/recklessly used, they can be quite dangerous. but they also have many benefits.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #6
25. 102 accidental child gun deaths in 2006. Any guess on how many accidental overdoses?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
85. exactly. let's look at accidental child SPORTs deaths, as a comparison
what is amazing is that considering the lethality OF guns, and the fact that they are so widely owned (and there are over 200 million in the country in civilian hands), that accidental child gun deaths are SO rare. they are at a historical low. why? good education (like eddie eagle, an NRA program), and responsible gun owners.

for example, just the sport of football at the high school and junior high level sees an average of 52 deaths a year.

that's JUST one scholastic sport and just high school and junior high.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. Why am I not surprised that mo wouldn't answer?
The gun grabbers really don't like facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulsby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. generally speaking
when a group argues emotionally instead of factually, their ideas are suspect.

there are few areas of political discourse where i see more emotional argumentation than amongst anti-gunners.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. I would have to agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Paladin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #88
95. Are You Two Going Steady? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-25-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #95
103. You know how cops and firefighters are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
63. Far far far more people are accidentally killed by drugs than are my firearms...
so you are right they aren't equal but I won't hold it against casual drug users (that includes legal drugs).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:19 AM
Response to Original message
8. As someone who lives in an urban area and regularly hears the sound of gunshots
in the evening, my opinions of gun policy are more shaped by the 60+ gun related homicides that have occurred in my city this year than they are by any feelings I have towards rural people I rarely encounter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Edit
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 12:22 AM by subcomhd
OK - good point. But does your area not have laws to prevent or restrict gun ownership?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
72. Were criminals or gangs responsible for these homicides? ...
There are an estimated 1 million street gang members in the United States and in some communities they commit up to 80 percent of crimes, according to a report by the U.S. Justice Department's National Gang Intelligence Center released in January.

The study warns that gang activity and gang membership are on the rise nationwide.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/110797.php


If you favor draconian gun laws, you'll find such laws effective against honest citizens but useless against criminals and especially criminal drug gangs.

Many gun laws are only "feel good" legislation designed to make citizens feel their politicians are actually doing something to combat crime. The solution to criminal drug gangs is very complicated and expensive and may involve legalizing some drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
10. umm, quite probably not...
"ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology...

The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05."

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. 1994?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
divideandconquer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
41. "acid, booze and ass, needles gun and grass, lots of laughs, lot's of laughs"
It makes me puke when gun nuts root for the Taliban, Al queda, Baathists and other repressive assholes as proof the 2nd misamendement is good for democracy. The whole gun culture here and abroad seems to revolve around repressing women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
14. Cool it with the anti-Appalachian bigotry
Racial epithets are not called for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. huh?
Appalachians are a race? Good for them, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. You don't have to put down a whole group of people
to make a point. Has no other place here or anywhere else. White people are a race, calling white people rednecks is racially intolerant toward white people.

For all the calls of racism against freepers, you would think we could be tolerant ourselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:48 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. OK
Friend, I am a Southern, gun owning white man who drives a pick-up built during the Carter administration. When we say redneck around here, it ain't (isn't) a reference to white people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. So...
It is clearly a word that is clearly ethnically insensitive. I'm not going to call you epithets about your white southern heritage, I don't expect you to denigrate me over mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:03 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Since when did all white Southerners become rednecks?
Despite my guns, my truck my Scots-Irish lineage and my love of fried food - I do not consider myself a redneck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. Rednecks is an ethnically degrading word
Why do you feel it belonged in the OP?

You wouldn't even consider using such bigoted terms when describing asians, latinos, or african americans. It is degrading to a whole people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beer on a stick Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #34
45. So first it was 'racial', and then when you get called on it....
it morphs into 'ethnic'.

It's not degrading term in the least, but seem not to be able to grant it even one, stable meaning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #45
47. You don't think redneck is a degrading term?
It is racially bigoted against white people in general. It is ethnically against Appalachians and southerners.

It is obviously meant to degrade a people. Look at the context in the OP, it is being used directly to slur a group of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beer on a stick Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. No, quite clearly I don't.
It's not racial in least, and Appalachian and Southern are not racial characteristics.

And I know plenty of folks who refer to themselves as redneck, and proudly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #48
57. I am part redneck. I have many redneck friends.
I know some rednecks who are quite progressive and intelligent, some with dreadlocks(we call them dreadnecks) and I know some who are total assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. I have heard plenty of black people call each other N****
Doesn't mean it is not a intentionally demeaning word. Which is exactly what redneck is, a word to intentionally demean rural white people. It has as little place in civil discourse as N*****.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beer on a stick Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. No, sorry, but you saying that it's so doesn't magically make it so.
Redneck is simply not a racially derogatory term.

You simply don't understand the word, that's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #61
74. The word started as a way for urbanites to insult
the rural southerners who worked outside, their necks red from sun. It is an obvious insult.

It is a put down. It is a way to insult southerners and Appalachians, to call them poor and uncouth. Just because a few people describe themselves that way doesn't mean it isn't insulting to everyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beer on a stick Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. No, it didn't start that way.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/sen...

It's not a put down, and I've heard black friends refer to some of their relatives down south as 'rednecks'. Just like there are black cowboys.

You're looking to joust at a windmill, and I'm not interested.

Out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. It is absolutely how it started
I'm not sure what that link was supposed to go to, but it doesn't explain the origin of redneck. So I'm supposed to just take your word for it? It without question started as a way for urbanites to insult and demean rural, mainly southern whites.

Black people call themselves and each other N**** all the time. Even white people use the word about themselves and each other. It is still inappropriate.

If you can't handle rational discourse without resulting to ethnic slurs and bigotry then I'm done. You should be ashamed of yourself. Next time some freeper insults Obama with racial or ethic slurs, realize that is exactly what you are doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beer on a stick Donating Member (421 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. What are you talking about? I haven't used any ethnic slurs.
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 07:04 PM by Beer on a stick
And, by the way you've been being so irrational, especially in terms of stating that I have, then yes, you appear 'done'.

A. That link was the wrong one. This one http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=redneck goes to to the origins of the word. If you can't be bothered to read, it's not my problem
B. You have supplied absolutely zero evidence, other than your opinion, as to the origins of the word
C. You haven't demonstrated at all that you actually understand what it means, or how it is used.

Go ahead and have the last word. It seems to me you're not interested in discussing this honestly.

Shame, if there is any here, is completely on your side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #61
79. no he doesn't
That seems to be his problem. He seems to think the word means something it doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #59
67. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
35. Also
if I wanted to engage in Appalachian bigotry I would say "hillbilly" not "redneck." Hell upstate rural Minnesota is one of the most redneck places I have ever been - so is the north of England.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:39 AM
Response to Original message
18. No -- the knee-jerk reactions tend to come from the pro-gun side; *no* restriction is reasonable
*all* classes of guns must be available everywhere, without restraint, etc.

Ad hominem attacks ensue -- "gun grabber," "prohibitionist," "Brady Bunch clown," etc., etc. -- the moment one suggests that a complex, mature society might want some shades of gray to its gun policies, as opposed to entirely black, or white.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:51 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. The NRA supports the vast majority of gun regulations
The NRA supports:
The NFA system for automatic weapons, Short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and destructive devices.
The NICS system which requires a federal background check to buy guns.
Restricting felons from having guns.
Restricting the mentally unfit from having guns.
Restricting the sale of guns that can be easily made automatic.
The NRA is the single largest provider of firearms safety.


Why don't you at least make some sense? I've heard "ban all guns" plenty on DU, I've never heard "*all* classes of guns must be available everywhere, without restraint, etc".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:55 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. They also support just about
any Repub. over a Democrat, even when the Dem. is good on their issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:59 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. If Democrats want NRA support
they should support the same reasonable restrictions the NRA supports.

I'd like to see which districts a pro-gun republican was supported over a pro-gun Democrat. I'm sure since you are making that claim that you already have this data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
54. Actually no..
They've supported Dems with a higher rating than Reps on their issues. The fact that fewer Dems are rated higher than Reps in any one district or race isn't the NRA's fault, but our party's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #22
66. Provide a single example.
Name the Rep & and the Dem.
I'll pull the NRA scores for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. yes, yes, yes -- speeking of knee-jerk, I've heard this apologia for the NRA before, too
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 01:57 AM by villager
Right. They're for gun restrictions where appropriate, have no ideological interest in what they advocate, never sue to overturn laws that are popularly supported in the cities where they're enacted, etc. etc...

The sheer predictability of your response, the wind-up-robot-and-repeat nature of it, is exactly the point I was making...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #24
28. We know you don't like the facts. You never let them get in your way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #28
46. Gawd ...I was looking for post 24 and then found out its an ignored ...no wonder.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. They support the vast majority of gun laws
What about that don't you understand?
Talk about knee jerk. You have absolutely no idea about what the NRA supports.

They sue to get egregious gun laws removed. They win because the law is on their side. I can't imagine how courts rightly overturning laws could be called a bad thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. you should talk to some of your fellow gungeonites who've left the NRA
...after recognizing it for the poisonous rightwing lobbying group they in fact are.

You are free to love them, however...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. The are a gun enthusist organization
Supporting policies for gun owning Americans, regardless of party.

It is just a shame that the democrates insist on shooting themselves in the foot, by supporting capricious gun laws. Plenty of gun owner supporting democrats get money from the NRA. They should all support the same reasonable restrictions supported by the NRA and they could get that money too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:31 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. yes, darling, that's all they are
Good night, now...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
93. why the nra sucks, two words
Black talon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Irreverend IX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. Black talons?
Forget about the "cop-killer bullet" hysteria. Winchester Black Talons were just another hollowpoint round with a scary name, and hollowpoints are by their nature incapable of piercing kevlar. They're soft and designed to crush and deform inside a target, while kevlar-piercing handgun rounds have steel cores and are designed to retain their shape and pierce through tough material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #94
98. I'd like to hear paulsby's answer to this eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #94
100. see my response to facepalm
I may retract.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. *facepalm*
Have another glass of Kool-aid, while I shoot some Winchester Ranger SXTs or Federal Hydra-Shoks. All JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) ammunition meant for self-defense is just as good at stopping someone as those 'evil killer' bullets.

Hollow points are used by cops for the same reason that people use them for self-defense- they transfer a maximum of kinetic energy to the target by expanding on impact. That also reduces the chance of a bullet going through someone and into a bystander or someone in the next block.

p.s. Winchester just changed the color and the name, same round.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #97
99. Mea Culpa, Maybe
Edited on Mon Aug-24-09 09:09 PM by subcomhd
I was referring to ordinance capable of penetrating body armor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #99
101. Ahh, no worries, then.
AP (Armor Piercing) rounds aren't sold to civilians anymore in calibers less than .308, iirc, though they're not illegal to possess or shoot. (Almost any rifle round > 22lr will penetrate your standard police body armor- they're designed to stop handgun rounds.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #24
32. I despise the NRA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taitertots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #32
37. Why you obviously have no idea what they do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. and here's the latest reason to, just this week! :
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #38
60. The fact that Josh Sugarmann is an idiot, isn't a reason to hate the NRA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #24
71. Black codes were popular in the cities they were enatcted too.
Democracy is not simply a popularity contest (although sometimes it feels like it).

If a law is Unconstitutional then it is Unconstitutional.
The NRA suing against it shouldn't cause you any alarm unless you also accept it is an Unconstitutional law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire_Medic_Dave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #18
27. Can you please stop making such ignorant, completely uninformed posts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #18
52. You complain about ad hominems with a straw man??
Ahh, smell the irony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##



This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:29 AM
Response to Original message
39. No, or, at least, not only so.
There are at least two major differences.

1. Putting fewer restrictions on drugs would probably lower drug deaths, because you'd improve quality. Putting more restrictions on firearms, when they cannot easily be circumvented, would probably lower firearm deaths.

2. The people harmed most by drugs are the people who choose to use them. The people harmed most by easy access to firearms have no choice in the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #39
50. great distinctions
thanks... I'm lazy this Sunday. Rag weed is kicking my butt. Need sleep
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
42. I'm as left as the dial goes and my safe is filled with guns.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Caliman73 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #42
56. Perhaps, but to some here, that you have a safe full of guns pulls you back right
I disagree with the OP's point. I think there are some valid reasons regarding gun regulation, but for some on the forum no regulation against firearms is too much. To those people, you can be Gandhi in everything else in your life, but pick up a gun and you are a small penis having, right wing jerk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #56
80. I hear ya. I grew up hunting in a rural area. Maybe if I was from a city I would feel like they do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #56
84. I think you do agree with the OP
I said "some liberals." The OP never assumes their can't be "valid reasons regarding gun regulation,.."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
43. Drugs are bipartisan idiocy. Guns are more like our abortion.
In that the policy is decided by the loudest advocates who, in the end, tend to have the least actual knowledge about the subject.

They are linked, though: if we wanted to cut gun crime by 2/3rds we could legalize drugs and it would happen in a week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 11:35 AM
Response to Original message
44. And the Dutch go nuts because they had 7 homicides last year...
That's a good night in Atlanta or Detroit. People walk the streets all over that country at all hours and never feel unsafe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
49. nope...
it's a way for us to keep people being shot by instruments designed to kill.

Drugs are not designed to kill, even if some are abused to the point where they kill by OD. There is a distinction. There is no mirror image... more like refraction and bending of light.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
51. Yep..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. Nice cartoon.
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 02:09 PM by LAGC
It is interesting that we have this coordinated assault against the Second and Fourth Amendments going on in this country right now, often crossing party lines... I mean, you've got your Republican-led Brady Bunch and too many "moderate" Democrats who subscribe to the "war on drugs" as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. Over the last 8 years...
.. you could have replaced the 'war on drugs' with 'war on terrah', but the same result- eroding of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #51
65. Excellent cartoon. n /t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
58. I don't honestly know.
I know that guns are a weapon of mass distraction for both sides of the issue.

I straddle the fence.

I don't like guns. Have never owned one, don't want one, and don't want to learn how to use one, even though I live rurally and should probably have one. If for nothing more than to scare of coyotes. And I happen to like coyotes. I just don't want them eating my cats or chickens.

I don't think I could ever use a gun to "defend" myself.

All that said, I don't think of gun owners as rabid, brainless animals, either. The mindset that makes people think that the world is out to get them makes me sad, but I understand it, and don't feel the need to cast stones.

I have to admit that the gun "nuts," those whose passion for their guns seem to outweigh common sense, make me uncomfortable, at the least, and, in some cases, offend me.

I DO get angry at all irresponsible handling and use of weapons. Of course, so do most responsible gun owners and users.

I also have enough integrity to know that passionately defending and supporting most of the Constitution, while trying to spin and rationalize the 2nd amendment to mean something that favors my mindset, would be hypocritical on my part.

I'm the daughter of a self-proclaimed, proud red-neck. While I didn't spend much time with him, I spent enough to know that he was, like most of us, a deeply flawed man. He had positive traits as well as negative. His life was a mess of bad choices, one right after another. He did, though, mature. He did grow. He also suffered some pretty devastating blows. While his life wasn't long (42 years,) it wasn't without merit.

I don't need to "stick it" to rednecks. I think one of the reasons that the Democratic Party can't attract the rural vote is because of the assumption that all rural voters are "rednecks," and the refusal to see that issues affect different demographics differently, and that there are no "one-size-fits-all" solutions for some issues that will serve all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
62. Guns are not my drugs. Drugs are my drugs. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NC_Nurse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
64. Make drugs legal like guns. Then I'll think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #64
70. Some drugs are legal just as some arms are legl
Alcohol and tobacco as examples just like some classes of guns are legal.
Some drugs are legal under certain circumstances (medical marijuana, methadone) and some more dangerous weapons (automatic rifles) are available under heavy restriction.
Some drugs are strictly illegal by general public under all circumstances (cocaine, ecstasy) just as certain arms are never legal for private citizens.

More alike than you think. Well other than the fact that you don't ever lose your right to drugs and you don't need a background check to buy a 6 pack. :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
68. I've always thought the second amendment was a very LIBERAL IDEA!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #68
73. Damn right! I'm liberal and that's why I'm pro-gun...
Allowing the common man to own weapons is very progressive as were many of the ideas in the Constitution. (For example: Freedom of the Press.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
69. I thought drugs were the left's drugs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. I wondered what took so long.
I realized I had set that up right after I posted the OP, then I forgot about it until I just read your post. Bravo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
75. How many have been sent to prison for victimless gun possession crimes?
I'm sure some have but not nearly as many as have gone to prison for victimless drug possession crimes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #75
82. Neither should be an imprisonable offense.
Edited on Sun Aug-23-09 07:50 PM by LAGC
Probation, sure. But save the prison space for people with actual victims -- if no other crime was committed, just possession, take away the offending contraband from the offender, but incarceration just doesn't make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-23-09 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. People who violate gun laws tend to be people who will use them in crimes
However, I agree that it's problematic to lock someone up for what is mostly fear of a bigger crime that they might commit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
89. In large part, you are right. There are many people here who love to
proclaim that the GOP/RWers are all gun lovers and therefore all gun owners are RW/Freepers/fascists/idiots and many proclaim this creed loudly and with obvious delight. There is a certain amount of no-brain knee-jerk reaction to all this.
Millions of Democrats and liberal/left people in the US own guns - of all kinds - and many of us carry them or have them to defend our homes.

Funny - neither the right nor many on the left really grasp this - they tend to think guns=GOP.

They are wrong.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subcomhd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. I think Democrats/progressives in the South grasp it.
Down here there is virtually zero correlation between party affiliation/ideology and gun ownership. Yes, the GOPers are more likely to be NRA types and paranoid that their guns will be taken away - but for the most part, we are all armed to the eyeballs. The liberals I was referring to in the OP would, for the most part, be outside of the South.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #90
92. I live in Southern PA, in a mainly working class dem county. There
are many thousands here with guns in this mostly suburban and rural area, and easily as many Dems as 'Pubs are armed, although the 'Pubs are usually shocked to hear this - they believe their own propaganda that Dems are punks who will just roll over and faint when the mean ol' GOP wears guns outside the courthouse...problem is, many Dems I know carry regularly, and we just ain't buying into the GOP's bullshit.
Rec.
mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Romulox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
91. DRUGS are "the Left's" drugs. Democrats have been enthusiastic participants in the Drug Wars
Joe Biden's R.A.V.E. Act anyone? (All sensible legislation forms a catchy acronym, btw!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_Americans\'_Vulne...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
96. Hell I'm a lefty and drugs are my drugs
imagine that :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-24-09 09:14 PM
Response to Original message
102. only ignorant conservative/moderates argue the 'left' is the same as the 'right'.
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 Mon Sep 01st 2014, 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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