Some fucking idiot asshole with a rifle just almost blew my son's head off

[starroute]

I am pissed as hell. I just heard from my kids, who share an apartment together, that my younger son was sitting on his living room couch when a bullet from a high powered rifle blasted through the window and passed within a foot of his head.

The cops are there now collecting evidence. Apparently it was some asshole on the other side of the parking lot in their apartment complex whose gun went off at random -- and that's all they know so far. But they're freaking out, and I'm mad.

The one thing I do know is that this whole goddamn cult of the worship of the sacred right of gun ownership has gone too fucking far when it starts to threaten *my* kids -- and I am prepared to do anything I can to stop it in its tracks. Human beings should not have to live in fear, and it has got to end.

[jellen]

1. I'm with you.

[malaise]

2. Give thanks that it missed

Frightening - the right to life has been superseded by the right to own guns. :grouphug:

[thereismore]

37. Give thanks to whom or what? nt

[Chorophyll]

102. Really?

You have to start this here? Now?

[thereismore]

199. No. Take it easy. nt

[one_voice]

3. Oh man that's really scary!

So glad your kids are ok! Hopefully whoever was handling the gun will be punished. Keep us updated.

[JI7]

9. wasn't there a case in texas where a woman DID get shot but the guy wasn't charged

because it was an accident ?

[w8liftinglady]

30. actually.. it was a man shot... by Dick Cheney. (True story)

[era veteran]

149. It's ok Dick was drunk in a golf cart shooting clipped wing

quail with a fine imported shotgun, understandable.

[Ilsa]

188. Yep, in suburban Houston, in a restaurant. The idiot had forgotten

he was carrying it, it fell out of his coat and shot a little old lady in the butt.

I thought we had laws about taking care of properly storing guns, but I guess that only applies to when you leave them at home.

I suspect there will be a civil suit.

[SkyDaddy7]

211. The guy who claims he forgot the gun was in his coat...

must have been wearing a coat made of steel! Seriously, how can you not know you have chunk of steel in your coat? Even guns with composite stocks are still several pounds! Obviously the guy is lying.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

243. I wear a gun daily... becomes habbit and you consiously forget you're wearing it.

I've walked into post offices and airports before, realizing after the fact for some reason, that I still have a gun on. It happens. Sometimes, if I didn't wear my gun that day, I'll get home and reach to take it off (and lock it up) only to feel/find I wasn't wearing it. It's like how many people casually carry a pocketknife or wear a wristwatch... you *know* you have it on you, but you don't consiously think about it until you need to use it.

Modern pistols, especially with a good holster can be very comfortable and light. A ruger LCP, for example, weighs only 9oz and is physically smaller than many wallets. Derringers and .22lr pistols can be even smaller. Even a Glock 26 (9mm) is only 19oz.

[Crystal Clarity]

442. Whaht?.... Are you serious???

You "forget" that you are packing a lethal weapon on your body?... "*It happens*" :wtf:

BTW- I am a gun owner too, but don't get your logic.

[RSillsbee]

456. DO you walk around thinking about your wallet?

I don't focus on my gun. I put it on when I put my pants in and take it off when I take them off, Same as my wallet, same as my phone, same as my keys.

Properly holstered, it just fades away. I have fallen asleep on the sofa w/ my gun on too.

[Crystal Clarity]

458. Yes I do. It is something of importance to me.

I'm always conscious of it, and shield it from being stolen.

I don't "focus" on it either, but it's there and I know it. If I were carrying a pistol, I'd know that too. If you can so easily 'forget' you are carrying one, perhaps you shouldn't bother.

[CreekDog]

465. yes, i know whether i have it on me or not --and if i drop it nobody gets hurt

:wtf:

that's about the stupidest question here today.

[CreekDog]

484. no, that poster is not a serious person

but i don't doubt their honesty.

[CreekDog]

464. and if it falls out of your pocket and fires --it's your fault

and if anyone's hurt, you should be criminally charged.

and if you forget you have it, you shouldn't even own one.

[RSillsbee]

471. Who are you to tell me I should or shouldn't do ANYTHING? NT

[CreekDog]

472. you just posted that you forget you have your gun on you

are we not allowed to comment on something you just said here?

[RSillsbee]

473. Allowed to comment? Absolutely !

Allowed to deny me a basic human right because you don't care for that fact that I'm not preoccupied w/ the fact that I'm carrying a gun?

Absolutely not!

ETA How are you made unsafe by the fact that I'm not focused on a gun that stays in the holster? Do you some how think I'll pull it out and wave it around because my phone rings?

[Name removed]

479. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CreekDog]

487. it's not a basic human right to have a gun on your body

but thanks for the insight into gun fetishes.

:eyes:

[PavePusher]

494. Hmmm, the Constitution says you are wrong. YMMV. n/t

[CreekDog]

481. me, just a messenger from God saying:

don't be an idiot.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

474. It fell out of my holster shoveling snow a couple weeks ago...

I had shoveled it into a pile of snow off my driveway and didn't find it until several hours later when retraced my steps after I realized it wasn't there. It was literally a block of ice. lol. I had to let the magazine melt before I could unload it to clean the crud out of it.

Something about the shoveling motion must've unsnapped the retention holster and caused it work it's way free. :shrug:

[Badfish]

475. Cause we all need our gun when shoveling snow.

What a joke.

A total joke.

"Honey , I'm going to shovel the driveway"

"Do you have your gun on you darling, you might have a shoot out in the front yard"

"Always honey , always"

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

477. I'm glad you're amused...

Because I get a kick out of our side wiping the courtroom and state-house floors with the gun-grabbers tried old arguments.
Laughs for everyone, I guess. :toast:

[CreekDog]

480. so why did you go looking for your gun so intently after it fell out into the snow?

was it because it was dangerous to have lying around somewhere?

or was it because you dropped the precious and were desperate to find it?

if you can't keep track of your gun, you shouldn't have one. a responsible person would realize this.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

489. Because it cost $450 and I rather spend $450 getting another gun... not replacing one.

No different than if I'd lost an expensive wristwatch. :shrug:

[CreekDog]

492. a child couldn't find your wristwatch and accidentally shoot someone with it

but you don't seem to care about that.

you shouldn't own a gun.

if one of your loved ones is reading this right now, to that person i say: this person isn't responsible enough to own a firearm, perhaps work on making sure they cannot any longer.

[CreekDog]

488. Look at the "hearts" the poster you're responding to created:

AR15, AK47, AR10, etc.

assault weapons, gun models...

[CreekDog]

482. look at your hearts, with all the gun types on them

fetish?

:eyes:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

490. I actually own all of those except for one. Care to guess which one?

Yes, machine guns are legal in Ohio.

Fetish? Depends on the definition you're using.

[CreekDog]

491. i don't actually care which one you don't own

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

463. In a DU thread, a few posters insisted he should not be charged because they said it was an accident

:eyes:

[Iris]

34. No kidding. I didn't see the almost when I first read this

:scared:

[BobbyBoring]

73. I didn't either

I'm surprised you are even calm enough to share this with your brothers and sisters here. I'm so glad your sons OK.

Years ago, I was a passenger in a car on the Annacostia Freeway in DC. I heard a loud bang and ducked for what ever reason. When I looked up, there was a groove across the windshield where what looked to be maybe a 30 30 round skimmed across it.

SOME IDIOT WAS SHOOTING AT CARS. Had we been going a 1/2 MPH faster, it would have hit me in the head.

We need gun control folks. Every day, we head closer to the wild wild west. There are many that want a return to 10th century America but I am not among them.

[speltwon]

206. Every day we do not head closer to the wild west

1) the "wild west" is a media mythology. The reality was quite different.
2) Every day or at least over the last several decades, our homicide rate and accidental shooting rates have gone down. So how are we heading TOWARDS a wild west? The nation is much safer than it was. Statistically speaking, you have less chance of being shot, less chance of being murdered, and less chance of being in a fatal car accident. (the latter due to better vehicle design and more aggressive DUI enforcement as well as improved trauma medicine)

That being said, I hope the fuckstick that shot the gun gets found, tried, and is punished if he is in fact guilty of reckless discharge.

[edogawa]

379. NO.....

No, if you'd been going 1/2 mile per hour faster, you'd have been a half mile away....lol

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. I'd be livid, too.

I hope everything works out for you and your son, and agree that this gun-obsession shit will ruin this country.

[lob1]

5. Wow, that's scary. I hope they find they guy and throw

his ass in jail.

[The Wielding Truth]

6. Another example where "guns Could kill people".

[X_Digger]

11. Umm.. you might want to edit that.. nobody's dead. n/t

[uppityperson]

21. Fortunately and luckily no one is dead. Good thing he wasn't sitting a foot sideways.

[CreekDog]

466. well since nobody was in danger the guy with the rifle shouldn't even need one

by your logic.

[X_Digger]

468. Wha huh?

Pre-edit, the post I responded to mentioned someone being killed..

[Incitatus]

312. I doubt the trigger pulled itself.

Could can kill innocent people, if idiots are using them.

[The Wielding Truth]

353. "gun went off at random " Proving again that guns kill people, and people kill people.

[reggie the dog]

360. guns do not go off at random

just like cigarettes do not randomly light themselves

[reggie the dog]

359. another example of people nearly killing someone

guns do not shoot themselves

[CreekDog]

467. the instance of the gun firing when it fell from someone's pocket --nobody fired it

it fired itself.

so you're wrong.

[reggie the dog]

478. the person who dropped it fired it

anyone knows that dropping a gun means their is a risk it will go off, just as if you drop a rim fire bullet. had the person been responsable while carrying their gun it would have never fired.

[Duer 157099]

7. I'd tell them to move the hell away from there

Chances are the gun owner will still have guns and will still be stupid.

I would be pissed as hell too.

[elleng]

8. Right.

Hugs to you and your family.

:grouphug:


ENOUGH!!!

[Orrex]

10. Good grief! I'm so glad that your son is okay!

Can't imagine the horror of learning of a brush with catastrophic injury like that--or worse!




(Of course, if he'd been carrying his duly licensed concealed weapon, this wouldn't have happened.)

[bobbolink]

12. It has to hit personal before it comes home.

[Mnemosyne]

23. I have difficulty answering phones to this day, because of an asshole cousin shooting

his gun off to make me believe he committed suicide while I was on the phone with him in 1988. I hate guns.

Are you feeling okay, Bobbie? :hug: Are you alright? Did you see the well wishes, etc. in thread? I am praying for your health, sorry can't do much more these days. :hug:

[X_Digger]

13. That was no accident, that was negligence..

Guns don just 'go off', some idiot deserves to go to jail.

[mediator]

26. Yes, exactly. I'm sure that was frightening though. My mom's house was hit by a car

that was drag racing down the side street and went into the yard...missed her bedroom by a few feet. They did catch the drunk guy and I hope they catch the negligent guy with the gun too. Too many people have never gotten any proper firearm safety instruction.

[X_Digger]

27. I've lost count of the friends and friends of friends I've taught basic gun safety to..

It only takes about an hour to drill the four rules into people's heads.

1. Every gun is loaded until you verify it's not.
2. Never point a gun at something unless you mean to destroy it.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire.
4. Know what's behind what you're firing at.

Until we know more, I'm going to assume that the idiot in the other apartment broke all four rules.

[jpak]

but..but..but..more guns we have, the less this will happen

so I've been told

[mediator]

38. You should not listen to idiots.

...

[jpak]

42. Believe me - I don't

:rofl:

[mediator]

50. Then how did you manage to repeat that claim?

If you didn't hear it to begin with...:shrug:

[jpak]

80. More guns in more places means more Freedom and Less Crime!!11

In state after state, republicans are sponsoring laws to allow guns on college campuses, in car trunks in high school parking lots, in libraries and churches and public buildings and stadiums and bars and everywhere

more guns = more republican fun

this is hugh

series

get it

:D

[mediator]

85. Please accept my heartfelt thanks for your work to support the right to keep and bear arms.

Every little bit helps! :thumbsup:

[jpak]

90. You're welcome!

:D

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

59. Please cite that claim. n/t

[The Doctor.]

160. No, more guns does raise the probability of accidents. Like having more cars does.

The issue I think you're referring to is deliberate crime. As far as we know, guns are used to prevent a great deal of crime.

It just sucks that there are so many in the hands of morons like this particular gun owner.

[hack89]

173. That actually is the truth

how many times do you need to be told that murders, violent crimes and gun accidents have been steadily falling for decades even as the number of guns has sky rocketed? You have never been safer - the facts don't lie.

[jpak]

181. Global warming reduced violent crime - do you know anything about cause and effect?

:shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x380308

[hack89]

233. I don't recognize any relationship between increased gun ownership and more crime

because there are no facts to back it up.

[rfranklin]

215. False premise...crime has dropped in NYC where it's almost impossible to own a gun...

legally unless you are wealthy and connected. Sort of shoots a big hole in your claim.

[RSillsbee]

216. The reason crime has dropped in NYC

Is becuase the police are extremely agressive on their stop and frisks. I'd rather own a gun than live in a police state

[rfranklin]

227. I have never been frisked in NYC...

Have you ever been there?

[RSillsbee]

232. Nope

And I've never been frisked there either

[reggie the dog]

371. stop and frisk, NYC is a fascist dream, cannabis is depenalized but

they lead US cities in cannabis arrest likelyhood, they arrested 50,383 people for cannabis in 2010. they come up to people, ususally the whiter you are the less likely you are to be searched but they get whites too (think of the guy from the dell computer ads who was busted in nyc). the cops ask you to empty your pockets for weapons and then bust you for having cannabis in view (which is a misdemenor unlike possession of less than an ounce which just gets a fine of 200 dollars)

"The high marijuana possession arrest numbers are particularly shocking because New York state decriminalized marijuana possession back in the 1977. What typically happens is that someone is stopped by the NYPD -- they stopped 575,000 people in 2009 and frisked more than 325,000 of them -- and the police demand that they empty their pockets. When they comply, and a bag of weed emerges, they are then charged not with simple marijuana possession, which is a violation under state law, but with possession "in public view," which is a misdemeanor.

In a stop and frisk, police are allowed to pat down a person to determine whether they are carrying a weapon, but they are not allowed to search inside pockets or bags without probable cause. By complying with a police officer's command to "empty your pockets," the subject is effectively consenting to a search. The better course of action is to say, "Officer, I'm sorry, but I do not consent to any searches." Then, if the officer does search without consent, he could only charge the subject with the violation -- not the misdemeanor "in public view" possession -- and such a charge could be challenged in court." http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2011/feb/16/new_york_city_still_americas_mar


325,000 people frisked that they made reports about......
WashingtonLess than 40 g misdemeanor* MMS 1 Day - maximum 90 days $250-$500 source NORML.ORG, yet in seattle there is a lowest prority policy, there are also many less stop and frisks, the real incentive for stop and frisk being cannabis arrests
"Police arrested 88 people for marijuana possession from the beginning of January to the end of April and referred them for prosecution, according to records from the Seattle City Attorney's Office. During the same time frame last year, officers arrested only 52 people for marijuana possession.

Pete Holmes, the city attorney, has vowed not to prosecute any of those cases (except one case in which a defendant plead guilty to having pot and unlawfully using a weapon). But that hasn't stopped officers from arresting the suspects and referring their cases to Seattle Municipal Court.

At this rate, police will bust 264 people for marijuana possession by the end of 2010—more than double recent years. To compare: Police arrested 123 people for the offense in 2008 and 120 people in 2009. Most of the people being busted are black (45 of the arrests), followed by white people (33 of the arrests), and the remaining 10 arrestees are other races."http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/07/06/marijuana-arrests-spike-in-2010
Seattle was on pace for 264 busts with a prosecutor refusing to prosecute (i.e. refusing to give a 250 to 500 dollar fine)

seattle population 2000: 2,414,616

new york population 8.4 million so it would be like NYC having 1056 pot busts, about 50 times less than they actually have..... which city do you think you are more likely to be stopped and frisked in?

yet in New York City found in New York State
25 g or less (first offense) civil citation none $100
25 g or less (second offense) civil citation none $200
25 g or less (3rd offense) misdemeanor 5 days and/or fine $250
25 g to 2 oz* misdemeanor 3 months $500

yet new york city has 50,000 + arrests for cannabis.....to write 100 dollar tickts, the real reason for the stop and frisk, out of the 325,000 frisked over one out of every 6.5 was busted for cannabis. as the cops do not search all social groups the same and the group searched the least (middle aged affluent whites) tent to use more drugs than others we can estimate that more than 1 in 6 people walking around at any given moment are carrying weed. 1 in 6 carrying plus how many more other smokers who have their grass at their house.... if one in 6 are carrying at any given moment then a shitload of people are smoking which i know is off on a tangent but think of the financial gain for the city when they trump up the charges to the midemeneor as any amount in public view is punished by 500 dollars in fine and a threat of 3 months in jail. 5 TIMES MORE MONEY and they know that they can get about one in every 6 people they stop and search for possession...

[hack89]

231. So you agree that more guns does not mean more deaths and crime?

Glad to see the light is coming on.

You have never been safer you entire life despite more guns and laxer gun laws.

BTW, how does Chicago or DC fit into you world view? Their gun laws are just as draconian as New York's yet their murder rates are astronomical. How is that possible?

[RaleighNCDUer]

306. Greater numbers of unemployed young people.

Demographics is the driver of crime. Overall crime rates are dropping becuse the population is getting older overall. Dropping crime rates has zip to do with increased numbers of guns.

A rise in crime rates means we need more guns; a drop in crime rates means we need more guns.

The only guarantee is greater profits for the arms industry.

[hack89]

311. But since more guns do not mean more crime or violence

what's the big deal? Why not spend time and effort on those things that actually have an impact on crime?

[Ken_Fish]

323. As A Durham Resident

I would say the gun is not the root cause of the problem here. That problem is more complex and it is unfair to those really impacted to ignore the real forces at play and just say "if we ban guns in Durham" there will no longer be a crime issue.

[RaleighNCDUer]

326. I absolutely agree. And just as banning guns is no solution, neither

is increasing the number of guns - no matter what the gun lobbyists say. The solution to crime is availability of jobs and a perception of hope for the future. More guns and less hope is a recipe for disaster.

[Ken_Fish]

330. One of those topics where reasonable people will disagree

because these issues are complex. I would say gun owners do not support the criminal use of guns. I do not want guns in the possession of "criminals".

However I would also like to see LESS people being criminals in general. Drug law and poverty are a major part of that.

The end result I would like to see is less people killing themselves by any method because they could get care and meds and less drug warriors shooting each other because they have no financial motive to use violence.

[reggie the dog]

365. crime has dropped in LA and Chicago

where you can own guns (i know handguns in chicago are new, but you could always own an ak47, a shotgun, or a hunting rifle...

crime has fallen in Florida since carry concealed. I used to be against carry concealed but once i saw that in state after state rates of robbery, rape, and murder and other violent crime did not go up, and acutally went down, i changed my mind. even if there is no casual link between carry concealed and a decrease in crime there has been no increase in violent crime during this period. I dont see what is wrong with wanting to carry a tiny snub nosed .22 or .9 for self protection. there are a lot of fucked up people out there who would just as soon pull a gun and rob, murder and or rape someone and having ones own gun can change the outcome dramatically.

[Aerows]

130. Well said

Those are the 4 rules that everyone should have drilled into their heads before they even dream of picking up a gun, much less owning one. Guns are deadly weapons, and have to be treated with respect.

[Divernan]

219. 5. Don't drink when you're carrying

NT

[DissedByBush]

186. Firearm "accidents" almost never happen

Almost all firearms injuries and close calls is because someone ignored the rules of safe firearms handling.

Someone needs a trip before a judge here.

[RaleighNCDUer]

308. What do you think the meaning of 'accident' is? nt

[DissedByBush]

469. That's why I had it in quotes

Almost all are what you would call avoidable accidents.

And when someone else gets hurt we call it criminal negligence.

"It was just an accident" is not an excuse because it was 100% avoidable.

[Lefta Dissenter]

14. WOW, I'm so sorry

I hate anything having to do with guns - I don't even like looking at them or being near them.

I'm so glad that your kids are ok, but I can't imagine how utterly petrifying that must have been.

I wish I could say something brilliant to make you feel better :hug:

[Tippy]

You have every right to be pissed.....Guns don't go off at random...

keep us posted, if you able

[Cleita]

15. So sorry that happened to you.

Yes, we have to end this cult of libertarian gun ownership and this is from someone who has owned guns and used them.

[northoftheborder]

16. I totally, totally agree with you. Thank God your son was not hurt or killed.

My family of boys grew up hunting, have a lot of guns (not in city, in country). However, I have to say, that on at least three occasions, maybe more that I don't know about, weapons were discharged ACCIDENTALLY in our HOUSE. So I am ultra ultra mean mama on their necks about being careful at ALL times. I'm not saying take all guns away, but laws regulating the type and number of weapons, and who have them, and where they are located are MANDATORY for the safety of communities of people living in close proximity. Any thing less than that is insanity, and I don't care how many constitutional blah-blahs some of you spout out. The love of weaponry has become a cult in this country. Just as NO TAXES has become another cult, and sometimes it is the same people. People who are minors, or who are criminals, who are mentally unbalanced should never have weapons. The others need to be stiffly regulated. Period.

[lonestarnot]

17. I've certainly had my fill of stupid fuckers for the week.

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. .....and it's only Sunday.

This is going to be a long week.

edit: sp

[lonestarnot]

29. Could certainly be.

[pinboy3niner]

63. Hey, at least it's not explosives

Thank God for small favors, huh?

I'm totally with the OP--how many people have to die before we say, "Enough!"

What's your sitrep on the shit going down in your neighborhood? Anybody catch those fuckers yet?

:hi:

[lonestarnot]

97. Working on them.

Their shit trail is being analyzed. :hi:

[midnight]

18. I'm so glad your son is alright, but you are right..... No one should

have to go through this....

[Octafish]

19. Oh.

Thank God. Thank God.

[Dappleganger]

22. I'm so sorry, thank goodness your son is alright.

[Shagbark Hickory]

24. Holy moly. I don't know how you can keep yourself together enough to type.

It's time to crack down on guns. We really don't have any use for them.
They're too dangerous.

[aikoaiko]

25. As someone from "the cult" I'm glad your kid is ok, and your anger us jusified.

I hope the police find and prosecute the shooter/firearm owner.

I would want the same thing if it were my apartment and my child who was endangered.

[Kceres]

28. Your post made my blood run cold! Really hits home.

As a parent I can't think of anything scarier. I'd be livid. I'm so with you, starroute.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our first quarter 2011 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!

Click here to donate

[Codeine]

32. Guns don't go off at random.

Some idiot fucker needs to have the book thrown at him.

[w8liftinglady]

33. we have gun accidents all the time in texas... my ER sees them weekly

a small texas ER.

i saw them as frequently when I lived in West texas and worked the ER...usually an accidental shooting of a child.
it is insane.

[mediator]

40. Would you care to say where this took place?

??

[w8liftinglady]

51. San Angelo... Tom Green County when I was in Nursing School

...and more recently... let's just say south of dallas

[mediator]

58. Oh rats, I'm sorry I meant to ask the first poster! (I do know San Angelo well,

I used to instruct at the Mitsubishi airplane school there)
:-)

[jpak]

35. Their gun rights trump your kid's right to life

So says the NRA

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

76. The Holy Second Amendment trumps all concerns of life, safety and personal liberty

So says the holy 2A!!1111

:D

[Upton]

81. Yeah..that Bill of Rights sure is a problem..

for those authoritarian types eager to restrict the rights of others..

[jpak]

86. I have a right to be free of guns in my workplace and public places

authoritarians want to restrict that

yup

[mediator]

88. I keep forgetting, where is that in the Constitution?

thanks
\

[jpak]

89. 9th and 10th Amendments -all unenumerated rights are retained by the people

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

262. Too bad for you

That the 2nd is enumerated, and almost every state has language like the following in their state constitution:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


(That last little bit was a 'F-U' to the Pinkertons)

All but 4 states have a clause similar to this in their constitutions. The wording does vary.

So no, not even under your misreading of the 9th and 10th amendments, were you within miles of a correct statement.

[jpak]

298. Too bad for you there are gun laws and the people will retain their right to gun-free public places

yup

[AtheistCrusader]

307. I'm not opposed to gun laws per se.

Just stupid gun laws.

In my state, there are very very few places I cannot go in public with a firearm. The secured areas of a jail/courthouse. The Secured area of an airport. The area of any establishment that serves liquor that posts 21/only signs, and last but not least, schools.

Elsewhere in public, I am free to roam, with my firearms, open or concealed. And this is Washington State, a progressive, blue state.

And proud.

'yup'.

[aikoaiko]

236. Why do you think you have a right to gun free public spaces and workspaces?

:shrug:

[WatsonT]

240. Guns offend him

so he shouldn't have to be in their presence.

In the same way we have a right to never hear anything we disapprove of. So everyone can have their freedom of speech, they just can't implement it in public if even one person objects.

[jpak]

300. Smoke-free and open carry gun-free

give the people what they want

yup

[WatsonT]

356. Smoking is covered in which amendment?

I forget.

[WatsonT]

357. Smoking is covered in which amendment?

I forget.

[AlbertCat]

142. that Bill of Rights sure is a problem..

Nonsense. It clearly states you can have a flintlock, in order to form a well regulated militia. Period.

I have no problem with that.

Other than that, however, we are gonna need some laws.

[beevul]

403. Lawl.

"It clearly states you can have a flintlock, in order to form a well regulated militia. Period."

Another poster that doesn't understand the bill of rights itself.

Its a "government shall not" document, not a "the people can" document.

it even says so in the preamble.

[Badfish]

476. what militia do you belong to ?

[Scruffy1]

152. You mean the Republicon version

The second amendment is very clear about a well regulated militia and of course the people is a very different thing than the person. The NRA (which I once belonged to) is nothing but a gun manufacturers lobby and money making scam for the "leaders" does not ever use facts, just bullshit propaganda. Crap crap, and more crap. Our current Supreme court has nothing to do with jurisprudence. Everything to do with a corporate agenda rather it be guns or any other high profit scheme.

[X_Digger]

166. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/259/case.html

"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

[PavePusher]

495. A simple sentence diagram proves that the "militia clause" is not a limit on the Right.

Any competent English teacher can help you with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_diagram

[wizstars]

175. Maybe it wouldn't be if we has SCOTUS Justices who could read the...

2nd Amendment with the commas...:

"A well-regulated Milita (comma!) being necessary to the security of a free people (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms (COMMA!!!) shall not be infringed."

[Statistical]

225. All 9 justices believe the 2A protects and indivdual right.

The people has always been defined as individuals within the United States.

Historically the British seized weapons from THE PEOPLE in a attempt to neuter the militias. Given the fact that the colonist knew that it would make little sense for them to entrust the right to keep and bear arms with anyone other than THE PEOPLE.

[AtheistCrusader]

265. That's not how the version ratified by the states reads.

"A well-regulated Milita being necessary to the security of a free people (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

However, both are operationally identical.
All 9 justices arrived at this supporting individual firearms ownership, just they disagreed on the mechanism. (9th, 10th, or 14th amendments, and which clause of the 14th)

[COLGATE4]

235. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that prevents states

from heavily regulating firearms. There are no absolute rights - all can be and are conditional on the happeningn (or nor) of certain conditions. Regulation is not restriction.

[X_Digger]

239. Incorporation via the 14th amendment does..

Just like states can't 'heavily regulate' religions or the press, they can't seriously impede the second.

If regulation has the effect of impeding exercise of a protected right, it's infringement. Now whether or not that restriction will withstand constitutional muster is more about the level of scrutiny the court has attached to the right.

For example, Strict Scrutiny has these three conditions:

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest- it must be necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest- there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest.


No rights are absolute- I don't think anyone is promoting that idea.

[hack89]

313. So states can ban abortion? Institute poll taxes? Really? nt

[defendandprotect]

317. No -- guns are the problem -- and violence destroys our other rights ...

There's an opening clause to the Holy2ndA --

"A well-regulated militia ... "

[Ken_Fish]

319. It would be nice if people moved on to actually addressing the cause of most violence

lack of mental health care (suicide / spree shooters) , drug laws (drug money, dead minorities that don't make the national news.), and the culture supported by these things.

This is pretty much decided law, people can legally own firearms. Not only is it truly pointless to push supply side regulation it is politically harmful.

The answers are out there, they are just harder to implement than another law that is only followed by the people who choose to follow it.

Think big picture.

[defendandprotect]

322. And what did the young man sitting on his couch do wrong?

The right wing pushes violence and guns -- it works for them to have societies

in disarray -- lawlessness -- you couldn't have a Drug War and its violence without guns.

The mentally ill are no more inclined to be violent than any other part of the population --

how many of the shooters over decades were "mentally ill"?

Otoh, how many men shoot their wives or girlfriends -- ?

In fact, it is a requirement in Canada that any male applying for a gun must have a wife

or ex-wife indicate that there is no problem with their having a gun!

Our "culture" is patriarchal -- and supports male violence --

Patriarchy and Violence are mirror images of one another!


This is NEW law --- the reverse stood as "decided law" for more than 100 years!

The "political" disadvantages are GOPs/NRA targeting moderates and liberals in both parties!

Because only the right wing favors this gun insanity.

We had the "big picture" on guns -- we respected the first amendment --

that has been overturned by the same wealth, the same right wing, and the same

Supreme Court which gave you W --

and the decision that "confirmed" corporate personhood and $$ as "free speech" -- !!

In the up is down right wing world --

[Ken_Fish]

329. No, It is city mouse country mouse culture war and not rooted in numbers.

You CAN NOT ban alcohol to fix DWI. It was tried and failed. As for the "wing" having lived in the south east and mid west there are PLENTY of Dems who support the individual ownership of firearms. He did the same thing wrong a person does sitting in their car hit by a drunk driver. I presume he is not still beating his wife.

Its illegal to drive drunk or fire a gun randomly, the person should be punished but we are not going back to prohibition days. Not going to happen.

There is no NEW law. The last major change was 1968 the newer laws are more administrative in nature. (some bad, some good)

It is not a gender issue, a lady NEEDING MENTAL CARE shot her coworkers in a university setting. This was an intelligent woman, suffering from mental disease, or maybe just a murderer.

The numbers back this, gun death splits up neatly into mental health (suicide), Drug money (people dont make the news), and true random.

True random is a very small number.

[defendandprotect]

Nonsense, country mouse needs an assault weapon -- 30 shot cartridges ...

Regulation of guns existed long before any other laws because societies immediately

saw -- as did their lawmakers -- that guns don't foster community.

There were many more Democrats and Republicans -- liberals and moderates -- who were

targeted by the right wing GOP/NRA. Which created a political disaster for the Democratic

Party in regard to other issues as right wing GOP/NRA picks replaced more moderate and

liberal Dems and Repugs.

GOP used NRA to move every issue and both parties to the right --


He did the same thing wrong a person does sitting in their car hit by a drunk driver. I presume he is not still beating his wife.

Its illegal to drive drunk or fire a gun randomly, the person should be punished but we are not going back to prohibition days. Not going to happen.

Agree -- it's not going to happen right now. Eventually it will.

And whomever shot this firearm off should be sued by this family.

There is no NEW law. The last major change was 1968 the newer laws are more administrative in nature. (some bad, some good)

Don't make me go looking for it -- we had settled law on guns for more than 130 years!

Tens of thousands of women have been killed by men -- husbands, ex-husbands -- and boyfriends.

It should be MANDATORY that every gun and every gunowner is insured for damages to anyone.

And it should be MANDATORY -- as it is in Canada -- that any male who wants a gun has to have

the permission of his wife or ex-wife.

[AtheistCrusader]

367. Some of those pre-continental congress laws

REQUIRED the posession of a firearm of military-grade and adequate ammo/components.

[Ken_Fish]

372. I prefer 48 rounders as a reload is not required in most 3 gun stages...

that is a legal competition sanctioned by the USPSA and others. People who spend 8 - 12,000 dollars on gear generally dont go rob the gas station. People who are clinically depressed or are broke and selling crack (whatever drug, meth) because mc jobs cant keep the lights or are the real concern.

NRA endorsed the my democratic representative with an A record. General Liability insurance is very cheap, I carry it more in fear of dropping a laptop on someones foot or something.

I work for a large private university LOTS of people there are Democrats and LOTS of them shoot different disciplines.

I'm not married, so does my mom need to sign off or the form, how about gay folks? I would assume they would be equally burdened?

I DO NOT AGREE with some of your post I DO AGREE the person who did this should be criminally and civilly liable for their actions. There are very very few accidents with firearms, just varying degrees of negligence.

[defendandprotect]

389. Gun bravado is really impressive ....

People who spend 8 - 12,000 dollars on gear generally dont go rob the gas station.

They wouldn't be mentally ill, by any chance, would they?

Clinically paranoid?


NRA endorsed my democratic representative with an A record.

The GOP used their NRA to target BOTH PARTIES - liberals and moderates in both parties --

who did not support the gun manufacturing industry and their agenda to create a violent America.

That's how both parties go moved so aggressively to the right -- and how we have been losing on

all other issues, including MEDICARE FOR ALL land every other safety net isssue.

You think it's a coinicidence that this right wing GOP is constantly attack women's rights

and reproductive freedom yet at the same time they support "freedom of the gun" to create a

more just society? :rofl:


General Liability insurance is very cheap, I carry it more in fear of dropping a laptop on someones foot or something.

It should be MANDATORY that all gun owners be held financially responsible thru insurance for

any damage they may do with their gun or anyone else does with that gun.

It should also be MANDATORY that any male who wants a gun should have the permission of his

wife or ex-wife.


I don't know how many males are violent threats to their Moms -- we do know that many males

are a violent threat to their wives, ex-wives and girlfriends!

[Ken_Fish]

392. So people who spend 600,000 on an airplane must be really insane

I mean those doctors and dentists are continually flying those things into packed sports events...

I did not join here to discuss the GOP. I see no correlation between any womens issue and gun control in reality (outside GOP logic) The policy I am here to discuss SUPPORTS a right and nullifies a stupid position that has proven statistically ineffective with numbers from the DOJ.

Treating gun control like Jim Crow will encourage millions of people to vote in their best interest. Plus its the right thing (my opinion of course).

Again I am not married, who do I need to sign my permission slip to buy a gun?

[X_Digger]

396. Your interlocutor does not believe that man landed on the moon..

And 9/11 was an inside job, and man was a vegetarian until the rise of 'patriarchal religions'..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=299475#299504

So take it with a grain of salt before you chase her down the rabbit hole.

[defendandprotect]

401. When did airplanes become a weapon -- like a gun?

Gun control is certainly a GOP right wing issue -- and a gender issue --

During the VN war years while more than 50,000 soldiers died in VN -- an equal

number of women were killed by their male "loved" ones!


Additionally, the same GOP right wing which wants to deny reproductive CHOICE to

females also wants to put Social Security and Medicare on the garbage heap.

What our societies in America are experiencing -- and what Mexico is experiencing -- is

sufficient evidence to argue against the violence of not only the Drug War but the guns

which fuel it.


Treating gun control like Jim Crow will encourage millions of people to vote in their best interest. Plus its the right thing (my opinion of course).

And now you're equating gun control regulations with Segregation, Inc. in the South?


Again I am not married, who do I need to sign my permission slip to buy a gun?

Again -- quite telling -- evidently this is all about YOU?

As long as no male has abused any women, they shouldn't need the permission of any female.

The reality, however, is that males do physically abuse women -- and often kill them.

Often with guns.

[Ken_Fish]

408. Yes it is about me.

I like the rights I have. I expect them to be extended to all people regardless of color or creed or sexual preference. Iprefer not to loose them based on the behavior of the mentally ill or drug warriors shooting it out over drug money we allow to be on the street.

Having grown up in the south you may not be aware that after the civil war southerners would not vote republican (Lincoln was a republican). So the people they elected "democrats" voted for jim crow laws. This is obviously not part of the current platform and, like gun control, is an idea whose time has past.

Gun control is DIRECTLY related to southern Jim Crow laws and other laws enacted later.

You have it backwards DRUGS fuel the Violence. Before mexico, panama, colombia, etc. These places were all money hubs in the drug war. When there is literally tons of cash involved there is economic motive to kill people.

Remove the money, motive goes away.

[defendandprotect]

455. Society is at least as important as the individual ...

We also have a right to a peaceful society --

both Drug War and GOP/NRA guns should go --

so should this fascist Supreme Court which delivers fascist rulings --


Having grown up in the south you may not be aware that after the civil war southerners would not vote republican (Lincoln was a republican). So the people they elected "democrats" voted for jim crow laws. This is obviously not part of the current platform and, like gun control, is an idea whose time has past.

Gun control is DIRECTLY related to southern Jim Crow laws and other laws enacted later.

So you're saying that because KKK wanted Segregation for "African Americans" and wanted to limit

their access to guns at that time, today's gun control efforts are racist?


:rofl:

Amazing how far the NRA will go to distort --

What's going on in Washington DC? African Americans all supported the gun control laws

overturned by the right wing Supreme Court!

What you're saying is as beleivable as Nixon's "Southern Strategy" -- which probably never

existed -- all that ever existed at that time was GOP voting computers coming to take over

our elections and steal them!

See: Votescam -- The Stealing of America --



You have it backwards DRUGS fuel the Violence. Before mexico, panama, colombia, etc. These places were all money hubs in the drug war. When there is literally tons of cash involved there is economic motive to kill people.

Remove the money, motive goes away.

The Drug War came first -- then the guns.

[Ken_Fish]

459. Prohibition started and links the restriction of a drug (alcohol)

to crime. The money involved fueled a spike in crime nation wide. That involved guns.

The rise in crack cocaine fueled a rise in gun crime (and major impacts on prison systems and communities). Money is the REASON people are committing crime.

I am not sure how much history you have on laws and government during Jim Crow. The STATES were the instrument of segregation. The KKK was part of that but the government was the enforcer of racial inequality. That is a wound that has not healed and gun control, voter tests, and disenfranchisement were MAJOR tools to oppress people.

To this day showing an ID to vote is a big deal and not required, other states I have lived in required ID it was just part of voting.

The context here is different.


Hopefully people will look at the problem like a true puzzle to be solved. Maybe leaving their preconceived notions at the door and make real changes to things that influence violence here.

[defendandprotect]

460. CIA fueled a rise in crack cocaine in America and gun crime ....

Money is the reason elites and corporations are commiting crimes!

Including their interest in Drug War -- how much Drug money is being laundered thru

our American banks?

You're really desperate in an looking for an anchor for your debate --

Drug War is still a way to oppress minorities -- including people of color in other countries.

Jim Crow has nothing to do with today's calls for gun control -- that's an NRA fixation and

delusion!

Your post is a "true puzzle to be solved" !! -- :eyes: -- !!

[PavePusher]

496. "When did airplanes become a weapon -- like a gun?"

The depths of irony of your assumed rethorical question should let loose a few cubic kilometers of magma.

Seriously, do you ever fucking think about the words you let spew out of your mouth?

[beevul]

406. Not nearly as impressive as "30 shot cartridges".

Not nearly as impressive as "30 shot cartridges".

:rofl:

Yup.

[defendandprotect]

314. .. and all questions of medical costs of bullet woundings we all pay --

costs to the families -- costs to the community when something like this happens!

Certainly it creates new FEAR in a neighborhood!

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

172. No - they do not say that at all

why do you think the NRA is the leading gun safety organization in America?

[wizstars]

180. because they are bought and paid for by the industry, which...

...makes a profit selling guns and bullets. And from people dying. Period. End of discussion.

[hack89]

229. Yet gun deaths are at historic lows and still falling

you have never been safer in your entire life. How is that possible?

[Missy Vixen]

278. The OP's son sure wasn't safe sitting on the couch in his apartment

Then again, I wish the NRA apologists and firearm fetishists here would be truthful about themselves and their motivations: If you or a loved one are injured or die as a result of a shooting, well, hell: You're just collateral damage.

They care for NOTHING and NOBODY more than they care about their guns. Just remember that.

[hack89]

282. I like to drink beer - does that mean that I don't care about the victims of drunk drivers?

why do we allow the sale of alcohol since it is responsible for just as many deaths and ruined lives as guns? Are the victims of drunk drivers just collateral damage to all the Big Brewer apologists?

99.99 percent of gun owners will never harm another human being - why can't accept the idea of responsible ownership? Why don't we punish those that break the law and leave law abiding people alone?

[Name removed]

284. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

260. Translation...

'Don't bother me with the facts...lalalalalalalala', how mature.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

195. The leading gun safety organisations in the US are the likes of the Brady campaign. N.T.

[hack89]

228. Oh - so what gun safety courses do they teach?

The Brady Bunch does nothing except get their asses handed to them in court rooms and legislatures.

You really think that the Brady bunch has anything to do with the steadily declining gun crime and accident rates? Even with skyrocketing gun use and less restrictive gun laws? Really?

[2banon]

275. I take issue with this "steady decline" meme..

I say it's bs. i live in the vicinity of Oakland Ca.. the number of cases of gun violence, resulting in senseless deaths (as well as serious injuries) are staggering.

It's not only Oakland, a number of other communities in the bay area are deluged with daily reports of deaths and or serious injuries connected to gun violence. sometimes by gangs, sometimes by individuals. hardly a day passes when the evening news reporting on incident after incident. there are times when reporting has nearly consumed the entire news segment. one after another, day in and day out.

just sayin' the statisical meme (gun violence in steady decline) seems to me to be a work of fiction, as they certainly do not reflect the world i live in.

[X_Digger]

280. Check the FBI's UCR or the DOJ's BJS..

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/hmrt.cfm

"Homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the mid-1960s"



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalno.cfm



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/viort.cfm



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/burg.cfm



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/rape.cfm



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/rob.cfm



http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/theft.cfm



Now, that's a general trend, that doesn't mean that it's gone down in any one particular place, like Oakland- which is California's second most dangerous city over 100,000 population (behind Richmond) with it's 25.71 per 100k murder rate. (The national average is 4.2 per 100k).

[hack89]

281. Talk to the DOJ to see how wrong you are. You are also wrong about Oakland

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

Even though Oakland's homicide rate seems incredibly high, it is significantly lower than last year, when they reached the 100 mark in September. Oakland finished 2008 with 124 homicides, an extremely high number, yet much lower than the record 175 in 1992.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282970#ixzz1EcHugGP6


http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282970

[2banon]

296. You got me there...

The numbers fluctuate up and down... For me, One is too many.

Oakland Number 5 November 2010

It was reported last week, that numbers of gun related violence (in Oakland) have surpassed Feb 2010. Unless, there is a complete reversal in coming weeks and months, Oakland may find itself back up to the number 2, 3, or 4 spot by next years reports. Given that city budget cuts will mean a severe reduction in police and corrections services, logic tells me that the numbers will increase.

Given that I have grandchildren in Oakland, I hope that this logic will not prevail afterall.

[hack89]

305. The issue is and always will be criminals and guns

so you are right that a reduction in police services is not good. What you also have to realize is that gun laws aimed at those willing to obey the law will have little impact on criminals. Law abiding gun owners (which are the vast majority) have never been the problem.

[RaleighNCDUer]

310. Have never been the problem, other than being the source for

every single illegal weapon in the criminal world.

EVERY gun starts out as a legal weapon, before it is stolen from legal owners or sold by criminal gun dealers to criminals instead of to legal owners.

Criminals don't have factories building weapons just for them. If there is a weapon used in a crime it was, at one time, owned by a law abiding gun owner or manufacturer.

[hack89]

316. So?

the answer to criminals is stripping law abiding citizens of their civil rights? Why don't we concentrate on criminals?


99.99 percent of gun owners will never harm another soul - why do you want to punish them for obeying the law?

God - authoritarians drive me nuts.

[RaleighNCDUer]

320. Fine. So make gun owners criminally liable for the expropriation

of every gun they own. Register every single weapon, and when a criminal is caught with a weapon make the person who allowed it fall into criminal hands share responsibility for the crime.

Your right to sell your unwanted guns out of the trunk of you car ends with my right to be safe from the criminal you sold it to.

[defendandprotect]

324. Guns and owners have to also be INSURED against damages to other citizens!!

[hack89]

325. And we can arrest liquor store owners

when when someone gets drunk, drives and kills someone else.


BTW - there are 280 million guns out there. How many do you really think will be registered? Criminals will have their pick of weapons to continue committing crimes.

You are really grasping at straws - do you have any idea how much your idea would cost? And how it would still fail spectacularly? I am constantly amazed at the never never land that most gun grabbers live in.

[RaleighNCDUer]

335. Tell me, if you faced six months in prison for allowing a gun you own

to be stolen because of your negligence, would you make sure you kept every one of your guns in a secure safe rather than in a glass front gun case or your bedside table?

The object is to keep legal guns from becoming illegal guns. If you fail to register your gun, you lose it. That keeps it out of the hands of a criminal - you. Register your weapon, keep it is an approved safe, which would need to be broken into by a real safe-cracker (and there aren't that many of them out there) to fall into criminal hands, and you have no problem. Keep a gun in your glove compartment, you are liable if it is stolen. Keep a gun in a dresser drawer, you are liable if it is stolen. Sell it without going though an authorized gun dealer, you are liable for it if it is used in a crime.

You make a decision to buy a deadly weapon, YOU are responsible for it until you dispose of it though an authorized dealer.

There is nothing in that which can be regarded as 'gun grabbing' - it is simply taking responsibility.

BTW, how much would it cost to set up a nationial weapons data base, to account for all weapons? Would that cost more that the billions spent every year on dealing with the effects of gun crimes?

And if you are a full-blown paranoid, who thinks the gun registry would be used by the government to confiscate your 280 million guns, just how long do you thing the confiscation program would run before several million of those guns would be turned on the government? In this age of facebook and twitter, there is no way the government could collect more than a couple thousand nationwide before every gun owner in the country would be alerted - you'd need 10 cops for every confiscation, and with 90 million gun owners out there that means 900 million cops - we going to hire China to do it? So don't worry - nobody is going to take your fucking guns.

All we want is that you keep them responsibly. And if you can't keep them responsibly, you don't deserve them, just as if you can't drive responsibly you don't deserve a driver's license.

The 2nd Amendment says it best: "A well-regulated militia..." That means responsible ownership.

[2banon]

337. seems logical to me..

practical regulation and the 2nd amendment is protected to boot... makes sense.

[Ken_Fish]

340. So I have to buy a $3000 dollar safe or a cable lock is OK?

Do I need to pay an armed guard to protect my home? What about my cars? If someone steals my car because I warm it up in the driveway and runs over my neighbors kid do I serve the sentence with him.

None of this is practical and could never even be proposed, let alone be voted into law.

Times have changes, people expect problems to be solved or real solutions to be put on the table.

Not smoke and mirrors.

[2banon]

415. No. Just secured.

out of reach of kids, teens and "street" burglers. I think we can come to a reasonable solution, in everyone's common interest. We can't regulate amorality. We can't regulate stupidity. But we can do somethings that help to protect both law abiding gun advocates/carriers and the general public, can't we?

[Ken_Fish]

419. For sure agree. That is the law here in NC, muct be secured from kids

that generally means in a safe or locked in some manner when not in use.

Even if it were not the case many gun owners ( all i know) would lock their weapons to prevent theft and access anyway.

[2banon]

438. Yeah.. a rational, responsible way to be..

I lived in NC when I was a kid.. (long time ago) I'm remembering how I managed to get a hold of my dad's pistol from the closet where it was supposed to be safe from the kids.. (i was about 12 or 13) I looked at the rifle, but it was too big for me too initimidating. but I was checking out the pistol. Military, don't know the caliber.. (I'm not sure if it was a 22 or not).. I was really angry at one of my family members I think my dad, and i had the notion to let him have it. But i was too chicken, afraid the thing would blow my head off, so I put it back where i found it..

whew!

[hack89]

338. The Canadian gun registry cost billions and failed

a gun registry is hard when the vast majority of citizens are opposed to it.

Just how will all 280 million guns get into that registry in the face of massive civil disobedience? And just who will enforce it? Can't you just see the republican governors lining up to yell defiance at Washington DC?

You truly are delusional if you think there will ever be an national gun registry. That or you are oblivious to American domestic politics.

[AtheistCrusader]

368. I've supported registration in the past, however

That has been abused in the US to confiscate some weapons (california assault weapon ban/registration rescinded after the fact) so I don't get much mileage out of it.

All because of some greedy asshole gun banners.

I'd be fine with registration, I really would. If it came with iron clad grandfathering of the weapon. Problem is, I can't convince anyone that anybody should trust such an offer.

[2banon]

417. I don't mean to be dense..

please explain greedy gun banners... I don't get what's to be greedy about...is there money in gun prohibition? if so how does that work?

[Ken_Fish]

453. Yes, like the drug ban the money is the prize. And the folley of

the zealots. By banning drugs (and alcohol) the money created from the demand for these products shifted from agencies with oversight to a pure unrestricted environment. The mess in mexico used to be in panama and colombia.

People dont kill people for crack or meth (or for illegal liquor), they kill for literal tons of money. Hundreds of millions at a minimum are involved with drug flow.

A prohibition on guns is political death. It is truly impossible, like bringing back segregation or making a specific religion illegal. The mere suggestion of it is enough to destroy a politician.

An in practice , like drugs, removing the commerce of firearms from a controlled system to a free market would flood the market with cash and weapon systems not seen here.

Norinco would be happy to step up production and ship machineguns into the US if a market existed. There is a reason they cant do business here now.

Like meth a firearm can be made..

[2banon]

461. interesting point..

i get it about the phony drug war being a massive fraud on the taxpayers(completely unaccountable)it's just a gravy train for the dea that just keeps on giving..... same principle applies...

[2banon]

334. no argument there..

i also think the illegal weapons trade contributes greatly. I don't have links to back that up, it's just my perceptions of things.

[2banon]

297. self delete accidental duplicate n/t

i wish we delete our own posts..

[PavePusher]

497. Your local is only a few points of data on the curve.

Just like weather is not equal to climate.

[slackmaster]

261. I've taught basic gun safety to more than 100 people. The Brady Campaign hasn't taught anyone.

Not one person, ever.

[SlimJimmy]

249. That is completely untrue, and wholly unnecessary (nt)

[mainer]

36. oh oh oh. What a nightmare. So glad he's OK!

And that guy whose gun went off and almost killed your son? He needs to have his license revoked. It's no different from someone who has an OUI. Irresponsible gun owners shouldn't be allowed to keep their guns.

[Brilliantrocket]

39. Everytime someone abuses the second amendment people propose for it to be limited.

Imagine if we did that every time someone abused the first. Someone got killed because of conservative talk show hosts? DOWN WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Makes a lot of sense right? For those who read me saying that this act is freedom of speech, I'm not saying that. I was trying to make an analogy to the fact that the second amendment gets limited every time someone abuses it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

45. This is gonna be good.

:popcorn:

[uppityperson]

57. going to be watching that one's career with

amusement. In so many ways, wtf

[mainer]

49. Negligent gun owners are like negligent drivers

They shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

If you're a responsible driver, that's one thing. But if you've had an OUI and almost killed someone, shouldn't they lose the right to be a driver?

Same with guns.

[uppityperson]

54. psst

first amendment?
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.

[mainer]

64. Except right to assembly doesn't kill anyone

I'm fully aware what the first amendment is. The poster's bringing up the first amendment is his/her way of saying that any amendment is inviolable.

Except that the exercise of the 2nd amendment can actually lead to fatal results, thereby violating someone else's right to a beating heart.

[AtheistCrusader]

266. Not exactly accurate.

The first amendment can lead to fatalities and other criminal misbehavior as well. We have criminalized incitement, and conspiracy, for instance.

[mainer]

361. Threats and incitement to riot are crimes and are outlawed.

A verbal threat, in and of itself, is not fatal. (Unless you simultaneously spit on someone with some deadly virus.) Only if someone ELSE acts on that speech does it become fatal.

[Brilliantrocket]

56. Agreeable

Don't blame all the gun owners for the actions of a few. Makes sense to hold the negligent ones accountable.

[WatsonT]

242. Yes

if you can demonstrate that you are too negligent to own a gun you shouldn't be allowed to have one.

But that doesn't mean everyone should be banned from using them. Same as with cars.

A drunk driver almost killing someone never provokes a "let's ban all cars" thread. Instead people get pissed at that one guy, or maybe drunk drivers in general. It's the negligent individual who is to blame there. But here it is the tool that negligent individual misused. Seems a double standard.

[uppityperson]

53. what. the. fuck? First amendment, guns, blocking roads, liberty for security? What?

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.

[Brilliantrocket]

61. Protesters having a right to assemble really inconvinences me.

You know right to assembly? All that assembling is a nuisance. Don't blame the guns, blame the negligent owners.

[mainer]

68. But doesn't kill you.

Freedom of speech? If the speaker is an idiot, maybe inconvenient or annoying to others.

Right to bear arms? If the bearer is an idiot, possibly fatal to others.

[Brilliantrocket]

75. What if someone uses their freedom of speech to post my address on the internet ?

[X_Digger]

78. A better analogy would be incitement to riot.

It uses the same tools that others use in exercising their protected right to speech.

Just as the second amendment doesn't protect the indiscriminate discharge of a firearm, the first amendment doesn't protect inciting a riot.

Nobody would seriously propose curtailing the first amendment in an attempt to prevent incitement to riot. Nobody proposes taping up everyone's mouth to prevent someone from falsely yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. But apparently for the second amendment, that's fine.

:shrug:

[wizstars]

Works for me....

[X_Digger]

196. Please elaborate?

Are you okay with treating one right differently than the other?

Constitutional law doesn't work like that, if so.

[COLGATE4]

237. Please see my reply to another poster on this thread, #235

[petronius]

279. Or 'hit lists' of doctors that provide abortion services... (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

267. It could.

We have to panic-re-route fire, police, and medical response during flash mobs and parades/protests unaccompanied by permits.

On the one hand, a protest with a permit kind of rings hollow, but on the other, having a plan at the city level for that protest allows for re-routing traffic, and getting increased fire/emt coverage in the area to respond to run-of-the-mill emergencies.


And again, freedom of speech can be abused to incite violence. A criminal act. Or rather, the speaker would share in the criminal act of the person who carries it out.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Brilliantrocket]

79. Should I have added the sarcasm tag?

I'm saying that just because a few people take advantage of their freedoms in a negative way doesn't mean we need to revoke them for everyone.

[KT2000]

69. shooting a high powered

rifle is protected speech?
Better do some more studying.
Problem #1 - a high powered rifle goes off at random - raises a lot of questions. Is the person mentally competent? does the person have a record? is the person mentally stable or does he have mental health issues?

What this man's son experienced is indefensible. Getting to the root of why this happened is the first order of business. Charging the person with negligence comes next, then comes removing all guns from this person possession. Other charges could also be filed.

Maybe DU is not the site for you.

[Brilliantrocket]

98. No it's not freedom of speech.

In this case someone went outside the bounds of the second amendment. I'm saying that we don't propose to limit the first amendment every time someone abuses it. When someone abuses the second everybody calls for it to be limited.

[KT2000]

106. guns are lethal weapons

not every idiot in this country should have one.

[Brilliantrocket]

107. I agree, if someone shows signs that they are not a fit to own guns

they shouldn't own be allowed to own them.

[slackmaster]

345. In case you didn't know this, federal law defines several categories of people who are prohibited...

...from owning guns.

Please read § 922 of the United States Code. Pay particular attention to paragraph (d).

HTH

[av8rdave]

182. I am curious as to how much the second amendment has been limited

I don't follow the issue as closely as I should, but from my perspective, the 2nd amendment seems to have been mostly expanded. It seems there are more places you can take your weapon than there used to be. More and more states seem to allow concealed weapons, and the NRA fights vigorously in favor of gun show loopholes, assault weapons, large capacity ammo clips, etc. Feel free to correct me, as these are just general impressions of a non-gun owner.

It appears there has never been a better time to be a gun owner in this country, IMO.

[X_Digger]

190. Depends on what timeframe you look at..

If we confine ourselves to the 20th / 21'st century (ignoring racially-motivated 'black codes' of the post-reconstruction era..)

In 1934, machineguns, short rifles, supressors, short shotguns, and most explosives were required to be registered, and a hefty (for the time) tax of $200 per item was imposed. Before that point, you could go down to your local western hardware store and buy a 'tommy' gun.

In 1968, the GCA (Gun Control Act) was passed that: 1. required licenses to sell firearms; 2. Set up the 'prohibited persons' list (felons, drug user, those adjudicated mentally 'defective', dishonorably discharged); 3. Prevented mail order firearms purchases; 4. Required serial numbers on all newly created guns.

Generally in the late 60's, various states passed firearm legislation in the wake of the civil rights protests, making it a crime to have a gun in a 'declared state of emergency or unrest.' These were especially prevalent in the south, so you can imagine who they were actually targeted at.

In 1986, the registry of machineguns established in 1934 was closed to new civilian entries. Only law enforcement could purchase newly made machineguns.

In 1987, Florida became the first of the modern wave of 'shall issue' concealed carry license systems, where a person didn't have to articulate a special reason for being allowed to conceal a handgun- they merely had to pass a federal-level background check, provide their fingerprints, show proof of training.

In 1989, California banned so-called "assault weapons" based on arbitrary characteristics as well as specific models of guns.

In 1993, President Clinton signed the "Brady Bill", which required a background check on all gun purchases made via FFLs. It originally came with a 3 day waiting period for handguns until 1998 when the electronic National Instant Check System came online.

In 1994, Congress passed the federal "assault weapons ban" which banned importation or sale of new weapons with a number of 'features' like a folding stock, threaded muzzle, bayonet mount, etc. It also banned the sale of new stock of magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

I consider this the point when things started to turn around.

In 1996, we got our collective asses handed to us in the midterms. President Clinton even went so far to mention it in his memoir..

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

Over the next fifteen years, we've seen more states change to 'shall-issue' concealed carry licensing, and we've seen the places where licensees can legally go expanded- I would assert that the latter is due to the rather scrupulous nature of folks who willingly give up their fingerprints to law enforcement.

[av8rdave]

230. Thanks for all the info/data

I am particularly interested in the history of legislation restricting the sale and ownership of explosives and assault weapons. I guess I don't see how restricting things like that are an attack on the broader right to keep and bear arms. I can still acquire a weapon if I choose. But where do we draw the line? Is a prohibition against my owning a supply of C4, or even a nuclear weapon an infringement on my second amendment rights? How important is it that I have a fully automatic assault weapon at the ready?

Recently, it seems that second amendment rights are expanding. I can now carry a weapon in a National park. The list of places I can take a concealed weapon seems to be growing. If a few legislators and the NRA get their way, I'll have the privilege of being surrounded by armed people in school, at church, and I suppose wherever one wants to carry.

Perhaps it's time to own a weapon. That ought to keep me safe.

[X_Digger]

238. The "assault weapons ban" was not about automatic weapons..

That's okay, though, that confusion was intentional..

The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

— Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center

It doesn't help when the BATFE sets up demonstrations using fully automatic weapons when talking about semi-automatic weapons- http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/11/robert-farago/missing-andrew-traver-tv-interview-surface/

No gun organization is trying to remove restrictions on automatic weapons. Most gun owners are fine with those being subject to stricter scrutiny.

[derby378]

434. Except for opening up the NFA registry, that is

The 1986 ban on full-auto weapons entering the NFA registry has got to go, and legally should never have been passed in the first place.

[X_Digger]

440. True, but I consider that a return to the status quo. n/t

[slackmaster]

347. Government cannot expand rights. It can only limit them.

It seems there are more places you can take your weapon than there used to be.

Some infringements on the right to bear arms have been rolled back.

It appears there has never been a better time to be a gun owner in this country, IMO.

You should have been here before 1934. ;-)

[wizstars]

185. We're calling for it to be interpreted with a modicum of intelligence

which is what the neo fascist NRA won't do.

[PavePusher]

498. The Amendments say what they mean.

You can't "interpret" different meanings into them and not have language lose relevence.

[AtheistCrusader]

268. What is a low powered rifle?

I mean, if you have high powered rifles, what is a low powered rifle? Must be some spectrum here...

[AlabamaLibrul]

93. IBTT

[cleanhippie]

248. Fail

[Warren DeMontague]

148. "the second amendment gets limited every time someone abuses it."- really???

There's no fucking chance of ANY meaningful gun control legislation on a national level. Period. It's dead in the water.

Your 2nd Amendment rights are fine. Pot smoking cancer grannies can be dragged off to prison for smoking a fucking PLANT to ease their nausea, but your right to waltz into Wal-Mart and load up on firearms is not in ANY danger at all, chief.

So please, stop with the heart-tugging hyperbole. No one is taking your gun away. :eyes:

[bongbong]

165. 2nd Amendment?

The 2nd Amendment is about state militias, not about laissez-faire gun ownership.

[Statistical]

226. The 2A is about the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

That is a requirement for effective state militias.

The militias rely on the right to keep and bear arms, the right to keep and bear arms doesn't rely on the militia.

[bongbong]

245. Yes, the people

When "people" is used in the Constitution, it refers to a collective group. Whenever the Founders meant to talk about individual rights, they used the word "person" or "persons".

Keep trying! I'm sure you'll figure out a way to re-define what the Founding Fathers meant.

[X_Digger]

247. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

http://supreme.justia.com/us/494/259/case.html

"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

Got that? "The People" is the same in the first, second, fourth, ninth, and tenth. "The People" does not refer to the state, or the government, or the militia.

[Statistical]

250. So do you also believe you have no individual 4th amendment right.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
------------------

As long as the Police conduct a search or seizure against an individual then they it is 100% legal huh?
Likewise you have no right as an individual to petition the government? Really

---------------

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.

-------------

This has nothing to do with Scalia. The Supreme Court over 100 years ago ruled on the meaning of "the People" as defined by the Constitution.

There is ample historical evidence to support concept of individual rights for the People. There is no historical evidence to support the bogus "collective rights" nonsense. None. Hell not even a single justice of Supreme Court believes so. 9 of 9 unanimously rejected the concept of collective rights.

[bongbong]

274. You said it!

I guess you didn't notice the word "person" (twice) in the 4th Amendment sentence you quoted. Common error if you have an agenda to fulfill.

"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."

The first part of the 1st Amendment doesn't use "person" or "people", so it doesn't have anything to do with whatever point you're trying to make. As for the 2nd part where the word "people" is used, their intent was to allow protests by groups without fear of persecution. Individuals have always been able to petition the government peaceably as part of Common Law.

"There is ample historical evidence to support concept of individual rights for the People."
Then it shouldn't be hard for you to find some. Until then, your statement is unsupported by evidence.

Your Talking Points are outdated. Keep trying!

[petronius]

285. "Persons" makes it even more clear that "the people" is referring to individuals (in the plural)

"The people" as a collective wouldn't have a 'person', so your interpretation makes no sense - it's only when the people are construed as individuals does 'person' apply. Note also that the rest of that list in the 4th (papers, homes, property) would likewise become meaningless if people was meant to be collective.

The same objection applies to your twisting of the 1st - there's no reason to believe that anything in the framers' thinking or experience would lead them to conclude that the right to petition only required formal mention in the case of organized groups, or that they were drawing any distinction between petitions presented by one, two, or a multitude of the people.

The only reasonable interpretation is that every use of "the people" in the BOR refers individuals who have certain rights; anything else requires tortured logic intended - as you say - to support an agenda...

[bongbong]

294. keep trying!

You're persistent in your agenda to redefine what the Founding Fathers' intent was, and in fact you've made a big circle, so I'll just repeat the evidence I provided originally proving how the NRA hates the Constitution.

Truth about the 2nd Amendment, including the long judicial history of defining it as only about state militias: http://hnn.us/articles/36395.html
Thom Hartmann talking about the Founding Fathers & 2nd Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILKiAr5Xtgg
Federalist Paper #29 defining what "well-regulated" means: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

Have a nice day!

[petronius]

299. Sounds like you're the one going in circles. Since you didn't bother to respond

to my comments - which dismantled your claims from post #274 - shall I conclude that you're conceding the argument, and you recognize that 'the people' is not merely a collective entity?

[bongbong]

302. HA HA

"to my comments - which dismantled your claims from post #274"

You have a vivid imagination.

[white_wolf]

41. Fucking idiots

and their gun worship is dangerous. Personally I say you should have to pass an IQ test to own a gun or at least a safety test.

[mediator]

83. Same to own a computer, I say.

And to vote.

[cleanhippie]

44. Glad he is ok, but that is not an "accident", it was negligence.

Any gun owner will tell you that there is no such thing as an "accidental" discharge, only negligent discharges.

Glad to hear your kid is ok and I hope they nail the asshole that negligently discharged his rifle.

[Citizen Worker]

46. I'm sure this will be characterized as the proverbial, "but I didn't think it was loaded" excuse.

That is why the basic lesson of firearm safety is YOU always check to make sure the gun is not loaded even if the person handing it to you has opened the chamber in front of you. YOU always check for your own assurance and for the safety of those seen and unseen.

[Codeine]

52. Exactly. A gun is always loaded until proven unloaded. nt

[Kaleva]

66. It's best to assume it's always loaded even when it's not.

[X_Digger]

82. When I teach gun safety and the first rule..

I tell students, "If it leaves your hand after you've checked it, assume that gremlins came in while your head was turned and loaded it."

[Kaleva]

110. Even after I check the weapon, I treat it like it's loaded.

Finger is off the trigger, gun is pointed in a safe direction (usually down) and when I do dry fire the gun, I make sure down range is clear and safe.

[X_Digger]

115. *nod* If you follow the four rules, you're golden. n/t

[safeinOhio]

154. I talked to an older man

a few years ago that had a cast on his left hand. I asked about it and he told me shot himself in the hand while cleaning his handgun. No big deal, except he then went on to tell me he has been a NRA safety instructor for 36 years.

Goes to show, no matter how much safety training anyone has, guns are still very dangerous even in the hands of trained experts.

[donco]

47. I know how you feel, someone

almost run over my son last week….friggen careless drivers.

[JVS]

55. If your son had been armed, he could have returned fire.

On a serious note, bummer. Sorry that such a stressful and unnerving event happened to your family.

[kenny blankenship]

103. Good point.

Makes you wonder who really is at fault here, doesn't it? It also leads into the whole issue of deterrence. Was everything done that might have been done to prevent this? Sometimes responsible apt. dwellers need to step out on their porches or balconies and let loose with 2 or 3 blasts just to make clear what could happen if stray rounds from somebody else's guns come through their windows or walls. An armed society can't be fully polite unless everyone knows there's probably a bead drawn on them right now.

[mediator]

60. Where did this happen?

The laws that apply to incidents like this are pretty inconsistent from state to state.

[Darth_Kitten]

62. Terrible situation, but I'm glad your kids are okay.

I hope they nail that asshole with the gun. :mad:

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CherokeeDem]

67. I Agree 100%

This statement of your...."this whole goddamn cult of the worship of the sacred right of gun ownership"...perfectly stated. It is the cult of the gun and it needs to be stopped.

So sorry that your kids had to go through such a traumatic event but thank goodness they are uninjured.

[Sherman A1]

+1000

:toast:

[Sherman A1]

71. +1000

:toast:

[mediator]

77. What exactly needs to be stopped? A cult? How would you propose to do that?

Do you have some specific agenda in mind to accomplish...whatever it is?

[jpak]

91. Over reaching gun lobby nonsense that defies all common sense

yup

[mediator]

100. Pardon me, I thought I had asked someone else.

...

[jpak]

104. This is GD - general discussion

yup

[Pacifist Patriot]

137. Pssst...

you're on an internet forum, anyone can answer.

[mediator]

139. And I am still waiting for one.

Thanks!
\

[Pacifist Patriot]

223. Simple question wtih a complex answer.

Changing a culture is like taking a hard right with a freight train sometimes.

[Liberal_in_LA]

70. k&r glad your son wasn't hit

[Upton]

72. Sorry for your kid...however

I don't quite understand how one person's negligence should reflect negatively upon those of us gun owners who are law abiding and practice gun safety..

[melm00se]

84. not to

discount your anger but a point of fact

Accidental deaths by Cause (source: http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html)
Motor Vehicle...........................43,354
Unspecified nontransport accid'ts.......17,437
Falls...................................13,322
Poisoning and Noxious Subst's...........12,757
Drowning.................................3,842
Exposure to Smoke, Fire, Flames..........3,377
Other Land Transport Accidents...........1,492
Complications of Med/Surg Care...........3,059
Accidental Discharge of Firearms...........776

Causes of Death
Major Cardiovasular Diseases...........936,923
Malignant Neoplasms....................553,091
Chronic Lower Resperitory Dis..........122,009
Diabetes Mellitus.......................69,301
Influenza and Pneumonia.................65,313
Alzheimers..............................49,558
Motor Vehicle Accidents.................43,354
Renal Failure...........................36,471
Septicemia..............................31,224
Firearms................................28,663

[TreasonousBastard]

207. So, 27,887 deaths were caused by the NON-accidental discharge of firearms...

How does this make the case for wider gun ownership?

[melm00se]

212. it makes the case

that existing firearm law should be enforced.

I know it sounds trite and is a cliche but:

you have a criminal, who by definition is willing to break (and probably already has broken) the law, what makes you think that (s)he would obey another law about the possession of firearms?

unless or until the 2nd amendment is voided, private firearm ownership will continue. passing more laws will only impact people who already follow the law (we are, after all, not criminals).

[TreasonousBastard]

253. That does not answer the question of why we should expand firearms ownership when...

we already have almost 30,000 people intentionally shot and killed for some reason or other-- more than in recent wars, btw.

And that number doesn't count the people shot who didn't die.

[slackmaster]

255. Who is talking about expanding firearms ownership?

:shrug:

[TreasonousBastard]

257. Lots of people. Haven't you noticed?

[slackmaster]

259. No, I haven't noticed.

Examples?

[AtheistCrusader]

270. Can you be less specific?

[pipoman]

264. Of coarse 16000 of the 30k are suicides

leaving 14000. Of those most are criminal on criminal and gang related, some are domestic, some are criminal on innocent victim, very few are unlawful acts by previously law abiding people and very, very few are accidental. This begs the question how many would occur without guns? Motivated killers kill. Maybe access to mental health services, addiction services, drugs which people are addicted to without having to contact criminals, and heavy sentences for violent criminals may have more of an effect on crime rates than restrictions effecting only those who are law abiding.

[melm00se]

315. I will say that I have not

said anything about expanding gun ownership unless of course you believe that no further restrictions = expansion.

What I, personally, advocate is this:
that the government enforce the myriad of firearms laws that are already on the books and leave me the fuck alone until or unless I violate the law.

Don't create more laws when the existing ones aren't enforced.
Don't create more laws as a panicked response to an isolated incident.

[Ken_Fish]

321. We shood look at the problem and the numbers.. Apply reason.

15 - 16 k suicides. How many of those people had access to quality mental heath care? How many are dead because they could not pay for meds or a 60 inpatient stay.
How many were drug related (money / sales)? How do we fix that? There is a good answer, its just hard for people who dont like the answer..

Ownership is restricted and conditional.

[beevul]

411. By itself it doesn't.

However, when one includes the facts that there are 300 million+ guns in the hands of 80 million+ people, it gives some perspective to it all.

The great majority of guns andf people that own them - more than 99 % - are not involved in shootings/accidents/suicides.

[jpak]

87. IBTL

:evilgrin:

[Orsino]

92. I think I just read your son's account on another board.

Chilling. I'm glad that it was only an accident, and that no one was actually injured.

[Codeine]

94. With photo.

Scary shit, that.

[jody]

95. Glad your son was not injured. Parents, relatives, friends are always angry when a loved one has a

close brush with death or worse.

I hope all will demonstrate the same degree of anger against other causes as is demonstrated against arms in this thread.

[mediator]

116. As Clarence Darrow said in the Scopes trial,

"You have the right to hope"

:rofl:

[jody]

132. Hope Springs Eternal is a much used phrase and has sustained many during trying times. nt

[get the red out]

96. My God, that's horrible!

Add your son's awful experience to all the people killed by being in the wrong place when a gun was fired, the little kids that find Dad's loaded gun; all the terrible tragedies. And I just read on another thread that Texas is poised to allow guns on campus (what a nice addition to the keg parties....). This nation is INSANE when it comes to guns.

[lunatica]

99. That's horrible!

I'm glad your son didn't get shot. Our gun culture is insane.

[Chorophyll]

101. I'm with you, Starroute. Completely.

And I'm so glad your son is okay.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Hugs, and it never ceases to amaze me

that people do not understand the danger of these toys

[mediator]

108. Thinking of them as toys is a significant contribution to their misuse.

It is amazing there are not -more- incidents like this one, given the reluctance of so many to provide commonsense instruction on proper operation and safety.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. Forgive me, but my refering to them as toys

is more out of having been downrange from them in actual shootouts. It is more of a self defense mechanism.

I KNOW the basic safety rules with them... and am perfectly aware of what they do.

[mediator]

113. Well, being downrange from a paintball enemy isn't quite what I'd call risky.

:eyes:

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. Well that paint ball was an AK-47 once

another time a few AR-15s

The 50 cal Browning was loud and fun, as well as the 20 mm cannon.

Oh and yes, those were the days, fun indeed.

:rolleyes: indeed

[mediator]

120. I really thought you were talking about paintball with the 'toy' reference!

Where in the world were you to have all those different weapons being fired at you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Mexican Red Cross paramedic

the war on drugs did not just get hot a few years ago

The 20 mm cannon, not at me, at the bad guys... in the state of Puebla in 1984.

The AK... it killed my radiator...

And I was dumb enough to crawl into one to pull a casualty out. Yep, I started shaking AFTER we transfered patient care.

The 50 cal, same at Puebla, and many years later in TJ they just had them there to fire at the Arellanos.

So my way to deal with them is to refer to them as toys. For some odd reason when we go to the range I am an extremely bad shot, even with a paper target.

[mediator]

131. Muy peligroso...

yo entiendo, aunque pienso retener mis fusiles. ;-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

135. we have guns, but I do know exactly what they do

[jpak]

122. Ouch!

:thumbsup:

[barbtries]

109. i'm so glad it missed him

"gun went off at random"????
bullshit.

[RandomThoughts]

111. That wouldn't scare me, just think about it.

The bullet didn't hit him, that has to be a pretty encouraging effect.

People should not live in fear, they also should not live without the beer and travel money that is due to them.

[pinboy3niner]

114. K&R...

I've had some limited experience with firearms. In Boy Scouts, I won some awards for target shooting with a .22 rifle.

In Army training, I gained experience with the M-14, the M-16, the M-60 machine gun, the .45 caliber pistol, and heavier weapons. In Vietnam, I used the M-16, and it probably saved my life.

After the war, I didn't want to have anything to do with firearms. I went quail hunting once, only because I was invited by a fellow Screaming Eagle vet with whom I'd spent a lot of time in an Army hospital. We didn't kill anything, though we nearly got shot by some idiot hunters. And once I did some .22 rifle target shooting with a friend who was a forest ranger.

There was one friend who had an assortment of weapons and wanted me to handle the AK-47 he had. I refused. Not just because it was an AK-47 that had done a lot of physical damage to me in the war. I had no interest or desire to handle the weapon.

Forgive me if I'm biased. Long ago, in that fucking war in Vietnam, I saw the carnage wreaked on human beings by firearms. A North Vietnam Army soldier with an AK-47 blew away half my jaw and teeth and put a baseball-sized hole in my shoulder. I was lucky--I survived, though I had to spend 18 months in the hospital and had to go through at least four more major operations after that.

Somehow, I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who promote "2A rights."

I'm pissed as hell just hearing your story, starroute. You're absolutely right--this insanity needs to end.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pinboy3niner]

147. Your post makes no sense

WTF are you talking about? I confess that I have no clue...

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pinboy3niner]

157. WTF are you talking about???

What the hell do my views about firearms have to do with my oath to the Constitution?

What, exactly, makes you think there is a conflict?

Your condescending suggestions that I "forgot" the oath and that I oppose the Bill of Rights are beneath consideration. You may want to edit those comments while you have time...

[Dash87]

118. I hate guns with a passion.

And let's face it: most people are too dumb to use them. For every 1 case where they do something good, there's 100 cases like this.

Fine, keep your guns. Just don't bring them near me.

[mediator]

123. I know what you mean, most cops are terribly dumb.

...

[PavePusher]

499. Actually, this sort of thing is very rare.

That's why it's actual news when it occurs.

I think you have your numbers inverted...

[L0oniX]

119. Guns do not go off all by themselves ...even when they get dropped.

As far as threats to your kids goes ...drunk, stoned and regular car drivers are much more dangerous ...of course if your kids are in Afghanistan then our military is much more of a threat.

Careful about who you blindly attack here ...over 50% of DU members own guns.

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. You know... the FAL has that habbit

safety or not.

[proud2BlibKansan]

169. Where did you get THAT information? 50% of DUers own guns????

Did I miss the gun ownership question when I signed in here?

[X_Digger]

171. He may have been engaging in hyperbole..

There have been a couple of polls posted to GD.. here's a snapshot of the latest one..



His statement would be better stated as 'Of those who chose to respond, 50% own a firearm'.

[L0oniX]

179. That's right. You missed seeing the polls from time to time.

...and I ain't lying!

[aikoaiko]

269. A self-report poll suggested the possibility.

The two note worthy things about this poll is that it attracted 775 respondents over several weeks and the moderators graciously left this up in GD the entire time.

[proud2BlibKansan]

276. That's less than 800 DUers.

Considering that is less than one percent of all DUers, it's not at all accurate to now claim 50% of DUers are gun owners.

The correct statement would be '51% of DUers WHO RESPONDED TO A DU POLL reported being gun owners'.

Fox reports statistics in the manner this DU gun ownership stat was reported to me. I would hope we wouldn't want want to be like Fox. :shrug:

[aikoaiko]

283. I agree with your description (51% of respondents), but we don't know that is inaccurate.

National polls (albeit based on approximate random samples) use far less than 1%. The response to NightWatcher's poll was huge by DU standards. 100-200 is the normal big response.

You can no more claim it is inaccurate than someone else can say it is accurate. Claiming something is inaccurate when you don't know is also how Fox news responds to statistics. And we don't want to make either error.

[proud2BlibKansan]

286. Statistics 101.

It's inaccurate because we don't have only 800 DUers. Show me a poll where every DUer responded and then you can claim that X% are gun owners.

It's not that hard to understand.

[aikoaiko]

287. One doesn't have to havea response from every member of a population to make some claims.

But yes, it would require a random sample to make such claims.

[proud2BlibKansan]

288. The claim is: "over 50% of DU members own guns."

Until ALL DUers are polled, or a reasonable sampling, this is a FALSE statement.

[aikoaiko]

290. I would say it is an undocumented claim.

But you have no more basis for claiming it is false or FALSE anymore than someone has for saying it is true or TRUE.

I would say that the self-selected poll responses are suggestive.

[opihimoimoi]

121. 87 chking in...KnR.... :o)

[U4ikLefty]

124. A young man's head is a small price when our very freedom is a stake!!1!1!

Do I need the sarcasm tag?

[mediator]

129. Only if you think Patrick Henry needed one too.

...

[U4ikLefty]

146. Snark that makes no sense is just lame.

BTW, does the NRA still pay their trolls by-the-post???

[mediator]

156. I wouldn't know. Contrary to your implication, I am not a troll

and I resent it. I am however a supporter of the Second Amendment and I realize some Democrats despise anyone who is,
to which I say 'tough shit.' Arguing to ban guns is what is -really- lame.

[U4ikLefty]

174. So you are good with the current Supreme Court rulings?

Glad you agree with Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito on Heller.

[mediator]

447. All nine agreed on the salient point. I have no problem agreeing with anyone who's right...

do you?

[defendandprotect]

125. Agree -- and these gun nuts aren't even insured if they do damage -- !!!

Harm someone with your car -- and you're responsible!!

Not with a gun!!








THANK YOU FOR THE HEARTS -- AND A :hug: BACK TO EACH OF YOU --

[mediator]

133. I wish you had told me that 30 years ago, I could have saved a fortune by skipping

Uninsured Motorist coverage.

[slackmaster]

256. Anyone who either owns or rents a home and doesn't have liability insurance is a fool, guns or not

Basic homeowner and renter insurance policies cover things like damage caused by unintentional discharge of a firearm.

I carry one million dollars in liability on my homeowner's policy.

[Aerows]

128. So glad your son wasn't harmed

Hopefully the gun owner will decide on his own to put his weapon down. This could have been such a horrific tragedy for you and your family.

[madamesilverspurs]

134. but "Guns don't kill people". . .

Stupid people who think their guns are worth more than human life kill people with guns.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr on your behalf!

=

[mediator]

141. Who are those people? I've never met any.

???

[AlbertCat]

136. cult of the worship of the sacred right of gun ownership has gone too fucking far

WAY before this incident. Do you really have to get "personally" entangled in it to see that?

When sensible legislation, like waiting periods and background checks, are decried in hysterics, and laws that have been around are causing freak out "slippery slope" convulsions, even though no such thing had happened while they were law, then you know it went way too far ages ago. When it becomes emotional and cult-like... it's crap.

[Texasgal]

140. Whoa!

That's scary!

I hope your son is okay and that they catch the idiot!

[Warren DeMontague]

144. Glad everyone's okay. Unfortunately, if you try to make a point about it, temper tantrums will

overrun your thread.

Just let it go, and be thankful he's ok.

[Vidar]

145. I'm grateful that you and your son are ok. Also good to see the cops are being helpful.

[era veteran]

150. Glad they are all ok

Guns are so everywhere that they and stupid come together a lot.

[jimlup]

151. I wish more of us would get mad like this!

Thankfully your son is ok! Man! I'm mad right along with you!

[jtuck004]

155. Had a bullet go through my bedroom window, made a hole in the wall, richocheted around the room,

came to rest behind a door. I think it killed a stuffed animal that was on the other bed, though. Left the hole in the window for years.

Laying in bed reading, I think, bullet must have gone over my feet. 1962 or 3, so I was about 8 or 9. South side Oklahoma City.

Somewhat main suburban street outside, some places call them arterials.

Probably high school kids with a pistol, .25 or .38, up window, perhaps. Given they were probably shooting from a car it is a good likelihood they didn't hit their target.

[seeviewonder]

158. Gotta love the absence of that "well regulated militia"

Just about anyone can get a gun in some states. I am for gun ownership as a whole but there has to be some oversight when it comes to idiots and mentally disturbed individuals obtaining guns. I'm glad nobody was hurt, though.

[zonkers]

159. I am with you. Off topic but I once shot a bb gun and the bb bounced off three walls and went up

my friend's nose. Honest. He wasn't hurt and I never messed with guns again.

[bongbong]

161. The usual suspects

The usual suspects, with the same tired and false talking points, will be here to represent the NRA.

[X_Digger]

168. The usual suspects..

.. with the same FP 29 paste, are already here to represent 1994 talking points that have been destroyed.

Still waiting for you here.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4702563#4705504

Oh dang, just noticed it's archived. Save yourself some time and just copy / paste.

[bongbong]

177. LOL

Yeah, I saw your style of "argument" - you called a valid argument of mine a "red herring", and then had DU scrub it to boot. I'm through wasting time with you. Have a nice day.

[X_Digger]

178. If I were going to alert and try to 'scrub'.. why would I have quoted the whole thing??

Notice that I quoted your post, in sections.

:rofl:

[IamK]

162. gangs....they don't care who they kill n/t

[RegieRocker]

163. My son was almost run over by a car in front of our house. What can

do about that fear? I felt the same way as you do now.

[defendandprotect]

327. Car owners are insured for damage they do -- gun owners are not --

Car owner will be held accountable -- gun owners will not!

[Ken_Fish]

332. Actually you could be liable in civil court

for damages you inflict, even in an event that was legal. Lots of companies sell umbrella insurance that covers liability in general. It is very inexpensive and covers almost all civil litigation judgments.

[defendandprotect]

350. Should be MANDATORY that gun owners are insured for damages to victims --

however, manybe more victims and their families should be suing those like the

gun nut who set off his weapon putting this man's young son's life in danger!!

[Ken_Fish]

373. Will pull my bill, you can pick it up on homeowners for

some very low rate like 30 or 60 dollars per 6 months for some huge amount of liability coverage. I have a PPL and keep it for that.

[RegieRocker]

388. Do we make all automobiles illegal because of a idiot driver?

I sense hysteria.

[IamK]

164. n/t

[Ramulux]

167. Only sick indivduals give a shit about guns

Guns are fucked, end of story.

[RegieRocker]

390. Only sick individuals think that.

[starroute]

170. Thanks to everyone -- and thanks for the hearts

It was one of those "We're okay but..." situations, where the crisis is over before you get the word. Mostly, I'm more angry than I am shaken.

Also, my thanks to my #1 son, who realized it would be a good idea to let me know what had happened before I happened to look at Facebook, where #2 son had helpfully posted, "I just almost died. Details soon."

(His friends had responded with things like, "Glad you're still here. Fill us in when you can." I wouldn't have been as calm.)

It sounds like the cops know who it was -- they just need to get the evidence lined up to be sure of pinning it on him. I don't know what the potential penalties are, but hopefully he'll at least get his guns taken away.

And as far as some of the comments go -- mediator, can I say in all sincerity that you're not helping?

Also, to whoever posted the statistics on accidental deaths, it's one thing to be out on the highway, especially in bad weather, and another to be sitting peacefully in your own living room. Everyone needs to have safe spaces where they can relax peacefully.

And #2 son seems to be okay. He just this minute popped up on IM with this link http://www.libyafeb17.com/?p=1283 -- "BREAKING – Alarabiya.net: Gaddafi is headed to Venezuela or Brazil on private jet." So he's probably less upset than I am.

[FailureToCommunicate]

183. Any parent's nightmare. So glad for your outcome, AND glad your anger turned

into thoughtful thread of the issues.

Whew...

[bongbong]

176. My condolences

Sorry to hear of your son's near-disaster. I hope it doesn't shake his mental state or give him a persistent case of nerves.

His plight certainly brought out the 2nd Amendment re-definers here on DU.
Truth about the 2nd Amendment, including the long judicial history of defining it as only about state militias: http://hnn.us/articles/36395.html
Thom Hartmann talking about the Founding Fathers & 2nd Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILKiAr5Xtgg
Federalist Paper #29 defining what "well-regulated" means: http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

Federalist Paper #29 also discusses, and dismisses, the ridiculous notion that militias could ever threaten the Federal government - which of course is one of the key "reasons" the NRA gives for having personal armories. "We're armed to keep the Feds from tyranicizing us!". Yeah, let me know how your big manly gun fights a drone shooting a pinpoint-targeted Mach 6 missile at you. :rofl:

[joshcryer]

184. I had a bullet pass 6 inches from my face two years ago.

Some gang members were shooting up buildings.

Fun times.

But I am still pro-gun.

[AC_Mem]

187. OMG!

Thank The Creator that your child is okay!!!! Oh my gosh, thank goodness!!!

I hate guns. Never allow them in my house, don't allow my kids or grandkids to have anything to do with them. As far as I'm concerned, we don't have tough enough gun laws, period.

I'm so glad your son is okay.

Annette

[cliffordu]

189. Pretty much the perfect time to post to DU, when your child almost

gets his head blown clean off.

Just sayin'

:shrug:

[JI7]

191. yeah, because it takes hours to post something on DU

[cliffordu]

192. Danger close gunfire has always left me unable to light a fucking cigarette.

much less post on the innernets.

But I'm a lightweight, so there ya go.

[JI7]

198. a lot of people find it easier to talk to someone , i have had people tell me right after something

like this happened online. it doesn't take long but it's a way to let out some of the emotions one might be filled with.

[Warren Stupidity]

222. when in doubt: blame the victim.

nice job.

[wickerwoman]

193. What an awful experience... I'm so glad he's safe.

:hug:

[apocalypsehow]

194. You will be tempted at this time of trauma to blame the true victim - the innocent gun.

:sarcasm:



Seriously, wishing all the best to you and your son - very glad that no one was hurt.

[RSillsbee]

210. While the gun isn't the victim, it isn't the villain either

A gun is an inanimate object w/ no moral imperative either way. The person who misused the firearms should be punished accordingly. Gun owners, as a class, should not.

[defendandprotect]

328. A gun is a weapon of violence -- to try to deny that is to be disingenuous ....

No gun -- no violence --

[Ken_Fish]

331. 300,000 people in Rwanda would disagree with that statement. Problems are solved at root

not by banning machetes, guns, alcohol, or drugs. Ironically what would be classified as a 1st amendment issue contributed greatly to the genocide there.

[apocalypsehow]

341. "a 1st amendment issue contributed greatly to the genocide" - Yeah, they just *talked* themselves to

death, didn't they? Those editorials in the newspapers and commentary's on the radio were just so diabolically worded that their readers and listener's just keeled over dead on the spot from the sheer virulence of the words! Fatal adverbs! Killer nouns! Death by adjective! And don't forget those homicidal prepositional phrases!!!

:eyes:

[Ken_Fish]

342. Froduald Karamira encouraged others to kill their countrymen

on radio continually. He was imprisoned. I would be glad to cite other cases of media used to break down norms that allowed terrible things to happen.

Those 300,000 people were not killed by their neighbors the previous year, or previous month, so why then?

My interest is in the motive, fix that then you accomplish something. Anything short of that is a disservice to the victims.

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/1998/07/letterfromrwanda/

[apocalypsehow]

344. Ho-kay...so you seriously maintain it was the spoken *words* that killed people, not weapons?

That's, ummmm, an interesting observation.... :eyes:

"My interest is in the motive, fix that then you accomplish something"

My interest is in saving lives, not playing free-lance therapist. We do that by passing laws restricting the availability of handguns to military and law enforcement. And we go from there - until this country has gun laws in line with the rest of the civilized world.

[Ken_Fish]

375. So the 300,000 people who were hacked to death

with a tool commonly available and part of their daily lives were NOT at all impacted by media? You are aware that companies pay fortunes to advertise, ie, influence how you think?

I disagree with your premise based on the fact that japan has a murder RATE on par with the swiss and germans were people DO have access to both sidearms and machine guns.

Canada does NOT outright ban handguns or shotguns and has a rate on par with japan (with a complete ban) as well.


Again right after the US in invaded will this vision take place. This will NOT happen, it did not happen after JFK was killed, it is not feasable. People do NOT support further restrictions on their rights.

The glaring success of the war on drugs should underscore this. There is a crack BAN in the us, but it still flourishes.

You realize we WROTE the gun laws for japan after dropping two nuclear bombs on them right?

[apocalypsehow]

381. So, now you're backtracking on your claim above that the 300,000 were talked to death, and now admit

that actual weapons employed by actual hands were the proximate cause of mortality?

Well, we're making some progress, anyway...

"swiss and germans were people DO have access to both sidearms and machine guns"

False. In Switzerland, you must be a trained member of the armed forces, keep that "machine gun" locked up at home in a safe, are allowed only fifty rounds of ammunition that has to be stored separately.

In Germany, your assertion is equally misleading. Here are the current requirements for firearm possession in Germany:

"A firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) must be obtained before a weapon can be purchased. Owners of multiple firearms need separate ownership licenses for every single firearm they own. It entitles owners to purchase firearms and handle them on their own property and any private property with property owner consent. On public premises, a licensed firearm must be transported unloaded and in a stable, fully enclosing, locked container. A weapons ownership license does not entitle the owner to shoot the weapon or carry it on public premises without the prescribed container. Firearms ownership licenses are valid three years or less, and owners must obtain mandatory insurance and a means to securely store the weapon on their premises (a weapons locker). Blanket ownership licenses are sometimes issued to arms dealers.
A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:
age of consent (18 years for rimfire calibers/21 years for higher calibers) (§ 4 WaffG)
trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
necessity (§ 8 WaffG) (Necessity is automatically assumed present for licensed hunters and owners of a carry permits (Waffenschein))."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

All guns are "licensed" (i.e., "registered," big bug-a-bear of the U.S.'s NRA and other "enthusiasts"); there has to be a separate ownership license for each firearm; said firearms must be transported unloaded in locked containers; and gun safes for them at home are mandatory. Gun owners are also required to purchase insurance in case their deadly toy kills or injures someone during the course of their ownership of it. "Machine gun" ownership is not permitted, in the sense that you are implying, i.e., a fully-automatic military style assault weapon.

All of that is light years ahead of where we are on gun control laws in the U.S.

You really should fact-check before you post replies, yah know it? :shrug:



Edit: HTML for my smiley!!!

[Ken_Fish]

398. So should machetes be microstamped and registered now?

you completely gloss over the point. Machetes were available for people to use long before they were incited to use them as weapons in a genocide. Chopping wood and such seems like a reasonable use for such an item in a 3rd world country.

Many things can be used to cause death. For example, a person can consume alcohol legally and drive a vehicle. The same person can abuse alcohol and murder a person.

The victim is just as dead as a victim of a machete or gun. The victim still pays the price.

Years behind is more on par. Germany is a product of US post war law, when they invade the US they can then run our country for 50 years. However there is civilian ownership and the murder rate is on par with countries with ZERO gun ownership.

Germans have no constitutional protection of firearm ownership, we do.

This is decided law, like Roe and Brown, fighting it puts us on the wrong side of history, loses voters, and is pointless. See DOJ stats showing no impact of gun laws in DC or before during and after the awb law. You know the one that made newt gengrich a household name.

Here are the facts. PLENTY more where this is. One more interesting fact it Brady and HCA are bankrupt, no one supports them any more.

* As of 2006, approximately 35% of American households have a gun in them. About 22% of Americans actually own a gun.<133>


* Evanston, Illinois, a Chicago suburb of 75,000 residents, became the largest town to ban handgun ownership in September 1982 but experienced no decline in violent crime. It has subsequently ended its ban as a result of the District of Columbia v. Heller Supreme Court case, upon a federal lawsuit by the National Rifle Association being filed the day after Heller was entered.

* Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.<134>
* Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.—and each has or, in the cases of Detroit (until 2001) and D.C. (2008) had, a requirement for a licence on private handguns or an effective outright ban (in the case of Chicago).<135>

* In England, Wales and Scotland, the private ownership of most handguns was banned in 1997 following a gun massacre at a school in Dunblane and an earlier gun massacre in Hungerford in which the combined deaths was 35 and injured 30. Gun ownership and gun crime was already at a low level, which made these slaughters particularly concerning. Only an estimated 57,000 people —0.1% of the population owned such weapons prior to the ban.<136> In the UK, only 8 per cent of all criminal homicides are committed with a firearm of any kind.<137> In 2005/6 the number of such deaths in England and Wales (population 53.3 million) was just 50, a reduction of 36 per cent on the year before and lower than at any time since 1998/9. The lowest rate of gun crime was in 2004/4 whilst the highest was in 1994. There was, however, a noticeable temporary increase in gun crime in the years immediately after the ban, though this has since fallen back. The reason for the increase has not been investigated thoroughly but it is thought that 3 factors may have raised the number of guns in circulation. These are, the reduction in gun crime in Northern Ireland (which led to guns coming from there to the criminal black market in England); guns (official issue or confiscated) acquired by military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan; and guns coming from Eastern Europe after the fall of the iron curtain. Firearm injuries in England and Wales also noticeably increased in this time.<138> In 2005-06, of 5,001 such injuries, 3,474 (69%) were defined as "slight," and a further 965 (19%) involved the "firearm" being used as a blunt instrument. Twenty-four percent of injuries were caused with air guns, and 32% with "imitation firearms" (including airsoft guns).<139>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#United_States

[apocalypsehow]

400. Just as you became quickly uninterested in discussing the "Swiss model" when the facts were pointed

out to you, now you no longer wish to discuss German gun safety laws now that the facts about that nation's laws have been detailed here.

Instead, you are attempting to change the subject.

I don't host that here - deal with the actual issue under discussion, and then we'll talk. Thanks.

[Ken_Fish]

414. So you want the swiss model here?

so every member of the national guard can take his FULLY AUTOMATIC M4 home? Not a replica that looks scary, a select fire machine gun...Is that the point?

How about a compromise? We use tax payer money to fund ammunition production. People have access to machine guns that dont cost $20,000. (you can buy them here too)

The government sponsors the "Gun Culture". I can go type reports for 2 years in the Swiss NG then keep a SIG machine gun in my kitchen closet?

We cool?

Bet not. Wanna talk more, whats there murder rate (teeny tiny .5 v .8) suicide rate on par with japan (teeny tiny)

What are the chances you get robbed in down town zurich? Down town DC, South Chicago? Hmm..

There is a root cause problem here for us to solve. But since the people impacted the most here are suicides and minorities in the city it is not at the top of the list.

Recreational shooting

Recreational shooting is widespread in Switzerland. Practice with guns is a popular recreation, and is encouraged by the government, particularly for the members of the militia.<11> Swiss firearms-related rights are supported by the organization ProTell.

200,000 people attend the annual Feldschiessen weekend, which is the largest rifle shooting competition in the world.<4><12> Hunting rifles have special exemptions under Swiss law. Purchases from dealers of hunting long guns and of small bore rifles are not even recorded by the dealer. In other words, the dealer would not record the sale of a .30-06 hunting rifle, but would record the sale of a .30-06 M1 Garand rifle.<4> According to chapter 2 article 10 of Swiss law, people over the age of 18 do not need a permit to purchase a rifle for use in hunting, off-duty shooting and sport-shooting events.<10>

In addition, there are several private shooting ranges that rent guns. It is possible to go shooting with minimal supervision and without an id-check. ((OH NO think of the CHINDREN!!!)

[apocalypsehow]

420. I'd take it in a heartbeat. That would mean, among other things: gun registration; mandatory gun

safes; no loaded carry, either open or concealed, unless in the performance of military duties; speaking of which, every "enthusiast" would have to enrolled in the National Guard, and actually accountable to Officers & NCO's for their behavior with their little fetish toy; it would mean a limit of fifty rounds of ammunition in every household at any one time.

The question then becomes: do you any of your fellow "enthusiasts" want the Swiss model?

The answer is: no, they do not. The NRA and all its fellow travelers would go bonkers with hysterical rage if the restrictions imposed on Swiss gun owners were imposed here. But I'd sure be willing to give it a try: now, you go persuade them to get on board, and we'll be making some (limited) progress.

[Ken_Fish]

423. Just curious. What you will actually get is 50 state

CCW, normalization of laws across states, increased ownership of firearms in places like DC and Chicago (by people other than the bribe payers) and the dropping of any gun control measure that looks like the ones disassembled by the scotus.

You know the ones with 20 years of DOJ stats showing they did nothing.

No one would go bonkers they would just vote out by a 70% margin the party trying to enact that law. So that makes it not viable in this country.

Its like Roe and Brown, no matter how you feel about them, you just have to live with it.

[apocalypsehow]

425. No, what we will get is gun laws like Switzerland - with all those restrictions and regulations

RKBA "enthusiasts" absolutely hate, and froth and rage against on the internet.

Now, your question above about the Swiss model has been asked & answered.

Persuade your fellow "enthusiasts" to go along with it, and we'll be making progress.

I won't be holding my breath....

[Ken_Fish]

429. Nope, will just work on changing the platform by primary vote

same way progress has always been made.

[apocalypsehow]

432. Hey, you were the one all enthusiastic up-thread about the "Swiss model." It'd be nice if you made

up your mind....:eyes:

[Ken_Fish]

451. Just the machinegun part. Don't worry the hughes amendment

could get repealed, since there are 175,000 or so and none have ever been used in a crime, seems logical.. My opinion is quite clear. Gun control like Jim Crow is a defunct part of the platform and will fall by the wayside are real progress is made.

Leaving the problems to solve with truthful actions, not cosmetic stuff that only people like me follow.

Violence is the key seems they have a kitchen knife issue in the UK now. Wonder why that is.

[defendandprotect]

351. And are you speaking for Rwandans now?

A country in absolute turmoil and you're suggesting that machetes and guns didn't

add to the violence?

[Ken_Fish]

382. They were in turmoil and poverty BEFORE violence was INCITED

the machete was not introduced there the week prior. I am using an example, that is a common activity on internet message boards to make points.

The logic here is that MOTIVE is more important than some supply side manipulation that is not only useless but will lead to mike huckabee or palin being sworn in.

[defendandprotect]

462. Machete is a farming tool --

And what role did US and other European countries play in that "turmoil" and poverty?

FEAR of doing something different than voting for the "lesser evil" only leaves you

with more evil.

Let's work on drafting Bernie Sanders -- he can run on a Dem ticket --

Someone like Tom Hayden -- anti-war -- for VP --

Biden has been pushing Israel to attack Iran now for a year or more!!

:blush:

[RSillsbee]

387. A gun can be put to violent use certainly

but so can a baseball bat. Neither one, however, can do anything unless you put a human being in the mix

[apocalypsehow]

336. Yes, poor, poor gun..I've often wondered: when any given firearm is used to kill, maim, or terrorize

a human being, and that gun is then cruelly & unfairly blamed for being an instrument of mayhem & destruction, are there teams of RKBA "enthusiasts" standing by to counsel and comfort the victimized firearm? Do squads of "Second amendment supporters" descend on the home of the unfairly maligned gun, and talk soothingly to it? Reassure it of its inherent worth as a....uh, valued part of this society's social fabric? As a truly worthy exemplar-extraordinary of all that's best about American culture? :shrug:






(:sarcasm: , of course - though I honestly wouldn't be all that surprised if an "enthusiast" said to me, "well, now that you mention it.....")




Edit: typo.

[rhett o rick]

197. My father in law shot a hole in their furnace with a gun that "wasnt loaded". nm

[defendandprotect]

352. News report the other day that a man and woman were arguing ....

and she took down one of his "antique" weapons from the wall and pointed it at him --

He said -- "I dare you! Bring it on!" --

She fired and the gun was loaded!!

[vietnam_war_vet]

200. Another recent example of gun-related idiotic behavior

Yesterday while standing in a long checkout line at Walgreen's, a 30-ish couple were just ahead of me in line. The husband had a revolver plainly displayed on his hip. An elderly woman who was walking by the checkout line spotted the gun and stopped next to the couple. She asked the husband as to why he felt it necessary to wear a gun into Walgreen's. He told her it was his constitutional, "God-given" right that is also allowed by state law. The senior citizen then asked as to why only he had a gun and not his wife. He replied that she didn't need a gun because he always had one and could protect her if needed. I just cringed and shook my head.

There was a large gun show in town this weekend, attracting such folks.

[chill_wind]

201. Too frightening. Reading an account like this feels ice water in the pit of my stomach

K & R

[Brigid]

202. "Fucking Idiot Asshole?"

Why are you being so polite in describing this -- this person who nearly killed your son? I guess any words are inadequate. Thank God no one was hurt.

[mntleo2]

203. I Am So Glad He Is All Right! n/t

[mistertrickster]

204. One of the first rules I was taught as a kid, "never load a gun in the house."

The gun can't go off if it's not loaded.

This guy should be tracked down and his weapons confiscated. With the right to own a gun, comes the responsibility of using it.

[DFW]

205. With guns, as with religious symbols

I have nothing against them per se.

However, people who worship them are really REALLY scary.

I wonder what would be the argument of those who say the more armed people there are, the less gun violence there will be.
What would be their response to you, I wonder? Go buy a rifle and shoot back in the general direction of where the shot
came from until the shooter is found, apologizes, and pays to repair the hole in your wall?

[TreasonousBastard]

208. Was out hunting years ago and one of the guys almost blew my head off...

when he swung around to shoot some damn bird.

He missed the bird, too, but I bet the bird didn't feel the wind from the shot a few inches from it's skull like I did. Or the ringing in the ears. And we've had some problems with random shots at the LIRR trains, the schoolhouse and the occasional gang driveby. Curiously, never once, to anyone's knowledge, has a crime been deterred around here by someone with a gun.

Glad your kid's OK. For what it's worth, pretty much all other industrialized countries on the planet forbid people walking around with guns, yet for some reason crime is lower and the people are happier.

Maybe we'll get there some day.

[earcandle]

209. great attitude! this is what is missing and is sorely needed.

[Enthusiast]

213. Yes, the guy was an idiot.

However, I suggest we Democrats don't throw the baby out with the bath water by proposing anti-gun legislation. Rural voters stand up for gun rights issues like nothing else. They do this even when voting this way is against their best interests on every other issue. By taking on the mantle of the anti-gun party we hand Republicans a huge advantage with rural voters.

[Corruption Winz]

214. Obviously, I'm happy your children are OKay..

However, if the guy didn't intend on firing the gun, then it was a freak accident. Still, I get your point and understand your concern, obviously.

[Fly by night]

217. Why on earth is this OP accompanied by an ad for a "sniper scope"?

Why on earth is DU accepting and posting ads for high-powered rifle sniper scopes anyway? Other than ads for Republican candidates, I cannot imagine a less appropriate ad to find on DU.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

244. Ads are generated by content of the webpage.

Talk about batteries, get energizer ads.
Talk about relationships, get dating site ads.
Donate to DU... don't worry about ads altogether. :cool:

Nothing wrong with hunting/sniper scopes. They aid in general accuracy. Sounds to me like the asshat referenced in the OP could've used some aid in where his rifle was pointing before he fired it.

[djean111]

218. When I lived in North Carolina

I lived north of Durham, had a small house in a heavily wooded area. Hunting season was a horror - people sitting outside their homes could get shot with a high-powered rifle, and the shooter wouldn't even know what happened. And it looked to me like anyone could shoot anyone else in the woods and have it declared an accident. Posting your land with Keep out signs - ha! Signs used as target practice. Plus a high-powered rifle takes no heed of signs.
So I moved out of the state, it was frightening.
Now I live in beautiful sunny Florida......insert frying pan, fire joke here.

[Ken_Fish]

295. I live in Durham. Hunters are the LEAST of my problems.

Not sure when you lived here but things have changes. Durham has a very high rate of drug related violent crime. Which is a shame considering its history in AA culture and general nice disposition of the place.

[Warren Stupidity]

220. The gun worship cult is the most bizarre development in our 40 year culture war.

There have always been gun enthusiasts, but it used to be a minor cultural sideshow. It has become a major theme in rightwing culture.

[aikoaiko]

234. It was fueled by the anti-gun worship crowd's poor law making

Starting with some of the provisions of the 1968 gun control act, and sadly, our party was the prime mover for these laws.

[Warren Stupidity]

293. No it wasn't.

it is part of the fascist cultural revolution that is being funded and propagated by rightwing plutocrats.

[hack89]

483. The AWB was the greatest gift to the NRA that one could imagine

it inflicted a near mortal wound to the gun control movement, spurred the growth of state gun rights movements, and poured millions into the NRA's coffers. If someone would tell me that the NRA actually wrote the AWB, it wouldn't surprise me.

[hack89]

485. All those right wing plutocrats in blue states?

why is it so hard for gun grabbers to accept that many democrats and independents support gun rights?

[lsewpershad]

221. In our so called democracy

If we really believe this process works , the only way to resolve this problem would be to vote in the people who will do the job. Get rid of the sick wingnuts.

[Granny M]

224. How awful.

So glad the bullet missed him, but I'm sure he is pretty traumatized by it. I know I would be. I agree with you on the guns. If people are too stupid to keep their guns from going off 'at random' then the guns have to be taken away. My right to drive a car would be taken away if I was unable to keep it from running into people and things 'at random'. My elderly Daddy used to say the car 'misbehaved' - sad, but we had to take the keys away before something truly horrible happened.

[DinahMoeHum]

241. AFAIC, you want to have a firearm, fine. BUT. . .

you damn well better know how to use it, and that means knowing when to use it and when not to use it.

And, G*d help that fucker, starroute, if I were in your shoes. Because, G*d forbid, if that kind of shit happened to me or my family and if any of them got hurt or killed, I, or my estate, would see that fucker's ass in court for EVERYTHING he has.
On what charges? Well, for starters, unlawful discharge of a firearm, personal injury, reckless endangerment of the public, etc.

DUers with firearms, you know the saying: With great power comes great responsibility.

:evilfrown:

[Statistical]

251. Just a clarifiction. You can't sue someone for a crime.

Crimes and lawsuits are separate concepts.

You can sue another individual or entity if you suffer a harm as a result of their actions.
For for example you can sue them for emotional distress, suffering bodily harm, lost future wages, etc.


"On what charges? Well, for starters, unlawful discharge of a firearm, personal injury, reckless endangerment of the public, etc."
Charges are brought by the state. Those charges may be brought in this case as well however they are criminal charges and you have no standing to sue over "unlawful discharge of a firearm" for example. You could sue for emotional distress that said discharge caused.

[DinahMoeHum]

273. Whatever. Thanks for clarifying, though.

But one way or another, I'd bankrupt the fucker of anything and everything he's got, including putting him out of business (if he owns one).

Hell, if the Westboro Baptist "Church" people can do this, so can we good guys.

[Erose999]

246. These cocknuckles who insist on taking their rifles out in public don't know shit about gun safety..

loot at the pictures of the "Oathkeepers" and other RW militias when they appear in public to play soldier with their guns... holding them with their fingers on the trigger guard, magazines inserted (probably loaded too). And the sad part is that thanks to teabagger assholes like Rand Paul these extremists are coming out of their fortified compounds and into mainstream politics.

http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2010/03/rand-paul-throws-play-soldier-dress-up.html

[xchrom]

252. recommend

[slackmaster]

254. Modern firearms in good condition don't go off "at random"

Someone either massively fucked up, or intentionally fired the weapon in an unlawful and reckless manner.

The one thing I do know is that this whole goddamn cult of the worship of the sacred right of gun ownership has gone too fucking far when it starts to threaten *my* kids -- and I am prepared to do anything I can to stop it in its tracks.

Teaching basic gun safety to all children in public school would be a good way to reduce accidental shootings. As for criminal misuse of firearms, the best solution is to keep known violent offenders incarcerated and aggressively enforce the laws we already have to prohibit them from having weapons.

[liberalmuse]

258. OMG, I'm so glad your son is okay.

How frightening, not only for your kids, but for you parents. I'd probably go to that house and raise hell, but I'm not the most civil person when it comes to my daughter or nephew being needlessly put in harm's way. This is exactly why I think that we as a society should not be allowing the average Joe to go out and buy a gun unless he/she is certified in gun safety. I don't know how much good that would do, but there are just too many people who are careless with these deadly weapons.

When my sister and I were teens, the cop who lived above us accidently discharged his pistol through the floor above our bedroom and came running down to make sure no one was hit. Luckily the bullet lodged in the heating vent.

Again, I'm so glad everyone is alright. :hug:

[SammyWinstonJack]

263. K&R

[jmodden]

271. I was accused of being a freeper

see this thread-
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=380586&mesg_id=380954

Some DUers do not want reasonable gun control.

[aikoaiko]

292. Well, they were extreme proposals.

[jmodden]

304. for the 18th century, perhaps

but perfectly reasonable and necessary in contemporary society

[slackmaster]

348. Laballing your view as "reasonable" does nothing to further a meaningful discussion

You're poisoning the well by implying that anyone who disagrees with you is not taking a reasonable position.

[jmodden]

395. tell that to starroute

I am quite certain starroute finds my position reasonable and necessary.

[slackmaster]

399. It seems you aren't willing to engage in a rational discussion of the issue

It appears that you are looking for a fight. I hope you find one.

starroute hasn't actually articulated any particular opinion on public policy BTW.

[jmodden]

493. OK, you want a simple "rational discussion"?

Quite Easily Done-

Guns => unnecessary violent death/injury by gunfire

No Guns => No unnecessary violent death/injury by gunfire

QED

[Freddie Stubbs]

272. Perhaps they should move to Washington, DC. They have strict gun control there

[RoccoR5955]

277. Baseball bats are as good as guns in some situations.

Words are even better sometimes too.
I am right there with you against these gun-toting morons.

[lynne]

289. So glad that all is well and I do understand as a similar situation occurred to my child -

- he was in a park when someone living near the park decided to do some target practice, not realizing how far the bullets traveled. My son ended up hiding behind a tree and calling the cops who had to go to the guys house to get him to stop. Very frightening.

That being said - if the situation was that a car went out of control and plowed into the house near the couch where your son was sitting - would you feel that we need to restrict all cars and car ownership or that we need to pay more attention to teaching proper driving and auto safety?

[SargassoSea]

291. Guns have to go! n/t

[GSLevel9]

301. Some fucking idiot asshole nearly wiped out my family

by speeding through a red light as my light turned green. Passed the front of my car by about 10 feet. Would have been a 60mph T-Bone. Ban CARS!!!!!!!

[marions ghost]

303. when parents finally care and do something

this is the only thing that will save us from this gun insanity.

[defendandprotect]

318. Congress should care -- too many have been targeted by GOPs/NRA --

or bought out by them!

[ZombieHorde]

309. Scary. I would feel angry too. nt

[patrice]

333. There is NO Freedom in ABSOLUTES. Some gun-owners NEED to answer: How much is enough?

[Ken_Fish]

339. 20,000 laws is about right... None of which address suicide and drug violence

the real causes behind the vast majority of gun deaths. think of it like alcohol. you dont have to drink but you will probably be around others who do. You dont have to allow others to drink in your home but you do have to see it in some places, other places not.

You can be killed by a person abusing alcohol. Your odds of this happening are FAR greater than those of being shot.

I legally consume alcohol under the regulations set up by the state. I legally own firearms.

People who break the law and kill other people by DWI are guilty of a criminal act. IMHO murder 2 in many cases.

Prohibition is gone, suggesting it as a response to the ~40k deaths a year from DWI is not reasonable. Same for legal firearm owners.

There is a problem, there is a solution. That solution is not law(s) that only people like me "opt in" to.

[defendandprotect]

354. Like violence in general, the Drug War and NRA are serving the right wing design --

everyone has the right to suicide --

blowing your head off is a little harder to recover from than an overdose

of sleeping tablets!

[Ken_Fish]

362. I love root cause. I am OCD about it. Suicide from clinical depression

is NOT the same as a person who chooses to end their life because they are dying from NH Lymphoma.

The person with a mood disorder should be TREATED BEFORE they kill themselves or OTHERS. As for overdose I would assume it depends on the drug. There are quite a few that are lethal in seconds when injected. Obviously this is not appropriate to post but it is true.

The drug war is prohibition. It has failed, addressing that is key to fixing root cause. Its continued failure is evidence by the racial composition of our prison system and the victims (all races) of this failed policy.

The rest is a distraction from the road to correcting this mess..

[defendandprotect]

394. Any one world dictator ever been declared "clinically depressed" or "psychotic" .. ?

though maybe Nixon would qualify -- ? Though his psychiatrist remained mum on the subject.

LBJ did -- Pierre Salinger and Bill Moyers agreed that LBJ was "clinically psychotic -- !!

How about W -- ?

And you think that clinical depression would be less painful that dying from NH Lymphoma?

I would imagine that most situations where someone finally tries to kill themselves are pretty

much like someone's need to jump out of a burning building. But, of course, I don't really know.

Neither does anyone else, most times.




The drug war is prohibition. It has failed, addressing that is key to fixing root cause.
Its continued failure is evidence by the racial composition of our prison system and
the victims (all races) of this failed policy.

Of course, no one wants the Drug War -- it was designed -- again by the right wing to create

wealth for the few, put power in the hands of the few -- control their societies -- and other

nations.

And to put people of color back into subjugated positions -- especially with penalty

of having their right to vote taken from them.

The majority of those in our prisons are people of color -- NOT WHITES --

And the composition of our prison industry system is not by accident it is by design.

As Ehrlichman clearly told us re Nixon's MO and the Drug War.

[Ken_Fish]

404. I think clinical depression can be treated. I work with brilliant people

who take medicine that treats Depression and other mood disorders. Being in a manic or depressive state and killing yourself because you got dumped off a 72 our hold or in a prison is not an acceptable solution to a problem.

I am not a medical professional but personally would prefer to manage a mood disorder vs killing myself. NH Lymphoma is a very different matter.

The drug war is a giant waste of money, it hurts society, it fills prisons with people who are acting in an economically sound manner, and it provides motive for crime by creating a massive underground economy.

My point is we need to step up and talk about the real problems. Supply side methods fail in drugs, alcohol, and would fail in the event of additional gun laws.

[defendandprotect]

470. Well, so can psychosis ...so can many physical ailments --

however, it is still in the hands of the individual whether they choose to live,

or not --

Again, it is up to the individual to decide what they will live with. Not us.

Manic disorders are often treatable -- however many take a very long time to solve.

Some people suffer many side effects from drugs -- most of them I'd say -- a few not.

You are suggesting that Lymphoma is "different" re pain -- that's not necessarily so.

You can't dismiss emotional pain and depression as something less.


The Drug war is merely a scam on the nation -- its corrupt and criminal and serves only

right wing elites/corporations who wish to corrupt government and public officials.

And to intervene in the affairs of other nations.


Guns are a right wing cause. Supported by the right wing -- and right wing courts.

Gun regulation is a liberal position.

So is overturning the Drug War a liberal position.

[apocalypsehow]

343. No, what's needed is gun laws more in line with Europe and Canada's, and RKBA "enthusiasts" can go

pound sand. There simply is no compromising with the gun lobby - they should be shunned, shamed, and told to go away, their presence in the national political dialogue is no longer appreciated or wanted in a civilized society.

[Ken_Fish]

346. like the Swiss with machineguns at home? The numbers are not there for this or prohibition

this battle in the culture wars ended with 2 supreme court cases and dozens of states upholding individual ownership. That is not going to be overturned, its part of reality. Like roe or brown the people who do not accept it have choices to make.

There is a real problem that needs work which is suicide and drug violence. Want to stop a large segment of people from voting against their interests, drop all gun control in any additional form and look towards the issues at hand.

[apocalypsehow]

349. Yes, just like the Swiss - where that "machine gun" is registered, the owner tested, it has to be

under lock and key at all times, and the "owner" is restricted to exactly fifty rounds in his personal possession, and, further, is a member of an actual functioning military unit. So, sure - bring on Switzerland's laws, for starters. We can go from there.

"That is not going to be overturned, its part of reality"

No, it's not - as this country increasingly goes "Blue," gun culture is going to fade. Supreme Court decisions can be revisited and overturned - case in point, Plessy v. Ferguson. And the current asinine 5-4 Heller decision will be overturned some day, and the 2nd amendment interpreted in the proper context in which it was ratified: as guarantee for a collective right to bear arms, not a license for every "enthusiast" with a hankering to play with deadly weapons.

"drop all gun control in any additional form"

No, thanks. The vast majority of us will continue to work to bring this country's gun laws in line with the rest of the civilized world, and, as I stated above, since it's going to be an increasingly "Blue" nation it will get easier to do so by the decade. One of these days, when our gun laws are on a par with Europe and Canada's, citizens will look back with wonder that it took us so long to abolish this plague of easily-available firearms, just as we look back with wonder that it took us so long to abolish Jim Crow laws and other such uncivilized practices today.

[Ken_Fish]

358. Gun Control and Jim Crow are friends, why do you think "may issue"

came around? Gun control in California was a reaction to scary black people (black panthers). Don Imus has a carry permit in NYC, how about those "nappy headed hoes" he remarked about. Think they could get a permit?

No he is ISSUED 50 rounds, they belong to the state. Since almost EVERY MALE is at one in the service lots of people have access to these weapons. Not orwell fake named assault weapons, assalult RIFLES (select fire machine guns) He can take the weapon to a range and purchase ammo as he sees fit. he can go grocery shopping on his way home. You can see pictures of that on the internet and read the laws yourself.

You probably dont want every member of the national guard keeping him M4 at the house.

Pretty sure there TWO cases. Not one, TWO they will be overturned RIGHT AFTER ROE and Brown. You want to fight to RESTRICT a right go ahead, pretty sure the real power (the people who poll constituents) have figured out reality.

Want to increase blue stop the city mouse routine with gun control and move on. There is no 'vast majority' in favor of gun control. Brady is bankrupt and selling its member list to get by.

That ship has sailed, the problems that were hidden by pointless cosmetic gun laws still exist.

[apocalypsehow]

364. Notice you're no longer interested in discussing moving the U.S. to the "Swiss" model..I wonder why?

:shrug:

As for the rest, this old canard about "Gun Control and Jim Crow are friends" is simply factually incorrect. It has been debunked time and time and time and time and time again down in the Gungeon, and I invite any and all interested to simply head down that way and use the search function.

"That ship has sailed, the problems that were hidden by pointless cosmetic gun laws still exist"

That "ship" is "sailing" right onto the rocks of a Blue Future in America, where our nation's gun laws will, eventually, be brought in line with Europe and Canada's. That is the reality - gun culture is already fading, and it will continue to go by the wayside as time goes by. And the ridiculous ease with which "enthusiasts" can get their hands on deadly weapons will go with it, as the laws are progressively changed to reflect the values of a civilized society. Which is to say, a handgun-free society, coupled with registration and storage laws for rifles and shotguns along the lines of Australia, Canada, and Great Britain.

It's coming - as sure as the sun rises. You had better reconcile yourself with it, because that is the future of gun politics in the United States. Period.



Edit: typo & phrasing.

[Ken_Fish]

366. Reasonable people disagree. Reality is

what will happen next. There will be NO sweeping legislation proposed by the White House. There will be no ban on magazines or whatever feature a teeny minority sees as a problem. i think continued gun control dooms us to political failure, might as well try to bring back jim crow. Bill Clinton seems to think the same thing. Having been elected potus his opinion carries more weight than mine. "my life" covers the topic and classifies the AWB as a huge mistake.

The model in switzerland and germany as well as canada all prove MY point. Those countries addresses mental illness, they address archaic drug laws that create a massive incentive for people to use violence. In places like australia where restrictions were put in place the rates of crime and suicide STAYED the same.. These are studies backed with numbers, not oped.

Blue and Gun Restrictions are no more bound together than the party chose them to be. Democrats here do not support gun control. The platform evolves, it is no longer "dixiecrat" the tolerance for people who supported racist views is long gone.

Gun control will follow that part of the platform into history. This position of restriction on rights is going the way of jim crow. It is failed and defunct, so the party will drop it.

So since we will not agree on this topic I will point out that Brady and its counterparts are bankrupt and failed. Time to move on and fix the real problems.

[apocalypsehow]

369. A Blue America is coming - and with it tighter and more sane gun laws, including, but not limited to

1. Registration of all firearms.

2. Mandatory storage laws along the lines of Australia & Canada.

3. Handgun curbs nationwide, followed by "grandfathered" bans on the civilian ownership of same.

4. Ammunition purchase restrictions.

"The model in switzerland and germany as well as canada all prove MY point"

They "prove" that civilized societies put heavy restrictions on firearms, and suffer much less general bloodshed and mayhem than we do in the United States. But, as I said above, as the nation continues to turn "Blue," what Australia, Canada, and Great Britain have in the form of gun control laws is coming here. You might as well reconcile yourself to that, because it's coming soon to a law book near you.

[Name removed]

374. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken_Fish]

376. Sorry that is not Blue anymore. There are lots of old people who remember Jim Crow

and it being blue in the south. Its gone, not coming back, ever. It was a mistake, wrong, and negatively impacted people. Gun control (in general not all laws relating to firearms) is the same thing.

Its a meme whose day has past.

Hey should I register my kitchen knives too, seems those are a major issue in the UK. Microprint my henkels?

[apocalypsehow]

383. Sorry, further gun safety laws are as Blue as Blue can be, and those new laws are coming soon to a

statue book near you. Gun culture is fading away, and as the nation turns Bluer and Bluer, there will be less & less tolerance for a deadly hobby of some citizens that leaves tens of thousands of innocent people dead and/or maimed each year.

You can continue to pursue the "last word" here all you wish, but that is the reality of the situation, and it is coming to every corner of this great land over the next few decades. Period.

[Ken_Fish]

391. Milions and Millions of people (35 percent of homes)

own guns legally. So I maintain that this number will grow, that the right to own and carry firearms will be standardized across states, and that the political disaster of trying to restrict people who LEGALLY own firearms will be carried out right after jim crow makes its way back.

Hey there is still the war on drugs and prohibition of alcohol. Lots of DWI deaths could be prevented with a booze ban.

I bet that would be a smashing success. Oh yeah and the real problem impacting mental health care and drug related violence, that is still an issue that you cant solve with laws that do not impact the root cause.

[apocalypsehow]

402. A Blue America is coming - and with it tighter and more sane gun laws. Get used to it. n/t.

[Ken_Fish]

416. Half right. No Jim Crow, no Gun Control. Sun has set on those

the real problem is still there for people to solve. Mental Health and Drug laws are a great place to start.

Bluer means getting more people to vote D. You dont do that by pissing on them for following a law and right upheld by the scotus.

[apocalypsehow]

422. Totally right: a Blue America with Gun Safety laws in line with Europe & Canada. Get ready for it,

because it's coming. :thumbsup:

[Ken_Fish]

426. Allrighty then.. (nt)

[apocalypsehow]

430. ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4_BUp_vuUs

[Ken_Fish]

433. ..

[apocalypsehow]

437. A Blue America is coming - and with it tighter and more sane gun laws. Get used to it. n/t.

[Upton]

378. Keep dreaming..

Americans oppose the kind of draconian gun control laws you're suggesting. Approximately 1 in 4 Democrats own firearms, and as one myself, I have no intention of supporting any of the anti gun authoritarian restrictions you are espousing.

[apocalypsehow]

384. You're not going to have any choice: those laws are coming, sooner or later, and when they do you

will have two options:

1. Comply with those laws, and thus maintain your status as a "law-abiding former handgun owner."

2. Disobey the law.

When the 1964 Civil Rights law outlawed "whites only" lunch counters, a lot of business owners across the South had a similar decision to make. The vast majority of them did the right thing, and took down those signs. Someday in the near future - it might be twenty to thirty years, but it's coming - "law-abiding gun owners" will have a similar decision to make when we finally pass reasonable gun safety laws in this country.

[X_Digger]

385. You are the one facing an unpleasant (to you) choice..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145526/Gallup-Review-Public-Opinion-Context-Tucson-Shootings.aspx

[apocalypsehow]

386. Nah. The future is on my - meaning the progressive - side. Want to see the future of gun safety laws

in the United States?

Look at two states, one a trend-setter and another a model of a liberal community: California and Massachusetts.

That is the future, X, and it is going to go nationwide sooner or late - you might as well reconcile yourself to it.

[X_Digger]

393. How about Progressive Vermont? Or Progressive Washington?

Can't find two bluer states than those..

[apocalypsehow]

397. Seriously? You well know those are not good counter-comparisons for the following reasons:

1. Vermont is not anywhere close to accurately reflecting the demographic diversity of the United States. It is 98% white, and has a large rural population.

2. Washington is deeply divided between a coastal Blue area and an inland Red stronghold. It shades only slightly to a majority Blue side, which is why their elections tend to be such nail-biters between Democrats and Republicans.

This brings up another point. You said: "Can't find two bluer states than those."

In the case of Vermont, it is very Blue. But it is also very white and has a large rural component - a fact you misleadingly neglect to mention. In the case of Washington, it is very closely divided, as you must have known before you posted that statement, which means you deliberately posted a claim that is factually incorrect.

This is why I tend to not "debate" gun "enthusiasts": misleading if not often outright false claims such as this used as a tactic in debate. Not that other one-issue posters don't indulge in the same, but nowhere to the extent that I tend to find when I dip my browser into one of these threads about guns.

[X_Digger]

409. Keep trying to sweep the beach..

You've got a long way to go.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145526/Gallup-Review-Public-Opinion-Context-Tucson-Shootings.aspx

[apocalypsehow]

410. And right on cue, an attempt to change the subject. Textbook gun thread. n/t.

[X_Digger]

413. I tend to ignore ad hominems..

I was responding to the general trend of this subthread, ie..

"The future is on my - meaning the progressive - side"..

If the past is any indication of the future.. you're going the wrong way (to you..)

[apocalypsehow]

418. Translation: "I tend to ignore facts that contradict my narrative."

"I was responding to the general trend of this sub-thread"

That's not how it works, X. You posted a claim - a pair of 'em, in fact.

My subsequent reply showed that those claims were not valid.

At that point, the intellectually honest thing to do would have been:

1. Admit your error, apologize for making it, and move on to the next claim you wish to make in support of your position.

...or...

2. Provide counter-factual's and/or a mitigating opinion attempting to persuade your opposite number that your original claim(s) were, indeed, valid.

Instead you....tried to change the subject.

As I said above: textbook.


Edit: bridge.

[X_Digger]

431. I can only go by what I know..

Washington

2010- Blue
2008- Blue
2006- Blue
2004- Blue
2002- Blue
2000- Blue

Vermont (Even the republicans sound like a democrat in the south, sometimes.)
2010- Blue
2008- Blue
2006- Blue
2004- Blue
2002- Blue
2000- Blue

Notice that I didn't claim Vermont was representative of the US in demographics.

[apocalypsehow]

435. Which is really saying "I didn't bother to check the factual basis of my claim," i.e., the claim

that Washington was "as blue as it gets" when it comes to progressive politics, nor the context in which Vermont has loose gun laws.

Well, an admission of partial error is better than nothing - actually a pretty good start. :thumbsup:

[X_Digger]

439. If you're going to attempt to put words in my mouth, at least wash your fingers..

Washington and Vermont are the two most progressive states I know- whether it's drug laws, single payer health care, domestic partnerships / same sex marriages..

Can you honestly say that California is more progressive than Washington, or that Massachusetts is more progressive than Vermont?!?

[apocalypsehow]

441. Asked & answered in reply #397 above. Here's a handy link to help you navigate your way to it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=466805&mesg_id=475776


Give it another good read. Slower, this time. :thumbsup:

[X_Digger]

443. That wasn't a response, it was a dodge..

Are CA & MA more progressive than WA & VT, respectively?

It's a simple question.

[apocalypsehow]

445. A question already answered in the context of gun safety laws. Here's that link again:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=466805&mesg_id=475776

[X_Digger]

448. In any context.. simple question. n/t

[apocalypsehow]

449. In the context under discussion, asked & answered. Here's that link again, since you seem to be

having difficulty navigating your way to the answer you keep insisting you seek:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=466805&mesg_id=475776

[beevul]

424. A blue America may be coming, but those things you cite will NEVER happen.

1. Registration of all firearms.

Never.

2. Mandatory storage laws along the lines of Australia & Canada.

Never.

3. Handgun curbs nationwide, followed by "grandfathered" bans on the civilian ownership of same.

Never.

4. Ammunition purchase restrictions.

Never.

"You might as well reconcile yourself to that, because it's coming soon to a law book near you."

Nope.

[mediator]

444. Sorry, but you're having a rat dream if you believe any of those have a snowball's chance.

Ain't gonna happen. You will never get progressive Democrats to surrender their arms...MUCH LESS the people you hate even more over on the 'other side of the aisle'.

[mediator]

446. When snow cones are given away free in hell.

Yup.

[X_Digger]

380. "The vast majority" ???

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108394/Americans-Agreement-Supreme-Court-Gun-Rights.aspx



http://www.gallup.com/poll/145526/Gallup-Review-Public-Opinion-Context-Tucson-Shootings.aspx




You've got a loooong way to go.

[Codeine]

412. You fail to understand that many of the Bluest of Blue

also own firearms. And increasingly Blue America is no more likely to give up guns than a Red America.

[apocalypsehow]

427. Yeah, San Francisco and New York City is just teeming with pro-gun "enthusiasts" alrighty.....

:eyes:

[Name removed]

428. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

436. Whatever that's supposed to mean. Alerting on your post for casual use of a racial slur. n/t.

[Ken_Fish]

452. That means don Imus who made that comment ON AIR about (google for context)

members of the Rutgers basketball team (black females) can get buy a permit to carry in NYC and I would bet there aren't many blacks (rich or not) sharing that list with him.


So lets recap a man making racial comments on a national radio show can carry a gun in NYC but a person without purchasing power can not. Sound fair?

[Codeine]

457. Luckily Democrats are not limited to a few stereotypical areas.

Yup.

[beevul]

421. Rewrite history much?

"There simply is no compromising with the gun lobby - they should be shunned, shamed, and told to go away, their presence in the national political dialogue is no longer appreciated or wanted in a civilized society."

The gun lobby compromised, and compromied some more and compromised some more.

And the anti-gun lobby came back the following year, every time, trying to get what they didn't the previous year.

Brady bill?

The next year, they pushed brady 2, for example.


Nowdays, though, your right. Theres no compromising.

I support that 100%.

You want a new gun law?

Give up an old one first.

[reggie the dog]

355. why was some asshole shooting across the parking lot?

I learned how to shoot at age 5 (.22 pistol), my grandfather, all my aunts and uncles who shoot, my dad, my brother and myself have never had an unwanted discharge of a bullet and our gun ownership goes back over years. Sounds like some asshole was having fun shooting in a populated area

[Lucian]

363. Get yourself a gun and threaten the person.

Oh, wait...

[duhneece]

370. Amen...and I live 100 mi north of 53 murders in 72 hours

Can you imagine how sad, hopeless, I feel at times knowing we (the U.S.) supply most of the arms, most of the demand for drugs and private prison industry/our 'war on drugs' policy contribute to these murders in Juarez Mexico, just 100 miles south of me? I grew up in El Paso, which averages 15-20 murders per YEAR:


53 slain in 72 hours in Juárez
by Aileen B. Flores \ El Paso Times
Posted: 02/21/2011 12:00:00 AM MST


In one of the deadliest three days that officials can remember, more than 50 people were killed in Juárez. Among the 53 victims between Thursday and Saturday were a Juárez police officer, a municipal patrolman and a state investigator.

According to Chihuahua state officials it was the most violent three-day period seen this year. State police reported that on average eight people are killed in Juárez every day. More than 150 people have been killed in Juárez this month, according to the state police.

Since a war broke out between the Juárez and Sinaloa drug cartels in 2008, more than 7,600 people have been killed in Juárez. Last year, 3,112 people were murdered in Juárez. The violence began to pick up Thursday with 14 slayings, including a municipal police officer and an investigator with the state police.
...http://www.elpasotimes.com/juarez/ci_17440246?source=most_viewed

[Phlem]

377. As a person with PTSD I say

Amen Brother!!!!!!!!

And as a father, I feel ya man.

-p

[valerief]

405. But, but, but if God didn't want us to have guns and shoot them, he wouldn't have

given them to us.

:sarcasm:

Gun people scare the crap out of me.

[Ken_Fish]

454. What is a gun person?(nt)

[BlueDemKev]

407. You want this to end?

I hate to say this, but if you want to live without the fear of gun violence, move to Canada. Common-sense gun laws will never come to be in the U.S. We've tried and tried for decades and every time we've been crushed by the gun lobby and an apathetic public.

Gun control will never come to America.

That said, I'm glad your son is okay. :thumbsup:

[eowyn_of_rohan]

450. My friend's sister was killed by a bullet that came through her wall...

...from a next door apartment. Thank God your son is alright.

[Tejas]

486. I detest drunk drivers.