Now we know why gun control has not been an issue for this election.

[hack89]

The fewest Americans in 20 years favor making it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles. Thirty-six percent now want an assault weapons ban, down from 44% in 2012 and 57% when Gallup first asked the question in 1996.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/196658/support-assault-weapons-ban-record-low.aspx

[tonyt53]

1. I think many Americans have just given up any hope of sensible gun legislation.

I also think the poll is likely skewed.

[hack89]

3. How would you "unskew" the poll?

what did Gallup do wrong in your opinion?

[tonyt53]

4. The questions asked evidently were very confusing, and this is based upon their own words.

"In general, a majority of Americans say they are dissatisfied with the nation's gun laws, furthering the complexity of this issue." Their words to describe the results.

[hack89]

5. The question on whether assault weapons should be illegal is clear and unambiguous.

"Are you for or against a law that would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns known as assault rifles?

What is confusing about that question?

[Duckhunter935]

29. Crickets

[napi21]

40. I suggest changing the words "semi-automatic" to sonething like "Military Style".

Or at least ad Military Style" to the description. There are a lot of semi-automatic weapons that are NOT assault weapons, and the description of what guns would be banned should be VERY CLEAR. That was one of the arguments gun owners had about the ban BC had signed. If we ever hope to get a ban passed, we need to make our intentions very clear.

[hack89]

41. So a ban based purely on cosmetic appearance?

rate of fire, magazine capacity, caliber completely irrelevant as long as the rifle looks "right"?

[napi21]

44. It would be wisw to put those specs in the law, but to try to be explicit enough when telling people

what you want to do would be too verbose and you'd lose their interest. Save the details for promotion speeches and written explanations.

[hack89]

46. Here is the problem in a nut shell

the terms "assault weapon" or "military style weapon" are meaningless, made up phrases with no accepted technical definition. If you expected knowledgeable gun owners to support such a law you need to provide a detailed technical description of what the law will cover.

[beevul]

151. LOL.

There are a lot of semi-automatic weapons that are NOT assault weapons, and the description of what guns would be banned should be VERY CLEAR.

I agree. NONE of them should be banned. That's as clear as one can get.

[aikoaiko]

356. Bolt-action 5-round fixed capacity rifles are "Military Style". Currently in action

I kid you not. The military style rifles is just a scare term and not meaningful for reducing gun deaths.

[Duckhunter935]

362. Yep, my bolt action rifles

Are more military specification than my AR-15

[LanternWaste]

6. I think 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc' is more popular...

"Now we know why gun control has not been an issue for this election..."

I think 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc' is more popular than many brands of industry leading firearm. However, I do understand that every bias and every narrative rests on a strong and righteous foundation of logical fallacies.

[hack89]

7. ok. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

78. "propter", not "prompter"

... though both can cause results.

[yallerdawg]

8. It's still an issue for Democrats!

We still want common sense gun safety reform. We still want "terrorists" who can't board a plane to not be able to legally buy an assault weapon at the nearest gun shop!

In an era of ongoing terrorist attacks and mass shootings in the U.S., Americans are now more likely to oppose an assault weapons ban than they have been in two decades. One reason may be the large increase in opposition to such a ban among Republicans. Whereas 20 years ago half of Republicans were open to such legislation, now only one in four are...

Americans do want gun safety reform!

[hack89]

9. There certainly is widespread support for stronger background checks.

I think the issue is simple - while Dems support stronger gun control, it is not high on the list of priorities. So you don't need to emphasize it to get Dems to vote while being silent on the subject makes it less likely to drive away independents in more conservative swing states.

Another issue is that Dems in Congress seem unable to focus on those gun control issues that have support while ignoring those that don't. The AWB is a perfect example. It will kill any gun control deal in Congress so why keep bringing it up?

I disagree with linking gun rights to the terror watch list until the process is made completely transparent and due process included.

[yallerdawg]

10. You only want 'convicted' terrorists on the 'no fly list.'

That is your "transparent due process."

Unimpeded gun sales are that important - "being necessary to the security of a free State" and all.

[hack89]

11. You want people to lose civil rights using secret government lists

The solution is simple. A US citizen, once put on the list should be notified and told why he is on it. She should then have the right to appeal the decision in front of a judge.

Why does that bother you so much? Do you trust the CIA, FBI and NSA so much that you are absolutely certain they would not abuse their powers?

[yallerdawg]

12. I don't believe my government is inherently abusive and corrupt.

I'll leave that for the 'other' political party, thank you very much.

Along with opposition to common sense gun safety reform.

[hack89]

13. Due process is a constitutional right. It is never optional.

what other parts of the constitution would you sacrifice in the name of gun control? Do you support Stop and Frisk? Should the cops be able to search homes for illegal guns without a warrant?

[yallerdawg]

19. If we ban an individual from getting on a plane...

and then ban them from legally purchasing a gun, how is that not 'due process' - following our laws and procedures?

Protecting ourselves from individuals who are considered dangerous does not deprive then of their constitutional right of 'life, liberty, property.'

If they are suspected terrorists, and only find out when boarding a plane or trying to buy a gun, when do the needs of the many outweigh an inconvenience which if wrong can be legally corrected?

The vast majority of those on the 'watch lists' aren't even US citizens - yet they can legally purchase a gun.

Why do you want to sacrifice us to sell more guns?

[hack89]

21. One is a constitutional right. One is not.

our laws and procedures say that removing someone's constitutional rights should be hard and mandates stricter standards on the government. Google "strict judicial review" if you have any questions. The simple answer is that in the eyes of the law they are nowhere near the same.

Non-US citizens cannot legally buy guns in America unless they have a green card.

[yallerdawg]

27. If our government does a background check...

and sees this person is on a terrorist watch list, and this person wants to buy what we would call an assault weapon and many rounds of ammunition - no problem, 'due process' requires a conviction to infringe his or her right to buy a gun?

The only thing our government can do to keep me safe is allow me to buy my own gun, and get ready?

This argument works very well for gun manufacturers and sales!

[hack89]

31. No - due process says you can confront your accuser and have an impartial hearing

to plead your case. You can still be found guilty - but your side of the story was told.

Due process is what stops the government from simply arresting you and putting you in jail with no charges, no trial, no means of appeal.

I am shocked you don't support it.

[yallerdawg]

42. Regarding gun purchasing, you are citing the Republican strategy.

Due process applies to criminal and civil charges.

When the government determines an individual is exhibiting behaviors associated with terrorism - but has yet to commit a crime - they should retain the right to buy guns - at least until they commit a crime.

I guess the Orlando shooter received 'due process.'

[hack89]

43. Got it. Unlimited government power to restrict civil rights because terra terra terra

you must have loved the Patriot Act ... of course you did. Where do you think the terror lists came from in the first place?

[yallerdawg]

50. According to you...

terrorist watch lists must be gathered from the same place massive voter fraud violations come from!

A couple examples of exceptions do not make the rule.

I wish our schools and social gathering places were as safe from terrorism as planes are now!

But, hey, you say - get used to it, there's nothing we can do or try. Gunz, gunz, gunz!

[hack89]

51. Do you understand how those lists are created?

the criteria to get on them? What you can do if a mistake is made?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. re: "What you can do if a mistake is made?"

You just have one of your Senate aids contact Homeland and have the issue corrected.
What's that? You're not a Senator? Oh then, you're out of luck.

[yallerdawg]

58. Yes - I do.

The biggest grievance seems to come from those who argue any error is sufficient reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

We have an entire political party that tries to convince Americans this is the primary reason to oppose our government!

[hack89]

59. So you are good with anonymous bureaucrats having the power to restrict your civil rights?

and having no away to appeal?

Wow. No wonder people don't trust gun controllers - you don't have to dig deep to find their authoritarian natures. That is why the embrace a republican billionaire who gave stop and frisk.

[yallerdawg]

62. If you're not trying to kill and hurt me and my fellow human beings...

or pursuing the means to do it or associating with others who are doing it or advocating for it, you can pretty much do whatever you like.

How does that make me an authoritarian?

Try getting on a plane - is that not 'stop and frisk'?

[hack89]

74. No. You have to consent to it

you can choose to not fly.

Stop and frisk is when you are walking down the street and the cops stop you for no reason and search you and your possessions without your consent. Do you support that?

[beevul]

110. Wow, what spin.

The biggest grievance seems to come from those who argue any error is sufficient reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

The ones that seem to believe that any case of an individual misusing a firearm is a good reason to limit the rights of those who aren't and haven't misused them...

Those are the folks who want to throw the baby out with the bath water. And since that describes you, I think its safe to say that we can add projection on top of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Whats sad, is that you seem to think people are too dumb to see it, which is, frankly, insulting.

[Marengo]

114. It's very illuminating how the concern doesn't extend beyond firearms.

[beevul]

120. Indeed it is.

[beevul]

103. How did you feel about the terra watchlist...

When b*sh proposed it and pushed it?

[oneshooter]

351. So Ted Kennedy should have been arrested, cuffed and perp walked

when his name came up on the Watch List?

[Marengo]

64. Should they also be prevented from obataining driver's licenses, and purchasing or renting...

vehicles over a certain size or weight?

[Duckhunter935]

66. Yes indeed

As vehicles have been used in terrorist acts to great effect. Just logical according to some here.

[Marengo]

116. Refusing to answer. I'm just SHOCKED I tells ya.

[yallerdawg]

123. We have to answer silly questions?

That have to do with 'parsing' words?

The OP is about "gun control" not being an issue.

My comment is that "gun control" remains a serious issue for Democrats. This is Democratic Underground.

I can go to "other sites" and argue with the RKBA crowd. Just don't understand why here.

[Duckhunter935]

125. Because Democrats

Believe in the RKBA

[yallerdawg]

127. Unconditionally?

No, that's the Republican position.

We want common sense gun safety reform.

If you argue against that, you are arguing with the Republicans.

You can agree with common sense gun safety reform without citing Republican NRA rightwing talking points in opposition.

At least - I could.

[Duckhunter935]

141. Of course not

Common sense is correct. Bans for cosmetic features is not common sense. Magazine bans for billions of magazines is not common sense. Background checks of course are common sense measures.

[Marengo]

150. Isn't the support of a Bush era secret watch list "arguing with the Republicans"?

[Marengo]

154. Is denying someone not otherwise legally prohibited from purchasing a firearm...

The right to do so "common sense gun safety reform"?

[Marengo]

159. Apparently not in the case of persons placed on a secret list created by a crooked Republican

Administration. Oh no, that 100% legit, so fuck their RKBA.

[Marengo]

139. Why do you support preventing persons on the no fly list from exercising their...

Constitutional right to purchase a firearm so long as they are not otherwise prohibited?

[Duckhunter935]

142. And that person is never told and

Has no way of knowing or confronting their accusers. They as far as I know are not told what the denialism for. Some people really like the secret Bush terror lists.

[yallerdawg]

144. Should I start counting?

You officially lose at twenty.

[Marengo]

153. Now you are refusing to answer a gun control question? Isn't that the subject of this thread?

Why do you refuse?

[yallerdawg]

155. There's three more right there!

Brilliant!

[Marengo]

157. Such persistent dodging can only mean you can't answer. Unless you can explain otherwise,

I'm going to assume it's because in doing so, your argument is fatally compromised. It's fairly obvious in what way it would be, and I can understand why you would shut down. Alternatively, perhaps you disengaged out of embarrassment. I would likely feel that way if I declared publicly my support for the extrajudicial Bush era no-fly list, and for denying persons on that list constitutional rights based on some secret subjective criteria. As a Democrat, I'd be absolutely ashamed to be honest.

[yallerdawg]

160. No questions.

Must be getting close to twenty?

Then I get to ask YOU twenty questions.

No, wait. People are dying. I'm not playing games.

[Marengo]

163. There are many questions waiting for you, questions relevant to the topics you chose...

To discuss. The more effort you make to evade, the more suspicions mount.

[stone space]

212. Oh, noz! Suspicions are mounting!

...the more suspicions mount.

[Marengo]

213. Oh, we're past mounting. Mine have been confirmed at his point.

[stone space]

360. OH, MY GOD!!! THOSE MOUNTING SUSPICIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED!!!

Oh, we're past mounting. Mine have been confirmed at his point.

[Duckhunter935]

162. Typical

Of many of the controllers that I have come across on DU

[Marengo]

165. It's comical, with that transparent behavior they expect to be regarded as credible.

[yallerdawg]

167. Converse among yourselves.

Whatever makes you happy.

[Marengo]

169. Yeah, go ahead and wave it off. It's only your credibility that's in question here.

[stone space]

205. Who are you to declare anybody's credibility in question?

It's only your credibility that's in question here.

[Duckhunter935]

207. Same as any person exercising

Rights guaranteed under the first amendment.

[Marengo]

209. It's a declaration of the obvious, out there for anyone to see.

[yallerdawg]

68. Our Democratic candidate and Democratic Party platform...

in addressing the issue of gun violence, is only advocating banning those on the terrorist watch lists from legally buying guns.

When 46,856 so far this year are victims of terrorists in America driving vehicles, I guess we'll have another issue to consider.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

[Marengo]

70. Only guns are used as weapons in terrorist attacks?

[yallerdawg]

77. I'm pretty certains guns are required...

when considering the issue of gun violence.

Ending terrorism is a lot broader than gun violence.

[Marengo]

83. I'm pretty sure you are intentionally avoiding answering the question, as I'm pretty sure...

it's obvious to you I was speaking to the issue of terrorism and the associated no-fly list, not gun violence. Now, how about we try this again. Are guns the only weapons used in acts of TERRORISM?

[yallerdawg]

87. Time for "Twenty Questions."

Distraction and ad nauseum details.

Sorry - I'm not playing - check out the OP title.

Democrats care about "gun control"!

[Marengo]

104. How about just answering the question in post #64, or explaining why you can't or won't.

[Marengo]

75. Is every incident of gun violence an act of terrorism?

[yallerdawg]

81. The OP suggests "gun control" isn't an issue.

I think this thread proves it still is.

And 50% of Democrats support an assault weapons ban.

It sure seems to be an issue for some at DU!

[Marengo]

89. I'll ask you again if persons on the no-fly list should be denied driver's licenses or the ability..

to purchase, rent, or otherwise operate a vehicle in excess of a certain weight or size class, or any vehicle at all.

[yallerdawg]

91. Sorry.

Not playing.

[Marengo]

100. Why not? All that's required is a simple yes or no. I should think it would be easy for you to...

answer, being an advocate of denying persons on the no-fly list the right to purchase a firearm. I don't understand the reluctance.

[Duckhunter935]

164. Scared as you know the logical answer for you

Is to say yes as vehicles have been used to kill hundreds in terrorist acts.

[Marengo]

172. They nearly always run from that one, often conveniently hiding behind the same lame...

Excuse this one deployed.

[Duckhunter935]

173. So true

I have asked s few simple questions and they tend to not answer, deflect or in the extreme, just post insults.

[stone space]

206. Knock it off.

Scared as you know...

[Marengo]

231. Interesting. What about that statement compelled you to react this way?

[Duckhunter935]

239. Typical for that poster

He has also sent me unwanted DU mail in the past. Had to block his mail. Sadly a first for me.

[Marengo]

107. Is gun control the purpose of the no-fly list?

[Fla Dem]

309. FFS. One is a weapons designed to kill. The others, not so much.

If you're going to say people die in auto accidents, I agree, but people die falling down a flight of stairs, skydiving, choking on a piece of meat. These are ACCIDENTS! Firing an assault weapon into a crowd is not an accident. it's an intentional act using an instrument made for just that purpose. Sad some can't see the difference.

[Marengo]

331. A Renault truck, used as a weapon in Nice, killed 86 and injured 434. An intentional act.

[Fla Dem]

333. Again, the truck was not manufactured for the purpose to kill. It was misused.

A rock can be used to kill, fists can be used to kill, any object can be used to kill, but are not created for that purpose. Guns are manufactured as instruments to kill. Sigh.

[Duckhunter935]

335. And other means kill a lot more than do called assault weapons

It is under 300 if I remember correctly. Less than fists and blunt objects.

[Marengo]

338. Should a person on the no-fly list be permitted to purchase an AR-15?

[Duckhunter935]

336. Did a good job

Si do vehicles loaded with explosives.

[beevul]

99. The 'no fly' list doesn't actually BAN anyone from getting on a plane.

It bans people from getting on SOME planes.

[Marengo]

111. Are guns the only weapons used by terrorists?

[Duckhunter935]

166. Apparently for at least one here, lol

[Marengo]

168. LOL! Since that one refuses to answer, it seems justifiable to say that could very well...

Be the position that one holds. How can we know otherwise?

[stone space]

214. What is it about lying that you find justifiable?

LOL! Since that one refuses to answer, it seems justifiable to say that could very well...

Be the position that one holds. How can we know otherwise?

And why are you using DU as a platform to advocate for and justify blatant lying?

It is in no way justifiable to put words in somebody's mouth when you yourself admit that you don't even know.

When you openly advocate lying like this, you destroy any credibility that you may think you had.

[Marengo]

218. What was that posters answer?

[stone space]

219. According to your post, you don't know. To say anything else would be a lie.

What was that posters answer?

So why are you using DU as a platform to advocate for and justify knowingly lying?

Is it because the NRA's candidate likes to lie so much?

You do realize that the NRA's candidate has given lying a bad name, don't you?

Folks are more willing to call out lies for what they are these days, so you really don't have much to gain, here.

LOL! Since that one refuses to answer, it seems justifiable to say that could very well...

Be the position that one holds. How can we know otherwise?

[Marengo]

221. You apparently have difficulty with comprehension...

Otherwise I can't imagine how you can interpret that as a declaration of the poster's position, only that it could be. To suggest otherwise, as you are doing, is dishonest.

[stone space]

223. You can try to justify it all you want.

Doesn't help your credibility any.

[Marengo]

225. It's not a matter of trying, it IS justified, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

At any rate, for you to involve yourself in any discussion of any other members credibility is comical to say the least.

[stone space]

226. How is lying justified?

It's not a matter of trying, it IS justified, whether you choose to acknowledge that or not.

[Marengo]

228. I wonder what is cause of your inaccurate characterization of my statement?

Should I give you the benefit of the doubt, that it is not intentional?

[Eleanors38]

264. That road sign up ahead!... You have just entered the Clams Casino Zone.

[Marengo]

271. Oh goodie! I LOVE Clams Casino!

[Eleanors38]

273. But beware the after effect!

[yallerdawg]

222. "That posters answer" remains...

I have no need or inclination to answer your boring, repetitive, distracting, deflecting, tactical strategy of posting question after question when you have no interest in the answers.

It's like y'all 'punch a clock' and go on and on for hours!

Same RKBA characters, over and over.

Same tactic, over and over.

B-O-R-I-N-G!

[Marengo]

224. LOL! No my friend, it's because you CAN'T answer. If I were not interested, why would I...

Keep asking? All it would have taken on your part is a single word, yet you expended enormous effort to avoid that one word, whichever it may be. Why is that?

[yallerdawg]

227. Why do you go on and on?

This thread has hundreds of replies.

Thousands of views!

8 "DU recs"!

[Marengo]

230. Curiosity, of course, which you keep alive every time you respond with a non-answer.

I find this all rather amusing myself. The tortured avoidance of a single word.

[Eleanors38]

354. On boredome:. Yet, you are here.

[Straw Man]

233. You may not have noticed ...

If we ban an individual from getting on a plane...

and then ban them from legally purchasing a gun, how is that not 'due process' - following our laws and procedures?

... but "due process" does not include restricting a person's freedom because some nameless bureaucrat has decided that the person is dangerous, using criteria that are not available to the public and leaving the person no legal recourse.

[pipoman]

350. That

Is the stupidest thing I have read this week....

What we need is schools that teach the basics of the US Constitution....nobody should be able to graduate Jr. High school without knowing what "due process" means.

[Ken226]

14. Obama had to use executive action because Congress is inept!

Luckily, in the very near future we will finally have another president that can things done with some executive action!

Obama was able to make some progress with his executive order, reclassifying gunsmiths as manufacturers and subjecting them to ITAR regulation.

Now, finally, every one of these guys down in thier basements doctoring guns up into murder machines, regardless of the size of the operation, have to register with the state Dept and pay a big ass fee. That'll make them a bit more expensive, hence less on the streets.

[hack89]

15. "Murder machines"?

what exactly are you talking about here? Converting semi-automatics to full automatics?

Or is this subtle humor that is going over my head?

[Ken226]

18. I'm talking about assault weapons.

I'm referencing gunsmiths threading barrels for silencers, flash hiders, grenade launchers, etc.

Adding sniper scopes, hair triggers, sniper stocks.
Once an assault rifle is broken, having a gunsmith fix it simply means a lost opportunity to get it off the streets.

Thanks to Obama, that's now a reality:

http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-obama-signs-new-gun-control-executive-order-puts-gunsmiths-out-of-business/

I also heard that this idea was first put forth by Hillary when she was Secretary of State, since her agency would have had the enforcement authority over it. It sure took them long enough to get it signed!

[hack89]

20. Humor. Got it now.

Well played.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. another chuckle

ITAR regulation... Is that like ATM machine?

[Ken226]

254. Jeeze

ITAR is:

http://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html

It's a treaty that the US signed, ratified by Congress.

Though the article linked in a previous post comes from the NRA and is worded from the perspective of right wing nuts bent on keeping thier right to own weapons of mass destruction, the fact is that it's has power of law, and is true.

Due your own research. Just Google the terms: Obama, executive order, ITAR. You'll see four yourself why we really, really need Hillary in office. Rump the duck wants to undo Obama's executive orders. Hillary understands what's needed in this country and will do what's necessary to get these things off the street.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

256. Thanks, I know exactly what ITAR covers

I've work on weapons systems for the US and foreign military departments. ITAR was required training.

I do support HRC and have serious doubts that trump is competent to hold any office of public trust.

President Obama has issued executive actions regarding firearms: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/whats-the-difference-between-an-executive-order-and-action/

Have a nice day.

[Ken226]

257. Ah, I see

I dumbly missed the nuance in your quip regarding the acronyms.

I was mostly responding to the prior post, which insinuated that Obama's executive action didn't affect gunsmiths. I'm pretty sure it does, or what would have been the point of signing it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

258. No worries

I've read a lot of this thread and I got the basic idea of your response. I just don't see that regulations on gunsmiths will have much if any effect on violence. The NICS needs attention and some federal funding to ease social burdens that lead to violence of all types will likely be more useful.

Weapons identified as 'assault weapons', especially rifles are used very little in crime. AWBs are a distraction and a waste of time and money. The point has been made by folks more articulate than I, that this idea is dud.

Side note: There are 2 different groups for discussions like this one under the Justice & Public Safety heading:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1167

I'm always learning stuff from fellow Democrats and I like this site a lot.
Have good day.

[Bucky]

16. Looks like the NRA won this one for a while. The violence just doesn't bother enough of us.

Gun rights is far and away the most successful of the Republican panic issues.

[hack89]

17. I think the gun control focus on rifles made it easy for the NRA

they are weapon least likely to be used for crime. AWBs are security theater and many people are coming to understand that.

[stone space]

22. NRA = National Rapist Association / National Racist Association.

[hack89]

23. That's nice. nt

[stone space]

24. No. Actually, it's not very nice at all.

That's nice. nt

I'm shocked to read this here on DU.

What exactly do you find "nice" about the NRA's support for sexual assault, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and the threatened overturning of election results by force of arms?

[hack89]

25. I was just acknowledging your post

didn't want you to think I didn't read it. I was not commenting on the NRA. Sorry for the confusion.

[stone space]

26. A simple "that's deplorable" would have been a clearer indication that you actually read it.

didn't want you to think I didn't read it.

[hack89]

28. Trying to keep things civil. nt

[stone space]

32. Referring to those like the NRA who STILL support Trump as "deplorable" is not really uncivil.

It is descriptive.

[hack89]

34. Ok. But I didn't mention the NRA nor did I bring them into the conversation. nt

[Duckhunter935]

35. Good thing

Civility tends to lack in the controllers

[Eleanors38]

88. Ah, but that clams casino just keeps bursting forth.

[stone space]

96. What's a "clams casino"?

Ah, but that clams casino just keeps bursting forth.

[Eleanors38]

101. If you are shocked to read "National Rapist Association" on DU, then don't post such!

[stone space]

122. Why does the NRA support sexual assualt?

If you are shocked to read "National Rapist Association" on DU, then don't post such!

And why should we not mention the fact that the NRA supports sexual assault?

Is the NRA's support for xenophobia and racism also off-limits?

And why are you trying to blame me for the NRA's support of sexual assault?

I didn't make them do it.

[NickB79]

143. The irony is that the NRA is airing a "shoot the rapist" ad aimed at women

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/nra-ad-tells-women-to-shoot-rapists-abusers.html

“Here’s a message to every rapist, domestic abuser, violent, criminal thug, and every other monster who preys upon women,” begins an ad posted to the National Rifle Association’s YouTube channel. “Maybe you’ve heard the stories about millions of us flocking to gun ranges and gun stores for the first time, the second time, and the hundredth time. Here’s what that means for despicable cowards like you: Your life expectancy just got shorter.”

[Eleanors38]

260. Stone. Dodgeball is no longer recommended curriculum in elementary school.

[stone space]

261. What is a "clams casino"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028254580#post88

[Eleanors38]

262. Fishin' lately?

[stone space]

263. What is a "clams casino"?

[Eleanors38]

265. Where you go to lose your paycheck, space!

[ileus]

137. NRA = Negotiate Rights Away.

[Starry Messenger]

30. I guess we just got used to a lot of dead schoolchildren.

[hack89]

33. The irony is that CT has what is considered a strong AWB

Adam Lanza's rifle was not legally considered an assault weapon.

I think people are simply coming to the conclusion that AWBs are nothing more than security theater.

[stone space]

36. Only for full automatics. How did Adam Lanza's mother get one if it is so strong?

The irony is that CT has what is considered a strong AWB

Adam Lanza's rifle was not legally considered an assault weapon.

[hack89]

37. Her rifle was perfectly legal in CT. It was even registered with the state.

she got one because it did not meet the definition of an assault weapon.

[stone space]

38. So much for "strong", huh?

[hack89]

39. It was held up as a model law by gun controllers.

my only point.

[Duckhunter935]

67. That weapon was fully assault weapon ban

Compliant. As we have pointed out many times to you, it is in the cosmetic features that make it compliant or not. Connecticut maintained the federal assault weapon ban as state law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

48. That's easy gun-control is a loser

HRC knows that pushing a losing issue doesn't win any votes.

[Jason1961]

52. We need to educate the public more

I imagine they'll accept something less than a ban at first but I'd be willing to bet the farm that we'll see a ban on fully and semi automatic firearms in my lifetime and the sooner the better.

[hack89]

53. I very much doubt that

People understand the issues - it is not like we haven't been talking about gun control for decades now.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

54. re: "I'd be willing to bet...that we'll see a ban on...semi automatic firearms in my lifetime..."

You stand to lose a farm then.

In other news, full-autos are de facto banned now since only the rich can afford them.
Now there's a law pro-control can get behind. The regular folks are prohibited and the 1%ers can do as they please.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

57. About that Second Amendment

What exactly is covered there? Muskets?

[Eleanors38]

94. The public has been indoctrinated with decades of MSM gun-control agitprop...

...and it has had enough of the crappy magicians on the editorial board.

Problem is, sensible measures like UBCs cannot pass given the extremism of controllers who harbor not-so-private desires to "ban."

[Duckhunter935]

242. Won't happen

[Calculating]

61. Background checks are what they should be pushing

Nobody I know wants or cares about an assault weapon ban. Such a thing would literally just ban a class of guns for being 'scary looking' and having features such as pistol grips/flash hiders etc. Such things have little to do with how deadly the gun actually is. The dems will just destroy their support if they seriously push for an assault weapons ban.

[Hoyt]

69. If less people are truly concerned about the proliferation of "assault" rifles and hatred in this

country, then we need to make them understand that these are the kind of people we will end up with on our streets:






?no-auto



I don't know where this poll was conducted, might have been at a Trump rally or something. But if less people are becoming concerned about what is going on with guns and hatred, we need to pump up the campaign before it is too late.

[Calculating]

109. So many generalizations here

You found some pictures of racists and other losers with guns, and are using that to justify gun control?

[Hoyt]

113. Because there are a lot more photos of racists and losers walking around on streets parading

their gall-darned gunz. I don't know about you, but I don't see teachers, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, college professors, doctors, most students, etc., walking around with friggin gunz or having a closet full of the darn things at home to fondle.

[Marengo]

119. You have personally inspected the homes of all teachers, college professors, doctors,...

& most students?

[Hoyt]

124. I know gunners, been around them for most of my life. A bunch have become like me, can't stand

the darn things and have a problem with people who are so afraid to walk out the door without a gun in their pants and are fine with kids being shot, spouses being intimidated, racists rallying with guns, etc. You really ought to re-evaluate your position on guns. One of them is a VN Vet who never wants to see another gun in his life. Training to kill innocent, poor people, was not what he wanted to do.

[Marengo]

145. In other words, your answer is no. Moving on, you may now explain to me...

What is my "position on guns". I'd like to see detail, as in cites and examples, and what exactly I need to re-evaluate in the context of this exchange.

[Marengo]

161. I'm waiting for you to explain to me what my position on guns is.

[Hoyt]

179. Your support for all things gunz is quite clear. I don't know your favorite toter,nor do I care.

Not sure what your response was to threads in the Gungeon like what is best gun to defend yourself against people fleeing a hurricane, how vocal you were in supporting George Zman, your support for stand your ground, etc. But I have a pretty good guess.

[Marengo]

193. I want to see that guess articulated in your next post, in detail. I want you to tell me...

What my positions are, and I expect cites to back it up.

[Marengo]

232. Still waiting for the details of that "guess"...

[Throd]

115. Besides insults and personal attacks, it's all he has.

[beevul]

118. "Those" kind of people have every bit as much right to be in the street as you do.

we need to make them understand that these are the kind of people we will end up with on our streets:

"Those" kind of people have every bit as much right to be "on our streets" street as you do.

Maybe you'd like to see them deported?

[stone space]

126. No, Dylann Roof has NO right to be on our streets.

"Those" kind of people have every bit as much right to be "on our streets" street as you do.

That's a bunch of gunhumping National Racist Association bullshit.

[beevul]

132. Unless someone has committed a crime and is incarcerated...

Unless someone has committed a crime and is incarcerated, then yes, they have every right to be out on our streets, even if they author sentiments that stonespace doesn't like.

The photo was pre-shooting rampage, and guess what stony: Even Dylan roof had a right to be out on our streets pre-rampage.

Maybe you should lay off the calculolz, and take up some civics 101 - it might help you navigate your way through the confusion you seem to be laboring under, where our free society is concerned.

[stone space]

272. What do you have against calculus? I've never understood your obsession with calculus.

Maybe you should lay off the calculolz, and take up some civics 101 - it might help you navigate your way through the confusion you seem to be laboring under, where our free society is concerned.

Is it that you don't like education?

Does my profession offend you in some way?

I mean, what exactly is your problem here?

Why do you keep doing this?

[Duckhunter935]

278. You appear to be weak in civics

Last edited Sat Oct 29, 2016, 09:39 AM - Edit history (1)

In my opinion

Note to jurors as this will be alerted on. I can have an opinion and it is not a personal insult directed at this poster. Thank you for your time.

[stone space]

284. There is no need for personal insults.

You appear to be weak in civics

[Duckhunter935]

285. Not a personal insult, it is an opinion

[stone space]

294. It is a personal insult, and you are doubling down on the insult here.

Not a personal insult, it is an opinion

Why do you feel the need to engage in personal insults?

Do personal insults directed at others build you up, somehow?

[Duckhunter935]

296. I disagree, have a great day

You are a great guy and we disagree.

[SoCalDad]

340. It would appear that the poster believes calculous is a difficult and challenging field...

(Mind you, I can not speak for that poster) and it would appear to me that the poster believes that, based upon the arguments/opinions you presented here, you may need a break from the stress.

It is certainly possible that I am wrong, but I wouldn't consider it a disdain of education, or that your profession offends the poster. Rather that your posts seem to be disjointed from their point of view and therefore you could use a break. Like, I said though, I could be wrong

[stone space]

344. But what does my profession have to do with anything?

It would appear that the poster believes calculous is a difficult and challenging field...

(Mind you, I can not speak for that poster) and it would appear to me that the poster believes that, based upon the arguments/opinions you presented here, you may need a break from the stress.

It is certainly possible that I am wrong, but I wouldn't consider it a disdain of education, or that your profession offends the poster. Rather that your posts seem to be disjointed from their point of view and therefore you could use a break. Like, I said though, I could be wrong

How did I become the issue mere?



How did my real world profession even become an issue here in this thread?

What is this obsession with calculus all about?

I'm sorry, but this sounds like a hatred for education.

Maybe that's why gun nuts try to force their guns down the throats of innocent students like Ana Lopez at public universities.

Those gun nuts don't take "no" for an answer, either.

They have no respect for education at all.

They terrorize innocent students like Ana Lopez.

[SoCalDad]

345. I can not and will not tell you what you perceive...

If you perceive offense and animus towards your profession, then that is how you feel; and nothing that I, or anyone else, will change that.

My thoughts on the matter were pretty clear, and you completely disregarded them. Have a great evening.

[Duckhunter935]

349. Your other post was about right

I also believe he should learn a little bit more on civics and how government works as he must have to teach his calculus courses.

[SoCalDad]

359. In my opinion, and it is just an opinion...

The meaning was abundantly clear. It appeared to me that the poster sought offense; and again, just my opinion, hoped to provoke a different type of response. It appears to me that the poster completely evaded my response. In the Army there is a Drill and Ceremony command of "Rear, March!" Upon the command of "March" the Soldier would then "Step, pivot in the reverse direction and then step forward again..." Which, when learning this particular command, the NCOs would have the Soldiers chant "Step, pivot, step" as they executed. His response evoked this memory and made me chuckle.

[Duckhunter935]

361. I know it well, lol

[Hoyt]

129. No one has a right to walk around intimidating people with guns. Sorry, beevul. You might like to

[Hoyt]

136. Like I said, no one has the right to intimidate people with gunz, no matter how

much you promote toting everywhere (for others I guess, U guess if you say so).

[stone space]

138. Blame the victim. Nice.

Oh and by the way, if you're intimidated by the peaceable carry of a firearm, you're the one with the problem. Don't make it everyone elses.

[Calculating]

182. Sorry, I'm not a hoplophobe

I'm fine being around guns and armed people assuming they're not total morons who don't know gun safety.

[Hoyt]

238. Well, I'm not a gun fancier or humper, so I'm not fine with it. The fact they strap on a gun to go

outside is bad enough, but most support people like Trump.

[Taitertots]

71. The 64% that don't want a ban includes millions of Democratic Party voters

Hillary isn't pushing gun control because she wants to get elected. That's not going to happen if she goes against millions of her supporters.

[Hoyt]

130. But a minority of Democrats.

[Rex]

84. lulz

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

92. Clinton is keeping a somewhat low profile on this issue.

The issue can't help her, and might hurt her. It can certainly hurt her hopes of taking the house and senate. The so-called "blue dogs" might not support gun control, but their numbers can give us Democrats at the head of committees.

[ileus]

135. People are starting to realize what it means to be progressive.

Being hostile to the 2A isn't...

[Buckeye_Democrat]

171. Pew Research Poll

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/011081528b5b4f59aca72548cb1709c2/divided-america-gun-views-fractious-even-fewer-bear-arms

A Pew poll released in August showed 85 percent of people support background checks for purchases at gun shows and in private sales; 79 percent support laws to prevent the mentally ill from buying guns; 70 percent approve of a federal database to track gun sales; and 57 percent favor a ban on assault weapons.

This is "interesting" too:

Pew Research Center data provides a sketch of what the gun-owning populace looks like today:

—74 percent of gun owners are men and 82 percent are white.

—Those in rural areas are more than twice as likely as urbanites to own a gun.

—Ownership rates in the Northeast are lower than in the rest of the country.

—Gun owners are far more likely to identify with or lean toward the Republican Party.

And this:
http://www.seeker.com/are-gun-owners-more-racist-1768020841.html#news.discovery.com
To parse out the link between racism and guns, the researchers had to control for several other factors, including age, gender, income, education, and political ideology using data from the American National Election Study.

Still, for each one-point increase in anti-black racism (called symbolic racism), the odds of having a gun in the home jumped 50 percent. And supporting policies that allow for concealed guns rose 28 percent.

[yallerdawg]

217. The OP - one poll and "gun control" isn't an issue anymore!

When Congress is back in session, it's going to be a big issue! Our Democratic representatives will make it so!

[Duckhunter935]

220. Ok we shall see

[kcr]

236. Yep, we shall see!

And I can't wait. There's going to be a lot of change, and a lot of surprised, unhappy people. Too bad.

[Stinky The Clown]

174. Melt 'em

[hack89]

175. Shoot 'em

Lots of fun

[Stinky The Clown]

176. Shoot who? People like me?

[hack89]

177. Paper. In 35 years I have never shot a living thing. Nt

[Hoyt]

184. That's what Zimmerman, Dunn, etc., said before they did what they had been training for.

[hack89]

187. That's nice Hoyt.

Good to see somethings never change.

[Duckhunter935]

201. Indeed

[Duckhunter935]

178. I agree

Just ordered some AR10 20 round magazines.

[Stinky The Clown]

192. In the context of this thread I take that as a personal threat

[Duckhunter935]

196. Only if you are a paper plate

The context of this thread is to be able to own a firearm that is legal. I have for dozens of years and they have not killed anything but paper plates and other types of targets. Never meant to be a threat to say I purchased some legal magazines for my legal weapon which I passed federal, state and local background checks.

[Stinky The Clown]

199. I mention "melt em", one of your brothers in gunloverville threats to shoot me and you chime in

Don't give me that paper plate clap.

[Duckhunter935]

200. So is the "em" in your post a person?

What person are you planning to melt?


That poster said shoot "em" (guns), it is fun. It is very fun to shoot em, I agree. Might want to chill just a little

[Stinky The Clown]

203. All the answers and all the cock-sure bravado

Now have at it and take your last "shot" at me. I'm done with this thread but I'll be there in the next gun humper epic that gets posted.

Next time mind your mouth, by the way. That really was a threat.

[Duckhunter935]

204. No threat intended and I

Bet most people on DU see it my way. By your non-answer and your personal insult back to me, I assume you were not meaning to melt a person as the other poster was not planning on shooting a person. Good night, have a great one.

[Straw Man]

235. Minding one's mouth.

Next time mind your mouth, by the way. That really was a threat.

It absolutely was not a threat. See this post for an explanation.

Pronouns matter.

[Duckhunter935]

240. Yep, pointed that out

And all the poster could do is insult and try and shut me up. Not going to happen.

[Straw Man]

234. Except that's not what happened.

I mention "melt em", one of your brothers in gunloverville threats to shoot me and you chime in

You said "Melt 'em," to which he immediately responded "Shoot 'em." The pronoun 'em in your statement meant guns, did it not? So how did you come to the conclusion that in his two-word response to your two-word utterance, 'em no longer meant guns, but meant you?

It's a simple point of grammar. Let's hear it.

[SoCalDad]

320. It is exceedingly clear what was meant...

"melt 'em," referred to guns... as did "shoot'em."

It would appear to me that one would have to truly twist oneself into a pretzel to presume that statement should be considered a threat to shoot someone.

I don't know... Is there some sort of history of threats in the past between these two people?

[Duckhunter935]

321. He takes all things personally

That one was an impressive pretzel he bent himself into for that. A gold medal one if you ask me

[SoCalDad]

323. Contortionist..

of epic porportions

[Duckhunter935]

325. Indeed so

Very sensitive, next come the insults.

[Eleanors38]

267. I have found Rio No. 8s in target load an inexpensive and effective choice...

for hunting dove.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

181. At least your "fun" argument holds up to scrutiny.

Start around 1:40 in this video...

[hack89]

185. Cartoons and comedians - the intellectual bedrock of gun control. Nt

[Buckeye_Democrat]

186. Some comedians make excellent points. Jon Stewart was another example.

[hack89]

190. But most don't nt

[Duckhunter935]

197. That's all they have

[Eleanors38]

268. Heh-heh. Ever the case.

[JoePhilly]

183. All guns should be pink.

Right wing men wouldn't touch them.

[hack89]

189. They have this stuff call spray paint

I hear it works well for making things a different color.

[JoePhilly]

191. Na, make it a law.

It doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms in the slightest.

Safety orange would also work.

Various shades of purple too.

[hack89]

195. Right. Because as a nation we have fixed all the big problems. Nt

[Eleanors38]

269. Yes, right after the ammo tax. I mean, 236 stand-up comics can't be wrong.

More analysis from the bedrock of intellectual achievement.

[Duckhunter935]

198. I heard that too, amazing stuff

[rockfordfile]

208. Gallup Organization doesn't have much of credibility anymore

Gallup Organization doesn't have much of credibility anymore considering their attempts to overcharge on government contracts.

The guns problem in our country are still major issue.

[hack89]

210. Show me a poll where it is a high priority for voters

People carry about it but not that much. It is not an issue that will make or break a campaign. That's why they can safely ignore it.

[deathrind]

211. Gun proponents

Are always going to roll out the same talking points to defend a person being able to buy an item that allows a person to kill dozens of other people in a matter of minutes like the Orlando shooter did.

The 2nd amendment says nothing about capacity or ammo that is where the focus should be. Limiting magazine/clip/drum (whatever technical term one wants use) in no way infringes on a persons right to "bear arms" just means a person has to stop killing sooner and re-load. This alone would save lives. The Tucson shooting is an example of that. As for ammo, bullets kill people just like cigarettes so tax ammo accordingly. This also does not infringe on the right to "bear arms".

[Duckhunter935]

215. I am for reasonable magazine limits

There are already special taxes on bullets. To high of tax and it does interfere with a constitutional right to arms as bullets are a requirement for the weapon to operate.

[hack89]

216. Arms = ammo

Supreme Court has beaten you to the punch.

The 2A certainly allows strict regulation. The problem with gun control is not the 2A - it is the lack of widespread deep public support. It is important to people but not that important.

[deathrind]

250. One can still buy ammo.

Nowhere in my post did I say one could not. It would just be very expensive.

[hack89]

251. And the Supreme Court has already ruled on defacto bans

Chris Rock is not a constitutional scholar. I recommend you dig a little deeper into the case law.

[deathrind]

253. Taxing does not appear to be anissue.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/judge-upholds-seattles-gun-and-ammunition-tax/

SCOTUS ruling from June. Actually upholds a ban. There does not appear to be anything concerning SCOTUS and ammo. If you could provide a link to the case I refer to I would appreciate it.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/supreme-court-upholds-wide-reach-u-s-gun-ban-domestic-n599816?client=safari

As for Chris Rock. I am well aware of who he is. But thanks for the jab. 😀

[hack89]

255. Taxing at such a high rate to make ammo prohibitively expense is a huge issue

Last edited Fri Oct 28, 2016, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)

especially when the stated purpose of the tax is to make it impossible for most people to buy ammo.

2A allows some bans. You cannot, however, ban handguns. That is an explicit right from Heller. Which means you cannot do an end around Heller by banning ammo, either explicitly or in a round about manner (ie a defacto ban).

[stone space]

274. Guns and ammo should be taxed to pay for the damage they do.

Otherwise, we're subsidizing guns.

[hack89]

275. Same for alcohol? nt

[stone space]

276. Write an OP about alchohol and find out.

I'm not going to be distracted.

[hack89]

277. Trying to determine if you are intellectually and morally consistent.

based on your response I guess no.

[stone space]

307. What is the purpose of this personal attack?

Trying to determine if you are intellectually and morally consistent.

based on your response I guess no.

And why are you lying about my response.

I said no such thing.

There is no reason for personal attacks, and there is certainly no reason for a personal attack involving a blatant lie.

My intellectual and moral consistency is not an issue here in this thread.

Such personal attacks are totally off topic, and do absolutely nothing whatsoever to bolster your case.

[hack89]

311. hack89

[stone space]

316. Do you believe that making personal attacks bolsters your case for guns?

[hack89]

318. No.

It wasn't really a personal attack. You need a thicker skin if you want to participate in gun threads around here. They can be brutal.

[stone space]

322. No I don't. Brutality is unnecessary, and blaming the victims for brutality is wrong.

You need a thicker skin if you want to participate in gun threads around here. They can be brutal.

Telling people that they need to get thicker skins whenever people brutalize them in gun threads is simply blaming the victim for the brutality.

It's the brutality that needs to stop. There is no need for decent people to get thicker skins just so that brutes can freely express their brutality.

It's time to say no to brutality.

There's too much brutality in gun discussions.

This snuff film video made about a "cocks not glocks" student protestor at The University of Texas is just another example of the brutality of those who are trying to force guns on people.

In the video, they forced a bullet thru Ana Lopez's head. Had the skin on her forehead been thicker, the bullet might have bounced right off instead of passing thru her head, and causing all that blood to splatter on the "Moms Demand Action" sign right behind her.

In real life, they are trying to force their guns down Ana Lopez's throat.

Telling the victims of brutality that they should grow thicker skins before being allowed to discuss guns is disgusting.

The problem is the brutes, not the victims.

[hack89]

324. The anti-gunners are the brutal ones

The foul, broadbrush insults and personal attacks are pretty bad. But us gun owners have adapted.

[stone space]

326. Women have a right to an education without being brutalized by gun nuts.

Are you seriously claiming that Ana Lopez brutalized her gunhumping attacker?

The anti-gunners are the brutal ones

The foul, broadbrush insults and personal attacks are pretty bad. But us gun owners have adapted.

What's wrong with women getting an education?

Why are women attacked so viciously and brutally when they try to get an education?

And why are you blaming the victims of brutality instead of the brutes?

[hack89]

327. What the hell are you talking about? Nt

[stone space]

329. Did you even read the post you were replying to?

What the hell are you talking about? Nt

Or did you reply without reading the post?

[hack89]

330. We are talking about incivility in DU gun threads

Remember?

[Duckhunter935]

337. He pivots when losing an argument, lol

[stone space]

342. Should students like Ana Lopez just get thicker skins when gun bullies brutalize them?

[SoCalDad]

347. You keep saying she was brutalized

You keep posting the video where the Cocks not Glocks activist gets shot when she wields a dildo as a weapon at a home intruder. Is this the brutalization..? Or has someone actually laid hands upon her and brutally beat her?

[stone space]

369. After 7 posts, your defense of this snuff film video is noted.

You keep saying she was brutalized

You keep posting the video where the Cocks not Glocks activist gets shot when she wields a dildo as a weapon at a home intruder. Is this the brutalization..? Or has someone actually laid hands upon her and brutally beat her?

[oneshooter]

370. Do you even know what a"snuff film" is?

I have my doubts.

[stone space]

371. Don't defend this terroristic gunlicking video.

[oneshooter]

372. I did not"defend" anything.

I simply doubt that you really know what you are speaking of.

[stone space]

373. The victim described it as a snuff film.

You can back the domestic terrorist if you wish.

[oneshooter]

392. If she was the "victum" of a "snuff film" then she would not be able to complain.

As she would be dead.

[stone space]

393. Do you think domestic terrorism is funny?

If she was the "victum" of a "snuff film" then she would not be able to complain.

As she would be dead.

Why am I not surprised?

[oneshooter]

395. You really need to educate yourself on what you speak of.

https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=utf-8&fr=tightropetb&type=11745&p=snuff+film

[SoCalDad]

375. Please elucidate...

Where is the alleged defense of the film? Unless you can point out where I defended this video, I believe that I am owed an apology. Unless, you consider the question that I posted: " ...Is this the brutalization..? Or has someone actually laid hands upon her and brutally beat her?" a defense of the video.

[Duckhunter935]

377. He will never apologize

Sadly

[stone space]

378. Sorry, not playing, 9 post wonder.

Please elucidate...

Where is the alleged defense of the film? Unless you can point out where I defended this video, I believe that I am owed an apology. Unless, you consider the question that I posted: " ...Is this the brutalization..? Or has someone actually laid hands upon her and brutally beat her?" a defense of the video.

Defend this if you want.

This is just the sort of gun culture that Trump has injected into this Presidential campaign, with the full backing and support of the National Rapist Association.

Call it whatever you want.

Let's see what you call it in post #10.

I know you got another one coming. I can tell.

[SoCalDad]

380. You are certainly free to express whatever opinion you'd like

But there is no defense of the video. It was a question. Why does that question evoke such a response from you? Is the video the brutalization, or did someone physically, brutally beat her? It is a simple question; with what I assumed is a simple answer. I am unsure of anyway that anyone could construe this as a "defense of the video."

Perhaps, I am wrong. Which lead me to asking you for elucidation, of how that question is a defense of that film.

[kcr]

237. Yep. And there are going to be a lot of suprises when we take back control.

The gun lobby and its supporters have had their fun, but nothing lasts forever.

[Duckhunter935]

241. Been hearing that for decades.

Worked so well when we had all three branches of the government. Last I checked we will probably not get a veto proof margin in the Senate. And with gerrymandering, it is almost impossible to get the house back. I hope our side wins but those simple facts remain.

[kcr]

243. Things change. That you think you've been hearing something for decades doesn't change that.

You want to think gun interests are somehow special and get a forever lock on things to make yourself feel better go right on ahead.

[Duckhunter935]

244. I will thanks

[deathrind]

252. We will never get rid of firearms.

I don't advocate a ban. A .22 is every bit as deadly as a .223 or .45 or 7.62. But no one should be able to unleash the type of killing as happened in Orlando. Controls and restrictions should focus on background checks on 100% of sales. Ammo capacity limits. Periodic registration. Safety. I own guns and like shooting them but my enjoyment of shooting does not out weight the damage firearms are doing on a daily basis. I would have no problem with added restrictions. The one restriction that would absolutely save lives is capacity limits. Given the fire rate of an AR or Sig 30 round magazines / 100-200 round drums should not be legal.

[EX500rider]

280. "being able to buy an item that allows a person to kill dozens of other people..."

You mean like a car or truck?
Getting rid of guns would just make crazy people turn to other means, and driving a U-haul through a crowd at 70mph will have a higher death toll then a gun spree.

[kcr]

245. ....

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-gun-politics-20151210-story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/convention-shows-how-democrats-have-learned-to-love-gun-control/2016/07/26/f7401162-51cf-11e6-bbf5-957ad17b4385_story.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/283981-dems-push-vulnerable-gop-senators-on-gun-control

http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-democrats-remain-steadfast-in-sit-in-protest-over-gun-laws-1466699942

[hack89]

247. Gun control is an issue that has to be used judiciously

there are local and state races where it can provide an advantage to a Dem. But not on a national level. When winning the presidency depends on winning the votes of moderate to conservative voters in swing states you are not going to make it a centerpiece of your campaign.

HRC is fighting for Florida, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Gun control would a losing issue there.

[yallerdawg]

248. Still missing the point!

If "gun control" is not an issue - it's because the majority of Americans support Hillary's and the Democratic Party's positions on common sense gun safety reform - regardless of how rightwing propaganda wants to label it, like calling it "gun control."

250 replies.

15,000 views!

9 "DU recs" now?

Maybe it's still an issue for Democrats?

[hack89]

249. I agree to a point

there is certainly widespread support for better background checks. But on the specific issue of an AWB, that is certainly not the case.

More to my point - while there is support for some gun control issues, it is not a high priority for voters. It is not an issue that will sway voters one way or the other which is why Clinton is not making a big deal of it. She knows she has to focus on that handful of issues that really matter to voters.

I can comfortably support Clinton (like I did Obama) because I know that they are not going to significantly impact my right to own guns. I will be shooting AR-15s with my family eight years from now exactly like I am doing now.

[Eleanors38]

270. Concerning proposed bans on so-called "assault weapons:"

Last edited Sun Oct 30, 2016, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

What is lost in the discussion is that Americans who own guns (perhaps 90,000,000, with many more having access) are from time-to-time wont to re-arm themselves. After the Civil War, millions retired their muzzle loaders in favor of lever-actions and single-action revolvers. After WWI, millions turned to bolt-action rifles (many "military style, " many custom built for huntineg). After WWII, Americans turned from double barrel shotguns to pump-action, then semi-auto. In my adult lifetime, American police and tens of millions of civilians chose semi-auto pistols over the stand-by double-action .38s of a hundred Perry Mason episodes.

Now, the semi-auto carbine (the hated "assault weapon©" which flummoxes legalistic enrolling and engrossing legislative departmemts) is becoming the rifle OF CHOICE for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. If you keep up, you will note that nearly ALL the major gun manufacturers make this class of weapon with many more boutique manufacturers joining in.

You CANNOT ignore massive and recurrent rising tides like this and even hope to erect some whimsical sandbag ban in an effort to change cultures.

[Calculating]

279. Well said

Black rifles have become more and more culturally accepted. Most people don't think of them as the weapon of choice for mass shooters. They think of the AR15 (and similar guns) as just another gun to shoot for fun at the range, hunt with or use for home defense. Most people aren't scared of the boogieman 'assault weapon' term anymore.
Pushing the unpopular issue of gun control so hard just drives away voters. It's comparable to how Republicans continue fighting for unpopular things such as bans on abortion or keeping trans people out of bathrooms. Nobody cares and it just costs them more votes than they gain.

[stone space]

310. Please do not compare trans folks with deadly weapons.

They are human beings.

And guns are a real danger in public restrooms.

Thank you.

[Eleanors38]

352. Thanks. This is cyclic history far too many fail to take into account.

[Lucinda]

319. Anyone who thinks that has not been listening to Hillary. n/t

[Dr.Jones]

328. Liability

The word of the day with assault rifles is liability. If you purchase an assault rifle you should be liable for whatever happens with that gun for as long as it's serial number is under your name. I don't care if you pulled the trigger or not. I don't care of your kid swiped your gun. I don't care if it is stolen. It's your responsibility. If you owned a pet alligator and it got loose and killed someone, would you be liable? Sure you would. If not criminally liable definitely in civil court.

[hack89]

334. Good luck with that

There is plenty of case law that says no. We are a common law country- legal precedence is very hard to overcome.

[Dr.Jones]

339. Are you sure?

Here's an excellent article that illustrates the fact that it's not nearly that cut and dried. Civil liability I would say is definately on the table as well.

https://www.northwestfirearms.com/threads/how-criminally-liable-are-you-if-someone-steals-your-gun-and-uses-it-new-wa-supreme-court-case.175110/

[hack89]

341. It is now cut and dried in WA according to your link

State Supreme Court decisions kind of have that effect.

[Dr.Jones]

346. Not so fast

From the article:

"Importantly, I think this case has the potential to stir up a debate in the WA senate about proposed "gun safety" measures about "proper" firearm storage. That wouldn't really affect the causation analysis at all, but it would make someone like Bauer prosecute-able for assault 3 under #2 above."

It would appear that nothing is cut and dried. Just as I said. Not to mention the likely civil implications.

[Warren DeMontague]

332. If we're just going by polling, most Americans favor marijuana legalization now.

So does that mean we can finally see some bravery from our elected leadership on this issue, both at the Federal and State levels? Because up until now change has had to come almost exclusively from state citizen initiatives.

[aikoaiko]

357. The current language is "keep weapons of war...off our streets"

As in the following from the platform:

"...keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM’s)—off our streets.”

Somehow no one considered that bolt-action rifles with fixed 5-round magazines are current weapons of war used by our military.

For those who don't know: Google Remington M24 SWS.

[aikoaiko]

389. If the gun controllers were smart, they would pair a Toomey/Manchin style background check

with an elimination of import bans on semiautos and/or removing short barrels and suppressors from NFA.

A little quid pro quo that increases overall safety would be a nice change of pace.


It's also too bad that Democrats voted against the No Fly, No Buy bill that provided due process for the denied buyer. All that grandstanding on the House floor was for nothing.

[Jnew28]

396. Blame the NRA.

http://stupidpartymathvmyth.com/1/post/2016/10/second-amendment-cry-babies-meet-maker.html

[hack89]

397. Some serious ignorance at that link.

Simple question - when in American history has private ownership of guns separate from militia service not been the norm? When was this golden age where militia service was a strictly enforced requirement for gun ownership?