Emily FINALLY gets her gun.

[VScott]

Good for her and long overdue.

However, it's a disgrace that permits will only be granted to those whom can demonstrate that
they are in a "special danger".

WASHINGTON -

Just seven months ago, D.C. was the only place in the country that did not allow anyone to legally carry a gun outside the home. A federal court ruled that violated the Second Amendment. So now, the police department is issuing carry permits to a few people.

I have been doing a series to show how the nation's capital has abided by the federal court ruling.

To remind you of the background, the City Council passed a law in the fall that allowed for handguns to be carried in public, but the bar was set very high for a permit. You have to prove you have so-called special dangers -- specific and current threats against you or your property.

Any day now, the judge will rule on whether the city is in contempt of court for writing a new law that is still unconstitutional

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/28192641/fox-5-emily-miller-gets-dc-gun-carry-permit-approved

Note, as some of you may recall, Emily Miller is the journalist that The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSVG),
had petitioned her employer to fire her for exercising her 2nd and 1st amendment rights.

http://csgv.org/action/tell-wttg-general-manager-patrick-paolini-fire-emily-miller/

[ileus]

1. These folks want people dead, it helps the statistics

[Electric Monk]

2. A right wing Republican, worked in the Bush administration, and for FAUX and the Moonie Times

But now she's your gun culture superstar, because gunz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_J._Miller

Tell me again how you gun idolizers aren't on the wrong website?

[GGJohn]

3. Tell us again how you're the arbitar of who belongs

on this website?

[Electric Monk]

4. DU Terms Of Service

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[GGJohn]

5. So because we are criticizing DC's firearms laws,

and following Ms. Miller's trials and tribulations on getting a permit in DC, that makes us RW'ers?
So, again, tell us when you became the arbiter of who is allowed here on DU?

[Electric Monk]

9. When you support right wing causes, it makes you a right winger too. Self-evident. nt

[GGJohn]

11. Criticizing DC's firearm laws is a RW cause?

Who knew?

[blueridge3210]

12. For controllers

criticizing any law that restricts personal freedom is a RW cause.

[Electric Monk]

13. Untrue. There are many parts of the PATRIOT ACT that I think go way too far.

https://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-myths-realities

[blueridge3210]

14. And how about laws

that make it a crime to own empty shells?

[Electric Monk]

15. That again? I have no problem complying, even though I don't have to where I live.

Do you live in DC?

[blueridge3210]

16. So you find the law "reasonable"? (nt)

[Electric Monk]

17. It doesn't matter what I think of that law, but I love how I'm inside your head rent free over it.

[blueridge3210]

19. Sure it matters.

Love to see a controllers hypocrisy on display for all to see.

[Duckhunter935]

59. twisting in the wind again

trying not to provide an answer I see

[beevul]

21. It matters when you stake a claim to being "reasonable"

As you and the others in the other group continue to do.

So answer the question already.


Alternatively, you can leave things "as is" and leave us with an example to continue point out, of you folks not being "reasonable" like you claim to be.

In fact, please don't answer the question.

[Duckhunter935]

58. So is it reasonble or not

Yes or no?

[Electric Monk]

64. How do you feel about kiddie porn laws. Reasonable or no? Photographs never killed anyone. nt

[blueridge3210]

70. Logic Fail. Epic.

In order for Kiddie Porn to be produced it requires the exploitation of a minor child. Simple really. Spent ammunition shells pose no threat to anyone. You're not really very good at this, are you?

[Electric Monk]

74. Hand drawn or computer generated kiddie porn can land you in jail, too, so the fail is all yours. nt

[Duckhunter935]

77. That part, I would have an issue with as an overstep

[Duckhunter935]

78. so did you call me an idiot or not?

[Duckhunter935]

76. amazing how easy that as

and both of us have answered his question. That is quite unlike him of mine.

[Duckhunter935]

75. reasonable

A child can not give sexual consent.

See, at least I can answer a simple question

[Electric Monk]

79. Computer generated or hand drawn, with no actual kids involved, can still land you in jail.

[Duckhunter935]

81. see my other response

I do not think that would be reasonable as no child can or has been involved.

See, answered another question. 2 for 2. Care to answer ours now?

So did you call me an idiot in your other post?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172161762#post62

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. I agree. Listen to what one prominent right-winger had to say about race recently:

I expect watching your efforts to avoid being pinned down on these will be most amusing...

[randys1]

27. I dont have a problem with rightwing views on this site, but when those who hold those views

are allowed to sit on juries and decide what a LIBERAL can and cant say, well that makes my head explode.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. What's the problem? DU allows the followers of a crypto-fascist billionaire to post here

You need to get busy writing the admins asking for a purge...err, a new TOS that suits you.

Unless and until they decide to agree with you, your inner zampolit will just have to chill

[randys1]

30. Gun people are entertaining...problem is guns kill people and are not necessary in a

civilized society

Save your breath and finger usage, you cant win this argument.

The side which says:

"i want a gun to play with and it doesn't matter how many have to die for me to retain that right"

is wrong, cant win in the end...really

[Nuclear Unicorn]

34. Show me this "civilized society" of which you speak.

A land of no robbers, rapists, killers or stalkers guarded by competent and beneficent officers of the law?

[randys1]

35. are you in a contest for straw man of the year? LOL

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. You said we live in a civilized society which made owning a gun obselete.

Perhaps you would care offer a definition of for this society, then we can see if it comports with observations.

[randys1]

40. There are several links on this thread showing you that a gun in the home

is unsafe.

We live in a civilized society where using a gun for self protection is RARELY done.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. "We live in a civilized society where using a gun for self protection is RARELY done."

"rarely" There you go, making up terms again.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. By the way, for someone bellyaching about strawmen it took a lot of chutzpah to write --

"i want a gun to play with and it doesn't matter how many have to die for me to retain that right"

[randys1]

41. Well, we have established owning a gun for protection is not necessary or a reality

so what other reason do you own one?

[Duckhunter935]

63. Say who? You?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. He likes to play fast and loose with terms, i.e. the previous accusation of my having made a threat.

[Duckhunter935]

73. yep, appears he just called me an idiot

interesting how some sink to that level of insults.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. We don't live in the 'civilized society' you spoke of, and you cannot uninvent guns

And considering that the foremost figure in your 'church' spoke of the NYPD as 'his' army,
I doubt very much he and the other prominent members of your movement have any intention
whatsoever of going with armed security.

Why shouldn't the rest of us have the same choice, if we so wish?

[randys1]

44. I am not a member of any such church

Cant uninvent guns?

Why are so many other civilized countries able to put them in their place then?

Could it be the NRA and gun mfgs here are so strong that we can never get common sense results?

Hmm?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. "Could it be the NRA and gun mfgs here are so strong..."

Are you claiming that with no mainstream media advertising the gun manufacturers are exerting some Svengali-like influence on people getting them to buy guns, which costs hundreds of dollars, when people have no observable threat in their communities?

[randys1]

51. Didnt the majority of their membership want background checks? Why didnt that happen?

What was it again that the vast majority of Americans AND NRA members wanted that we couldnt have?????

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. "Didnt the majority of their membership want background checks? Why didnt that happen?"

Because the grabbers larded the bills with other worthless measures meant for control than anything of value.

If you're so eager to see UBCs why scuttle the legislation with impotent measures like magazine limits and "assault weapon" bans?

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. "If you're so eager to see UBCs why scuttle the legislation with impotent measures like magazine...

...limits and "assault weapon" bans?"

You asked a good, yet awkward, question which will be studiously ignored

Prepare to be Lovejoyed in 5,4,3,2,1...

[Duckhunter935]

68. very true

[Duckhunter935]

66. Is this law reasonable

The group host for the other group is unable to answer that simple question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=161250

Yes or no?

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. "I want a gun to play with and it doesn't matter how many have to die for me to retain that right"

Point out someone who said such a thing, and I'll argue with them myself

In the meantime, your side might wanna reconsider playing nice with Big Mike Bloomberg,
who is as morally questionable as anyone in the NRA or Gun Owners of America leadership.

IMO, having to elide or flat out ignore the previous unConstitutional and unAmerican
actions of your sugar daddy could be a sign your cause really isn't liberal...

[randys1]

38. I simply said that self defense is not a legitimate reason to own a gun for most of us

therefore the only reason left is for recreation

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. It's not up to you to make that choice for others. Let *your* leaders set an example...

... and forgo armed security.

I note that, for all his blather about guns, Bloomberg never upheld any standards for issuance
of gun permits in New York City, nor did the rich and famous have much problem getting one

[randys1]

49. Ahh, so we just keep killing kids and so on, got it. Not up to a society to say no more

like in Australia.

Just admit you want to play with your gun and the killings that could be prevented are not important enough

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. "Ahh, so we just keep killing kids and so on"

Who is "we"? If you bear some guilt that is your problem. I have killed no one.

This is where the flagrant two-facedness of the issue shines through. Alcohol kills 4300 under-aged drinkers each year due to over-indulgence. That's more than 4 Sandy hooks each week.

Tell us again about how it's all about the kids.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Ahh, a Lovejoy's Law reference! Your sort do *so* love emotional arguments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.


#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. wow

[Duckhunter935]

69. what about the others "most"

How nice of you to make decisions for others. Can that same thing be said about say, abortion? What other rights do you want to limit, press?

[randys1]

96. So you admit that owning a gun for fun, is more important to you than stopping the slaughter

of innocents.

Please just say yes, that is your position.

We know life isnt a guarantee and we are imperfect, you could rationalize it if you want but this IS your position.

BTW, you cant win this argument

There is NO way the future is one where there are MORE guns, unless the future is death and chaos.

The human family WILL evolve beyond the need for guns or the human family will perish.

Now we may not last long enough to show that because of climate change, but my point is just as valid.

[hack89]

88. And recreation is an excellent reason.

It is the reason I have owned guns for 35 years with no problems.

[randys1]

94. And even though gun ownership leads to FAR more deaths than if we did not have guns

you are unwilling to give up your recreation even though it would stop, over time, the slaughter of innocents

thanks for making my point

[hack89]

95. It is the same reason I refuse to give up drinking beer and bourbon.

even though I know banning alcohol would stop, over time, the slaughter of innocents and save many many lives.

I simply think that the vast majority of Americans can be trusted with guns and the focus needs to be on those that use them illegally. Deal with guns like we do with alcohol.

[randys1]

97. again, I wish more on your side would admit that it will NEVER matter how many

Sandy Hook's there are (and there are more and more everyday), that your fun with that gun is more important.

If we could just get the conversation there, where the truth is, we might be able to accomplish something.

But as long as all these gun "folks" deny this fact, we cant advance.

[hack89]

98. We just want you to be honest and less hypocritical.

When you can admit that you hold guns to a different standard than you hold other objects and activities that kill just as many people, then we can have a conversation.

We would also like you to admit that there are other remedies short of an outright gun ban that would significantly reduce gun deaths.

We would also like you stop perpetuating the lie that gun violence is increasing when the facts say otherwise.

[randys1]

99. Ridiculous argument and you know it. You were doing so well, then you went and did this LOL

[hack89]

100. Everything I said was true to the honest reader

the fact you refuse to address them says it all. You are simply here to troll. I refuse to take your bait.

[randys1]

101. Nonsense. Guns are like NOTHING ELSE and to say otherwise is nonsense.

this is a waste of time, it truly is

just show up and vote for whoever the dem candidate is please

[hack89]

102. So the number of deaths is not relevant?

thanks for being honest about your agenda.

[randys1]

104. Another response that has nothing to do with anything,

Left field would be a generous way of describing that response

you CANT win...

I am for LESS guns and LESS death, you are not.

[hack89]

106. I am for less death through different means than you

because it is more likely to happen than your fantasy.

[randys1]

107. I just realized I am in the wrong forum, not being sarcastic.

the only way common sense enforcement of the 2nd amendment can happen is if we get honest, intelligent SC justices who will read the 2nd amendment then order ALL guns to be locked up in the local militia

which would mean most cops wouldnt need them anymore

for the same reason the VOTING RIGHTS ACT has been gutted or Citizens United has been decided in violation of the law, the gun issue wont change until we evolve a bit more, if climate change doesnt wipe us out first which it will probably

arguing with any of you is a waste of our time

you will NEVER give up your guns, and I cant put them where the constitution demands they be until we get more adults on the SC
so instead of fighting with you over something that cant change right now, I choose to work with you on other things

Now I am assuming that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU is voting for WHOEVER the Democratic Candidate is NO MATTER WHAT, or I would be concerned far more than I am at your attitudes about guns

I will post in the gun reform threads form now on...

[hack89]

108. Don't go away mad

It is just that we expect people to make cogent rational arguments, not just throw out a bunch of emotional tripe and then get mad when called on. Bansalot might be more your speed - dissent is not allowed.

[randys1]

109. Oh gosh, not mad. I dont get mad when someone who is wrong argues with me LOL

Every word I said was true and you cant give it up...You cant just leave it at the point where you did pretty good when admitting that your access to a recreational item is more important to you than eliminating the item and the death that it causes.

Nothing I said had anything to do with emotion.

I stated the facts, unless there is a 3rd reason why you own guns that is so important that you are willing to risk another Sandy Hook?

You will lose any chance of working with me on other issues if you are not honest.

I will be paying close attention to who is saying they wont vote Democratic, as well.

Hopefully all gun people are?

Anybody wanna weigh in on that one?

[hack89]

110. Your refusal to accept no other solution other than your own is certainly emotional.

Adults don't live in black and white cartoon worlds where there is one and only one solution to complex social issues.

I don't need or want to work with you on other issues - your inability to respect people that disagree with you makes it clear that you are not capable of working with anyone in a constructive manner.

[randys1]

111. So you are not voting Democratic? And you dont want to work with other Democrats?

dont you DARE cop out and say it is ONLY me you wont work with

____________________________________________

voting Democratic?

[randys1]

112. Who else refuses to work with a liberal anti gun Democrat on non gun issues?

God I hope the number is small...

Cuz I need help protecting the right to vote.

Before my other post is hidden, you all notice who was the first to offer to work with others he doesnt agree with?

Hmm?

[hack89]

113. I don't need to work with you to elect Dems.

I can do it just fine by myself like I have done for 40 years. There are plenty of good Dems that are reasonable and who don't make gun control a litmus test. But that is fine - there is enough work for both of us.

When I retired from the military, I specifically chose RI because I wanted to live in a blue state controlled by Dems. I lived too many years in red states to ever want to do that again. I am a Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican and don't intend to start.

There are many pro-gun Dems - you just need to accept it. The speaker of the RI House, for example has an A+ rating from the NRA. He also is pro-union and pro-marriage equality. Not everyone sees the world in black and white terms like you.

[EX500rider]

122. "which would mean most cops wouldnt need them anymore"

Riiiiight.....'cause criminals and gang members would lock theirs up too? lol

[Nuclear Unicorn]

103. How many kids are you willing to mangle to death in DUI accidents or poison from over-indulgence

to keep alcohol legal?

[randys1]

105. This is why we will have to force people to give up their toys...when alleged liberals

make that argument in this conversation, imagine how insane the argument is in rightyville


Either the future is everybody has 23 guns or the future is almost nobody has guns, one of the other

Which represents evolution?


The answer is clear and thus one of the reasons why you cant win this argument.

Your comment I am responding to here is embarrassing

[Nuclear Unicorn]

115. You didn't answer the question, all you did was resort to authoritarianism.

Alcohol kills more kids than guns by orders of magnitude. Yet, you seem quite comfortable with those deaths.

Your agenda isn't about safety, it's about authoritarian control.

This is why we will have to force people to give up their toys

Is that a threat?

[randys1]

116. Last comment here so you wont use my silence to , well, silence me, which I know you want to do

badly

It is a threat, indeed.

I am threatening to elect adults who will appoint other adults who will read the 2nd amendment out loud then enforce it.

I am ALSO threatening to help protect the right to vote, a right many seem to take for granted.

I am ALSO threatening to do anything in my power to support WHOEVER the Dem candidate is for Prez.

I am ALSO threatening to do everything in my power to support politicians who will deal with the VAST racism in our country

I am also very much for reparations, huge reparations.

I am a liberal, I am a threat to rightwingers of all types, no matter where they are, all of us are.

We threaten them, including the ones here at DU, with our honesty, our intellect and our desire to see justice.

bye bye now

[Nuclear Unicorn]

117. You're dodging. You're obviously scared to answer the fact that -- by your own rhetoric -- you

accept the deaths of thousands of children killed by alcohol or harmed by those under the influence of alcohol. You can't answer it because it betrays the gaping whole in your argument.

Okay, fine. You'll vote for candidates that will pass laws that you like. Yet history shows those candidates lose, lose big and lose repeatedly. Even if you do get the laws you want the perverted irony is you will need people with guns to enforce them. Weird. It's almost as if THE PEOPLE don't want to be disarmed. One would think that DEMOcrats would align themselves with THE PEOPLE.

You talk about racism yet you want those who choked Eric Garner and the riot squads that abused people in Ferguson to possess a monopoly on power. Have you read about the African Americans that defended themselves from the KKK?

Reparations? You and what army? Bloomberg will retire to his (segre)gated community with his armed bodyguards and dictate to you how much you can earn, what you can own and what size soda you're allowed to drink.

I am a liberal

Liberalism stands for openness and freedom, not authoritarianism.

We threaten them, including the ones here at DU, with our honesty

Said the guy who ran away rather than answer a simple question based on his own professed morals.

[randys1]

119. You are EMBARRASSING yourself -- comparing alcohol to guns-- stop it, we are losing

credibility as a whole when one makes such insanely absurd comments

NOBODY would answer such an ABSURD QUESTION...

Come on, man, people are reading this forum...

Maybe even people who haven't made their minds up yet

[Nuclear Unicorn]

120. That's not a refutation, that's just another dodge.

Name any factor about why you don't like guns and you will find it can be applied to alcohol. Crime, public safety, health, etc. except --

Guns don't induce people to act but alcohol does. In fact, alcohol is an underlying factor in most crimes such as domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, DUIs, etc.

Alcohol cannot be used for self-defense but guns can and self-defense is a basic human right.

Long guns (rifles) account for fewer than 500 deaths of all age groups annually. The so-called "assault rifle" is a sub-set of the total number of long gun deaths. Yet, alcohol over indulgence kills 4,300 under-aged drinkers annually.

No one has to use a gun but if properly used a person can safely shoot a gun their entire life without harming themselves or anyone else. In contrast, alcohol is highly addicting. It leads to diseases of the liver, brain, etc. and is one of the few substances that can outright kill an addict if they go "cold turkey."

The body count and crime induced by alcohol far outweighs that of guns (and most gun crime involve alcohol) by orders of magnitude.

You may not like the argument. It may prove inconvenient to your narrative/preconceptions/agenda/prejudices but everything I have said is a fact.

Is it REALLY about saving as many lives as possible?

If so, let's look at things that actually matter --

* President Obama recently started an initiative to update the NICS that is used in background checks. The NICS has been suffering from neglect for far too many years. This effort is to be applauded. NICS should also be opened to private sellers.

* Most violent gun uses involve criminals with prior records. The notion of the virgin killer is a myth.

* More than half of gun deaths are suicides. Anyone who uses a gun has an obvious desire to die and is intent on making sure they cannot be saved. We need services that intervene before that point.


Gun prohibition will fail for the same reason alcohol prohibition failed.

[Electric Monk]

121. Adam Lanza was a myth? He had no criminal record prior to the Sandy Hook massacre.

"The notion of the virgin killer is a myth."

[beevul]

124. He killed his own mother before the massacre. Or had you forgotten. N/T

[Electric Monk]

125. No prior criminal record was the point being addressed. He was a spree killer with an ar-15. nt

[beevul]

127. Well, if you are deliberately selective, to the point of ignoring the word "most" I suppose.

Go back and read the original if you need to, it looks just like this minus the bold:

"Most violent gun uses involve criminals with prior records."

[Electric Monk]

128. Direct quote: "The notion of the virgin killer is a myth." so even 1 example proves that wrong. nt

[beevul]

129. Make up your mind.

Two posts ago you said "No prior criminal record was the point being addressed."

Are those goalposts heavy or do you have the wheeled model?

[Electric Monk]

130. WTF? Learn to read. My posts are consistent. Lanza was a "virgin" spree killer with no criminal rec.

I was demonstrating that the statement above that "The notion of the virgin killer is a myth." is untrue. Lanza had no prior criminal record, then he went on a killing spree. Yes, his spree started with his mother, followed by the school, but what difference does that make?

I think you're just trying to distract and distort, because guns. I get you.

You're part of that 10% where the only thing that really matters is "Fuck off. I love guns."

[beevul]

131. You learn to read.

First you said "No prior criminal record was the point being addressed."


Then you said ""The notion of the virgin killer is a myth." so even 1 example proves that wrong."

I think its very simple. NU inadvertently failed to insert the word "generally" between "a" and "myth" and you perceive this as a "blood in the water" moment, because "fuck off, I hate guns and people who are pro-gun, they deserve nothing but our scorn, they're a bunch of glib sociopaths", and proceeded to be a dick about it.



Tell you what, lets ask NU to expand on exactly what he/she meant so we can arrive at the truth of the matter.

My guess is you don't want to know exactly what he/she meant, and are quite content to ascribe what ever meaning is convenient for your argument.

[Electric Monk]

132. Do you understand that "virgin killer" means "no prior record"? Both posts are about the same thing.

[beevul]

133. I think "virgin record" would be a closer fit.

I'd define "virgin killer" as someone who *gasp* had never killed before.


Of course, I prefer honest use of language, for example, I think any group that describes itself as a "gun safety" group, actually teach what is widely known as "gun safety".

And so you may not have the same opinion, but then your "movement" was never really known for its honesty, then, was it:

[Electric Monk]

134. James Eagan Holmes is ANOTHER example of a spree killer with no prior record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Eagan_Holmes#Aurora_theater_shooting

The statement "The notion of the virgin killer is a myth." is simply not true. It does happen, and has happened. I've now given two examples from recent history.

I don't know what your graphic there has to do with anything having to do with this discussion, other than a feeble attempt to insult me, because your guns feelings are hurt...

[beevul]

136. Its the exception, not the rule.

The exception is statistically insignificant, and does not change the rule.

If you disagree, you tell us how often does it happen, and should it be treated as the exception, or the rule?


Like I said, I believe NU simply forgot to insert the word "generally" which really isn't needed except in the case of people like...You.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. James Holmes was also reported by a mental health professional as being potentially dangerous. The

police, those selfless and competent defenders of the common people to whom you would relegate our absolute defense, ignored the reports even though they are required by law.

You remember the law, don't you? It's that thing you want to impose upon the rest of us. If it's so honking awesome maybe you should teach your pet pigs to obey it before you give them more to enforce on the people.

By the way, most of the spree killers -- Cho, Loughner, Elliott Rogers, the Navy yard shooter, etc. -- were known for their psychological problems. Why are your law enforcement officials so incompetent?

[Straw Man]

118. Self-righteousness is a gateway drug ...

... to narcissistic egotism and extreme authoritarianism.

I'm just sayin' ...

[beevul]

135. Now now, NU, you need to get with the program.

[NutmegYankee]

45. Let see - removal of arms from the common citizenry has been a RW staple for centuries...

You might want to rethink this.

Right-wing politics are political positions or activities that view some forms of social hierarchy or social inequality as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable. A classic example was limiting arms to only the wealthy or noble elite. It is not a right-wing view to have guns in the hands of the common people. If you are noticing the identification of the issue between Republicans/Democrats, that's because of our tendency to try to take the opposite view of our opponents, even if ideologically it's not in accordance with our overall viewpoint. The Democratic Party, the Party of the Common man, has some people who believe only the powerful should have arms and rather than stick up for equal rights, wants to restrict the 2nd to chosen people. The Republicans, the anti-regulation party overall, loves to regulate abortion to death.

What is very noticeable is the stark similarity between some proposed "gun safety" laws and those for "woman's safety" passed against abortion, otherwise known as TRAP laws.

[NaturalHigh]

83. The Democratic party platform endorses 2nd Amendment rights.

Individual rights are not a right wing cause.

[Electric Monk]

84. subject to reasonable regulation (link)

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

Firearms. We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Like universal background checks and closing the gun show loophole...

[NaturalHigh]

86. The assault weapon ban was a farce at best.

As always, the question is who gets to decide what is reasonable.

[DonP]

92. "...who gets to decide what is reasonable."

Well, certainly not the people that actually know anything about firearms. That would be stupid.

Let's have people that don't know anything about firearms and hate anyone that owns them make the decisions.

After all, isn't that just "common sense"?

[NaturalHigh]

139. Well, people who know guns...

likely support gun rights, so we all know they must be evil and likely sexually frustrated, at least according to the ban crowd. It's not lost on me that I've been told on this board that owning a gun makes one a bad person.

I fully understand that there is such a thing as gun nuts, but there are at least an equal number of anti-gun nuts.

[Duckhunter935]

90. what event would of having that reinstated

have stopped? Bans based on cosmetic features are a feel good measure and a joke.

Do you think the possession of empty rounds is a reasonable gun control measure?

Yes or no?

I have answered your questions, it was easy. How about you give me the same respect?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172161250

[Electric Monk]

114. My original inclination was leaning towards no, but seeing just how batshit nuts it makes you,

I'm starting to lean yes on it instead.

Not that my opinion makes a frogs fart worth of difference to what the actual laws in DC are, as I've mentioned previously.

Happy now?

[Duckhunter935]

123. Still can't answer a simple question

I can and have

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=161250

Nope, not reasonable.

so is it yes or no for you?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "for politically liberal people"

liberal

[ ˈlib(ə rəl ]

ADJECTIVE

1.open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values:

"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

right-wingers in general are not welcome here.

When I think of RWers I think of authoritarian control freaks who blithely dismiss the concerns of women and minorities.

So what, exactly, is your stake here?

[GGJohn]

10. +1000. eom.

[VScott]

6. And what, if anything does that have to do with her ordeal...

to exercise her 2nd amendment rights or the attempt to silence her by an anti-gun organization?

Just because she's perceived as an enemy, doesn't justify the situation.

Unless of course you condone the CSVG's actions?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. We don't want to be seen tolerating civil rights for the wrong sort of people, would we?

[beevul]

18. Just as soon as you guys explain turning a blind eye to blooomergs racism.

You guy don't really have much of a leg to stand on, here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. The association fallacy *only* works in one direction for that sort

[beevul]

23. Except in the case of bloomberg...

Except in the case of Bloomberg, they're actually supporting the astroturf groups of his, rather than just commenting on an online article.


That's a substantial difference, any way you cut it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. They spend much energy pretending he hasn't said or done the things he has

They're quite busy pretending his latest racist remarks were never uttered.

Fortunately, someone came up with the audio of it:

[oneshooter]

20. Don't YOU forget this one

"It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions among a diverse community of people holding a broad range of center-to-left viewpoints."

[Duckhunter935]

56. Can you answer this question?

Do you think this is a reasonable gun control law?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=161250

Even more shocking is the fact that the homeowner could still be put in federal prison, despite the fact that not a single firearm was found in his home.

http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/mark-witaschek-ammunition-charge/

[Electric Monk]

62. Yes, i most certainly can. I know my answer. I love how it's driving you batshit nuts, too.

Have you ever heard the joke "How do you keep an idiot in suspense?"

I'll tell you the punch line when I feel like it

[Duckhunter935]

72. so are you callling me an "idiot"

If you are that is once again you have to sink to the insults, not very nice for a host.

I see you still refuse to answer a simple question.

[gcomeau]

26. Congratulations to Emily....

...for significantly increasing the odds she will die by gunshot.

[gejohnston]

28. you read the Kellerman "study" didn't you?

He is the reason ER docs shouldn't play criminologist. He resisted peer review for years. When it was, it was described as being about as scientific as NRA propaganda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436

[gcomeau]

32. While I am familiar with it... no...

I was referring to the consensus of pretty much ALL the studies done on the subject.

Like... this one:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Or... this one:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/9/1/48.full

Conclusion: Among adults who died in California in 1998, those dying from violence were more likely than those dying from non-injury causes to have purchased a handgun.

Or... this one:

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1814426

Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide.

Or... well take your pick really.

[gejohnston]

57. all of them have the same problem

Public health studies are always bullshit. One of the problems they have is the word "associated", meaning they all fall in to the same logical fallacy. They do not show cause and effect because there is no cause and effect. Another problem they have is that the written conclusions in the abstract don't match the study results. My question is have you read studies? Are there counter studies? Have they released their data to other researchers to replicate the study? If so, did they get the same results? In Kellerman's case, after being raked over the coals once he did release his data to criminologists, he changed his numbers every few years.

Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide

. That is because people who use guns and ropes intend to complete the suicide. Being a victim of homicide? That is because most of the murders in the US are criminals killing other criminals. A greater association among homicide victims are drugs, criminal activity, alcohol abuse, etc.
Using that logic, Vermont and Wyoming should have higher murder rates than Chicago, Detroit, or Thunder Bay, Ontario. Using their logic, Norway and Iceland should have higher murder rates than USVI, Brazil, and even Australia. Not so much.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

Aside from the bias, public health types and MDs have a poor grasp of the scientific method.

[randys1]

33. Democrats who love their guns do so for one of two reasons, or both

a. they are in fear for their life and feel they need a gun to protect themselves

or

b. they see guns mostly as recreational items whether that be target practice or hunting


Let's break this down, shall we?

A....well, since this statement is true

Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

we can eliminate reason A for owning guns

and if they tell me they want their gun to play with, in effect, then they piss me off

[ileus]

60. All three are great reasons.

Some folks love the competition aspects of firearms. Target, cowboy, 3 gun, steel plates, the list goes on and on.

Some folks enjoy hunting.

Others find life worth protecting, and thus invest in self defense firearms.

I don't compete against anyone but my co-workers when at the range, but we do make it to a few competitions a year. Loads of fun to watch, and if not for most events being held during prime fishing time I'd probably try steel challenge or three gun.

Good news is there's plenty of 2A progressives that believe in the basic human right of self defense and enjoy shooting sports on the side.

[Neon Gods]

46. Forgive me if I'm not cheering.

According to the CSGV alert you linked to, Emily (I guess you're on a first name basis) was quoted as saying,

"I live in D.C. now, so our gun laws, your gun laws, I feel your pain … No American should ever have to move to have their constitutional rights recognized … God gave us these rights. These are human rights.”

Did Emily say that? Is she not a journalist who writes about gun issues? If so she is obviously biased and should be fired as a journalist and hired as a columnist or commentator.

And please tell me why any rational person would say something as stupid as "God gave us these rights" when talking about an unfettered right to carry a gun in public? She should be fired for ignorance if for no other reason.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. Her employers have studiously ignored everyone else that has called for her dismissal

I think your side overestimates your influence just a smidge...

[Neon Gods]

71. Does that make you happy?

She's biased and a nut. I'm not surprised the FOX outlet in DC ignores us. Integrity is not highly valued at Fox. I would, however, expect a true Democrat to be offended at her blatant partisanship while pretending to be a journalist. Not to mention lying about gun ownership being a God-given right. Jeesh!

[VScott]

61. The key words here are "spoke at a rally".

On February 11, 2015, Miller spoke at a rally in Annapolis organized by Maryland Shall Issue (MSI), telling those in attendance, “I live in D.C. now, so our gun laws, your gun laws, I feel your pain … No American should ever have to move to have their constitutional rights recognized … God gave us these rights. These are human rights.”4

So, now are journalists to be prohibited (via fear of being fired), from even speaking to the public and expressing
their opinions and limiting their 1st amendment rights even further?

Seems like that's what you and the CSGV are suggesting.

How does "speaking at a rally" in any way tarnish her ability as a journalist?

Emily (I guess you're on a first name basis)

About as much on a first name basis as anyone who quotes 'Rachel' or 'Hillary'.

But, just in case you're unaware of it, the thread title is a take off (Emily Gets Her Gun),
from a series of articles she wrote for the Washington Times...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2011/oct/5/miller-emily-gets-her-gun/

[Neon Gods]

80. It's about ethics

"So, now are journalists to be prohibited (via fear of being fired), from even speaking to the public and expressing
their opinions and limiting their 1st amendment rights even further?"

Yes, if you want to be considered a professional journalist.

In its Code of Ethics, the Society of Professional Journalists states that journalists should “act independently” by avoiding “conflicts of interest, real or perceived” and “political…activities that may compromise integrity or impartiality.” (this was included in the CSGV link you provided. Did you read the linked alert?

This is why CSGV wants her fired. This isn't about the First Amendment, it's about ethics.

[gejohnston]

82. fair enough,

why are not they demanding the same of David Gregory?
Every journalist who cites them as the sole or credible source should also be canned.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2012/12/28/the-medias-gun-control-ethics-train-wreck-gets-its-engineer-david-gregory/

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

[virginia mountainman]

93. LOL....

[VScott]

126. That's one of those 'be careful what you wish for' kind of things.

If "Emily's" only crime is violating the 'Code of Ethics', then 99.9% of journalists, news organizations
are equally guilty and should be fired or censured.

The only thing she's guilty of is upsetting the 'delicate flowers' at CSVG.

[NaturalHigh]

85. How can anyone defend the D.C. ban?

Despite the stringent ban, don't they have a high murder rate?

Kind of like Chicago - pass laws that prevent decent, law-abiding people from getting firearms and then wring hands when the bad guys continue to break the law. In what world does that make sense?

[mwrguy]

87. She needs that gun

In case she has to stalk a black kid who is wearing a hoodie & armed with a bag of skittles.

[hack89]

89. Because every gun owner is a murderer in waiting

got it.

[ileus]

91. It's sad we have to fight the 1% for such a basic right.

[ileus]

138. One female down, thousands of poor victims to go.