Gun-control was hijacked

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

The basic idea of gun-control is keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, people with dangerously serious mental issues and those with a history of domestic violence. That noble idea has been turned into a campaign against certain types of guns. Laws like so called assault weapon bans are just a distraction away from the core issue. Folks like Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Representatives Michael Castle, Alcee Hastings and Mark Kirk and Carolyn McCarthy are misguided in their work draft laws banning "assault weapons". Rifles like AR-15s are used in a statistically tiny percentage of assaults compared to other firearms. This distracting attempt to villainize a type of firearm serves mostly to galvanize any opposition to useful gun-control proposals.

Work on universal background checks that might have an effect on illegal gun deals is being poisoned by useless distractions like pushes for AWBs.

[Puha Ekapi]

1. Well....

you said:

The basic idea of gun-control is keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, people with dangerously serious mental issues and those with a history of domestic violence


I would have to disagree. The basic idea behind gun control is exercising CONTROL over people. I'm pretty convinced by now that the controllers could give a rat's ass about solutions that would actually reduce criminal activity and death. But yeah, the controllers worst enemy is themselves, they have an astonishing talent for shooting themselves in their own feet.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

2. I'm sorry

I should have said, "The basic idea of legitimate gun-control is keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, people with dangerously serious mental issues and those with a history of domestic violence."

[Eleanors38]

3. This pretty much sums it up. When a reasonable measure like UBC is proposed, it stands little

chance as the "players" in gun control leave their fingerprints all over it. And those fingerprints are seen in the light of statements like:

"It's just a beginning"

"It's a start"

"For now"

These comments indicate that a sprawling agenda of regulation and bans is in the offing, not a coherent, limited and verifiable policy aimed at specific societal ills.There is little or no trust in this so-called debate in which one side has never seen a gun-control measure it didn't like.

[virginia mountainman]

4. It's too be expected..

When elitist, republican, 1%'ers are calling the shots so to say..

[NaturalHigh]

7. I wonder what gets Bloomy more agitated...

people exercising their Constitutional rights to own firearms or soft drinks. He probably blows a gasket at the idea of someone enjoying a double cheeseburger and fries.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. As has been often suggested...

...it's not about guns, it's about control, in more ways than one.

[Matrosov]

5. Control advocates are their own worst enemy

I wrote a lengthy post about this when I first joined: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025433755

Sadly, it got hidden after someone reported me as being a RW troll. I'm not sure if the person didn't read anything I wrote or was a RW themselves.

It's a bit of a ramble, but all in all it points out that control advocates are their own worst enemy. They tend to be active only when there's been a major shooting in the news, and they're sidetracked easily by focusing too much on single issues, like assault rifles or high capacity magazines.

Meanwhile, the NRA lemmings that promise us a polite and peaceful society once even the baby in the carriage is carrying a concealed Glock in its diapers are active at pumping out the propaganda 24/7/365.

[gejohnston]

6. interesting read, but

but have to correct one thing. Machine guns were rarely used in crimes before NFA. Mostly it was the mob and the roving bandits like Dillinger. Of course, they made headlines. They were not that really that easily accessible either. Two reasons for this:
Most people had no use for them and they were expensive. A Thompson cost about $300 at the time, about half the price for a car. In fact, the company almost went broke. The mob set up fake security companies, while Clyde Barrows and Dillinger stole them from police and NG armories. The security companies bought them for armored cars guarding payroll. When employers started using checks instead of paying in cash, most of these companies sold or donated them to the local PD. Sure you could buy one at the local hardware store just like a Barrett today. Like the Barrett, it mostly collected dust.

After WW1, Colt offered the BAR for civilian sale for about $6K in today's money. They sold exactly zero.

What actually put a dent in machine gun crimes in the US was the 30 year mandatory minimum for using an NFA weapon, the mob reacting to the public relations nightmare the St Valentines Day Massacre and drive bys created, and better security at NG armories. I don't think NFA had anything to do with it.

In places like Europe and Australia, machine guns are used more often than here. Pistol or SMG for the same price and penalty if caught, which is the better deal? Another example is Canada. While handguns have been registered and licensed since 1934, machine guns were not as strictly regulated until they were banned in 1977. Outside of registration, they were not that much different than regular rifles and shotguns. I don't think their machine gun crimes were that great.

Other than that, you made excellent points.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Indeed...

...Control advocates ARE their own worst enemy! I couldn't have said it better.

[shedevil69taz]

12. It got hidden because you posted it to the wrong forum...

Almost anything gun related isn't allowed in GD anymore. Post that here and it will stay up

[Shamash]

8. Since I can't be here all the time...

Let me post a link for people to remember and share as needed:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/feinstein-1995-her-concealed-carry-permit-i-know-urge-arm-yourself-because-thats-what-i-did

This is Dianne Feinstein talking about the time she carried a concealed pistol for self-defense, with the money quote of: “I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

Guns for me, but not for thee...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. I remember when changing your mind...

...affected you more than folks you didn't even know. Senator F needs to retire.
Maybe she can get a hobby... like shooting...

[Revanchist]

13. Nice website you chose

About Us
MRCTV is an online media platform designed to broadcast conservative values, culture, politics, liberal media bias, and entertainment to a new and diverse audience on a social media optimized site.

Our goal is to break down the boundaries between traditional conservative media and mainstream culture.

MRCTV is brought to you by the Media Research Center, a 501(c) 3 nonprofit research and education organization. The MRC is located at: 1900 Campus Commons Dr., Reston, VA 20191. For information about the MRC, please visit www.MRC.org.

[gejohnston]

14. it is a known fact that she had one

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273989-feinstein-doesnt-have-concealed-carry-permit-anymore

Does she still have it? I don't know.

[oneshooter]

15. I believe that she had two.

One for a 38cal revolver and one for a 22cal revolver.

She turned in the one for the 22.

Kept the one for the 38.

[Shamash]

16. The website was found through a search for Feinstein on a different issue

Whether I approve of the site or not (I don't) has no bearing on the authenticity of the video.

argumentum ad hominem (or just ad hominem) is responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

In this case you are deflecting from the content of the video by criticising where it was found, something which is irrelevant to the video itself. Do you actually have an opinion on Feinstein's attitude and comments?

[Revanchist]

17. But if you spend anytime on this site, you should know that people will judge you

by the sites you link to, especially if you post in this forum, where quite a few DU'ers think that most of the posters are right-wing plants already.

I did a quick search and found the video on youtube. Same message, but with none of the baggage that is associated with the link that you posted. It is too easy for the message to be tainted, whether it is true or not, by where you get your information from.

On Senator Feinstein herself on this issue, you could call a hypocrite with a touch of Authoritarian thrown in for good measure and I would probably agree with you.

[Shamash]

18. Thank you for the YouTube link. n/t

[Revanchist]

19. No problem, I'm just trying to be helpful

You already have four hides under your belt. If you are alerted on, some jury members might conduct a background search on your posts and see that you use right-wing sites as sources and assume that you are troll. Biases are strong here and there is no need to provide your critics with any additional ammunition. If I were you I would change your link to the one I provided to you and then I'll delete my response post since it would be no longer valid.