I absolutely believe the fires elsewhere have been set by bigots; this is just mystifying. Please tell me this is just horribly misguided performance "art."

Here is something I have seen constantly among pro-gun control advocates here that continues to elude me.

Outside of this particular board they post on other topics. Many will post on a variety topics, others are a bit more narrow concerning where they offer comment. However, there is one thing that is nearly universal among them to some degree:

They all find a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the government in at least one facet. Some will tell you the police are killing unarmed civilians either out of the arrogance of power and/or racist animosity. Some will tell you we are being sold-out by the politicians to multi-national corporations that heed no national laws and are laws unto themselves. Many will claim the government has all but discarded our civil liberties and the Bill of Rights in the name of a surveillance police state. Others will claim the government wages illegal wars of aggression. Still others will even tell you the US government engineered 9/11. We incessantly hear of stolen elections and corrupt appointments.

Every person posting here on behalf of expanded gun control subscribes to at least one of these propositions. Some of these complaints I find absurd but there are many to which I am sympathetic to varying degrees.

But I'm not really interested in arguing the veracity of these claims. In fact, for the purposes of this OP I will assume the claims are all as true insofar as the proponents state them to be.

So why then the mania to disarm the people?

If you truly believe the government is a racist, corporatist, lawless, war-mongering, murdering, self-selecting, rights-abusing police state why in Heaven's name are the people to be made defenseless? Even if you believe civilians could never match modern militaries (the Viet Cong, ISIS, etc. may beg to differ) the entire premise of gun control relies upon the assertion that the government is and forever will be a beneficent caretaker.

How does anyone reconcile these beliefs in their own minds?

It takes ten tickles.

I'm curious to know why the state had to be sued into providing the information. Are they that embarrassed by their failures? And if it's this bad in NY what does that portend for registration efforts in less blue-friendly environs?

This is how deeply disturbed this individual was --



The excerpts don't do justice to the depths of his depravity.

Polls that gauge how Democrat A or Democrat B stack-up against Republican X, Y or Z don't strike me as all that valuable at this stage of the game. Those polls really only gauge one thing, Name Recognition.

However, the primaries are the sport of the parties' base, not the general populace. Once the bases have made their decision Name Recognition ceases to be a factor because the resources of the Parties are aligned behind them. Name Recognition becomes moot at that point.

I honestly think it is an over-valued attribute.

does the fact that Controllers act deceptively, prevaricate about their objectives, refuse consensus and vilify opponents in the most noxious terms make them responsible for the failures of their own efforts?

Even if the charges are dropped the effort to silence dissent had succeeded -- unless the objections become more numerous and frequent.

More than half of gun deaths are suicides. Anyone who uses a gun has no allusions about the extremity and permanence of their actions. There is no, "Oh maybe I'll shoot myself and someone will save me" cry for help; it's an act calculated to result in death.

Someone who is that determined to die cannot be dissuaded by what is or is not commercially available; they need help to move past what is destroying their lives.

And to ignoring what moves people to suicide in order to fixate on the chosen method of suicide is effectively saying it is okay to leave someone trapped in the abyss of suicidal depression for nothing more than a fleeting political victory.

Treat the mental health issues and guns become irrelevant.

Of the remaining roughly 45% of gun deaths we have a portion that are accidental and the remainder are deliberate criminal acts.

If banning a thing because of the misuse of that thing has never worked. It brought us Prohibition which turned irresponsible behavior into a criminal enterprise that remains entrenched to this day, decades after its repeal.

What reduces drunk driving isn't banning alcohol but rather a shift in social mores where responsible behavior is constantly reinforced. DUIs are down because people know it isn't cool to be the guy who killed a family of 4 after partying all night. It's better to find a DD and being a DD is considered a worthy cause.

As far as criminal use of guns is concerned, consider the fact that the majority of criminals using guns have prior criminal records. In others words their possession of a gun is already a criminal offence.

Many more are instances of domestic violence. Will a proposed law be.more likely to deter the offender or only end up disarming the targeted victims?

President Obama recently took steps to bolster the flagging NICS database. He is to be applauded for this. Now it is time to open NICS to private sellers as well.