Have you ever noticed how...

[LAGC]

There isn't much argument or protest against women's rights/choice anywhere on this site.

Nor is there much argument against LGBT rights anywhere on this site.

Nor is there much argument against Labor rights anywhere on this site.

Yet, here in the Guns forum and throughout the site, there is quite a bit of argument whenever the topic of gun control comes up.

Maybe gun control isn't as solid a plank of the Democratic Party as its cracked up to be?

[Poll_Blind]

1. Remember: DU members self-select themselves to participate in the site and....

...in various threads. Looking to how many people on DU do or do not get riled up about a particular topic isn't always a tipoff that it's as divisive among the bulk of those who regularly vote Democrat.

Otherwise, there would be something about circumcision in the party planks.

PB

[LAGC]

2. LOL, good point.

We do get pretty worked up about circumcision sometimes.

[Common Sense Party]

36. Not to mention Olive Garden. n/t

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[LAGC]

5. I don't think that is true at all.

If anything, the moderators/Admin idly stand by and do nothing when some of the more vocal anti-gunners spam the forum with anecdotal current events postings that portray gun violence or otherwise show guns in a bad light, without any commentary tying it to the forum topic, which is clearly against the site's rules.

This behavior has been pointed out repeatedly in the Ask the Administrators forum, with only a shrug and brush-off from Skinner. Clearly they tolerate such tactics, which makes me doubt they have any bias against anti-gunners.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Atypical Liberal]

38. I don't think that's true.

I'll be the first to admit: I'm not a big aficionado of the whole "racist roots" thing. To me, gun control is gun control and it is at odds with what our founders intended and the whole racist aspect of it is beside the point.

But I do believe that during reconstruction and up until the time of the Civil Rights Movement there were definitely attempts to disarm blacks and prevent them from being empowered. We know, for example, that Dr. Martin Luther King was denied a permit for a concealed weapon, and I'm sure race had a lot to do with that decision.

Moderators never look the other way when anti-gun moderates suggest, politely, that a pro-gun argument has its roots in right-wing propaganda. These posts are deleted with extreme prejudice. They are whitewashed from the board.

I'm sure any posts that are backed up with citations would stand.

[ThatPoetGuy]

66. Do we?

"We know, for example, that Dr. Martin Luther King was denied a permit for a concealed weapon"

Do "we know" that?

We know that a law professor named Adam Winkler has claimed he discovered evidence to that effect while researching his book, _Gunfight_. But the book hasn't even been published yet, and the evidence hasn't been subjected to the light of day.

Why are you so eager to believe it's true? You not only stated a possibility as a fact, you reinforced it with a solemn, royal "We know" when we know no such thing with any degree of certainty. Winkler wouldn't be the first scholar to fabricate, or the first to make an honest mistake. His research and his conclusions aren't even scheduled to be available for public review until September; everything you and the gun blogs have based that "we know" statement upon is one article Winkler wrote, where he said:

"As I found researching my new book, Gunfight, in 1956, after King's house was bombed, King applied for a concealed carry permit in Alabama," and some more detail about events that supposedly happened. But HOW did Winkler "find" that? Did someone tell him a story he heard from his uncle who heard it from a friend? Did he find a denied permit in the name of M. King? How compelling is the evidence Winkler based that statement on?

It might be true. Winkler seems smart and has interesting observations. But he essentially said "I discovered a new piece of information, I'm not telling you how I discovered it or how solid my sources are. Buy my book when it comes out to hear more!" And you believed every word as gospel. Fact. "We know."

I would question that tendency if I were you.

It should be pointed out that even Winkler himself has made a clear distinction between "early" and later, "pacifist" phases of the Rev. Dr. King's life, and he attributes the supposed gun permit to the "early" phase, suggesting that the wisdom and importance of King's life came long after the supposed gun permit.

[Atypical Liberal]

71. Interesting

I had read it in so many places I assumed it was true.

It should be pointed out that even Winkler himself has made a clear distinction between "early" and later, "pacifist" phases of the Rev. Dr. King's life, and he attributes the supposed gun permit to the "early" phase, suggesting that the wisdom and importance of King's life came long after the supposed gun permit.

I had read this as well.

[Starboard Tack]

39. +100% Well said

[Euromutt]

61. That strikes me as a severely tendentious interpretation

(As an aside, it's "quelle," not "qu'elle.")

Moderators never look the other way when anti-gun moderates suggest, politely, that a pro-gun argument has its roots in right-wing propaganda.

It might be my faulty memory, but I cannot recall such a suggestion ever having been made politely, and perhaps more importantly, without violating the forum rules (http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html), particularly theese ones:

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion.

It's one thing to claim that an idea or opinion is a right-wing; it's another to assert that the person holding is ipso facto a right-winger.

Or, for that matter, a racist. Like it or not, the fact is that the adoption of a large number of gun control laws in the United States has indeed been motivated by racism. There's overwhelming historical evidence, for example, that New York state's Sullivan Laws were aimed squarely at recent immigrants, particularly Italians and eastern European Jews. Similarly, California's Mulford Act of 1967 (California Penal Code § 12031) was clearly intended to disarm members of the Black Panthers.

The same applies to the enforcement of such laws, with police chiefs and sheriffs routinely exercising their "executive discretion" to deny firearms licenses (be they licenses to possess or carry) to members of certain ethnic groups. And we're talking within the past couple of decades; there's no reason to assume it doesn't still happen.

While these facts aren't necessarily indicative of your motivations, or those of various other proponents of increased gun control laws, there are definitely some people on your side of the line who are racist and/or classist and primarily want to keep firearms out of the hands of "those people" (for just about any possible permutation of who "those people" might be) because they feel such people are untrustworthy by dint of their ethnic and/or socio-economic status. You can claim it's revisionism, but the evidence strongly indicates otherwise.

[ThatPoetGuy]

64. It's the Sullivan Act, not the Sullivan "Laws"

and the argument you're posting is not in any way similar to historical reality.

The Mayor of New York City was shot. A year later the Sullivan Act passed. It's simple cause and effect.

It was later, lonnnng after the fact, that right-wing commentators went back and invented the story that it was motivated by racism. The cornerstone of the argument is one editorial from the NYT from 1905, six years before the Act was passed, and selected so far out of its historical context that it's been deliberately positioned to make you think it's the only article that showed racism and the only article that opposed guns.

The theory you repeated here is false, and it's part of a conscious, deliberate effort to deceive people into thinking liberals are racist.

"There's overwhelming historical evidence, for example, that New York state's Sullivan Laws were aimed squarely at recent immigrants, particularly Italians and eastern European Jews."

You claim "the evidence strongly indicates" anti-gun movement were racist, but you're wrong.

Not a little bit wrong.

Not a slight matter of degree.

Completely, utterly, totally misinformed.

There is a movement dedicated to misinforming us.

The same people who spread the misinformation you believed are the ones who tell us Iraq sent its WMDs to Syria. They tell us tax cuts create revenue. They lie.

Please. Do the research. I welcome it. I welcome seeing you grow better informed. One less person repeating anti-liberal falsehoods is a good thing. And yes, I say anti-liberal, not antiguncontrol, because the racist-roots-deception has been used, and was intended to be used, to tar innumerable liberals throughout the decades. And you fell for it.

The "overwhelming historical evidence" to which you refer was a single racist opinion piece in a news era where all opinion pieces were racist. There were racist articles about the price of alcohol in 1905, and racist articles about the "Spaniards" and "Chinamen." There were racist articles about cigar factories and racist articles about laundry. There is one racist article in favor of gun control, in 1905, and that is the entire basis of the attack on the Sullivan Act.

It takes a special kind of bias to ignore the cause and effect of the city's mayor getting shot in 1910 and the Sullivan Act passing in 1911. And it takes conscious deception to ignore that causal chain and imagine, instead, a single opinion piece from six years earlier is the cause.

It is testimony to the effectiveness of right-wing propagandists that you not only state your belief in their lies, but also, amazingly, you believed this complete fairy tale had "overwhelming historical evidence" that "strongly indicates" Hitler was a liberal. Sorry, I mean, you believed this complete fairy tale had "overwhelming historical evidence" that "strongly indicates" the Sullivan Act was racist.

Were there racists among the supporters of the Sullivan Act? Well, duh. And there were racists among the opponents. And there were racists among those who liked pepper and racists among those who disliked pepper. It takes conscious malice to try to construct an argument that people who like pepper are racists. And yet propagandists did exactly that, and you came here and said, "overwhelming historical evidence" "strongly indicates" that people who like pepper are racists.

It's late and I'm tired. I hope I wasn't harsh or dismissive, because I think you've been thoughtful and considerate.

Please, moderators, please, please, please, don't delete this post.

[Euromutt]

67. I have a suggestion

If you want to persuade me, point me towards some evidence that supports your claim. Because oddly enough, insisting repeatedly and with increasing vehemence how wrong I am and how readily I've been hoodwinked by right-wing propagandists, without providing evidence to that effect, doesn't do it for me, for some odd reason. All the more since your line of argument is less than consistent.

You state that the NYT editorial was written in "in a news era where all opinion pieces were racist." It seems hard to credit that the pervasiveness of racism would be restricted only to the editorial boards of the newspapers; in the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby (http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0030014/quotes), "the only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices." Thus, it seems plausible, indeed likely, that the attitude displayed by the NYT's editorial board reflected opinion generally held by the voters of New York state.

The Mayor of New York City was shot. A year later the Sullivan Act passed. It's simple cause and effect.

How about non causa pro causa (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#noncausa), and more specifically, post hoc ergo propter hoc (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#posthoc)?

Actually, I'll grant you that the shooting of Gaynor played a part in the adoption of the Sullivan Law (you'll find, incidentally, that the terms "Sullivan Act" and "Sullivan Law" are used interchangeably), but I would surmise that, rather than being the primary--let alone the only--cause, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, especially considering Gaynor was actually shot on a German liner docked in Hoboken, New Jersey, where the Sullivan Act wouldn't have applied anyway. Moreover, the Gaynor assassination attempt does not explain why the Sullivan Law criminalized possession of such items as brass knuckles, saps and blackjacks, which are hardly suitable as assassination weapons. And on top of all that, Gaynor had made serious attempts to curb corruption in New York City, which hadn't exactly endeared him to Tammany Hall, of which Timothy Sullivan, the primary sponsor of the bill, was a prominent member.

At least one historian, Dan Czitrom, has suggested that Sullivan himself was motivated in no small part by the fact that, thanks to Tammany Hall's control over the NYPD, he and his bodyguards were assured the ability to carry weapons legally, whereas his rivals would not.

It's also worth mentioning that, at the time the Sullivan Act became law, the two prominent gangs in Manhattan were the Five Points Gang (predominantly Italian) and the Eastman Gang (predominantly Jewish).

[ThatPoetGuy]

73. I'm not the one who claimed overwheling evidence.

You are the one who did. Your claim was false, yet you claimed it was not only true, you made it sound like mountains of irrefutable evidence had piled up.

You're the one in the position to provide that evidence. Where is it? You maligned thousands of decent people through history, with no basis for your statements, and you're asking me to provide evidence to prove your causal statement is false. You're the one who needs to provide evidence that your causal statements are true. You're the one who made sweeping, grotesque generalizations on no factual basis, and claimed overwhelming evidence supported the crap you were spewing.

But I suspect you not only won't concede what you've done, you'll cling to your false beliefs. That's how cognitive dissonance works. Keep on catapulting the propaganda.

[Euromutt]

75. You seem to be the caller in a game of fallacy bingo

We've already had post hoc ergo propter hoc, now we have a combination of multiple arguments from ignorance (http://fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html): you're simultaneously claiming that your position is correct because it hasn't been proved wrong, while my position is wrong because it hasn't been proved right (compounding the double argument from ignorance with something of an "either-or" fallacy http://fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html). In the process, you blithely ignore the evidence and arguments I've presented in support of my position and countering yours.

You know what? I withdraw the word "overwhelming," but I maintain that the evidence is there that the Sullivan Act was racist, if not in intent, most assuredly in its implementation. Not that I'm convinced the Sullivan Act wasn't aimed at recent immigrants. Why else would it contain a provision prohibiting specifically non-U.S. citizens from possessing any kind of deadly weapon? Gaynor wasn't shot by a recent immigrant; he was shot by James Gallagher, an employee of the NYC Docks & Ferries Dept. who had been fired a month earlier, and while Gallagher had been born in Ireland, he had, according to the NYT, he had "no brogue or accent to distinguish him as a man of foreign birth" and "records show that he has been a citizen for years" (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F70B1FFB395D11738DDDA90994D0405B808DF1D3).

Moreover, this was the heyday of the Immigration Restriction League, which was opposed to the influx of "undesirable" immigrants, by which it chiefly meant those from eastern and southern Europe.

As for the burden of proof, don't pretend you haven't made assertions that require evidence. You've dismissed my entire argument, claiming in passing that I "maligned thousands of decent people through history," on the basis solely of your challenge to my assessment of the Sullivan Act. You haven't addressed my example of the Mulford Act at all. And regarding the application of gun control laws, let's look at central California in 2002:
Fresno County: population, 44% Hispanic; CCW permit holders, 3% Hispanic.
Contra Costa County: population, 9.5% African-American; CCW permit holders, 0.5% African-American.
In Sacramento County, then-Sheriff Lou Banas refused to accept applications for CCW permits from residents of the city of Sacramento, at the request of the Sacramento city chief of police. Or so he claimed, since Sacramento PD was unaware of any such request. Not coincidentally, the population of the city of Sacramento contained a significantly higher concentration of African-Americans and Hispanics than the unincorporated areas of the county.
It's hard not to get suspicious about this sort of thing.

And that's the thing with licensing systems that leave the decision whether or not to issue to the local chief law enforcement officer: while no such law explicitly discriminates against blacks, Hispanics, etc. by leaving it to the "discretion" of the CLEO to determine whether the applicant is of "good moral character" and can demonstrate "good cause" to want a permit, the result is that members of ethnic minorities are deemed to be incapable of showing "good cause" with suspicious frequency.

If I can get right to the point, your problem is that you've overreached badly. If you'd claimed that Cramer's The Racist Roots of Gun Control and any argument based on it was a "guilt by association" fallacy (http://fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html), you'd have an entirely valid point. As a quote on the Fallacy Files page on the argumentum ad Nazium (http://fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html) aptly puts it, "a view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler" (or Stalin, Mao, etc.). Speaking as a former gun control advocate, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that many--probably most--advocates of increased gun control are driven by perfectly laudable motives (at least over the past fifty years).

But it's--and I hope I'm not being "harsh or dismissive"--utter bullshit to pretend that racism and classism haven't played a major role in both the advocacy for and the implementation of gun control laws in this country, and continue to do so. And that, as a result, advocates of the right to keep and bear arms have legitimate grounds to question the motivations of gun control proponents. (Note that I say "question" and not "dismiss out of hand.") You don't aid your cause by doggedly denying that certain supporters of your cause have been acting out of less than noble motives, when the evidence exists that some of them have.

[one-eyed fat man]

82. Is there another "Big Tim" Sullivan?

As an integral part of Tammany Hall machine he had a loyal following. His involvement in organized crime and political protection of street gangs and vice districts was well-known and public knowledge throughout his political career. The Sullivan Act, a state law that required a permit to carry or own a concealed weapon, which eventually became law on May 29, 1911. With registration controlled by the corrupt New York Police Department it guaranteed his cronies could be legally armed while using the law against their political opponents. It IS that simple.

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

During the turn of the century, he would develop contacts with many influential figures including Monk Eastman, Paul Kelly, Arnold Rothstein and disgraced NYPD Lieutenant Charles Becker, who was able to attain the latter a high-ranking position on the New York police force in 1893.

A close associate of Charles Francis Murphy, who succeeded the exiled Richard Croker as head of Tammany Hall in May 1902, the two forced corrupt police chief William Stephen Devery out of Tammany's Executive Committee as part of Murphy's campaign to eliminate any direct links between vice districts and Tammany Hall.

However, Sullivan was allowed to keep his kickbacks from the Lower East Side and Chinatown as a means of keeping him from becoming Murphy's political rival (he had used his considerable political influence from keeping Croker's reform group, the Committee of Five, out of the Bowery only two years before). In exchange, Sullivan would have to furnish gang leaders Monk Eastman and Paul Kelly, amongst others, to commit election fraud on behalf of Tammany Hall.

At the time, it was widely known that Sullivan and his subordinates were active in a number of illegal activities including prostitution, gambling and extortion. A number of these revelations came to light in the New York State Lexow Committee hearings as well as through the investigations of the Rev. Charles Henry Parkhurst.

[oneshooter]

70. Please cite to proof. n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

72. nevermind.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. Disagree on multiple points.

For starters, that only the 'anti-gunners' post useless anecdotes. I've been around here long enough to see the anecdote-spammers go the other way as well.

[lawodevolution]

16. so you want any pro-gun ideas to be banned from the forum?

There are plenty of anti-gun bigots who will try to attack my culture (of law abiding gun ownership) and my heritage (of gun owners) by trying to claim or make it seem like we are ignorant, stupid, hicks, simple-minded, evil, etc. So yes, there are lots of anti-gun bigots who have not figured out yet that they should "coexist" and "tolerate" my culture as well.

Who are the right wingers? PM me if you need to.

It is not against the rules to argue against pro gun posts, it is against the rules to use personal attacks and inflammatory comments as arguments. Some of my posts are deleted also when I get out of control or when I use "bad words". Who cares. Try using data and facts to argue rather than just attacks and hate and the posts will not be deleted.

[patrice]

4. NOT arguing against your right to carry, just asking what is dangerous about those other issues and

how those dangers (generated by these other issues you cite) are similar to the impact upon certain social-economic sectors who are already so enslaved by other factors that the dangers they experience from their own right to carry ARE A BURDEN TO THE REST OF US, thus further insuring their continued disadvantage in a system that addresses none of this and hence their continued burden on the rest of us.

I want you to have your right to carry, but I think it is unfair that I have to PAY for the consequences of that right, especially when I do not exercise it myself.

Like objections to federal/state funding of abortions, why are my tax dollars being used to deal with the consequences of something that has no or little value to me, or even, from certain perspectives, could be considered im-moral for its effect upon those who, apparently, cannot handle it.

REALLY, just askin'.

[LAGC]

6. How are tax dollars being used in regards to this issue?

That's news to me.

I don't know of any gun manufacturers that get subsidized by the government or receive special tax breaks, if that's what you're implying.

[patrice]

8. To compensate for and respond to the damage done by guns & it's not just tax dollars.

It's health care too.

[lawodevolution]

17. No damage is done by guns, it's people who do the damage

and go look at the data from nations with low gun ownership rates such as nigeria, haiti, jamaica, sierra leon and just about all the top 20 most violent countries have very low civilian gun possession rates. Guns obviously are not a social problem.

[Starboard Tack]

40. "Guns obviously are not a social problem"

Then why are we having such heated discussions?
Imagine the violence level in those countries if guns were as available as they are here. I think your reasoning is disingenuous, to say the least. And it is the NRA and rabid pro=toting community that is destroying the legitimate, law abiding "gun culture" you and many of us would prefer not to lose.
I want to be able to go out and buy a gun to hunt with or protect my home from varmints and I don't want gun toting nutters taking away those rights with their crazy ideas, like toting in church and school and shopping malls and political rallies.

[lawodevolution]

49. This post is full of ignorance

Those with CHL permits are many times less likely to kill someone by any means than those without a permit. I'd trust someone with a CHL much more than someone without one.

[Starboard Tack]

74. Why would you trust them more?

[patrice]

11. Especially since those who are so on the offensive about right to carry ALSO fight tooth&nail ANY

of the measures by means of which we might mitigate some of the disadvantages that result in DYSFUNCTIONAL gun ownership. This would be things such as: a minimum wage; birth control; sex education; authentic and appropriate support for public schools; opposition to 3-strikes-&-you're-out laws; separation of church and state; the Dream Act . . . just to mention a few factors that contribute to slavery and I DON'T mean just people of color.

What I'm suggesting here is, given the list in OP, wouldn't it be possible that if we created better opportunities for people, we'd have way less reasons to oppose your right to carry.

[LAGC]

13. I agree completely.

I think the gun control debate shouldn't even be on the radar until we address all those issues you mentioned.

[patrice]

14. Oh, I think we should talk about it now, because that's good for people.

[lawodevolution]

18. you are starting to make my arguing points for me, find the real solution to violence

find the underlying causes of violence and solve those problems. Focusing on guns is a distraction and will result in a failure to reduce violence.

[spin]

24. As a gun owner with a carry permit and as a Democrat ...

I can support all the ideas you mentioned and even more such as legalization of some drugs and a fair and affordable healthcare system for all, and carry my firearm at the same time.

[one-eyed fat man]

31. Dysfunctional gun ownership??

Is that something like crimes committed by criminals??

You don't like paying for the costs of patching up a minimum wage convenience store clerk shot by an armed robber?

Or are you complaining about the costs associated with a criminal being shot by another criminal?

Maybe I am missing something but a criminal being shot by their intended victim is perfectly functional?

Is there a reason thieves, muggers, rapists should be protected from a hostile work environment by assuring all potential victims are disarmed?

[patrice]

76. ALL types of the misuse of weapons.

[one-eyed fat man]

77. That's maybe where we differ

I do not see a victim defending themselves from an unprovoked criminal attack as as misusing a weapon.

[patrice]

78. Neither do I. What made you think I did? That's about the only legitimate use of a weapon I can

think of, IMO. But if others have them for other reasons, I am willing to live with that as long as they aren't misused and, therefore, cost us money. Therefore, I propose that we address the factors that contribute to the misuse of weapons, even the small ones, because small things, e. g. nutritious healthy food on the table, contribute to much much bigger things.

[one-eyed fat man]

80. Look at your signature line

Most criminality is a choice. It is a conscious decision to engage in predatory and antisocial behavior. One wag suggested that you don't see Harvard grads holding up liquor stores.

Theodore Roosevelt observed a century ago, "A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education he may steal the whole railroad."

In either case, it is an overblown sense of entitlement that compels a teenage thug to stab another kid to death for an iPod or a Bernie Madoff to scam investors for millions. They both have one thing in common, an absolute unshakable belief that the norms of society to not apply to them. They live by the creed:

"Everybody is above the law until they get caught."

What keeps you from torturing little animals? What keeps you from shortchanging a blind man? Cheat at solitaire? Character is what makes you do the right thing when no one is watching. Poverty makes people poor, it does not make them criminals.

Any thing other than mental illness is an excuse, not a reason.

[patrice]

81. Hamlet was a perfect example of the kinds of errors in claims to a right of self-defense

that I am referring to.

Shakespeare is classic, because those things to which he refers, his metaphorical referrents if you will, are authentically universal. Thus, there are arms and then there are arms. Hamlet's psychosis resulted in wrong choices regarding his right to bear arms and everyone paid. He and most of the rest of them, and at least some ideals or principles Hamlet THOUGHT he was defending, ended up not being, rather than being. If he had chosen the right arms at the right time and born them appropriately and strategically, things would have been greatly different in the kingdom of Denmark.

[patrice]

83. BTW, please note that Shakespeare says, "... that is the (a) QUESTION ..." not an answer.

The answer is in the events that transpired as a result of that question.

[one-eyed fat man]

84. Now you start to get it

The question is, "Do I wanna BE a gang-banging thug and kill people for their sneakers..."

"Is it nobler" to embrace a violent and predatory outlaw culture that celebrates murder and mayhem, disrespects women, and mocks middle-class values?

If it is better to be an outlaw than to be a teacher or a chemist or accountant and if it is more acceptable to be violent and reckless than to be responsible then the seeds of ruin are bearing fruit.

[patrice]

85. Well then, we agree. It all depends upon how you define "arms". One can be armed with intelligence

and disciplined effort.

[one-eyed fat man]

86. Telekinesis?

"One can be armed with intelligence and disciplined effort."



If faced with a couple of youthful muggers, I'd prefer not to rely "the Force."

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - - Edmund Burke in ‘Thoughts on the Cause of Present Discontents’

By forcing the good to disarm, all you do is lay bare the necks of innocents.

[patrice]

87. Where did I say anything about "force"? I support reducing incidents that are used as data to

support arguments against right-to-carry.

This issue is treated too narrowly and that damages the case FOR the right-to-carry.

[patrice]

79. And, of course, any claim to a right of self-defense is intrinsicly based upon getting it right, i.e

i.e. one defends one's self from a valid threat and doesn't "defend" one's self from a threat that is not valid, i.e. not direct, or is only implied, or a mistake/misunderstanding of some sort that triggers other more potentially violent behaviors that become a justification for the mis-use of weapons.

Claiming a right to bear arms in self defense and then hurting or contributing to harm to others, who were no threat or with whom any threat could have been avoided, and then claiming somekind of mistake, just doesn't cut it.

Responsibility should be commensurate with the degree of harm possible.

And the reason that is intrinsic to the right to bear arms is because YOUR right to self-defense ONLY exists if OTHERS have the same right, including those who do not need to be shot. Rights are not uni-lateral, only privileges are uni-lateral and most of us TRY not to indescriminantly grant privileges to unknown others.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

68. I have heard this same argument from Repubs...just substitute

abortion in this sentence

"I want you to have your right to carry, but I think it is unfair that I have to PAY for the consequences of that right, especially when I do not exercise it myself."

I want you to have your right to abortion, but I think it is unfair that I have to PAY for the consequences of that right, especially when I do not exercise it myself.

interesting, how that works.

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

7. Who says everyone here is even a Democrat?

Seriously. This particular forum is the only place I see that division, and many of the people here do not participate in other parts of DU very often.

I have no idea who anyone is or what anyone believes, other than what they post here. If they only post on firearms issues, then that's all I know about them.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. Disagree.

Look in the energy/environment forum lately?

[givemebackmycountry]

9. Because nobody's come back from getting an abortion with their face blown off.

Just sayin'

[spin]

10. Check out this Gallup poll from 2005 ...

Gun Ownership and Use in America
November 22, 2005

***snip***

Gun Ownership

The poll, conducted Oct. 13-16, finds that 4 in 10 Americans report they have a gun in their homes, including 30% who say they personally own a gun and 12% who say another member of their household owns it. These results show essentially no change since this question was last asked in 2000. At that time, 27% of Americans said they personally owned a gun and 14% said another household member owned one.



***snip***

Forty-one percent of Republicans say they own a gun, compared with 27% of independents and 23% of Democrats.



***snip***

Republican and Democratic gun owners are almost equally likely to say they use a gun for protection against crime, 64% to 69%, respectively. However, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they use a gun for target shooting (71% to 53%) or for hunting (64% to 53%).


http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

So almost one in every four gun owners (23%) is a Democrat and 69% of Democratic gun owners own their firearms for self defense. 53% of Democratic gun owners use their firearms for target shooting or hunting.

There would be far more Democrats who own guns if as many didn't live in areas of the country which have regulations which discourage gun ownership.
New York City and Chicago are two examples of cities with a high percentage of Democrats and restrictive gun control laws.

In my opinion gun control is NOT a solid plank in the Democratic Party Platform.

[Drale]

12. Women and LGBT are human beings and anyone who argues against human beings

is a right winger and a horrible person. Guns are not humans nor are they alive nor are they necessary for the survival of the human race. Thats my take of it, I'm sure people will disagree and I'll get spammed but thats fine, they are entitled to their opinions.

[lawodevolution]

19. if guns are so bad, nigeria, haiti and jamaica are almost gun free

our gun possession rate is 90 guns per 100 people. Most of europe is around 30 guns per 100 people. Most of the high crime nations are under 10 and most violent african nations have less than 2 guns per 100 people. You should go on faith and move to sierra leon or the congo. They have few guns and based on your anti-gun faith they should be fantastic places to live.

[Drale]

21. They are not gun free they are full of "illegal" guns

and the illegal gun trade needs to be stopped here as well. I understand that the majority of crime is committed with illegal weapons and I don't want to stop everyone single person from owning a gun. Some people should not be able to own a gun, and I still don't like the idea of everyone carrying guns around on their hips. If we stop the illegal gun trade and can keep guns out of the hands of criminals there should be no reason to carry a gun where ever you go.

[spin]

22. If you actually managed to take all the firearms out of the hands of criminals ...

and found a magic spell to make sure they couldn't get more guns, they would use other weapons such as knives.

Therefore, I still would carry a firearm.

I view an individual armed with a knife and who is at close range as every bit as dangerous as a person with a firearm.

[Drale]

25. The thing is we can't trust a big section of the population

to vote in their own interest, how am I supposed to feel comfortable with those people around me all carrying guns?

[PavePusher]

26. Well, you just nailed the problem with freedom and liberty...

You can't trust the people.

[Drale]

27. People exercising their freedom of speech or expression

may make them sound really really stupid, but no one is going to die because they are ignorant.

[PavePusher]

32. Ummmm, wow.

Seriously, did you skip all your history classes?

[Drale]

46. I know more about history then most people

What I meant was that words can not kill people. Yes words can spur people into action but someone walking down the street is not going to fall over dead because they hear someones words. The funny thing about our history is that they had stronger gun control laws "back in the day" then we do now.

The founders wrote the constitution to be adaptable, so we could change it. I truly feel and will always feel that mentally ill people should not be able to own weapons. We have a huge population of mentally ill people who have never been diagnosed. This is a bigger issue then just guns.

BTW I said I would get flamed and thats exactly what happened because for some reason Pro-Gun folks have a very hard time taking criticism.

[PavePusher]

52. Ah, no, you aren't getting flamed. You're being pressed to support and defend your assertions.

This is called "debate".

No-one wants to let mentally ill people have access to weapons of any type. One problem is that we don't, as a society, deal effectively with mental health yet. Let's fix that before we start restricting non-ill people. Second problem is that literally any object can be used as a weapon, to greater or lesser efficiency. Mentally ill people attack others with all manner of objects, often without warning. I'm not sure how you can stop that until you address issue one.

I admit that words are a "delayed action" and/or second teir weapon. No-one falls over dead if I say "All whiteys must die!", but if a group of people listening to me then go out and kill one or more white people, the effect is still rather fatal.

And seriously, if words are not weapons, please explain politics to me, cause I must have missed something... :toast:

[Drale]

54. I agree with most of what you say but

Yes any object can be used as a weapon but it is far easier to pick up a gun without thinking about it and fire at someone. If you talk to any urban emergency nurse, they will tell you they get far more gun shot wounds then stabbing or blunt force object wounds. Thats because it takes courage to walk up to someone and stab or hit it, and you might also get injured in that kind of attack.

We really really need to get the mental situation of our country under control or its going to kill us. I'm not sure why we seem to not like talking about mental illness, but it seems to be a major stigma in our society.

Words can be used as "weapons" but if violence occurs because you said "All whitey's must die!" Its because those who caused the violence made a choice.

And I have been "flamed" before because I support gun control. I've been told I'm flat out wrong, that I'm crazy and even told that I am ignorant and stupid. It often hurts especially because I really don't understand why they feel they need to defend their guns almost to the death.

In all guns are a issue that are connected to so many other major issues we face in this country.

[PavePusher]

55. I keep seeing this:

"Thats because it takes courage to walk up to someone and stab or hit it, and you might also get injured in that kind of attack."

...but I really don't think it's true. Many such attacks occur by surprise, some via intoxication, some by rage/anger/impulse control. I've never seen a criminal attack with such tools that took any particular "courage". Self-defense with such, on the other hand, takes remarkable courage, along with a large dose of luck and/or skill.

[oneshooter]

29. They are free to vote as they wish.

You sound as if you would like to remove their right to vote because you don't believe that they will use it as you want them to.

How very progressive of you

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Drale]

30. No what I want is a population that is smart enough

to vote their own interests instead of the way the talking box tells them to vote. But alas I feel that goal will never be achieved.

[PavePusher]

33. They think they are.

It's our job to demonstrate to them, and convince them, that they are wrong and need to change.

[lawodevolution]

51. And oppressing gun ownership is not within the best interest of the common man

[MicaelS]

56. People DO vote their "own interests"....

They just define their "own interests" as different from the way you define them.

[spin]

35. You have very little to fear from people like me ...

unless you attack me with the goal of seriously injuring or killing me.

[gejohnston]

42. two problems

There is a difference between an obvious and immediate threat to ones interests vs a theoretical threat. The immediate one scape goats the target shooter, hunter etc for gang violence. The other was just in the abstract until Scott Walker came along.

Then there is the other problem often found in left leaning threads, especially when the gun issue come up. It shows an very obvious disdain for rural or working class people. You know enlightened terms for those salt of the earth types like yahoo, redneck, green teeth, small dick brigade, all gun owners should be forced walk around with the barrels in their mouth (found on Alterent), knuckle dragging NASCAR gun nuts, etc. Killing your own food is a pathology, eating a cow that someone else killed at a feed lot is civilized.

The message that comes out is: we know what is best for you even if we blame you for inner city problems. We'll care about your unions just as long as you don't infect our children with your uncivilized ways, and don't date our daughters.

So, how are they supposed to trust us? (I am a member of both.)

[beevul]

43. Who decides what "their own interest" is?

Who decides what "their own interest" is?

And, who decides by what criteria "their own interest" is judged?


People - this is my observation of them from my lifetime of interaction with them - generally don't appreciate others telling them whats "for their own good" much.

[GreenStormCloud]

59. Look at the safety record of people with CCWs.

The state of Texas annually publishes statistics on people with CHLs. In 2009 of over 400,000 license holders only 109 were convicted of any kind of crime at all. Most of those were non-violent crimes. Only ONE was convicted of murder. That is a safety record that is many times better than the general populace.

Also, people have different opinions as to what is in their own interest.

[lawodevolution]

23. they have an illegal gun trade but if you look at their gun possession rate that rate includes

illegal guns. Nigeria has 1.5 guns per 100 people including illegal guns. That is the data from gunpolicy.org which is anti-gun and is the best data we have. Your gut instinct on how many guns they "probably" have is not correct and is not a scientific way to gauge how many guns they have.


There will always be a reason to carry a gun. Can you ban sticks and rocks? If someone plans to attack me with a 2x4 or a rock, I want to have my gun. If I'm in Wendy's and a group of thugs come in with baseball bats, I'd rather they all die of hemorrhage from a bullet from my gun than to have my head beat in. I'd rather every member of a group of 20 thugs be killed than for one innocent person to suffer brain damage from an attack by a blunt object carried by those thugs.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Are you claiming that criminals won't use knives, clubs, & fists?

If we stop the illegal gun trade and can keep guns out of the hands of criminals there should be no reason to carry a gun where ever you go.

Amazing how you ignore so much of violent crime. You would happily disarm all people and leave the law abiding at the mercy of those who are physically stronger. My gun is for use to protect myself against those who would use knives, clubs, and fists as well as those who would use guns against me.

[buddysmellgood]

15. It used to be, but it proved to be too distracting. That doesn't mean

it's not a good idea. We have some forms of gun control, just not very effective forms.

[lawodevolution]

20. all forums run by gun control groups outright ban any pro-gun posts

and then ban anyone who makes pro-gun posts

If there is a forum that is run by anti-gun groups that allow pro gun information to be posted, please provide us with a link so we can test it.

[Katya Mullethov]

28. Sometimes

a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium .

[Oneka]

44. well said

and the biggest reason i post here.

Being new to DU i very much appreciate the ability to go against the grain as it were,when it comes to gun policy.

It is difficult to be on both sides of the same fence politically when discussing gun rights.

[Logical]

37. I have also noticed that some very active members in this forum never post any....

progressive posts in GD or GDP.

Wonder what that means?

[LAGC]

41. Have you ever tried searching their posts?

Hell, I don't start many new threads in GD or GDP, mostly just replies. I spend most of my time hanging out in R/T or E/E lately.

But I bet if you searched their posts you'd find them participating across the site, their names just may not have risen above your radar because most of the other forums on this site are much busier than this one, and posts tend to sink to the bottom pretty quick.

[Logical]

50. Yes, I have. Some no posts outside of here. Many no original posts. n-t

[PavePusher]

53. So, some people's main interest of debate is firearms rights.

The number/frequency of their posts in other forums does not define their political affiliation or intent.

[beevul]

45. I resemble that remark.

I generally never post at all, unless its about something I'm both passionate about, and knowledgable about.


You'll find my name attatched to posts supporting a wonmans right to choose, to posts denouncing police brutality, and the occasional post asking people not to kill snakes, among other things.


Of course, theres not much debate hereabout about police brutailty, other than by a few boot lickers who try to explain away every instance of it as somehow justified.

And theres not much debate hereabouts about a womans right to choose.


I don't generally post in economic threads, as I don't claim to remotely understand that mess.


Some of us come from the school of though that says "worry about your own back yard before you worry about anyone elses".

I happen to be one of those people.


What that means, is fixxing percieved problems here within OUR party comes first.

The Gun issue happens to fit that bill to a tee.

And I'm knowledgable about the subject and passionate about it.



And I doubt very much I'm the only poster those things apply to.

[RSillsbee]

57. I think this is a huge problem .

At some point in almost every debate on this board it's a given that at some point I will have to defend my credentials as a progressive as well as my position on guns.

It's like that old Richard Pryor routine about how when a white and black man argue sooner or later the white guy is going to yell "Nigger" and then the black guy has to address that.

I took Rachel Maddow to task in thread today because she gave up her journalistic integrity to push a point. I even said "we're progressives. we aren't supposed to do that. That's what rethugnicans do." at one point and I was still hearing the "How come you never post out side of the gungeon canard w/ in 2 or 3 posts because "anyone who would dog Rachel has got to be a RW troll.

It gets very very old

[GreenStormCloud]

60. It means that it is boring to post in an echo chamber.

I don't post on gun forums either as everybody there will agree with me. Why bother? It is more challenging and entertaining to post where some folks will diagree with me. Occasionally, but rarely I will venture out into GD.

[Euromutt]

65. I can only speak for myself, but GD/GDP is just too damn hectic for me

There are only so many people who can participate in a discussion, and so many active discussions you can have in a sub-forum, before I lose track of them, and by extension, lose interest.

And others have indicated, some of us like a good scrap, and this is one the few sub-fora where opinion is sufficiently divided that you can have a lively (to put it euphemistically) discussion. I mean, what else is there to talk about? I'm pro-choice on abortion, I'm pro-same-sex marriage, I detest anti-immigrant nativism, I'm not whole-heartedly in favor of affirmative action but I can't think of a better way to address under-representation of women and ethnic minorities, I believe that government has a legitimate role to play in keeping a rein on the excesses of private enterprise, and while I'm disappointed in Obama's record (particularly on civil liberties), I don't expect any Republican to do any better (to put it mildly).

[Upton]

69. Since you brought it up..

perhaps you could tell us what you think it means?

Personally, I'm much more active in another DU forum, but in regards to GD or GDP, I'm like some of the other posters who have responded to your question...it's like everyone there is just patting each other on the back. Currently, the only real difference of opinion appears to be whether or not President Obama is liberal enough.

I mean, how many different times and in how many different ways can you say Democrats are good and Republicans are bad before it gets tiresome? Presumably, we all feel that way anyway or we wouldn't be here..

[onehandle]

47. Guns are people too. nt

[lawodevolution]

48. Mmmmmmkayyyyyyyyyy