General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't understand the animosity towards DU gun owners.
I know I'm going to get a lot of hate for this. But I've been here for a long time and I rarely speak up...I feel I need to now.
I am NOT a gun owner. Let's just get that out of the way. Also note that when I was 17, I worked at the movie theater a few hundred yards west that this theater replaced. My Mom was born in Aurora. My Grandfather died in Aurora. I went HS in Aurora.
I've seen all this anger towards DU gun owners in the last couple of days and I don't get it. Are they supposed to feel bad for owning a firearm? Are they supposed to feel guilt? I saw someone asking why there wasn't an apology from gun owners. Why should a law abiding citizen apologize for owning a firearm?
They didn't do anything wrong. They didn't go in and pull the trigger. What happened was horrible. But I think blaming this on gun owners (ESPECIALLY DUers) is extremely short sighted. I'll will put this simply:
This isn't a gun problem. This is a societal problem. This goes WAY deeper than owning a firearm.
Okay...now everybody may commence in telling me how I'm a monster as bad as Mr. Holmes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Nice, huh?
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)and disgusting.
one_voice
(20,043 posts)completely irrational.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Ya think?
MADem
(135,425 posts)As someone who spent a career in uniform, I took a wee bit of umbrage.
At the end of the day, though, when people say stupid and broad-brushed things, it's on them. They're showing their behinds in the worst possible way.
And...to forestall the inevitable accusations about my biases...the only gun I own is over a hundred years old, the barrel is filled with lead, and it is mounted above a fireplace -- an inherited item. I suppose I could kill someone with it if I used it as a club.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
obamanut2012
(26,079 posts)And, today, someone else said they are afraid of anyone who owns a gun, because they could snap.
I honestly do not get it.
Response to obamanut2012 (Reply #25)
Post removed
movonne
(9,623 posts)restrictions on killing....
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Or any of the over 20,000 gun laws already in force?
Skittles
(153,164 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)Skittles
(153,164 posts)
Tejas
(4,759 posts)list the reactions to your post that would just tickle you pink, I'll see if I can decide on one and use it. In the meantime, your post was a dupe to the nth power, get over it.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)
samsingh
(17,599 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)The persecution of gunowners here at the DU is pathetic.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)we want sane, reasonable controls in place to avert massacres and tragedies.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)The Fascists that just want all the guns turned in (ONLY LEO AND .GOV NEED GUNNZ) are rampant the past few days. One would think the Republicans at Brady Campaign or Violence Policy Center released their drones on the DU.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)fascism is very different from gun control.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)samsingh
(17,599 posts)
whathehell
(29,067 posts)can fathom why someone needs an ASSAULT Weapon that fires
a hundred bullets a minute, or thereabouts.. .
I'm not anti-gun, as, obviously, I live with a gun owner,
but both my husband and I ARE strongly in favor of common sense
gun control and that, to me, means getting those WMD "assault weapons"
off the market. As Diane Feinstein and some others have noted,
these are weapons of WAR....They are not warranted for hunting,
home protection, or anything other sane, legal thing I can imagine
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is the smug advocacy of SYG, radical deregulation, and the whole fool's charade of Hollywood Cowboy Culture that is the problem.
lame54
(35,292 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)There has been a lot of ignorance displayed, and venom spewed, by anti-gun DUers this weekend.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)any thought of controls or discussion to reduce gun violence is met with paranoia, accusations that we want to take all their guns away, that we're too emotional (the irony is lost on them on this one i suppose), and then comments like 'get over it'. Meanwhile, here are some real facts about the success of gun control:
When will America wake up to gun violence? http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/donohue-gun-control/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7
Tejas
(4,759 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)My own opinions on gun control fall in the middle. Gun ownership is a right granted under the constitution. Whatever reason gunowners purchase their guns (sport, defense, collection), the overwhelming majority purchase and use them legally. Only a small fraction (about 4%) belong to the NRA, a percentage equivilent to African Americans who register GOP. I also think there should be tightening up of gun control laws, whether this is better enforcement of existing laws, or new laws to adress the gaps.
So, I'm in a position of having disagreements from both sides, and this has happened all weekend.
Summary: The "pro-gun" crowd has by and large expressed their opinion that increased controls is an additional goverment intrusion that wont address the problem. Every single one has been civil. Every. Single. One.
On the other hand, the anti- gun crowd with a few exceptions, has been exceedingly un-civil. I have been called many names. I have been accused of being a freeper troll. I have been accused of being an NRA plant. One poster demanded proof I voted for Obama, and when I replied that his demand was ridiculous and unwarranted, he replied that he "knew how I voted". ROTFLMAO... is DU now home for McCarthy/Bachman types? I wont even get into every specific instance of f-bombs being directed my way.
I have a thick skin.. I dont alert for that reason, and b/c I think the alert button gets abused ( mostly by a cadre of serial alerters, IMO). Perhaps I should review that notion.
I have belonged to DU since '04. I post more frequently during election season, but check in from time to time inbetween. Over that time, I think there has been a marked deterioration in civility. As Democrats, there are beliefs we hold in common. Also as Democrats, there are differences of opinion. These differences could be discussed civilly at one time. Now, with some shrill posters calling names, throwing about baseless allegations, demanding purity vows, and venomously attacking anyone who doesn't agree with them on every opinion of theirs, its apparent that standard of civility no longer applies.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)are not even trying to support an improvement, it raises the temperature.
i could not care less if someone wants guns. But i care alot when people are getting killed with guns.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...wants to solve the problem by removing constitutional rights exercised legally by a vast majority of gun owners.
Lets make an analogy using an issue we all agree upon- voting. I think its safe to assume that everyone agrees that illegal immigrants should not be voting. But very few do. Should the constitutional right to vote be impaired for the vast majority, so that a few illegal voters can be prevented from voting? And lest you miss the point, and think I'm comparing mass murder to illegal voting... I'm not. I'm addressing the taking away of a constitutional right exercised legally by a vast majority of people.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Ummm.... not quite.
"Gun ownership is a right granted under recognized by the constitution."
There, that's better.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)I know that this is just a board but I have been here for years and I can't believe how upset it has made me.
gateley
(62,683 posts)
They're the members of the family you steer clear of and never invite to Thanksgiving dinner. Every family has them. The rest of us love you whether we own guns (or even agree with your positions) or not.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts) Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Yes there would be blood on your hands.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Everyone who pushes our insane gun culture, who advocates for SYG idiocy, who advocates for open and concealed carry permissiveness, who advocates against regulation, is partially responsible for the situation we are in, a situation where mass killings by well armed lunatics has become routine. To that extent those people have blood on their hands, in my opinion.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)or do you believe there should be no right to self defense because some will abuse that right to cause harm?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You should be able to have a reasonable small arms weapon in your home, with a reasonable amount of ammunition.
You should be able to hunt with a reasonable hunting weapon, not with some de-featured military class weapon.
Public carry (outside of hunting) open or concealed should be limited to people who actually have a reason to carry a weapon in public. A good reason. Registered with the local police.
SYG should be reverted back to the non-insane 'obligation to retreat' standard that worked fairly well for the last few centuries.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)Not everyone believes in that.
I appreciate the serious reply. I don't agree with all of your point but I accept they are more than reasonable for serious discussion.
eallen
(2,953 posts)
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)1.
A weapon? Only one? By what justification? And how do you define "reasonable" in relation to both "small arms weapon" and "amount of ammo"?
2.
Why the limitation? Did you know that virtually all "traditional" hunting weapons derive directly from former military designs? What makes an AR- or AK-pattern weapon unsuitable for hunting? What militaries issue AR15's or civilian-legal AK's?
3.
Why do you want the police to be the arbiters of self-defense? The same police who seem to violate Civil Rights with increasing frequency? The ones who can not be held liable for failure to protect anyone not in their custody? And whay, pray tell is a "good reason"?
4.
"last few centuries"? Cite, please? I think you'll find that a pretty modern legal invention. And why should I have any legal or moral obligation to retreat from a criminal if I have done nothing wrong? Why do you want to make a criminal have an easier time of it?
gateley
(62,683 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)responsible for defending self and property.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)heard that one about five thousand times.
jody
(26,624 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)running scared...the majority of people are sensible and do believe in your made-up "facts."
jody
(26,624 posts)Response to joeybee12 (Reply #27)
Post removed
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)Really? Nice set of assumptions that only a person never at risk could have. Ever protected a battered woman while her blackbelt husband tried to knock your front door in? Ever had a months-long battle with dealers and pimps in your neighborhood, where your life has been threatened multiple times? Ever had a stranger walk right into your home and start rummaging around? Please take the sheltered BS elsewhere. Damned straight, many of own guns, and it's not just for hunting. I'm glad I've never had to use one, but it has been a very close thing on a couple occasions.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)The sheriff has publicly announced that he is unable to patrol our isolated area of the county so if we need help they have to dispatch a patrol car from the sheriff's office or elsewhere in the county.
Consequently we are all armed out here and don't rely on the sheriff at all. And we can't really protect each other - my nearest neighbor is 1/2 mile away.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)crap that many gun owners spew that bother's me. It is the idea that thoughtful people have rationalized the killing of others over property mainly that gets me. It seems very tea party and uncivilized, unchristian, unevolved...
jody
(26,624 posts)if you are attacked.
Crime and Punishment in America: 1998 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st219?pg=2
"Over a lifetime, the average man in our society has an 89 percent probability of being a victim of an attempted crime of violence and the average woman has a 73 percent probability, although half of the attempts are not completed."
Igel
(35,317 posts)In a lot of places there is nearly no law enforcement. There's also low crime. But if the state isn't going to protect you--and there's no right to that--then there's a right to self defense.
What's amazing is that many think there's some sort of collective right to self defense but no individual right. It's like being allowed to organize and publish something, but don't you dare say it by yourself.
And others try to make the 2nd Amendment not about the People but about the Government, or to whittle it down from an actual right to some bureaucratic blip that's already handled implicitly by other portions of the Constitution. You're allowed to own a gun--not an arm, but a gun--not for hunting or self defense or any other reason, but solely for the purpose of being eligible to be drafted into a state-formed militia. Yeah--you have this thing and there's an armed invasion robbery of your house, and you have to let them shoot your kids and rape your wife. "Sorry, the gun is only allowed to be used for collective defense." Ideology makes people stupid. Always has. Always will.
Some people value property much more highly. In some cases it's after repeated vandalism. In some cases it's because your house isn't just your property, but your "space". Imagine if you wake up and find that your wallet's been stolen off your dresser while you slept. It would mean somebody came in when you were defenseless. That's not property, that's a violation of your security and the trivial property is a token. And at other times it's just the sheer disrespect. My old babysitter had a chunk of land and her son finally had it posted. Every day after school a bunch of kids would walk across it from high school to home. If she was out they'd call her an old bitch or an old cunt. When she told them to mind their manners they stole her garden tools or trashed her garden. My wife was seriously considering a weapon when the neighbor's door was almost beaten down by a racist group of kids and a friend's car was trashed in their driveway by the same sweet kids, when a racist comment was yelled in front of our house about us and assented to by the kid's buddies, and when the "innocent darlings" took to tripping our circuit breakers at 11:30 at night. It's not property.
And, yes, it's uncivilized. Breaking and entering, vandalism. trespassing. So uncivilized and unevolved. But if the police aren't going to place a guard at everybody's door, if they're not going to be there to personally protect every septuagenarian, if they're not going to be a mere 30 seconds away from every home, where down the block from the police station or 30 miles from the nearest town of 25 people, that kind of uncivilized crap's going to happen. You can cite Diderot to them in French as they kill your dog or you can threaten them. And you can't make it a social obligation to allow yourself to be injured or wronged. That's also unevolved. Or effete.
Response to Buddyblazon (Original post)
sadbear This message was self-deleted by its author.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)On the other hand, when it comes to my issue, labor, I have been known to dish it out pretty heavily, and I truly dislike people who work against labor's interests, especially those who justify it in ways that bug me.
On the third hand, I feel that people who undermine labor are a lot worse than people who lawfully own guns, update their skills periodically, store them correctly, enjoy them safely, and so on.
yardwork
(61,622 posts)Gun control is a losing issue for Democrats. We should give it up. Most gun owners are law-abiding and responsible.
Furthermore, I don't think that this particular mass murder had much to do with availability of guns one way or the other. In other words, I don't think that stricter gun control laws would have made much difference.
I think we would do well to focus more attention on the dismal state of our mental health system in this country.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)and Howard Dean got it right when he said that gun control was a losing issue....especially out here in the Mountain West. I know a LOT of Liberals that own not one...but MANY firearms.
permatex
(1,299 posts)yardwork
(61,622 posts)At the very least, you can block PMs from posters.
permatex
(1,299 posts)thanks
yardwork
(61,622 posts)That message was just wrong.
permatex
(1,299 posts)thanks. It shocked me because of the pure hatred directed towards me for having a difference of opinion than his.
spin
(17,493 posts)chalk it up as a victory.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)An all-around unpleasant poster.
permatex
(1,299 posts)I've blocked him.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)99% of the venom in this debate has been from the anti-gun side.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)obamanut2012
(26,079 posts)I was wondering.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
sadbear
(4,340 posts)Who would have the greatest interest in answering such a poll? I couldn't really give a shit about responding to such a poll.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I can't help it if you haven't seen the polls or if you assume that I ever posted any such poll.
mythology
(9,527 posts)is that such a poll is likely going to attract the sort of people who feel strongly one way or the other. I don't know how you worded the polls, but you would also need gradations rather that simply allowing guns or not.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)sadbear
(4,340 posts)I don't crawl out of any hole to post in GD whenever a gun-related tragedy occurs.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)sadbear
(4,340 posts) Tejas
(4,759 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)say you'll get it out of their cold wet hand?
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)causing the most angry reactions. I think there are some who delight in creating an uproar by taunting those that feel threatened by the tsunami of guns in America.
By the way, I own a gun and frankly it is a boring piece of metal. I just can't get that excited about going to the shooting range and plugging a paper target full of holes.
wiseoldie
(4 posts)I would still like to see restrictions on the senseless assault weapons that only the military or police should lawfully posses. No matter how many gun laws are on the books the criminal will get them. But if it will stop even one innocent person from being gunned down, it would be worth it.
beac
(9,992 posts)
And
for your humane and reasonable attitude toward gun ownership and the rights of individuals vs. the greater societal good.
But if it will stop even one innocent person from being gunned down, it would be worth it. Indeed.
aquart
(69,014 posts)You say you favor restrictions but you STILL offer the idiotic argument the NRA has used to convince idiots who can't read statistics for decades.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)I guess it is like the drug war. People will get them if they care nothing for the law.
aquart
(69,014 posts)How do you square their gun homicide numbers with ours?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Here is a pdf. If you look at page 12 and exclude air guns it seems to have risen. I don't have the answers.
in 98 4903
in 11 7024
excluding air weapons
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN01940.pdf
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)I was listening to Elvis Costello and perusing this thread and that was just perfect.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)The self satisfied smugness of some of the gun lovers here is disgusting.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Ummm.... who's doing that? Even metaphorically?
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I also reject the notion that all gun owners or advocates for gun ownership are responsible for what has happened, but I do think the gun lobby and the pervasive spread of liberalized gun laws are a huge problem.
I would hope that there is some need to re-assess what we have done here, and gun advocates are probably in the best position to do that. Pushing for less regulation and more leniency for carrying and using a weapon makes no sense.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)I don't know one which is a member of the NRA. It's too bad there isn't a gun organization for progressives.
And it's not about regulation of guns. In fact, it has NOTHING to do with guns. It has to with deeper issues we have in US society. Hey...Canadians don't have near these issues with firearms.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)We will have to disagree about whether it is about guns or not. While I recognize it is multifaceted, I think the proliferation of guns and the ability to take them into places where they have no business are big problems.
There has to be some meaningful middle ground here.
permatex
(1,299 posts)I tend to side with SAF. In my opinion, they are much more effective and less radical then the NRA.
http://www.saf.org/
REP
(21,691 posts)My husband hates the NRA with the heat of a thousand million suns.
wiseoldie
(4 posts)I was thinking about that very thing today. I don't like the NRA nor do I believe it is a good organization. I own a gun for self protection, which is truly needed now a days. But I also support guns for sporting events. I know plenty of gun owners that are responsible. But the bottom line for me is that guns for sporting events doesn't require an Assault rifle that can kill or wound 70 people in a few minutes. That's crazy.
gateley
(62,683 posts)the NRA is a big bully. I heard a woman on Stephanie Miller who's a member of the NRA, very strongly supports gun rights, who was disgusted by a phone call from the NRA THE VERY NEXT MORNING after Colorado. She said they're always badgering you for money and using the "they're going to take our guns away!!!" scare.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)But that is a generalization, and yes, there have been all sorts of reactions, legit and some over the top, coming from all corners of the issue.....Just my two cents - when a tragedy like this happens, the outpourings hopefully are toward feelings for the victims...not getting defensive because it may lead to a renewal in gun control discussions. but that's just me.....
It is also an up-welling of frustration, I think - it is a human reaction. People who don't like guns will of course have a visceral reaction to the groundhog day feeling of this kind of event. I guess you could call it the fog of tragedy.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts) permatex
(1,299 posts)you succeeded admirably.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Till then, I'm going to be hard pressed to be convinced that any gun owner on the DU will ever become a danger to anyone besides a hostile intruder in their house.
They just don't fit the looneytune profile.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)Whether you agree with their politics or not.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Some of them spend all, or nearly all of their time in the gungeon, and maybe occasionally venturing out into the lounge. But I have rarely seen any of the more vociferous ones express support for traditional liberal causes (unless they coincide with libertarian causes), and quite a few of them seem to be devoid, or nearly devoid of compassion.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)most of which already have far better spokespeople than I.
So I occasionaly drop a comment here or there when I feel I have something worth saying, otherwise, no sense crowding the bandwagon.
Firearms is an issue I have a good knowledge of, it is tangent to my profession and a hobby I enjoy. And it has a need of people educated on the subject to speak out on it.
Just because I specialize, doesn't mean I ignore everything else. Please check your own blinders.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)But on a LIBERAL web site, the LAST thing I want to see in the wake of yet ANOTHER mass murder at the hands of yet ANOTHER deranged gunman is a bunch of posts from gun nuts bragging about how many rounds they freaking bought, or telling us just to shut up and forget about gun control, or asking why the general LIBERAL population on this forum doesn't want to love all their freaking guns.
And yes, I freaking HATE guns. My dear uncle, one of the kindest and gentlest men I ever knew, was shot down in cold blood by some asshole with a gun. Just like the uncle of another DUer.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)you can receive backlash also. Now saying that I do think there can be some common ground. There is no reason a person should own guns for protecting their families and property or even going hunting. I do think these guns that fire rapidly should be outlawed. Maybe then people wouldn't freak out so much. We need balance. Your rights to own a gun shouldn't get in the way of me feeling safe in public.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Do you mean machineguns? If so, can you name at least 3 of the crimes committed with them in the last 75 years?
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)don't always have the technical terms. We do know that the theater-shooter was able to shoot an awful lot of people very quickly. I think you know what she meant.
And it's responses like yours that make reasonable discussion almost impossible.
Lex
(34,108 posts)It's weird.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)You come out in favor of gun control, and you're met with a barrage (sorry) of different types of guns and ammunition, and "the shooter wasn't using this one, he was using THIS one, so would you ban THIS one or just THIS one?"
What can I say to that? All guns send projectiles into human bodies at high speed, and I'd like to live in a society where there was less chance of this happening.
obamanut2012
(26,079 posts)Saying an automatic assault rifle was used isn't true. I will say that Lex will know I'm not a DINO or a so-called gun nut. I just don't like ANYONE to use skewed facts, or, what it often is, just not understanding.
My state doesn't allow anyone to just buy a gun in a parking lot, and I posted a long OP today saying that, and nothing, yet some posters keep saying you can do that in all fifty states.
I do not fantasize about shooting people, nor am I about to snap, nor do I have blood on my hands. It is maddening.
LIBERALS ARE ALSO GUN OWNERS.
REP
(21,691 posts)A revolver can be fired at a high rate of speed with sufficient skill (and reloaded quickly with a speed loader)... I love trick shooting.
But aside from that - it bugs me to no end when the wrong terms are used, whether it be guns, abortion ("late term abortion"
, or just about anything else.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)to be able to list exactly what this specific shooter used and to know precisely what's legal and what isn't state by state. Sorry, I don't read gun magazines and I'm not up on all the small details. My family never had guns and I will not have one in my home. So I only know we have mass shooting after mass shooting in this country and that the shooters tend to have more than one weapon, and they tend to have them legally.
By the way Obamanaut, your very reasonable response (and I mean that) is not the kind of comment I was talking about.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)I don't even own a gun. But I know a lot of gun owners...and I was raised around guns.
And guns shooting fast? He didn't have any fully automatic guns. He had semi-auto...which means when you pull the trigger, on bullet is fired. Fully automatic guns are illegal.
Yes. An AR-15 is a semi automatic gun. Just like a 9mm pistol. Just because it LOOKS nasty doesn't make it fire any faster than your finger can pull the trigger.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)NO, fully automatic guns are NOT illegal. They are heavily regulated but can really be owned by anyone willing to jump through the hoops to get them and then spend the $10,000+ required to buy one.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"I think you know what she meant."
No, you thought wrong. I asked because it's a very simple clarification she needed to make. Your rudeness is what makes reasonable discussion almost impossible.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)you make a smart ass comment. I have seen what (machine gun) fire has done to my own father after WWII when he was wounded seriously in the leg. I owe you know nothing you butthead. You can't talk with people like you. I also had a brother-in-law killed by a shotgun accident. So you don't need to judge me.
By the way what do you mean "what on earth are you on about now?" What did I say to you before?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)toodle-loo 
Response to Tejas (Reply #117)
southernyankeebelle This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)There are lots of other such videos of so-called "law-abiding" citizens who think carrying guns everywhere is AOK.
G_j
(40,367 posts) Tejas
(4,759 posts)G_j
(40,367 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)G_j
(40,367 posts)didn't you
Edweird
(8,570 posts)obamanut2012
(26,079 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,838 posts)...that's supposed to be comforting or change the equation?
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Edweird
(8,570 posts)
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)The fastest shooter on Earth learned his skill through discipline and training. A semi-auto rifle with a hundred round magazine can turn any dumbass with mommy issues into The Terminator.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Proficiency isn't some accessory - it's earned through training and practice. Just like the dude with the revolver.
If some putz can't build a birdhouse going to Home Depot and buying all the tools in the store won't improve his carpentry skills - he'll just be using a top-of-the-line hammer to smash his thumbs.
This guy had a 100 round magazine in a crowded 'gun free zone'.('Fish in a barrel' comes to mind) He killed 12 people. That is NOT a 'terminator'. Ray Charles would have had a higher body count. You have bought into the hype.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)hype? LOL. Project much? Um, yes, I would say you do.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)I don't know much about guns or rifles. Like I said I have no problem if you are a hunter or wanting to protect your property.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)While hitting his target. Yes, he is an exceptionally talented/gifted and trained individual - but the point it that it is the human holding the gun that makes all the difference not the accessories or paint.
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Then why should you be telling me what I can and can't own in the way of firearms?
southernyankeebelle
(11,304 posts)goes wild then I don't think a person's right to own a machine gun type has a right to prevent me and others from feeling safe anywhere. Like I have said 100 times over I have no problem with hunters having guns to put food our your families table. I don't have a problem with you having a gun to protect your property. But coming to the safety of public then I draw a line. I don't care if you agree or not. The only way it will ever change if the man who is in charge of NRA gets hurt or his family gets hurt. Maybe then when it effects him personally then maybe it will change the american mindset.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)He did that using standard 10 round magazines, reloading 17 times. It dosen't take much time to reload so the size of the magazine is irrelevant. Quite often the larger the mag the more prone they are to jamming as in the Giffords shooting and I read somewhere that this shooters 100 round mag failed, that's why he stopped shooting.
REP
(21,691 posts)I want to be him and Annie Oakley. Still.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)REP
(21,691 posts)Seems to be having a damn good time, too!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"There is no reason a person should(n't) own guns for protecting their families..."
Otherwise, we aren't really going to have any kind of meaningful discussion....
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)People seem to want to blame objects (guns) for what happened, the 'gun culture' (whatever that is), etc - all the while saying that they believe people have, and do, make choices that affect others.
In some ways they remove choice (and blame guns) but on other things they do not do so.
I worked in the gun industry for a time and met many people who owned entire arsenals of guns and never did anything with them to harm others.
These folks reloaded their own ammo, shot a ton for fun, and would never dream of harming others. But here - they are seen as the enemy and potential killers because they own/use something that others do not (you are not seen as bad or as the enemy if you work for the government and own guns though - ala cops and military).
It is bigotry based on ignorance and it is really sad that so many buy into it.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)there's the mistaken belief that only white, male, Republican, conservatives can be gun owners/2nd amendment advocates.
The mere thought that Democrats, liberals, minority's, females, etc can be gun owners too is an aberration or impossibility to them... like black or gay Republicans.
Being a gun owner, or standing up for our 2nd amendment rights, just doesn't compute with their vision
of what the Democratic party should be like.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)They will meet boatloads of Liberal gun owners. I literally know hundreds.
enough
(13,259 posts)from a certain quarter that always arises if anyone tries to say anything other that flat-out guns-are-our-highest-virtue orthodoxy. I am a gun-owner and hunter who has tried over the years to engage the question on DU, and find it impossible because of this totally predictable high-hostility reaction that inevitably ensues. I never even bother any more.
Kingofalldems
(38,458 posts)they are attacked as 'gun grabbers' and such.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)because one side thinks the only reasonable gun law is one banning most or all of them.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)I criticized the stand your ground law (which has nothing to do with gun banning -- just responsible use of guns by those who own them), and I was ruthlessly attacked by the pro-gunners as if SYG was the second coming of Christ.
Get off your high horse.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)sarisataka
(18,656 posts)What is reasonable. Since GC is such a hot button issue, not much is done unless something spurs action.
This is from a different post that I will repeat here, as a tragedy is what often spurs the debate
The trouble when it comes to gun control (IMHO) is that whenever a tragedy happens there are immediate knee jerk reactions and proposals. I bet we see one before Monday. The trouble is rarely, if ever would they have one iota of affect on the incident that triggered it. Even those who propose the laws will admit this is the case.
So we have a law that really won't do anything that now riles up the pro-gun side. Despite the stereotype, many are well educated and technically knowledgeable. They will go up and rip the law to shreds showing it affects no one who is already obeying the law.
Then in comes the extremists. The NRA will oppose it talking about laws on the books and slippery slope. Brady comes in with false statistics and chanting 'we have to do something'. The NRA threatens legislators and Brady gets a celeb to make a statement.
By this time us average Joe/Janes are confused and bored of the SSDD. Congress takes the easy way out and does nothing. NRA claims victory, Brady wrings their hands both sides grow farther apart.
We wait for the next tragedy to do it all over again.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)I know gun owners whom I respect and trust, but I absolutely hate the NRA because of the way that organization has bought Congress to further their extremist agenda.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Laurian
(2,593 posts)NRA talking points either. Perhaps they should state their differences with the NRA despite being gun owners.
obamanut2012
(26,079 posts)You have to be kidding.
Laurian
(2,593 posts)they are not the ones engaging in these discussions. I have never owned a gun and do not understand the strong attachment some have to them. I do not care if someone has a gun for hunting or sport, but assault rifles and 100 round magazines are beyond reason.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...and baseless accusation. Its been lobbed at me several times. What makes it utterly ridiculous, is that I have no idea what an NRA talking point is. I don't belong. I don't get their correspondence. I pay no attention to the NRA. I hate the NRA. Yet some people accuse me of being an NRA plant, and posting NRA talking points. LOL. I guess being ignorant and losing an argument leads some people to paranoid accusations... ala crazy-eyes Bachman.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and that is where we are currently. "NRA's lies" = I disagree with their opinion on guns.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Or denying the simple fact that more guns breeds more violence?
Or the belief that every reasonable gun control measure is some sort of fascist plot?
These NRA lies are common fodder for DU's gun worshipers. You need to grow up.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Heck, Grover Norquist is on NRA Board, as are a bunch of other hardened right wingers. They own a lot of our government either directly or through their leadership.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)I am just quoting law.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Dosen't matter what you think or the NRA thinks.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I wonder how our buddy in Michigan would fare today if he strutted down the street with his rifle.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57451749/gun-advocates-protest-mich-teens-arrest-for-carrying-non-concealed-m-1-rifle/
rl6214
(8,142 posts)He says he believes in the 2A and it's the law.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...than it is a matter of having a clue about how linguistic analysis works. Something you and anyone advancing the argument that "the RKBA is only for the militia" argument clearly lacks...
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And you wonder why there's animosity when it's so blatant.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Oh, wait...
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)verbatim.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You have it quite correct, IMO. I'm not particularly qualified to render judgement on the law...but I'm very qualified to address the linguistic analysis of the amendment (and I've broken it down a time or two here...although usually in the Gungeon).
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and explain how the militia clause controls "right of the people".
All I get is Gryllidae...
hack89
(39,171 posts)why have deaths due to murder and manslaughter been cut in half since 1992 and murder rates are at historic lows? That is not an NRA talking point - that is an FBI talking point.
Yours is a mindless, thoughtless reflective act. You will deny simply reality to maintain your point of view.
Here is the truth:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)reasons for the decline, not a bunch of folks arming up and walking in town with a gun or two.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Kaleva
(36,307 posts)Some appear to have the attitude that anyone who is pro-gun is also pro-NRA.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I don't own a gun either, but many, many people I know do -- in Alaska, it's estimated that 60% of households own a firearm of one type or another, used for hunting or wildlife protection. I'm sure reasons for owning guns vary from person to person and state to state, but it's ridiculous to paint all gun owners with a broad brush.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)There are many who say that they own guns and are perfectly reasonable.
There are others who pass the most banal right wing points on guns.
Kaleva
(36,307 posts)Some of the pro-gun folks appear to not want to move an inch on the issue. On the other side, I've been in discussions with pro-control folks who appear to be open minded and willing to consider others opinion. Then there are some who want to ban all guns, shut down the gungeon and have PPR'd all who are considered regulars of that group.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)It's the DINO brigade from the gungeon.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)Fellow Liberals are not your enemy...whether they own firearms or not.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And since when do liberals promote an extremist RW agenda?
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)does it make me a sympathizer because I like it too?
Some things cross party lines,guns being one of many.
permatex
(1,299 posts)you don't seem to want to engage in meaningful conversation, All you do is yell NRA talking points, NRA talking points. It does get old.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)People say they are not an NRA member, then turn around and back just about everything NRA does -- which includes working to defeat Obama, and defeat a lot of good Democrats who just don't happen to think guns in eveyone's pants is the answer to anything but money and votes from right wingers.
signed the bill to make it legal to carry concealed, loaded weapons in National Parks.
I will vote for him again.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Yet there you are, day after day spouting your normal bullshit.
"People say they are not an NRA member, then turn around and back just about everything NRA does -- which includes working to defeat Obama, and defeat a lot of good Democrats who just don't happen to think guns in eveyone's pants"
Just like this
There you go again, accusing fellow DUers of working to defeat the President, just your normal baseless accusations and BS.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)It's so disconcerting to you, you spend 75% of your posts there. Of course the other 25% is in GD talking about guns, too.
obamanut2012
(26,079 posts)And I have never posted "RW extremist lying propaganda." I believe the NRA is a RW organization.
And yet I have been attacked over and over again, for no reason except I am a gun owner. It is ridiculous.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)I have no idea what the NRA has to say about anything as I think it is a tool of the rightwing and I have never been nor will ever be a member of the NRA. I don't oppose gun controls, I don't oppose banning automatic weapons.
I do oppose the self-righteous "every gun owner is to blame" rants from a selected few here at D.U. And I oppose the people who make this tragedy all about them and how upset they are. It's not about them and how long they cried over it or how terribly upset they are....what a load of attention seeking crap.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)eallen
(2,953 posts) permatex
(1,299 posts)what is a gun nut?
Response to permatex (Reply #134)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
permatex
(1,299 posts)I mean HOLY COW, can you answer me without the usual snarky crap?
I mean, really dude, you rock with your supposed insults.
So tell us, what is a gun nut?
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)At least highly suspect.
There are a some exceptions, but I haven't met many in a long life around people heavily into guns that shouldn't have been allowed within 1000 yards of them. Now, I try to avoid them.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I'd say that's good cause for animosity.
-..__...
(7,776 posts)seems like it wasn't that long ago (like before the 08 elections), that many anti-2A or ambivalent DU'ers
expressed a desire to arm themselves for the very same reason.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Yet, the gun culture wants to allow people to carry lethal weapons almost anywhere. They support NRA (directly or indirectly) and other right wing gun organizations to open up public parks, restaurants, churches, bars, etc., to people toting.
But, our leaders will do nothing to avoid the whining.
In another decade there will be another 100 million guns floating around to deal with when folks finally decide we have to bite the bullet and do something.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Take it further, are you claiming that no people have ever needed any protection they could scratch together in history and that you can assure us going forward that none ever will?
Hell, don't bother. You are demonstrably wrong in real time, ask the Syrians and any number of people around the globe. There is no special nobility and no radically advanced cultures in this little world. People are people and avarice for power has few limits. I submit there are wildly optimistic souls, proud in their willful ignorance like it is a badge of advancement have spent too many nights feeling far safer than they actually where save grace, in their beds.
This isn't Europe, there has been mass proliferation in this country for it's entire existence, semi-automatics more or less standard for a century with anything made before about 1900 has been completely outside registration and ATF regulation. At this point so much toothpaste is out of the tube all that can be accomplished is to give massive weapons superiority to the criminal class, fueled by the absurd failed drug war that is the cause of most violence outside of domestic, which is a whole other nut to crack.
You want less violence then decrease poverty, end the drug war, and increase stigma free access to mental health and make serious headway across the board or sit around self righteously but ignorantly tilting at this windmill and largely (as a movement) lying your collective asses off about your actual intent which is the ban and if possible confiscation of all semi-automatic weapons by hook or by crook.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Dude, you best be complaining elsewhere....in spite of the assertions of many here (which if you had bothered to look you would have found what I wrote about., I don't think in the next 20 lifetimes we'll be overthrowing our Government, and if you think that's a possibility, I really would rather not know you.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)to exhibit over the last 30 odd years. When the masses have been trained to indulge in the FEAR driven HATE it becomes instinctual.
Sadly we are being managed by PsyOps by the NSA as taught in the SOA.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)but I can assure you not all are that way.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)No True Scotsman would own a gun for any reason.
The biggest problem in the United States today is fear of "The Other". And since DU is nothing more than a microcosm of the United States, lots of DU'ers hate The Other just as much as Americans at large do.
At DU, The Other can be simply someone who smokes. Or someone who eats meat. Or someone who thinks the "fast lane" is meant for cars that are going faster than the flow of traffic.
Hatred is welcomed, and finely honed here.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)
ananda
(28,864 posts)Guns kill people. That's what they are designed to do, and someone
with a gun just shot 70 people, killing at least 12 and ruining some
lives.
Different people react different ways. This is a time of shock and
grief for all of us. Each person has their own emotional reaction,
and right now no emotion is right or wrong. It just needs to be
expressed.
Give it a month, and then you can complain over inappropriate
attacks or emotions. That's fair.
Even so, the conversation about guns and the NRA needs to
continue until some kind of rational action is taken to stem gun
violence.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)This is MY community. I live a few miles from the spot, worked a few feet from that theater and my family goes back over 70 years in Aurora. I keep running into these people on the internet who are "grief stricken". Seriously? This is my community...and the wife and I aren't grief stricken. We're saddened. But let's not go overboard here.
No emotion is right or wrong? I don't agree with that at all.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)This is exactly the attitude that allowed Dem legislators to pee their pants and vote for the USA (anti)PATRIOT Act. It is not ok for people to express their shock/horror/sorrow by advocating moronic political agendas. Cry, be angry - fine. But hysteria has no place in running our country.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)We've seen what happens when public policy is steered by hysteria and overwrought emotion. It's not pretty.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I expressed my sorrow for the victims and families, and urged DUers to hold off on using the tragedy to push a particular agenda. Not 30 minutes later, the "ban all guns" bombardment started on DU, from the usual suspects. At least the AFA waited a day before blaming Hollywood, and the RW waited a day and a half before blaming Obama.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)are accused of using a tragedy to push an agenda, but those who say, "oh my god, it't a tragedy, it's no time to talk about reasonable gun laws," aren;t pushing an agenda. Yes they are. Attempting to muzzle someone's free speech because it is not what you want to hear is just as opportunistic as people who want to say that a mass murder is an example of why we needed better gun laws.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Well said.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)sarisataka
(18,656 posts)To SOME DU members
Gun=RW=lunatic waiting to snap.
It is assumed that if you are a gun owner, you support the NRA, vote Republican and are just itching for your chance to shoot someone.
They will tell you NO ONE EVER needs a gun to defend themselves; you can manage with a can of beans and a bicycle wheel. (gungeon inside joke)
Most DU members are sane, responsible gun owners. Some of us are NRA members; I need to be a member for business purposes. Some are very vehement are short tempered in defending gun rights. Not to excuse it, but a lot come from fending off attacks from very pro-control members. Some of the vitriol leaks out even when we are among our 'betters' 
The thing to remember is we all support Democratic principles and liberal values. Even talking about guns, sometime people on opposite sides find common ground.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Gloating that those who are upset by this latest in a string of tragedies will be able to do absolutely nothing to deter yet more tragedies.
Up until now I've been pretty neutral on the gun question, didn't really care that much one way or the other..
The reaction on DU by some pro gun types has turned my stomach and is in the process of turning my opinion to anti gun.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I have seen too many people attacked for even bringing up the 2A question. Someone attacked for suggesting gun owners should have to insure their guns. That all gun purchases should have a waiting period even ones between individuals, such as those that sell at gun conventions. There are a few that balk at even the most reasonable suggestions of better gun control and some that go rabid when gun control is suggested.
If that makes someone snap there might be something to calling such a person a gun nut.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)silent with respect to the great economic disparity between the super-rich and the relatively young men like the shooter who can feel that they have no future other than to play Dungeons & Dragons or engage in fantasies while watching violent movies?
Has anyone expressed any interest in reaching out to young men like him before they too go over the edge? Somehow, there is no outrage over that.
Is it really all about the guns? Remember Timothy McVeigh and the mass murder than he committed with the Oklahoma City bombing?
In reality, it is about the anger. It is the anger felt by relatively young men with a sense of despair and hopelessness, but with enough energy and motivation to strike back.
Yet where are the posts by the more-outraged-than-thou crowd showing any interest in reaching out or removing the underlying cause of such despair, hopelessness, and anger? Where are the posts connecting the dots between the destruction of the potential economic future of the younger generation, plus the destruction of democracy in this country, with the reaction of some who will lash out with violence? None of the the more-outraged-than-thou crowd are blaming the greedy super-rich for any of this.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)We talk about that all the time. It's 80% of the conversation.
It would be under the topics "health care" and "economy" and "student loans" and "NAFTA" and "Free Trade" and "taxes" and "infrastructure" and "education," etc. (the etc is for everything I missed)
Just becuase people don't reiterate it ad nauseum in gun posts doesn't mean it's not there.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Last edited Mon Jul 23, 2012, 07:49 AM - Edit history (2)
is (1) addressing the issue of the animosity towards DU gun owners and (2) a specific response towards the issue raised by the OP.
With that information, you should readily understand that those that have been demonstrating animosity towards DU gun owners in the various recent posts that have been prompted by the Colorado shooting have NOT been talking about the great economic disparity "80%" of the time in such recent posts. It's simply not true.
If you are otherwise claiming that such disparity is "80% of the conversation" (under the topics "health care" and "economy" and "student loans" and "NAFTA" and "Free Trade" and "taxes" and "infrastructure" and "education," etc.), when DU posters are not haranguing DU gun owners in the recent anti-gun threads, the answer to that is "So what?" It is totally irrelevant and off point.
In fact, if anything, when such economic disparity is "80% of the conversation" under threads not dealing with the animosity shown by some in the anti-gun posts, the absence of such focus highlights of irrationality of those focusing upon their belief that gun ownership is the cause of the shooting or others like it.
Timothy McVeigh didn't need a gun to be a BOMB nut and react in an antisocial way with a bomb. No gun ownership caused him to act in the way that he did.
You don't like the fact that I've pointed out that anti-gun DU posters have shown animosity towards DU gun owners in these threads without focusing upon the economic disparity? Too bad.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)We have threads all the time that talk about economic problems. The OP usually has a specific point to make and they make it. No reason to muddy the waters with peripheral issues.
Economics and guns usually don't come up because we had these sort of things in the 90's when the economy was good, if you remember.
There have been other people talking about "testosterone" and why young men do these things. I posted on that thread that mental illness usually strikes young men around that about that time.
Other people posted about the shitty state of mental health. There were even cartoons about it posted.
You just didn't notice.
These things get talked about, but you seem to have a mental block, so it's only about the guns.
I could have added a whole bunch of other stuff, but it's peripheral to the conversation and I think you have a hard enough time getting the point.
PS. As for the animosity, I'm not the one throwing the vibes out. It's you."Too bad?" Ring a bell?
You have no idea where I stand, or what has happened in my life to make me think the way I do.
You have no idea whether I'm pro-gun or anti-gun. Pro-ban or anti-ban. If I get "animosity" I just return it.
You reek of "animosity." Maybe that's why you get it returned.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)"We talk about that all the time. It's 80% of the conversation. It would be under the topics "health care" and "economy" and "student loans" and "NAFTA" and "Free Trade" and "taxes" and "infrastructure" and "education," etc." ?
You post an insulting question and deny knowing that you are displaying animosity? How can you not know that your are doing?
Somehow I think that you know exactly what you are doing.
Lex
(34,108 posts)And why people so love to play the victim with statements like: "now everybody may commence in telling me how I'm a monster as bad as Mr. Holmes"
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)that gun owners are bad. Not from everybody. But quite a few.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)C'mon law-abiding gunowner, just one more "reasonable" gun law...
Lex
(34,108 posts)He was able to buy ammo in bulk and online.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)20,001 wouldn't either.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And gun owners have followed right along behind them. The problem is you don't want ANY gun control laws - forget about 20,000.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)don't want any gun control laws? Many of us are perfectly fine with gun control laws but you're too busy throwing around unwarranted accusations to know what we think. I haven't followed right along behind anyone - don't have any need for the NRA.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)translates to all gun owners? Seriously?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)I haven't seen much support for no gun restrictions. Since you think you have ESP you should know that.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)gun thread. Maybe I have a life that doesn't afford me the luxury of reading every single post and every thread.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)or lying.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)For lack of any substance to hate on gunowners with, just scream that gunowners like to eat the faces off of babies or love to see a puppy chewed up by an alligator...Oh wow, look, didn't know I had it in me, I can be a gunhater too!
Tejas
(4,759 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"He was able to buy ammo in bulk and online."
Since he passed the NICS system to buy his firearms in gun stores, buying ammo on-line is irrelevent.
"Holmes was a law-abiding gun owner--until he wasn't."
Unless you have a Bureau of Pre-Crime handy, I'm not sure how you stop criminals who carefully plan such attacks in advance. If you have suggestions, please present them.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)"Let's drive across the state line to buy this magazine that isn't legal here."
"It isn't legal to own it assembled, but nothing says you can't store the PARTS of it."
20000+ laws outline the letter of the law. Too bad so many people work at subverting the spirit.
Atman
(31,464 posts)Both are perfectly legal. The right to both has been upheld by the SCOTUS. Dems feel guns kill people, Republicans feel abortions kill people. Neither can see the parallels or the absurdities. Meanwhile, politicians and lobbyists make billions off of the chumps who keep playing their game.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
ileus
(15,396 posts)Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)Not sure.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Hang around the gungeon a while. The arguments get so repetitive we could number them.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)...people dislike gun nuts, and there is a difference between those who think guns should regulated and those that don't.
Peregrine Took
(7,414 posts)I find it to be a very hostile place. More times than I care to think about, I've been attacked if I initiate a post.
Maybe its just an internet thing.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)I don't recall anybody attacking me.
Though I had a feeling this thread would be that first time.
demosincebirth
(12,537 posts)that is if you have "common sense" about guns.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...that all of us rural gun owners are backward barbarians. It is rather annoying.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)but as I said earlier...Liberals in the Mountain West are different.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)and I approve this message.
Simo 1939_1940
(768 posts)in North Dakota where my father grew up. It changed me forever. While staunchly liberal, I don't share the horrifying bigotry that I see from some of my fellows.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
I grew up in a rural, working class family about 50 miles NW of Fargo, little town called Ulen, Minnesota. Hunting is like a religion up there, deer hunting opener is practically a holiday.
I remember my stepdad taking me out hunting as vividly as if it were yesterday, he got a 6-point buck that ended up as a lot of venison steaks, roasts, burgers, and ring sausage.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)mental illness in common, and nearly no access to mental health services without a lot of money.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)THIS is a bigger issue than guns.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)other end.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)no brainer. Just as it is to the NRA. We disagree. strongly.
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)It's the internet.......
otohara
(24,135 posts)us who hate guns are called anti-gun zealots on DU.
april
(1,148 posts)Kaleva
(36,307 posts)It could months to complete the background check.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)Don't want to confuse the people here that don't know the difference between semi-automatic (the weapons the shooter had) and fully automatic.
Kaleva
(36,307 posts)The post I responded to said "automatic" and I assumed that's what he meant.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)to see anyone here calling for legal automatic weapons.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Response to april (Reply #116)
Post removed
mahina
(17,663 posts)just this- the selfishness of believing that one's right to ownership of any object is of a higher value than others' rights not to be shot to death.
I'm speaking of the arguments to minimize any regulation of automatic and semi-automatic weapons, not rifles or pistols etc, which are not designed for warfare.
Not blaming DUers, not blaming anybody but the shitty campaign contributions-for-legislation auction that we are suffering at this time.
My .02
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Most pistols too.
What would you have people use?
stranger81
(2,345 posts)if you want to understand where some of the hostility towards guns-über-alles types here this weekend. As long as that abortion of a thread stays up, I see no grounds for gun lovers to complain they're the ones being victimized.
beevul
(12,194 posts)the rhetoric hasnt changed from what it was before that thread.
The only thing that has is the frequency and the volume of the hostility.
I've been reading DU since 2001, and a poster for a few less years - its ALWAYS been here.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Also Master level martial artist. I would be at home in a situation like we have now or in a situation where there were NO guns or at any level of gun control in between. However, I would NOT be comfortable in a situation where self defense is outlawed. Because SELF defense is why I own a gun and a PARTIAL reason why I learned Wing Chun.
Truth is, the cops AREN'T going to be there at the moment that you actually NEED them. The only thing that cops are good for (in the ideal circumstances) are to catch a bad guy AFTER the fact and bring them to court. That's all. The fear of judicial punishment is what keeps most people in line when they get in a confrontational situation. And that's what the cops are for, NOT to "protect" you from harm. To enforce that social contract.
And lastly, I'm FAR from a NRA right winger. In fact, I'm a legitimate, "card carrying" Marxist.
Cary
(11,746 posts)"conservatives" suck.
And up until a couple of years ago I thought that we liberals, all of us, were just better in every way. I realize that that's just cocky and it has been my life experience that when I have gotten too cocky something somewhere comes along to put me back in my place.
There are (purported) liberals who apparently are here to show us that we aren't perfect. The first time I noticed them, because "conservatives" rubbed my nose in them, was when some people around here made some rather disgusting comments about some mercenaries who were killed and mutilated in Iraq.
Over the years I have seen things here that I simply can't believe, to this date.
lynne
(3,118 posts)- of law-abiding gun owners makes no sense. Maybe it's just their fear talking.
Given what we're learning about this guy, he could have inflicted as much - if not more - death and injury by using one of the numerous bombs found in his house. He just happened to choose a gun for the deed. If he didn't have the guns, he could have easily used the bombs.
The reality is that we're never 100% safe and the weapons of death are varied. If not a gun, they'll use something else. If not at the movies, they'll choose another public forum.
An ugly truth but something we need to accept and then decide how we each wish to react to that reality.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)But I respect DUers who do, and I welcome them into our big tent.
I pick up my gun as much as I do my fire extinguisher.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)So, what's your point?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And of the respect and tolerance that gun-owning and non-gun-owning DUers clearly have for each other.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts) Pakid
(478 posts)I can say that when it comes to guns there is no easy answer nor any consensus on what the problem is or how to deal with it.The fact is that both side need to sit down and realize that there are problems and we do need to address them fairly. The one thing that a lot of people seem to forget is the most important right of all, a person right to life. I don't have the right to engage in activity's that put another person at risk. Now I realize that laws will never stop a person from doing something wrong if they really want to. But we should at least make it harder for a person to engage in the mass killing of people. That is something that I would hope we can all agreed on? I believe that the we should eliminate high capacity magazines that would at least slow down the guy who wants to kill a lot of people. That does not infringe upon anyone right to own a gun it simply limits how many times you can shoot before you reload.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)I’ve also seen, in the short time that I’ve been here, a clear double standard on DU. I’ve read post after post this weekend that states very clearly “Fuck gun owners, fuck the NRA, I’ve had enough, I want all your fucking guns banned now.” I go into the “gungeon” and I see anti gun types engaging in obvious trolling behavior that would get them banned on any other forum on the net or banned in any other DU forum if they went after other groups the way the did gun owners. I especially like the “All gun owner are compensating for a small penis” posts
I see the accusation made time and again that anyone who is even the slightest bit pro RKBA is a freeper troll. There’s a thread in the gungeon right now in which an anti states that the clear solution is to ban all firearms and two posts later states “I don’t want to ban your guns”.
IMO the best solution is to have a gun control forum, a gun rights forum, and a gun debate forum let the first two be safe havens and the third be a place for those who choose to debate
bowens43
(16,064 posts)and those who support the bastardized version of the 2nd amendment created by the current conservative extremest supreme court are part of the problem.
We have a gun problem.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Yes, I saw some say that we should again pass the Brady Bill. That hardly fits your description of animosity. In fact, my experience was right wing trolls spreading untruths then calling people stupid, and worse. The most glaring need is to outlaw the high capacity clips that are the favorite of every mass murderer since 2004. Something is seriously wrong when a single shooter can take down 70 people in less than 2 minutes.
I will agree that this is a societal problem -- where gun nuts won't even consider common sense solutions that have a chance of reducing the carnage. So, tell me again why it is necessary to have a clip that will hold more than a dozen rounds? And please put it in cost/benefit language we can all understand.
harun
(11,348 posts)Out government, the military industrial complex, congress and the corporate media all promote strongly the use of violence to get ones way, to be heard and to get respect.
You can implement reforms to gun laws but if the leadership of all these institutions stays the way they are it won't change anything.
BlueinOhio
(238 posts)The amendment was for filling our troops before we had a standing army. So how many of these gun owners want to join the military? I don't think anyone is trying to take away hunting weapons. But I do want to ask a question. A neocon I used to work with said he had the right to own any and all military grade weapons he wants including grenade launchers and "all" types of missiles. Where is the line? Since that amendment is really for the defense of the country.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)itself as a gun problem, but as you aptly said, "this goes WAY deeper than owning a firearm." One problem with guns is the quickness of it all, knives, fists would be far slower, but if not guns something else would come along. That said, I don't know what the solution is, but gun violence is a symptom of a far deeper problem in this society.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)to blame guns.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)this society that manifest themselves in gun violence are far, wide and complex. And certainly can not be cured by our inept congress trying to do something by attempting to pass some token legislation.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Public safety has been served with common-sense gun laws elsewhere in the world.
It's time that we stop pretending otherwise.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)problems going on in the US.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Just like any nation.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)gun violence. Around here, several people are killed almost nightly by gun violence.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)by making it easier to identify people in distress that, if not treated, may reach a mental state where they would want to go out and harm others.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)But you do realize that other nations have addressed this issue successfully, right?
If not, how do you not know that?
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)with the mind set of the nation. I've watched the love affair with guns increase and increase in the US and it's been a WTF, but that will, as you say, take years to change - more of a generational change.
emilyg
(22,742 posts)view. We see violence in movies, hear violence in songs, see it on TV. I miss the movies and tv programs of the 50's, 60's - they made me feel good. I watch what's on TV and shudder.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)violence increases violence, it's really a lot of what we see/hear. I realize people have alternatives, but if one casually watches TV/movies, listens to music, I bet the chances are far greater one will encounter violence today.
I also miss the music of the 60's. It was far better than what we have today and carried a message often of social justice.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Yet more people are beaten to death each year than are killed with the so-called "assault weapons" that are so railed against.
Logic, it seems, does not always have a place in the party that supposedly prides itself on rationality.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts) Go Vols
(5,902 posts)seems like the anti gun religionist are getting it worse.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts) Go Vols
(5,902 posts)guess its the opposite of a "gun religionist" that so many talk of here.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I don't think these terms were part of the OP.
Please offer some definitions. Thanks.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)top hits for "Gun Religionist" are from here.
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=49902
HuckleB
(35,773 posts) Go Vols
(5,902 posts)by the anti gun nuts describing people who do have guns.
So,to me,it means anyone who despises guns unequivocally.
Although I am pretty sure you understood what I meant to begin with.
hack89
(39,171 posts)he/she uses it instead of rational discussion.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)the cult of penile compensation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002979722#post137
the shooter was not stopped by some bobo pulling out his Phallic Replacement Device
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Really?
What is the point of this OP? It does not seem to be justified.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Search the archives.
if you're really interested, I mean.
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)We have a few guns in our household but we are not against sensible gun regulations and we do NOT belong to the NRA. Liberal gun owners are not the enemy. It makes no sense.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)
sellitman
(11,606 posts)Until the NRA stops blocking responsible gun laws in this country I will be a opponent of that Organization. I'm not against gun ownership and there are many places in this Country where unfortunately they are needed. That being said the need for Assault Rifles and some of the Armour piercing ammo available in this country is disgusting. I keep hearing how there are enough gun restrictions and laws in this land while the NRA moves to remove them all. The arguments against sensible gun laws are tired and as we can see stricter laws are much needed IMHO.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)You DO realize that "assault rifles' have been tightly controlled since 1939 don't you??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle#United_States
MSM don't know crap when it comes to what they are talking about.
Federal law does ban armor piercing ammunition for handguns [18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(7)]. Essentially, it outlaws the manufacture, import or sale to civilians.
As for armor piercing RIFLE ammo?! The energy levels of practically ALL center-fire rifles, makes most body armor a moot point, A common "deer rifle" will blow a hole in, thru, and OUT the other side of common bullet "resistant" vests. Several years ago, Ted Kennedy proposed legislation that would ban ALL bullets with the capability to defeat body armor, and we very quickly removed when the reality of what it would ban was realized (basically ALL rifle ammo)
Who says the NRA is trying to remove them all? Do you realize that their are over 20,000 gun laws on the books?? Just stating facts..
sellitman
(11,606 posts)The NRA fights ANY restrictions on it's members everyday. You know that is fact. It is why it will eventually lose and create more ill will against it's members and supporters. You see it here even on DU.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)AK 47's have been TIGHTLY CONTROLLED since the 1930's, even before they where invented.
No one is talking about hunting deer...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)They are ballistically nearly identical to the .30-30 lever action of the late 1800's. It's actually rather less powerful than many modern semi-auto hunting rifles.
http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire/model-750/model-750-synthetic.aspx
And any rifle that can be used at assault can be used to defend. That's rather axiomatic.
sellitman
(11,606 posts)So screw humanity so you can take your Ak-47 deer hunting.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I'm not using my firearms for anything illegal or immoral.
I'm not at all sure what your point is. Can you please elucidate?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Nobody rants against "gun owners." They rant against who owners who blindly and religiously try to shut down any discussion at all of laws to limit the spread of automatic weapons and ammunition designed to pierce armor and inflict painful, mortal injury. These are valid discussions to have but the gun owners who practically worship their guns shut them down by calling them anti-American etc.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"the spread of automatic weapons"
What spread of what automatic weapons? In Somalia?
"ammunition designed to pierce armor"
You mean common hunting ammo like 30.06?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Which it is not clear your are interested in.
Somalia? Really?
About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.
"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828
See also:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm
http://www.usautoweapons.com/
Armor Piercing Ammo? Yes, it exists. And is legal. But let's not talk about why you'd need that for self defense or duck hunting. Because that would be me trying to grab your guns, right? And PS I've never met a deer, duck, pheasant, elk, or antelope that wears armor.
http://www.pagunblog.com/2007/07/29/armor-piercing-ammo/
My point being, Mr. Tejas, that if SOMEONE wanted to have a discussion along those lines (I didn't say I did, but perhaps you have never heard of a hypothetical question), that they could not becasue they would be attacked.
You, sir, just proved my point. Instead of proving that you are capable of having a reasonable discussion about guns in this country, you just proved that you can't (or perhaps won't). Attacking someone (especially someone giving hypothetical comments) is not the way to begin reasonable discussion. Your efforts to shut down my comments just prove you are the exact type of person perpetrating the hate here. Not the non-gun people. Just the gun worshippers.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Seems clear that you are not interested in providing any information on this "the spread of automatic weapons", is it a secret?
G_j
(40,367 posts)to offer an intelligent response, though that does not appear to be appreciated.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)So, not sure what your point is there.
"ammunition designed to pierce armor and inflict painful, mortal injury"
Any ammo you shoot someone with can "inflict painful, mortal injury".
Also, none of those newly manufactured firearms sold to the general public would be full-auto. That's been banned since 1986.
What is your point?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)I know the gun-lovers' denials too well. And don't give me that nonsense about how all bullets pierce armor. They don't or no one would wear bullet proof vests. My dad used to hunt deer and elk and he never purchased armor piercing bullets.
Your attempt to disengage from the conversation by "proving" how much more you know about guns and ammo is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You are not willing to engage in a rational discussion about what to do about the fact that there are more guns per person in the US than in any other country (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2012/07/2012726141159587596.html), nor are you willing to discuss the availability of bullets that make is easier to kill people (http://www.ammunitiontogo.com/index.php/cName/ap-steel-core-penetrator) all while claiming that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Instead, you just want to prove how much you know about guns and get into some rhetorical debate about which words are used to described which guns instead of dealing with the issues. And perhaps discussing what can be done to make guns & ammo less available to psycho killers like Holmes. What to do about the fact that gun violence here outstrips every other non-war zone nation in the world.
THAT is my point. IF someone wanted to have a rational policy discussion, you couldn't and wouldn't do it. You'd just debate gun labels and feel smug. Try reading a post and responding to its points than making yourself feel superior.
And, in case you didn't notice, my post was hypothetical -- "if someone wanted to have" such a conversation. I don't. I've tried too many times and prefer not banging my head against a wall.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)With someone who clearly doesn’t know what they are talking about:
” My dad used to hunt deer and elk and he never purchased armor piercing bullets.”
If the deer or elk in question were wearing type II, IIA or IIIA ballistic textile body armor he wouldn’t need to. More than likely, the commercial hunting ammunition fired from his rifle would easily penetrate these levels of protection.
”And don't give me that nonsense about how all bullets pierce armor.”
Was such a claim made here on DU? If so, please provide a link so that I may refute that. It is clearly erroneous and I despise misinformation regardless of what “side” the disseminator may fall on.
I don’t understand how it is possible to have a “rational policy discussion” without some level of technical knowledge. If you don’t know the subject, on what do you base policy? Feelings?
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Not the good of a few gun-religionists.
And, I'd thank you to take up your insults elsewhere. My father, god rest his soul, you insulting insulting person, DID NOT USE ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS when he went hunting. How dare you pretend to know anything about me or my family?
I bet you clicked on ZERO of the links I supplied--especially as regards fun proliferation in the US.
It is impossible to have a rational conversation with someone whose mind is closed and who refuses to read what is written. My entire post was in the hypothetical -- how you couldn't have a rational conversation if one wanted to. Good thing I didn't. I knew I'd never get one from a gun person.
Just once, just once, I'd like a gun person to start a conversation with something other than "you don't know what you are talking about because you implied guns might be dangerous rather than beginning the conversation with a litany of every brand, make, model, and caliber of every gun you have ever owned." Just once, I'd like a gun person to start a conversation with "yes, let's talk."
I hope you NEVER talk health policy unless you are an MD.
I hope you NEVER talk labor policy unless you are in a union.
I hope you never talk trade policy unless you are a trade lawyer.
I hope you never talk education policy unless you are a teacher.
I hope you never talk food policy unless you are a farmer.
I hope you never talk about the economy unless you are an economist.
I hope you never talk about Wall Street unless you are a banker.
What? You mean you have opinions on these things and think you can engage in a reasonable discussion? You mean you might have something to contribute other than feelings? Perhaps statistics? Expert opinions you've read? Real world experience? Hmmmm. . . .
More hypothetical conversations we will never have.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I said he wouldn't need armor piercing ammunition if his prey was wearing levels II, IIA, & IIIA ballistic textile armor. The commercial hunting ammunition would penetrate those types of body armor quite easily.
That much I DO know about your father, gleaned from the information YOU provided.
"Not the good of a few gun-religionists."
Well, showed your ass on that one, eh? Do you honestly believe terminology like that engenders a desire for respectful conversation? Define "gun-religionists".
" you insulting insulting person"
Haha! Did someone bump you when you were typing that?
As for the rest of the blah, blah, blah...
I hope not to hear any more talk from you about mucking with an enumerated right considering your lack of knowledge on the subject.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)Why would I offer you something you don't offer me?
"My lack of knowledge of enumerated rights?" Really? Like the right to ammo? To tanks? To nuclear weapons? Those are all "arms" as well, but none are enumerated, and some even illegal to possess.
But you know what, because you buy guns and like to insult people's deceased fathers, you are a superior person.
. . . who is still incapable of having a rational discussion about improving public safety because you'd rather insult people about your perceived superior knowledge of gun shopping trivia than actually address how to keep people from tragic deaths. Keep hugging your guns I hope they keep you warm at night.
Welcome to ignore.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)And I'm not understanding how on earth I "insulted" your father by calling out YOUR bullshit.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)on these subjects if you demonstrated the same level of knowledge as you do with firearms. No sensible person would. The issue is not whether or not you CAN discuss the topic, but why you should expect anyone to respect or take in consideration your positions.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)So yes, you were refering to "full auto", as that is what "automatic weapons" means.
And no, general body armor is almost never rated to prevent penetration by rifle rounds, unless worn with protective plates, and even those are good only up to certain calibers and cover very small areas. I know something about the subject, having had to wear the stuff for extended periods, you see. A .30-06, a common round for deer/elk, will go through most vests like they're made of butter. Ceramic/armor-steel plates will probably stop them.... but you'll still feel like you got kicked by a Clydesdale. Those vest are made to reliably stop various levels of hand-gun ammo, as that is the most common threat to the average police officer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_armor
As shown at the link, most modern hunting ammo will defeat the average body armor.
And you are right, we can't have a rational discussion, because you don't know what you are talking about.
OrwellwasRight
(5,170 posts)"full auto" means "full auto"
Automatic means all kinds, inclusive: semi, full, and/or otherwise. PS, people in the US DO have fully automatic weapons--many converted from semi with kits that are commercially available.
I know exactly what I am talking about. I am talking about rationally discussing policies that could reduce massacres. You are talking about gun shopping. Never the twain shall meet.
And I don't know anyone who goes elk hunting in body armor. I don't know who you hunt with, but I wouldn't hunt with them. I'd go with friends, perhaps ones who knew the difference between people and elk.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)concerning the ability of commercial hunting ammunition in rifle calibers being able to penetrate many levels of body armor and, in effect, rendering it "armor piercing"?
I'm beginning to think not.
Anyway...
"PS, people in the US DO have fully automatic weapons--many converted from semi with kits that are commercially available."
Many? Really? Do you have a cite for this?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)They won't say a single ill word towards Harry Reid, but they'll damn sure trample each other for the chance to ridicule the gunowners he was looking out for. Go figure.
rollin74
(1,975 posts)virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Needs to be said.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I've repeatedly asked others to show me evidence the OP is addressing an actual issue.
So far, no one has shown me a thing.
Can you?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Funny how it's just you that doesn't see these posts. Someone already tried giving you links and you went all three-monkeys on them. Why would anyone else waste their time?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Thanks for wasting my time.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You should see someone about that short term memory thing.
Clames
(2,038 posts)If you can't figure it out then any explanation is beyond your ability to properly put it into context.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You can't support the claim, so you talk about Google or a "search bar."
Grow up.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Says the person who can't even find the references he is looking for when they are in plain sight. *Hint: Try GD and LBN*
Grow up yourself 
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Something like 20 minutes after news broke about Aurora, there were posts on DU - and elsewhere - "reminding" everyone that we are "not allowed" to use the event as a springboard for talking about gun control... Not that anyone had done so, but the gun nuts just wanted to make sure that our priorities were in order.
For three days now, it's been a constant stream of gun nuts running around screeching about their sacred totem objects, and how fucking awful everyone in the universe is if there's even a mention of some sort of restriction on the God-Penises (thankz, Zardoz; I wish I could forget that movie)
Much of this has involves puppet accounts, and the exposure of how fucking right-wing our RKBA regulars are - there's been a neverending stream of "We need guns to fight our tyrannical government!" posts, for instance.
It's not animosity towards DU's gun owners - nobody's shown a white of animosity towards me for my guns, after all, nor have I felt inclined ot take any posts as such. It's animosity towards DU's GUN NUTS who are flapping and flailing around in a total panic over their cultish ways being called into question.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)There is a distinction between gun owners and those who buy wholeheartedly into gun culture.
The latter needs to be challenged. They do not like challenge -- it's interpreted as persecution.
Thank you!
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Links, please?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)are just tired of gun fetishists in this country. We all suffer because of people's obsession with owning guns and god help anyone in this country if they dare suggest gun control, never mind banning them altogether. I'm tired of gun owners defending their beloved guns, and pissing all over victims every time something like this happens all in the name of "the cause" (ex: "if those people had guns, this wouldn't have happened." ) Massacres like this would not be possible without them and I'm weary of reading about people doing nothing more than trying to live their lives, then getting shot, or kids getting a hold of their parents gun and killing themselves or their sibling. Guns are horrible implements of death that were created for the sole purpose of killing, yet gun owners act as if they're being persecuted when people are naturally angry that it was so easy to buy the guns that murdered over 9,000 people in this country last year. If you want to own a gun, fine, but it seems gun owners in this country act as if their rights to own them supercede everyone else's rights. Sick. To. Death. Of. Guns. And. Their. Fetishists.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)But the poor dears start crying "persecution" when their canned arguments go down.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)more than 250 million firearms.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Your paranoia shows through with your charged language...."tracking down and seizing." Now I guess I hear that President Obama is going to grab all the guns, but I only hear that from the people holding the guns and most of them want donations. Please, amuse me by citing FIRST PERSON quotes from people with actual influence about any wholesale confiscation program that is envisioned.
I've argued with others who used this Fairfax-inspired talking point which also conflates deer rifles with modded AR-15's. But we both know what *that* is all about. It's a debate tool meant to stifle meaningful discussion. You want to win by faking that you can't comprehend any difference between the two. I suppose that does help stir up more support in the fundraising though. Crackpots who think they need three 50 caliber rifles to be sure that government tyranny can be checked are FAR less numerous than more pedestrian gun owners and need the numbers by inflaming the rest.
Anyway, things have gotten pretty shitty....thanks by the way for that...but to answer your question should this country suddenly get a sudden outbreak of common sense I'm fairly sure any restrictions could be phased in on future sales and transfers.
Only idiots or manipulators think it has to be all or nothing on the spot.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)so obviously I'm a paranoid, gun-nut, republican agent of the NRA, out to destroy America...
Good luck with that.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)To quote liberalmuse's parent post directly: "If you want to own a gun, fine,"
Now, somehow (and I don't presume to know exactly how your synapses fire
or as in this case MISfire) you misread that as a plea to institute a mass
confiscation and tried to argue against this nonexistent statement on
grounds of realism (oh, the irony).
When I gave a simple "plan" based on what liberalmuse was actually saying
instead of what was going on in "Egalitarian Thug-land" you double down
by demanding an answer to a problem which was posed BY YOU ALONE and
which wasn't relevant to anything in liberalmuse's post.
Accuse me of not thinking it through all you want but I asked myself what would
have to be true to allow this to be reality for the Thugmeister.
Here's the most probable two solutions: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck
and interprets everything it hears as an attempt to confiscate ALL guns, sorry but
it sounds like there is a fair chance it's either a duck that sends money to Fairfax
VA annually or a duck that perhaps should read parent posts more carefully
before hitting "Post my reply!"
Oh you can prove me wrong, all right. Just show in the parent post
where liberalmuse said ANYTHING about confiscation before you flew off
the handle.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)"Massacres like this would not be possible without them"
"gun owners in this country act as if their rights to own them supercede (sic) everyone else's rights."
But my feeble and misfiring synapses misinterpret this...
Uh huh. And here's another thing you're wrong about. I'm more on your side than theirs, but would rather do something that might actually make a difference other than causing more electoral losses for Democrats.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I'm surprised you fell for such an obvious and unsubtle opening on my part, but I'll take it.
So, you are really going to argue that this entire sentence: "We all suffer because of people's obsession with owning guns and god help anyone in this country if they dare suggest gun control, never mind banning them altogether." is a direct call for an immediate "seizure" of 250 million guns?
Really?
Have we really sunk that low in basic sentence diagramming and reading comprehension that you cannot see how the words "never mind" sets the phrase off?
Or is it deliberate? You merely *wished* someone would say "grab the guns" and so you pounced on something close. That *would* fit in more with the cutesy high-fiving kinds of posts you've made elsewhere in this thread. And it is true that its hard to find any sentiment proposing any substantial limitations on gun ownership publically so I guess you might have to make do. After all, the well-funded gun lobby goes out of their way to absolutely destroy anyone who crosses them (seemingly as vindictive but with MUCH deeper pockets than scientology).
In either case, that whoosh/sonic boom was the entire point of liberalmuse's post going right over your head as you explicitly demonstrated its point. Why is there such animosity towards gun owners on DU? Because the ones getting the negative attention (not ALL gun owners, for the record) are just like you, sir. Even in near total triumph so thin skinned that even a rhetorical mention of gun controls of any sort is interpreted and acted upon immediately and forcefully as a direct existential attack. Something apparently rising to the level of veiled threats about support for any activities of the Democratic Party ("I'm more on your side than theirs" implies you might consider that position malleable if you become unhappy). That's of course not what you meant since that would mean you were in violation of the site rules, but please try to incorporate more precision in your choice of words in the future.
Overall, pathetic. But hardly unexpected. I do wish you the best in your OTHER endeavors though. Just not the ones involving gun rights.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Pholus
(4,062 posts)Besides, I am a bit old for indulging requests to tell fairy tales. I'm pretty much satisfied with how I've illustrated this particular problem.
Anyway, I think I'm settling in to enjoy what promises to be a fine evening -- please enjoy yours as well!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)What do you mean by "modded AR-15's"?
An AR-15, in the right caliber, with a hunting-legal 3, 4 or 5 round magazine, makes an excellent deer rifle.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Forget guns, does your recipe for fried chicken include any breakfast cereals?
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)
Evoman
(8,040 posts)Not all of them, but man.....some are just plain cold blooded.
And you are wrong. It's both a gun problem and a societal problem.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Links, please?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)The only time I've ever encountered this kind of reaction before was when I was in college. A couple from NYC were in my study group for organic chem and we became somewhat close.
One day I was doing my pseudo-annual cleaning and they stopped by to ask us to dinner. Knock at the door, I never gave it a though and shouted to come on in as I was sitting in the kitchen surrounded by a bunch of clean & oiled parts laid out on newspapers waiting for me to reassemble them.
They walked into the room and froze like I'd only seen in films before. Mouths hanging open and sheer terror in their eyes, they looked like they expected the guns to animate themselves, reassemble themselves, and kill them. It took me almost a minute to figure out what the hell had even happened. Turns out that neither one of them had ever even seen a real-life rifle or pistol in their lives and they were literally paralyzed with fear of even being in the same room with a disassembled rifle and pistol.
That was the first time I realized that a large number of people are absolutely ignorant of and about guns, and have been so well conditioned to fear them that intellect cannot overcome the compulsion. Very strange.
sarisataka
(18,656 posts)she had zero experience with guns and literally was afraid of the sight of one. She felt she needed to get over what she knew was an irrational fear on an inanimate object.
It did not take very long and now she owns a couple .22s herself so we can go shooting together. She has found it to be a hobby she never would have considered, is very good at it and enjoys her range time very much.
She chooses to not carry, as she doubts she could actually shoot a person but makes sure I always go out with my pistol. Now as the kids are getting old enough she makes sure I teach them safe handling.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)when I take a GF to the range for her first shooting experience and after 20 minutes she's shooting the eyes out of guys that seem to spend most of their lives there.
I've never carried in my life, either. Never felt nervous enough to risk the chance that I'd have to use it, and I've got enough memories of real life violence that it is something I will go to absurd lengths to avoid.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Blah, blah, blah, blah.... you fucking gun owner...
Feel better now?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Gun owners who support tough, strong gun control laws should always be welcomed in progressive and liberal circles. They are not the problem. It is the extremist kooks who support America's insane gun culture of death and who oppose the same kind of tough, strict gun control laws that all modern western democracies have - who have blood on their hands and are largely responsible for America having a far higher homicide rate than any other western democracy - it is those nut who have blood on their hands. - Not the responsible and rational gun owner.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)in order to not be a "nut who ha(s) blood on (my) hands"?
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine the animosity is more towards the intractable dogmas held rather than the position stood on... the same intractable dogmas used dramatically on both sides to little effect other than self-perceived validation of our own philosophies and ethics-- each accusing the other of our own foibles, and denying to ourselves that we, indeed and in fact, use it too.
xmas74
(29,674 posts)I have no problems with gun ownership whatsoever. What I do believe, and have believed since 1997 (personal issue) is that there should be a limit on the amount of weapons owned, that there should be a more intensive background check that lasts much longer, and that there should be a training class which includes care and safety of your weapon along with hands-on instruction on the handling of a weapon with an instructor. I think that you should have to show proficiency in the use and care of a weapon before you are issued a license. And I feel that different types of guns should include different licenses/classes.
I've had people point out to me that hunter's safety is usually required. What many do not realize is that it's perfectly legal to take hunter's safety online and never once meet an instructor. Something's just not right there.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)As for me, I blame the shooter
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
lightworker at work
(15 posts)and would never allow one in my house. Having said that, after watching Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," he inadvertantly made your case. In showing how Canada had a bank promotion which gave people free guns for opening an account, he also cited stats that showed that despite all the guns there, they have very few gun crimes compared to our country. So in arguing for gun control, he actually demonstrated that it is our faltering society (home and media) which is the culprit, NOT the weapons.
I still don't like guns but I am less likely to clamor for gun control these days...
I DO think hunting should be BANNED! 
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)what is wrong with hunting? Do you eat meat? Do you think the average slaughter house is more humane than an animal that lived a natural life in various degrees of wilderness and non-captivity?
LWolf
(46,179 posts)some DUers and too much of the general public display towards teachers, unions, and public education.
Lydia Leftcoast
(48,217 posts)There's a difference.
Many years ago, I was a mod in the Guns Forum. I did not get a good impression of Second Amendment absolutists from that experience, especially the ones who said that they were single-issue voters against any restrictions on any ownership of firearms.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)
marlakay
(11,470 posts)and if they could just tighten up the rules both on getting and keeping them and I see no reason for automatic guns then I am ok with gun rights.
I haven't said a word but will be glad when the discussion is over because no matter what I want the gun people have control and the laws aren't going to change….
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Also, law-abiding gunowners don't "have control", it is a civil right.
Omaha Steve
(99,653 posts)Whats the big deal?
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)A friend on another board pointed out that semi-auto weapons have been around since the 1920s yet nobody got shot up at the movies or in schools until recent decades.
Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)About 40 years ago needing some income I took a job delivering money for a booky. Being young and stupid i carried a 1911A1 at all times so I could feel like a big man. 0nce crossing a park, the thought accured to me that if someone jumped out from behinds tree with his gun out and I reached for mine he would have no choice but to shoot me. Haven't carried one since. No I don't live in a nice suburb, but in an inner city with all of it's problems. The best defense is being aware of what is going on around you.
The crap I hear about self defense is just that. You were sold a gun, just like you were sold anything else. Seventy five per cent of gun deaths are gun owners. I'm also sick of this defending property nonsense. Nothing in your house is worth dying for. If you think it is please seek out some help. It's like believing that somehow which sports team wins is important. What always amazed me is that the most paranoid gun nuts live in the safest places. Been all over the World in all kinds of places and I can't think of one time a gun would have helped.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)"Seventy five per cent of gun deaths are gun owners."
Easy to make stuff up, isn't it?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)So, no-one ever manages to succefully defend themselves with a firearm?
Are your circumstances representative of everyone else?
Warpy
(111,267 posts)Just sayin'.
andyv2k14
(2 posts)The idea that a gun owner should have to apologize is absolutely laughable. I consider myself middle of the road politically and I am a proud gun owner. I also am an American and believe firmly in all ten first amendments of the US Constitution. The same as I love free speech and exercise that right, so too do I love the right to bear arms and exercise that as well. Firearms are the same as free speech, we may hate it, but we ought to defend people's rights. Take away one amendment and what guarantees the others? What's to say that after we lose guns, we won't lose our Right to a Fair and Speedy Trial, or even lose our freedom of speech? A controlled society sounds like a good, safe idea, until some crazy guy with a mustache takes it over (because I think a horrible mustache is a requirement for an evil dictator).
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)you have an item that you defend zealously that has only one purpose and that is to kill or injure others!!!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Are they faulty or am I useing them incorrectly?
gateley
(62,683 posts)have been so helpful and straightforward with their replies and explanations. These are good people who choose to own guns -- and I think they have been unfairly demonized.
