Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dsc

(52,129 posts)
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:24 PM Apr 2013

Some people were upset by my earlier proposal

and I am sure some of you are expecting a mea culpa. well not gonna happen. If we don't change our insane gun laws there will be another massacre sooner rather than later. I can't tell you where. I can't tell you when but it will happen. So if you don't want to change gun laws then you are implementing that proposal you are just using a deranged middle man and putting everyone's child at risk. Both the UK and Australia faced this problem, and they ended it. We are the one and only first world nation which doesn't have a back round check on all its gun sales. We are the one and only first world nation which doesn't require gun dealers to keep inventories. We are the one and only first world nation that lets our citizenry buy the same weapons we use in our infantry. Shock of shocks we are the one and only first world nation that has massacre after massacre. We accept those massacres as a price of having those laws. If you were outraged at my proposal, you should be at least as outraged at the notion of not changing those laws.

80 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Some people were upset by my earlier proposal (Original Post) dsc Apr 2013 OP
Yes. It was hidden by a jury. MineralMan Apr 2013 #1
juries sometimes do the wrong thing dsc Apr 2013 #2
That jury did not. MineralMan Apr 2013 #3
i think they did dsc Apr 2013 #4
All 5 of them? brooklynite Apr 2013 #47
yeah all 5 dsc Apr 2013 #51
Not on this case. This time the majority nailed it and you blew it. demwing Apr 2013 #58
5 out of 6 was 83% brooklynite Apr 2013 #65
wah-wah, boo fucking hoo. (jury results here) appal_jack Apr 2013 #67
link, for context Electric Monk Apr 2013 #9
No It Does Not ProgressiveJarhead Apr 2013 #31
Ok, but you agree they are very similar while not quite identical, which was my main point. Electric Monk Apr 2013 #33
IDK why you brought it up. They're both WMD, inapproriate for civilian use. freshwest Apr 2013 #44
I brought it up because someone was going to sooner or later, and I wanted to get it over with. nt Electric Monk Apr 2013 #56
Ah, okay. n/t freshwest Apr 2013 #61
Who Are You Calling A Gun Nut? ProgressiveJarhead Apr 2013 #50
Clearly, you don't have to be packing this exact moment . . . MrModerate Apr 2013 #70
And this argument, whenever raised . . . MrModerate Apr 2013 #55
No. It Is Relevant ProgressiveJarhead Apr 2013 #59
I'll resist a "bite me" type of response . . . MrModerate Apr 2013 #69
Exactly. Thanks for explaining it that way. freshwest Apr 2013 #62
That Was a Sorry Explanation. ProgressiveJarhead Apr 2013 #64
We Are For Gun Control ProgressiveJarhead Apr 2013 #66
What proposal? TheCowsCameHome Apr 2013 #5
It is a hidden thread dsc Apr 2013 #6
self delete - TheCowsCameHome Apr 2013 #8
yet somehow I found it Electric Monk Apr 2013 #10
sorry I thought that non star readers couldn't read hidden threads dsc Apr 2013 #14
Wow just wow... Serve The Servants Apr 2013 #49
It could be described as "Second Amendment Games" I suppose Fumesucker Apr 2013 #7
Something to the effect executing the children of those who oppose gun control, it appears. Link: freshwest Apr 2013 #63
Your earlier post was spot on. baldguy Apr 2013 #11
"W" did it, with the children of others. n/gt TheCowsCameHome Apr 2013 #13
Spot on? sarisataka Apr 2013 #15
Children are being executed already, if you haden't noticed. Gun owners seem to be OK with that baldguy Apr 2013 #17
You have missed that many of us sarisataka Apr 2013 #20
And you must have missed the majority of self-identified gun owners baldguy Apr 2013 #26
The majority.... sarisataka Apr 2013 #32
Then, how come I'm always trying to stop "sensible gun owners" from chopping my head off baldguy Apr 2013 #39
Indeed some do crawl from under their bridge sarisataka Apr 2013 #42
If they "seem" that way to you... Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #23
yeah they are dsc Apr 2013 #25
Somehow I doubt you'd be willing to apply that statement to everyone that it fits. beevul Apr 2013 #30
I have no problem with updating school security dsc Apr 2013 #37
"when you have the power to do something" Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #40
The earlier post... Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #19
+ I have yet to see a gun owner who favors the ability to form a militia say diddly-squat about patrice Apr 2013 #24
I think the word you're looking for is "terrorism". baldguy Apr 2013 #27
Nope. You'd have to see the young adults decked out in gangsta garb, here in cupcake land, patrice Apr 2013 #29
We are a 'consumer' society gone crazy. Guns aren't considered as less than what they are: WMD. freshwest Apr 2013 #75
This proposal is a little more reasonable UnrepentantLiberal Apr 2013 #12
I have been sober longer than du has been in existance dsc Apr 2013 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author bahrbearian Apr 2013 #18
Keep up the good work. You have a friend in this juror if I'm ever called to serve on your posts. nt Comrade_McKenzie Apr 2013 #21
thanks dsc Apr 2013 #22
Lettuce tblue Apr 2013 #28
LOL, I guess you want another one locked. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #34
So what is your proposal, MadHound Apr 2013 #35
neither country bans all guns dsc Apr 2013 #38
Do you agree with both those countries that you can't purchase or own such a gun as you mention MadHound Apr 2013 #41
To purchase a weapon in Australia . . . MrModerate Apr 2013 #53
Wanting to defend oneself is not "paranoia". MadHound Apr 2013 #60
In Australia, it's not a blanket ban . . . MrModerate Apr 2013 #68
Why single-shot rifles but not single-shot pistols? petronius Apr 2013 #54
Why should you apologize? Sharpie Apr 2013 #36
and you are advocating for death now dsc Apr 2013 #48
no it isnt Niceguy1 Apr 2013 #77
Jonathon Swift is that you??? rwsanders Apr 2013 #43
Your post above makes sense and characterizes the issue appropriately . . . MrModerate Apr 2013 #45
Other thread was OTT, I suggest you move on. Your points here are good ones. freshwest Apr 2013 #46
Your thread was rightfully hidden obxhead Apr 2013 #52
I really don't see what the big deal is about with either of your posts. MichiganVote Apr 2013 #57
Your Posit is a little thin. Talk to the Swiss. cliffordu Apr 2013 #71
the swiss require back round checks dsc Apr 2013 #72
Unless they have recently banned automatic weapons among cliffordu Apr 2013 #73
The OE post isn't a little thin obxhead Apr 2013 #74
actually it is about only one call to violence being seen as disgusting dsc Apr 2013 #76
George Bush thought the same way... Niceguy1 Apr 2013 #78
Actual gun dealers do keep inventories, FYI. nt Deep13 Apr 2013 #79
Why does one more have to die from the insanity of guns/bullets in the street ala Zimmerman? graham4anything Apr 2013 #80

dsc

(52,129 posts)
4. i think they did
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:34 PM
Apr 2013

but such is life. I will start alerting anti gun control threads linking my removed thread to the alert. If my thread had to go so should their's since it is the exact same thing.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
58. Not on this case. This time the majority nailed it and you blew it.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:20 PM
Apr 2013

In advocated the killing of innocent children, you are acting like the deranged lunatics you want to stop.

I do give you the benefit of the doubt - I think you meant well, but even those who mean well sometimes end up fucking the duck.

 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
67. wah-wah, boo fucking hoo. (jury results here)
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:42 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:16 AM - Edit history (3)

I sent the alert, and I'm perfectly comfortable having done so. The jury called it right:

At Thu Apr 4, 2013, 01:25 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

A modest proposal for people who think no massacre control is needed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022615268

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

I know that the intention of all threads with "modest proposal" in the title is to post something controversial, but this OP is advocating the random massacre of children. Not cool by DU standards, no matter how you stretch them. Also, does not further any rational discussion in any way, shape, or form.

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Thu Apr 4, 2013, 02:06 PM, and voted 5-1 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Sickening and not helping the cause.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: not amusing or clever
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: This post is over the top and hardly a modest proposal. I appreciate that gun control and gun rights are topics with a great deal of passion, but this is simply beyond acceptable.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: This is clearly an expression of righteous anger and I am not offended by the words on the page or the horrific absurdity of the proposal. Proper decorum vs. satire? No matter how dark or scathing, I vote for the satire.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you.



If the issue of gun control is as cut & dry as you pretend it is, dsc, just advocate repealing the Second Amendment. Or save yourself some time and admit that you have no chance of doing so. Our Constitution protects the expression of dangerous ideas (via the 1st Amendment), because dangerous ideas are necessary and potentially helpful to an open society. The Constitution also protects the possession of potentially dangerous (but also potentially helpful) tools via the 2nd Amendment. Privacy and waiting for due process can be dangerous (or helpful) to society; we (should) protect them too, as enshrined in the 4th and 5th Amendments.

Your post was offensive the way that Jersey Shore is offensive: it was stupid and had no redeeming value whatsoever. DU deserves better. NO ONE is against 'massacre control.' Killing people in anything besides a desperate defensive situation is already illegal, and should of course remain so. Heck, few if any here are against gun control entirely. We have a lot of gun control in this country. Whether we need more, and what type is worth debating, but only rationally. The less hyperbole, the better.


-app
 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
9. link, for context
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:38 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022615268

and re: this OP, "lets our citizenry buy the same weapons we use in our infantry" is not exactly true. The military version of the AR-15 has select fire (full auto, 3 round burst, or single shot) instead of 1 pull = 1 shot, for example. Someone was going to point that out sooner or later.
 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
33. Ok, but you agree they are very similar while not quite identical, which was my main point.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:16 PM
Apr 2013

I love how gun nuts nitpick technicalities while missing the bigger picture

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
44. IDK why you brought it up. They're both WMD, inapproriate for civilian use.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:57 PM
Apr 2013

I thought you were for GC but may have you confused with someone else.


 

ProgressiveJarhead

(172 posts)
50. Who Are You Calling A Gun Nut?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:07 PM
Apr 2013

We have no weapons in our house. My wife carries the M4 in the shit hole where she is right now. I carried the A2. It becomes part of your body. The technicality is a fucking fact. You may want to think before you touch your fucking keyboard next time. Think about this: you need to know what you are talking about before you jump in. Calling people who don't have guns "gun nuts" is stupid. Reign in your mouth. We don't like the fact that these weapons are available to people who should not have them.

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
55. And this argument, whenever raised . . .
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:13 PM
Apr 2013

Needs to be countered with "when it comes to massacring the innocent, the difference between automatic and semiautomatic is completely irrelevant."

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
69. I'll resist a "bite me" type of response . . .
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:38 AM
Apr 2013

And simply point out that if an individual shooter can fire 154 rounds from a single semiautomatic weapon in 4 minutes, then the "semi" distinction has no practical meaning.

I'd go further to say that gun fans continuing to make such a distinction -- as if it mattered -- is both dishonest and dishonorable.

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
10. yet somehow I found it
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:41 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022615268

All it is really hidden from is google searches, since it requires an extra click to read the text.

It's on page 2 of GD at the moment.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
63. Something to the effect executing the children of those who oppose gun control, it appears. Link:
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:33 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022615268

Provided by Electric Monk elsewhere. The thread was hidden.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
11. Your earlier post was spot on.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:43 PM
Apr 2013

Gun owners are perfectly fine having other peoples' children being sacrificed for their privilege of owning a gun, but get all upset when someone suggests - even with obvious sad sarcasm - that they might offer some sacrifice themselves. It was hidden before I could comment.

sarisataka

(18,213 posts)
15. Spot on?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:48 PM
Apr 2013

I'm so upset that children have died, I think we should have scheduled executions of children... O... kay...

We should also put to death anyone who kills a person to show society that killing is wrong...

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
17. Children are being executed already, if you haden't noticed. Gun owners seem to be OK with that
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:52 PM
Apr 2013

At least OK enough not to support any changes to the law which would curtail those executions.

sarisataka

(18,213 posts)
20. You have missed that many of us
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:02 PM
Apr 2013

do support changes which would reduce the chances of further mass murders, or daily garden variety murders.
There is a mindset that believes if you do not support each every proposal with blind enthusiasm, then you must believe in no control at all. I would venture there are more who support nation wide confiscation than those who want no control at all.
A certain loudmouth speaker says he represents every gun owner, but even many of the members of his association disagree with his statements.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
26. And you must have missed the majority of self-identified gun owners
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:25 PM
Apr 2013

Who want to weaken & eliminate the existing laws. It's not just one "loudmouth", it's most of the people who pop up like a patch of dandelions any time there's a post supporting real gun control legislation. If you see them around then you should be replying to them - not me.

sarisataka

(18,213 posts)
32. The majority....
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:15 PM
Apr 2013

Who want to weaken & eliminate the existing laws- yes I have not seen a majority. Do a majority of pro-control support guns for police and military only, or is it a small vocal group.
Real gun control legislation- there is the rub. Some believe everything, no matter how flawed is 'real legislation'... Take CT- I support most of the news laws, but they would not have prevented the deaths of Noah Pozner and his schoolmates; yet many believe they are the panacea.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
39. Then, how come I'm always trying to stop "sensible gun owners" from chopping my head off
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:42 PM
Apr 2013

When I voice my support for gun control? And how come I never see these "sensible gun owners" going after the RW gun weirdos - like those who think CTs new gun laws are worthless & oppose universal background checks, a new assault weapons ban, and limits on magazine size - who troll on DU?

Could it be that these supposed "sensible gun owners" aren't sensible at all? More likely.

sarisataka

(18,213 posts)
42. Indeed some do crawl from under their bridge
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:54 PM
Apr 2013

to shout down everything.

Some support everything except that which uses the word "ban"

Some are greeted in endearing terms such as gun fucker, delicate flower, coward,gun nut, accusations of small penis (females not excluded), indifference to murder, murderer yet to happen, one who loves an object more than family. It kinda dampens the discussion pretty quick.
I will not claim the pro-gun side is blameless, not by a long shot. In my biased opinion, it seems the pro-gun side is more open to debate without insults and personal attacks than the control side. I would understand if you see different. Yet if neither side is willing to be civil until the other goes first, we are all holding some blame for inaction.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
23. If they "seem" that way to you...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:08 PM
Apr 2013

...then you're just seeing what you want to see. No one's "ok with that."

dsc

(52,129 posts)
25. yeah they are
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:22 PM
Apr 2013

IF you sit and do nothing, when you have the power to do something, that would have stopped a thing from occurring than you are indeed perfectly ok with that thing occurring.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
30. Somehow I doubt you'd be willing to apply that statement to everyone that it fits.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:04 PM
Apr 2013

Want to talk about school security?

dsc

(52,129 posts)
37. I have no problem with updating school security
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:36 PM
Apr 2013

every school I have worked in has had an officer on campus and they have all been great. They also aren't everywhere at every time.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
40. "when you have the power to do something"
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:46 PM
Apr 2013

I trust you see the problem with your assertion, right?

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
19. The earlier post...
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 08:55 PM
Apr 2013

...was a serious contender for the most abjectly idiotic thing I've ever read here...with the possible exception of the inane strawman you just offered above.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
24. + I have yet to see a gun owner who favors the ability to form a militia say diddly-squat about
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:20 PM
Apr 2013

seeking the opinions of the public at large, who would be affected, severely affected, in many more ways than just one, by any such militia engaging in, ahem, cough, choke, "... armed 'defense' of the Constitution...."


IOW - BY VIRTUE OF THE GUNS THEMSELVES (and I can't emphasize that fact enough), some people think they have the right to start an armed conflict that will affect absolutely everyone else - without even asking everyone whether they assent to the impacts of that armed action in any degree whatsoever. It's thuggery, pure and simple. EXTORTION by middle-class gangsters living in our suburbs, holding down middle-class jobs, going to middle-class churches, leading middle-class lives, with the extra added espirit de corps of being a violent threat to anyone who disagrees with their desire to engage in violence FOR THE SAKE OF GUNS ALONE (another fact that I can't emphasize enough).

patrice

(47,992 posts)
29. Nope. You'd have to see the young adults decked out in gangsta garb, here in cupcake land,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:56 PM
Apr 2013

driving their high-rise, 4-wheel, dualies ... in McDonalds on the way to or from Sunday morning fellowship at one or another of our many religious entertainment complexes.

These are gangsta wanna-bes who likely hear high-octane talk of Civil War II to end abortion, the "gay threat", and the evils of socialism.

I'd love to do the research; I'd bet they even have gun-based fellowship groups; you know: "gun safety", hunting, competitive target shooting ... etc. etc. etc. All innocent enough, I'm sure, except when it comes to plausibly deniable pressures to vote certain ways and to "be ready" for armageddon.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
75. We are a 'consumer' society gone crazy. Guns aren't considered as less than what they are: WMD.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:52 AM
Apr 2013

The cognitive disconnect comes about when those who are enamoured of killing others say they are pro-life. The lie is so blatant, reason has left them long ago.


Response to dsc (Original post)

tblue

(16,350 posts)
28. Lettuce
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 09:49 PM
Apr 2013

Didn't see the first post, but I'm with you on this one! Don't let them stop you. You are doing the right thing. The 'small price to pay' for this 'freedom' is not small by any measure. Heck, when contaminated lettuce makes people sick, how fast is it taken off the shelves? Oh wait. Lettuce doesn't make people sick; PEOPLE make people sick! You can't blame the poor lettuce; how DARE you attack an inanimate object! So let's let everybody sell and buy lettuce with Ebola virus in it. It's a free country and, dammit, we should ensure that everybody has the right to bad lettuce. Let's allow it in schools, and parks, and bars, and churches. Back the hell off right now. My deadly lettuce head is my sacred God/FF-given right, so you are NOT putting any laws or other BS between me and my little green friend here. You can take my putrid lettuce out of my cold dead hands. I want this to be the 28th amendment to the Constitution. Makes as much sense as the 2A.

 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
35. So what is your proposal,
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:23 PM
Apr 2013

Other than what you posted in your other thread.

You mention sensible gun control legislation, such as background checks, etc. You also hold up the UK and Australia as ideal examples, both of which ban guns. So, what is your proposal, gun control or banning guns?

dsc

(52,129 posts)
38. neither country bans all guns
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:38 PM
Apr 2013

that is a lie. I do think people should be restricted to shot guns, single shot rifles, and pistols that hold no more than 10 bullets.

 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
41. Do you agree with both those countries that you can't purchase or own such a gun as you mention
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:50 PM
Apr 2013

For self defense purposes?

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
53. To purchase a weapon in Australia . . .
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:08 PM
Apr 2013

You generally have to submit a document to the authorities that describes, convincingly, your need to have one. If you can't do that, you can't purchase a gun legally.

Paranoia is not considered by the authorities to be convincing (and in fact tends to disqualify you), hence, the rather vague reason "self defense" generally doesn't meet the test.

And as a result, many fewer people (and criminals in particular) have guns. This is an unalloyed good. In America, the sheer number of firearms in circulation gives weight to the paranoia that makes people want guns (whether their paranoia is justified or not) and makes gun control — gun reduction — extremely difficult.

 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
60. Wanting to defend oneself is not "paranoia".
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:25 PM
Apr 2013

There are thousands upon thousands of instances where a gun owner defended themselves from harm. There are many, many people who live where police help is not just minutes, but many, many minutes away, though frankly unless a cop is accompanying you throughout your day, they will simply not be there when something bad goes down, but only come by later to clean up the mess.

Sorry, but I can't buy into the notion of disallowing somebody to own a gun, simply because they want it for self defense. Regulate the type of gun a person has, how many bullets the magazine can hold, who can purchase a gun, and how transparent gun ownership must be, I have no problem with that. But handing down blanket reasons for not allowing a person to own a gun is foolish, like all such blanket restrictions are.

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
68. In Australia, it's not a blanket ban . . .
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:32 AM
Apr 2013

Each and every request is evaluated on its merits, by local officials who are completely cognizant of local conditions -- they live in the same communities as those requesting permits.

They just don't generally agree that an individual's level of dread is more compelling than the actual situation, where the threat to the individual is typically much smaller than the threat to the community if gun ownership is allowed to grow to insane heights, as in the US.

petronius

(26,580 posts)
54. Why single-shot rifles but not single-shot pistols?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:11 PM
Apr 2013

Handguns are far-and-away the biggest piece of violence involving firearms, after all.

Personally, I'd consider it reasonable to specify 10 rounds for a detachable rifle magazine and no-limit for non-detachable (e.g. CA-style bullet-button rifles), and pistol magazines limited to those that fit inside the grip (i.e., whatever is standard for the particular model, without extension). But I can live with 10-round limits across the board...

 

Sharpie

(64 posts)
36. Why should you apologize?
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:27 PM
Apr 2013

All you did was advocate for the death of the children of people exercising their constitutional rights.

It was sick before and it's sick now.

dsc

(52,129 posts)
48. and you are advocating for death now
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:03 PM
Apr 2013

the fact is opposing those measures is the same as advocating the shooting of children.

 

MrModerate

(9,753 posts)
45. Your post above makes sense and characterizes the issue appropriately . . .
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 10:59 PM
Apr 2013

Your 'modest proposal' was anything but, and was quite correctly hidden.

You do our cause -- sane gun regulation -- no favors by posting something that's nuts. I believe that's the message people are sending you.

 

obxhead

(8,434 posts)
52. Your thread was rightfully hidden
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:08 PM
Apr 2013

I support strong firearm laws.

Your post was in no way constructive to this volatile argument.

How does a law that creates senseless violence stop senseless violence?

 

MichiganVote

(21,086 posts)
57. I really don't see what the big deal is about with either of your posts.
Thu Apr 4, 2013, 11:14 PM
Apr 2013

Strong feelings=strong posts. Sometimes we all just need to listen and reflect on what people are really trying to tell us all.

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
71. Your Posit is a little thin. Talk to the Swiss.
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:47 AM
Apr 2013

Unless they aren't considered First World.

We don't really have a gun problem:

We have a national psychosis that creates the mindset that guns and killing are a reasonable way to resolve conflicts.

See: John Wayne, Bonnie and Clyde, "I'll be back" "Yippie kai yay, motherfucker..."


But you are right;

The guns have got to go until this mindset is resolved.

dsc

(52,129 posts)
72. the swiss require back round checks
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:48 AM
Apr 2013

the swiss do not permit ownership of military style weapons. Oh, and guess who does have the second highest rate of death by gun in the first world, you guessed it, the swiss.

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
73. Unless they have recently banned automatic weapons among
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:03 AM
Apr 2013

the populace, Ex-military could own automatic AK-47's......

And your comment about Switzerland is thin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

 

obxhead

(8,434 posts)
74. The OE post isn't a little thin
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:10 AM
Apr 2013

It's a call for violence to curb violence.

While I can agree with mindset being a part of the problem, it's a moot point. That's not what this 'refusal to apologize' thread is about after all. The outrage here is about a call for violence against children being seen as disgusting.

dsc

(52,129 posts)
76. actually it is about only one call to violence being seen as disgusting
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 01:54 AM
Apr 2013

the ones by the pro gun posters to leave our insane laws alone are apparently just hunky dory.

 

graham4anything

(11,464 posts)
80. Why does one more have to die from the insanity of guns/bullets in the street ala Zimmerman?
Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:11 AM
Apr 2013

We need to reinterpret the 2nd and /or reclassify in the current war on terror and be done with it.

How many thousands more shall die before they are banned?

NO more bullets.

If someone thinks they need a gun to survive, those are the exact people who should NOT have a gun.

Zimmerman in Florida, the vigilante comes to mind, shot an unarmed kid coward style.
Zimmerman in Florida, the vigilante, is just the EXACT person who should not have a gun.
Bernie Goetz in NYC also some called a vigilante, packed his gun looking and finding trouble to shoot. (BARF).

35 people a day die
100 wounded
how many 1000s directly affected by a persons death personally through friends and workers and schoolmates and others in the vicinity.

More people die in six months from a private person's gun and bullet, than the entire history of drones, which seem to get more attention.

Many areas in the USA rely on tourism to survive. How many foreigners come to America and bring home tragedy?

Enough is enough.

We need new candidates, new office holders on the individual state level,
and ONE more SCOTUS or perhaps two after some retire on the rightwing side, and then a complete relook at the 2nd amendment.

After all, the way the wording reads, every single private citizen could say they need shoulder to air misssles in their house and it would qualify. So we need the court, as they said they would do as warranted, to see what they can reinterpret

And, don't let them fool you, they are very, very afraid this will happen.


Only question is, how many more people will die before it does.

Reminds me of the war, and the wave on wave on wave on wave of people who die,
but eventually, the war is won, even if some battles are lost.

And then the world can get the insanity of the paradox back to even keel-
that being that everyone shot is denied their first amendment rights and their basic

life
liberty
pursuit of happiness

boo hoo if some hobbyist and all loses their hobby. Let them collect baseball cards.
Let them go bowling to relive their anxiety and fear.

If Zimmerman were carrying a bowling ball instead of his LEGAL gun, Mr. Martin would still be able to possibly cure cancer 10 years from now instead of being shot dead for no reason whatsoever.

So let's say Ta Ta to guns and bullets by private citizens in the streets, then when reinterpreted, get a few more security type machines(all already in existence), so law enforcement will know when a private citizen breaks the new laws

and let's have zero tolerance, like there is zero tolerance in some states for teenage drinking.

And another thing that could be done nationwide is have mini-parks every few blocks,
and then have manditory gun-free zones in a radius say of one mile of each park.
Let's put a ring around it and stamp a gun and bullet obsolete.

imho

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Some people were upset by...