General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome 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.
MineralMan
(146,192 posts)Learn from that, eh?
dsc
(52,129 posts)MineralMan
(146,192 posts)dsc
(52,129 posts)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.
brooklynite
(93,847 posts)and I would have joined them.
dsc
(52,129 posts)nearly 60% of the country voted for Reagan, they were wrong too.
demwing
(16,916 posts)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.
brooklynite
(93,847 posts)ever so slightly higher
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)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)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.
ProgressiveJarhead
(172 posts)The standard issue M16 does not have a fully auto switch. It is semi or 3 round.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I love how gun nuts nitpick technicalities while missing the bigger picture
freshwest
(53,661 posts)I thought you were for GC but may have you confused with someone else.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)ProgressiveJarhead
(172 posts)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)To be a gun nut.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)Needs to be countered with "when it comes to massacring the innocent, the difference between automatic and semiautomatic is completely irrelevant."
ProgressiveJarhead
(172 posts)If you have ever used these weapons. If not, think for once before you spew forth shit.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)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.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)ProgressiveJarhead
(172 posts)But if that's what you want to hear.
ProgressiveJarhead
(172 posts)It seems as if some people type before engaging their brain.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)Where?
dsc
(52,129 posts)so you can't see it.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)wrong wording.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)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.
dsc
(52,129 posts)Serve The Servants
(328 posts)Disgusting and hypocritical
Go figure.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)I shall say no more.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Provided by Electric Monk elsewhere. The thread was hidden.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)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.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)sarisataka
(18,213 posts)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)At least OK enough not to support any changes to the law which would curtail those executions.
sarisataka
(18,213 posts)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)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)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)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)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)...then you're just seeing what you want to see. No one's "ok with that."
dsc
(52,129 posts)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)Want to talk about school security?
dsc
(52,129 posts)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)I trust you see the problem with your assertion, right?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...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)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).
baldguy
(36,649 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)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)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.
UnrepentantLiberal
(11,700 posts)now that you've slept off your PUI.
dsc
(52,129 posts)Response to dsc (Original post)
bahrbearian This message was self-deleted by its author.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)dsc
(52,129 posts)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.
Logical
(22,457 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)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)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)For self defense purposes?
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)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)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)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)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)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)the fact is opposing those measures is the same as advocating the shooting of children.
Nt
rwsanders
(2,585 posts)MrModerate
(9,753 posts)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.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)the ones by the pro gun posters to leave our insane laws alone are apparently just hunky dory.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)"Your either with us or against us"
Deep13
(39,154 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)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