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
87 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The best gun control commercial ever made by anyone, ever. (Original Post) WilliamPitt Apr 2013 OP
brilliant stuff /nt cvoogt Apr 2013 #1
Not really The Earl o Sammich Apr 2013 #75
Absolutely the best! n/t Sekhmets Daughter Apr 2013 #2
Pretty darn nice! nt jmg257 Apr 2013 #3
Good find. Arkansas Granny Apr 2013 #4
That's a good one. K&R nt laundry_queen Apr 2013 #5
Outstanding. moondust Apr 2013 #6
But nobody wants to take away their guns leaving them only muskets Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #7
Yeah, I don't see anyone calling for heavy restrictions on the Internet. LAGC Apr 2013 #9
Does anyone need 30 tweets a day. If you can't get your point across in 6 tweets you missed. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #11
Lol, pathetic grasping at straws. You are losing (it). morningfog Apr 2013 #51
The internet has all kinds of restrictions. JoePhilly Apr 2013 #12
If you don't think there is lars1701a Apr 2013 #13
Did I say there were no restrictions? JoePhilly Apr 2013 #15
I am for lars1701a Apr 2013 #19
I'm a hopful eagles fan ... JoePhilly Apr 2013 #21
I am a lars1701a Apr 2013 #23
This message was self-deleted by its author uppityperson Apr 2013 #25
Free speech license...? Pointy_n_sharp Apr 2013 #48
It's not. And your "examples" are sophistic nonsense. LTX Apr 2013 #53
Every single right you have is a qualified right, not one is absolute. Not one. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #63
I was specifically referencing the idea of licensing... Pointy_n_sharp Apr 2013 #83
Not without a warrant and probable cause. LAGC Apr 2013 #14
Join a well regulated militia and we won't infringe. JoePhilly Apr 2013 #16
There are two types of militia, as our government defined over 100 years ago. LAGC Apr 2013 #17
You helped make my point. JoePhilly Apr 2013 #20
Of slavery, militias and the careful deliberate wording of the second amendment. chknltl Apr 2013 #27
If the slaves had their 2nd Amendment rights would they still be slaves? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #34
If slaves had the 15th Amendment would they still be slaves? LanternWaste Apr 2013 #40
I think you mean the 13th Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #57
Which begs the question: "Are slaves citizens?" chknltl Apr 2013 #42
As a general comment, "We/they do X and Y, so we/they should do Z also!" isn't petronius Apr 2013 #18
You're not aware of the thousands of updates LanternWaste Apr 2013 #39
The point is about high-capacity magazines. BlueStreak Apr 2013 #22
When you use false terms to define an argument it's easy to win your own debate Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #24
What other purpose could a large magazine serve? BlueStreak Apr 2013 #31
There are tens of millions of 30-round magazines in circulation in the US Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #33
And if we allowed individuals to own bazookas BlueStreak Apr 2013 #36
A bazooka is a metal tube. It's 100% legal to own. Recursion Apr 2013 #66
I notice you didn't answer my question, "What other purpose (other than mowing down BlueStreak Apr 2013 #38
He never does. nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #67
The gun strokers are. morningfog Apr 2013 #52
Tick tock... onehandle Apr 2013 #55
What's wrong with citing what many other DU'ers have repeatedly said? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #56
So honest citizens should only be allowed to own black powder single shot rifles. ... spin Apr 2013 #8
Like your handle. 99Forever Apr 2013 #29
Thanks. I've often been told that. (n/t) spin Apr 2013 #35
Got to ya huh? marions ghost Apr 2013 #59
"No justification for assault weapons" .... spin Apr 2013 #77
Nope marions ghost Apr 2013 #79
If the shooters are violating laws you should contact the authorities. ... spin Apr 2013 #80
Line in the sand marions ghost Apr 2013 #81
Interesting. The cops snickered at you. ... spin Apr 2013 #82
Of course they are doing something "illegal" marions ghost Apr 2013 #85
I don't consider your opinions insulting in the least. ... spin Apr 2013 #86
Well I think it makes a damn good point. calimary Apr 2013 #10
HUGE K & R !!! WillyT Apr 2013 #26
Outrageous: Charlie Manson's 2nd Amendment right is infringed! chknltl Apr 2013 #28
Charlie Manson is a bad example to use JanMichael Apr 2013 #50
My insane thinking.... chknltl Apr 2013 #72
K&R 99Forever Apr 2013 #30
Yes, a lot of things have changed. slackmaster Apr 2013 #32
Absolutely Brilliant.... WCGreen Apr 2013 #37
I think it works LanternWaste Apr 2013 #41
Great post, great ad. Sums up the issue of high capacity magazines quite clearly. DrewFlorida Apr 2013 #43
Good ad Dpm12 Apr 2013 #44
Kick otohara Apr 2013 #45
Lordy! shenmue Apr 2013 #46
Wow! That's a great ad. K&R myrna minx Apr 2013 #47
Right On! hepkat Apr 2013 #49
That's the arms for a well-regulated militia that the founders had in mind. onehandle Apr 2013 #54
Well regulated? Patiod Apr 2013 #58
It's gun 'reform', btw. grahamhgreen Apr 2013 #60
The vast majority of shootings use one bullet. Not getting the effectiveness, here Recursion Apr 2013 #61
The vast majority of shootings use one bullet. AlbertCat Apr 2013 #62
What's the point? Mass shootings are impossible with muskets? I knew that. Recursion Apr 2013 #64
I also know that there was a higher murder rate in 1789 than there is today. AlbertCat Apr 2013 #76
And in case you didn't get my point: rate of fire is not a factor in about 95% of gun crimes Recursion Apr 2013 #65
The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009. SunSeeker Apr 2013 #69
Link? FBI crime stats. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides Recursion Apr 2013 #70
But you said CRIMES. Got a link that "95% of gun crimes" involve a single shot? nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #71
Then I was wrong. It's *deaths* not *crimes*. The majority of gun *crimes* involve 0 shots (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #73
What do you mean by "The majority of gun *crimes* involve 0 shots"? nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #74
In the majority of crimes involving guns, no shots are fired Recursion Apr 2013 #84
Got a link for that "majority of crimes involving guns" statement? nt SunSeeker Apr 2013 #87
K&R SunSeeker Apr 2013 #68
good commercial samsingh Apr 2013 #78
75. Not really
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:56 PM
Apr 2013

If that was really back in "the day" he would have thrown down the gun and chased after him with a tomahawk and slashed him to death.

moondust

(19,917 posts)
6. Outstanding.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 01:51 PM
Apr 2013

Did the 2nd Amendment drafters not, for some reason, envision a future that might include guns more powerful and destructive than a single-shot musket?

In addition to pragmatist arguments, most proponents of the living Constitution argue that the Constitution was deliberately written to be broad and flexible to accommodate social or technological change over time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution#Original_intent

LAGC

(5,330 posts)
9. Yeah, I don't see anyone calling for heavy restrictions on the Internet.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:54 PM
Apr 2013

Since "things have changed" since the time of quill and scroll.

That pesky First Amendment covering new forms of speech and all.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
12. The internet has all kinds of restrictions.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:01 PM
Apr 2013

The government can even read your email if they want. They can track your IP address.

So let's do the same for guns.

Great idea ... thanks!

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
15. Did I say there were no restrictions?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:07 PM
Apr 2013

Don't think I did.

I do think we need more.

You should need a license that's graded based on the weapon type. I don't care if you own a tank just so long as you have demonstrated proficiency and obtained the license indicating such. And if you want to transfer the weapon to another, they need to have sufficient license as well.

Such an approach would help ensure that crazy people would be unable to obtain the more dangerous weapons because they'd struggle playing sane during the licensing process, where as a responsible law abiding citizen would not only be able to master the requirements, they'd be able to speak about their formal training and skill level.

Its too easy for any yahoo to obtain weapons currently.

 

lars1701a

(35 posts)
19. I am for
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:24 PM
Apr 2013

Background checks and taking safety courses , Lic I am not to sure on. By the way GO EAGLES, I hope the new coach chooses wisely on draft day.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
21. I'm a hopful eagles fan ...
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:31 PM
Apr 2013

I worry that a college coach might not be able to make the jump to the pros as quickly as Philly fans demand. My friends who still live there are not very forgiving.

 

lars1701a

(35 posts)
23. I am a
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:36 PM
Apr 2013

season ticket holder so I am getting restless, when the Rams, Saints and the Ravens have a SB ring People are rightly getting mad. Ya I don't think a college coach with no NFL exp has ever won a SB as a coach. I could be wrong but I can't think of one.

Response to lars1701a (Reply #23)

 

Pointy_n_sharp

(29 posts)
48. Free speech license...?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:49 AM
Apr 2013

Only college graduates have the necessary training to speak at a certain level to a certain number of people maybe?

License to be free from search and seizure after you have demonstrated that you don't have anything illegal or immoral in your home or car?

License to vote based on ...?

Why is this the only right that gets qualifications?

LTX

(1,020 posts)
53. It's not. And your "examples" are sophistic nonsense.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:21 AM
Apr 2013

This particular argument (that the 2d amendment right to bear arms is "the only right that gets qualification&quot is so perfectly phony that anyone making it should be downright embarrassed.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
63. Every single right you have is a qualified right, not one is absolute. Not one.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:14 PM
Apr 2013

The USSC interprets the Constitution and your rights are what they say they are, qualified by their interpretation of such.

Yet you want the 2nd to be the only right not qualified.


Do you argue against the NFA?

LAGC

(5,330 posts)
14. Not without a warrant and probable cause.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:05 PM
Apr 2013

There are thousands of gun laws already on the books, people arrested for using guns in the commission of crimes all the time.

What more restrictions do we need on a right that "shall not be infringed?"

LAGC

(5,330 posts)
17. There are two types of militia, as our government defined over 100 years ago.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:14 PM
Apr 2013

1) The organized militia (National Guard);

and the

2) reserve or unorganized militia, consisting of every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

"Well-regulated" more commonly meant well-equipped, back in those days.

The idea was that the reserve (or unorganized) militia could be called up into service at any time. So it only made sense that they were proficient with the same types of arms as the organized militia (National Guard) so as to be effective in combat

Now if you want to argue that people over the age of 45 don't have the right to be able to keep and bear arms, you may be on to something...

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
20. You helped make my point.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:29 PM
Apr 2013

In your reference to the unorganized militia, you also appear to be directly referencing the Militia Act of 1903.

That act set specific criteria ... i.e., regulations ... and those regulations exist outside the 2nd Amendment.

So clearly, Congress can pass regulations that define what constitutes a Militia is, who it applies to, and even what kind of weapons the members are expected (required) to own.

I'm not sure what the arguement is on those over 45. That's not in the Constitution. Its in the Militia Act, and as such, any age restriction can be changed or updated by congress. Notice in your source, former members of the Military could still be part of this until 65. Clearly Congress can update this law however they see fit.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
40. If slaves had the 15th Amendment would they still be slaves?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 06:00 PM
Apr 2013

If slaves had the 15th Amendment would they still be slaves?


Six of one, half a dozen of the other, and both indicative of the meaningless, idiotic, simplistic, bumper-sticker philosophies far too many people are unable to rise above...

chknltl

(10,558 posts)
42. Which begs the question: "Are slaves citizens?"
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 06:15 PM
Apr 2013

Surely a topic of discussion/debate back when. I suspect it is/was dang hard to keep the oppressed oppressed once they achieve(d) the same rights as their oppressors.

petronius

(26,580 posts)
18. As a general comment, "We/they do X and Y, so we/they should do Z also!" isn't
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:22 PM
Apr 2013

always the best argument. Sometimes the right answer is that we/they shouldn't be doing X, Y, or Z. And if X and Y are internet tracking and email snooping in a general way*, I'd say the latter response is better than the former...

(* With some exceptions, judicially-approved warrants for example.)

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
39. You're not aware of the thousands of updates
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:57 PM
Apr 2013

You're not aware of the thousands of updates and new copyright laws alone after the advent of the internet? That's merely copyright laws. Then add new piracy laws, and presto! restrictions and regulations on the Internet.

I can understand why many people aren't aware of them though... speech is hardly the American sacred cow that gun and their concomitant violence are.

Pesky First Amendment indeed...

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
22. The point is about high-capacity magazines.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:35 PM
Apr 2013

The musket just was an extrapolation to absurdity to illustrate the point. I think most people can make the connection.

What we are really talking about is just how many murders are within the scope of :freedom" and when do we reach the point that it is no longer "freedom" and just plain slaughter?

As the video points out, we have already accepted that freedom means being able to gun down a least one person. And considering that nobody is even talking about limiting clips to under 8 bullets, then "freedom" evidently means the freedom to gun down 8 people.

All we are talking about is whether freedom also includes the "right" to gun down 30 people at a time.

I don't believe it does. That's my opinion, but if you feel otherwise, you should make the argument that your "freedom" should include the right to gun down an unlimited number of people.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
24. When you use false terms to define an argument it's easy to win your own debate
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 03:41 PM
Apr 2013

No one is arguing in favor of being allowed to gun down 30 people.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
33. There are tens of millions of 30-round magazines in circulation in the US
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 04:59 PM
Apr 2013

And yet the acts you fear are rare; so rare, in fact, you can name them individually. Apparently, then, 30-round magazines have plenty of uses beyond what you describe.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
36. And if we allowed individuals to own bazookas
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:50 PM
Apr 2013

most would not end up in a massacre.

I really don't understand your argument at all. How many of these mass slaughters involving 50-or-more rounds did we have when those magazines were illegal?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
66. A bazooka is a metal tube. It's 100% legal to own.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:19 PM
Apr 2013

The rockets it fires are very strictly controlled. And, yes, you're right: that does mean gun control can be effective if it is designed smartly rather than stupidly.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
38. I notice you didn't answer my question, "What other purpose (other than mowing down
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 05:55 PM
Apr 2013

large numbers of people) could a large capacity magazine serve?"

spin

(17,493 posts)
8. So honest citizens should only be allowed to own black powder single shot rifles. ...
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:51 PM
Apr 2013

Many who watch this commercial will believe that is the message.

It would be easy for a gun rights group to make a countering commercial in which a woman was in a house with her children and three thugs invade. She gets off one shot and misses.

Far from being a great gun control commercial this one hurts the hopes of ever passing truly effective improvements to our current gun laws. It makes a strong case for the NRA's view that the final objective of the gun control movement is to disarm all honest citizens. If shown on national TV it will probably cause an increase in NRA membership as well as an increase in donations to the NRA's political wing, the NRA-ILA.

I feel that there are many good ideas that will reduce gun violence in our nation and can quite possibly pass in Congress. Why don't we talk about them in a reasonable manner and stop pushing to ban some firearms. Is reducing gun violence and tragic massacres the goal or is it far more important to pass another assault weapons ban which will do little but make some feel good.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
59. Got to ya huh?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:41 AM
Apr 2013

-----------

The 2 people that might join the NRA after seeing this don't compare to the thousands who might just think for a change, about why assault weapons are legal when there is no justification for them.

DONE talkin "in a reasonable manner"--y'know (not working on this issue, have you noticed?).

We want action.

spin

(17,493 posts)
77. "No justification for assault weapons" ....
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:32 PM
Apr 2013

Despite what the media tells you, AR style rifles are popular because they are used for hunting and target shooting up to and including national level competition. Most states limit the magazine size of such semi-automatic firearms to five rounds while hunting game such as deer, but magazines with a capacity of 20 or 30 rounds are commonly used while hunting pests such as feral hog in states including Florida and Texas.

An AR-15 is an excellent choice for home defense in a rural area. Its low recoil makes it a good choice for many individuals who find the strong recoil of a 12 ga shotgun intimidating.

The move to ban such weapons has caused their sale to skyrocket. Even if you disagree with what I just said above this was predictable as was the fact that a new Assault Weapons Ban had little chance of passing in the Democratically controlled Senate let alone the Republican controlled House. The votes were simply never there. The attempt to pass this legislation reminds me of Don Quixote's
quest and his tilting at windmills. If they are indeed "machines of mass murder" as the media claims why would it make good sense to encourage the sale of these weapons when there was such a low chance of banning them?

I should point out that although I have enjoyed target shooting for over 40 years, I have never owned an "assault weapon" such as an AR-15 or any weapon with a standard magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. Most of the regular shooters that I know do own such firearms. I may decide to buy one in the future if I feel that i have a use for one. For example, I might move to a more rural area where I could target shoot and hunt feral hog on my property.

Over the years I have known a number of gun owners and talked to many at gun ranges. The majority are Republicans because they feel our Democratic Party is the party of gun control. They often agree with me on many positions that our party holds but will point out to me that they will NEVER vote for a Democrat. I feel that the fact that often gun owners are single issue voters has led to good Democrats losing a number of elections at the local, state and national level over the years. I also feel that it is quite possible that we will lose seats in the Senate and in the House at the midterm elections due to the effort to pass the AWB. Of course, I could be wrong. Time will tell.

Just as gun owners are one issue voters, I feel this may be true of some liberal Democrats who support implementing strong gun control in incremental steps with the eventual goal of disarming honest citizens or limiting them to sporting weapons such as single shot rifles or double barreled shotguns and all handguns banned. Some Democrats are very willing to endanger all the accomplishments that our party has been able to achieve in recent years to aid their quest to implement draconian gun control. This more "liberal" fraction of our party is very vocal and garners a lot of support from the national media. Of course these Democrats have every right to hold and express their views but, in my opinion, they hurt our party more than help it.

Most Democrats are far more moderate and a good percentage own firearms as I do. I fear our views on gun control are largely ignored by the most liberal faction of our party. It seems that some in our party would use the gun control issue as a litmus test for a Democrat. Opposing the AWB labels a person as a right winger or a conservative. Facts and statistics that do not support strong control are labeled as "NRA talking points" and totally ignored. Our party was once a "big tent" which allowed its members to hold different views. If we wish to preserve our big tent which admittedly can sometimes look like a circus tent, we have to accept that a good Democrat from California or Illinois may hold different views on some issue than one from Montana or Texas.

Possibly the best President that has led our nation during my lifetime was Bill Clinton. I feel he gave our party some wise advise but was largely ignored.

Bill Clinton Warns Democrats Against Overreaching On Gun Debate
DOUG MATACONIS · SUNDAY, JANUARY 20, 2013

If there’s any Democrat in the United States who has experience in taking on America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment, it’s Bill Clinton. Mere weeks before the 1994 Presidential Election, the United States Congress passed, and Clinton signed, a controversial Assault Weapons Ban. Indeed, while the conventional wisdom continues to hold that the primary motivation behind the massive Republican victories in the 1994 Congressional Elections was due in large part to the President’s failed effort at health care reform, many political observers have contended for years that it was the Administration’s push on the Assault Weapons Ban, and the political backlash that it unleashed from the National Rifle Association and other groups, that played the most significant role in the tidal wave that handed control of both Houses of Congress to the Republican Party. Given that, it’s significant that President Clinton is now warning his fellow Democrats about overplaying their hand in the upcoming debate about gun control:

Former President Bill Clinton warned a group of top Democratic donors at a private Saturday meeting not to underestimate the passions that gun control stirs among many Americans.
“Do not patronize the passionate supporters of your opponents by looking down your nose at them,” Clinton said.

“Alot of these people live in a world very different from the world lived in by the people proposing these things,” Clinton said. “I know because I come from this world.”

***snip***

And Clinton said that passing the 1994 federal assault weapons ban “devastated” more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers in the 1994 midterms — and cost then-Speaker of the House Tom Foley (D-Wash.) his job and his seat in Congress.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/bill-clinton-warns-democrats-against-overreaching-on-gun-debate/


marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
79. Nope
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:55 PM
Apr 2013

No justification for assault weapons. None.

-----------------------------------------

1. Feral hogs. Not as much of a problem as feral humans.

2. I live in a semi-rural area. Shooters do not observe laws and they are not hunting. They are shooting. For fun. Sounds like a war zone. You know about this.

3. Let them buy before scarcity. You better hurry and get one for your feral hogs.

4. Democrats ARE the party of gun control. The party of sanity in this. Be proud. Support us for a change. Give an inch in the direction of common sense.

5. "Draconian" gun control. You support the NRA if you call these draconian.

6. Opposition to AWB = conservative, right wing, whether Dem or Repug doesn't matter

7. I'd like to go head to head with Bill Clinton right now on this. It's 20 years later.

spin

(17,493 posts)
80. If the shooters are violating laws you should contact the authorities. ...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:51 PM
Apr 2013

I don't shoot in areas where target shooting is illegal and I always get the land owner's permission before I do so.

Feral hogs may not be as large a problem as feral humans but they are a significant problem now in states like Florida and Texas and they reproduce like rabbits. Hunting helps to limit the population of these pests and an AR-15 is an excellent choice for hunting hogs.

Currently I live in a small town. If I do move to a rural area with hogs on my property I will consider buying an AR-15. I have little concern that I will be unable to do so as I don't see an AWB passing anytime in the near future. If it does I still have a real military grade rifle to use which is far more powerful than an AR-15, a bolt action Swedish Mauser made in the 1940s. It's not that big of a deal to me.

I feel that you verified my suspicion that you are a member of the more "liberal" faction of our party. Excluding other Democrats because they do not support a foolish "feel good" law like the AWB may prove to be short sighted. I feel that is some danger that the big tent that is the Democratic Party might end up as a big tepee largely composed of people who live in states like California, Illinois and New York.

Remember that each state gets two Senators and only two regardless of population. The majority of people in the nation might support passing a law that the Democratic Party backs but it might stall in the Senate because there are no blue dog Democrats elected from red states. The AWB is not the only important piece of legislation that Congress will consider in the next decade. A blue dog Senate Democrat who does not support your idea of reasonable gun control is still preferable to a Tea Bagger in the long run.

I personally oppose the AWB but that doesn't prove that I agree with the NRA on all gun control issues. For example I have long supported universal background checks and not merely at gun shows. Perhaps you should stop tilting at windmills by overreaching for the AWB and instead try to pass legislation that would better enforce existing laws and improve on them to make them far more effective. A little compromise can go a long way to helping solve a problem.

After the Newtown shooting when the push for another AWB started I predicted that it would never pass in Congress. I also predicted that the effort would cost Democratic seats in Congress. I was right on my first prediction and time will tell if I am right on the second.

You mention that you would like to go head to head with Bill Clinton on the gun control issue. I feel that if either of us ever tried to debate Bill on any issue it would be like a amateur boxer who had just a few lessons in the sport getting into the ring with Mike Tyson.

marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
81. Line in the sand
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:03 PM
Apr 2013

Time to stop being bullied by the NRA and gun nuts of any party. Past time.

Where I live the authorities are pro-gun. They don't horse laugh in your face, they snicker.

Have fun assaulting hogs.

spin

(17,493 posts)
82. Interesting. The cops snickered at you. ...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:44 PM
Apr 2013

Perhaps the shooters weren't really doing anything illegal.

In passing most street cops that I know are pro gun. Some in my area own a gun collection which includes assault style rifles. They consider me to be a Little behind the times as I own mostly revolvers, a double barreled shotgun and a couple of bolt action rifles.

I was talking to a gun owner yesterday and we agreed that eventually there would be the type of gun control that you desire in this nation. By that time I will be six feet under.

There's a lot we can do to reduce gun violence in our nation right now if your side stopped pushing for unreachable goals and sat down with some knowledgeable gun owners and worked out a compromise.

Instead many on both sides (not you) simply throw insults at the other group and we get nowhere.



marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
85. Of course they are doing something "illegal"
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:18 AM
Apr 2013

getting access through fields and electrical right of ways to large properties --but still in an area with 40 or so houses. They don't have permission to hunt and the county doesn't bother to go after them them or flush them out. But surely you know this is how it is in many states where things are lax. So don't pretend we should have faith in authorities who support the NRA to look after us and work to stop this "shooters disguised as hunters" mentality in these areas. That's a joke. We even had one fifteen year old with a high-powered rifle shooting across the road and terrorizing the neighborhood (largely made up of self employed--a mason, a landscaper, contractor, teacher, artists, real estate person, car mechanic, child psychologist--to name a few of the various occupations). The cops went to his house but said they could do nothing because the parents were not cooperative. It didn't stop until he grew up and moved somewhere else. He was relentless. This is an infringement of MY rights. This is what MUST change.

I don't really see myself talking to gun owners. There is just too much distance in the viewpoints. I've been at the wrong end of a gun in the hands of a deranged (medicated) old man and barely escaped. (and other stories involving guns). I have lived in another country where guns don't rule. You will never convince me. Sorry you consider my opinions insulting. But I am so tired of being held hostage by the NRA.

Adios.

spin

(17,493 posts)
86. I don't consider your opinions insulting in the least. ...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 08:19 AM
Apr 2013

Your have been very polite in our discussion. You also have every right to your opinion as I do to mine.

I may not support an AWB but I honestly feel that it is possible to better enforce and significantly improve our gun laws.

Let's hope that something positive does get accomplished in the near future even if it is less than you wish and more than I wish.

calimary

(80,693 posts)
10. Well I think it makes a damn good point.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:58 PM
Apr 2013

And if nothing else - look at how much time the other people in the office had - to get away - while this guy had to stop and reload. I bet EVERY parent mourning a lost child from Sandy Hook thinks about that every day.

chknltl

(10,558 posts)
28. Outrageous: Charlie Manson's 2nd Amendment right is infringed!
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 04:47 PM
Apr 2013

Might make a good bumper sticker.
In my opinion the need for a national debate regarding the 2nd amendment is long overdue. Ads can serve as good fuel promoting that debate. KnR

JanMichael

(24,846 posts)
50. Charlie Manson is a bad example to use
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:09 AM
Apr 2013

only 2 people were shot; the rest were beaten and stabbed. The cult member who was a man (I don't feel like looking up his name) only had a pistol, the girls were carrying knives...and a couple of them didn't have anything.

chknltl

(10,558 posts)
72. My insane thinking....
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:30 PM
Apr 2013

The OP video uses an outrageous example to drive home a point. My suggested bumper sticker does the same. It addresses those who think that the Second Amendment is a RIGHT which the Constitution grants all Americans unconditionally. (Listen to right wing radio for a week and you will be amazed at how many of our fellow Americans support this silliness!)

My point is that We The People decide what 'infringements' to our rights are sensible, to argue otherwise is craziness or hypocrisy.

Perhaps there are better examples I could have selected, but Charles Manson and his forehead swastika are well known enough to be used as an example of someone who's Second Amendment right should be infringed upon.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
54. That's the arms for a well-regulated militia that the founders had in mind.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:15 AM
Apr 2013

The same SCOTUS that got that wrong, gave us Bush and Citizens United.

Never forget.

Patiod

(11,816 posts)
58. Well regulated?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:28 AM
Apr 2013

That's some 2nd-amendment-bashing socialism talk you're spouting there, onehandle. No gun regulation! Don't tread on me! Gun regulation is communist and fascist! Read your constitution! No where does it say anything about well-regulated....well, it shouldn't say that, even if it does.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
61. The vast majority of shootings use one bullet. Not getting the effectiveness, here
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:18 PM
Apr 2013

Then again I think it's idiotic that it's the absolute rarest kind of shooting, random mass shootings, that get people talking about this.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
62. The vast majority of shootings use one bullet.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:07 PM
Apr 2013

Yeah!

Besides, that's not how you load a musket!




What IS it about you gun lovers that makes it impossible for you to get the point? Any point?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
64. What's the point? Mass shootings are impossible with muskets? I knew that.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:16 PM
Apr 2013

I also know that there was a higher murder rate in 1789 than there is today.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
76. I also know that there was a higher murder rate in 1789 than there is today.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:29 PM
Apr 2013

The cluelessness continueth.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
65. And in case you didn't get my point: rate of fire is not a factor in about 95% of gun crimes
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:17 PM
Apr 2013

Yes, the ones where it is are horrific, but that's dozens of people a year rather than thirty thousand or so where the type of gun doesn't matter but who has access to it matters a lot.

SunSeeker

(51,367 posts)
69. The U.S. has had one mass shooting per month since 2009.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:05 PM
Apr 2013
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/02/study-the-u-s-has-had-one-mass-shooting-per-month-since-2009/

The fact that guns now are so portable, easily concealable, and can fire off massive amounts of bullets in a short period of time is why guns are so much more dangerous now than the Founding Fathers could have ever imagined.

Are you seriously arguing that if we only have muskets, we would still have 95% of the gun crimes that we do? Link please.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
70. Link? FBI crime stats. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:14 PM
Apr 2013

And about half of gun homicides are single gunshots. So, yeah. We would still have the vast majority of most deaths with flintlocks.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
84. In the majority of crimes involving guns, no shots are fired
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 02:56 AM
Apr 2013

For many people who own guns, simply owning it is a crime.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The best gun control comm...