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
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:14 PM Apr 2013

It's very simple: If you want new gun control laws, you need the cooperation of legal gun owners.

I would suggest to those of you that have been pissing on them since Newtown-

Knock it off. You are not going to browbeat them into agreeing with you or shame them into 'seeing the light'.
Quit treating them the way Pamela Geller treats Muslims


You have learned today what indulging in cultural warfare will get you-

Nothing

So, unless you'd like gun control to go the way of alcohol prohibition, stop otherizing them.
You are not automatically smarter or better educated than they are, most of them are just as law abiding as you are.

There are about 80 million of them and they tend to vote far more often than the public at large.
So unless and until you are prepared to permanently forgo the votes of 20-25% of the voting pool,
a change of attitude on your part is in order.

And for you bitter-enders that won't let go: Please consider leaving the Democratic Party
Go form and form some sort of Gun Safety/Control Party.
There's even a role model for you:

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

303 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It's very simple: If you want new gun control laws, you need the cooperation of legal gun owners. (Original Post) friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 OP
You don't sound so friendly to me n/t Fumesucker Apr 2013 #1
The point, however, is valid. Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #7
Fuck the gun humpers. morningfog Apr 2013 #8
And *still* you don't get it... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #12
Fuck the gun nuts. morningfog Apr 2013 #13
The OP refers to gun owners. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #127
They never will friendly_iconoclast. Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #20
Sort of like you do when anyone dare to talk about white privilege? HangOnKids Apr 2013 #130
With that attitude... Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #111
Wrong. We need to go on the offensive against the obstructionist. morningfog Apr 2013 #135
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:Gun strokers?? Really? This kind of post is what is dividing DU and our country. Kolesar Apr 2013 #147
Nice! Perfect score. morningfog Apr 2013 #158
And yet another ad-hominem playground level taunt. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #153
Yep. I've lost any and all respect for those who morningfog Apr 2013 #160
You're right in that you *are* wasting your time Kolesar Apr 2013 #165
Yes, the jury system is a broken joke. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #168
tears? ... eom Kolesar Apr 2013 #169
Plenty of those flowing, it seems. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #170
Good luck with that NickB79 Apr 2013 #171
Thanks for your support. morningfog Apr 2013 #182
"You have to blow us just right, or else we might let another crazy guy Arkana Apr 2013 #188
Nice strawman. Does it keep the crows away from your garden? Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #190
Oh, very nice. You've been following me around, I see. Arkana Apr 2013 #191
So you respond out of the blue to my post, and I'm following YOU around? Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #192
Read the OP--how, exactly, am I "making shit up"? Arkana Apr 2013 #193
You attributed to others something neither said nor implied, that's how. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #194
Surely there is some middle ground sylvi Apr 2013 #292
+1000 billh58 Apr 2013 #129
"The tide is turning". True- just not in the direction you believe it is. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #167
Continue to cling billh58 Apr 2013 #175
So what are your plans for 2015? How's that effort to win hearts and minds amongst... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #178
Like the NRA, you are billh58 Apr 2013 #181
Your revisionism is as obvious as it is ahistorical. All gun owners were attacked here on DU... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #197
Those remarks are not billh58 Apr 2013 #211
Then get serious about splitting the reasonable gun owners from the NRA, FFS. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #245
We attempted to start billh58 Apr 2013 #248
If you give on registration, you'll *get* universal background checks. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #251
Nope. billh58 Apr 2013 #253
I suppose you don't hold with the aphorism: The perfect is the enemy of the good... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #254
Not looking for perfect. billh58 Apr 2013 #255
Then start by getting what you *can* get, and work up from that. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #256
Pretense of moral and intellectual superiority? EOTE Apr 2013 #183
Good luck persuading 20-25% of the electorate with THAT attitude. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #199
Again, it's not how I think, it's what I know. EOTE Apr 2013 #206
I prefer the term "ghoul".. Fumesucker Apr 2013 #25
Zenger. Chan790 Apr 2013 #27
Capital sermon, Reverend Sunday: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #76
It doesn't really bother gun owners to be called names as much as you think. ... spin Apr 2013 #80
You are contradicting yourself marions ghost Apr 2013 #116
People aren't denouncing gun owners BainsBane Apr 2013 #81
I'm not demanding you shut up, I'm asking you to reconsider your failed approach. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #86
Hello . . . ? BainsBane Apr 2013 #88
Yes, cultural warfare. You need to reread the posts of some the more "vigorous" advocates... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #91
So fucking what? BainsBane Apr 2013 #93
You might have gotten somewhere if you'd not treated this as a Crusade. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #95
A crusade? BainsBane Apr 2013 #105
It's not the different opinions that turn pro-rights advocates off Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #185
If it was off the table... WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #117
Many gun owners support traceability and registration. cbrer Apr 2013 #2
I know a lot of gun owners and I don't know a single one that ... spin Apr 2013 #99
Well that figures, billh58 Apr 2013 #298
Gun violence in Florida is at an all time low. ... spin Apr 2013 #300
Yep, there's that billh58 Apr 2013 #301
While more guns may not equal less crime ... spin Apr 2013 #302
What would registration accomplish? GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #136
actually wouldn't that work for straw purchases? booley Apr 2013 #176
Guns can already be traced to the original purchaser. GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #234
Registration can help solve crimes cbrer Apr 2013 #180
How can registration leave such a trail? GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #233
Because it isn't a black and white issue cbrer Apr 2013 #235
Oh gees.... defacto7 Apr 2013 #3
I don't own a gun. I'm just sick of watching Third Way/DLC types charging headlong into defeat... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #9
If I misunderstand your OP defacto7 Apr 2013 #19
It's no threat; we just saw the "all or nothing" approach produce, well....nothing friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #73
This message was self-deleted by its author defacto7 Apr 2013 #51
we hurt their widdle feelings Skittles Apr 2013 #83
^^^This^^^ GCP Apr 2013 #85
You're so cute when you're angry... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #94
Agreed, and it's a bit of a surprise. Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #112
I AM ALWAYS CUTE Skittles Apr 2013 #201
Aww, someone has a sad... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #243
You hurt whos feelings? darkangel218 Apr 2013 #128
OHHHH Skittles Is SO Mean HangOnKids Apr 2013 #131
How are you going to get any gun control law to pass with that attitude? nt darkangel218 Apr 2013 #133
My disagreeing that Skittles is mean is an impediment to gun control? HangOnKids Apr 2013 #137
Thats not the message of my post. you try again darkangel218 Apr 2013 #138
"We" all want the same thing? HangOnKids Apr 2013 #141
United States of America. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #142
Did you pay attention to the vote yesterday? HangOnKids Apr 2013 #151
Well they dont represent me, or anyone i know. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #156
Get off the "hate and name calling" meme HangOnKids Apr 2013 #177
Ba bye. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #186
The problem was the bill that failed today was written by gun owners so that doesn't fly Arcanetrance Apr 2013 #4
Fuck em. We'll win eventually. Their attitude is selfish and blocks progress. morningfog Apr 2013 #5
"we" and "they" is what blocks progress. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #139
The extremist gun nuts who block everything are morningfog Apr 2013 #143
Okay, but dont include all gun owners under that umbrella darkangel218 Apr 2013 #146
80% of NRA members isn't enough? hepkat Apr 2013 #6
Gun nut assholes want to convince you that making no laws is the best way alcibiades_mystery Apr 2013 #10
The universal background checks I and lots of others want got defeated too. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #17
And you're not going to change attitudes WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #35
Because only about 4% of that 90% actually care enough to base their vote on it? Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #15
I know that. That's my point. hepkat Apr 2013 #22
You're using Limbaugh's twisted version of a poll. Noted. Telling. DisgustipatedinCA Apr 2013 #56
I'm using a Gallup poll. Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #58
And Gallup deliberately skews Right, because the Right pays for the desired results. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #121
Just as a Frank Luntz poll skews Left lately- because that's who is currently employing him. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #200
B.S. elleng Apr 2013 #11
+1 Euphoria Apr 2013 #14
Apparently the people don't. Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #32
Contacting members is not part of the fabric of the U.S., unfortunately, elleng Apr 2013 #42
In other words, most people don't really care about passing new gun laws. Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #59
No, they care, they don't know how it works, elleng Apr 2013 #60
This message was self-deleted by its author Orsino Apr 2013 #119
Or, do what these guys advise Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #16
People generally get the Congress they want... badtoworse Apr 2013 #34
We can still fight for it! Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #44
That is happening on both sides of this issue badtoworse Apr 2013 #50
I do not believe that Jenoch Apr 2013 #39
This just goes to show what contacting your officials can do. Lady Freedom Returns Apr 2013 #48
He Had a Pet Congress Macoy51 Apr 2013 #102
Bingo! zipplewrath Apr 2013 #115
Don't fall for misinformation. Although IDK if you want to hear differently: freshwest Apr 2013 #226
And you'll get that by giving away Red State Dem seats to the GOP? NickB79 Apr 2013 #173
I wish they would have started with that attitude kudzu22 Apr 2013 #18
Nonsense hepkat Apr 2013 #26
So why weren't expanded background checks passed back then? Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #38
I think by the time Toomey-Manchin came up kudzu22 Apr 2013 #126
Starting with a sweeping ban, and ending with a patched-up B.G. check doomed both. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #215
LOL. "Dear NRA, what can we do that you'll support?" DanTex Apr 2013 #114
It's called a dialog kudzu22 Apr 2013 #125
NRA's response: You could offer MORE GUNS! We suppor that! MillennialDem Apr 2013 #159
Too late for that Supersedeas Apr 2013 #122
What about the language Shankapotomus Apr 2013 #21
What about the language ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #36
Why do you say Shankapotomus Apr 2013 #37
Speaking only for myself, Jenoch Apr 2013 #41
And what makes you think his Shankapotomus Apr 2013 #47
Actually it does not work out as claimed ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #72
Because as a practical matter they make almost no difference ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #49
Do you think those videos Shankapotomus Apr 2013 #229
Having taught firearms and also used them in combat, they are realistic for what they depict, that ProgressiveProfessor Apr 2013 #231
Changing a magazine is easy and fast. GreenStormCloud Apr 2013 #236
I understand what you're saying Shankapotomus Apr 2013 #238
If you want the banks to change their structure to be safer and more supportive BlueStreak Apr 2013 #23
Bank CEOs make up what percentage of the electorate, again? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #46
Wayne LaPierre makes up what percentage of the electorate, again? BlueStreak Apr 2013 #54
When the membership of the largest gun-control advocacy .org outnumbers the NRA by 80:1... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #77
The real NRA membersip is about 10 BlueStreak Apr 2013 #107
The +/- 4 million people on their membership rolls might disagree with you. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #154
Something like 30, I think, if by "Wayne LaPierre" you mean "gun owners". N.T. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #78
And virtually all of those 80 million are going to get to keep their guns. nomorenomore08 Apr 2013 #24
That is something to celebrate badtoworse Apr 2013 #40
If. AnotherMcIntosh Apr 2013 #28
We already put that meme to bed tonight. It was the need to get 60 votes not lack of gun owner upaloopa Apr 2013 #29
What delicate little flowers the gun nuts are mwrguy Apr 2013 #30
we have *that*. what we *need* is.. Phillip McCleod Apr 2013 #31
Because yes, if we didn't browbeat gun owners this would have passed tonight - oh wait, no it wouldn MillennialDem Apr 2013 #33
The other issue is that some states/regions have a strong gun culture tabbycat31 Apr 2013 #43
You mean the ones that are lying about background checks? neverforget Apr 2013 #45
Much truth in your views. Prohibition ALWAYS takes on a hateful approach... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #52
I have nothing but contempt for the National Republican Armory, and have enough history here at DU.. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #75
It's very simple DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #53
+1000. nt laundry_queen Apr 2013 #55
Getting rid of slavery required a civil war and the deaths of 600,000 to 700,000 Americans. Llewlladdwr Apr 2013 #57
You're saying it wasn't worth it in the long run? Really, you're playing that card? Electric Monk Apr 2013 #66
Yes, those poor, poor slaveholders who had the "hell" of their slaves liberated from their clutches apocalypsehow Apr 2013 #69
From your cold dead hands...but only if necessary. nt jmg257 Apr 2013 #123
The civil war had to happen DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #223
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #108
Your analogy stinks sylvi Apr 2013 #285
If you do not take responsibility DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #287
That's a separate issue sylvi Apr 2013 #288
That's a separate issue DonCoquixote Apr 2013 #289
As opposed to your over simplification? sylvi Apr 2013 #290
Well, that's vile. Senators who just shot down background checks are bloody handed cowards. Hekate Apr 2013 #61
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #62
Interesting you left out the 1st Amendment BainsBane Apr 2013 #65
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #67
Interdasting, indede. PeaceNikki Apr 2013 #68
You ignore the point the gun lobby BainsBane Apr 2013 #70
Bennet & Udall Are Spineless POS otohara Apr 2013 #63
Have you been paying attention? BainsBane Apr 2013 #64
I didn't know Wayne LaPierre was allowed to post here. Apophis Apr 2013 #71
You think that because I disagree with you I'm pro-NRA? How Manichaean your world is. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #74
Why did you post this OP then? BainsBane Apr 2013 #79
You lot had the chance to get substantial improvements to gun control laws- and blew it. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #82
All or nothing? BainsBane Apr 2013 #84
Ahem. I *did* and do support those background checks, and have said so here repeatedly. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #87
That has been off the table for weeks BainsBane Apr 2013 #89
No, it was separated from the main bill- but still was voted on friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #247
Maybe gun owners can stop threatening to shoot everyone they disagree with. name not needed Apr 2013 #90
All 80 million of them? Stereotype a lot, do you? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #92
from what I have gathered from my time here mikegray Apr 2013 #98
So, in other words, appeasement. AngryOldDem Apr 2013 #96
No, figure out what we *can* get and go for it. The "all-in" approach didn't work. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #97
A 100% gun ban and mandatory confiscation was defeated in the Senate? Fumesucker Apr 2013 #101
Not looking for an "all-in" approach. AngryOldDem Apr 2013 #213
You should consider leaving the party and starting your own XRubicon Apr 2013 #100
We tried that yesterday. n/t rucky Apr 2013 #103
+1 ellisonz Apr 2013 #296
So, in true Teabagger style... 99Forever Apr 2013 #104
You obviously *didn't* have the support of 90% of the people. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #161
"I" don't have any "support," I am a private citizen. 99Forever Apr 2013 #179
They aren't ready for this advice yet. aikoaiko Apr 2013 #106
We're not ever going to be ready for this advice. Chan790 Apr 2013 #109
If you had asked, we could have told how to get the background checks passed. aikoaiko Apr 2013 #110
They fucked up the opportunity to strike a much-needed blow to the NRA. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #134
Well said and billh58 Apr 2013 #162
Most gun owners aren't gun nuts. DanTex Apr 2013 #113
Gun owners SUPPORT EXPANDED BACKGROUND CHECKS. Skinner Apr 2013 #118
Wrong. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #124
A classroom full of slaughtered first graders tends to get normal people angry Fumesucker Apr 2013 #144
No amount of "anger" excuses the hateful attacks by some controller/banners... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #198
Meh, I used to be a gun owner, then I wised up and realized it was just putting my family in danger Fumesucker Apr 2013 #204
The personal attacks have little effect on me as an individual... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #214
The religionistas and the atheistas have their own protected groups Fumesucker Apr 2013 #217
I note your psychological hat & cane trick... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #221
I think you have me confused with another poster Fumesucker Apr 2013 #224
Why don't you worry about the attacks on the Sandyhook families BainsBane Apr 2013 #230
Talk to someone else. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #232
Umm, no you are wrong. DanTex Apr 2013 #148
"If not for..." Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #202
It's not speculation. It's math. DanTex Apr 2013 #205
And they're off.....! Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #210
You could make the same argument about the Koch Brothers. Just meet up and talk with them... DanTex Apr 2013 #216
And I vote for progressive "gun banners." Again... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #218
+1 darkangel218 Apr 2013 #145
We already have the cooperation of gun owners. Orsino Apr 2013 #120
You need to work harder at splitting gun owners away from the NRA. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #149
The gun owners are a fig leaf... Orsino Apr 2013 #166
Name callers never accomplish anything in real life. former9thward Apr 2013 #132
Which part of billh58 Apr 2013 #140
The large majority of legal gun owners support the proposed law. It is the Senate filibuster pnwmom Apr 2013 #150
Then why have they not made their support clear? If even 10% did so, they would outnumber... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #163
Actually, if you have been reading the real news, most gun owners are in favor Cleita Apr 2013 #152
And if the Pro-Choice movement wants to prevent the repeal of legal abortion, it will need the assis LanternWaste Apr 2013 #155
Lobbyist stklurker Apr 2013 #157
Bullshit. What happened was the result of right-wing lies and propaganda Hugabear Apr 2013 #164
So are gun owners morons, or delicate little flowers? jeff47 Apr 2013 #172
This message was self-deleted by its author friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #174
Rely on the fact that rational gun owners know they're not the ones we're speaking to? Arkana Apr 2013 #189
The NRA *is* larded with morons and their leadership is a third-rate clown college. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #195
No, I already asked a question. You decided to ignore it. jeff47 Apr 2013 #212
A loaded question that doesn't matter- they're a huge chunk of the electorate. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #241
Polls say that 90% of Americans are FOR more background checks... ljm2002 Apr 2013 #184
No. You know what? No. Arkana Apr 2013 #187
Good, good. Let the hate flow through you... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #249
When? beevul Apr 2013 #257
LOL! What happened? Robb Apr 2013 #196
Youre not helping. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #203
Sarcasm? I'm *delighted* when a gun troll gets banned from DU. Robb Apr 2013 #207
I have no clue to what banned members you're referring to. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #208
What is this "we" of "what we are trying to accomplish here"? Robb Apr 2013 #209
Obviously im refering to us, American people. darkangel218 Apr 2013 #225
Yeah, Gabby Giffords doesn't own guns...oh wait, she does...your OP is shit... joeybee12 Apr 2013 #219
"most of them are just as law abiding as you are" jmg257 Apr 2013 #220
Most of us don't mind some inconvenience... Lizzie Poppet Apr 2013 #228
Almost nobody is responding to the point in the OP brooklynite Apr 2013 #240
And that is exactly billh58 Apr 2013 #246
You are threatening us with what we "have learned today". Clarify: are you against effective patrice Apr 2013 #222
What a completely asshole post. Zoeisright Apr 2013 #227
Do you think implacable hatred towards >20% of the voting-age US population is a good idea? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #242
You are perpetuating billh58 Apr 2013 #252
Yeah, about that: "Note: ALL gun owners support the NRA" -and that's just from today at DU friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #258
One post from one billh58 Apr 2013 #259
Would you have us believe that gun control supporters on DU, such as the example he gave... beevul Apr 2013 #260
I remember you Sparky. billh58 Apr 2013 #261
Then you, apparently, misremember. beevul Apr 2013 #263
Typical Gungeoneer response. billh58 Apr 2013 #264
This message was self-deleted by its author friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #269
That is such convoluted billh58 Apr 2013 #275
Uh huh. beevul Apr 2013 #283
So when are you going to apply your own standards to the majority of American gun owners? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #270
I already have billh58 Apr 2013 #272
"the American gun owners that I know" And therein lies a problem for you. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #274
Thanks for the advice, but billh58 Apr 2013 #276
Why not try it anyway, if only for the chance to get a lick in against the NRA? They ARE vulnerable. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #278
It seems you will not admit that the majority of gun owners *might* not agree with you. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #271
I do not billh58 Apr 2013 #273
I claim no such thing, otherwise I would not be proposing a counterweight to the NRA... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #277
I agree with some of what you billh58 Apr 2013 #279
Your words, while wise, are falling on deaf ears. beevul Apr 2013 #237
And there you go billh58 Apr 2013 #265
Except...I wasn't. beevul Apr 2013 #284
BS, legal gun owners support more backgrounds checks. How did that work out krawhitham Apr 2013 #239
If polls are correct, we DO have their support n2doc Apr 2013 #244
Wrong. You need the gun lobby on your side Rex Apr 2013 #250
No, we don't. nt stevenleser Apr 2013 #262
Then how does progress get made? WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #266
Your first sentence billh58 Apr 2013 #267
I don't presume to speak for gun owners. WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #280
First of all, yes billh58 Apr 2013 #281
Thanks for the well reasoned reply WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #291
I realize that registration billh58 Apr 2013 #293
I don't think LaPierre making a catastrophic WinniSkipper Apr 2013 #294
Kick!!!!! kelliekat44 Apr 2013 #268
Guess what? We don't need you Uzair Apr 2013 #282
As long as gun owners vote at the rate they do, you DO need them. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #295
There's that fallacy billh58 Apr 2013 #297
If I believed that, would I be advocating splitting some of them away from the NRA? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2013 #303
A valiant effort sylvi Apr 2013 #286
Okay, well, we're waiting. Tommy_Carcetti Apr 2013 #299

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
7. The point, however, is valid.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:23 PM
Apr 2013

Referring to anyone who owns a gun as a "fetishist" is no way to persuade those people to agree with you.

Advocating that gun owners be rounded up and "re-educated" isn't working so hot either.

And the constant refrain of "Fuck the gun fondlers!!!!!" has really gotten old.

Everyone is free to speak their mind of course, but don't act surprised when your words turn out to have consequences.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
20. They never will friendly_iconoclast.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:35 PM
Apr 2013

It is simply incomprehensible to them that reasonable people can disagree on an issue. That being the case, anyone who disagrees with them must be unreasonable, and probably willfully so.

When that's how you view those you disagree with I guess yelling fuck you is very satisfying.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
111. With that attitude...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:28 AM
Apr 2013

...the gun control side will always lose. Always. Re-read the OP...let it sink in this time.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
135. Wrong. We need to go on the offensive against the obstructionist.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:48 PM
Apr 2013

The gun strokers are holding this nation back. Fuck them.

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)
147. ALERTER'S COMMENTS:Gun strokers?? Really? This kind of post is what is dividing DU and our country.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:15 PM
Apr 2013

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:08 PM, and
the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 said: They're not calling a DUer a name. It's also no worse than gun grabbers.

Juror #2 said: You alerted over "gun strokers?" Seriously? What a total waste of time for jurors to be bothered with this alert. Try replying to the post expressing your sentiment next time instead.

Juror #3 said: Agree with the poster. Leave

Juror #4 said: The original post is flame bait. Don't act all *surprised* about what was said, Mister Alerter

Juror #5 said: No explanation given

Juror #6 said: "Gun owners" does NOT equal "gun strokers."

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
153. And yet another ad-hominem playground level taunt.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:19 PM
Apr 2013

Never mind. I'm clearly wasting my time here.

"Goooood...let the hate flow through you, young Jedi."

NickB79

(19,110 posts)
171. Good luck with that
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:02 PM
Apr 2013

Maybe you can get a campaign going against all the red-state Dems that are pro-gun and get them voted out of office. See if Bloomberg will step in and donate some cash.

Then the Democratic Party can field a gun-control legislator in a place like North Dakota, be replaced by a pro-gun Republican and give the GOP the Senate again. Would that make you happier?

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
188. "You have to blow us just right, or else we might let another crazy guy
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:44 PM
Apr 2013

kill a bunch of people with a legally-purchased firearm! You don't want to make us do that, do you?"

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
191. Oh, very nice. You've been following me around, I see.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:47 PM
Apr 2013

And it's not a strawman. You're telling us that all gun owners are delicate flowers, and that we are CLEARLY insulting ALL of them--neither of which is true.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
192. So you respond out of the blue to my post, and I'm following YOU around?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:50 PM
Apr 2013

Then again, when someone posts an obvious strawman (which it most certainly was...), I suppose further examples of convoluted logic are to be expected.

Oh, and you did it again in this latest response: yet another strawman. Stop making shit up and attributing it to others.

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
193. Read the OP--how, exactly, am I "making shit up"?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:52 PM
Apr 2013

The OP wrote it and you agreed with it.

And since I wrote nearly that exact response in another thread on another topic, either it's a huge coincidence that you used the same comeback--or, you've been reading my previous posts.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
194. You attributed to others something neither said nor implied, that's how.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:56 PM
Apr 2013

That's a component of a "strawman argument," and it's indisputable that this is exactly what you did.

My agreement with the OP was with the reasonable point that the cooperation of the c. 80 million legal gun owners in the country is going to be necessary in order to enact reasonable controls. NOT with your absurd, over-the-top misrepresentations of that assertion. See how this works?

And this thread is the first time I've ever even noticed you or your posts. Hate to burst your bubble...

 

sylvi

(813 posts)
292. Surely there is some middle ground
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 09:06 PM
Apr 2013

between performing oral sex on someone and being an insufferable asshole towards them. If not, there are some medications that can help even things out a bit.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
129. +1000
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:29 PM
Apr 2013

The DU Gungeoneers abused and ridiculed anyone who wanted an open dialog with them for years. Any attempt at a rational discussion about gun control was met with accusations of "grabber" and of being an unpatriotic, anti-Constitutional low-life who would openly invite the U.S. government to enslave its people.

Now that the American people are getting serious about sensible gun control the Gun Humpers want us to forget all of that shit, and play nice. So morningfog, your sentiment is both correct and warranted, and the OP (like the NRA) is trying to use the fear of the wrath of gun nuts as a political weapon.

If they want to vote Republican, fuck 'em and good luck with that. The tide is turning, and the Republicans, along with their gun worshiping pseudo-Democratic admirers are slowly becoming extinct. Good riddance.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
175. Continue to cling
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:21 PM
Apr 2013

to your fantasy, but the facts are plain to see. The right-wing tactic of instilling fear, and threats of loss of support, no longer frighten grass roots Democrats. The American political pendulum is swinging back toward sanity and the common good, and the traditional right-wing demographics are being overwhelmed by new faces and new Liberal thinking. The right-wing is disorganized and on the run.

If it were not for the purchased power of the NRA, the radical gun lobby would be politically meaningless. As already evidenced, sane and level-headed gun owners have absolutely no objections to increased and sensible gun regulation. A safer America is a win-win proposition, and most Americans agree with that premise.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
178. So what are your plans for 2015? How's that effort to win hearts and minds amongst...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:42 PM
Apr 2013

...gun owners going to go? Do you intend to keep at the pretense of moral and intellectual superiority over
your opponents?

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

...This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.

Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way. There is no single cause for this cognitive bias; the availability heuristic, self-serving bias and naïve realism have been suggested as at least partial underlying factors.



You know, if even 10% of all gun owners agreed with you and cared
enough to do something about it, the NRA would be outnumbered 2 to 1 and
quckly revert back to its origins as a training and sporting organization, a development I very much would like to see
happen- just not on your terms.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
181. Like the NRA, you are
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:27 PM
Apr 2013

perpetuating the false premise that there is some sort of a "war" going on against ALL gun owners, and that ALL gun owners are being attacked and falsely accused by "grabbers." You are furthering the outright lies being spread by the NRA that gun registration will inevitably lead to gun confiscation. You are furthering the falsehood that Liberal Democrats who advocate for stricter gun control measures want to repeal the Second Amendment.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and you, and those who use your specious argument, know that. The enemy is the NRA, and those gun owners who adhere to the "cold dead hands" premise of Wayne LaPierre and his manufacturer puppet masters. The enemy is the gun owner who sells guns to strangers without knowing a fucking thing about them, much less performing a valid background check. The enemy is the irresponsible gun owner who doesn’t secure his or her gun and allows children or criminals access to it.

When right-wingers falsely lump ALL gun owners into the same constituency, and lie about their intentions in doing so, then they are rightly labeled Gun Humpers. When Gun Humpers use bogus "statistics" to make their false equivalency arguments, they are NOT speaking for ALL gun owners. Bottom line: ALL gun owners are NOT Gun Humpers, but Gun Humpers are ALL assholes.

Attempting to make it appear that gun control advocates are attacking ALL gun owners, is not only disingenuous, it is a right-wing straw man tactic used successfully by Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, Dubya, and other neoconservatives during their hoodwinking of the American people. The NRA and its “cold dead hands” adherents are also attempting to hoodwink the American people, but it is no longer working.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
197. Your revisionism is as obvious as it is ahistorical. All gun owners were attacked here on DU...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:05 PM
Apr 2013

...in the days and weeks after Newtown. If you didn't want to ban all guns, you were a baby-killer

For the first example I could find, just look at the reaction to some assholes in Hartford:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022274027

The hecklers rightly got raked over the coals- but downthread it became "All gun owners are NRA enablers"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022274027#post55

and all guns should be banned

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022274027#post34

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022274027#post57


But according to you, the above remarks were not made, and to say that they were made is
'disingenuous'

If you think the NRA, etc. are too stupid to lay out $100 for a false-flag membership here and
commence to data-mining for gems like the above in order to use them to portray ALL Dems like that-
well, there's very little remaining for me to say to you.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
211. Those remarks are not
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:23 PM
Apr 2013

representative of the general American gun control advocate goals, and I suspect that you know that full well. Like the lumping of ALL gun owners into a single "abused" demographic, the misinformation and half-truths used by Gun Humpers and their apologists would be humorous if it wasn't so sad.

Here's the deal: not all gun owners are gun fetishists, and not all gun control advocates want to totally abolish guns. There is already consensus for a middle ground, but the NRA and its "cold dead hands" extremists (does NOT include ALL gun owners) will not allow ANY dialog on the subject of gun control.

I suspect that your motives for posting this OP are genuine enough, but you are only using gun-nuttrery talking points without giving any consideration to the millions of Americans (both political Parties) who have had enough of NRA-induced insanity concerning the proliferation of guns, and the overall loosening of gun regulations.

This controversy is NOT about the Second Amendment (as the NRA would have us believe) -- it is about Americans being maimed and dying needlessly due to a lack of oversight and regulation. We Americans have managed to reduce automobile- and tobacco-related deaths through regulation. Why not work toward reducing gun-related deaths?

Yes, there are extremists on both sides of most issues, but after years of trying to have a rational conversation with DU Gungeoneer Gun Humpers, they deserve what they are receiving now that public opinion is becoming fed up with the carnage. Sane gun regulation is coming, and it will take as long as it takes.

We Democrats have a history of being resilient, and of being focused. The defeat of this gun insanity plague on our country will be no different, and we WILL prevail.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
245. Then get serious about splitting the reasonable gun owners from the NRA, FFS.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:38 PM
Apr 2013

And it will start with finding the least-common-denominator of laws that can be passed.

Start with what you can do now, and you will be able to get more later.

But first: Give up on trying to ban Federally what is now legal

A DiFi style assault weapon ban was never going to pass, and won't until 2017 at the earliest (if then)

Work on mandatory universal background checks that don't involve registration (If gun owners don't recall the banning of certain registered rifles in California and New York, the NRA will be more than happy to remind them...)

billh58

(6,635 posts)
248. We attempted to start
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:47 PM
Apr 2013

with a watered-down form of gun registration, and the fucking NRA obstructionist Gun Humpers would not even allow a debate on that. Tell you what, at this point we'll take what we can get, but that doesn't mean that NRA supporters and apologists can stop sane gun legislation from eventually happening.

"What is now legal" has been bought and paid for by the NRA, and is subject to change by "what is right and just." Just as slavery was once legal, and denying women the vote was once legal, things which are obviously wrong can be righted.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
253. Nope.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:01 PM
Apr 2013

Registration works for keeping track of ALL property (land, automobiles, airplanes, etc.) and it will be necessary to keep track of those who need, or have had, background checks. And, with support growing we will eventually get universal registration, and Wayne LaPierre can suck on it.

Not negotiable. Fuck the NRA.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
255. Not looking for perfect.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:12 PM
Apr 2013

"Perfect" would be a total lack of need for guns, but that's unattainable for the foreseeable future. I agree with the premise that total bans on anything is a bad idea (prohibition of alcohol), but reasonable regulation of anything that can be harmful to the public is worth the effort.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
256. Then start by getting what you *can* get, and work up from that.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:17 PM
Apr 2013

It might not be all you want, but it will lay the groundwork for it should the opportunity present itself.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
183. Pretense of moral and intellectual superiority?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:37 PM
Apr 2013

There's no pretense there. If you don't believe in universal background checks or simple solutions like limiting magazine capacity, you're an evil idiot. No morals, no intellect. It really isn't that hard to understand, is it? The gun fetishists in this country are insane and out of control. They should NOT have a part in the debate, they are not of sane mind. And rather soon, they'll find themselves out of the debate by their own actions.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
199. Good luck persuading 20-25% of the electorate with THAT attitude.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:11 PM
Apr 2013

Are you somehow under the impression that your vote in some mysterious way counts for more
because you've declared yourself smarter, saner, and nicer than 'those people'?

FFS, that's exactly how Freepers treat us! It's no better outgoing than it is incoming.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
206. Again, it's not how I think, it's what I know.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:38 PM
Apr 2013

And the gun nuts have PROVEN quite well over the past few decades that there's no working with them. It's their way or the highway. They made that quite evident just recently by blocking something as big of a no-brainer as requiring background checks at gun shows, that is a NO-BRAINER. So, decent, intelligent and moral people know that there is no working with them, so they know that instead we must fight against them. And slowly, that fight is being won. The gun nuts are already losing. It might not happen before 2014, but it's going to happen soon.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
25. I prefer the term "ghoul"..
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:40 PM
Apr 2013

As in, anyone who rushed out and bought a military style assault weapon right after Sandy Hook is a ghoul.

The constant death toll from negligent discharging of firearms has gotten even older than "Fuck the gun fondlers", that's totally leaving aside the deliberate shootings that are also out of hand in this country.

http://negligentdischarge.com/




 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
27. Zenger.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:41 PM
Apr 2013

The truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel. If you don't like being called "fetishist" or "gun-fondler" ...don't be a "fetishist" or "gun-fondler". It's truly that simple. If it makes you feel like a pariah to believe in unrestricted RKBA, it should. Shame! Shame! Shame for gun-owners!

I have no intention of giving quarter to the gun-nuts. You should consider capitulation for the good of humanity.

spin

(17,493 posts)
80. It doesn't really bother gun owners to be called names as much as you think. ...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:48 AM
Apr 2013

If it helps to make you feel better, knock yourself out. Just don't assume that your insults will ever convince the majority of gun owners that your opinion is right.

It's my opinion that all the insults thrown at gun owners in recent months by the media effectively poisoned the water and hurt any chance of passing even reasonable laws such as requiring background checks for all firearms sold at gun shows or in the parking lot of a gun show. A new assault weapons ban was probably doomed from the start but the name calling did little to help.

I agree with the OP that, "If you want new gun control laws, you need the cooperation of legal gun owners." We compose a large and powerful voting block and we do show up at the polls.

If you chose to insult me in a reply please do your best to be original. if you do come up with a new creative insult, I will be glad to give you a compliment.










marions ghost

(19,841 posts)
116. You are contradicting yourself
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:41 AM
Apr 2013

1. You say gun owners don't mind being called names.
2. But then you say insults "hurt any chance of passing reasonable laws"



BS--the idea that "insults" bother gun owners who "would be" on our side--is ridiculous.

Gun owners who would be on our side ALREADY ARE.



BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
81. People aren't denouncing gun owners
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:48 AM
Apr 2013

Plenty of gun owners tried to get this legislation passed. They are denouncing those whose selfishness is such that stockpiling weapons and making sure criminals can do the same by evading background checks reveal their absolute contempt for human life. It's also galling that some come here tonight and try to shut us up. They won. But that's not enough is it? They won't stop as long as anyone dares to question gun rule in America. How dare Democrats support the Dem Party position on gun control.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
86. I'm not demanding you shut up, I'm asking you to reconsider your failed approach.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:24 AM
Apr 2013

You never were going to get an assault weapon ban. That was a given, whether you want to admit it or
not. However...

Other things might have been passed. Effective things, like universal background checks. Increased sanctions against
straw sales. Investigations of those attempting to pass background checks and failing. Even a goodly chunk
of the NRA membership would have gone along.

All this became moot when the 'cultural warfare' branch of the gun control advocacy movement went
into high gear. They became a bizarro-universe version of the Tea Party- you did a great job of
firing up those who already agreed with you, and put off the undecided.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
88. Hello . . . ?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:36 AM
Apr 2013

The AWB has been off to table for weeks, What failed was a very weak background check measure that didn't even extend to private parties. Joe Mansion negotiated it. He has an A rating from the NRA. Do you even read the newspaper?

Cultural Warfare? You need to turn off Fox and Rush. This is just sad.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
91. Yes, cultural warfare. You need to reread the posts of some the more "vigorous" advocates...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:43 AM
Apr 2013

...here, I think.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
93. So fucking what?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:46 AM
Apr 2013

That has ZERO to do with the legislation and pretending it does is disingenuous, as is insulting me as a religious fanatic cause you can't be bothered to figure out what was before the Senate today.

No one forces you to read these discussion boards. .

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
105. A crusade?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:29 AM
Apr 2013

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:20 AM - Edit history (1)

First of all, your notion that gun owners read something on DU and that turned REPUBLICAN Senators and four Ds off a completely innocuous bill is ludicrous. That you continue to throw unfounded insults in the context of this defeat is repulsive. People are going to keep dying, and you are playing some sort of twisted game. You show no understanding of the content or process of this legislation or concern for the lives that are gong to be lost. The idea that what some posts here has any influence on a senate vote is laughable, and it's hard to believe anyone is actually that uninformed.

Moreover, if as you claim you really do support background checks, you wouldn't be grave dancing. That you are doing so shows that you are far less concerned about the loss of life than the fact that people disagree with you. Perhaps you feel entitled because you have a bruised ego from voicing unpopular views on guns on a Democratic site. But this isn't about you or me. Criminals are going to continue to get access to guns because of this defeat--because that is the purpose of evading background checks--and that could as easily strike you or someone you care about as anyone else. If having others validate your views is really so important to you, you don't have to read or post somewhere where people don't worship guns above human life. But to claim what people said on DU has anything to do with this legislation--when the facts are obvious that this was far from all or nothing--shows you are full of it.

I don't believe ONE word you are saying. Not one. It doesn't make one bit of sense. You obviously are more concerned with yourself than anything else because these comments are all about the fact you're mad because people here dare to take a position that differs from yours. I have nothing against gun owners. I do, however, have a great deal against zealots who ignore reality and put their own selfish interests above human life. Lots of gun owners, most gun owners in fact, backed this legislation and are angry today. They aren't rubbing others' faces in the defeat over some bizarre concern for their own ego. They are instead worried about the lost lives that will result from the corporate gun lobby's control over our government and the complete erosion of democracy.

That you hold such views and don't even own guns (if that is even true) is even more bizarre. Just where do you get your "news" anyway? You lack of knowledge of this legislation is appalling.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
185. It's not the different opinions that turn pro-rights advocates off
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:41 PM
Apr 2013

It's being called selfish, zealot, gun-stroking baby-killers and those who sling those terms do so indiscriminately -- and not by accident.

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
117. If it was off the table...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:00 AM
Apr 2013

why didn't Dem leadership do the smart thing and not have the AWB come to a vote? That would have been the smart thing to do

 

cbrer

(1,831 posts)
2. Many gun owners support traceability and registration.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:19 PM
Apr 2013

As well as a national data base that can quickly pinpoint ownership.

When you can get the GOP to stop lying outright, and get politicians in general out of the pockets of industries that support gun "freedoms", among others... we can make some progress.

This outrageous abandonment of moral and ethical behavior by our elected officials should be a convincing example of what needs to be swept the fuck out!

spin

(17,493 posts)
99. I know a lot of gun owners and I don't know a single one that ...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:54 AM
Apr 2013

supports gun registration.

I and several other gun owners that I know see no major problem with universal background checks as long as they don't include any more registration than it currently required when you buy a firearm from a licensed dealer.

Perhaps you live in a state that already requires firearms to be registered. I don't. Firearm registration is illegal in Florida.

2012 Florida Statutes

790.335?Prohibition of registration of firearms; electronic records.—

The Legislature finds and declares that:
1.?The right of individuals to keep and bear arms is guaranteed under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art. I of the State Constitution.
2.?A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a law enforcement tool and can become an instrument for profiling, harassing, or abusing law-abiding citizens based on their choice to own a firearm and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Further, such a list, record, or registry has the potential to fall into the wrong hands and become a shopping list for thieves.
3.?A list, record, or registry of legally owned firearms or law-abiding firearm owners is not a tool for fighting terrorism, but rather is an instrument that can be used as a means to profile innocent citizens and to harass and abuse American citizens based solely on their choice to own firearms and exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
4.?Law-abiding firearm owners whose names have been illegally recorded in a list, record, or registry are entitled to redress.
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/790.335

billh58

(6,635 posts)
298. Well that figures,
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 05:20 PM
Apr 2013

it's fucking Florida for Christ's sake. The land of the armed, stand-your-ground, vigilante, NRA, good old boys.

spin

(17,493 posts)
300. Gun violence in Florida is at an all time low. ...
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 05:39 PM
Apr 2013
Florida firearm violence hits record low; concealed gun permits up
Debate continues over relationship between guns and crime


By JACOB CARPENTER
Posted January 6, 2013 at 5:15 a.m.


In the so-called Gunshine State, home to the most gun permits in the country, firearm violence has fallen to the lowest point on record.

As state and national legislators consider gun control laws in the wake of last month's Connecticut school shooting, Florida finds itself in a gun violence depression. The Firearm-involved violent crime rate has dropped 33 percent between 2007 and 2011, while the number of issued concealed weapons permits rose nearly 90 percent during that time, state records show.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2013/jan/06/fla-firearm-violence-hits-record-low/


I heard a rumor the other day that the bad guys are leaving Florida and moving north to states with stronger gun control. Their work environment in Florida has simply become far too dangerous.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
301. Yep, there's that
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 06:01 PM
Apr 2013

false correlation again that more gunz equals less crime. Looks good on paper, but doesn't stand the smell test. Crime is down all over the nation, and is most likely due to things like better coordination between agencies, better investigative techniques, better preventative (non-lethal) security, or any number of other causes.

But you gunners go ahead and take credit for improving the country through bigger and better gunz, and we will continue to try and make you more responsible and accountable for your own good.

Take care Bubba...heah?

spin

(17,493 posts)
302. While more guns may not equal less crime ...
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 07:05 PM
Apr 2013

in recent years we have seen the sale of firearms skyrocket.

Surely if gun ownership was as bad as what you feel, we would have seen an increase in violent crime in our nation.

I could also point out that 39 states now allow "shall issue" concealed carry and at least 6 million people in the nation have concealed carry licenses. In the early 1980s only 1 million people had a permit to carry.

I personally feel that better policing is largely responsible for the drop in the nationwide crime rate. That's why I strongly support enforcing existing laws and passing legislation that increases the efficiency of our law enforcement agencies.

But catching criminals does little good unless strong punishment is administered. For example the penalty for being caught in Chicago carrying an illegal firearm is often probation.

OPINIONApril 1, 2013, 7:44 p.m. ET
OPINIONApril 1, 2013, 7:44 p.m. ET
Daley and Ander: Don't Take Your Guns to Town
Judges too often take a lenient view of illegally carrying a weapon. The results can be disastrous.


By WILLIAM M. DALEY AND ROSEANNA ANDER

The American criminal-justice system often penalizes petty offenses too heavily but is too lenient on a crime that is far from petty: illegally carrying a gun in public. When someone carries a gun illegally, a heated argument can swiftly turn into a fatal altercation.

Much of the national discussion in the wake of the Newtown schoolhouse shootings has focused on limiting gun ownership by high-risk people. But to truly address the many homicides committed in America's cities, lawmakers also need to ensure there are real consequences for illegally carrying a gun on the street. Regardless of whether or not the gun was lawfully obtained—carrying one illegally is a more serious offense than possession, since it is directly linked with high murder rates.

In 2012, 506 people were murdered in Chicago. According to an analysis of homicide data by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, nearly 86% of those killings were committed with a firearm, and more than three-fourths occurred outdoors, virtually all with illegally carried guns. Across the country in 2010, guns were used in 11,078 homicides—and illegally carried guns were a central element in most of the killings.

Although gun offenses are generally taken seriously when they are part of crimes such as homicide, aggravated assault or robbery, the act of illegally carrying a gun itself typically doesn't incur significant punishment. Many judges often seem to focus on the fact that no one was hurt, and so they treat these cases leniently—often by sentencing offenders to probation. Time behind bars is saved for those who commit "real" crimes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323605404578383072938628386.html


I feel that gun violence would be decreased far more by sending anyone caught illegally carrying a firearms to jail than another "feel good" assault weapons ban. Of course this idea would be far more expensive at first but shortly the bad guys would stop packing heat on a regular basis.

Many criminals get their firearms on the street. An individual straw purchases the firearm and these weapons get smuggled to the inner city streets of our nation. Stiffer punishment for anyone caught engaging in either the straw purchase or the smuggling a firearms could reduce the number of illegal firearms in our nation.

There’s a new bipartisan bill to crack down on gun trafficking. Will it work?
Posted by Brad Plumer on February 5, 2013 at 4:50 pm

Gun control can be a divisive issue, but here’s something that at least some Republicans and Democrats appear to agree on: Congress could do more to crack down on illegal firearms sales and gun trafficking


Cut down the traffic. (AP)

On Tuesday, lawmakers from both parties in the House unveiled a bill (pdf) that would place new restrictions on illegal gun transfers. Among other things, the bill would impose steeper penalties on “straw purchasers” who knowingly buy guns for convicted criminals.

***snip***

The idea here is to try to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who are not’t allowed to own them. Surveys have found that most armed criminals acquire their guns either from friends, from family members or “on the street.” Often this can be done through straw purchases — a person with a clean record will buy a gun legally and then transfer it to someone who’s prohibited from owning a gun.

The House anti-trafficking bill would make these transfers a federal crime, punishable by up to 20 years in prison. The bill would also make it a crime to lie to a federally licensed gun dealer — that is, there’d be steep penalties for anyone who says he’s buying the gun for himself when he’s not.

But would this have any effect on trafficking? Gun experts say the bill could potentially help cut into the secondary firearms trade, though only if it’s part of a broader anti-trafficking strategy. ”If it leads to greater enforcement of existing laws and more resources for enforcement, there’s some evidence it could help,” says Jon Vernick, a co-director at Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/05/congress-wants-to-crack-down-on-gun-trafficking-will-it-work/


I feel that there is plenty of good ideas that would help to reduce gun violence in our nation but the gun control group appears to have focused on the AWB as the only solution. I feel the effort to pass this piece of legislation was doomed from the start and hurt the chances of passing far more effective legislation. If we make no headway in reducing gun violence even further than we have in recent years, I feel it will be a tragedy.

Of course I have other ideas that I think would be effective. Our mental health care system needs improvement. Our NICS background check could easily be improved. We should consider that we lost the War on Drugs decades ago and seriously consider the legalization of some drugs to take much of the profit out of smuggling them into our nation.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
136. What would registration accomplish?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:56 PM
Apr 2013

Why does the government need to know what guns I own?

Registration does not help solve crimes because criminals don't register their guns. Further, criminals don't leave their guns at a crime scene to be found by the cops. Instead they keep the guns to use them latter in another crime.

booley

(3,855 posts)
176. actually wouldn't that work for straw purchases?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:25 PM
Apr 2013

A lot of the guns that criminals obtain illegally are from straw purchases. These purchases are really hard to track.

So it seems that's one group of criminals that would be hampered by registration right there. And it would thus hamper other criminals as well.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
234. Guns can already be traced to the original purchaser.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:21 AM
Apr 2013

Buy a gun from an FFL and he has to keep the 4473. There is a chain of custody from the maker through the levels of distribution, to the legal customer. Once it is stolen, the trail vanishes. Most crime guns are stolen.

 

cbrer

(1,831 posts)
180. Registration can help solve crimes
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:18 PM
Apr 2013

Because it can leave a trail within a data base of ownership. If the gun is stolen or lost, then no, but if it helps solve 5% of gun crimes it's worthwhile.

But I guess it's moot. The right has controlled the narrative, and won the debate (such as it was). Tracing guns and their owners will not happen.

I'm a gun owner too. If one of my guns was used in a crime, I'd want the perp. caught. Quickly.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
233. How can registration leave such a trail?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:17 AM
Apr 2013

Criminals don't leave their guns behind when they rob a convenience store, commit a mugging, or a murder. How can you check the registration if you don't have the crime gun?

Because of the 5th Amendment, illegal gun owners are not required to register their guns as that would be a requirement for self-incrimination. So even if you do manage to get the crime gun, it won't lead you to the criminal, it will lead you to the last legal owner.

 

cbrer

(1,831 posts)
235. Because it isn't a black and white issue
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:26 AM
Apr 2013

Some guns are found at crime scenes.

Plus record keeping, when it's done, isn't allowed to be fed into a data base. We can change simple laws to allow a quick investigation when possible.

No law is going to prevent all relevant crime. Some crimes aren't going to be solved.

Chants of "incrementalism" don't strike me as realistic. Unless the Constitution is voted out.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
3. Oh gees....
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:20 PM
Apr 2013

We're being held hostage now.

Your words give me the distinct impression that you are threatening us. That is what I would expect from the gun minded.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
9. I don't own a gun. I'm just sick of watching Third Way/DLC types charging headlong into defeat...
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:24 PM
Apr 2013

...and taking what remains of the New Deal Democratic agenda along for the ride-
Part of which was a big tent, for those not old enough to recall directly.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)
19. If I misunderstand your OP
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:30 PM
Apr 2013

I apologize, but that is what I read into it and I still don't see it as other than some sort of threat. It's a bit over stocked with "if you don't see it my way get out". I don't think that is productive and I certainly don't think your advice is very useful to this person. There are too many threats in this world just to hear another from the inside.

I'm not going anywhere.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
73. It's no threat; we just saw the "all or nothing" approach produce, well....nothing
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:53 AM
Apr 2013

Which also means that the things that would work to prevent gun violence and crime (such as universal background checks and strengthened sanctions against straw sales) and might actually have gotten passed on their own failed.

In grasping for all, you got nothing. Now you will have to wait until 2015 at the earliest....

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #9)

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
128. You hurt whos feelings?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:22 PM
Apr 2013

Most gun owners support gun control laws. Why are you so negative and mean against all gun owners? Gun owners don't equate NRA.

 

HangOnKids

(4,291 posts)
137. My disagreeing that Skittles is mean is an impediment to gun control?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:56 PM
Apr 2013

Really? Try again. Thanks!!!!

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
138. Thats not the message of my post. you try again
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:59 PM
Apr 2013

By explaining how demonizing gun owners will help. It won't help. It will only make it more difficult. I thought we all wanted the same thing.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
142. United States of America.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:07 PM
Apr 2013

Our country wants safer gun laws. Show me one legal gun owner who is against universal background checks. You won't find one.
There is absolutely no reason to demonize your own, only because they are gun owners.

 

HangOnKids

(4,291 posts)
151. Did you pay attention to the vote yesterday?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:18 PM
Apr 2013

A great deal of those Repukes, legal gun owners, voted against this bill. So, you were saying?

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
156. Well they dont represent me, or anyone i know.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:25 PM
Apr 2013

It would be nice if hate and name calling would stop. I can't speak for the repukes, I have no idea how or what they think. But I assure you that the dems who own guns are not gun worshippers or gun freaks or whatever you call them. Most of us own guns for protection in our household and that's that. I have never in my life been to a gun show. I might have to carry one soon while on duty, but thats my job. I just hate to see all this unwarranted hate. It will never acomplish anything.

 

HangOnKids

(4,291 posts)
177. Get off the "hate and name calling" meme
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:28 PM
Apr 2013

I never called anyone a gun worshipper (your spelling) or gun freak. I pointed out that you called a seriously long time poster "mean" and that Repukes defeated yesterdays bill. ( We are on a Democratic site and we call them Repukes for a reason.)

As for your assurance on ANYTHING, no thanks. I am busy today and this will be my last post to you. Ta ta.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
146. Okay, but dont include all gun owners under that umbrella
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:12 PM
Apr 2013

Because I guarantee you they are not. Everyone I know supports universal background checks.

 

hepkat

(143 posts)
6. 80% of NRA members isn't enough?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:22 PM
Apr 2013

90% of the population overall, 80% of NRA members support the limited proposals that have been on the table.

Not Good Enough, hmmm why is that?

 

alcibiades_mystery

(36,437 posts)
10. Gun nut assholes want to convince you that making no laws is the best way
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:24 PM
Apr 2013

We will never "browbeat" these shitheads into accepting any law whatsoever. They are fucking fanatics - the lot of them.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
17. The universal background checks I and lots of others want got defeated too.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:29 PM
Apr 2013

Since Dianne Feinstein (D-Vichy) was going to have her assault weapon ban voted upon
regardless of whether it actually had enough votes to pass, everything got shitcanned.

Thanks a lot, DiFi...

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
35. And you're not going to change attitudes
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:49 PM
Apr 2013

on this issue overnight. This is going to be a process, and absolutely correct that gun owners (I am not one either) are going to have to add their support for any progress to be made.

If DiFi cared about anything other than her legacy progress could be made.

 

hepkat

(143 posts)
22. I know that. That's my point.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:39 PM
Apr 2013

20 2nd graders might change that depth tho. Ongoing gun violence might change that.

88 people a day die from guns.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
58. I'm using a Gallup poll.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:25 AM
Apr 2013

You can read it yourself at the link. It goes straight to Gallup's website.

Truth is a bitch sometimes, huh?

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
121. And Gallup deliberately skews Right, because the Right pays for the desired results.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:28 AM
Apr 2013

"Truth" is paid for.

elleng

(130,126 posts)
11. B.S.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:24 PM
Apr 2013

Its the gun and ammo corporations, who own the NRA. The PEOPLE, that is, gun owners and non-gun owners, WANT what you call 'gun control laws.'

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
32. Apparently the people don't.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:47 PM
Apr 2013

There's only about 5,000,000 NRA members. About 127,000,000 people voted in the last presidential election. About 65,000,000 of those people voted Democrat.

If Senators were receiving calls supporting new gun legislation at the rate of 9 to 1 for, the legislation would have passed. Obviously not enough people wanted these laws enough to actually contact their Senator about it.

elleng

(130,126 posts)
42. Contacting members is not part of the fabric of the U.S., unfortunately,
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:59 PM
Apr 2013

and most don't know how legislation comes about; different from having opinions.

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
59. In other words, most people don't really care about passing new gun laws.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:28 AM
Apr 2013

Most will support it if asked but won't actually do anything to make it come about.

elleng

(130,126 posts)
60. No, they care, they don't know how it works,
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:33 AM
Apr 2013

what it takes to cause action. They support it if asked.

Repugs have done a very good job of ensuring that Americans are not educated/informed about matters of public policy.

Response to elleng (Reply #11)

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
34. People generally get the Congress they want...
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:48 PM
Apr 2013

and vote out people they don't want (as in 1994 after the AWB). The problem with a lot of the gun control crowd is they won't accept that large areas of the country don't want the same level of gun control that they do and aren't going to vote out the senators that voted the way they did today.

Lady Freedom Returns

(14,120 posts)
44. We can still fight for it!
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:03 AM
Apr 2013

If people that want the control makes SURE the real info on this gets out, they would see it is good.

We must get together in those areas and talk to people. Print out the legislation and pass it out so they can read it, really see it (not the water down, censored one that the NRA and others like them have passed off) and that way we can get things changed.

We must work to get the word out. It was those misguided people calling their elected officials, we need to get the real info out so they can help us and together call them and fix this.

If the elected officials still won't do it, then we need to elect new!


 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
50. That is happening on both sides of this issue
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:17 AM
Apr 2013

I can support backgoround checks to the extent that it's needed to confirm there's a good reason why a person should not be allowed to purchase a gun. No need for a gun registry and no need for the government to know if a gun actually changed hands.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
39. I do not believe that
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:55 PM
Apr 2013

the actions taken recently in congress regarding gun legslation will help to get Democratic control of both houses of congress.

Lady Freedom Returns

(14,120 posts)
48. This just goes to show what contacting your officials can do.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:11 AM
Apr 2013

The Republicans and the Democrats were getting bombarded by calls and e-mails by the other side. More of us needed to contact and sound out to make the smaller percent not be heard.

It is time to move. It is time to rally again. Stop allowing the minority to have the ears of Washington!

We can do this IF we start to come together again!

 

Macoy51

(239 posts)
102. He Had a Pet Congress
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:19 AM
Apr 2013

Obama had a pet congress for two years, and what did he do with it? Passed the Health Insurance Industry Protection Act. What makes you think giving him another congress would change things THIS time?



Macoy

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
226. Don't fall for misinformation. Although IDK if you want to hear differently:
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:34 PM
Apr 2013
One more time, as posted on alp's thread by Tx4obama:

My rebuttal to claim obama "had two years of total control with the Senate and House"


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021643154

Here ya go ...

We didn't have a majority in congress for two years - more like TWO MONTHS

The meme that the “Democrats had control of the House and Senate” is a myth and here’s why: people keep forgetting that you need 60 to have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.


January 20, 2009 – Edward Kennedy suffered a seizure during Barack Obama's inaugural luncheon, and his health forced him to retreat to Massachusetts. Also, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota had not been seated because the previous Senator, Norm Coleman challenged the election results. So on his inauguration Obama had 57 elected Democratic Senators… 55 Democrats and 2 Independents.

April 28, 2009 – Arlan Specter switches parties from Republican to Democratic. This gives the Democrats 58… 56 seated Democrats, 2 Independents. Al Franken still hasn’t been sworn in and Kennedy is sick. Still no 60 member majority.

May 15, 2009 – Senator Robert Byrd is admitted to the hospital reducing the number of Democratic votes to 57… 55 Democrats, 2 Independents.

July 7, 2009 – Senator Al Franken is sworn in bringing the Democratic votes back up to 58… 56 sitting Democrats, 2 Independents. No Senator Kennedy or Byrd due to illness.

July 21, 2009 – Senator Byrd Returns to the Senate making the count 59 seats – Still no Kennedy.

August 25, 2009 – Senator Kennedy dies and the seat remains vacant (for one full month) until…

September 24, 2009 – Interim Senator Paul Kirk is sworn in to fill Kennedy’s seat bringing the total Democratic votes to a filibuster proof majority of 60.

Remember to subtract the time/weeks (which total over a month) for the Senate's fall recess, Thanksgiving break, Christmas/NewYears break, etc.

February 4, 2010 - Scott Brown (R-MA) is sworn in taking over Senator Kennedy's seat.

So really the Democrats only had a little more than two months (total time when Senate was in session) of a majority in the Senate – not 2 years (even less when you consider that Senator Lieberman sided with the Republicans most of the time). Because they didn’t have a majority, nothing could be automatically pushed through the Senate and concessions had to be made on the healthcare legislation in order for the bill to pass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021643154#post3

And Tx4obama credits Bluebelle:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021292150#post94

But here's the link for all of that:


President Obama DID NOT control Congress for Two Years!

Here:

http://www.thepragmaticpundit.com/2011/12/obama-did-not-control-congress-for-two.html

The page/link above is a GREAT page to bookmark.

It pretty much has all the things that I've been typing out the past couple of years, but it includes a full timeline, photos, and a chart


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021643154#post17

Obama protected what remains of those programs and had all of his initiatives to expand them voted down, not just in that time frame in congress, but by the media and the voters in 2010.

The italicized words are not mine but you can go back to the links provided. So I hope you do not intend to not vote in 2014 or want to persuade others here to not do so. EOM.

NickB79

(19,110 posts)
173. And you'll get that by giving away Red State Dem seats to the GOP?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:13 PM
Apr 2013

You can have pro-gun Democrats from red states like Montana or North Dakota that agree with you on other issues most of the time, or you can get pro-gun Republicans that will disagree with you on almost all issues most of the time. Those are your only options at this point, no matter how much you may wish you had others.

You are simply not going to get the votes in some conservative states to install pro-gun-control Democratic senators.

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
18. I wish they would have started with that attitude
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:30 PM
Apr 2013

They could have gone to the NRA and said, what can we do that will make a difference that you'll support? It's what we call starting a discussion. Instead, they let the rabid grab nuts run the show and pile on every rabid gun-hater agenda item they could think of. And they wonder why there's no compromise after that....

 

hepkat

(143 posts)
26. Nonsense
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:41 PM
Apr 2013

A few years ago Waynela supported background checks.

What changed?

You actually think the NRA can be negotiated with?

BWHAHAHAHAHAAHA

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
38. So why weren't expanded background checks passed back then?
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:53 PM
Apr 2013

If the NRA was for it, who was opposing it?

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
126. I think by the time Toomey-Manchin came up
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:11 PM
Apr 2013

we were well past the dialog opportunity and well into the "Us vs. Them" mentality. Personally I thought Toomey-Manchin was a reasonable compromise. It just came too late and the opposing sides were dug in.

kudzu22

(1,273 posts)
125. It's called a dialog
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:09 PM
Apr 2013

And it leads to things getting done. I understand the monologue strategy is more fun, though. How'd that work out for ya?

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
21. What about the language
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:36 PM
Apr 2013

with which gun rights proponents refer to gun control advocates?

Background checks and 10 round clips are hardly tyranny.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
36. What about the language
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:50 PM
Apr 2013

with which gun control advocates refer to gun right proponents?

I agree with the universal background checks, but the magazine restrictions are meaningless feel good nonsense.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
41. Speaking only for myself,
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:58 PM
Apr 2013

the Virginia Tech shooter used only 10 round magazines and it is the most deadly mass shooting in the U.S.

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
47. And what makes you think his
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:09 AM
Apr 2013

luck at evading being subdued switching magazines would apply to every case? Gabby Gifford's assailant was subdued reloading. It depends on the situation but if that pause isn't available in every mass shooting situation that chance where someone could have the opportunity to stop an assailant will never come at all.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
72. Actually it does not work out as claimed
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:29 AM
Apr 2013

Go to 9:37 in the following video for a practical demonstration in trying to disarm someone during a magazine change:



FWIW, the level of competence shown by the younger female shooter in this video is easily achievable in a 2 day course. The older male shooter has more experience, but not that much more.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
49. Because as a practical matter they make almost no difference
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:14 AM
Apr 2013

in terms of rate of fire with rounds on target. Check out this video:



I you are more into revolvers, there is this:
&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
229. Do you think those videos
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 08:48 PM
Apr 2013

remotely replicate a real life scenario?

I'm somewhat hesitant about continuing debating gun control with you if you seriously believe those videos are an adequate response.

There is a big difference between a shooting range and the chaos of an ongoing crime scene. I'm not going to go down the list. Suffice it to say anything can happen during a crime scenario, as opposed to a highly rehearsed demonstration at a shooting range. I think it is your responsibility to know that coming into a gun control debate.

ProgressiveProfessor

(22,144 posts)
231. Having taught firearms and also used them in combat, they are realistic for what they depict, that
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:06 PM
Apr 2013

magazine size is not a determining factor for accurate rounds down range.

Yes combat is very different than the range, but the skills and muscle memory developed in range practice transfer to combat, which in this case is rapid magazine changes and multiple target acquisition. BTDT...

The critical issue is training. Adam Lanza was probably not as proficient as either shooter in the video. Someone who has taken one of the typical 5 day courses offered in many places in the US would perform better than those in the video and remain so as long as they practiced. They would also be markedly better than most cops, whose firearms skills are often below that of a sport shooter.

Clearly the revolver one was from one of the top wheelgun shooters in the world but I thought that was obvious



GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
236. Changing a magazine is easy and fast.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:39 AM
Apr 2013

Guns are designed to be easy to operate while under stress. To change a magazine all you do is, push button, grab and insert fresh mag. If you have shot the previous magazine to empty then you will also need to push a third button (on most models) or rack the slide.

Shankapotomus

(4,840 posts)
238. I understand what you're saying
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:20 AM
Apr 2013

Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything to prove why there shouldn't be round restrictions for gun cartridges.. I feel it is so obvious why that I shouldn't have to explain it and I think it is this kind of lack of awareness that allows the gun control debate to needlessly continue.

I shouldn't have to explain it but I'll say this:

It is always to a gun assailant's disadvantage to have to reload during an attack. Things could happen in a real life scenario that the gun training videos don't take into account.

1. The assailant's cartridges would more likely be in his pocket rather than conveniently handy on a barrel in front of him.

2. People fumble for things in their pockets all the time. We can only imagine how much more so that would be true in a real life gun attack.

3. Unlike at a shooting range, there could very well be multiple people trying to thwart an assailant in simultaneous and different ways. Not only people rushing him but throwing things at him. All that can add up to a not so predictably smooth cartridge transition as you might think.

4. Although, some in this thread claim round restrictions wouldn't matter, there have already been cases where it has, such as when Representative Gifford's was shot.

5. You can practice getting a gun demonstration correct over and over where everything is as expected. You can only perform a real mass killing once and the assailant has no real control over what or whom he may encounter.

But again, I don't think I should have gone down this list. It should be obvious to you and the two other gun advocates in this thread and the fact that it wasn't shows me just how lacking is the gun rights argument.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
23. If you want the banks to change their structure to be safer and more supportive
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:40 PM
Apr 2013

of the US economy, then you'll have to work with the CEOs of those banks.

Yeah, like that will work.

"Mr. Dimon, when you have a moment, would you give me a hand with this legislation that will require you to divest your most dangerous assets and divide your company into separate enterprises that will have much less influence in Washington?"

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
77. When the membership of the largest gun-control advocacy .org outnumbers the NRA by 80:1...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:30 AM
Apr 2013

...instead of the reverse, you might have a point.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
107. The real NRA membersip is about 10
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:40 AM
Apr 2013

10 gun manufacturers -- maybe fewer than that, as Cerberus hold many of the brands.

Wayne LaPierre doesn't reflect the views of most gun owners, yet this one guy and his posse of gun makers call the shots.

The premise of this thread is absurd on the face of it. The bill that was blocked yesterday had the support of 90% of the public. Getting the other 10% would not have made a bit of difference.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
154. The +/- 4 million people on their membership rolls might disagree with you.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:23 PM
Apr 2013

In contrast, that bellweather of public opinion about guns known as the Brady Campaign can
come up with about 50,000 on a good day.

nomorenomore08

(13,324 posts)
24. And virtually all of those 80 million are going to get to keep their guns.
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:40 PM
Apr 2013

Whether or not they have their feelings hurt.

 

badtoworse

(5,957 posts)
40. That is something to celebrate
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:55 PM
Apr 2013

I'm a legal gun owner and I can support some things. I'm willing to deal on some things. Keep insulting me and you'll get nowhere.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
29. We already put that meme to bed tonight. It was the need to get 60 votes not lack of gun owner
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:42 PM
Apr 2013

support.

I don't know why the insistence on repeating every gun meme posted here since December.

Gun owners are not some immovable force that we have to burn incense to their alter. It is the gun manufacturers that politicians support not gun owners. The NRA represents the manufacturers not gun owners.

The majority in the Senate voted in favor of background checks. There needed to be 60 votes the usual right wing game of blocking anything Obama wants.

You take yourself way too seriously.

mwrguy

(3,245 posts)
30. What delicate little flowers the gun nuts are
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:44 PM
Apr 2013

No wonder they need a pile of weapons for a security blanket.

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
33. Because yes, if we didn't browbeat gun owners this would have passed tonight - oh wait, no it wouldn
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:48 PM
Apr 2013

't have.

tabbycat31

(6,336 posts)
43. The other issue is that some states/regions have a strong gun culture
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:01 AM
Apr 2013

Getting strong gun control laws from Michael Bloomberg, who was elected in NYC is a lot easier than getting it from rural America.

neverforget

(9,433 posts)
45. You mean the ones that are lying about background checks?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:04 AM
Apr 2013

The ones that put fear into gun owners that the government is going to take away their guns? The ones that play into paranoia? If those are the ones that need to change their language, then I agree with you. If not, well then go pound sand.

The NRA doesn't want ANY gun controls because that hurts gun manufacturers profits. It's all about the money, not about lives.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
52. Much truth in your views. Prohibition ALWAYS takes on a hateful approach...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:28 AM
Apr 2013

once a sense of righteousness has "cleansed" the consciousness of banners; then you can say ANYTHING about Others. Even if the Others number tens of millions.

A constructive suggestion: Develop proposals which ARE supported by all. Overhaul of the NICS test, expansion of coverage, maybe open NICS to all. Drop the antique language of Prohibition, and drop registration as a demand.

I understand at least 2 pro-2A organizations supported the NICS compromise; the NRA has never enjoyed hegemony regarding guns, and they have less now. But they will dig in if faced by the trash-talking cock-strut readily seen in DU threads. Frankly, I think many DUers don't want to go up against the controllers who scream the loudest, lest they be smeared with the scarlet "N" letter: "NRA."

Maybe it's time DUers take some of these macho-types on and set a new tone in this debate.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
75. I have nothing but contempt for the National Republican Armory, and have enough history here at DU..
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:21 AM
Apr 2013

...to prove it. Yet still I get lumped in with them by the gun Prohibitionists here- a one-dimensional
worldview better suited to Tea Party members and Pat Robertson than Democratic Underground.

Their spiritual predecessors could not conceive of the idea that those opposing alcohol Prohibition weren't
a) drunks, b) saloonkeepers, or c) corrupt...

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
53. It's very simple
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:28 AM
Apr 2013

SARCASM:

If we wanted to get rid of slavery, we needed the cooperation of the Slave owners, after all, most slave owners are law abiding people who need someone to pick their cotton, not all of them are the ones that rape their female slaves or whip their chattel half to death."

Llewlladdwr

(2,165 posts)
57. Getting rid of slavery required a civil war and the deaths of 600,000 to 700,000 Americans.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:49 AM
Apr 2013

So that's the hell you want to visit on gun owners, huh?

But it's all good, you're one of the good guys, right?

 

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
66. You're saying it wasn't worth it in the long run? Really, you're playing that card?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:42 AM
Apr 2013

WOW

The only reason that'd be part of any new gun regulation is if certain, shall we say "otherwise law abiding citizens" decided to go Ruby Ridge over defending their 30 round mags, or whatever the change they objected to was.


That's about 20 years at the current average, anyway, when you add it all up.

apocalypsehow

(12,751 posts)
69. Yes, those poor, poor slaveholders who had the "hell" of their slaves liberated from their clutches
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:00 AM
Apr 2013

as a result of the Civil War was just a tragedy, wasn't it?



FYI: (1) Yes, the Union troops who crushed the slave-system in the ante-bellum South were the "good guys," sport. (2) The "hell" visited upon modern day America thanks to lax gun control laws is the thing we are in critical need of being delivered from - not your historical anger that the Confederacy was defeated in its attempt to uphold slavery in the 1860s.

It is truly incredible that you have audacity to post here on Democratic Underground a complaint about the abolition of slavery in the name of upholding NRA propaganda! Simply disgusting.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
223. The civil war had to happen
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:56 PM
Apr 2013

Do we really want to see where slavery would have gone if not stopped? Hell, race relations are abysmal now. As far as hell, why don't you count the amount of people that have died due to American gun violence in the past 30 years, not counting the fact that many of "our" guns end up in places throughout the world where people got shot up, all so that the people who pay the NRA can still make money.

or, look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_deaths_are_in_the_US_every_year
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

OK, so we dont just kill 600,000 in four years, no, we just let 30,000 people die every year. Like Stalin said, "a million deaths is a statistic."

Response to DonCoquixote (Reply #53)

 

sylvi

(813 posts)
285. Your analogy stinks
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:03 PM
Apr 2013

Forced slavery is intrinsically wrong whether or not the owner, "rapes their female slaves or whip their chattel half to death" or not. The mere act of owning a firearm is not intrinsically wrong.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
287. If you do not take responsibility
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:12 PM
Apr 2013

like submitting to a background check, or not sell it to your little teenage angle or uncle joe who is just "misunderstood" than yes it is wrong, it says you get to treat the rights of other people like crap because you want your toy.

 

sylvi

(813 posts)
288. That's a separate issue
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:22 PM
Apr 2013

from saying that trying to enlist the cooperation of gun owners is akin to trying to enlist the cooperation of slaveowners, which is what the analogy is attempting to illustrate. No cooperation needs be sought on the part of the latter because its wrongness is self-evident. Not so for merely owning a gun, or advocating for gun rights, for that matter. The whole "slavery" hyperbole is just an attempt to incite and smear.

DonCoquixote

(13,615 posts)
289. That's a separate issue
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:27 PM
Apr 2013

Sorry to say, whether you meant to or not, that technique is a classic evasive manuver, right up there with "but it's complicated>" The slave analogy works because it;s defenders said that they had the right to own their property, regardless if if their doing so got people hurt.

 

sylvi

(813 posts)
290. As opposed to your over simplification?
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:33 PM
Apr 2013

Forced slavery, by its nature, always involves an injured party. Not so with gun ownership.

Hekate

(90,189 posts)
61. Well, that's vile. Senators who just shot down background checks are bloody handed cowards.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:34 AM
Apr 2013

And liars.

Nice company you keep.

Response to friendly_iconoclast (Original post)

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
65. Interesting you left out the 1st Amendment
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:42 AM
Apr 2013

And democracy itself, since thats what the gun lobby shits all over. Not to mention the basic right to life, which means nothing to these people.

Response to BainsBane (Reply #65)

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
70. You ignore the point the gun lobby
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:01 AM
Apr 2013

Restricts free speech in a myriad of ways, particularly for doctors. Listing it means shit because the NRA Has shredded it. Supporting the NRA demonstrates utter contempt for democracy and free speech. The 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee criminals access to guns. That's what the NRA, their supporters and the enablers of murder who voted no to background checks ensured: criminals' unfettered access to guns, profits for the gun industry, and mass numbers of murders.

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
64. Have you been paying attention?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:39 AM
Apr 2013

The senate rolled over for the NRA. They lied and defeated a milk toast provision. The problem isn't legal gun owners. It's corporate profits and selfish people with no concern for human life. Those who opposed this provision are evil monsters. They want criminals to have guns because it generates profits.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
74. You think that because I disagree with you I'm pro-NRA? How Manichaean your world is.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:03 AM
Apr 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172116375

I like the term "National Republican Armory". Feel free to use it!

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=334361

"...And btw, there's one problem with your convenient stereotyping of your opponents as RW plants:

I broke with the NRA for the very wingerness *you* denounced- here at DU, as a matter
of fact. More than once, actually:


http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=53805


Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:51 PM

Star Member friendly_iconoclast (7,873 posts)
215. And again, pointing out *your* specious claim is not a defense of *them*. A pox on both your houses!


-*The NRA* for becoming (as I said before) a hypocritical right-wing political movement with a bitchin' gun club...


As for you: Do you have any plans besides trying the same thing over again and expecting different results?

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
79. Why did you post this OP then?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:35 AM
Apr 2013

It's so divorced from reality it defies comprehension. The gun lobby rules this country. Guns have nothing to fear from citizens. The Senate and gun activists have made very clear that their absolute contempt for human life will continue to rule this country. You don't like that a few of us on this site actually care about 38,000 deaths a year? What difference does it make? The gun lobby won. You can buy all the revolting and immoral machines of death you desire. Americans will continued to slaughtered. Your guns continue to matter more than human life, so WTF do you have to complain about?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
82. You lot had the chance to get substantial improvements to gun control laws- and blew it.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:07 AM
Apr 2013

You wanted it all- and got nothing. Did it not occur to you that many of the 80 million gun owners I mentioned
might actually have worked with you if the Carrie Nation branch of the gun control movement hadn't
seized the limelight?

Protip: If you describe a group of people as racists, mass-murderers-in-waiting
and/or morally deficient often enough and loudly enough, they might just decide to act against your declared interests


Yeah, the NRA is the NRA- we cannot expect anything from them but self-interest. However:

You don't like that a few of us on this site actually care about 38,000 deaths a year?


I don't like that you pretend that you're the only ones who do give a damn about those people,
and the assumption that your approach is automatically The Way, The Truth and The Light.

You can buy all the revolting and immoral machines of death you desire.


Just think of them like abortions: If you don't like them, don't get one.

Americans will continue (to be) slaughtered


Change "Americans" to "Innocent children" and that sentence could have come straight from a
American Life League website.

Your guns continue to matter more than human life, so WTF do you have to complain about?


A:I don't own guns B: Human life does matter to me- so much so that I'm pointing out that your approach
to preserving same is currently batting .000 in the big leagues and are actually impeding efforts that might
actually fucking well do something.

However, those efforts don't contain enough New And Improved Culture Warfare Against Gun Owners to
suit the noisiest of your claque, so you went with the approach that was doomed.




BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
84. All or nothing?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:17 AM
Apr 2013

Are you fucking kidding? Do you have any idea what was it that bill? If you can't support something as simple as those half-assed background checks that didn't even extend to private parties, you can't possibly want any changes.

Most gun owners supported that bill. 90% of Americans, but you insist it's extreme? Why is that? Did you choose to believe the NRA and RW entertainment rather than actual news sources?

When you so completely misrepresent the facts of this legislation, I have no reason to trust that you care about anything.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
87. Ahem. I *did* and do support those background checks, and have said so here repeatedly.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:33 AM
Apr 2013

Tying them to an AWB that is never going to get through the House is either stupidity or chicanery
on the part of those that did so

Sweet Jeebus on a Sportster, if this isn't a hallmark of religious fanaticism, nothing is-
more concern over heresy than converting unbelievers...

BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
89. That has been off the table for weeks
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:40 AM
Apr 2013

Which anyone who pays the most casual attention to the news knows. I don't know if you're playing some game or you really are that pitifully informed. Either way, it's bizarre.

 

mikegray

(15 posts)
98. from what I have gathered from my time here
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:18 AM
Apr 2013

is that there are many out there who, I gather, believe anyone who owns a gun is nothing more than a slobbering idiot who is hell bent on commiting murder and terrorizing the masses by carrying a concealed handgun.
On background checks one could make arguments if they will or will not curb crime.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
101. A 100% gun ban and mandatory confiscation was defeated in the Senate?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:19 AM
Apr 2013

I did not know that.

/Johnny Carson

AngryOldDem

(14,061 posts)
213. Not looking for an "all-in" approach.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:30 PM
Apr 2013

Just basic, common-sense regulations.

Apparently, even that's too much to ask.

So you tell me: What do you think we **can** get, if we can't even get something as simple and straightforward as background checks before sales?

XRubicon

(2,212 posts)
100. You should consider leaving the party and starting your own
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:17 AM
Apr 2013

You could call it the Glass Jaw Party.

I don't run from a fight.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
104. So, in true Teabagger style...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:48 AM
Apr 2013

.. you hold any and every sane, rational, piece of legislation, even one with the support of 90% of the people, that will make a start on slowing the rate of gun violation HOSTAGE, because someone hurt your feelings? What party do you claim to be a member of again? WE have to temper our words or YOU allow the killing to continue.

What a very moral stance to take.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
161. You obviously *didn't* have the support of 90% of the people.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:39 PM
Apr 2013

Because if you did have 90% support amongst the populace, that would mean that
at least a substantial minority of the 80 million gun owners would be on your side.

Yet somehow, they failed to make this purported support known. Wayne Lapierre is a louse, but I doubt
even he has the magical ability to prevent people from picking up a phone, firing up a computer
and/or contacting their Congressperson and advocating their views

You fail at math, and automatically claiming the moral high ground didn't work.

You say you've got "the support of 90% of the people" at the same time the needs and/or
desires of the 20-25% of those same people who are most directly affected by what you
proposed don't matter.

99Forever

(14,524 posts)
179. "I" don't have any "support," I am a private citizen.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:09 PM
Apr 2013

You are so far out of reality, any attempt to even start a conversation is a waste of valuable time.

Gun culture is a mental illness.

 

Chan790

(20,176 posts)
109. We're not ever going to be ready for this advice.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:11 AM
Apr 2013

Advocating for working with the gun-nuts or compromise herein...is like all the previous times we've been led astray.

Working on marriage equality, we spent years in the wilderness being told (by people who claimed to be on our side or claimed to be dispassionate neutral parties...and in both cases were the enemy) what we needed to do was break bread with the NOM-type folks and find middle-ground on civil unions. My God, what a joke that was.

Working on causes of economic justice, we were told the future was a "third-way" where we worked with management to create prosperity for all...and our own elected leaders from our own party got into bed with management to engage in busting-up the one weapon we ever really had: our unions. We were told, let the slavemasters steal your gains for the good of all. Tax cuts for everybody and a fairer, flatter tax-scale equals prosperity for all. The Clintonian third-way is nothing but center-left fascism where the masters they serve get everything and the rest of us are reduced to serfs.

...I can go on. There is no need.

We already know the destination of justice; we need no guidance from the lost. The road is long and the fighting brutal but with perseverance we will get there. (The advance of progress is slow but inevitable.) It's paring down interpretation of the 2A to the smallest most humanity-and-civilization-friendly interpretation possible where the only permissible guns are hunting guns and guns of some limited functional utility as killing-tools for use in home and personal defense. It's making the process to be allowed to own a gun as onerous as it needs to be to keep guns out of the hands of the deranged and dangerous. It's about eliminating access to weapons whose sole functional utility is as large-scale killing-tools and serve no purpose in hunting or in defense of one's home or person. It's about making the penalties for gun crimes so severe that people willingly choose to not bear arms and people who commit even the most minor infractions face sanction so severe that they serve as a deterrent to use or ownership of guns. It's about making private ownership of military-grade hardware a myth. It's about sanity; the compromises you and they seek are concessions to insanity. The sane future is one in which (certain types of) gun-ownership are conditional-upon-responsibility, legal and rare.

The road is long and we will walk it bloody every step if need be, every footfall forward one closer to the end of the madness of unrestrained-by-sense RKBA. We have no intention of detour-compromising into a loss.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
134. They fucked up the opportunity to strike a much-needed blow to the NRA.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:46 PM
Apr 2013

Frankly, I don't know what pisses me off more- the fact that much political capital was spent to accomplish
nothing, or the chance to move gun owners away from the NRA's viewpoint was missed.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
162. Well said and
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:43 PM
Apr 2013

more importantly, what you have said is representative of the views of the majority of the American people.

The NRA's misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, and the NRA-purchased right-wing enforcement of that misinterpretation is what has led us to being a pariah nation in the world community with respect to gun injuries and deaths.

All enumerated rights have limitations, and as a nation we have grossly exceeded those sensible and needed limitations on gun ownership and use. As you have stated, the American people are waking up to the realization that changes must be made, and that more strict controls on guns are necessary for the general good of the people.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
113. Most gun owners aren't gun nuts.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 10:31 AM
Apr 2013

The 80 million statistic includes plenty of rational people who happen to own a gun, but aren't stockpiling AR-15s.

The fact is most, gun owners support Obama's gun control proposals. So you are completely wrong. In order to get new gun control laws, we simply need to control congress.

It's not any different from any other progressive laws. The GOP is going to block everything.

Skinner

(63,645 posts)
118. Gun owners SUPPORT EXPANDED BACKGROUND CHECKS.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:03 AM
Apr 2013

From the Pew Research Center:

While gun owners, unlike the public at large, oppose gun control measures such as banning assault-style weapons, a big majority of gun owners (85%) support making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks. That matches the level of support among the general public for doing this.

http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/most-gun-owners-favor-background-checks-for-private-gun-sales/


The problem here isn't that gun control supporters are mean to gun owners. The problem is that the gun lobby DOESN'T REPRESENT THE WILL OF GUN OWNERS.

Get a fucking gun lobby that represents the will of gun owners, rather than the will of radical fringe nutjobs.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
124. Wrong.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:08 PM
Apr 2013

I don't like the NRA, but they have a track record of sizing up their opponents. That group saw the SAME cartoon charcterizations in MSM that have been around for a generation. That group saw the SAME "assault weapons" ban proposal of a generation back dominate the rhetoric. That group saw the SAME culture war crap (only more if it) most of us saw 20 years ago. And the NRA REMINDED politicians of what they can do.

The mean-spiritedness, attacks on DU members, and, frankly, sanctioned over-the-top hate talk here on DU, did not go unnoticed. Respectfully, perhaps you could have done better to reduce the deterioration of DU into an ugly forum of animose. Perhaps you might have looked down the road more constructively and seen the formation of new "gun rights" groups over the last year which could have been approached. But that would have required a serious effort to push for b.g. checks from the beginning. Instead, we got the SAME dated crap. Only more if it.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
144. A classroom full of slaughtered first graders tends to get normal people angry
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:10 PM
Apr 2013

Gun lovers on the other hand can't wait to run out and buy the same weapon that killed those kids.

That you cannot understand why people are upset by the carnage is really revealing of your priorities.

No one has pushed "culture war" harder than the right wing, including a great many gun lovers.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
198. No amount of "anger" excuses the hateful attacks by some controller/banners...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:11 PM
Apr 2013

Oh, I can "understand why people are upset." Trouble is, you and others use your angry state to accuse others of NOT being moved by tragedy -- as per your statement. You use your mis perception as a bludgeon to de-humanize others. In sum, you are personally attacking me, which seems in the end to be "your [real] priority." It's the dehumanizing nature of your attacks which shows, not your compassion for slaughtered innocents.

You need to brush up on the rather recent history of the gun-control issue since the 70s. The then-much-stronger MSM ran many editorials decrying in very personal and hateful terms gun-owners. Only this bathroom scrawl was not smeared on walls by anonymous internet keyboardists, it was done by political leaders, academics, journalists and other "leaders" in public opinion. Read up. And read up on why so little was heard from "gun lovers" before the 1970s regarding the politics of guns. There was a cause for the hateful rhetoric of many "gun lovers:" The self-righteous blathering of opinion leaders hoping, I presume, for a quick & dirty victory over a hated counter-culture following the peak of the Civil Rights Era.

You have no exclusive license in compassion; you have no right to attack others for not meeting your "standards."

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
204. Meh, I used to be a gun owner, then I wised up and realized it was just putting my family in danger
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:30 PM
Apr 2013

Practically everyone I know is a damn gun owner and most of them scare the crap out of me when they start fondling their weapons because they don't take the responsibility seriously. I posted in January about an incident that happened to me just last fall.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2168660

I can and do read insults against me every single day on DU, mostly for things that I can't change at all or only with extreme difficulty, my skin color, my sex, the region of the country I live in, the fact that I'm an atheist and so on..

You on the other hand can be a non-gun owner every bit as easily as I became one, just get rid of the damn things, sell them, give them away, destroy them, whatever.

Then you don't have to worry about feeling insulted for being a gun owner.








 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
214. The personal attacks have little effect on me as an individual...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:32 PM
Apr 2013

And I ALWAYS go opposite to an attacker's wishes; that has held me in good stead for over 60 years. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other that you gave up your gun(s), as I have no intention of doing so until I am incompetent to use them.

What really bothers me is that the pariah school of political change has now come out on DU. It is nothing more than good Ol' American Protestant Shaming attached to prohibition. Sure takes the luster off liberalism's image of a broad education, critical thought and tolerance. And you know something? It isn't going to work. The mere fact that controller/banners must have a protected my-way-or-highway group is growing proof of that.

I continue to work for a time (and I think it will be soon) when reasonable people here and elsewhere will come up with a truly reasonable approach to violence in this country. Perhaps you will see your way clear to help out in that regard. No one will insult you if you do.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
217. The religionistas and the atheistas have their own protected groups
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:22 PM
Apr 2013

There are several protected feminist groups and a protected men's group for Beiber's sake. Protected groups mean almost nothing and I seldom post in any of them, indeed I've never posted in the protected gun control group at all.

The problem of guns in our society is not one that's going to go away, ours is a violent society in so many ways and it's not just physical violence I'm talking about although we have far more of that than any nation that wishes to call itself civilized has any business with.

It's not just coincidence that the most heavily armed so called developed nation is also by far the most deadly.

You were the one complaining of insults, I think they bother you more than you wish it to be known, otherwise you wouldn't have made it a centerpiece of your first post to me on this thread.



 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
221. I note your psychological hat & cane trick...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:42 PM
Apr 2013

But I mentioned the insults because they have a corrosive effect on dialogue.

It is worth noting that you and several others seem to have a particularly interest in how insults, invective, etc. pesonally affect gun-owners. This seems to be in keeping with the stigmatization strategy the more extremist controller/banners have undertaken. And it seems also to be more important than doing anything about violence and school kids getting massacred; I mean, the insults seem to be THE policy, now.

One of the painted beauties of the I-net is folks can use mean-spirited efforts in anonymity. But when a pattern develops, the wider audience (even on DU) can see what the stigmatizers' main priorities are. It's still a mass-media model where folks can make judgments about the authenticity of argument, or lack thereof when the objective is to get a rise out of someone. Anger ain't compassion, critique ain't yo mama's boots. What's the expression? "Small and stunted?"

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
224. I think you have me confused with another poster
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:11 PM
Apr 2013

The last day or so is the first time I've posted much to DU in weeks, I"m close to fed up with the place myself, it's overrun with right wingers and if I wanted to listen to that crap all I have to do is talk to my neighbors.

I wasn't trying to insult anyway, it's my honest opinion that anyone who went out and bought a weapon similar to the one the Sandy Hook shooter used right after that incident is a ghoul. To desire something used to kill children is a ghoulish act.

I spent more years than I care to think about in a place that had Rush and a lot of the other right wing talk radio crowd on for most of the day, I'm very familiar with their ways and DU has absolutely nothing on them for nasty rhetoric. There's an example of their rhetoric up on the front page of GD right now: "Sandy Hook parents can go to hell".

If gun owners were more responsible we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place.

Are you familiar with negligentdischarge dot com? Some real eye opening stories there and some graphic images of self inflicted gunshot wounds.

http://negligentdischarge.com/

Here's one with a happy ending.

Denny's story

I came across your story and just wanted to say thanks for having the guts to tell it. It is an embarrassing one, and I can relate at least somewhat. About a year ago, I was cleaning my 1911 in the kitchen, wife wasn't home, she had our oldest with her and our baby was upstairs taking a nap, he was about a 16 months old then. I, for some reason, thought I had it emptied out, but never the less I aimed it at the floor, in a direction where I knew that even if I was wrong the penetration of the floor would only lead to the basement and a concrete floor. I even think of back stops when I am '100% sure' it is empty. I pulled the trigger, and it went off. Scared the hell out of me, and I imediately tried to figure out where the bullet had gone. I was sitting at a weird angle to where I was aiming and realized it had actually ricocheted off the carpet, through the let of the high chair, and into a wall. Exactly the direction I did NOT want it to go. Then I realized that our baby didn't cry upstairs, and went ice cold trying to figure out why the noise hadn't woken him. I can't even tell you the terror realizing that the wall the bullet had entered was right below his crib. Where it entered the wall I could see no way possible that it could have deflected again to an angle that would have gotten it up to him, but I didn't think it would have changed trajectory so badly off of a carpet either, so I wasn't ruling anything out. I went upstairs, more scared than I had ever been in my life. Went into his room, and hovered over him, he was sleeping soundly, little chest rising and falling as it should be, I even moved him a bit to hear him just start to wake to be sure, then let him settle back down to continue his nap.
I went back down to the kitchen, checked the outside wall of the house, no exit hole, dug around inside the wall from the inside and could see the bullet lodged in a 2x4 and was satisfied that it had gone no where that it could have hurt anyone.

Then I sat down realizing what COULD have happened, especially to one I love SO much, and I just cried my eyes out. Writing this now brings tears. I told my wife when she got home, cried again and told her I would only clean and handle at the range from there on out (unless of course there is an intruder). Talk about a wake up call. I felt like such a fool. Always thought of the folks who do this sort of thing as idiots who just arent thinking. Pride comes before the all I suppose, just as the bible says.









BainsBane

(53,001 posts)
230. Why don't you worry about the attacks on the Sandyhook families
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 09:59 PM
Apr 2013

And 3300 killed since that event? Why is your bruised ego more important?
No one forces you to read posts from Democrats. There are plenty of sites where people agree with you. I personally have nothing against gun owners, nor do most people here. There is a world of difference, however, between a typical gun owner and the gun lobby zealots who see massive loss of life yet manage to care only about themselves.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
148. Umm, no you are wrong.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:16 PM
Apr 2013

What happened is more simple than that: the GOP are a bunch of crazies. And a few right-wing Dems went along with them.

If not for the craziness of the GOP, we'd have background checks, assault weapons ban, high capacity magazines, all of which have comfortable majority support. In fact, even the national gun registry that seems to scare gun nuts as much as "death panels" is something that most Americans support.

Trying to reason with the 10% loony gun nuts is not the solution. Voting out the GOP and replacing right-wing Dems with actual progressives is.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
202. "If not for..."
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:22 PM
Apr 2013

It's easy to speculate on what might have been "if not for..."

I note that we DID have an "assault weapons ban" for 10 years, during which millions of -- voila! -- "assault weapons" were sold. You seem to think that sans GOP crazies, Democrats would have saved the day. This nation's political history has never had a party-defined clean-sweep of "actual progressives," even during FDR. In fact, what kept gun-control laws strict in the South up until the last 30 years was the entrenched presence of conservative Democrats who feared "armed Negroes." Irony of ironies.

I'll go you one better: Not only will the controllers have to deal with what you call "loony gun nuts" to get anything meaningful through Congress, the Democratic Party will have to deal with the Tea Party-types if they ever hope to (re)build the Party into a progressive force. It can be done. But many in the Party will have to junk their prejudiced regionalism, and suspicion of poor whites, as if color were a way to excuse not only culture but class warfare.

Think folks here can handle it?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
205. It's not speculation. It's math.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:34 PM
Apr 2013

The GOP has enough votes to block anything they want to block.

So let's see. You want the Democrats to capitulate to not just the gun nuts, but also the Tea Party. Anyone else you want to placate? How about the Koch Brothers and 1%-ers? Those are formidable political forces too. Maybe the religious right, too. And don't forget the oil companies...

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
210. And they're off.....!
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:20 PM
Apr 2013

That's the trouble: You speak of "capitulation." This is at least one instance where war metaphors do not serve you well. I suggested meeting up and talking with 2 specific groups: gun-owners and those called the Tea Party.

The Democratic fared well when it dealt with the poor, including white poor people. They shared common goals of economic fairness, security, opportunity and freedom. To turn one's back on these same people now because the Democratic Party has done a far lousier job of speaking to their concerns than the GOPers, is to concede (was that the word you were looking for?) them to the other side.

The Democratic Party has a far greater problem on its hand with regard purpose, message and clarity, and without addressing those concerns, it will have to bank on inconsistent wins-by-default.

DanTex you treat many fellow progressives as if they were the enemy; it is no wonder that those who are less progressive due to being ignored (except by the GOP) would feel even more wrath. What ever happened to inclusivity? What ever happened to a Party philosophy that goes beyond the litmus of gun-control?

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
216. You could make the same argument about the Koch Brothers. Just meet up and talk with them...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:03 PM
Apr 2013

So far, the GOP has done a much better job speaking to the concerns of 1%ers. The Dems are basically conceding them to the other side. Etc.

I tell you what. Yes, Obama lost this battle. But I'm happy that he fought it. I'm sick of seeing Dems simply conceding without a fight. I agree, it would be nice if the Dems fought just as hard on the economic front. If the Republicans are going to cut social security, make them do it on a party-line vote, and then hold a press conference afterwards to shame them. Don't meet them half way. Maybe that's something we agree about.

But, I don't see any battle the Dems are having with gun owners. The battle is with the crazies: the 10% who oppose universal background checks, but, like the 1%, have outsized political clout. Obama went out of his way over and over again to say he supports the second amendment. Nobody, not even Chuck Schumer or Diane Feinstein, is even mentioning things like a national gun registry (even though over 50% of the public is in favor of that). Sure, there are some people hostile to gun owners here on DU. Welcome to the internet. But to say that the Democratic Party is hostile to gun owners is simply not true.

And, the truth is, you treat far more progressives as if they were the enemy than I do. How many people do you deride as "gun controllers" or "gun banners". At the very least, anyone who supports the AWB gets that label from you, which means you are hostile to the majority of the Democratic party. I get the whole "gun rights are progressive" argument (though I disagree), but you can't deny the reality that most modern day progressives are people that you would call "gun banners".

About 10% of Americans don't want universal background checks, most of whom are Republicans. On the other side, about 25% of Americans want all handguns banned. Nobody, not even the Democratic party, is speaking for those 25%. As long as we're talking about large portions of the electorate that are being ignored, how about paying a little more attention to the actual gun banners?

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
218. And I vote for progressive "gun banners." Again...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:27 PM
Apr 2013

I said that if the Democrats want to talk about meaningful progress on violence in this country, they are going to have to talk to pro-2A folks who you call "crazies." Your charge: "...you treat far more progressives as if they were the enemy than I do" is not true, so stop making that charge. If someone supports "bans" and "controls," I will describe them as such. And where I live, I have voted for them.

Your charges don't hold up.

This Koch Brothers stuff is mystifying, but one thing for sure: Gun-control is rather recent stuff to the Democratic Party, and I don't consider it mainstream in the Party, only a damaging distraction.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
120. We already have the cooperation of gun owners.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:07 AM
Apr 2013

Polls show gun owners overwhelmingly favor new regulation.

Therefore, it's not that simple. You're not still mistaking the NRA for a lobby for gun owners, are you?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
149. You need to work harder at splitting gun owners away from the NRA.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:17 PM
Apr 2013

This was a chance to do so, and it was blown. I'm not claiming that it would have happened, but
once it became clear that Manchin-Toomey wasn't an ironclad guarantee against gun registration
it was a goner.

Like I said in the OP- STFU with the culture war against gun owners. Don't preach, don't condescend
and stop acting like Louie Gohmert contemplating immigrants. I don't expect everybody to like them,
but continually badmouthing a substantial minority of the electorate is not a winning long-term strategy.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
166. The gun owners are a fig leaf...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:58 PM
Apr 2013

...otherwise irrelevant to gun regulation. The NRA has successfully welded the gun manufacturers' money to fears of erectile dysfunction. So that even when gun owners want more regulation, Congresscritters fear looking weak or feminized.

former9thward

(31,801 posts)
132. Name callers never accomplish anything in real life.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 12:43 PM
Apr 2013

They just gravitate to the internet and spew their vitriol against various people and groups. They claim to speak for "the people" and it makes them feel important in life when in fact they are impotent.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
140. Which part of
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:02 PM
Apr 2013

"Wayne LaPierre defeated this legislation" do you not understand? It was not the "offended" DU Gungeoneer Gun Humpers who defeated the background check legislation -- it was the fucking NRA who most DU Democratic gun owners disavow.

You are confusing a general dislike for NRA Gun Humper cultists (and they do exist on DU) with sensible gun owners, from both political Parties, who dislike them as much as most as most Democrats do.

As for your last line, people like you who advocate that those of us who disagree with you should "please consider leaving the Democratic Party," have already left the Party and just don't realize it. The good news is that we Democrats will not miss you.

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
150. The large majority of legal gun owners support the proposed law. It is the Senate filibuster
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:18 PM
Apr 2013

and a gerrymandered House that are blocking passage of a law supported by the vast majority of Americans.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
163. Then why have they not made their support clear? If even 10% did so, they would outnumber...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:48 PM
Apr 2013

the NRA 2:1. Sure, money talks- but "we will diligently work towards your defeat at the next election" speaks
even louder to politicians...

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
152. Actually, if you have been reading the real news, most gun owners are in favor
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:19 PM
Apr 2013

of a ban on assault weapons, background checks and closing the gun show loopholes. It's the NRA paid for corrupt politicians who voted against it.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
155. And if the Pro-Choice movement wants to prevent the repeal of legal abortion, it will need the assis
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:23 PM
Apr 2013

And if the Pro-Choice movement wants to prevent the repeal of legal abortion, it will need the assistance of the anti-choice members. That's pretty damned simple too.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other... and both equally (and overly) simplistic and idiotic.

(However, I've no doubt many will rationalize a distinction without a difference to feel clever and validated...)

stklurker

(180 posts)
157. Lobbyist
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:32 PM
Apr 2013

What both sides in this debate have done is make it a gun owner vs. non-gun owner issue and they are happy that we are bickering.. the truth is much more of a problem.. Lobbying.. like many major faults with the system today it is corrupted by lobbying...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3479476-so-damn-much-money

Keep your eye on the ball folks... to have any hope of getting congressmen to start representing the people again on any issue, we have to address the lobbying issue.. plain and simple

Hugabear

(10,340 posts)
164. Bullshit. What happened was the result of right-wing lies and propaganda
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:50 PM
Apr 2013

Such as radio ads scaring people into thinking that Congress was about to pass a law that would take away everyone's guns.

Telling everybody that Congress was going to set up a national registry for gun owners, that would later be used for confiscation.

THIS is why the legislation failed.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
172. So are gun owners morons, or delicate little flowers?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 02:07 PM
Apr 2013

I can't tell from your post whether you think gun owners are utter morons, or if you think they're such delicate flowers that they'll run away in a snit if you say anything mildly unpleasant to them.

Neither one's terribly flattering, though.

Response to jeff47 (Reply #172)

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
189. Rely on the fact that rational gun owners know they're not the ones we're speaking to?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:46 PM
Apr 2013

My father has a closet full of guns and yet he has never voted Republican and thinks the NRA's full of morons. They do exist, and they're not who we're talking to.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
195. The NRA *is* larded with morons and their leadership is a third-rate clown college.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:59 PM
Apr 2013

The trouble is, said morons' votes count exactly the same way as ours does.

The question now is: How do we get the sane remnant away from the influence of Lapierre, Nugent, et al?

A good first step would be to dial way back on the rhetoric from our side- let them be the ones
spouting nonsense.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
212. No, I already asked a question. You decided to ignore it.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 05:25 PM
Apr 2013

So, gun owners: Morons or delicate flowers?

Your OP really only leaves those two options.

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
184. Polls say that 90% of Americans are FOR more background checks...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:41 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

...surely a good number of that 90% are gun owners?

But the NRA, whose primary function is to be a shill for gun manufacturers, spent big $$ making misleading ads about the bill before Congress. And of course they continue to spend big $$ lobbying Congress, with the result that the proposed bill was weak to begin with.

I think your analysis is flawed.

Arkana

(24,347 posts)
187. No. You know what? No.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 03:43 PM
Apr 2013

We've tried being friendly. Those people spat in our faces and called us gun-grabbers.

I am done--and we should be fucking DONE--being friendly.

And banning alcohol isn't even remotely CLOSE to what we tried to do with guns in the Senate bill, so you can take your false equivalency and jam it where the sun doesn't fucking shine.

E: clarification

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
257. When?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:09 PM
Apr 2013

I've been reading DU since 2001, am interested and have been involved in the gun debate here regularly, dating back to back when the gungeon was known as J/PS, and I have never seen the debate here resemble anything that could be characterized as "friendly".


While you yourself might have been friendly, the great majority of your colleagues on the pro-control side have never been.


"...we should be fucking DONE--being friendly."

Something can't be "done" being done, if it was never being done in the first place.




Robb

(39,665 posts)
196. LOL! What happened?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:03 PM
Apr 2013


I mean in the old days you would've gotten like 50 recs on this, right?

...Hey, what happened to DU's Gun Squad?

Maybe you need a gimmick. Like open a Gungeoneer account, get a free rifle or toaster.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
207. Sarcasm? I'm *delighted* when a gun troll gets banned from DU.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:40 PM
Apr 2013

What, were the banned trolls buddies of yours?

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
208. I have no clue to what banned members you're referring to.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:43 PM
Apr 2013

Again, your sarcasm doesn't help. It only hurts what we are trying to accomplish here.

Robb

(39,665 posts)
209. What is this "we" of "what we are trying to accomplish here"?
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 04:48 PM
Apr 2013

Because from where I'm sitting, your "we" -- the people "defending" their guns over the lives of children -- is getting smaller all the time.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
225. Obviously im refering to us, American people.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:13 PM
Apr 2013

And what we are trying to acomplish is sensible gun control laws, such as universal background checks, etc.

But you already knew this, just can't give up the sarcasm.

Later.

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
219. Yeah, Gabby Giffords doesn't own guns...oh wait, she does...your OP is shit...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:27 PM
Apr 2013

Next NRA Talking point please.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
220. "most of them are just as law abiding as you are"
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:36 PM
Apr 2013

Yep, but its the rest of the selfish fuckers that need to be controlled. Unfortunately, in order for them to be controlled, the so-called 'lawful' ones need to be inconvenienced in a bit too. Sadly, too many are just darn too selfish to realize it, or accept it atleast.

Sorry it gets said, but that's the way it is.
Maybe their feelings do get hurt, maybe they do take attempts at gun control a bit too personal.

Whatever - in the end it all comes down to fear and selfishness.

 

Lizzie Poppet

(10,164 posts)
228. Most of us don't mind some inconvenience...
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:42 PM
Apr 2013

...especially when it's because of measures that might actually do some good. I supported expanded background checks, and so did the majority of gun owners. The problem is that the NRA have co-opted the pro-gun-rights side of the debate. That organization doesn't represent the majority of gun owners on the matter of genuinely reasonable new regulations...but it DOES represent corporate interests (and is very good at using over-the-top scare tactics that work on a percentage of its membership).

brooklynite

(93,843 posts)
240. Almost nobody is responding to the point in the OP
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:25 AM
Apr 2013

It's not whether the proposed gun regulations are reasonable, and it's not whether gun owners could/would/should support them. It's about the publicly expressed disdain for gun owners of ANY type, and how that disdain makes it difficult to gain the support of reasonable gun owners in passing legislation.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
246. And that is exactly
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:38 PM
Apr 2013

the way that the NRA wants you, and the rest of us, to view this "disdain." There are many gun owners who have a great amount of disdain for the NRA Gun Humpers, and are vocal about it, but the NRA and its apologists conveniently ignore that piece of the argument. The NRA, and its apologists, are attempting to convince American gun owners that gun control legislation will harm them personally, and that us mean old "Liberals" hate all of them.

The perpetuation of the falsehood that those of us who genuinely dislike the "cold dead hands" NRA die hard obstructionists who will not even discuss the regulation of firearms in the USA, is inclusive of ALL gun owners is purposeful disinformation. This is a very successful right-wing straw man tactic, and Democrats who parrot this "talking point" are in fact guilty of what they accuse gun control proponents of: blanket accusations.

There is ample room for common ground discussions in this country, but the NRA will not allow their bought-and-paid-for politicians to engage in ANY discussion of the subject. The real problem is NOT American gun control proponents against American gun owners. The real problem is the anti-American gun manufacturer shill (NRA) and its "cold dead hand" members against the American People. They pretend to hide behind the Second Amendment, but their real motive is greed, pure and simple. They use the US Constitution as a weapon of mass destruction of the American People for profit, and for no other reason.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
222. You are threatening us with what we "have learned today". Clarify: are you against effective
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 06:44 PM
Apr 2013

Background Checks?

yes or no.

Zoeisright

(8,339 posts)
227. What a completely asshole post.
Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:40 PM
Apr 2013

Disgusting, cruel, and ignorant. Tell you what, sparky: a change of attitude on YOUR part is in order.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
252. You are perpetuating
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:57 PM
Apr 2013

the false NRA myth of "implacable hatred" toward ALL gun owners by gun control proponents. That has been the staple of the DU Gungeoneer crowd, the NRA, and the rest of the right-wing neoconservative hate mongers for years: divide the American people through misinformation.

Once again, there are many American gun owners who totally support stricter gun regulation, and realize that it will not affect their lifestyles or their freedoms. They are not die hard "Gun Humpers," and they know full well the difference between themselves and the fanatical NRA gun worshiping fetishists.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
259. One post from one
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:47 PM
Apr 2013

poster, or even 50 posts from 50 posters is not representative of the majority of American gun control proponents. But you knew that didn't you? When the NRA and its cultists run out of misinformation, and half-truths what will they have left?

Profits from injury and death are not a good reason to obstruct meaningful dialog and sensible regulation, and both gun owing, and non-gun owning Americans have come to that realization. The NRA's only clout comes from corporate donations to its political PAC, and the politicians they buy with that money.

The collective will of the American people will prevail, and gun control legislation and regulation will move forward. Attempting to drive a wedge between owners and non-owners is so right-wing and neoconservative -- don't you think? The Americans who are needlessly injured and killed by guns on a daily basis are from both political Parties, and are both gun owners, and non-owners.

Fuck the NRA Gun Humpers and their "cold dead hands" die hard members. Fuck them all.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
260. Would you have us believe that gun control supporters on DU, such as the example he gave...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:57 PM
Apr 2013

Would you have us believe that gun control supporters on DU, such as the example he gave, are mainstream or fringe, in the way they behave toward gun owners/gun rights supporters?


Outside DU, gun control proponents are cordial and friendly toward gun rights supporters, is that about it?

"Attempting to drive a wedge between owners and non-owners is so right-wing and neoconservative -- don't you think?"

But attempting to drive a wedge between "hunters" and gun rights supporters isn't?

See the "assault weapons ban" that specifically exempts "hunting weapons", for an example.

Say, you didn't support that, did you?

billh58

(6,635 posts)
261. I remember you Sparky.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 08:08 PM
Apr 2013

You are one of the "cold dead hands" cultists that I remember from my attempts to have a conversation in the Gungeon. To you I was a "grabber" and anti-American. Go back there and spew your venom where your buddies can all support and applaud you. You are a part of the problem, and will never be a part of the solution.

To answer your question, however, even at DU most level-headed gun control proponents are supportive of the Second Amendment and the rights of gun owners -- they just don't want to engage belligerent antagonistic people like you.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
263. Then you, apparently, misremember.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 08:30 PM
Apr 2013

That or you're attempting to smear me.

I support all current firearm laws.

I support universal background checks, provided there is no registration.

"To you I was a "grabber" and anti-American."

Cite it.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
264. Typical Gungeoneer response.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:17 PM
Apr 2013

I don't have to cite, and I'm not trying to "smear" you -- you do a very good job of that yourself. And yes, I remember you and your NRA "talking point" endless and meaningless statistics, along with your snarky "grabber" remarks. I had you on ignore, but I cleaned that list out at the beginning of this year, and here you are again.

Buh bye Sparky, and be sure to send your NRA membership dues in on time, or Uncle Wayne will be very, very angry with you...

Response to billh58 (Reply #264)

billh58

(6,635 posts)
275. That is such convoluted
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:23 PM
Apr 2013

reasoning that I am at a loss for words -- except for these: there are extremists on both sides of most issues, but they are not "representative" of the average. ALL gun control proponents do not "hate" gun owners -- far from it. All gun owners do not "hate" gun control proponents, nor do they vote as a block.

The black and/or white world of the NRA and its apologists must be extremely boring -- and confusing.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
283. Uh huh.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:23 PM
Apr 2013

"You are one of the "cold dead hands" cultists that I remember from my attempts to have a conversation in the Gungeon. To you I was a "grabber" and anti-American."

First you make unsubstantiated claims about a poster - me. Then you refuse to substantiate them.

Your choice I suppose.

Nra membership?

LOL. I was an nra member over 20 years ago, for a single year - because membership was part of a gun safety course I took when I was 15 years old.

I don't even own a centerfire rifle, only own 2 functional firearms, and haven't bought a gun in approximately ten years.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they belong to the nra.

I still fail to see how support for current gun laws, and support for universal background checks makes one a "cold dead hands cultist".

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
270. So when are you going to apply your own standards to the majority of American gun owners?
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 03:12 PM
Apr 2013

You know, the ones that neither belong to the NRA or agree with your approach to gun control?

billh58

(6,635 posts)
272. I already have
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:00 PM
Apr 2013

a long time ago Bubba, except for the "cold dead hands" DU Gungeoneers who are NOT representative of the American gun owners that I know. Contrary to the misinformation the NRA and its apologists would have us believe, American Gun Owners are not single-issue voters, and do not vote as a "gun rights" pro-Second Amendment block. They are as divided as the rest of us along Party lines, and over gun rights vs. gun control issues.

I would oppose Republican right-wingers on most issues including their belligerent opposition to ALL forms of gun control, and support Democratic voters on most issues, including the right to keep and bear arms with reasonable regulation. I believe (although its just a gut feeling) that the average Democratic gun owner would agree for the most part with the Brady Group and MAIG, including the need for gun registration.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
274. "the American gun owners that I know" And therein lies a problem for you.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:20 PM
Apr 2013

You only know (just as I or anybody else would) a minute fraction of a group that would be the 17th
largest country on Earth if they had their own nation. In the United States, they simply cannot be ignored
as a bloc by any politician with three working neurons that wants to get anywhere.

The error the current ad hoc gun-control coalition made was thinking that they had the support
(or at least the acquiesence) of enough gun owners that they would get what they wanted.
Obviously, they didn't.

What you need to do now (and I am repeating myself as it's important) is to find out what would
be palatable to enough of them to enable you to go around the NRA. Again, I repeat that if you could
get 10% of them on board with you they would outnumber the NRA 2 to 1.

Even if what passes is a small thing and not entirely what you want, it would still be a victory
against the NRA. And it would be glaringly obvious to all that it *was* a victory against them
.

You could then work onward from there. Success may not always breed success- but defeat surely
does not.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
276. Thanks for the advice, but
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:34 PM
Apr 2013

it was NOT gun owners as a group who defeated the attempt to even discuss recent watered-down gun control legislation, it was the fucking NRA and its bought-and-paid-for politicians. Almost every thinking news pundit in the MSM has commented on the fact that in spite of overwhelming public support, the NRA bought their manufacturer and corporate sponsors a victory over sanity, and the Senate went against the wishes of 80% of the people.

You are correct, I don't know more than a handful of gun owners, but the ones that I DO know are not fanatical about their fucking Second Amendment rights evey time we have a conversation. The State of Hawaii has proven that reasonable and sane gun control and registration works to reduce gun injuries and deaths without imposing a hardship on gun owners. I have that reality to judge by, and I would agree that Hawaii's approach may not work in ALL states, but it's a place to start.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
278. Why not try it anyway, if only for the chance to get a lick in against the NRA? They ARE vulnerable.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:47 PM
Apr 2013

Shit, I don't even agree with you about much at all in re guns-but I do agree that they need to be taken
down a notch or three. Just the follow-on effects to the Republicans would be a nice bonus

Fankly, I probably agree with those gun owners that you do know-
I really resent that these assclowns purport to represent MY views, when they do no such thing.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
271. It seems you will not admit that the majority of gun owners *might* not agree with you.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 03:48 PM
Apr 2013

I know it's comforting to believe that you voice the views of the majority and only an evil
cabal (AKA the National Rifle Association) is blocking your efforts. However, you might be just as mistaken
as those folks here at DU that "knew" the Boston Marathon bombings were committed by Tea Partiers/right-wingers.

You might want to research 'false consensus effect'....

billh58

(6,635 posts)
273. I do not
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:09 PM
Apr 2013

presume to speak for the "majority" of anything. It is you and the NRA who are claiming that ALL gun owners from both political Parties vote as a block. They do not, and you and your Gungeoneer buddies know that.

I know "some" gun owners, but then again I live in a state with sane gun laws including mandatory registration. And, Hawaii also happens to have the lowest gun injury/death rate in the nation. The gun owners that I know have absolutely no problem with going hunting, to the range, or keeping a handgun in their homes for self-protection.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
277. I claim no such thing, otherwise I would not be proposing a counterweight to the NRA...
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 04:38 PM
Apr 2013

...amongst gun owners.

Shit, I live in a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation (Massachusetts)
and I see nothing much wrong with them at all, save for the "may-issue" parts of handgun permitting.

To the NRA and Gun Owners of America, I'm in bed with Dianne Feinstein for saying that.
For some here, I'm a fellow traveler with the NRA because I don't support a national assault weapon ban.

See what I'm saying about binary thinking? If you wish to make headway, get rid of it.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
279. I agree with some of what you
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 05:08 PM
Apr 2013

say, and it is both expected and reasonable that I disagree with other parts of your stance. I do not agree with your (and the NRA's) premise, however, that ALL gun owners vote as a bloc. They are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and the occasional Communist, and they all have different political philosophies. I tend to expect that the Democrats and Independents will be amenable to some forms of gun control, while Republicans and Libertarians will take the "cold dead hands" position.

The Democratic Party, the Brady Group, and MAIG all agree that Americans have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They also agree that the Second Amendment does not enumerate an absolute right, and can and should be regulated for the general welfare of the entire US citizenry. The legitimate arguments center around registration, and its costs (Hawaii does not charge for registration), concealed carry (only allowed in Hawaii under extraordinary circumstances), and permitting (who, where, when).

Like all controversial issues, it will be difficult to reach a consensus across Party lines, but I don't believe that being a gun owner, or a non-owner, will play a significant role in the process -- except for the NRA and its die hard "preppers." They will not give in, or up, easily and will attempt to buy votes to further their own profit-motivated interests.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
237. Your words, while wise, are falling on deaf ears.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 01:02 AM
Apr 2013

Look at some of the replies you've gotten.

"They love their guns, more than they love children".

Makes it crystal clear that they view it as one or the other, doesn't it? And other replies, they make it crystal clear, that if we disagree with their methodology...their "way", we become the hated "other", the "obstructionist", the "extremist", the "gun humper", the "gun fucker", and on and on.

It has been suggested to them for years, that they need to dump the most extreme among them and their extreme methodology, but they don't listen.

They propose, as answers to terribly tragic events, things which will not prevent those events, things which in fact, they have been pushing for for over a decade...and they really think nobody can see it. "Universal background checks", "the gun show loophole", "magazine capacity restrictions". All are examples.

Cho bought his gun legally, passed a background check, and used standard capacity magazines.

None of the proposals I mentioned would stop the next cho, or the next theater shooter, or the next columbine, or the next sandy hook.

It wouldn't surprise me if pointing out that inconvenient little fact gets me accused of loving guns more than I love children, but honestly, I don't care what they say anymore, where things like that are concerned. It hurts them and their efforts more than anything else, and only strengthens our resolve.

I honestly don't think its about anything except the anti-gun types getting what they want, and poking us in the eye at every opportunity along the way, where a large number of them are concerned. Many of the replies to you in this thread, are elegant proof of that concept.

Your heart is in the right place, but you're speaking to an audience that can not hear your message.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
265. And there you go
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:34 PM
Apr 2013

arrogantly presuming that you have the NRA-given right to speak on behalf of ALL gun owners while attempting to denigrate those who favor responsible gun control measures.

You do NOT speak for anyone but yourself, and like you I don't really care what YOU say anymore.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
284. Except...I wasn't.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:29 PM
Apr 2013

I understand what the OP was trying to say - that is, I understand the message it intends to convey.

I know this, because I know the OP isn't the first attempt at conveying it.

And, like it does every time, it falls on deaf ears:

The people it most needs to reach, are the ones that are the least capable of hearing and accepting it.


Say what you like about me, but nothing you say can change that simple fact.










n2doc

(47,953 posts)
244. If polls are correct, we DO have their support
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:27 PM
Apr 2013

One doesn't get 80% public support for background checks without these folks too. What we don't have, and will never get, are the support of the gun industry and their paid spokespersons, the NRA.

What you learned today is that democracy is broken in this country. When a tiny minority can prevent the will of the rest of the country, democracy is broken. Pray it doesn't fail in some manner that hurts you.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
250. Wrong. You need the gun lobby on your side
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 12:53 PM
Apr 2013

and your little feeling seem hurt...you mad bro? Did someone take your pony? Your post looks like that of a troll, sure hope that it is not.

Goodluck with your crying and whining...maybe next time try not to be a hypocrite?

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
266. Then how does progress get made?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:39 PM
Apr 2013

Look what just happened. Even the good ideas got shot down.

Are there gun nuts? Absolutely. Hard core NKA Kooks? Yes. They are lost causes.

But here are millions and millions of regular, responsible gun owners ( I am not one). They are the ones the pro control side must have to get anything done. It's just a reality. Not one damn thing got done after Newtown and Joe Biden and Obama's rage. Do you really think the tide is turning toward pro control?

Gun owners in great majority agree on UBC. They would probably even go along with mag caps just to not have to argue about it, and because they know it's a completely feel good law and will not impact them at all. Those are winnable. And you have to start somewhere. DiFi's dream will never happen.

And you know what - the Boston case - is not going to to turn the tide toward control. And it's not going to matter how they acquired, or what type of weapons the bombers had. That's because for every pro control person screaming about that, there are at least 10 people thinking "that could have been my boat". The hate of the violence will never overcome the desire to protect oneself and ones family.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
267. Your first sentence
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 09:49 AM
Apr 2013

describes the misinformation being promoted by the NRA Gun Humpers. The "millions and millions of regular, responsible gun owners" did NOT defeat proposed gun control legislation. The NRA used blood money from its corporate donors to buy politicians from both political Parties (right wingers) and would not even allow discussion of any gun control legislation. Average gun owners spoke up in a nationwide poll and overwhelmingly supported the proposed legislation.

The fucking NRA represents less than 5% of American gun owners, yet presumes to speak for all of them. There is plenty of common ground between gun owners and gun control advocates, but the NRA stifles any opportunity for dialog through bought and paid for politicians and political blackmail. Not only at the national level, but at the state and local political levels as well. They are insidious.

That myth about ALL gun owners being associated with the thinking of a few die hard, "cold dead hands" gun fetishists is absolute bullshit, but the NRA and its apologists keep promoting it. When you, and others like you actually believe that they have the right to speak for ALL gun owners, it is you who are creating the divide between average Americans, and doing the anti-American NRA's bidding. Most level-headed gun owners know who level-headed gun control proponents are talking about when they use terms like "Gun Humpers," and "delicate flowers," and many of them agree with the sentiments. The Wayne LaPierre cultists know who they are, and they are NOT "average" gun owners.

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
280. I don't presume to speak for gun owners.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 06:28 PM
Apr 2013

I said in my post I am not one.

Of course the NRA did everything they could to stop the bills - that's what they do. You act like this is surprising.

So how does progress get made? You seem to think that the NRA is THE ONLY THING standing between you and every bill you want passing. My opinion is that is a mis-read of the situation.

Why isn't there a similar organization of similar size on the pro-control side? If NRA money is the issue - give the candidates more money for pro-control. That should be an easy fix. There is Soros, Bloomberg, lots of money. Where is the vehicle? It could just be that the sizes of the organizations proportionately represent the public.

Back to the point of the post and OP. Do you think the tide is turning in the direction of the control movement? Lots of stuff is going our way - Marriage Equality, Marijuana, etc. Do you count gun control among the issues where Dems are making progress?

The other disadvantage the control side has is they are reactionary - events drive the policy more than anything. Aurora, Newtown, Giffords, etc. But people own, use, enjoy, fondle, hump firearms everyday. They are part of their every day lives. That will beat reactions every time. If you notice - Obama barely mentioned guns getting elected. Why do you suppose that was?

If you want to make progress, you are going to have to - like it or not - get a fair number owners on your side. And that process is going to take time. There are opportunities for UBC and Mag clips. PS - as you can probably tell - polls don't mean squat. Real dedication and commitment takes time and trust - and there is no trust between sides right now.

You can blame the NRA all you want. Easy fix for that - come up with more money. Politicians make all their decisions based on it. Play the game.

So how does the control side make progress?

billh58

(6,635 posts)
281. First of all, yes
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:15 PM
Apr 2013

we are making progress on the issue of the NEED for gun control. The poll taken just before the Senate voted showed that 80% of Americans are in favor of some forms of gun control. That's a huge advance in American thinking and attitude. And yes, polls DO mean squat in the long run because they indicate that change is happening.

The indications are that we already have a "fair number" of gun owners on our side -- at least the Democratic and Liberal Independents. They may not agree with things like another AWB, but that's okay because at least they're indicating that they see a need to slow down the proliferation of high capacity firearms and appear to be warming to registration.

To answer your last question, gun control will be accomplished the same way Liberals and Democrats have always gotten things done: slow and steady. That's the way we have made gains in all areas of social advancement and public health over the years., and gun injuries and deaths ARE a public health issue.

Neither you, nor I, have all of the answers, and I for one don't even pretend to. I do not believe, however, that the NRA premise that ALL gun owners vote as a bloc holds very much water. Gun owners are basically no different from any other American, and have their own individual political philosophies. I also believe that money is not needed to defeat the NRA. This past election the right-wing threw enough money around to buy 10 elections, and they didn't succeed, because the American people are not stupid.

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
291. Thanks for the well reasoned reply
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:54 PM
Apr 2013

So it seems (I may be wrong) that we agree that gun owners are needed to make progress.

The indications are that we already have a "fair number" of gun owners on our side -- at least the Democratic and Liberal Independents. They may not agree with things like another AWB, but that's okay because at least they're indicating that they see a need to slow down the proliferation of high capacity firearms and appear to be warming to registration.

I agree with you on the first sentence. The second sentence - that's where our views on what can be done separate. If you mean high capacity mags - yes. Semi Auto rifles - not so much - that will never pass. And I think registration is a non-starter (both from the gun owners side and certainly that would bring the NRA on full force).

If money is not needed to defeat the NRA - why do pro control people complain about the money the NRA spends? That doesn't make sense. If you want to defeat the NRA - money is exactly what is needed. And a lot of it.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
293. I realize that registration
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:07 PM
Apr 2013

is a touchy issue, but if handled fairly (the way Hawaii does) it is sellable in the long run. I believe that for meaningful background checks and accountability (straw purchases) registration will be necessary. See this page for more info on Hawaii procedures:

http://www.hawaiipolice.com/services/firearm-registration

The alternative to fighting the NRA by being the highest bidder for corrupt politician's votes, is to support Liberal Democratic politicians. I realize that ALL politicians are suspect, but it's worth a try. Term limits would be preferrable, but that may be a harder sell than registration. With any luck, Wayne LaPierre will politically self-destruct and take the NRA down with him.

 

WinniSkipper

(363 posts)
294. I don't think LaPierre making a catastrophic
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:37 PM
Apr 2013

miscalculation is out of the question. I hope he does. The hard right needs to fracture on this.

Just wanted to touch on something from before. The NRA "speaks" for all gun owners in this way - they would just as soon silence a "Responsible Gun Owners Assoc." as The Brady Campaign. They are a machine - and will not give an inch.

Gun owners - the ones needed - have an even MORE difficult job getting their voice heard than pro control people.

 

Uzair

(241 posts)
282. Guess what? We don't need you
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 07:18 PM
Apr 2013

There are 100 million gun owners.

And 200 million people who DO NOT own guns.

Majority.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
295. As long as gun owners vote at the rate they do, you DO need them.
Sun Apr 21, 2013, 02:43 AM
Apr 2013

You're not required to like them, granted- but you *will* need to work with them.

billh58

(6,635 posts)
297. There's that fallacy
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 05:05 PM
Apr 2013

that ALL gun owners vote as a bloc, and that you have their permission to speak for them as a group. We are already working with "them," because them include us, but you NRA apologists like to pretend that ALL gun owners think as you do. It's that "group think" mentality that the right-wing uses so effectively.

Gun owners as a group do not defeat sane gun regulation -- the fucking NRA and its blood money defeats sane gun regulation through the corrupt politicians it buys.

 

sylvi

(813 posts)
286. A valiant effort
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:12 PM
Apr 2013

but I think you can see from the pure hubris and self-assured "righteousness" on this page from many that you're shouting into the wind. Astoundingly, there are some people who would rather wait 100 years to get lifesaving legislation passed than be forced to compromise their own Kwik-Dri Perma-Bond notions, so intent are they on how the political scoreboard reads. Pity.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,080 posts)
299. Okay, well, we're waiting.
Wed Apr 24, 2013, 05:28 PM
Apr 2013

Not necessarily all gun owners, but the ones with any political sway whatsoever have no interest in cooperation. None.

See this, and when they tell us who they are, believe them:

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It's very simple: If you ...