When did a public safety issue become a political agenda?

[Aerows]

Last edited Tue Sep 17, 2013, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I keep seeing the same comments over and over again as to why we shouldn't push a political agenda after the latest massacre by firearms. It isn't a "political agenda" folks, it's a public safety issue.

I realize that some folks would like to possess hand grenades, a rocket launcher and an armed tank. There just isn't a limit to the need to acquire in some people. But we have a responsibility as a society to respect other human beings.

We need to have a public safety discussion. This isn't a "political agenda" anymore than requiring vaccinations to fight off disease that can kill people in large numbers is required to enroll in school.

Pretending that public safety in moving toward sane legislation of guns is a political agenda driven by nanny state wannabe's is ignorant. *YOU* specifically, aren't the problem. It's a problem in society at large and has ballooned into a serious public safety issue.

[Journeyman]

1. Charles Whitman convinced me it was a public safety issue more than 47 years ago . . .

I'm still waiting for a thorough discussion of that school shooting.

[Aerows]

2. But now isn't the time, right?

It's never the damn time to discuss it according to those that think it's a "political agenda" instead of a public safety issue.

[oldhippie]

3. When it is used to get votes. nt

nt

[UTUSN]

4. R#5 & K n/t

[Aerows]

5. Thanks

It needs to be discussed without the cloud of "I have a right to do anything I please"

[UTUSN]

6. A couple of months ago my local community/police were provoked and disrupted

by "open carry" jerks who were touring the state, standing outside each community's police headquarters, asking (demanding) to get their picture taken with a "long arm" (rifle) slung on their shoulder. They claimed to be "educating" the public and police about their right to Open Carry the rifles, whether walking up the street, standing on a street corner, or whatever (like the Utah jerk last year with an automatic rifle inside a JC Penny). Their m.o. is to call the police the day before and tell them they intend to walk up a street with a rifle slung the next day and tell them they don't need to respond to 911 calls from concerned citizens, and if the police arrest them they put out a call to their fellow NUTS who then rally in the hundreds with all the media covering them, they threaten to sue, and then get an apology and an "education" meeting with the police. They claim that the sight of goons with rifles in public should be considered "NORMAL" and that goons with rifles in public should be PRESUMED TO BE "GOOD" guys. In my region, in different communities, some police let them do their provoking. My local police arrested the dude, and sure enough the predicted rally happened. The police were humiliated by the local wingnut talk radio, who knows whether they apologized. I was glad to see this item below, where police in another state reacted exactly the same as mine and did NOT apologize and totally deflated the 2ndAmendment and "NORMAL" arguments.

The jerks who invaded my community had Twitter/FB accounts with pseudonyms, were associated with the whole nest of vipers: Alex JONES, Ron PAUL, Libertarians, Open Carry, Secede, militia, the whole bag of wax enchiladas. I detest the repulsive jerks.

********QUOTE****

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662169

(by Capt. Obvious)


http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/two-men-parade-around-wisconsin-farmers-market-carrying

Two Men Parade Around Wisconsin Farmers Market Carrying AR-15 Rifles


The gun rights debate has swept up Appleton, Wisc. after two men showed up at a farmers market there last weekend with AR-15 rifles strapped over their shoulders and handguns in their holsters.

Charles Branstrom, 27, and Ross Bauman, 22, were held at gunpoint and placed in handcuffs by police for the stunt last Saturday, prompting outrage from a local pro-gun group.

"I would never blame police for following up on 'man with a gun' calls, but they still have to behave within the limits of the law and abide by people's constitutional rights," Nik Clark, president of the gun rights group Wisconsin Carry, Inc. told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. "I believe the police were acting outside of their legal authority when they pointed guns at the individuals and involuntarily detained them." ....

According to the Journal Sentinel, the recording shows Branstrom and Bauman walking down the street when they are confronted by police who ask why they are brandishing their weapons.

"For self-defense," Branstrom said. ....

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn dismissed the Second Amendment argument levied by pro-gun groups while denouncing both Branstrom and Bauman.

"In a post Aurora-Newtown environment, it's a reckless and irresponsible stunt to strut around in public with an assault-style weapon and think police should assume you're well-intentioned," Flynn told the Journal Sentinel. "It's just absurd. This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. These characters and those who support them should be ashamed of themselves."



***********

[Aerows]

7. It is insanity

and a serious public safety issue. It's also intimidation. Oh, gee, why should I a small white woman be afraid of idiots sporting semi-automatics when I go to a Farmer's Market to buy vegetables?

Nope, no reason to be scared at all. The fact that if one of them loses their shit and guns everyone down while I'm there buying things to make dinner should *never* enter my mind, nor should the fact that they aren't military or police officers that have some sort of regulation and responsibility under the law.

[beevul]

8. Around the same time as...

Around the same time as it was "gun control" was rebranded for the N'th time, this time as "gun safety".

"I keep seeing the same comments over and over again as to why we shouldn't push a political agenda after the latest massacre by firearms. It isn't a "political agenda" folks, it's a public safety issue."

Don't be naive. For many its a political agenda. pro gun people hear all the time about how we should "police our own", and yet, people on the "more control" side can't be bothered to remove the banners from their midst. Its damn sure a political agenda for them.

Pro-more-control proponents are quite happy to have them among their numbers. They are the reason no trust can be had, and the reason that nothing is getting done. They have, and continue to poison the well.

"I realize that some folks would like to possess hand grenades, a rocket launcher and an armed tank. There just isn't a limit to the need to acquire in some people. But we have a responsibility as a society to respect other human beings."

Some people do possess those things. Have those things been a large problem?

"We need to have a public safety discussion. This isn't a "political agenda" anymore than requiring vaccinations to fight off disease that can kill people in large numbers is required to enroll in school."

What you're referring to, is encroachment on a right that millions...tens of millions...of people, consider very important. A constitutionally protected right, no less. So comparing it to vaccinations...is...well... false equivalence.

" Pretending that public safety in moving toward sane legislation of guns is a political agenda driven by nanny state wannabe's is ignorant. *YOU* specifically, aren't the problem. It's a problem in society at large and has ballooned into a serious public safety issue."

Pretending that 'mayor stop-and-frisk-1-percent-big-gulp-i have my own army' doesn't meet that description is no less ignorant.

Your entire premise here, ignores that "mayors against illegal guns" is against far more than illegal gun possession, ignores that the brady campaign whos former republican mayor leader tried to lie to the American people and say "We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans"...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html

And yet both those groups have not encountered a gun ban they opposed. Not a single one.

An the VPC and CSGV, they're even worse.

So lets don't pretend that theres no political agenda at play here.

[Robb]

9. "Police our own"?

When gun safety advocates don't "remove the banners from our midst," turns out no one gets shot because of it.

[Aerows]

11. That was such a bullshit

NRA talking point laden post that I can't even respond to it.

That kind of idiocy is what sensible people are up against. It's fucking unreal.

It's like trying to speak to people that believe the Earth is flat. SMH.

[beevul]

28. "Gun safety". LOL.

The application of the term, the labeling, to the movement, is disingenuous.

"When gun safety advocates don't "remove the banners from our midst," turns out no one gets shot because of it."

Oh?

Remind yourself that next time you complain about not getting universal background checks passed and you're tempted to jab someone with "universal background checks might have prevented this".

Not removing the banners from your midst, is every bit the reason why it didn't pass.

[malaise]

10. The same day the corporations bought the politicians n/t

[Aerows]

13. Pretty much

Did you see that rant filled post above? It's like these people think we are stupid and can't recognize a talking point a mile away.

[malaise]

17. Crazy rubbish

[Aerows]

19. I do NOT understand how

people equate gun control with more people getting killed, or having their damn freedoms taken away.

Is it your freedom to execute small children to ask for a damn background check? Is it your freedom to murder co-workers in cold blood to ask for a waiting period?

Good Heavens.

[malaise]

27. The problem is that the fascists don't recognize public policy

Their socio-economic and political agenda is all that counts. They are in for a rude awakening.
No government or citizens can afford to subsidize gun corporations profits by spending scarce resources on security because gun goons must be free to get guns without background checks.

I'd love an economist to calculate the increased costs of good and services when security is taken into account.

[Aerows]

33. Malaise, you are SO right

They also don't take into account their loss of civil liberties, either.

[Skittles]

59. I don't think that one is for real

no one can be THAT deluded - it sounds like gibberish

[hack89]

12. When politicians on both sides decided to politicize it. nt

[Aerows]

14. You, on the gun side

need to address that with at least one person in this thread that went off on a rant that basically amounts to "I don't care if your child gets shot with the gun I have in my hand, it's my right to do whatever in the hell I want."

[hack89]

15. Can you point me towards that rant?

I saw no one justify the killing of children and I cannot imagine that you would indulge in emotional hyperbole to support a political agenda.

[Aerows]

16. There you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023684175#post8

Because the poster doesn't say that verbatim, I am sure your little hackles will rise to defend him.

[hack89]

20. He says there is an anti-gun political agenda. Do you disagree with him?

I think that both sides have politicized the issue - I can't see how that is a controversial statement.

[Aerows]

25. It isn't a political side

to want people to be able to go to work, send their children to school and go to the movies without being killed.

If you see that as a political agenda instead of a public safety issue, you are too far gone to reason with.

[malaise]

31. +1,000

Still shaking head

[hack89]

32. Then don't let me disturb your neat black and white world any further

it was a pleasure talking to you - have a nice evening.

[Aerows]

35. Our loss of civil liberties

can be directly tied to enhanced security necessary to prevent crazy people bearing arms.

Nice talking to you, and I hope you think about that one.

[Niceguy1]

47. it is politicized

when the progressiveness of admendment supporter is questioned.

[Aerows]

49. Progressiveness

of anybody on this site is questioned the second they agree/disagree with something Obama does, so that really doesn't faze too many at this point.

My cat is probably more/less progressive than I am on DU.

[Initech]

18. I've said it before and I will say it again:

A heavily armed person in a public place with intent to commit murder is a terrorist. Period!!

Schools have now gone from conducting fire drills to what to do if there is a shooter at your school. Because the insane lunatics in the NRA have created a culture of gun worship where this is far more likely to happen than a terror attack, earthquake, or fire now. A nut with a gun in a public setting scares me. far more than any terrorist group ever could.

[Aerows]

22. It's sick

And that sickness is driven by people that get off on the fact that they are more heavily armed than anyone on the block.

It's not about hunting, which is perfectly legitimate, and it isn't about self and home defense, which is also legitimate.

It's about ego and arms sale.

[Initech]

42. If you haven't seen last week's It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia I highly recommend doing so.

The topic was about gun sales, and it was Danny DeVito's Frank Reynolds character at his best. Him just sitting on the local news feeding pro gun talking point after talking point, while trying to act serious is hilarious.

Then at the end of the episode, he basically admits it was all a ploy to sell guns after he invested in a local gun shop.

[The Straight Story]

21. For me it is simply because

We want to continue to add laws to try and fix what a very very tiny percent are doing and those laws won't have much of an impact on those same people (if at all) but will affect those who are not breaking the law.

Let's say we get behind a bill and it passes that has background checks for all sales, anywhere - and we still have .02% that use their guns for killing. Does not go up or down. What will the law have done but add a burden to sales at garage sales/etc? So we will want more laws. And then more.

Remember how it was just "Let's ban smoking in bars"? Now it is acceptable to ban people from getting jobs if they smoke at home, smoking outdoors in many places, sometimes in your car, some times even in your own home, and so on. Some want to start with one law and then keep adding to it until they get what their true desired outcome is.

Look at abortion. Any time a state tries to pass any laws regarding it people get up in arms about it. Why? Because they fear one thing will lead to another - well, many feel the same way about other issues.

When over 99% of people are not the problem maybe the problem is not what they own/buy but something else, but it is an emotional issue and we abandon rational thinking and applying the same principles we do to other topics. We condemn bias, then embrace it. We say people are being silly when they worry about outright bans and say 'just one more law' and yet on other topics we jump quick anytime a new law is introduced.

[Aerows]

23. That's a pretty talking point

that avoids the idea that gun control is necessary. How many gun related massacres are you willing to endure before the idea sinks in that gun nuts are culpable in this situation?

Because you are. No one's rights get infringed upon by a waiting period, and no one's rights get infringed upon when there is a damn background check.

If THAT infringes upon your rights personally, then NO, you are exactly the person that should be allowed to build an arsenal.

Step up to the plate and say why that would infringe on *your* rights as a gun owner.

[The Straight Story]

24. Did he have a background check and waiting period?

If so, what new law you would make would have prevented him (and others who did)?

[Aerows]

29. No, he didn't.

And I'm not about to stand in the way of such measures. The question is Why are YOU standing in the way of them?

Which of your rights are being infringed upon? Can you pass a background check?

[The Straight Story]

34. Yep I can. And not saying I would stand in the way of

states doing background check or the feds creating a template for states to use to do so.

But I don't see that as solving the issues. You buy a gun, pass the check, two years later you use it in a crime.

If people really want to solve the issues involved look at the reasons behind the crimes and such (like the story today, woman poisoned her two kids - no one blamed access to poison and people saw it as a tragedy and asked things like why - when a gun is used no one cares why, just how).

So IF we get background checks and the rate stays the same at less than one percent, what new law would be next?

[maddezmom]

39. No waiting period but did have a background check

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/how-did-dc-shooter-aaron-alexis-get-gun-and-security-clearance/69520/

[The Straight Story]

26. And as far as my rights as a gun owner. I don't own a gun (nt)

[Aerows]

30. Then why so fervent in defense of "everybody can carry" laws?

Because people don't typically defend things that aren't personal. And you have been all over the board about it.

[beevul]

36. Individual rights are personal.

All of them.

On edit:

I can not have an abortion. I'm male. Yet I consider the right to choose to have one or not, "personal".

[Aerows]

38. Sanctity of life being one of them

As is pursuit of liberty, another. Being afraid you are going to be the next victim of a mass shooting denies both.

[beevul]

44. Ya know...

I'm really not..."afraid" of anything.

I've been beat up. I've been robbed. I've been in a car rolling end over end, and over sideways. I've been on fire, literally.

I have smelled the sickening odor of my own burnt flesh, and thought I was a gonner. Made my peace.

I've been in situations where...another couple inches that way...or had I been there two minutes earlier, had I gone with those people...any other number of things that would have been, if not for a single tiny degree of separation...the end of my life. And I've been acutely aware of a lot of it. Sitting for months in bandages, skin grafts, gives a person a whole lot of time to think, reflect, and consider, and I did a lot of that at one point in life.

At some point, after coming to the conclusion that my close calls and lack of mobility were my own fault and doing, I came to the conclusion that rights and freedoms matter...perhaps because I had one of the greatest of them - mobility - taken away for a time.

I don't carry a gun. Don't own any so called "assault weapons". Don't have any desire to get a carry permit, or own "assault weapons".

But I support the right to carry concealed, and I support the right of people to own assault weapons, even if I myself don't make the choice to do those things.

[Aerows]

46. Oh!

Here's another good collection of stories filled with emotion and authorities!

I can't wait for the next one!

[beevul]

48. Ahh, the only thing that matters is cites that support ones own point of view.

In other news, scientists have concluded that water is wet.

[Aerows]

50. Honey, if you think

anecdotes = data, I have a bridge to sell you.

[beevul]

53. "Data" didn't color my worldview on rights and freedoms.

My life did, as did everyone elses.

If its data you want, and numbers that are meaningful to you...


Explain why even though 2/3 of firearm deaths are by suicide, 90 percent of the public lobbying...the "face" of this "public safety" movement...is aimed at gun control that would not prevent or even significantly mitigate suicide.


Tell me again how theres no agenda.

[The Straight Story]

37. I am not gay, defend gay marriage. Am not a woman and defend abortions

Why is it so hard to understand that some people operate on principles?

I am pro-choice and freedom for the individual. I am against promoting bias/hatred of groups based on what the few in that group do, from muslims to gun owners - don't like it when the rw posts all day about what some islamic guy did in attempt to promote fear and feel the same on other issues.

It is called trying to be as consistent as possible (not always do I succeed in such, but I do endeavor to be consistent).

Your body, your choice - I feel the same way I do on abortion as I do smoking in bars (not stores/hospitals/etc). You are free to go to a place and drink with like minded individuals because you are free to make choices about your own body.

People often hold principles on one issue and then run from them on others, which means, to me, they don't really hold those principles.

[Aerows]

40. Sorry

I don't defend the right of my neighbor, in a civilized society, to own a tank, a bazooka or an assault rifle.

I live in the South. It is perfectly acceptable, and necessary for some, to own a shotgun. I draw the line there because there is no need for it and you aren't a hunter if you need an assault rifle.

Handguns need to be made MUCH less scarce. Nobody needs more than 3 or 4, and nobody needs to buy ammunition in bulk. It's common fucking sense. Regulate ammunition and restrict bulk usage to the firing range.

[The Straight Story]

43. So you want more than just background checks and waiting periods

My bro-in-law owns a slew of guns. Collects some, uses others for skeet, target shooting, and hunting.

My dad has a rifle or two, a handgun, and ccw -which he recently used when for the third time in one day we had 10-15 people out front fighting with ball bats, machete, etc - cops arrested no one, again, even though they were out here three times that day. One of the guys threatened my dad for filming it (though I talked to the guy's mom later and he apologized).

Again, 99% don't use their guns to harm others. Those that so should lose their rights to own one. More money to enforce the laws we have would be awesome, totally on board with that.

Also, as I mentioned, I don't have an issue with background checks, just don't think it should be done at a federal level (though I would be for funding from a federal level).

[Aerows]

45. Lord have mercy what an interesting story

It has emotion, authorities showing up, and everything in between.

[The Straight Story]

51. I was one of the ones who called the police, being a former leo

I tend to call them a lot around here. Call up the Columbus sometime and ask them about my hood.

In 2011 a girl was stabbed to death here in the hood, right down the street from my house:

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Police said on Monday that they took a 17-year-old girl in custody and charged her in connection with the stabbing death of a 19-year-old girl.

The stabbing occurred at about 8 p.m. Sunday outside a Majestic Drive home on the east side, 10TV's Tino Ramos reported.

Police said that two groups of teenagers were outside arguing when someone pulled a knife and stabbed Ganae N. Pleasant.

Pleasant was driven to Grant Medical Center by one of the people who were at the scene. She was later pronounced dead at the hospital.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2011/10/31/columbus-teenager-girl-stabbed-killed.html

That 'two groups' of teens? Still hang out here causing problems. The dad of one is back in prison (until oct 31 - caught gun running and with drugs, also shot at the house next to the one in the story, but they could not prove it was him so that charge was dropped)

Here is My post on the above story from DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2217914

[Aerows]

52. If you would have had a gun

do you think the situation would have been better or would it have been worse?

That's a serious question.

[The Straight Story]

54. Answer:

My dad did - and as long as they didn't attack us he had no plans on using it. The kids who live in this hood wouldn't have - but one group was not from this hood (same group that came in a year ago mostly).

I know three drug dealers in this area, grew up with two of them. The one guy has done time for manslaughter (ran over a guy intentionally with his car, burned down his house - but the guy did kill his brother) and his kids are both teens and addicts/sellers. The one family that was involved got kicked out because of all the problems (they were renting).

It is literally a weekly thing here with the police, and sometimes multiple times in a day. My 12 year old daughter lives here with me and if any of those hoodlums come up to the house during one of their fights all I have is a big stick I keep on the porch (dad isn't here a lot). I have written the mayor about it all - especially the break ins at my X's old house when they left it. Weekly there were people coming in and pretending to be from the bank and stealing things, call the cops, people claim they forgot their paperwork but have a key, cops made them put things back and let them go. Guy from the bank told us (he was out here to inspect it) that BofA only uses two keys for foreclosed homes, and tons have copies of them and do this.

Cops never, not once, arrested anyone. I caught two guys going in next door - got plate info, description, etc. Cop didn't even get out of the car. Called and got info on the plate, called dealer. Plate was stolen, those guys didn't work there, car was not theirs - these guys were using the plate to hide who they were and were doing this other places. Cops did nothing.

I want a gun when I move out to the country (for sport shooting mostly) but have thought about one here now that my daughter lives with me most of the time. If someone breaks in would be a lot quicker than calling the stupid cops.

[TnDem]

55. A shotgun?

You are aware that a shotgun caused this massacre correct? It was a standard Remington 870 pump action hunting style shotgun.

Your type of unknowledgeable posting is what makes most gun owners simply shake their heads and look at the sky.

The problem with broad statements that you and Joe Biden make about shotguns shows the ignorance of nomenclature of what a shotgun is capable.

A hunting shotgun is capable of DEVASTATING wounds and can be fired as fast as a handgun.

[Aerows]

56. Pardon me, Sir

But where do you live? If the answer is anything but "the sticks", you can politely shove it because you do not know what you are talking about and why one is a necessity in such locales.

[Drale]

41. When the NRA became Profitable, that's when. /nt

[morningfog]

57. The gunners are such a scared, paranoid group.

They are deathly afraid of losing their powerful pet. They do anything they can to shit down debate, because if they are honest thy know they are in the wrong. An thu poop in their pants over it.

[Precisely]

58. Ask Ike