General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe gun disease has mestastisized and is now beyond a cure...
Another day, another mass shooting. This time it is in a center for the developmentally disabled. The shooters are still at large.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether or not Congress now passes any new gun safety or regulation laws. The nuts that were intent on getting guns have them already.
It was bad before the black guy moved into the White House but, since then, the problem has grown exponentially. Fear and propaganda sent every mentally weak person to their nearest gun show.
There are millions of weapons out there, all across America, in the hands of unstable individuals and we have no idea where they might be, because we refused to register these firearms when they were purchased, because the NRA and the gun people did not want the government to impose upon their rights.
Now, all of our rights are being imposed upon. Our right to freedom of movement and freedom from fear and terrorism are no longer. Our nation has changed. The sickness has taken over our entire body and there is nothing we can do about it. It is too late.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Welcome to the New Normal.
H2O Man
(73,594 posts)Thank you for this.
Nay
(12,051 posts)It didn't have to, but since the crazies have taken over the asylum, it has. There is no rational way now to get the guns out of the hands of the unstable. The fuse will burn until the end, and believe me, the end will not be pleasant.
Initech
(100,100 posts)We did not have this kind of violence before Nixon's election in 1970 and the rise of the Southern Strategy (God, Guns, Gays). Other than say Charles Manson where did you hear of this kind of violence that we're experiencing now before that?
Nay
(12,051 posts)millions of disaffected people, but it's the enshrinement of the 2nd Amendment that makes sure we can never clean up the guns. And you have to agree that a capitalistic, dog-eat-dog, winner-take-all society was gonna end up shooting at itself, Southern Strategy or no Southern Strategy.
Burying competition and boosting cooperation is the only thing that can save the species and the planet.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)Yes, competition must be changed to where most of competition is internal competition to improve in order to satisfy real family values in the most ethical and productive ways and competition between businesses must be regulated to prevent search for profit from hurting our country and our planet. We have illustrated in the past we can implement the institutions and laws and regulations that can do this, witness the Food and Drug Administration past actions to make our food safer, EPA efforts reducing pollution, OSHA efforts to make workplaces safer ad other successful efforts. If you also add our democratically approved efforts decried by big Business as socialism such as social security and medicare taxes to provide a public benefit for seniors, and the poor and disabled, the benefits of of capitalism regulated by a democratic government working in the interest of the people is well demonstrated through out the country.
So what we have now is an elevated attack on our democracy by big business, big banks and billionaires intent on increasing their share of the wealth produced by the citizenry by controlling what regulations will be implemented and what they can remove or neuter through such things as under funding or adding amendments to prevent applying provisions of existing laws from being applied as intended. Sorry, about the long sentence but want to connect the dots.
We need loud and noisy citizen outbursts/ marches/debates/forums sponsored to make this widely known and accepted by a vocal majority of our citizenry. Political correctness based on knowledge is not stifling free speech when ignorance yelled increasingly loudly to support agendas harmful to our people and our country are being derided. Even the law has limits on free speech such as yelling fire in a crowded theater is not protected free speech but a cause of panic and possible harm as rushing unnecessarily to exits can hurt people. So yes, we can have free speech but we ned to guard against the amplification of agendas of the rich spread by main stream media as accepted knowledge by boycotting main stream media such as products of advertisers of those programs and channels such as Fox news etc. We must also use our anger at the big business agenda which in its self depends on ignorance and hate to perpetuate and advance its control of our democracy through both bribing of public officials through its donations, so called independent political advertising, and by control of main stream media inclusion/exclusion and slant on so called news which is often political agenda support. We should avoid cooperating with these biased networks never granting interviews unless we know our views will be presented without cuts or other methods of misstating what we say by having right to reject use of our words in final article. So many times our words are taken down but them the article's writer goes on to express a somewhat opposing statement as if it is commonly acceptable wisdom. There are many ways to fight the spread of ignorance but recognizing who benefits and why generally it is commonly accepted in the auditing and legal enforcement world's to follow the money. In Thomas Pikkety has done this trace for the entire world and Elizabeth Warren has connected the dots for us numerous times in her indictments of big corporations, the insurance companies, big banks and billionaires. Even centrist democrats decry the obvious use of tax havens and off shoring and now combination and consolidation of pharmaceutical companies. But only Bernie Sanders has been vocal and confrontational with those that would destroy our democracy for over 2 decades. Yes, we can shout down and boycott ignorance and change much behavior but the most important thing now is joining the peoples democracy revolution and accomplishing the important first step of spreading our progressive message of truth and getting Bernie nominated. Sure Hillary may get you some relief from the tyranny of the rich but she Will never fight her donors directly except when that will be necessary for her own political survival or more likely a concession to ensure the continuance of undue influence of our system by the oligarchy as named above. Hillary is recognized by both parties as a Christian and she is, I am sure, aware the Bible instructs that you cannot serve two masters. That is my worry, her donors will be her master or at least exert much more influence than their numbers in the population would indicate. If their voices , amplified by main stream media, and re-enforced by the speeches of their paid so called experts and their purchased politicians drown out the truth and re-enforce racial, gender or sexual orientation hatred, false patriotism, nationalism, and false histories coupled with a more influenced populace President and greater power of the oligarchy as enabled by the Citizens United decision we will become less and less democratic to the peril of our people and to our climate, to our health and that of future generations, and to peace arounnd the world as we continue on the path to universal serfdom. No, I will work to make the democratic party more supportive of democracy by the people and if that means not voting for Hillary, I am very willing to take scorn from fellow democrats if necessary. If it means electing another republican, I can stomach that if it drives democrats toward supporting democracy and reversing the rule of the oligarchy. I am now working hard for the democracy candidate- Bernie Sanders who I believe is the great hope of progressives.. I believe in democracy first, democrats second.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I was just pitching things at the highest degree of generality.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)We have always had firearms around but people were not shooting everything in sight like the past several years. Something has changed.
Jim Beard
(2,535 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)eventually.
The odds are getting greater and greater everyday.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)But your chilling statement is likely correct.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Murder rates are falling in this country
randys1
(16,286 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)Math?
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)In 2004 there were 14,249 murders. In 1991 there were 24,700.
I feel better about today than the past.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)around. Good that things are getting better, but not fast enough for me. I say get rid of them, except for those who need them for a good reason and who pay lots of money in licensing and insurance, like a semi truck driver's license- something like that.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)passed us. If my husband had not stopped and checked the bag he would have gotten shot in the neck.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)true.
villager
(26,001 posts)...it's really question of which candidates can help with a softer landing, as opposed to a very brutal one...
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)There will have to be a split of some sort.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)For us here on the Left Coast, we would be able to govern ourselves more effectively without the millstone of Southern and Midwest conservative Senators and Congressmen forcing their backward ideas into legislation.
CanonRay
(14,112 posts)
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)with Canuckistan.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I tried to emigrate, but "research scientist" doesn't score nearly as many points as "bilingual in French" (which I'm not), so I wasn't able to .
My first child was born there. Cost me $0.00, other than the $70/month Alberta Health Care premium for my whole family. I was ecstatic to see the New Democrats take the premiership...
Ahpook
(2,750 posts)What happens when the rubes turn their country into a fucking cesspool and start crossing borders? 
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)what Canada thinks of the idea?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I've had it with this country as it is.
nruthie
(466 posts)Let them all live together and leave us peace-loving pacifists alone. This country is toast.
markmyword
(180 posts)I have advocated for our country to be broken up into different countries, many times!
The country should be broken up with the red and blue states going their own way.
All the over the top NRA gun owners, anti abortion, war for any reason , anti poor, anti government , anti climate change, anti social security,anti obama care, etc... Groups should all live in their own country!
If these Republicans want to carry weapons in the open, or have the freedom to shoot anyone then let them live in their OWN CRAZY country's!
I'd like to live in a safe country with NO GUNS!!!!!
A country that is run by SANE people.
I hope SOMEONE in Congress will suggest that states secede from the UNITED STATES!
The sooner the better.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)Except on presidential election maps.
What we are is a red rural/blue urban country with purple suburbs.
Kinda hard to split that up.
Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)Their mentality would use up their resources and labor in no time leading to unrest. They would have no problem with attacking and trying to take ours.
LarryNM
(493 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Bonhomme Richard
(9,000 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)American chicken hawks are really gung ho about killing foreigners by remote control in far away countries, but an actual war on American soil is a different animal.
Care would need to be taken with regard to defending against belligerent neighbors, certainly, but I don't think it's guaranteed that 'they' would conquer 'us.'
villager
(26,001 posts)Do you think these far right forces will just tamp themselves down if they lose a couple more elections to centrists?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)They would not be satisfied to stay within their enclaves.
CrispyQ
(36,507 posts)The US is like a carcass. They'll have to split it open to get all the good stuff inside. And make no mistake, they want it all. You got $5K in a bank account that took you 3 years to save? They want it, to pay for a trinket that they'll be bored with by dinnertime. Their greed is insatiable & they have no decency.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)The first thing we need to do is to stop the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition. We're going to need a Democratic Congress to pass the law and five solid liberals on the SC to uphold the eventual challenges. From there, we start working on the decades-long task of repealing the 2A and prohibiting firearm possession. Fortunately the millenial generation seems open to these ideas - and those ideas grow more popular with each passing day.
alp227
(32,047 posts)This is the kind of rhetoric that attracts people to RW hate radio and the Rethugs.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)There is no room for any compromise. We understand that. 
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)alp227
(32,047 posts)LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Much like the gundamentalists, they will need to live without the false sense of ego support these death machines offer.
alp227
(32,047 posts)
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Most of them have gotten used to electricity and plumbing, they can get used to more conventional forms of meat.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)
glinda
(14,807 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)glinda
(14,807 posts)in rural areas 70% of the time and hunting and fishing continues to drop as well as the vast majority do not hunt or fish for food. It no longer appears to be comparable to the 50-'s-70's.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)a bear with his bare hands? BTW there are still bears that prowl around rural residences in my state.
You also mentioned trapping. Did you know that a gun is often needed to kill whatever is in the trap?
Squinch
(50,993 posts)the number of people out there stockpiling guns "because guns are fun" or "because it's my right" or "because murica."
The argument that we need to tolerate weekly massacres because people shoot their dinner is so stupid that even you must feel at least a little sheepish making it.
alp227
(32,047 posts)"we need to tolerate weekly massacres because people shoot their dinner"
Squinch
(50,993 posts)
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)well said.
We are supposed to tolerate weekly massacres.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Who would do it? Would they be able to search homes?
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Offer citizens a 1-2 year amnesty to turn them in before it becomes a felony, close gun shops and after that holdouts will face felony charges, of course as expected a few die hard holdouts made up of mostly right wing extremists, neo nazis and conspiracy kooks will commits acts of terror against law enforcement and citizens and will dealt with accordingly.
You think Jim Bob holding out in his shack in Idaho with his guns scares anyone?
Nah.
I don't expect this talk or debate on total bans and confiscations to happen today, tomorrow or anytime soon but eventually the American people will have enough and have no choice but to start having a serious discussion about what it means to "keep and bear arms" and if its really worth it.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)I'm betting the side with the guns would win
kentuck
(111,110 posts)When the people with guns start to feel threatened by other people with guns, then they may come out of their comatose state of indifference?
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Like I said if any real reforms are put in place I expect a few diehards to commit acts of terrorism directed at law enforcement and citizens.
In the end there will be no winners in any of this.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)still lose.
Guns are ancillary weapons in modern warfare that has tanks, helicopters, submarines, and jets.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)(Most legal gun owners aren't, you know) will just voluntarily give them up?
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)I expect a few diehards made up of white supremacists, neo nazis, conspiracy kooks and other right wing groups to ignore the law and commit acts of terror against citizens and law enforcement and like I said before, they will be dealt with accordingly.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)And maybe you might make it back to reality because what you just said above is certifiable.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)There's Malum in se, which are things that are inherently wrong/evil like murder, rape, and theft that even without laws people avoid doing. The other type is Malum prohibitum, which means wrong because it is prohibited. The latter type of laws are speed limits, drug laws, illegal immigration, weapons bans, and jaywalking.
What you find in psychology is that people make their own judgement based on their value system for Malum prohibitum laws and often ignore them if they do not agree with them. And in fact, it is these types of laws that are widely ignored. practically everyone has exceeded the speed limit or jaywalked.
Perfect obedience to the law is a myth.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)If you believe your guns are worth more than your own life then so be it.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)who hold more conservative views on a certain topic (such as guns).
It won't be perfect and catch everyone, so fuck it, why do it?
What sense does that make? Why have speed limit laws if most people don't follow them? Oh that's right.. to bust people who break the law.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Period. As for the discussion, I was popping the other posters bubble that people will obey laws they don't agree with. They don't. Proven time and time again.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Gee, lets do it again. Hey -what's the definition of insanity?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Studies find that people drive the speed that feels safe to them, regardless of the posted limit. It's even the latest basis for setting speed limits in many states - It's usually called the 85% rule.
http://onlinemanuals.txdot.gov/txdotmanuals/szn/determining_the_85th_percentile_speed.htm
Science - isn't it great?
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)shows your speed signs because I want to drive the speed limit up.
Now.
As for guns - I really don't think it's comparable to drugs. Drugs are a widespread addiction which is why people use them. Guns are not so much. I don't see very many people getting the shakes because they need their ammo.
Would there be some underground market? Absolutely for terrorists, gang members, paranoid kooks, and full blown whack a loons. Very few otherwise lawful citizens are going to use it. Most will either surrender their guns or just keep their gun in the house only in case of a burglar and never otherwise go shooting or discuss their gun or carry it to the grocery store. This is a very good thing.
The market would be absolutely microscopic compared to the drug market, and most of the people busted for using it would deserve to get busted and thrown in the clink anyway because they'd be up to no good.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)I'm not a fan of carrying guns in public and never will be. I think guns should stay home unless going to a range or hunting, or repairs. But the people who think they can just pass a law and people will just hand over their property are just insane. Beyond the 5th and 14th amendment prohibitions of such an act, enforcement would require illegal searches (4th amendment) to find the guns not turned in. Because such an act is inherently illegal, people like myself who swore oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States would never comply. And there are MANY people who feel that way. I feel that way with drugs and will never vote to convict a user of drugs if in a jury.
And then the severe punishment for having the gun is nuts. Lets say someone gets caught with a gun at home - it makes no sense to take a taxpaying citizen and throw them in jail. It's madness, and costly as well. And if the punishment is severe, you may find that people choose to fight rather than be arrested, meaning more violence. But even more interesting is if convictions would even be reliable - after all, it only takes one person who disagrees with a law to hang a jury.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)That said, I wouldn't go door to door confiscating. I would do what another poster said and offer a 1-2 year amnesty to turn in your guns for a monetary award with the warning that after that, it's a felony.
So people would either turn them in or hide them at home. Because an officer just needs reasonable suspicion (waistband or jacket or ankle or hip bulge) that a person in a car or on a public street has a gun and that's it. Searched, seized, and destroyed. If the gunner is lucky he doesn't get convicted.
Response to MillennialDem (Reply #125)
NutmegYankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)Weed or an instrument of death that makes it easy and simple to kill and maim.
Thinking about it?
A plant or a tool that allow groups of terrorists to kill and wound over 300 people in an hour.
Still thinking about it?
Ever wondered why most smugglers go through all the trouble of bringing in narcotics but don't smuggle in grenades, full autos, rocket launchers and SAMs?
...Because its bad for business, its hard to bribe law enforcement officials to look the other way and the last thing you need is the full force of x, y, z agency coming down hard on your cartel group for bringing in weapons of mass destruction that kills thousands of people and that's why the "War on drugs" is quite different from the abolition of firearms.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)You have slightly more than half the country believing it is a Right to own arms. They won't comply. Are you going to purge millions of people?
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)You brought up the point about the war on drugs and I addressed it but instead of countering those points, you completely ignore them and instead resort to attack my comprehension without really explaining why, claiming that 50% of the country believes in the "Right" to own firearms with no proof, claim they won't comply with tougher gun laws (again no proof, no polls, etc).
I can't continue this discussion if you're going continue to do that.
At the end of the day being dismissive, snarky, aggressive, making veiled threats to kill people who try to take your firearms won't gain you any support when there are piles of dead people whose lives were snuffed out by the very same device you cling tightly to.
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I think the phrase 'pigs will fly' has a better chance of actually happening, but whatever fantasy helps you sleep at night.
Have a nice day! 
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts) Really?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Really.
951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)all thanks to firearms being so readily available in the states and your response is that?
I can't even continue...
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
So don't have a nice day if you don't want to.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)
I guess if that goes for the military, police departments and secret service too, I might be swayed.
Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)and everyone with livestock needs to have a gun to put a suffering animal down quickly and humanely. I have had to put animals down when coyotes or domestic dogs in packs disemboweled the sheep. This happens too often, the livestock attacked and left suffering (and I have guardian dogs for them and everything but it still sometimes happens that the sheep are attacked and injured in a way for which there is no chance of recovery). In fact the humane standards require that we have a means of putting a suffering animals down quickly. I'd love an invention of something less dangerous, but for now, this is a tool for people with livestock. And also there are rattlesnakes. So, the rural issue can be handled via special permits for people who actually need them- vets, owners of livestock, etc. Farmers and Ranchers make up less than 1% of the population, so this is not a hurdle that cannot be dealt with. Australia managed to figure out how to deal with this- they have way more sheep than people.
Brainstormy
(2,381 posts)No one needs a handgun or automatic weapon except law enforcement. and the fewer WE have, the fewer they need.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and gunz must go. That is the TRUTH.
alp227
(32,047 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)On this issue I speak for myself alone, though obviously there are many who agree with me here.
LiberalArkie
(15,728 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)If you are so confident then why is zero candidates saying this? Cuz they'd lose. The best gun control candidate has 2 percent in the polls and even he is not saying ban all guns.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It just has to be interpreted as intended. All we really need to do is keep electing liberal Democrats as president and control of the Senate. Scalia is 79 yrs old and few cannolis short of a full coronary.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)by the looks of him. It's conceivable that Uncle Ruckus could actually bore himself to death. Alternatively he may drop over when Scalia dies and his hand is no longer up Ruckus' ass making him appear lifelike.
Roberts is gonna be there for another 25 years minimum.
former9thward
(32,069 posts)None of the 9 current members agree with you and it will not happen in the future no matter who is elected or appointed.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Scalia or Kennedy that puts the nail in the coffin or will it be a generation+ from now?
Because millennials aren't going to stand for this shit forever. Doubt Gen Z will either.
former9thward
(32,069 posts)Which means either they will not be around or no one will ever remember when they are wrong.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's not too hard to imagine that a legal opinion that was quite obscure till the NRA took a hard right turn back in the 80's and only upheld during a relatively short time in history during a period of hard right judicial activism is going to persist for all that long. Especially when you consider current demographic trends virtually insure a hard left turn in the political climate during the time period you mentioned.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)No way to verify that either.
former9thward
(32,069 posts)Just as there is no way to verify people who claim to be union members, members of the military, doctors, professors, millionaires or anything else I see posted on DU. What's the point?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Tumbulu
(6,292 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
former9thward
(32,069 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 06:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Therefore repealing an amendment does not remove a right. Were the repeal to happen, the right would go from being explicitly protected to being implicitly protected by the ninth amendment as an unenumerated right.
The right to travel is the first unenumerated right to pop to mind. You won't find it in the bill of rights, yet it's protected.
And that's just at the federal level. Never mind the various state constitutions that explicitly protect the right.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Of course, once we reach the point where we can repeal the 2A, we'll follow it up with an amendment prohibiting them.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Here, let me state it again. Repealing an amendment doesn't remove a right, because an amendment didn't 'grant' it.
I've got a few books on the Enlightenment that I could recommend, if you're curious about how the philosophy of our government affects our rights.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Once we decide as a society we have had enough of this crap and repeal the 2A, there will be enough momentum to enact an outright ban via an amendment as well. Besides, there are all sorts of laws at the federal level which could be deemed in violation of the 9A using your logic.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Many federal laws have been challenged and overturned via the 9th and 14th amendments, and rightly so.
Our system of government is not one where all rights reside with the government who sees fit to dole them out to people. No, all rights reside with the people, who grant powers to the government to protect them.
Were such a repeal to happen, you'd have states with strong constitutional protections thumbing their nose at the federal government, a la Colorado re federal MJ laws; that's assuming you don't end up with outright guerilla warfare.
*sigh* A civics refresher should be part of your driver's license re-test, like vision.
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)When we as a society reach the point where the support and political courage exists to repeal the 2A, there will be little if any resistance from those last 13 states. In fact by that time, state laws and constitutions will be on the verge of being modified or amended to restrict guns, any way. There is not going to be the will of the people to support gun ownership as a right at the state level but not at the federal level.
I don't know if you are a dyed-in-the-wool 2A supporter; but you seem to be clinging to the hope that the 9A or the states will still guarantee the right to possess these death machines. There will not be the public support for maintaining gun rights. Not only that, if a ban amendment is enacted, any state laws still supporting gun rights will undoubtedly be quickly challenged as unconstitutional due to the new amendment. Did they teach you that in your civics class or do you need a refresher?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Repealing the federal amendment and every state constitutional protection wouldn't make the right go away-- because our rights don't originate with the government. Hence the ninth (and tenth) amendments.
That is a fundamental truth expressed in our whole system of government. It doesn't matter what right we're talking about. There has never been a law passed that negates a right, because rights don't flow from the government.
*shaking my head*
Photographer
(1,142 posts)K&R
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)We have let the gun problem spiral out of control .... it will take time, but it is not too late.
I refuse to throw my hands up and say there is nothing we can do
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)That is your 2A right to own lots of guns.
So shut up and reload.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,018 posts)seems to exist in multiple areas.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)
The Blue Flower
(5,444 posts)(sarcasm of course) It seems as though any attempt to discuss this as an issue that can and must be dealt with gets labelled 'politics' by the media.
KG
(28,752 posts)mikeysnot
(4,757 posts)They are swarming another thread with their idiocy...
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)As soon as Wayne LaPierre recovers from his tiny gun-murder induced orgasms enough to issue them.
randys1
(16,286 posts)reason, I know these people.
They arent ready to give them up and at the same time they are frustrated because they DO support background checks and fixing the gun show loophole.
I want to believe most gun owners or 2nd Am types support many of the same things we support.
My argument to them is the downside of guns existence outweighs the upside, therefore it is time for it to go.
Squinch
(50,993 posts)their hobby overrides that, and who object to MAJOR gun law changes, would have to be monstrously selfish people.
Those major changes would have to include a lot more than closing the gun show loophole and background checks.
randys1
(16,286 posts)guarantees NO individual right outside of a well regulated militia
Squinch
(50,993 posts)needed to protect the state. It has nothing to do with the way people are using guns now.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)So its getting worse. 350 million guns in the US and 10 million new guns legally bought and sold every year. And millions of US made guns are ending up in Mexico and Central Americans as well where Honduras has the highest gun death rate in the world.
spanone
(135,866 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... they will be telling us that the answer to the San Bernadino, just as the answer to every mass killing with guns, is more guns.
One of this misguided, blind souls will tells us that perhaps carrying guns should be mandatory.
Squinch
(50,993 posts)are massacres, swarming ridiculing anyone who suggests that we need to drastically change gun laws and our approach to guns"
BUT I see I am late: some are already here.
Sick.
longship
(40,416 posts)One would presume that they would portray the disabled as useless eaters, or some such thing. Given their proclivities on other issues like women's health care, any race but white, any religion but Christian, the useless eater argument is a no brainer. And I do literally mean no brainer! Just like the rest of their rhetoric.
R&
glinda
(14,807 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)ngGale
(2,080 posts)Imo...K&R
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)
Vinca
(50,303 posts)The gun nuts are holding us all hostage. You don't know if you'll go grocery shopping and be gunned down in the produce aisle. What's next week's target? A hospital nursery? It's sickening and the incompetents in Washington will do nothing.
Dont know if your car will get tboned on the way to the grocery store, even though there is a higher chance of that happening then you getting killed by guns. My point is, life is dangerous. Don't be afraid and live your life to the fullest and never allow yourself to be crippled by fear.
Vinca
(50,303 posts)The only reason we must put up with it is the fact politicians like Mitch McConnell get near million dollar donations from the NRA. In this country money takes precedence over life. Automatic weapons are banned so we have proof the second amendment isn't sacred.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Are not banned to own, just manufacture for public use. Just to be clear.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)
handmade34
(22,757 posts)
B Calm
(28,762 posts)prevent people on no-fly list from purchasing a gun!
Logical
(22,457 posts)
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Former Senator Ted Kennedy?? He was on the no fly list you know..
KT2000
(20,586 posts)The mass of guns out there combined with the belligerence, acceptable hate speech from politicians, families torn apart by hate propaganda signals a division that likely cannot be healed. The haters are armed and willing to kill.
sanatanadharma
(3,726 posts)Guns cause insanity!!!!!!!!!!!
In its simplest form, this insanity can be seen in those who, examining the status-quo of America's gun problem, consider this slaughter to be acceptable and preferable to their loosing their toys.
Absolutely NO solutions are offered other than more guns.
The belief that conflict resolution by bullet is better than disarming this insanity IS a moral failure.
Defending guns, blaming victims, taking the gun to be the cure against the gun are examples of ethical insanity.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts) old guy
(3,283 posts)I think you are correct.
radhika
(1,008 posts)Why?
I live in a safe area, I have no personal need for a weapon, I am urban rather than rural, no hunting, no critters messing with my herd etc. I'm an old white bougie, with no street game.
So why would I at this point in my life even think about such a thing. Because of THEM. The American right wing crazies seem to be on the move, bolder, more odious, more insanely rendered psychotic by years of rhetoric. The X-to-fascists and forced birthers actually have well-funded Presidential candidates bowing to them. And the American electorate is drooling over patriarchal monstrosities that are a disgrace to the developed world. And police! Hah, they are the worst, we are learning.
I have NO clue what will happen once the Primaries start, let along November. But I refuse to let them take over the whole society and force its fascistic norms down our throats. If it comes to that, I think I should be prepared to stand with MY team. So I should learn a bit about self-defense in a rogue state.
Happy to be talked down, but I'd like to know what YOU are thinking.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
Gman
(24,780 posts)None of the registration/regulation will work at this point.
kentuck
(111,110 posts)...have already done so. The horse is out of the barn.
mimi85
(1,805 posts)"black guy's" fault?
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
TheFrenchRazor
(2,116 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Person 2713
(3,263 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)Squinch
(50,993 posts)sanatanadharma
(3,726 posts)...calling out each and every defender of the gun and the gun each and every time, as being indeed part of the problem.
No more gunners' excuses.
The NRA and responsible gun owners are the the problem. They enable those who have actually manifested the insanity of using their precious tool.
The gun is not a tool of morality and ethics. It is totally a satan (societal stumbling block).
In America, the gun has become a god; not good!
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)but I do...I moved to Canada in '04...I fear for my friends and relatives who live in America...
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)We're America, damn it, and nobody will ever touch us in terrorism!!
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
Dr. Xavier
(278 posts)There have always been times when the worst of us has been brought out by the circumstances in the world. The people who keep their heads in the time of crises must keep on fighting for the truth. We can't give up, We just can't ...
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)CrispyQ
(36,507 posts)The sheer number of guns already out there is stunning. How many more are manufactured every day?
lark
(23,155 posts)Called me a wild-eyed optimist but surely this can at least get better, get some common sense passed? Yes, a lot of crazies have guns and yes that is scary. I tell you though, I'm more afraid of the police these days than I am random people. Militarism is everywhere and yes, that too is awfully scary. I hate to leave the country, my house is paid for and I plan on retiring in 1-1/2 years, but if a repug wins our country will get 100x worse. However, if a Dem wins, maybe he/she can improve the situation? I pray for this daily and work for it as well.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I detest handguns. There isn't a damn thing wrong with having a shotgun or a hunting rifle.
There is a hell of a lot wrong with having an AK-47. There is a hell of a lot wrong with having an AR-15.
Hunting rifles feed families. Shotguns defend families. You do not hunt with an AR-15 or an AK-47 unless you are hunting - and this is the important part - people.
Human beings.
A hunting rifle is something that everyone I know has been taught to use - judiciously. It's a normal thing.
Buying and using an AK-47 or an AR-15? That is not for hunting. That is for destroying human lives and we need to face the facts.
beergood
(470 posts)please be more specific, what is your definition of a hunting rifle? is a Springfield 03 chambered in 30-06 a hunting rifle, a mosin nagant, or a lee enfield? all of these are bolt actin rifles, that at one time were used by the allied forces to defeat the axis powers.
a lot of people hunt with the Italian carcano 6.5, the rifle used by lee Harvey Oswald to assassinate the great John F. Kennedy (may he rest in peace). should these rifles be banned?
LynnTTT
(362 posts)I'm a long time gun control advocate, going back to the 60's when my ex-husband bought one after the Baltimore riots when Martin Luther King was killed. Never mind that we lived 25 miles out of the city.
But I can now understand why many people are starting to feel that having a gun on them at all times may not be so stupid. And yes, I know the statistics- more likely to be killed, suicide, children killed etc.
But my grand-daughter just got her first job after college. She'll be working for a mortgage company that specializes in arranging mortgages for veterans. And after yesterday, I have a vision of her having to turn down a disgruntled or mentally ill vet who comes to her office and kills her.
Do I really think that if she had a gun in her desk that she'd be able to defend herself against a trained vet who takes her by surprise? No, I really don't. But I understand the appeal.
patsimp
(915 posts)right not there is 0 accountability and a bunch of republican morons with their heads in the sand.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)in a gun massacre. It's not so far fetched. A mall not far from me was the site of a mass shooting during the holidays a couple years ago.
It's fucking insane that this is a consideration.
It's at the point where I'm hoping my children can eventually emigrate out of this country and live in a more sane one.
LynnTTT
(362 posts)I'm a long time gun control advocate, going back to the 60's when my ex-husband bought one after the Baltimore riots when Martin Luther King was killed. Never mind that we lived 25 miles out of the city.
But I can now understand why many people are starting to feel that having a gun on them at all times may not be so stupid. And yes, I know the statistics- more likely to be killed, suicide, children killed etc.
But my grand-daughter just got her first job after college. She'll be working for a mortgage company that specializes in arranging mortgages for veterans. And after yesterday, I have a vision of her having to turn down a disgruntled or mentally ill vet who comes to her office and kills her.
Do I really think that if she had a gun in her desk that she'd be able to defend herself against a trained vet who takes her by surprise? No, I really don't. But I understand the appeal.
