General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsYour second amendment rights are getting in the way of our rights.
The right to go to a movie theater - ya know, that pursuit of happiness stuff.
The right to a safe education.
The right to drive down the street and not worry someone who is having a bad day is going to shoot you.
The right to go hear the person represent you in Congress meet with their constituents at a public place.
The right to go see the President speak without the person next to you carrying a weapon.
The right to go to the corner store and pick up a bag of Skittles.
It is time for some rules and regulations.
The politicians are not going to do anything - they need that almighty NRA approval to get elected.
The only way the dialogue will ever change is if we the people change it.
Go ahead and flame away - I don't care.
I have been respecting your rights long enough. Now it's time for you to respect mine.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)
malaise
(269,050 posts)Excellent post
Peepsite
(113 posts)I'd like to take my rifle to the lake city firing range this week: Mother may I?
bbinacan
(7,047 posts)You might be in that 1 in 70,000,000 that might shoot up a theater.
Are the odds even that low?
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
primavera
(5,191 posts)Let's do the math. There are, as you state, about 70 million gun owners in the US. Collectively, they are responsible for 30,000 wrongful deaths each year. So that would put the odds of any one of them misusing a forearm with fatal results at about 1 in 2,333. By way of comparison, nearly 200 million licensed automobile drivers will account for approximately 40,000 deaths annually, making the odds of causing a fatal accident 1 in 5,000. I don't imagine it's a very fair comparison, though, since drivers use their vehicles far more often than guns are used by gun owners, so, if statistics were available on the number of hours people use guns versus vehicles, the odds of causing a fatality in a vehicle per hour of use would certainly be far less. Setting that aside, though, based simply upon the number of users, gun owners are statistically more than twice as likely to cause the death of another person than a driver is, yet we require drivers to obtain licenses to operate a motor vehicle, for which they are required to pass safety and competency examinations which they have to renew periodically, while we impose no such requirements upon gun owners.
rgbecker
(4,831 posts)Nicely laid out.
Progressive dog
(6,904 posts)Makes sense to me.
hack89
(39,171 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)primavera
(5,191 posts)30,000 Americans die each year by guns, that's simply a fact. That some of them take their own lives with guns doesn't make them any less dead by a gun than anybody else killed by a gun. What you may choose to infer about those who use guns for suicide may be subject to interpretation, but 30,000 corpses is 30,000 corpses, no matter how you choose to look upon it.
hack89
(39,171 posts)that can be fixed with a simple test and a license? Really? Even though criminals won't bother and there is nothing in your scheme that will prevent suicides.
What will save more lives - your licensing scheme or taking all that money and applying it directly to law enforcement and mental health? Why not fix the real problems?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)will reduce gun violence? Ok.
hack89
(39,171 posts)how how does a license fix anything?
Do you anticipate all the gang bangers filing down to the police station to take their tests?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)
primavera
(5,191 posts)Because some people will break laws, there's no point in passing it? By that reasoning, we should have no laws whatsoever, because there is no law that has not been broken at least once. One doesn't expect laws to produce a 100% change in events overnight; that has never, ever, EVER been a realistic expectation. The point is that, over time, they cultivate a culture that increasingly manifests the desired social norms.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)It's a stock NRA Talking Point. Anyone with half a brain knows the exact argument you laid out, but the gun-relgionists just keep repeating it EVEN AFTER they read rebuttals like yours on DU (I know, I've rebutted the same guys in the past that you just rebutted)
Will a rebuttal stop a gun-relgionist from spewing the same lie a half-second later? Never has before; I'm sure it won't ever.
hack89
(39,171 posts)by your standard they seem to be working just fine - does a murder rate that has been cut in half and is still declining reflect a desired social norm?
rudycantfail
(300 posts)By and large I think it's safe to say the intent to do harm to the target of the trigger puller is more deliberate and premeditated than the driver of the car involved in a collision.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Too hot outside anyway. Perhaps I'll take In a movie instead. (that wasn't meant to sound snarky or insensitive; just simple agreement).
You'll shoot your eye out with one of those things.
bbinacan
(7,047 posts)Knife, sword, chemicals, or bombs. The latter two would have killed many more.
hay rick
(7,624 posts)And anybody can do it.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)did you forget the sarcasm thingy???
sP
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)59 is next to impossible.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Just as their toy shooters will "keep them safe" (worked so well for those cops in seattle) they think "thugs" and "criminals" are like ninja, capable of any stunt or feat the gun nut narrative needs of them.
AllyCat
(16,189 posts)Thanks for saying what I have been trying to get my 'puter to help me say all night before it crashes again 
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)seriously?
AllyCat
(16,189 posts)The knife "dealer" is a small, indy kitchen store about to go out of business.
hack89
(39,171 posts)AllyCat
(16,189 posts)As the gun supporters often do, bring up something not part of the discussion.
hack89
(39,171 posts)but then you know that.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)All supermarkets that I have ever seen have a kitchen hardware section that includes kitchen knives.
Hardware stores always have a display of various knives.
You haven't looked very hard.
And you can buy knives, no questions asked.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Some years back an arsonist set a fire at a night club and killed 87 people. He used gasoline and a match. More people have gasoline than have guns.
Marr
(20,317 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)they aren't difficult to make. Fertilizer and diesel fuel in and of themselves are harmless. Combine them though, and you have a very lethal bomb.
hay rick
(7,624 posts)why hasn't anybody in the US used one as a murder weapon since 1995?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)
Pholus
(4,062 posts)I've certainly seen MANY arrest stories where such a purchase was deemed suspicious and the FBI followed up. The BMAP program exists for JUST such a reason and I've seen their flyers posted around the local stores selling such components.
Contrast that with the gun sellers in pretty much every mass shooting who typically "decline to comment" when pressed with questions afterwards. After some thought, I concluded that their livelihood depends on them NOT asking questions. How many gun buyers (even the upstanding ones) are going to WANT to buy from someone curious about what they intend for their new purchase?
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You can't buy a gun from a gun shop without having to fill out a Form 4473. It asks lots of questions. Then you have to show ID, and wait while the gun store calls in and checks the NICS.
Buying fertilizer depends upon how much you are buying. Small quantities can still make a bomb, just not a truck sized one.
You already have, in your home, the incredients needed to make an explosive. You just probably don't know how.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)Anyway, what about private sales? Gun shows? Under the counter? Taking a trip to another state to get something not available in your own state?
Honestly. You guys seem to think anyone who disapproves of you lives in a vacuum. Been around MORE than enough of the gun culture to have seen the wink, wink, nudge, nudge act when it comes to "the law."
So spare your sanctimonious rhetoric because I know better.
Bullshit indeed...
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You seem to think that if guns were restricted more strongly then the Batman killer would not have been able to commit his crime. The police say he planned it for months. Since murder is the most forbidden of acts, the most illegal, do you really think that he would have been detered by having to break a few more laws to get a gun? Or he could have chosen to make a bomb. But you seem to think that if you could just make guns illegal then violent criminals would sing Kumbaya.
Be glad that he chose a gun instead of any of a large number other, MORE lethal and cheaper means. Go to the cleaning materials isle of any supermarket and you can get the stuff to make a poison gas, completely legally, no questions asked.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)The gun owners crawling out of the woodwork on this are sooooo scared to be tarred by association with the shooter. Sorry, pal, it's merely a matter of degree. You're all alike in your motivations. It's just you have a handful of social inhabitions more than the shooter did.
It's all about insecurity and its all about control. Nothing more, nothing less.
Knowing all this shit is not good or evil by itself. It's chemistry and physics and engineering, no different than the many, far more constructive applications. But it's the destructive side.
But you have to wonder about why sooooo many people are sooooo fascinated by these destructive parts. You know, the guns and the plethora of "MORE lethal and cheaper means" you imply. I'll take a stab -- it may not be you but it's definitely others like you who I know way too well. They seek this information because it makes them feel important or relevant to know it. They can look at others and pride themselves on their intelligence because they "know 30 ways to kill people with your bare hands" or some such crap like that.
NOTHING you know is beyond my grasp, I merely haven't been goaded by insecurity or ego into going through the process of learning it. Nor do I worship it for its own sake. It exists, it is just not relevant to me because I have far better things to do with my time.
That is the difference between us. You label me naive, I label you scared and insecure.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The point is that the Batman killer would NOT have been stopped by guns being outlawed. You seem to think that he would have been, and that is very naive. The other stuff was just proof that alternate means were available to him.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)The "Batman killer" ignored the law -- just like the gun culture. How many times do we need to hear "just enforce the existing laws" in counterpoint with the "wink, wink, nudge nudge" about the existing laws.
Three statements I have heard personally in the last month:
"It's not legal to own assembled, but you certainly can store the PARTS."
"Let's drive to <NEXT STATE OVER> and buy some high capacity magazines."
"I can sell you this here but we'd have to do the papers. I'm not using mine, so come over tonight."
I'd go on, but I'm already too reminded of alcohol and high school and just realized you guys just never grew up apparently -- just found the next titillation of something just on the edge of legality and then occupied yourself trying to figure out how to satisfy the letter of the law and not the spirit.
I've already discussed your motivations.
In the end you're right. Guns are not the problem. Gun culture is.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Gun culture is a problem but a violence culture that allows knife attacks and beatings isn't a problem?
Violence is a serious problem. Often the only way to stop violence is with counter-violence. A gun give a smaller, or weaker, or older person the ability to defend themselves against young healthy attackers.
My wife, who was 62 at the time of the incidents, and is 4' 10", used her legally carried gun twice to prevent herself from being attacked by a young, male, mugger. I have posted the details several times on DU. I don't feel like typing it all again but if you are really interested I will. I doubt you will be interested as it would conflict your world-view.
BTW - We obey gun laws. I don't want to lose my CHL by doing something stupid.
Pholus
(4,062 posts)You know I'd probably be more pissed off about it if it, you know, actually *existed* in a form analogous to gun culture.
Maybe I wouldn't consider your words as a pathetic attempt at a redirect if we had a NKA or NFA awash in special interest money running around ranking politicians on a single issue irrespective of everything else so this country gets even more fucked up than it already is.
I'm glad guns worked out well for your wife. Nobody wants to see anyone hurt. But anecdote is not data. My world view is shaped by personal experience as well though I will also predict you are not capable of processing why it is relevant.
My idiot gunloon brother works a decent job but still forced his children to grow up in a literal hovel so he could feed his gun addiction. House valued at $5k, hand-me-down hand-me-down furniture which was ripped stained and broken -- heard him brag his gun collection was worth $50k and that was 30 years ago. Family vacations? Forget it. New clothes for his kids? Not a chance. College? Sure, take some loans. Shooting vacations! You betcha and sign him up for a couple weeks a year! Proudly donated to every NRA campaign since 1980.
Guns are every bit as personally destructive as guns or alcohol for certain personality types. Of course, there is a strong and active effort to prevent ANYTHING which could regulate that. We have the SECOND FUCKING AMENDMENT to consider after all!
Oh yes, it's one of your rights. But when I remember my brother telling me how he was a single issue voter -- that he didn't give a crap what else was done except for the votes on guns -- I realize that second amendment rights people only care about that one single right. The rest of the rights can go hang as long as they have their little security blankets.
Thanks for that by the way. As far as I am concerned, YOU share in the blame. Every time you blab on and on about guns I see the Batman shooter and my dear brother are standing right next to you. You own them, you own the problems they brought about as well. Yes, you have your wife too but you know what? You don't get to concentrate only on the good. You get the bad too. One of these days you will need to escape your state of denial.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)You can go to a gun "show", you can buy them off of online classifieds, you can "borrow" them from other gun nuts, and there is an entire black market of guns...that isn't that difficult to access.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Online sales are sent to an FFL who must do an NICS check and the 4473.
Guns owners rarely loan guns. I have never borrowed or loaned a gun. Black market is illegal and I fully support prosecution of such.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)that I could buy any weapon I want.
Marr
(20,317 posts)shadowrider
(4,941 posts)All I said was if you know what bits to buy, the death toll, in a crowded theater or in an airport security line, would be far more than 12. Nothing more, nothing less.
Marr
(20,317 posts)In response to suggestions that we have tighter gun laws, you said explosives would've been even more damaging than a gun. I said, 'yes, and you can't buy powerful explosives the way you can buy guns'. I assume you can see why powerful explosives aren't easy to buy, but you deny there should be tighter controls on attaining guns.
You related the two, not me, and it's a comparison that doesn't serve your point.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)You cannot buy powerful explosives, that's true. It's also true you can go to the grocery store and buy completely innocuous products that, when combined, become very explosive or emit a gas that is lethal. You simply don't understand that.
In your mind, if it's not C4 or dynamite, there is no bomb.
Fertilizer and diesel fuel. 168 dead. No gun used. Completely legal products that when combined, made a big boom.
Get off your "It's the guns only" theme. Evil exists in the world and evil will find a way to manifest itself whether in guns, machetes, knives, bombs or gas.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I think most people realize that explosives can be made from simple ingredients. You aren't lighting up the world with your annotated Anarchist's Cookbook here-- I'm sorry.
It's a matter of convenience. People use guns to kill because it's easy. How many fertilizer bomb massacres can you point to in the last 20 years? How many gun massacres? Why do you suppose that is? I mean, the last fertilizer bomb we saw here did a lot more damage than the last gun massacre, as you pointed out, but the loons still opt for the gun route. Why? Because it's exponentially easier.
We can't do away with fertilizer or pipes or saltpeter or gasoline, because they kind of have other essential functions. We can restrict access to ready-made explosives, and do. If you can acknowledge that the sale of powerful explosives should be strictly controlled, you can't very well argue that the sale of guns should not. Yes, people can still build explosives. They could build a gatling gun, too-- if they had the materials and knowledge. But it's not nearly as easy.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)that includes explosives, incendiaries, and even poison gas.
And you don't need the internet to do this. I learned how back in the 60's at a small town public library.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Gasoline makes an excellent fire bomb.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I always wondered about that. Thanks for clearing that up.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)We can be thankful that most people are not creative thinkers and those that decide to commit mass murder choose guns as their default choice. There are many ways they could do things that would be far more lethal, easier to get, and cheaper. That they don't do it is our good fortune.
The fact remains that every time you buy gasoline you are buying an excellent bomb chemical, you just don't think of it as such. The typical American home has all the ingredients to make explosives. Most people just don't know how. For example, ordinary kitchen flour can be an explosive under the right conditions.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Gasoline is not a bomb.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)A tire can be turned into a swing. A kitchen magnet can be a compass. I'm told loaves can turn into fishes if you sprinkle in the right amount of magical Jewish carpenter. So what?
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)but it's not a bomb, gotcha.
Confusious
(8,317 posts)Why do anything about it?
People die of disease, why fight it?
People die in car crashes, why make them safer?
Really, why bother? There's just more ways to die.
Oh,
DocMac
(1,628 posts)You're adding weapons...that's bullshit!
Let's remove water...now we're talking! 
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Nor can you go to the chemical warfare shop and buy chemical warfare weapons because we sensibly regulate explosives and chemical weapons to make it difficult for violent nuts to get them. We are a very stupid people, but we aren't quite that stupid.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)interpretation of the COTUS.
Response to jillan (Original post)
GarroHorus This message was self-deleted by its author.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Nobody is saying you cannot own a gun.
Response to jillan (Reply #9)
GarroHorus This message was self-deleted by its author.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Nothing to do with amending the constitution.
Response to DCBob (Reply #17)
GarroHorus This message was self-deleted by its author.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)you sure have alot of excuses for not doing anything to solve the problem.
former9thward
(32,020 posts)Please be specific.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)former9thward
(32,020 posts)Law enforcement pretty much needs to catch someone in the act (see someone go into gun store, the come out with a gun and directly give it to someone) or they need a confession. Short of that it is impossible to prove.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)I fill out a 4473 and buy a gun a month and a half later you (for the purposes of our discussion you are a convicted felon) are pulled over and found w/ the gun in your possesion. Further investigation revels that you and I are dating.
and no further action is taken
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)And, a change in the mix of Justices will result in better gun rulings, not to mention all the non-gun related right wing rulings.
Ever wonder why NRA Board/Leadership includes the likes of Grover Norquist, John Bolton, Bob Barr, Ollie North, Teddy Nugent, etc.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)You could wait 1000 years and never get the mix of judges YOU like.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)Both Sotomayor and Kagen have backed President Obama and said they support the 2A, much to your dismay I am sure. I am sure you want both of them replaced as well.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Sooner or later, more people will get fed up with this gun culture crud/mentality.
The pseudo liberal wimps along with the right wingnut trolls are showing up in force.
Both working their asses off to keep the repugs in power............
and doing a really good job.
it suddenly disappeared. 
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)not about going to the movies
you have no right to an education
you have no right to be safe...anywhere
they may be valid expectations...but not rights
sP
jillan
(39,451 posts)According to the United States, the pursuit of happiness is defined as: "...one of the "unalienable rights" of people enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, along with "life" and "liberty." "The right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment." Butchers' Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 757, (1884.)"
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)like going to the movies...it was about (and IS about) pursuit of material wealth through work...but you acknowledge that so I am not sure why you think it is about going to the movies...
you haven't corrected me...you've corrected yourself.
sP
MADem
(135,425 posts)fostering your inherent skills or talents, so you can have more fun and get the most out of life in a manner most appealing to you. Going to the movies and learning the plotline of the latest Batman film would fit.
...increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give them their highest enjoyment....
Also, 'pursuit of happiness' is not in the Constitution at all.
It's in the Declaration of Independence. http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#life
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)about being safe through these activities. and i would argue that going to the movies would be a considerable stretch of the point to 'pursuit of happiness.' other than that, you are correct.
sP
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can characterize the knowledge if you'd like, and apply your editorial POV to it as to it being useful or not, but that's just your opinion. Attending a film--doing anything, in fact--even sleeping, which most assuredly improves one's faculties via REM cycles--qualifies. If it makes you feel better, more self-actualized, more productive, more enthused, it fits.
It's one of those things that really is down to individual interpretation.
It follows that if you are not safe, you are, in effect, constrained from engaging in the activities. That, too, is a matter of degree. Is it "ordinary" risk, like the possibility that you could get hit by lightning if you happen to be outside during a rainstorm, or is it risk that could be ameliorated through laws or regulations to enhance the public good?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Fairly standard fare for authoritarians.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I think that is what the OP is asking for. Don't disturb the tranquility of others with guns.
MADem
(135,425 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)So why do people have problems with my guns, even if I don't do bad things with them?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Every time someone screams "gun ban", they disturb the tranquility of... others with guns.
Not what you meant perhaps, but rings just as true.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)domestic tranquility. As crazy as that sounds. It works with nations and international tranquility after all.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,586 posts)There are many, many people who equate happiness with raising a family, doing community service, creating art, etc. To say "pursuit of happiness was about acquisition of material wealth" means you were there when the Declaration of Independence was written, and we know that only one person was present and knows exactly what was meant -- Justice Scalia.
Besides, "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. And if you really want to get technical, the order is "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." My life trumps your pursuit of material wealth every time.
Isn't Hannity on?
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)i didn't say that...
secondly...if you actually read anything about the phrasing of the declaration of independence you would see that i am spot on about the 'pursuit of happiness' usage.
and oh, nice implication there...
sP
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)At Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Saying 'happiness' is 'getting stuff' is pretty shallow
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=988081
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Suggests that poster is a freeper with the phrase "Isn't Hannity on."
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jul 20, 2012, 09:13 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Hey, alerter, LastLiberal in PalmSprings is correct. Oh, and before I forget, isn't Hannity on?
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sorry, junk, junk alert.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Probably close to crossing the line by mentioning Hannity, but I don't think it's bad enough to hide. Lots of gun rights drama now...I vote to leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: What little person alerted on this. Grow up.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Weak alert
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The ever-so-sensitive-but-super-tough-guy gun religionists are again offended.
Tom Tomorrow's cartoon was spot on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002981836
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)UN Declaration of Human Rights.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)This document is one that puts some light on the thinking at the time in terms of property.happiness.
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
It is easy to see that the Founders did not see 'property' and 'happiness' as synonyms at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Declaration_of_Rights
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)See, the word "happiness" has changed a bit in the last 200 odd years. These days it means something akin to "pleased" - as in "this makes me happy"
When the constitution was written, however, it meant "a state of well-being." Property could be part of that, but it was not the end-all be-all of it. Health, contentment, leisure, art and education, community... these are all part of "happiness" at the time the phrase was written.
The phrase, "they are a happy people" doesn't mean that the people were always singing and dancing, it meant htye had a stable, healthy life that they enjoyed and were content with.
Also, it is plainly written that it is a right. As a matter of fact, everything is a right, unless it is specifically written to NOT be a right. Welcome to America, it's quite different from Singapore.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)wow...that is some serious logic twisting...
sP
DrDan
(20,411 posts)ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)but you keep believing it...hell, the SC ruled the POLICE don't even have a responsibility to keep you safe. Castle Rock v. Gonzalez...2005 I believe. And the irony is that this decision was spawned by action from the town of Castle Rock, CO.
sP
DrDan
(20,411 posts)as a matter of fact, other rights can be withheld in the name of safety
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)but that's ok...makes you one of the herd here.
sP
DrDan
(20,411 posts)but "herd" . . . I hardly think so. I have not allowed guns in my home for more years than most here have been alive. I have been an outspoken opponent of guns long before DU can to exist.
Thankfully my children have followed suit.
No place for 'em in civilian hands in a civilized society.
I do have, however, personal thoughts as to the health of the obsession as well as it's origin - what feeds it.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)and at no point have I mentioned the NRA...I am not a member and think they are a little overboard. What I have been posting about is what people THINK are rights and what actually ARE rights. I think many people here confuse expectations with rights. Yes, we should have an expectation of safety but we have no right to it...a right is something that can (well, SHOULD be guaranteed) but safety can NEVER be guaranteed...
sP
DrDan
(20,411 posts)and those include safety.
I NEVER said safety was guaranteed. Rights are not guaranteed.
Free speech is not guaranteed. Gun ownership is not guaranteed.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)how do you propose the government protect your 'right' to safety. simply cannot be done...but you don't get that. and you still won't. and people like you (yes, i said it) are the reason we are faced with the nanny-state bullshit we put up with today.
it is a fucking miracle anyone survived before you came along.
sP
DrDan
(20,411 posts)speed limits, taking guns out of the hands of felons, driving age, pharmaceutical testing, and on and on and on
that hardly defines a "nanny state"
get real
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)property'. If they had intended to say 'property' they would not have cut the word 'property' and used 'pursuit of happiness'.
You are extremely incorrect and the process of the writing of the document stands as proof.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)
flamingdem
(39,313 posts):clap
: 
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)I own quite a few guns myself, here in the People's Republic of California, as the gun nuts like to call it. And I am totally for gun control. CA has some of the toughest gun laws in the union, and I can still own more than enough firepower should I ever need it.
And truth to be told, the reason why I own so many guns is because of all the reich wing freaks out there that are constantly threatening to turn them loose on liberals. If these yokels would just chill out a bit, I'd probably be willing to get rid of some or all of them.
I hate gun nuts. Both Republican ones and the ones here on DU. They're a blight on this country and a serious problem to us living is peace and safety.
jillan
(39,451 posts)And unfortunately these people have become extreme.
It doesn't mean that people shouldn't have guns.
I actually am considering buying a gun.
I'm in my 50s, live with my special needs daughter & getting ready to put my house on the market and am thinking I will feel safer
with a gun & shooting lessons. But I am hoping that I won't ever have to use it.
I understand the need for security in your own home. I understand people who hunt. But I cannot understand people who buy guns with the intention of what happened today.
I don't think our founding fathers wrote the second amendment for crazy people to walk into a populated place and start shooting.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)You can have as many fucking muskets as you want. But that's where it should stop.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)You can say whatever you want to those within earshot, or even print it with movable type and distribute it on horseback. But that's where it should stop.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Ummm..... they had handguns. Lots of 'em.
"brace of pistols" ring any bells?
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Flintlock pistol ca. 18th Century:
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)
calimary
(81,307 posts)There is no reason ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH for any civilian, one who's not with the police or National Guard or something, has any reason to own an assault rifle. Those fucking things exist for one reason: to kill masses of people in the quickest amount of time. NO REASON ON EARTH. Especially any civilian who's a paranoid or obsessive or whose jam is sliding off his/her toast. Seems to me as though many of the very people who covet and hoard weapons that extreme are the VERY people who should never be allowed anywhere near them.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)The shooter in this incident did not use one. The use of "assault rifles" in crime is extraordinarily rare, and usually done by rogue police/government agents.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)The shooter did not use an "assault rifle".
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Every time I google AR-15, it is described as an assault rifle, and I think when most people say the words assault rifle, they are referring to military style weapons that hold lots of ammo and can be fired at a very fast rate. So how about we cut out the lawyer crap and just assume that when people are talking about the kinds of guns that should either be banned or very tightly regulated, the AR-15 falls into that category.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)merely for posession.
And I'm not hiding behind anything. No, it shouldn't be banned. Because it isn't what you say it is.
What cites are you getting when you "google AR-15"? If they are saying it's an "assault rifle", they are not credible sources.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_21122906/ar-15-assault-rifle-used-theater-shooting-against?source=rss
http://www.tacticalarmsmfr.com/
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/bachmann-i-love-my-ar-15-assault-rifle
http://www.wbez.org/news/high-capacity-clip-was-ar-15-assault-rifle-used-movie-theater-attack-101075
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/22/a-look-at-the-aurora-shooter-s-guns-including-the-ar-15.html
So you know what, who really gives a shit if it doesn't meet the strict criteria of not having full burst capacity or some other crap. Generally speaking, when people use the term "assault rifle" when referring to gun control the AR-15 is probably one of the first guns that enters people's minds. So you can nitpick the details all you want, you can whine about how its not a true assault rifle, but the bottom line is that when people talk of banning assault rifles, THIS IS THE TYPE OF GUN THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Do you understand now?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)or my problem. Nor are they a reason to restrict me from making corrections where applicable.
Nor are they any reason to make excuses for piss-poor attempts at really bad legislation.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)Especially just because it steps on the insecurities of a bunch of goofy child-men and their fantasies of playing war when it limits their capacity for owning weapons of mass destruction.
But that's just me.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Cite to evidence, please?
Nice denigrations, by the way. Pretty baseless, as most such efforts are, but the effort is noted.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)those that don't is to me very strong evidence, but as I've learned with gun nuts, they tend to discount this evidence and ask to see some phantom massacre that never happened or an imaginary body count that wasn't higher because the shooter didn't have an assault rifle that could with a 100 round magazine.
You're asking to see evidence that is impossible to deliver, because if gun control works, then such incidents of violence either would occur less or not at all, as miraculously, they seem to do in states with gun control. Go figure.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)
Now, despite the fact that most blue states have greater metropolitan areas and larger populations, it's mostly the southern red states (gun nut heaven) that have higher rates of gun violence. Now why would that be? More guns make us all safer, haven't you heard? And then of course, this is just the U.S. Compare our rates of gun violence with other industrial nations that have strict gun control, and we're literally off the charts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I'm not sure it correlates too closely with gun laws, but I'll have to study further.
What I'd really like to see is how it breaks out by county and/or rural/urban area, and by economic stats, but that latter might be a really big job.
Again, thanks for citing.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)If so, why?
If not, why?
By the way, you H A T E "gun nuts". What else do you hate? Is your mother home?
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)bigots, the DMV, endless Hollywood remakes, Wal Mart, and Hummers. Thanks for asking. And no, my mother isn't home.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)inherent, with no need to be written down in any "constitution". And I'm not referring to the abortion issue with this.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)There should be no reason that we cannot find solutions to these problems.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Do you really feel secure knowing there's a gun nut in your town?
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)to get people to demand a ban on guns, so they can more easily take power?
/tinfoil
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Can't even cross a damn street without having to worry whether or not i'll get hit by one of those things. More than 40K killed by them every year. Ban those abominations. Respect Me!!@#^~!!!
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)See the difference?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)are not doing what they are designed for, must be a design flaw and they must all be eliminated for being defective.
See the difference, don't you get rid of something if it is malfunctioning?
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)Perhaps one should be able to get a license to purchase nerve gas?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)My neighbor was cleaning his new to him swimming pool. He decided to mix the chemicals together in a bucket before pouring them into the pool. From in my house I heard a large explosion. I went running out and found him on the ground and I could not even approach him until I just held my breath, ran over and dragged him away from the area. He had created what was basically clorine gas. Had he not been wearing glasses he might have lost his eyes and he did burn his lungs with the gas he created.
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)First, you went off on a tangent by suggesting that vehicles are killing machines. They are not. They are machines that can be used to kill. There is a difference.
Then, when I pointed out that there is a difference, you went off on another tangent, suggesting that vehicles that are used to kill are defective. Of course, they are not defective, and you know it. Vehicles are designed to move, and vehicles that are used to kill people are vehicles that move.
So let me try again. Do you believe that ALL weapons should be readily available to private citizens? Rocket-propelled grenades? Artillery? Cluster bombs? Or, do you think that there is a line that has to be drawn somewhere, a limit to what should be available to the public?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Let's see, vehickle were brought up here:
Chef Eric (612 posts)
59. Assault weapons are designed to kill people. Motor vehicles aren't.
See the difference?
My comment here didn't say they were "killing machines" just said they do kill:
rl6214 (6,371 posts)
64. Then assault weapons are doing what they are designed for, motor vehicles on the other hand
are not doing what they are designed for, must be a design flaw and they must all be eliminated for being defective.
"Then, when I pointed out that there is a difference, you went off on another tangent, suggesting that vehicles that are used to kill are defective. Of course, they are not defective, and you know it. Vehicles are designed to move, and vehicles that are used to kill people are vehicles that move."
I know it's hard for you to understand but PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE OF CARS, LOTS MORE THAN BY GUNS, you wanna get your panties in a bunch, do it over something that kills that is not intended to kill.
"Do you believe that ALL weapons should be readily available to private citizens? Rocket-propelled grenades? Artillery? Cluster bombs?"
Ahhhh, not that tired old arguement again, let's give everyone atomic bombs. Do you know what "arms" as in "keep and bear arms"? Arms were the hand held weapons of their day that the military of that day carried. That would have been a musket. They carried and took home with them a musket, not rocket-propelled grenades or artillery (cannons), a musket. Fast forward to what the modern military might take home, that would be the M16, a shotgun, a personal sidearm.
You also posted this:
Chef Eric (612 posts)
70. Nerve gas is effective at doing what it's designed for, too.
Perhaps one should be able to get a license to purchase nerve gas?
To which I replied and seemed to get your knickers in a twist.
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)Let me ask you another question.
Do you think the constitution and first ten amendments were complete and infallible as they were originally written?
rgbecker
(4,831 posts)So I'll repeat it: (It concerns the death rate per licensed vehicle driver vs. for gun owner)
Let's do the math. There are, as you state, about 70 million gun owners in the US. Collectively, they are responsible for 30,000 wrongful deaths each year. So that would put the odds of any one of them misusing a firearm with fatal results at about 1 in 2,333. By way of comparison, nearly 200 million licensed automobile drivers will account for approximately 40,000 deaths annually, making the odds of causing a fatal accident 1 in 5,000. I don't imagine it's a very fair comparison, though, since drivers use their vehicles far more often than guns are used by gun owners, so, if statistics were available on the number of hours people use guns versus vehicles, the odds of causing a fatality in a vehicle per hour of use would certainly be far less. Setting that aside, though, based simply upon the number of users, gun owners are statistically more than twice as likely to cause the death of another person than a driver is, yet we require drivers to obtain licenses to operate a motor vehicle, for which they are required to pass safety and competency examinations which they have to renew periodically, while we impose no such requirements upon gun owners.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)suicides. The murders are mostly people with criminal records killing other criminals and gangsters killing other gangsters, hardly your local gun collector. So, your point is nonsense.
rgbecker
(4,831 posts)I thought someone was trying to say more people were killed per year in auto accidents that by firearms. 40,000 vs 30,000. My point was to show that that comparison ignores the actual numbers of the two items, automobile drivers and firearm owners, relative to the number of victims. And the statement ignores the use time of the two items.
If you were to take into account the actual intentional victims, I think it would even make my case stronger. How many intentional auto accident deaths are there a year vs. how many intentional firearm deaths? Your post tells me most of the firearm deaths are intentional and my guess is very few of the auto accident deaths are intentional.
Is that your point?
Both these points argue clearly for licensing of firearm owners just as automobile owners are licensed.
AllyCat
(16,189 posts)This false equivalence b.s. is stupid.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)in this country are exceedingly rare.
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)Are you saying, because murders by assault weapons are rare, that we should not ask ourselves whether assault weapons are too readily available?
I really don't think the families of the victims would be comforted to hear that murders by assault weapons are rare.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)1) assault weapon is an absurd term with no real value
2) having a bayonet lug or ergonomic handle (both qualifiers for "assault" weapons) are not what makes the gun dangerous.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)4 times as much as guns kill. So if not getting people killed is your goal, why not ban them?
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)They take people to work and to shop; they help moms drop off their kids at daycare and take them to doctors; they help self-employed contracors run small businesses. Because so many cities have been designed around them, they are a vital part of the US economy.
Owning guns is a hobby. The question is whether or not it's a hobby that's worth ten of thousands of people a year dying. If snowboarding killed as many people as guns, I'm sure it would be banned.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Target shooting, competition (Olympic sport, y'know), hunting, recreation, defense...
Since cars DO kill tens of thousands per year, why are they not banned?
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)Cars are essential infrastructure. Guns are a hobby. Assault weapons are a fucking liability.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The cars kill argument is one that they gun nuts should stay very far away from.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If the car doesn't drive on public roads you don't need a driver's license nor does the car need to be tagged. In states with lots of rural property there are ranch trucks that are never taken out on the roads.
hack89
(39,171 posts)if I keep a car on private property, neither is required.
Guns are the same way - I need a license to carry in public. I don't need a license to keep a gun at home.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Clearly licensing is not working. Gotta ban 'em altogether.
ellisonz
(27,711 posts)Daniel537
(1,560 posts)ErikJ
(6,335 posts)to be in a mass shooting
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)
lynne
(3,118 posts)- and alcohol related injuries and deaths.
If we're sincere about doing away with instruments of death, we can't seriously continue the conversation without discussing further restrictions on and the possible banning of alcohol.
Lucky Luciano
(11,257 posts)night to unwind or enjoy a nice bottle of wine while out at a restaurant. Wine + good food is a most excellent combination.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)otherwise known as Not Responsible for Anything group might hear you.
I'm sick of pussyfooting around. I don't give a rat's hinder if the guy bought his 6,000 rounds "legally" on the Internet. Something is deeply wrong in this country.
And it's soooo meaningful that the NRA offers their prayers.... so what.
mahina
(17,665 posts)Maybe that only relates to people before birth.
Response to mahina (Reply #42)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)I used to argue with them and I stopped bothering with them.
mahina
(17,665 posts)There's no changing the mind of someone in that extreme.
Response to jillan (Original post)
bupkus This message was self-deleted by its author.
kitt6
(516 posts)of congress. They just stuff their pockets and the world be dam! Especially these republicans. This country is the biggest troublemaker in the entire world. Putin would not have come back to office if he didn't see something bad coming. Get over your illness (racism) and guns.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)But the theater shooter is able to get thousands of rounds of ammunition and no one bats an eye.
Something is wrong here. There is no one who needs that much ammunition unless they're waging a war.
I don't believe right to bear arms includes the right to unlimited stocks of ammunition. It's time to bring the abuse of the second amendment under control. And limiting the amount of ammunition people can own and purchase in a year is a reasonable proposition.
At some point the majority of Americans are going to say "enough," and persuade their representatives to pass an amendment banning handguns. And then everyone will lose the right because of the absolutists who won't accept any sensible gun control laws.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)Do you have some?
Politicub
(12,165 posts)For starters.
Peepsite
(113 posts)Regulations would make more sense in my opinion. Probably the only sensible part of the '94 AW ban, and the one I'd like tothink most gun owners could get behind.
CbtEngr01
(16 posts)so many little dumb things were in it. Like having to have the flash hider fixed(welded, basicly) to the AR type weapons. Well what if I dont want that flash suppressor and instead want an aftermarket compensator- as I believe it will improve my accuracy, in turn allow me to shoot better at matches.
Under the AW ban I would not be allowed to even try it.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)by anyone with a couple hundred dollars of power tools. Any decent machinist with a mill and a lathe can make a gun as well...so 'banning' ammunition would be roughly as effective as banning marijuana...and we all know how well that has worked.
ethereal1
(11 posts)First and foremost, my thoughts and prayers continue for the families, friends and victims of this tragedy.
I own guns, and I hunt, but I always struggle with the immediate knee-jerk reaction to use a horrific act such as this as an opportunity to strip away American citizens' rights afforded under the 2nd Amendment.
Instead, I would hope we can explore what caused this savage to commit this act of terrorism and work to create programs which will address the clear mental/emotional issues which will ultimately be discovered.
I sincerely believe, based on the initial reports of his level of education and field of study that were guns not available to him, he would have used many of the improvised explosive devices her had prepared back at his apartment. I mean, does any sensible person believe he would make the decision to attack his fellow citizens and then say "you know what, guns are illegal, so I don't want to break the law by taking a gun into that movie theater"?
Unfortunately the world is in a constant state of chaos because humans roam the Earth. The fact that there has never been a persistent period of world peace in the annuls of history should alert us to the fact that these evil men will always find a way to carry out their despicable acts.
I know I am new here, but I stopped in to get a sense of the collective responses of the various groups/organizations/parties as we struggle as a Nation to come to grips with the horrific acts of one crazed man.
Thanks,
Ethereal1
Higgs boson
(42 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)what a shock!
Your days are numbered, Higgs.
Higgs boson
(42 posts)message instead of insulting/hating the messenger?
Mimosa
(9,131 posts)I've lived a good many years. The culture has become more tolerant of violent entertainment. A kid born in 1980, 1986 and later grows up engaged with violent entertainment.
Higher values in the arts are a thing of the past.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)not much interest so far in discussing effective solutions to the real problems this tragedy represents.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)I drove down the street yesterday and today and did not worry about being shot
I've met with my Congressman personally and in a public place
Been to the corner store just recently
All while carrying a concealed handgun. All while in my pursuit of happiness.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to help me enjoy my pursuit of happiness. That's all great for you and me, but for 12 other people, who like us, were in pursuit of a little happiness by going to a movie, things did not turn out so well. And while we could adapt the attitude that so long as we are okay, who cares what happened to them, I prefer not to do that.
I'm happy for you, not so happy for all those who had just as much right to be safe going to school, to the movies, shopping, eating etc, but ended up dead.
I rarely get involved in these discussions, but now I am angry. Angry at the selfishness of some people who are willing to dismiss the lives lost while they worry about any regulations on an activity that when it comes to rights, does not trump the right to life no matter how hard they try to make it the ultimate right. It isn't.
yost69
(132 posts)weapons were already banned in this country? Hmm, wonder what more gun control laws will do if the people can already get outlawed guns.
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)
Angleae
(4,485 posts)Assault rifles can switch fire modes between semi-automatic or fully automatic with the flick of a switch. Assault weapons have cosmetic features gun control activists thought looked "scary"
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Automatic or semi-automatic - They're still dead.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)Unlawful abuse of guns is getting in the way. The second amendment doesn't protect that, and never has.
There are already massive, unreasonable restrictions on the right to arms. More restrictions at this point won't reduce gun violence. Maybe, instead, we could work together to actually reduce crime, instead of attacking legal, legitimate behavior in hopes of somehow hampering crime.
This shooting is causing a wave of irrational behavior. Movie theaters are beefing up security, as if this is some coordinated nationwide attack against the movie industry. Attacking the second amendment and harassing harmless gun owners is just as irrational, and won't be any more helpful.
I respect your rights, and you can disrespect mine all you want. They are protected by the United States constitution, and that isn't likely to change soon.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)How can there be a right to deprive your fellow Americans of all their rights with extreme prejudice.
That's why the conversation needs to be about genuine rights versus a completely manufactured, phony, counterfeit, false, illusory and pretend right to be able to conveniently dispatch others to oblivion.
Who do these fools think they're fooling?
XanaDUer
(12,939 posts)
derby378
(30,252 posts)...and I apologize for that, but if you don't respect my right to own an AK, you don't respect my rights.
(And yes, I do own one, and the Republic abides. And I've never used it to shoot or threaten anyone.)
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Second, as I've said elsewhere on DU, I've lost two people I know (one of whom was very close) to gun violence. So, you'd think I'd be leaping to your side here. But I can't.
We didn't ban aircraft use after 9-11. We didn't ban the rental of trucks, or the sale of diesel fuel or anhydrous ammonia after OKC. A lot of people are killed and maimed by drunk drivers. We don't ban booze or cars. Bottom line, banning or heavily regulating gun sales won't stop people who are evil and or crazy from harming themselves or others.
Meanwhile, the burden of well intentioned regulation falls on the law-abiding. Ask any hunter or target shooter who has tried to ship a gun to a relative or buy ammunition. Ask anyone who has been to an airport since 9-11.
You may dislike the NRA as much as most conservatives dislike the ACLU, but both fight for the same thing -- a preservation of constitutional rights, even (or possibly especially) when preserving those rights is unpopular.
I'm not trying to start a flamefest here. I respect your viewpoint, but I disagree with it. Ultimately, my disagreement stems from the fact that the right to bear arms is Constitutionally guaranteed, and I don't like laws limiting second amendment rights much more than I like laws limiting first, fifth, or fourteenth amendment rights.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)But Holmes was easily able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammon on the internet, no questions asked and, I presume, no reporting of the purchase to law enforcement. Plus, people buy all kinds of guns off of the internet so shipping doesn't seem to be much of a problem either. I find your points unconvincing and off-target.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)The guns have to shipped to an FFL who will handle the paperwork if the sale is across state lines.
If it is inside the same state then you have to meet the person somewhere to conduct the trade.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)The same internet site has been used by a number of these deranged shooters. It was all well documented when the Virginia Tech rampage happened. There may have been a short waiting period for a background check but the guns were easily purchased off of the internet.
The Wizard
(12,545 posts)requires little effort.
tdb63
(73 posts)[link:<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="
" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>|
qb
(5,924 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)I don't give a damn about gunkooks "right" to strap on their penile substitute.
Fuck the NRA.
firenewt
(298 posts)Years ago I was a member of the NRA and a gun owning Republican. As my views changed, I dropped the NRA and the GOP. I still get mailings from the NRA asking me to renew my membership and send them money. I like to take everything sent to me - minus any identifying info and send it back in the post paid return envelope. Costs them money and time to process the mail. Passive aggressive - sure is, but I gain a little satisfaction.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)My Glock 17 is resting comfortably in my nightstand, bothering nobody. Leave ME alone.
jillan
(39,451 posts)is events like what happened in Aurora, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson from happening over and over again.
There has to be a middle road.
There has to be a compromise.
I don't have a problem with you having a gun.
I have a BIG problem with people who think they can buy all the guns and ammo they want to destroy other people's lives.
I also have a big problem that when a tragedy like this occurs we can't even talk about how to prevent it again because right away people start screaming that we want to take away their guns.
Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it, and this is getting repeated a little too often - especially when you can't even go to an opening nite at a movie theater.
Tell me - if all of these incidents were caused by bombs, would you be willing to discuss it?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Punish them to the extent the law allows and maybe the next lowlife POS that thinks about hurting innocents will think twice. My guns and I are not the problem, You and your system are the problem, slapping offenders on the wrist is NOT a deterrent
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)die on the spot either by their own hand or getting shot by police. If caught they are prosecuted and are locked up for life or executed, depending on the state. So I don't see how deterrence would have stopped this guy. I don't think that case can be credibly be made. Maybe the case can be made for street crime, but not for mass killers.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But not surprising at all.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Clean history or not, if there is nothing of consequence to fear (electric chair etc) then who's to give a damn? Not the shooter, he's going to get 3 hots and a cot and a TV and...wait, remind me, what did his victims get?
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)You also talked about "revolving door justice," implying that it is recidivists committing mass murder, that is why I mentioned the record. And If deterrents worked against mass killers life in prison would likely work just about as well as the death penalty, imo. The point is, mass killers usually don't give a crap what happens to them.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Life sentence is not a deterrent, execution however...
"The point is, mass killers usually don't give a crap what happens to them."
Good, then let's poll the current crop on Death Row or the Life/no parole crowd for volunteers. I suspect they'll respectfully decline.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)mass killers. Most mass killers die at the scene, often by suicide. So your poll idea is meaningless.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)I was disagreeing with the notion that "coddling criminals" leads to mass murder.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)The state obviously has a compelling interest in making sure whack jobs don't get guns. The thing I take offense to is that somehow my second amendment rights are getting in the way of anything. I'm a stable law abiding citizen, I'm not preventing you from doing anything. Want to have a paperwork check, sounds good, two week waiting period for the first gun, then issue a license to purchase, add this duty to the county LEO's to handle it. Create a system and have mental health providers flag folks, give a test to everyone who isn't flagged. This isn't hard and probably wouldn't be all that expensive. But when you lead with your opening inflammatory statement everyone will think that you're a gun grabber. It tosses legal owners into a defensive posture, that's not the way to get people behind you.
I'd be OK with maximum magazine sizes too. Rather keep 17 rounds for my 9mm because I'm lazy and don't like having to reload that often on the range, but it's cool I don't need more than ten (which is the CA max) if I need to actually use it. Which is something I doubt I'll ever actually need to do.
As for bombs, folks can make those in their kitchen with household cleaning products and info from the internet. Not really the same story.
Response to jillan (Original post)
D23MIURG23 This message was self-deleted by its author.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Is how someone like Holmes can buy 6,000 rounds of ammo online and there is no requirement to report the purchase to law enforcement. Should not body armor purchases also be reported to law enforcement? Then there is the 100-round drum for his assult weapon. Will common sense ever apply or do we just have to accept mass murder as one of those things that happen. It's insane.
jillan
(39,451 posts)law enforcement.
Banksters and gun nuts are free to do as they please.
The only laws that seem to be enforced these days are against people who smoke pot or come into this country illegally from our southern border.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Deputy Sheriff shot his wife dead on the local courthouse steps, should LEO's be allowed access to body armor or ammo or machineguns?
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)can you image what is going on in Idaho, Montana etc with the militia groups
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)DallasNE
(7,403 posts)The legal rights of the 70 people he trampled on? Now that is some kind of odd logic I must say.
Perhaps you will soon be using PayPal to contribute to Holmes legal defense fund as soon as Mark O'Mara can set it up. <sarcasm>
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Let's try again shall we? What other legal activites would you like reported to law enforcement?
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)right on!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)They relate to your feelings, the government doesn't have to allow them. Please learn the difference.
jillan
(39,451 posts)We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
While this itself is not a "law'' these unalienable RIGHTS have had effect on the outcome of legal battles.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Basic human right.
The right to a safe education.
No such thing, not mentioned in the BoR
The right to drive down the street and not worry someone who is having a bad day is going to shoot you.
No such thing, not mentioned in the BoR
The right to go hear the person represent you in Congress meet with their constituents at a public place.
1st Amendment in the BoR.
The right to go see the President speak without the person next to you carrying a weapon
No such thing, not mentioned in the BoR
The right to go to the corner store and pick up a bag of Skittles.
Basic human right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Amendments
DocMac
(1,628 posts)That happiness "stuff" is sooo wrong. Whatever we do, no more of that!
Festivito
(13,452 posts)Our right to connect responsibility with right.
No one wants two-year-olds to have a gun.
No one wants gun-felons to carry a gun.
Yet, somehow we cannot talk about this issue? Or, we relent to say "enough" with your rights?
I want to say that I am perhaps more liberal than you on how to manage guns. Liberal as in liberty, free, free to carry. (ASIDE: liberal, left, etc. is misused rhetoric I employ to talk about other misused rhetoric. Oh, the irony.)
What I care about more is whether or not I have made sure my fellow responsible American has received his needed health care, and mental health care, and psychological health care that my view of general welfare allows. We are a rich country. We want to enjoy our riches. The problem is that if we do not share our riches we do not get to enjoy our riches. Disparity of wealth is just as dangerous as disparity of power between carriers and non carriers assembling together.
Denying rights, as we did with alcohol causes people to hoard. It happened with alcohol, it happens with drugs, it happens with guns.
I think we'd agree, but our words are disagreeing.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)when you sit down and think about it! I for one like to see the second amendment protected!
jillan
(39,451 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)that you've made countless times. The NRA is a far, far right special interest group, and its members and supporters do not belong in a discussion of liberal ideas.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)made countless posts on this subject and I never said the NRA was a liberal organization. WTF!!!!!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Politicians aim for shooters' votes
By BENJAMIN SPILLMAN
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL
Reid, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., Republican Gov. Jim Gibbons and Democratic gubernatorial candidate and Harry Reid progeny Rory Reid all took turns declaring their support for gun rights in Nevada, a wide-open Western state where Democrats and Republicans love shooting.
It was the elder Reid who came loaded with the biggest political weapon, a flattering speech from Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, a gun rights organization with 3.5 million members and a $120 million annual budget.
"He is a true champion of the Second Amendment," LaPierre said of Reid.
"These weapons become our friends. This weapon is my friend," Reid said of his 75-year-old rifle.
Reid was just one of several politicians who used the dedication of the park as a platform to support gun rights.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/54955352.html
Pro-gun Democrats win endorsements from NRA
By Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 7, 2010
So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority.
In South Dakota, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D) got the NRA's endorsement even though her opponent, Kristi Noem (R), has made her fondness for hunting a prominent part of her campaign.
Noem's campaign manager, Joshua Shields, said that regardless of Herseth Sandlin's record on gun issues, she would still support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), "one of the most anti-gun speakers Congress has ever had."
"We made that argument to the NRA," Shields said. "Obviously it didn't work."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606329.html
Honest and fair as can be
secondwind
(16,903 posts)they sure are MY RIGHTS.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The OP presents a reasoned - if emotional - argument for peaceful peopleto be left alone to pursue their right to pursue happiness, and to assemble in their right to assemble peaceably. And it ought to be emotional. In return RW gun massacre apologists who for some reason are allowed to post on DU offer inane little jokes, belittlement of the author of the OP, cries of "THAT'S NOT A RIGHT!" and an irrational defensiveness more appropriate for a 4-yr old, than and adult who wishes to claim the questionable "right" to take away the life of another human being with extreme violence.
The only way for shit like the mass murders such as in Aurora to end is for you gun worshipers to FUCKING GROW UP! If you want to be thought of as "responsible gun owners" then you've got BE RESPONSIBLE! It doesn't stop at your front door, and it's not limited to you hip pocket. Your RESPONSIBILITY extends to your community, your city, your state and your country.
To be truly RESPONSIBLE you've got to aggressively advocate for RESPONSIBLE things: universal registration of guns, universal licensing of gun owners - with the ability for the govt to refuse to grant them, allowing communities & local govts to ban guns totally, limits on the size & capacity of ammo clips, an absolute ban on automatic weapons, severe restrictions on semi-automatic weapons & most of all STOP VOTING FOR POLITICIANS WHO OPPOSE THESE MEASURES!
Until then the idea of "responsible gun owner" will always be a myth - or at best just a sad, sick joke.
Horse with no Name
(33,956 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)I really appreciate you taking on the talking point that going to the movies is not a right.
It's just been amazing seeing that over and over again.
It's as if they are saying people who live in this country don't have the right to enjoy what makes it great.
Excellent rant 
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Spare me your self-righteous bullshit. Thank goodness we have a constitution not subject to the whims of the easily emotional.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Talk about self-righteous bullshit! Being responsible means you must act responsibly:
Responsible motorcycle owners & enthusiasts will do everything they can & follow every law which makes their motorcycles safer & less dangerous to themselves, other motorcycle owners & the general public.
Responsible aircraft pilots will do everything they can & follow every law which makes their aircraft safer & less dangerous to themselves, other aircraft & the general public.
Responsible skydivers will do everything they can & follow every law which makes their skydiving safer & less dangerous to themselves, other skydivers & the general public.
Responsible dog owners will do everything they can & follow every law which makes their dogs safer & less dangerous to themselves, other dogs, other dog owners & the general public.
But so-called "Responsible" gun owners will fight every measure - proposed or imagined - and do everything they can to prevent laws which make their guns safer & less dangerous to themselves, other gun owners & the general public. If this wasn't true the massacre in Aurora would never have happened.
Again - If you want to be thought of as a responsible adult as a gun owner, then you need to FUCKING GROW UP AND TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY! Otherwise you're just another petulant child looking to blame someone else for the problems you've created.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)It's really not just about gun owners you know.
And I am not responsible for the actions of criminals. That's really not how it works.
Speaking of "petulant children".... 
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
FailureToCommunicate
(14,014 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)I think we need to concentrate on the American addiction to fear. It's at the root of the problem.
samsingh
(17,599 posts)
CrispyQ
(36,478 posts)If you dare to suggest gun regulation the enthusiasts/NRA turn the argument on it's head & claim we are trying to take their guns from them. It's similar to republicans claiming that regulation of capitalism will destroy all business. 
You are completely correct that the dialog has to start with the people.
k&r
samsingh
(17,599 posts)here's the second amendment wording from the Internet:
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
several things:
1. this is an amendment, so further amendments could change this. Otherwise, why was the amendment allowed in the first place
2. this applies to a well regulated militia. are lunatics part of a militia?
3. it says nothing about controls or where the guns should be stored. Where should they be kept?
4. it says nothing about ammunition. Should this be readily available?
5. what exactly are arms? are they small weapons, muskets, artilery, machine guns? i would say they should be muskets or the weapons at the time the law was written.
6. what does infringed mean?
Don't ask the current corrupt supreme court. they will obviously interpet the wording in the favor of their corporate and repub masters.
What i hear from people about their rights, as conferred by this simple wording, makes no sense and is only argued in their paranoid favor.
And the first amendment gives me the right so speak my mind.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)
I hope those in the media who can repeat this sentiment to the masses reads this.
crim son
(27,464 posts)Eljo_Don
(100 posts)Hey Joe, where are you going to?
One Voice
(376 posts)K&R
azureblue
(2,146 posts)to buying, owning and driving a car:
Purchase of car (we will illustrate with a used car, for brevity's sake)
1- Seller must provide registration and a Title, both with the VIN on it. The VIN, is in a data base that will show if the vehicle had tickets, warrants, had ever been in a major accident or is a restored "total".
2 -Seller must provide bill of sale with his home address on it and that must match the address on the Title
3 - In most states, the vehicle must have plates at point of sale. Note that to get the plates, the owner must provide Title. In some states, the plates are turned in and new ones purchase when the car is re -titled.
4 - In most states, the vehicle must be inspected within a time window after purchase, and, at inspection, the owner must, again, show registration, proof of insurance, and, in some states, show title. And periodically, you must have the vehicle re- inspected, and, again, show DL and reg.
5 - In most states, you must have vehicle insurance to operate on public roads. To buy insurance, you must have a valid driver's license, show registration and sometimes title.
6 - In all states to operate a vehicle on a public road, you must have a valid driver's license, and you must have it renewed periodically. If you get too many tickets, or are caught DWI, you can lose your license to drive.
7 - To get a DL, you must present a valid ID, like a birth certificate, proof of residence, and social security number, and all of this is cross checked in nationwide data banks by the state. You must pass an eye exam, a written test and a road test, to get your driver's license. And you will be subject to a background check when you get your driver's license, to see if you have been licensed in other states, what your driving record was like there, to make sure you are not a person who has had his DL revoked, or has outstanding tickets or warrants, or is on the lam.
8- And there are a number of instances where you could have your vehicle impounded for breaking the law. Like, if it was used to transport drugs.
Now compare this to your state laws for firearm purchase and ownership. Re- read my list and substitute "firearm" for "vehicle", and compare to firearm purchase and use laws. I rest my case...
primavera
(5,191 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)"1- Seller must provide registration and a Title, both with the VIN on it. The VIN, is in a data base that will show if the vehicle had tickets, warrants, had ever been in a major accident or is a restored "total". "
Nope. Cars are sold without titles all the time. Cars and trucks without titles can be operated without a license, insurance, registration, or plates, on private property to ones hearts content.
I could take a car or truck, strip the seats out of it, cut the roof off, mount aircraft landing lights on it, or remove all the lights completely, break the winshield, or remove it completely, and drive it around the back 5 acres at 110 mph with no license registration insurance or plates sitting on a 5 gallon bucket.
Ownership allows those sorts of things. Usage in public is a different thing, and something which you are conflating and/or confusing with simple ownership.
"2 -Seller must provide bill of sale with his home address on it and that must match the address on the Title"
Since a title isn't required UNLESS one wishes to register the vehicle, this can not be a truth.
"3 - In most states, the vehicle must have plates at point of sale. Note that to get the plates, the owner must provide Title. In some states, the plates are turned in and new ones purchase when the car is re -titled "
The operative assumption here, is that the person buying the vehicle wishes to drive it on a public street.
None of that is required that if the person wishes simply to own the vehicle or to use it offroad or on ones own property.
"4 - In most states, the vehicle must be inspected within a time window after purchase, and, at inspection, the owner must, again, show registration, proof of insurance, and, in some states, show title. And periodically, you must have the vehicle re- inspected, and, again, show DL and reg. "
LOL, this one is laughable. Most states require a vehicle to be inspected? Please.
You're confusing simple ownership which does not require those things, with usage on or in public, which requires those things.
"5 - In most states, you must have vehicle insurance to operate on public roads. To buy insurance, you must have a valid driver's license, show registration and sometimes title."
This is actually true, however one can own as many vehicles as one pleases, and never drive them on a public road, never have insurance on them, and never have a license or registration.
"6 - In all states to operate a vehicle on a public road, you must have a valid driver's license, and you must have it renewed periodically. If you get too many tickets, or are caught DWI, you can lose your license to drive."
This is also true, however none of that is necessary to own a car or drive one offroad on private property.
"7 - To get a DL, you must present a valid ID, like a birth certificate, proof of residence, and social security number, and all of this is cross checked in nationwide data banks by the state. You must pass an eye exam, a written test and a road test, to get your driver's license. And you will be subject to a background check when you get your driver's license, to see if you have been licensed in other states, what your driving record was like there, to make sure you are not a person who has had his DL revoked, or has outstanding tickets or warrants, or is on the lam."
True enough, however, again, no drivers license is required to simply pay cash for a car and drive it on your own property.
Rural America is chocked full of farms which have pickup trucks that are examples of exactly what I'm talking about.
"8- And there are a number of instances where you could have your vehicle impounded for breaking the law. Like, if it was used to transport drugs."
And there are a number of instances where your gun confiscated for breaking the law.
"Now compare this to your state laws for firearm purchase and ownership. Re- read my list and substitute "firearm" for "vehicle", and compare to firearm purchase and use laws. I rest my case... "
Lets take it a step farther.
You get yourself a nice nationwide firearm licensing scheme going.
Are you willing to allow all those who are licensed - now keep in mind, this is EVERY gun owner now rather than the relative few that decide to get a concealed carry license -
are you willing to let them all cross state lines, as they do with cars - legally?
Willing to let them sell back and forth to each other over state lines legally, as they do with cars?
Take their guns with them to the malls, schools, and everywhere that people take their cars with them - legally?
Willing to let convicted felons own them, as they can own cars - legally?
Willing to allow 16 year olds to be licensed for them, as we do with cars - some states allow kids to drive to school at 14 - legally? Draw a parallel there.
Willing to do away with the "1 gun a month" laws, since there are no "one car a month" laws?
Willing to do away with the "cooling off" or "waiting period" for guns in the states that have them, since there are none for cars?
Willing to do away with the gun control act of 1968 and the national firearms fact of 1934, and let people freely buy sell and own machineguns, short barreled rifles shotguns and destructive devices, since there are no special restrictions on "race car" ownership?
I don't believe you're really thought this through completely.
Ownership and use in public are completely different things with completely different rules.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)where licensing & registration is required.
But, you knew that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Or just making it up as you go?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Use your fucking brain for once.
beevul
(12,194 posts)" 99% of the vehicles sold in America are intended to be used on public roads"
Thats what you said.
What they're "intended for" is not relevant.
Having lived in one part of rural America or another nearly all my life, and knowing many many people in rural America both family and not, , I KNOW THAT vehicles are used on private property a great deal more than you think they are.
Besides that, the issue here, is conflating ownership, which none of those things mentioned are required for in most places in America...
with
Usage in public, which those things mentioned ARE required for.
You didn't touch that with a ten foot pole.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)10 day waiting period on a handgun in California, might be waiting periods in other states?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)One handgun purchase per month. You might not want or need mjore than one new car per month, but just letting you know what you are allowed.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Since 1974. Well, Heller recently changed that but DC City Council is trying to resist and many DU'ers still insist that SCOTUS got it wrong and an individual does not have the right to own a car.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)would they defend our free speech like with OWS. no probably not. so why defend them? Right wing crazed gun fanatic walking down the street passes a cop who lets him by. an unarmed woman going down the street with a holding a peace sign. passes an officer. has her phone smashed, thrown to the ground beaten and shot at.
Ahem so who's rights are getting trampled??
senseandsensibility
(17,063 posts)eom
