A message to those in cities who love guns: It's a sad world you live in.

[lindysalsagal]

Unless you're out in the boondocks, or you just keep it at the range for real hunting of wild animals or target practice, it's a sad world of aggression you live in.

I see no reason for guns to be brought into cities. Period. It should be an automatic prison offence to bring a gun over a city line, ever. That would take alot out of circulation, and prevent the suicides and accidental and domestic shootings.

As the gun lovers tell us, criminals will show up with guns no matter what we do, so we might as well at least get as many off the city streets as possible.

[Edweird]

1. Given how subjective that is, I feel free to tell you that you are sadly mistaken.

Gun grabbers live in fear and do their best to spread their fear to others in a bid to willingly surrender their rights. No different than post 9-11 RW'ers. "Take our rights away! We're SCARED!"

[GarroHorus]

15. +1,000,000,000,000 n/t

[Ruby the Liberal]

24. So if I am not in favor of unlimited and unrestricted gun (and accessories) rights,

I am "no different than a post 911 RWinger"?

Does this mean that in order to qualify as a liberal, I need to start petitioning for grenade launchers and anti-aircraft weaponry to legally be installed on my roof - because the government has no right to set limits, and only good "liberals" will fight that fight?

[Edweird]

29. I believe that is what is called a 'strawman'.

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. Actually no. It is a question.

You are the one who threw it out there - care to answer it?

[Edweird]

34. OK

A straw man is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the "straw man&quot , and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]

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

For your response not to meet the criteria of "strawman" you're going to have to show me where I advocated for :
"unlimited and unrestricted gun (and accessories) rights"
and
"I need to start petitioning for grenade launchers and anti-aircraft weaponry to legally be installed on my roof"

I did no such thing. There are already numerous restrictions and limitations including, but not limited to, your beloved grenade launchers and anti-aircraft weaponry. If you have a serious question I will happily engage you.

[Ruby the Liberal]

36. I'm more interested in your purity test

because from the post above, I am "No different than post 9-11 RW'ers" because I want limits.

I just gave you examples.

So again, care to address the question?

[Edweird]

37. There already are limits.

No one is advocating your 'unlimited' nonsense. It doesn't exist except in some delusional gun grabbers imagination.

There's 200 million guns in a country with 60 million people in it. There are guns in cities. Every city - even the ones that have tried to outlaw them.

Yes, criminals will have guns no matter what - you got that right. I prefer to leave it up to them to try and figure out who is and is not carrying as opposed to it being 'fish in a barrel'.

It is NOT a 'sad world' I live in.

The knee-jerk "take our rights away" is, to me anyway, the EXACT same mentality as the 9-11 fearmongering.

[Ruby the Liberal]

38. You confuse me with a gun grab proponent.

I am not. As much as I loathe the things, I am a 2a proponent - that believes in limits - who would *love* to hear about these limits that are already federally in place.

Apparently, 6,000 rounds of ammunition and a 100 round drum magazine were "legally obtained" in a matter of 2 months by the Aurora shooter according to Aurora PD last night in their presser.

Given that - what limits are out there that us regular folk don't know about that might change our minds in calling for limits?

[Edweird]

39. Here are Federal Limits

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

[Ruby the Liberal]

42. Oddly, I posted just that below in this very thread in response to someone arguing

that "Everyone" (with no exception) has a right to firearms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=994561

So we are back to the point.

If I want to see limits on weapons, accessories (clip/magazine capacity) and ammunition - I am a RWinger that doesn't pass the liberal purity test?

[Edweird]

45. Hey, we don't want to end abortion, we just want some limits.

(I'm pro choice - I'm just using this as an example)

[Edweird]

46. I just realized you aren't the OP.

Whoops..

[Ruby the Liberal]

48. Would you prefer if she asked the question?

Personally, I don't care - I just want to know what the answer is.

[Edweird]

52. No, nothing like that.

I guess that if you didn't read our exchange before my response to you (which I thought was her) might have seemed peculiar. That's all.

[REP]

49. What I'd like to see:

Before each purchase (some of this is already required in CA, but not all):

Pass a written test that includes basic knowledge of making safe the most common types of guns

Background check that include restraining orders, etc

Pass a range test, that includes demonstration of making desired weapon safe (done with dummy ammo): emptying magazine, chamber, applying safety and trigger lock; if passed, live fire test (loading and readying for firing) with demonstration of some level of skill (not perfect groups or anything - just hitting the target, no dumbshit gun-waving, etc)

No sale until all three parts passed.

Stricter requirements/background checks for dealer licenses (may have already happened - the bar used to be pretty low for anything other than fully automatic weapons)

There's no cure for stupid, but I think these would help curb it a bit.

[Ruby the Liberal]

53. You mean like something similar to being licensed to drive a car?

Ingenious.

[REP]

68. Well, not like CA's DL program where you can fail the road test and drive on a learner's permit

an unlimited number of times. (There was a horrific case of a person who had failed for the 16th time, issued another learner's permit, and on the way from the DMV, drove onto a sidewalk, killing a mother and child.)

[Edweird]

54. I don't see a problem with that.

That's actually a lot like the range portion of the concealed weapons course here in FL.

[REP]

66. I think it's reasonable

I'm a gun owner, too I was really surprised that I only had to take a written test.

[villager]

33. It's the proliferationists who truly live in fear...

n/t

[Edweird]

35. That's pretty disconnected from reality.

[villager]

63. so's your reply

But then again, sort of par for the mad scramble to avoid any serious discussion of sensible gun regulations, yes?

[Edweird]

65. What 'mad scramble'? You're the minority on DU. Even more IRL.

[villager]

67. Yes, Edweird. Keep imagining this is an NRA discussion board

...and making your pronouncements about "reality," etc.

And of course -- keep dutifully avoiding any serious discussion of unchecked gun proliferation in our society!

:wave:

[villager]

70. Wow -- Stephen Baldwin can see this issue more clearly you than can!?

That would be sobering indeed, I should think.

[frazzled]

43. Actually, I've always felt that gun OWNERS live in fear

What are they afraid of? Why do they think they need guns to protect themselves?

I've lived in large cities all my adult life, and never owned a gun. I'm not afraid. Are you?

[Edweird]

50. Nope. Not afraid.

A gun is a mechanical device. It's a tool. I own a lot of tools. I don't use all my tools at the same time or every day, but when I need them it's nice to have the right tool for the job when you need it. If you wait till there's a hurricane to get a generator, you're probably going to have to go without.

[Texasgal]

57. I always felt this way

until I was robbed in the middle of the night while I was asleep!

Yes, I am scared. That's why I have a small weapon in my nightstand now.

[blueamy66]

83. What good will a gun do if you are asleep?

[bongbong]

60. LOL

> Gun grabbers live in fear

Classic RW projection. First sentence of the first response. Classic obviousness.

[Edweird]

64. Yep. Gun Grabbers live in fear. They lie to try and spread their fear.

[bongbong]

73. Yep

Gun-religionists live in fear. They lie to try and spread their fear.

[Scootaloo]

76. Unlike gun nuts who live in perpetual fear of weekly home invasions

who live in fear of "the gub'mint" touching their stuff
Who live in fear that one ammo might have infinitesimally less "stopping power" when fired at the back of someone who just stole their car radio
Who live in fear that some thug in a hoodie might bring the dread substances of skittles and arizona iced tea into their previously clean neighborhood
Who live in fear that their unquestionable right to arm themselves as if they were living in the reality of "Mad Max" might avctually be qustioned by someone
Who live in fear of... well, just about fucking everything, to tell you the truth.

But mostly... just the fear of thinking themselves powerless. of course, if you have to boy a toy for that, you're admitting defeat already.

[bongbong]

87. Gun religionists fear posts like yours

> Unlike gun nuts who live in perpetual fear of weekly home invasions

Too much truth, and not enough of the truthiness that they love so much.

[Brickbat]

2. Wow. Speaking of a sad world.

[bluerum]

3. What about police and armed guards?

There are lots of reasonable actions to take that might prevent mass muders. I don't think your suggestion is one of them.

[JeepJK556]

4. I agree.

Constitutional rights should not apply within city limits.

[GarroHorus]

14. Yep, next step, NO PROTESTS WITHIN CITY LIMITS

Just too dangerous, doncha know.

[RC]

32. What part of the Constitution still applies?

1st Amendment? Nope, get beat up by the cops
2nd Amendment? Nope, Where is my grenade launcher?

And so on.

(Later, Gotta go)

[Shankapotomus]

5. So you want the urban people disarmed

And the rural people armed?

urban usually = blue

rural usually = red

Any other reason for this lopsided approach to gun control you want to tell us about?

[safeinOhio]

6. Urban usually vote anti-gun mayors=blue

Most rural gun nuts think they should decide what's best urban folks=racist.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. Gun control has racist and classist roots, especially in places like NYC

[safeinOhio]

8. At one time it might have.

Currently gun rights organizations and those that support them have racist roots.
They hate urban mayors that were elected by minorities that support their gun views. Not many, if any, main stream civil rights organizations support the NRA, or the NRA support them. On the other hand, groups like the KKK have openly supported the NRA.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. It has similar impacts, even today

NYC/DC/CA gun control laws all make them more expensive so the poor can not afford them. Most of the urban poor are minority. Sounds classist and racist in effect to many

[safeinOhio]

11. Being urban poor minority means a greater risk of

being arrested for what rich whites don't. That prevents them from owning a gun too.

The point I'm making is that urban Blacks want more gun control laws, not less. They elect mayors that run on that and win. Then along come white people telling them they are wrong or stupid to do so. I'd call that racist. Urban dwellers want guns to be more expensive and harder to get.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Some do

I am black and lived in various cities until we moved out to the twigs. I saw then the clear racism for what it is and still do today.

[michreject]

44. Most urban folk

Seem to think they can dictate whats best for the rest of the state.

Chicago

NYC

Boston

[Blue_In_AK]

10. What about people who live in cities who hunt

or who occasionally trek out into the wilderness where bears might be roaming around. Anchorage is a city and many, many people here own guns. I don't myself, but I have no problem with people who do.

[safeinOhio]

12. I don't think a city dweller cares about

those that hunt and their guns. In bear country the shooting starts at sun up on opening day and in the city the shooting starts when the sun goes down, every day.

[GarroHorus]

13. You are in the wrong here. Everybody has a guaranteed right to own a gun. nt

[Ruby the Liberal]

19. Felons too? What about Children?

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 07:30 PM - Edit history (1)

13. You are in the wrong here. Everybody has a guaranteed right to own a gun. nt

Everyone?

[GarroHorus]

20. Here's a clue, the right to vote is guaranteed , but children do not have that right and felons can

have it taken away.

[Ruby the Liberal]

21. No, you said, "Everybody has a guaranteed right to own a gun" so lets explore that.

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 07:31 PM - Edit history (1)

20. Here's a clue, the right to vote is guaranteed , but children do not have that right and felons can

have it taken away.

Felons don't "have it taken away" - it is an automatic. Commit a felony, and your rights are gone. Not taken, gone. By law.

So now that we have ruled out children and felons from "everybody" - how about the mentally ill. The ones that the gun hawks keep insisting are the problem. Do they have a "guaranteed right to own a gun" as well in your opinion?

[GarroHorus]

23. YEs, they do. James Holmes had a guaranteed right to own firearms

Until a court rules them incompetent, they retain their rights.

That's the law and I'll fight to the death to defend those rights.

[Ruby the Liberal]

25. Okay - so let me get this straight.

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

23. YEs, they do. James Holmes had a guaranteed right to own firearms

Until a court rules them incompetent, they retain their rights.

That's the law and I'll fight to the death to defend those rights.

You will "fight to the death" to arm the mentally ill with unlimited weapons capabilities.

Do I have that right?

[GarroHorus]

26. Legally, they are not mentally ill until a court declares them incompetent.

I'll defend to the death the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Nobody may be deprived life, liberty or property except by due process of law.

I cannot accept the diagnosis of a mental health profession on its own. The deprivation of any right enumerated to the people under the constitution must be accomplished via due process and by no other means.

So in the end, I would defend to the death the right of James Holmes to own a 12 gauge shotgun, two Glock .40 handguns, and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle before the events of July 20, 2012. His rights were not deprived by any due process and thus he had every right to own them.

[Ruby the Liberal]

27. That isn't what you said though. You said "Everybody has a guaranteed right to own a gun"

26. Legally, they are not mentally ill until a court declares them incompetent.

I'll defend to the death the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Nobody may be deprived life, liberty or property except by due process of law.

I cannot accept the diagnosis of a mental health profession on its own. The deprivation of any right enumerated to the people under the constitution must be accomplished via due process and by no other means.

So in the end, I would defend to the death the right of James Holmes to own a 12 gauge shotgun, two Glock .40 handguns, and an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle before the events of July 20, 2012. His rights were not deprived by any due process and thus he had every right to own them.

I didn't ask you about James Holmes - and that is a diversion. I am inquiring about the blanket term "everybody" that you will "fight to the death for".

Since you didn't answer the question, I will ask again, "You will "fight to the death" to arm the mentally ill with unlimited weapons capabilities"?

Or shall we include the mentally ill on the growing "maybe not everyone" list?

[GarroHorus]

28. You're going around in circles for no logical reason.

I have nothing further to say to you.

Ever.

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. I don't blame you. Lets look at the Gun Control Act of 1968.

28. You're going around in circles for no logical reason.

Last edited Sat Jul 21, 2012, 07:11 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I have nothing further to say to you.

Ever.

These folks are not legally allowed to possess firearms or ammunition:

1. Fugitives from justice
2. Illegal aliens
3. Users of unlawful drugs
4. Those committed to a mental institution
5. Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (which generally covers felonies)
6. Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence

If you plan to "fight to the death", you may want to pick your battles, because that is an awful lot of minuses from the "everybody" column.

[bongbong]

61. Funny reply!

Gun-religionists don't like people who argue back, and show their gun-relgion for the insanity it is. That's why you got:

> I have nothing further to say to you.

Oh, that is CLASSIC. Another classic from the gun-relgionists is when you produce evidence proving them wrong from a source they hate like the Brady Campaign. They just say it's biased.

Really, arguing with gun-religionists is like arguing with 2 year olds.

[morningfog]

82. I've started putting them all on ignore. If I wanted to read RW swill, I'd

go to a RW site.

[Ruby the Liberal]

71. Just realized - since you brought it up,

Holmes has not been found insane, nor has he been convicted of a felony. Is he "everybody" right now, too?

Sorry, I know I am on ignore now - but it hit me, so thought I would ask seeing as how we are working to define that word.

[bongbong]

88. Holmes

Somebody like Holmes is the worst nightmare for gun-religionists. He wasn't crazy, he wasn't overtly nuts, etc.

He just had the "right" to buy enough weaponry to overthrow a small country. Thus, he really showed the situation in America for what it is - a small minority of thugs (the NRA & gun-relgionists) holding America hostage.

[Tejas]

77. Yes, non-violent felons. Their right to vote should be restored also.

[zappaman]

16. What a load of crap.

Just ridiculous.

[Tejas]

78. Prohibitionists: guns for me but not thee.

[Marrah_G]

18. I don't love guns, nor do I hate them. I live in a small city.

I think some of you (on both sides) need to take a deep breath and stop lashing out at and/or trying to bait other Duers, people who you most likely agree with on 95% of issues.

[Honeycombe8]

22. I'm keeping my gun for protection in my home, thank you.

That's the end of that discussion as far as I'm concerned. You must be male and/or live with others. You feel safe. You are not a favorite target of criminals in your home.

The elderly and women living alone are targets of criminals. Statistics show that when they are targeted in their homes, they don't fare well. There are many things they can do to better the odds of coming out alive or unharmed. Having a gun is just one of those things.

When you come from a hunting area, and you're raised around guns and know to respect them and value them for the service they can provide...you have a different view of a city guy who hasn't been around guns much, except to see them on TV or news shows being used by criminals.

It's really not that big a deal. The big deal is assault weapons, buying a lot of guns or ammo (red flags), getting into violent porn (another red flag), and other things.

Guns have been around since the founding of the country. The mass shootings are a recent phenomenon. So it's not the guns. There's something else going on that makes these guys do this. Have you noticed that it is ONLY males who do these mass killings? Why is that? Is it only YOUNG males? Why not look at that, if that's the case? There are so many factors involved, it could be anything. But if there were lots of guns around for hundreds of years, and mass shootings started a couple of decades ago, I think the answer is....it's not the guns. At least not the rifles or handguns.

This guy made bombs, too.

[lindysalsagal]

80. All these armed trained secret servicemen couldn't prevent a bullet from hitting Reagan

And they were wide awake and alert and looking around. Watch the video:

If they couldn't stop the bullet, I have no reason to believe I could, either.

I believe the thought of using a gun for personal security makes sense, but I don't believe that the reality matches the thought. And in the meantime, we live awash in guns.

In my opinion, the belief that a gun makes a civilian safer is wishful thinking, but not based in reality.

It makes you feel safer, but it's only a feeling.

[Honeycombe8]

86. Yes, it's not the guns involved that were the cause or the cure. It's something else.

There have always been lots of guns here. There have always been murderers (Lincoln was assassinated), but the mass shootings are a recent phenomenon. That's caused by something besides guns.

Don't forget the guy also used tear gas, homemade bombs, etc. There's no shortage of mass weapons, if you're of a mind to kill a lot of people indiscriminately.

[michreject]

40. That ain't gonna happen

Fortunately.

[Egalitarian Thug]

41. I don't think you realize just how insignificant this issue is, but here's a tidbit to keep you

up at night. Every time you go out among other people, the odds are very good that some one within sight is armed.

[Texasgal]

47. I'm not a gun nut

but we own a gun, a small pistol. We were broken into during our sleep a few years ago and it scared us to death! My husband and I are childless and are CHS holders. I would never want to handle a gun without knowing what I was doing. I have a healthy respect for our weapon and I would never touch it unless I absolutely had to.

What do we protect ourselves with when only the criminals and the police have guns?

[loli phabay]

51. for these situations you are better off with a 12 gauge pump action

you are less likely to have an accident with it and if you hear someone in your home just the click clack is enough to make them realise they have made a mistake. PLus if you do have to use it buckshot means you are more likely to hit and less likely to go a wall and hit someone else.

[Texasgal]

55. The pistol was cheaper

and I felt more comfortable handling a smaller weapon.

[loli phabay]

56. yup my wife was the same, but she now likes the security of the 12 gauge

she also feels that due to the mechanics she feels less likely to have a negligent discharge with the 12 gauge than her glock.

[Texasgal]

59. I came from a family of hunters.

I have been taught always to respect weapons. I realized that I needed to take a CHS class to make sure that I was properly trained to have such a responsibility in my home.

I don't regret it.

[obamanut2012]

62. You can get a basic .20 at Dick's for less than $100

A Mossburg pump .20 or .12 at a gun show for less than $300.

[baldguy]

58. People who bring guns into cities out of fear create the very environment that makes them fearful.

They feel the need to carry a gun because the criminals might have guns - and the criminals that have guns get them from the people who carry them.

[flvegan]

72. So killing OTHER animals is okay.

Just want to be sure I have my outrage in proper check.

[Zax2me]

74. I know a good reason to bring them in cities.

Because people looking to rob/rape/assault you already do?
And you want to protect yourself/family from them.

[cliffordu]

75. Thanks for the condescension.

Your concern and opinion are duly noted.

[Tejas]

79. The bodyguards for Mayor Bloomberg pack machineguns, they don't look very sad.

[hobbit709]

81. At times the world I live in is pretty pitiful, but that has nothing to do with guns.

I have 8 assorted guns in the closet. Every few years I take them out of their cases and clean them. I inherited them-I didn't buy them out of fear. It's been at least 20 years since I last fired a gun. I feel no need to pack agun to make me feel important nor to get my jollies.

[guardian]

84. Yeah...that has worked sooooo well in Chicago.

idiocy on parade

[belcffub]

85. I live in the city but have country property... what do you propose

my country property is out in the boondocks and a half a mile off the road in the woods... response time from the police is under 2 minutes... usually under a minute... at our country place...30 to 45 minutes