Now its the liberals who are arming up
Source: McClatchyDC
When it looked all but certain that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency, nervous gun rights advocates reported stockpiling guns and ammunition they feared would no longer be available if the Democrat won the White House.
The threat of Clinton presidency, along with several recent mass shootings, had led to 18 straight months of records in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check system for people seeking a permit to buy a firearm. Many were concerned the government would enact regulations restricting their access to guns.
But since Republican Donald Trump, who was endorsed by the National Rifle Association and supports gun rights, won the White House in November, gun shops anticipated sales would taper off. Shares in major gun companies fell, anticipating a slowdown.
Yet that doesn’t seem to be the case: On Black Friday this year, NICB processed a record 185,713 background checks — the most ever on a single day in the 20 years the system has existed.
And some of those gun buyers are what the industry calls “non-traditional.” Namely, minorities, gay people and self-described liberals.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article122697849.html
Whats good for the goose.....
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cilla4progress
(24,760 posts)On deck
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)We actually have something to fear.
All conservatives needed to stock up on was tinfoil to make hats.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Will ANY public voice say it?
We have something very real to fear. Weaponized and "legitimized" deplorables, who aren't satisfied with a "win". They're foaming at the mouth for violence.
Respectful Debate
(24 posts)
HAB911
(8,911 posts)
Richard D
(8,761 posts)... for the Muslim NRA.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Guns don't kill people, toddlers do!
http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)I am all for gun safety. What I was referring to was Sarah Silverman waving a pistol around, even putting it under her chin, with her finger on the trigger. She would certainly benefit from some gun safety training. The NRA offers some good courses.
HAB911
(8,911 posts)
sarisataka
(18,755 posts)Treat every gun as if it were real and loaded.
My kid's air soft guns are kept locked in the safe with my real ones. If they choose to own a gun when they are adults, the habits of proper handling and storage will already be ingrained
HAB911
(8,911 posts)I have a ton of guns too
HAB911
(8,911 posts)Sarah has no responsibility in the matter. As for me, I subscribe to the "thin the herd" philosophy. The more gun owner's toddlers kill their parents and themselves, the higher the average IQ will rise.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"toddlers kill their parents and themselves, the higher the average IQ will rise..."
Objective data to support your premise, or merely another self-validating bumper-sticker at the expense of others?
HAB911
(8,911 posts)that those who can't control their weapons are idiots.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)I have a ton of guns too
HAB911
(8,911 posts)Sarah has no responsibility in the matter. As for me, I subscribe to the "thin the herd" philosophy. The more gun owner's toddlers kill their parents and themselves, the higher the average IQ will rise.
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)The Daily Show isn't a real news program too.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)I also know it's audience. I am worried that the consumers of this fake news will copy the actors. Depicting bad practices is a disservice. The bad practices will be copied. The gangster grip was copied from television.
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Hangingon
(3,071 posts)
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)National African American Gun Association
http://www.naaga.co
My neighbor is a member.
wincest
(117 posts)baseballguy2001
(27 posts)Every responsible gun owner knows Rule #1 - Never, EVER, put your finger on the trigger until ready to shoot. Treat all weapons, (loaded or not) as if they are loaded. No exceptions.
HAB911
(8,911 posts)have responsibility in the matter.
As for me, I subscribe to the "thin the herd" philosophy. The more gun owner's toddlers kill their parents and themselves, the fewer nuts of breeding age are left and the higher the average IQ of the nation will rise.
sarisataka
(18,755 posts)I've never considered an "upside" to children's deaths...
Not did I expect to find such on a progressive site...
HAB911
(8,911 posts)If you could go back in time and kill baby Hitler...........
sarisataka
(18,755 posts)I wouldn't.
If I kill Hitler as a baby someone other than him will lead Germany in 1933. War in Europe is all but inevitable anyway whether it happens in '39, '43 or later. It may end up better, the same or worst than what historically happened. But I will still have killed a child.
I am defined by my actions and ideals not by what others may or may not do.
HAB911
(8,911 posts)so their is no moral dilemma for either of us
dionysus
(26,467 posts)wincest
(117 posts)i have a dark sense of humor that's always getting me in trouble.
i made and laughed at similar jokes.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)the guns are sold to, as long as there are lots of sales for their puppetmaster gun manufacturers.
Missn-Hitch
(1,383 posts)
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)"No Fly List" (NFL) to have a gun. I have been on the NFL since 12/01. The list is full of common names just like Cross Check. It allows them to have automatic probable cause to violate my rights without due process to allow me to fight to get my name off of the list.
Even though I have a concealed carry permit now, I have not gotten around to buying a gun. I got it to waive around at airports when they give me the third degree for being on the list.
Big Brother has been in control for some time now, we just haven't wanted to put it all together. The Trump presidency will be taking everything too a new level, everyone get ready!
Just think of all of the deaths those new guns will cause.
Mc Mike
(9,115 posts)
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Senator Kennedy was never on the list. It was a different "Ted" Kennedy.
The senator got caught in the alias match, as many people do since names are not unique. He show is ID to prove it was not him on the list. He got his boarding pass and continued on. Yes, it was not a quick process and others around him did notice the delay he got.
Mc Mike
(9,115 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 25, 2016, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)
" Sen. Kennedy Flagged by No-Fly List
By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 20, 2004; Page A01
U.S. Sen. Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy said yesterday that he was stopped and questioned at airports on the East Coast five times in March because his name appeared on the government's secret "no-fly" list.
Federal air security officials said the initial error that led to scrutiny of the Massachusetts Democrat should not have happened even though they recognize that the no-fly list is imperfect. But privately they acknowledged being embarrassed that it took the senator and his staff more than three weeks to get his name removed.
A senior administration official, who spoke on condition he not be identified, said Kennedy was stopped because the name "T. Kennedy" has been used as an alias by someone on the list of terrorist suspects.
While he worked to clear himself, Kennedy kept having to wait in terminals at Reagan National, Boston's Logan International and at least one other airport, his staff said. All of the flights were on US Airways. When the senator checked in at the counter, airline employees told him they could not issue him a boarding pass because he appeared on the list. Kennedy was delayed until a supervisor could be summoned to identify him and give approval for him to board the plane. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17073-2004Aug19.html
I wonder if they ever caught the terror suspect guy who used "T. Kennedy" as an alias.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Some other guy is on the list. The senator just had a similar name.
The only way users can search the list is by name. Names are not unique identifiers.
Mc Mike
(9,115 posts)Therefore, he had quite a bit of trouble flying, though he was extremely well-known and recognizable. And he had trouble separating his self from the "T. Kennedy" terrorist, in the corporate-governmental no-fly nexus, despite his in depth knowledge about so many aspects of the gov, its functions and agencies; and despite his personal relationships with so many of the gov's key people.
I wonder what terrorist "used T Kennedy as an alias", and if that terrorist was ever caught. Definitely never heard more about that part of the story.
To put it simply, your quibble seems senseless to me, joe. There was never a chance that Sen Kennedy was a terroristic threat to security on any airplane. But the way the list functioned, the way it was enforced -- it was exactly like he was the one on it.
If you object to me "promoting that myth" (that Ted was a terrorist), I have always been a big fan of Ted, so you're barking up the wrong tree. I've even donated to the E. M. Kennedy Institute, when times were good. But if you're explaining away the incidents as a "glitch, error, confusion", your explanation has no foundation in reality. When U.S. Air repeatedly told our great Dem Senator he couldn't fly, they told him it was because his name was on the no-fly list. Pretty simple.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Mc Mike
(9,115 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Mc Mike
(9,115 posts)If you understood it, you already have your 'correction'.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)that the senator was never on the list.
Some other guy is on the list. The senator got caught in a name match. He showed his ID to confirm that he was not on the guy on the list, the agent verified his ID, and the senator got his boarding pass.
Had the senator been on the list, ID or not, he would not have been allowed on the flight.
Mc Mike
(9,115 posts)He didn't show his I.D., then get a boarding pass and get on the plane, easy peasey. He was denied admission and waited around, no matter what ID he had or showed, until supervisors came and over rode the list enforcement.
It never mattered that you and I know that Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy wasn't the "T. Kennedy"-alias-using terrorist on the list. The people who enforced the list said he couldn't get on because he was on the list. Which is, of course, the functional definition of being on the no fly list.
Or, if they were precise phraseologists, they said he couldn't get on the plane because his name was on the no-fly list.
If they really paid minute attention to detail, they said "A name is on the no fly list, that looks like your name but isn't, it appears to match your name but doesn't, so our protocols say that you can't fly because you're on the list, but you're not."
It happened over and over again, for almost a month. Despite him being one of the most easily recognizable faces and names in politics. Easily recognized by our side, his political enemies, and the public, most especially in DC and Boston's airports -- because his face appeared in stories in papers and on t.v. even more frequently in DC and MA. His face and name were largely known by the public since at least as early as a couple of high profile funerals he was involved in, in the '60's.
It's a shame you weren't in those airports to console and entertain Ted by telling him he wasn't really actually on the list. He had a lot of time to kill while he was waiting around, not on the list, and listening to your Protagoras impersonations would probably have amused him more than wandering around skymall.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)My understanding of the way this work is this:
Ticket agent does a name search (only way into the system).
If the name is found, the detailed record of the listee is presented.
ID of the customer is produced to show the customer is not the listee.
The customer gets his boarding pass.
If that is not the correct process, documentation needs to be produced.
Any "list" that is literally just a list of names is completely useless.
If that is correct procedure and the agent did not follow it, he/they needs to be fired or retrained.
Mc Mike
(9,115 posts)The whole situation seems to me like the American weaponized anthrax strain that got sent to Dem opposition leaders Daschle and Leahy's offices, terror attack cases that were never solved.
We never got the whole story, but I think that in this case there was some nutty rightie terrorist, who hated Kennedy, and took the alias T. Kennedy to push the idea that Sen Kennedy was a bad guy terrorist. If it had been a "One Ireland" terrorist, we probably would have gotten more detail about who this "on the list" person was.
So one of the top opposition Dems was repeatedly harassed, obstructed, and held in place pulling down exposure, based on a bogus "match". The Senator had serious personal security issues, getting bottle-necked and held up could only exacerbate the head aches his security personnel already had:
" WASHINGTON — Sen. Edward Kennedy, who buried two brothers killed by assassins, endured a barrage of threats on his life that continued for much of his political career, thousands of FBI documents released Monday show.
More than 2,200 pages of previously secret documents reveal Kennedy, the brother of President John F. Kennedy, received a constant stream of anonymous threats and warnings from members of the Ku Klux Klan and the militant anti-communist "Minutemen."
"We are after you," reads one unsigned letter sent to the senator's office in 1969, a year after his brother Sen. Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed. "One of us will get you." "
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-06-14-kennedy-fbi-files_N.htm
After Ridge "cleared up" the issue, 5 weeks after the first "false match" incident, it happened again:
" ... Between March 1 and April 6, airline agents tried to block Mr. Kennedy from boarding airplanes on five occasions because his name resembled an alias used by a suspected terrorist who had been barred from flying on airlines in the United States, his aides and government officials said. ...
''He said, 'We can't give it to you,''' Mr. Kennedy said, describing an encounter with an airline agent to the rapt audience. '''You can't buy a ticket to go on the airline to Boston.' I said, 'Well, why not?' He said, 'We can't tell you.'''
''Tried to get on a plane back to Washington,'' Mr. Kennedy continued. '''You can't get on the plane.' I went up to the desk and said, 'I've been getting on this plane, you know, for 42 years. Why can't I get on the plane?'''
...
In Mr. Kennedy's case, airline supervisors ultimately overruled the ticket agents in each instance and allowed him to board the plane. But it took several weeks for the Department of Homeland Security to clear the matter up altogether, the senator's aides said.
Just days after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge called Mr. Kennedy in early April to apologize and to promise that the problems would be resolved, another airline agent tried to stop Mr. Kennedy from boarding a plane yet again.
...
Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said they did not know how many people had been mistakenly placed on watch lists. But they said the sluggish responses from the airline and the government to Mr. Kennedy's efforts to clear his name demonstrated the absurdity of the no-fly system.
...
He said, to much laughter, that he did not believe the mistake was a conspiracy engineered by his Republican colleagues. And as Mr. Hutchinson offered up his apologies, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, responded jokingly in kind.
Mr. Hutchinson said, ''Senator, we do regret that inconvenience to you.''
Mr. Hatch said, ''Quit smiling when you say that.'' "
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/senator-terrorist-a-watch-list-stops-kennedy-at-airport.html
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)that was the terrorist, just the name part like me.
I was told by my FBI agent (they assigned me one to supposedly help me through faster as I fly a lot, he never answered his phone) that he wasn't supposed to tell me why I was on the list. Then he told me a terrorist from South Yemen used my name as an alias once. I call bull shit on that, what Yemeni terrorist looks Scottish?
The No Fly List is a bull shit excuse to invade our privacy!
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)He said the terrorist used an alias similar to your name.
He did NOT say the terrorist used your photo as an ID.
The only method of look up that the airport clerks have is by name, which is not a unique ID.
When you get a name match, you then show your ID to confirm you are not the subject on the list, then you get your boarding pass. Just like what happened to Senator Kennedy.
Yes, the No Fly List is complete nonsense.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)A similar name would ensnare you, but he said that my exact name was used. My name is a Scottish name which would not fit right for a person of Arabic origins. That would, to me, be a red flag unless the Yemeni terrorist looked Anglo.
The No Fly List is full of common names, much like Cross Check, without the emphasis on minority surnames. They never take a name off of the list, only add more. This automatically gives them a higher level of scrutiny for those of us unfortunate enough to be included on the list.
Missn-Hitch
(1,383 posts)It's going to get really interesting these next few years. Be safe! Happy New Year!
C_U_L8R
(45,018 posts)Alt-dumbasses might want to think twice about fucking with this liberal.
After all, who's really defending the Constitution here?
rockfordfile
(8,704 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)People I never thought would think it are discussing it.
I'm thinking too.
And I'm a crack shot. (Yes, I'm bragging 
)
GoCubsGo
(32,086 posts)Most of them are hunters. The notions that all liberals hate guns and hunting are myths. There are a lot more of them out there than anyone realizes. And, the RWNJs are free to continue to believe those myths. They do so at their own peril.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)interesting. didn't know that.
7962
(11,841 posts)I'm in the same category as you; i know many gun owners who were also hillary voters!
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)As much as the conservatives I know.
JHB
(37,161 posts)Original message
Have you purchased a gun (or thought about it) cause of Bush?
I did and am getting responses from others here that have either bought one or more or who are considering it. Most, like me, don't really like the idea of having a gun in the house, but now feel it may be necessary.
True_Blue
(3,063 posts)Just in case they have to defend themselves against rightwing supremacists. They're getting very bold. I saw a truck the other day flying a huge confederate flag on the back. I've never seen that before and I'm pretty old.
nini
(16,672 posts)because I've thought of this myself.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Even my sister who's always been a gun control freak is buying a pistol.
Personally, I've always been armed. When seconds count in a self-defense situation, the cops are minutes away. And I've got a big mouth politically in a right-wing state. I'm NOT going to shut up and if somebody wants to TRY and shut me up, they will pay for the privilege of attempting it.
mainer
(12,025 posts)I mean, I understand the impulse. But how many stop to think of the greater risk to yourself from having a gun in the household?
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Handguns are the scourge, not so much rifles or shotguns IMO.
SunSeeker
(51,660 posts)
Lokilooney
(322 posts)But as I've learned it doesn't matter what the subject is, the only deaths that matter are the ones that fit the narrative that is being spun.
SunSeeker
(51,660 posts)Belts don't increase your chance of suicide. Guns have been definitely found to increase your risk of taking your own life.
http://www.stripes.com/news/experts-restricting-troops-access-to-firearms-is-necessary-to-reduce-rate-of-suicides-1.199216
progressoid
(49,996 posts)
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)It's been working out so well for us, after all!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436
http://rkba.org/research/kleck/targeting-guns.html
SunSeeker
(51,660 posts) pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Pathetic, but entirely predictable. You're completely incapable of intelligently responding to well-articulated and honest posts such as those I linked to. You are the classic example of the person who gets upset when introduced to information that conflicts with his/her faith-based beliefs --- and whose ego doesn't allow them to consider the possibility that they don't know everything about everything.
http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
......it's been working out so well for us.
Your one sentence response makes absolutely no sense, given the fact that damn near everyone knows that "gun control" is a political loser.
SunSeeker
(51,660 posts)No pablo_marmol, I am driven by facts. I already addressed the issue up thread. As I said above, guns have been definitely found to increase your risk of taking your own life.
http://www.stripes.com/news/experts-restricting-troops-access-to-firearms-is-necessary-to-reduce-rate-of-suicides-1.199216
Common sense gun control is not a political loser. And it is certainly not a moral loser.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Says the person who slung out the "NRA propaganda" remark!
"No pablo_marmol, I am driven by facts."
Your link describes a rather narrow band of the population --- certainly not representative of the population at large.
"Common sense gun control is not a political loser."
Takes a set of brass ones to claim to possess common sense when you support banning rifles based on the way they look rather than function. And if you think we haven't paid a political price for (one example) going after the most popular rifle in the country for no good reason, you can't be reasoned with.
"And it is certainly not a moral loser."
The CDC disagrees, insofar as they've conceded that defensive gun use is at least as common as offensive gun use.
SunSeeker
(51,660 posts)Other than accusing me of having "brass ones," you fail to explain how that Isreali example does not establish the fact.
And the CDC says no such thing regarding defensive gun use. In fact, the CDC has offeered no conclusions about guns ever since it was silenced by the NRA, who got the Republican Congress to effectively prohibit the CDC from studying gun violence way back in 1997, and has maintained that ban to this day.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286847-gop-blocks-dem-attempts-to-allow-federal-gun-research
Like climate change deniers, the gun industry hates facts.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Here are the honest and thoughtful posts you describe as "NRA propaganda". I'll let DU members with integrity judge for themselves:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436
http://rkba.org/research/kleck/targeting-guns.html
You clearly think that those following this thread are lacking in intelligence to claim that you're attacking the argument only.
......you fail to explain how that Isreali example does not establish the fact.
Your example pertains to soldiers -- the apparent implication being that results of the study can be applied to the population as a whole. Apples and oranges. Further, while it has been demonstrated that higher gun populations result in more suicide by gun, the overall suicide rate remains constant. People - generally men - simply find another highly lethal method of ending their lives. Gun restriction supporters have demonstrated over and over again that the only deaths that matter are gun deaths. Compassionate liberals my ass.
And the CDC says no such thing regarding defensive gun use.
Oh reeeeally?
Defensive uses of guns are common:
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”
Plug the paragraph in quotes and sentence above it into google and the following is the top entry:
Edited to amend: It was at one time the top entry. Not now.
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
Not surprised you'd be unaware of this latest paper, given the fact that you don't do honest homework, and the media suppresses information that conflicts with the "gun control" narrative.
........ever since it was silenced by the NRA,........
Another in an infinite list of lies/talking points of the gun restriction movement. What Congress actually did was to forbid entities advocating for a position to conduct studies (with taxpayer dollars!) on gun violence. And this, after a CDC sponsored "scholar" was found to have made a completely bogus claim based on an invented citation. Again, you wouldn't be aware of this given the fact that you fail to do honest research. Gary Kleck details what I've just outlined in his book 'Targeting Guns'.
Like climate change deniers, the gun industry hates facts.
LMAO. Pure, uncut projection. Coming from a team that has been pissing away votes and elections for decades now with lies/misdirection like "assault weapons", "gun show loopholes", the "epidemic to gun violence" and on, and on and on........
You Have a Happy New Year as well, SS. I've wasted enough of my time already here.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”
Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:
“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”
“Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:
“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”
Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:
“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”
Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:
“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”
The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:
“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”
http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1
SunSeeker
(51,660 posts)The 2013 report you are citing is a report identifying areas needing more study, not actual CDC conclusions. The name of the document you are citing is "PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF
FIREARM-RELATED.VIOLENCE." And of course the CDC was not able to do that research because the Republicans blocked funding.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Well, the Democrats aren't going to take them away now (we never were, but fear based on bullshit masquerading as false advertising is about as good as it gets).
So, now "the lib'ruls" need to gun-up to protect themselves from the gunned-up rightwingers!
As rightwing, jackbooted thuggery disavowing rights across the nation gets impetus from the racist, sexist, homophobic election we just suffered through, "Fear" works again!
I guess a nuclear arms race makes sense to some people.
But I still maintain that none of this makes sense to a liberal Democrat.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)are NOT "liberals", but are actual leftists who KNOW from study and sometimes personal experience, what the authoritarian/fascist right wing will do given the slightest opportunity. Of course, an "liberal" will NOT be the ones fighting the fascists in the streets. And yes, that's what this will boil down to pretty soon, as apocalyptic as that might sound.
It's ironic, that "liberals" are the ones who are and have been the quickest to call Trump and his supporters "fascist" without thinking the statement through. Leftists usually say that Trump isn't a fascist, but that some of his supporters are and that his biggest problems is that he ENABLES fascists. Or maybe that he is "proto-fascist". That's the phrase I use because I think he's a little bit further along than merely enabling. But either way, even a cursory study of history will show that fascism is predicated on PHYSICAL intimidation of political opponent. They're the schoolyard bullies of the political arena. And like any schoolyard bully, they won't be stopped with rational arguments, kind words, "love", or, in the case of fascists, the cops. They have to be made afraid and driven back into the shadows. And an armed leftist populace that WILL fight is the only thing that WILL drive them back into the dung heaps where they belong.
humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)Let's give up everything we ever tried to fight for, because we never really meant any of it anyway, right?
Baitball Blogger
(46,756 posts)OldRedneck
(1,397 posts)I'm a lifelong liberal FDR Democrat, age 72. Retired Army infantry officer; veteran of multiple Vietnam tours with the medals and scars to prove it.
I'm also a very friendly, peaceful sort. Am also a hunter and shooter who owns a lot of guns, most of them high-end hunting weapons.
I have several decals and bumper stickers on my gas-guzzling F250 SuperDuty that clearly identify me as a liberal Democrat. I live in a rural area dominated by Republicans and Tea Partiers. At least once a week, one of these assholes accosts me in a parking lot and mocks my bumper stickers. I usually ignore them.
A few days before the election, at the dump site (we don't have garbage collection, we take our trash and recycles to a collection point), a lard-assed rightwinger waddled up to me as I was tossing stuff in the recycle bins. He commented on my Democratic, Hillary, Obama bumper stickers then he told me: "You Democrats should be shot."
Normally, I'd walk away but this got under my skin. I asked: "Are you going to shoot me, fat boy?"
Pissed him off: "I just may get my pistol and do it."
To which I replied: "Fine. But you need to know that under the seat of my truck is a Smith & Wesson M1911 .45 loaded with magnum load hollow points. And I stand my ground."
He damn near tripped over himself, running to his car and roaring away.
I now have a pistol under the seat of my Mini Cooper and my wife's Explorer.
These sonsabitches are dangerous.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)Not on TRUMP's WATCH!
Vinca
(50,302 posts)I'm a former (female) cop and I sold my service revolver a few years back because it had been in a box on a shelf for more than a decade since I'd used it. Since Trump and the threat from the far right, the thought has crossed my mind to buy a new gun for protection. I never thought I'd find myself in this state of mind.
Good for you!!!!! These dumbasses that haven't even been in the Boy Scouts that thinks they are Rambo and they can do what ever they want. I now live in a very heavy military area, I see the same fat asses with their confederate flags on their F-250's 😉 in front of God and everyone. Knowing they will offend half of the public.
I bought my first gun, a Ruger .22lr....I know, I know a baby gun, but after W was elected, I had a feeling this level of hatred would explode. So 16 years later it has come into fruition and it's as bad as I thought it would be.
These people that haven't done a damn thing for their country as you have, need to look in the mirror and realize they are not men, they are potatoes.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)
Response to DK504 (Reply #26)
Jake Stern This message was self-deleted by its author.
7962
(11,841 posts)Its harder to conceal a larger weapon and also harder to retrieve it.
DBoon
(22,395 posts)More proof de-evolution is real:
bdamomma
(63,918 posts)correct me if I am wrong, they like to dish it out but can't take it. Wow I wouldn't mess with you.
Have a good Christmas.
spin
(17,493 posts)magnum load .45 acp?
The hottest ammo I've ran through my 1911 was .45 ACP +P. I installed a stiffer recoil spring and a shock buffer to help reduce wear and tear on the weapon.
There is a .45 Winchester mag, at least one pistol was commercially produced for it but it has long since been discontinued. S&W didn't make one.
I just assume he meant a hot .45 ACP pushing a JHP. Maybe the poster reloads and primed with CCI 350s. 
spin
(17,493 posts)I've heard of reloaders who use the CCI 350 Magnum Primers when reloading 45 acp ammo. I used to reload .45 acp ammo but I just used large pistol primers. Of course that was about ten years ago before all the ammo and primer shortages.
ToolMaker
(27 posts)I use CCI 350s in all of my straight wall (large primer) revolver cartridges. Great for big doses of slow burning powders, particularly when the outside temp dips toward freezing.
Never knew it could magnumize a .45 Auto. 😜
mitch96
(13,924 posts)I totally agree.. What they fear the most is an openminded individual with a firearm and knows how to use it safely.
ToolMaker
(27 posts)I'd be interested in hearing about a magnum load for the .45 auto.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)not for the purpose of protection of persons, but for sport clays and target, the education of safe firearm operation and collecting beautiful walnut-stocked machines.
I do not hunt or kill animals except for gophers and ground squirrels.
As far as politics go, my position is that if you think that you need a firearm to protect yourself from a tyrannical government - then you aren't mentally fit to own guns. Any local gub'mnt officer isn't going to bat an eye about taking out a threat with a firearm ( you) - and the Fed gov't out-guns everyone.
Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)All arming yourself with a handgun is gonna do is get you or someone killed.
still_one
(92,372 posts)are going to be involved in accidental shootings
joewicker_TX
(73 posts)Franklin Roosevelt once said,
“Remember, always, that all of us, and you and I especially, are descended from immigrants and revolutionists.”
It makes sense given that the orange menace has targeted those 2 groups from day 1.
It doesn't mean we are psycho gun nuts or that our gun makes up for some.....male inadequacy....it means that we are ready to take up arms to defend this great country from tyrants. AND assuming liberals won't/don't carry is false.
And screw the NRA....never been a member and never will be.
I'm a CHL holder and I WILL stand my ground against tyranny.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)- then you aren't mentally fit to own guns. Any local gub'mnt officer isn't going to bat an eye about taking out a threat with a firearm (you) and you aren't likely to shoot at a cop first -given the legalities after everything calms down. Besides, the Fed gov't out-guns everyone.
Sure, back when the nation was founded a flint-lock might do the trick. How are you going to compete with a rocket launcher or an armed drone?
Not very well.
Thinking that you need a firearm to protect yourself from a tyrannical government is insanity and it is part of the NRA's sales-pitch.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)We're thinking of protection against shitheads at the red light. Or the store. Or across the street.
The scum unleashed by their Orange führer.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)That's defending oneself from typical right-wing-asshole civilians who do not work for the gub'mnt.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)
lambchopp59
(2,809 posts)The RW nutjobs are trying sock puppets here and elsewhere to paint another false equivalency scenario. Now RW media and it's so called "neutral" echo chambers are printing stories about assassination attempts and threats to the Donald.
Just as long as we are making in clear arming ourselves is self defensive and not offensive, we stay in the light of innocence, VS the radicalized nutjob territory the threat making lardass is clearly deep into.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Anyone who thinks us libruls are hatching violent plans CLEARLY
1) Doesn't actually know any liberals.
2) is a CONservative living in the Reich Wing NOISE machine.
7962
(11,841 posts)Hell, even here we've had several actually wishing for trumps plane to crash and kill him. This is the level many have sunk to.
Nothing wrong with taking advantage of the right that you have to own a weapon, just know how to use it and get a license. Not many gun crimes are committed by licensed owners
lambchopp59
(2,809 posts)Just a little tooooo much publicity milking from these, when similar threats to the opposition are largely blown off.
47of74
(18,470 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)vkkv
(3,384 posts)Freedom of speech
Freedom of gathering information
Freedom to protest
Freedom of travel
Wire-tapping
Unwarranted searches
Freedom to marry who you want - who isn't your sibling or underage (!). ( oh wait, that's still legal in the South)
Freedom to live in peace away from the threat of lunatic gun violence.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)that makes money whenever a group of people gets shot by some "lone wolf" whose internet search is idnetical to the other lone wolves, be it isis sites or Stormfront.
I can understand wanting to get guns, or even make the NRA less dependent on the mouth breathers, but if you go this route, do realize the people that made money off of feeding Kluxer fantasies about killing all them hippies and liberals just went "ca-Ching" like they hit the lotto.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)or Democrat.
dhill926
(16,351 posts)Devil Child
(2,728 posts)This is good news. You can only count on yourself for protection and defense at the moment it is needed. No one else will save you, fight back. The right will show no mercy when incited towards violence.
Don't just buy a gun. Buy a gun and practice and train. Buy a gun and become proficient with its use. Teach others to do the same.
elmac
(4,642 posts)does that count?
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)Dealt more than once with self-proclaimed neighborhood avengers loudly demanding the who, what, when, where and why of my presence in "their" neighborhood.
Mom 'n' Pop became gun owners after a tweaker tried to force her way into their house, knife in hand, while they were awake and sitting in the living room. Thankfully she ran away and was later caught but it spooked them into getting a pistol and making regular weekend visits to the range.
Paladin
(28,271 posts)The Trump reich is the end result of decades of increasingly deranged right-wing lunacy, to which the pro-gun movement has furnished its whole-hearted, paranoid, brain-dead support. Thanks for absolutely nothing, guncentrics.
I'm 66 years old and have been around guns all of my life. I've always had a .22 and a 12 gauge around the house. When Bush the younger got re-elected I started stocking up a bit. I live in a very red county in a very red state and have never had a problem when out at the shootn' range with my 1911 and my Bernie bumper sticker.
NCDem777
(458 posts)Conservatives are pretty much salivating at the thought of raping/murdering anyone to the left of Ayn Rand and anyone who's part of any minority. Black, LGBT, disabled.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)Some of us are as good with guns and unconventional weaponry as they think they are.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I always enjoyed reading your posts during the 2016 primary. Just make sure to learn about safety and get some training.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)lambchopp59
(2,809 posts)Here's a thread the RWNJ's can extract and bend threads to make it sound like we're threatening them.
The RW nutjobs are trying sock puppets here and elsewhere to paint another false equivalency scenario. Now RW media and it's so called "neutral" echo chambers are printing stories about assassination attempts and threats to the Donald.
Just as long as we are making it very, very clear that arming ourselves is purely self defensive and not offensive, we stay in the light of innocence.
Devil Child
(2,728 posts)Let them feel uncomfortable.
lambchopp59
(2,809 posts)Certainly FOX and other RW noise machines don't possess any scruples when it comes to twisting any "leftist" words they can find to make us out to be terrorists. This appears to be their latest angle.
7962
(11,841 posts)No one in the article is talking about going out and doing anything. And the right has always had stories about getting a gun and defending yourself
lambchopp59
(2,809 posts)Certainly FOX and other RW noise machines don't possess any scruples when it comes to twisting any "leftist" words they can find to make us out to be terrorists. This appears to be their latest angle.
Danmel
(4,921 posts)Something we had never considered. But I am the daughter of an Auschwitz survivor and I see the parallels. Dont want to wake up and find out there is no water in the shower.
The Clash said it well:
When they kick in your front door, how you gonna come, with your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun?
KPN
(15,649 posts)This government sure won't.
J_William_Ryan
(1,756 posts)“When it looked all but certain that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency, nervous gun rights advocates reported stockpiling guns and ammunition they feared would no longer be available if the Democrat won the White House.”
A 'fear' completely devoid of merit.
Just as that ‘fear’ was completely unwarranted when Obama was president.
sarisataka
(18,755 posts)Wasn't she campaigning on creating a new assault weapon ban? Depending how assault weapon would be defined this time, that could mean many models of gun would no longer be available.
Also the article does not say such fear is, or ever was, rational.
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)I'm also looking into buying a M1911 45. This is not what I wanted but the reality is that these Trumpers are a lot more violently inclined than we are and they respect force above all.
7962
(11,841 posts)I see so many folks picking that particular weapon. I've always had the opinion that size was too big for carrying & the recoil too much for many to get off a 2nd accurate shot
I'm not being critical, just wondering
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)But the 1911 is popular imo because it's a single stacked magazine. That makes it nice for people with small hands. It's also is an iconic firearm that still holds up today. I personally prefer the browning hi-power.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
lordsummerisle
(4,651 posts)"And some of those gun buyers are what the industry calls “non-traditional.” Namely, minorities, gay people and self-described liberals."
Do you have to declare your race, sexual orientation and political party when you a buy a gun these days...?
bhowle
(35 posts)fairwitness42
(22 posts)Those who "beat their swords into plowshares" will be plowing for those who don't.
Among the most motivated proponents of more and more restrictive gun laws are criminals and terrorists,
the reason for this is obvious to even the casual untutored observer..
If someone can craft a law that will actually ensure that guns won't get into the hands of criminals and terrorists, I'll support it but I have no idea what sort of language will magically persuade such people to suddenly start obeying the law.
The fanatical advocates of more and more "common sense gun control" are like the Little
Moron in the old joke, where he had his car taken to the shop and told them "The brakes don't
work, put in a louder horn".
Raine
(30,540 posts)and I'm keeping them.
samir.g
(835 posts)More guns on the street is not the answer.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)They are secure in safes in their homes/apartments.
larry budwell
(50 posts)I like an axe, can't be traced like a gun, just saying.
fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)MythBusters rated zombie killers:
1. chainsaw
2. axe
3. gun
The chainsaw was well out in front but the axe would seem to be faster to action.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)
mwooldri
(10,303 posts)Never. Many reasons. Whatever my thinking about law enforcement officers is, they are at least trained to use a gun. I'll leave some things to the experts. Of course if there were no law enforcement officers then I would consider getting a shotgun but I am scared of guns.
Cosmocat
(14,568 posts)If blacks, Hispanics, those of Arabic decent started open carrying, things would get REAL hot, REAL quick.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)This Trump shit is very serious and I will protect my family if I have to.
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)What if they're a bit further away but threatening with THEIR weapon?
Just be trained
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)Longer range is ideal for a firearm.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)You've turned away a friend if you choose a machete. Not to even mention the bad guy bringing a gun. It's weak bringing a machete to a gunfight.
JPPaverage
(510 posts)I learned about guns many years ago and retain my knowledge. I sure hope the cons understand that if they try to come after my legal immigrant wife and kid.
Paladin
(28,271 posts)Certainly the gun rights movement has been co-opted by the right wing for many decades. But that in no way means that a portion of this country's vast oversupply of firearms hasn't found its way into liberal hands.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Knowledge isn't a perishable commodity. Shooting is. If you think that you're going to pick up a gun in a pressure situation and perform like you did 10 years ago (or even 1) you're kidding yourself.
7962
(11,841 posts)They have to know that a lot more than Trump voters own them!
Truth321
(93 posts)This thread is a gift to the NRA. Guess folks aren't gonna try to ban guns if they are busy stocking up!
Kennah
(14,304 posts)47of74
(18,470 posts)I might go back in a few short weeks when I'm not so busy. I didn't sign up right away because of how busy I was with school at the time.
It made me feel good not only because of the workout, but because I was taking concrete steps to protect myself.
I'm thinking it'd be more likely that I'll do this instead of arming myself.
Javaman
(62,532 posts)and everyday there is only 2 cars at most in the large parking lot.
this past friday, the 23rd, it was packed to the point that a line was stretching out of the lot causing traffic.
nothing says love, sharing, family and PEACE ON EARTH like an assault rifle.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)DUers here, particularly those that were fond of the term "gunhumper" in the past.
ileus
(15,396 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Quite honestly, I don't think we've hit bottom yet. The sick, irrational hatred of guns.....and by extension, gun owners.....prevents Democrats from looking at the lies that they've been suckered into believing. Ego factors in, as people can't own up to the fact that they've been played.
Paladin
(28,271 posts)Our resident DU Gun Enthusiasts have no cause to gloat about it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)All that, mind you, in the face of loud proclamations that gun control would sweep all before it and that
gun owners would either acquiesce to, or actively agree to, their own criminalization-all while
being portrayed as premurderous racists with small genitalia.
As see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141651533
Instead, that false consensus effect helped drive the Democratic Party and the nation over a cliff.
OnionPatch
(6,169 posts)and a collector of guns. He is also very liberal. (He supports reasonable gun laws such as background checks, etc.)
Since the election, several of his liberal friends have approached him for advice about buying a gun and practicing and are making plans to meet at the shooting range. They're saying things like "if there's going to be a civil war, I want to be ready", or "if some crazy Trump supporter threatens my friends or family, I want to be able to defend us", etc. etc. so I'm not surprised to read this article.
I think most liberals, including myself, prefer a society where everyone isn't running around armed to the teeth, but in the current political climate, protecting oneself and one's family seems to be a more immediate consideration for a lot of people.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)You have to be able to pull the trigger. I know, it sounds weird but many gun owners do not realize that. It is against most peoples mindset to attempt to kill or injure another human, a total stranger.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)The premise seems to be predicated on wholly "some of those gun buyers" and anecdotal interviews. There's no hard data in the story supporting the premise, simply inference.
Though no doubt, "some of those gun owners" are happy interpreting this as an expansion of allies in their quest for the sacred cow.
rumdude
(448 posts)I once dropped an antelope at 300 plus yards with a wind blowing.
I once knocked down three flushed grouse with a Remington pump-action 870...boom, boom. boom, one right after the other.
7962
(11,841 posts)rumdude
(448 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Cons rush to buy guns because they think they won't be allowed to.
Dems rush to buy them because of the things cons do with guns when they have power.
hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)But we will most likely use our guns to kill and eat game when GOP policies make us poorer
