Advice to gun control crowd: your arguments already have majority support and often more

[CreekDog]

on background checks, the majority of the public, in fact a huge majority agrees. And the arguments must be quite good, because these numbers are against a backdrop of a lying, propaganda campaign waged by NRA and gun manufacturers designed to change the public's minds by convincing them to believe falsehoods about guns, gun violence and potential gun laws.

on limiting magazine capacity, the majority of the public agrees.

on requiring gun registration, the public supports this also.

anyone who says the arguments are failing shouldn't be listened to if they don't acknowledge the simple truth that the arguments are supported by more people than oppose them.

ABC/WashingtonPost April 11-13
"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?"
support/oppose/unsure: 56/42/2
"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets?"
support/oppose/unsure: 56/41/3
"Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?"
support/oppose/unsure: 86/13/1
(ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 11-14, 2013. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.)

CNN/ORC April 5-7
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from a gun store or other business that sells guns"
favor/oppose/unsure: 89/11/-
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show"
favor/oppose/unsure: 83/17/-
"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them"
favor/oppose/unsure: 70/29/1
"If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift"
favor/oppose/unsure: 54/45/1
"A ban on the sale and possession of equipment known as high-capacity or extended ammunition magazines, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before they need to be reloaded"
favor/oppose/unsure: 53/46/1
"Requiring gun owners to register with the state or local government and provide a set of fingerprints"
favor/oppose/unsure: 66/33/1
"As you may know, gun stores are currently required to keep a record of all guns that they sell and provide those records to law enforcement agencies if asked, but that requirement does not apply to other gun purchases. Do you think that all gun owners who sell guns directly to other people should or should not be required to keep a record of those gun sales?"
should/should not: 81/19

(CNN/ORC Poll. April 5-7, 2013. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.)


Quinnipiac University March 26-April 1
"Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons?"
support/oppose/unsure: 59/36/4
"Do you support or oppose a nationwide ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets?"
support/oppose/unsure: 58/38/4

(Quinnipiac University. March 26-April 1, 2013. N=1,711 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.4.)

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[rrneck]

1. Great!

Explain why these policy proposals merit our support.

[CreekDog]

2. you can start your own thread if you would like to change the subject

[pipoman]

4. You are not in 'the gungeon II'

people can actually point out inconsistencies and lies from the gun control advocates out here in the sunshine..

[CreekDog]

5. that's not what that poster was doing, that poster just wanted to change the subject

but nice try.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

8. No. The poster was seeking to elicit information from you, not change the subject.

[CreekDog]

10. no, the poster wants to talk about something other than the support for gun control

because they oppose gun control.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. If your are confident that your policy position(s), whatever they are, have merit and wide-spread

support, you wouldn't oppose a discussion of them.

[CreekDog]

14. If you think I oppose discussion of gun control, you obviously are ignorant of my posts

everyone knows i discuss gun control and related issues constantly.

but this thread was about opinion polling and the support gun control has, and yes, the crowd here, the NRA supporters and lobbyists, don't want to talk about that.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. You said that you were opposed to #1. "Explain why these policy proposals merit our support".

You posted an OP which refers to policy proposals.

They either have merit or do not have merit.

You either want to discuss the merits of such policy proposals or not.

Your reference in post #14 to "gun control" is a side-step of the merits of the issue regarding policy proposals no matter how many times you talked about "gun control" in the past.

There are millions of firearm-owning Democrats. Your dig about "NRA supporters" is nothing more than the usual name-calling from those who cannot discuss policies in an intelligent manner. If they could, they won't have to resort to name calling.

Polls are accurate? Is that what you want us to say?

[Eleanors38]

54. Jeez, he hijacks his own thread.

[pipoman]

17. See post #4...eom

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. x2

[rrneck]

23. Why don't you go find a link showing I oppose gun control.

If the legislation has widespread support, and it appears to have it, why?

Why are you afraid to discuss it?

[rrneck]

9. The subject is support for gun control legislation.

My question to you is: Does the legislation merit our support?

The choir is over there.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. Good question. Why shouldn't policy proposals be discussed?

[pipoman]

3. Too bad the "lying, propaganda campaign"

isn't limited to the gun lobby, eh? I mean 2 decades of lying about the issue on the part of gun control isn't helping anything..i.e. "gun show loophole" lie..

[rdharma]

6. The gun show "loophole" is NO lie.....

It's an easy way for a disqualified buyer to get a gun without going through a background check.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. And yet the US Department of Justice indicates less than 1% of guns possessed by felons

were acquired by this method.

Easy or not, you seem to be advertising for an apparently little-used vector, which is curious.

[rdharma]

12. Riiiiiiight!

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I suppose you can't be bothered to read it.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

Highlights inset, first page, middle, SOURCE OF GUN.

Less than a whole number percent.


I wonder how "Riiiiiiiight!" tastes...

[Eleanors38]

55. Using gubmint data is NRAtalkingPoint™ No. 30232.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Actually, that poster and I came to a constructive agreement if you read downthread.

That data didn't precisely address his concern, so his objection is reasonable to me.

[pipoman]

27. It has nothing to do with gun shows and isn't a legal loophole

by anybody's definition of the word "loophole"..

In legal terms, which is what a loophole is in this context..a legal term, a 'loophole' and an 'exemption' are two entirely different things..even in common language..Merriam Webster..

: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole

1
: the act of exempting or state of being exempt : immunity
2
: one that exempts or is exempted; especially : a source or amount of income exempted from taxation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exemption

A loophole is an unintentional consequence of ambiguous law. An exemption is something intentionally inserted into a law providing that the terms of the law are somehow waived.

This issue is an exemption, not a loophole..in reality..

As for the "gun show" part..this is where all reality is lost. Most people who are not informed on this issue actually believe that there is some sort of accidental "loophole" (I know that's redundant) allowing that no gun sales at gun shows are subject to a background check. Not true, as you are well aware...as are everyone who is deep into the gun control issue..we all know that most firearms sellers at every gun show are in fact a federal firearms licensees and therefore must conduct a background check on every retail sale made at a gun show or anyplace else. Those sellers who are not licensed are who we are talking about here..it doesn't matter where they are..gun show, wal-mart parking lot, kitchen table, classified ad, garage sale, estate auction (as long as it is a single estate being sold)..etc..

No, the ambiguity of the term "gun show loophole" is deceptive, and a lie..why not just call it what it is FFS? Private sale exemption..maybe actually starting by telling the truth would find success?

[CreekDog]

42. you are losing it, making a federal case over the diff btw "loophole" and "exemption"

basically all your upset posts on the topic of how this isn't really a "loophole" is now just a BS word game now that you've called it an "exemption".

nice word game you've used to obfuscate at DU because you can't win the argument on the merits.

[pipoman]

45. Words have meanings in my world and many other's..

what utility for the cause of Universal background check advocacy, of which I belong, is lying about the problem to people who take them at their word...who are shocked and quite willing to argue that no gun sales have background checks at gun shows..all because of the intentional deception of a few vocal advocates..I believe the issue will never be won until people get honest on both sides, just that I expect dishonesty from the right and loath it on the left..

Oh, and it may be excusable for a year or two...it's been 20 fucking years this charade has gone on..isn't it time to fix the grammar (if you prefer)..

[rdharma]

15. If I were a "straw purchaser",.......

........ who wanted to make a quick buck...... I would get a gun through a gun show with no background check involved.

If the felon gets caught with the gun later, it doesn't come back to me.

See how that gun show "loophole" works?

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Quite the advertising campaign for a little-used method you've undertaken there.

Tell you what, go to a local gun show, spit in a random direction, and let us know how many on-duty, off-duty, and retired law enforcement officers and BATFE agents you hit.

Also, in the interest of fairness, repeat your test with the classified section of your local newspaper, online classifieds, the local water cooler, estate sales, garage sales.

Etc.

LESS THAN 1 PERCENT.

Registration is the best, most effective and capable tool to combat this problem, and with the closure of the NFA registry, and the boondoggle closure of the 'Assault Weapon' registry in California, we are unlikely to get this sort of registry to be accepted in the US.

Fucking wonderful.

[rdharma]

19. It's not a "little used method".

It's a very much used method.

And I notice you want to limit it to "felons buying directly" from gun shows rather than "disqualified" buyers obtaining through gun show purchases.

And no........ ATF can't really do anything about it the way the law stands.

Oh, but I agree with you on the classified ad, internet, garage sale etc. ....... there should be a 100% background check reuirment for firearms purchases.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. According to the United States Department of Justice, it is.

[rdharma]

24. I'd like to see those stats........

And I notice you want to limit it to "felons buying directly" from gun shows rather than "disqualified" buyers obtaining firearms through gun show purchases.

There are other folks besides felons who are disqualified (crazies, those with restraining orders, those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence etc.).

[AtheistCrusader]

25. True enough.

Do you think they outweigh felons, caught and convicted committing crimes (even first-time convictions) involving a firearm, or possessing a firearm that even wasn't used in the commission of the crime?

I'm thinking no, but the USDoJ specifically deals with convicted felons of all types, and where they got their guns.
The primary source is friends and family.

There is only one tool to fix this: Registration. Give a lawful owner pause to transfer the weapon to a disqualified buyer even on the black market, because if it is found, it is traced directly and immediately to the last known legal owner.

We need registration, and that is a difficult hill to climb given the history of two registries in place in the US right now.

[rdharma]

26. Agreed.....100% background checks & registration

I can hear the "black helicopter" loonies' heads popping when the word "registration" is used.

[hack89]

28. I stand with the ACLU when it comes to registration

fortunately, apart from the "black helicopter" loonies, no one gets excited when we hear registration because we know it will not happen.

We can't even pass watered down universal background checks.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. It was done with NFA weapons.

It CAN be done. I still propose removing the hughes amendment, thus re-opening the registry, then extending the scope of the registry downward to include semi-auto weapons.

Revolvers and such are still used in crimes, but this would put a dent in the problem. Aside from the Hughes amendment, the NFA registry has never been a problem in my eyes. It's actually been remarkably successful. Just a shame it was closed in '86.

[hack89]

32. It can be done. It just won't be done.

not if the ACLU has its way.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. What is the ACLU's stance on the existing NFA Registry?

[hack89]

37. Don't know. They adamantly reject an expanded national gun registry

due to privacy concerns. I suspect that the small size of the NFA and the fact that it touches such a tiny portion of the public makes it less of a concern in their eyes. An national database encompassing nearly half the population is a different matter all together.

[CreekDog]

31. We can't because folks like you have enabled NRA talking points and strengthened their hand

you have consistently supported and argued falsely in order to bolster NRA arguments and that support was key, and based on false arguments, to the NRA victory against background checks.

don't pretend to be so disappointed. you worked against it constantly, though you pretended to be for it, your actions worked in favor of those who fought it.

[hack89]

33. The ACLU opposes registration on privacy grounds

I don't consider the ACLU a NRA front organization - I have no doubt you will find a way to link the two.

I am not disappointed. I have said more than once that the only two gun control proposals I oppose are the AWB and registration. But even then, I don't have to work constantly against it - it was never formally proposed and would not have had a chance in hell of passing if it had been. Registration is a controller's pipedream - nothing more.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. "NRA talking points" is an appeal to authority, the equivalent to "ex cathedra" for devout Catholics

That is, once it's uttered no argument is brooked and no demurrer is legitimate because, well
someone said so.

As long as you gun control advocates keep thinking and acting as if the the NRA leadership alone is stopping you,
you *will* continue to be defeated.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Wait, wait, wait.

We're not allowed to agree. It's in the rules somewhere.

[rdharma]

38. I'm not keen on the high-cap mag ban.

Do we at least disagree on that?

[AtheistCrusader]

50. No. I don't like it either.

Something screwy going on here.

[CreekDog]

81. why not? what is the need for a magazine that holds more than 10?

i see a big danger in allowing a poor shooter to compensate with quantity with what they can't hit with quality shots.

if you need to shoot that much to hit a target, maybe a gun is not the thing for you.

[gejohnston]

82. should people who know nothing about a subject

make decisions or judgments about those who do? Kind of arrogant don't you think?

[CreekDog]

83. sounds like you have no justification despite being asked, guess you don't need high capacity then

[gejohnston]

84. in a free society, there is no dept of needs

nor is there a reason why I, or anyone else, should have to justify anything to those who have no idea of what they are talking about. It is kind of like a rich person asking "why do you need a union".

[CreekDog]

85. i know what i'm talking about

i don't think your desire for high capacity magazines outweighs the danger to others.

[gejohnston]

86. how are they a greater danger?

can you explain that without parroting some inane talking point? Are you are knowledgeable in firearms, self defense issues, forensics like ballistics, etc.? If not, you don't.

[CreekDog]

87. you're saying that larger magazines aren't a greater danger to what you intend to shoot at?

well that's not impressive.

[gejohnston]

88. I didn't say that at all.

I asked how is it?

[kudzu22]

36. So what's your advice?

Keep making the same arguments because you're winning?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Confiscation???

"If the federal government does create a national list of people who own guns, do you think the government would use that information to take guns away from people who own them?"

Yes/No/Unsure - 66/32/2%

Any thoughts?

[kudzu22]

46. Pretty much no other reason to have a registry

except to facilitate future confiscations.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

47. It seems 2/3s of those asked agree on this n/t

[Eleanors38]

57. 2/3 of Americans agree with NRAtalkingPoint™ No. 30210? Unbeliegeable.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

60. Regardless what anyone thinks...

...of the NRA, on occasion they're right sometimes.

[gejohnston]

40. besides being an example of "bandwagon" logical fallacy,

how is an "assault weapon" defined? and are the respondents basing their opinions on accurate information? Truth is, "assault weapon" is a political term with no actual meaning. It means whatever some politician wants to call it.
Under CT law, the rifle found next to Lanza's body was not an "assault weapon". Yet, there is a bill introduced in CA assembly, CA SB 374, that defines this as an "assault weapon" because it uses detachable magazines.



Here is Bloomberg lying that "assault weapons" are automatic weapons aka machine guns.

which reminds me of this Josh Sugarmann quote:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."

-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

Here is my question, if the majority of people support a policy that is based on disinformation and lies, is there a reason I should jump on the bandwagon? IIRC, most people supported invading Iraq the second time.

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. I had a Ruger 10/22, but it looked more like this....

and had some 25 round mags with it....

http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/stock-forend-parts/rifle-stocks/ruger-10-22-archangel-ars-conversion-package-prod27261.aspx

There are other versions, too...

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/prod/Ruger_10_22_Archangel_Kits

I also had the Dragunov Kit with the 25 round mags:



http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ItemDetail.aspx?sku=RGR260#

These kits DO NOT make the weapon anymore powerful, doesn't make them fully automatic machine guns or anything else... except making them look like "big black scary guns".

Ghost

[gejohnston]

44. I understand that

the bill bans the 10/22 and others because of the magazine, not the stock.

[sylvi]

41. "your arguments already have majority support"

You're living in a fantasy land. I don't doubt that some polls show support for the legislation, but that's not the same as "argument".

Because the anti-gunners rarely present arguments. They present soundbites, slogans, and people overwhelmed with emotion, and call it an argument. That some people are swayed by that does not make it any more valid.

When faced with real discussion, almost invariably they are at a loss, start in with ad hominems and snark, dismiss everything they have no good answer for as a NRA Talking Point™, deny, obfuscate, redirect, argue in circles, and pretty much put on a clinic for every emotion-driven logical fallacy on record.

You guys are pissed. We understand.

You lost bigtime. Utterly. Humiliatingly. Because you overplayed your hand. And nothing, absolutely nothing pisses a person off more than to think they're playing a winning hand, so cocksure of themselves, and then fuck it up royally as you did.

By shooting the moon for all your little pet wants in gun control, you paved the way for the NRA to demagogue the issue and threaten to paint all the Senate with the gun grabber brush. You couldn't just ask for one thing at a time, like the expanded BCGs. No, your overweening pride and sense of utter righteousness wouldn't allow that, would it? If it was only that, the NRA wouldn't have had a leg to stand on since they advocated the same thing only a short while ago.

Between that and your pathological desire to alienate just as many people as you possible can with smears, name-calling and demonization, you're your own worst enemy. And that same hubris and anger won't let you listen to the many reasonable voices from the left that have been published here telling you this. You'd rather it took a hundred years to realize your agenda than to compromise. Meanwhile, real people suffer. The same ones you purport to care so much for. It's all about points, isn't it? Points on a political scoreboard that you can gesture towards and rub in the opposition's face. If you gave a damn about the victims of gun violence you would provide at least as much attention and zeal to the root causes which have been discussed here over and over as you do to an obsession with an inanimate object. Can you imagine if all this concentrated angst concerning firearms over the last four months had been funneled into demands for more manufacturing jobs paying a living wage, or decriminilization of drugs, or improved mental heath care, or shunning the culture of violence? Those things take a back seat too, though, things that would help everyone in the country, in favor of a mad desire to control that piece of metal as the be-all end-all method of reducing misery.

But by all means, keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.


And while we're here, let's clear the air on a few things:

Disarming the population in the face of an armed police, armed military and armed criminals is not a progressive issue. It is in fact regressive, harkening back to the days when only titled nobility could possess advanced weaponry, and more recently to authoritarian regimes who could not rule without such draconian control. Progressiveness is creating a society where those weapons are not needed.

You don't have to tell us "no one is going to take your guns". We already know damn well you ain't. Or anyone else. What we as pro-RKBA people intend is to head off the possibility of someone trying, because we don't want things to ever reach that pitch in this country, and we are forced to prove that.

No one except a couple of NRA zealots and a few camouflage-wearing yahoos running around the Michigan woods on weekends actually believes President Obama is going to try to confiscate guns. Even the NRA zealots probably don't believe it, it just makes a good commercial.

The worst brand of American exceptionalism is that which contends "it can't happen here", as if there's something so special and protected about the U.S. that we couldn't fall to a tyrannical regime. After the years of documentation on this very site of election fraud, elections stolen outright, abuse of police powers, shrinking civil rights, growth of the MIC, massive transfer of wealth and power to the oligarchy, anyone who thinks we are somehow immune from despotism is truly living in denial. I'm not talking about tinfoil nuttery, I'm talking about what goes on before our very eyes and is admitted to by the perpetrators as casually as reciting their birthdates.

Yes, there are analogous comparisons to be made between guns, cars, swimming pools, OTC drugs, etc. There is nothing magical about guns that places them in a separate dimension. The people dead by cars or what have you are just as dead as those by guns, the injured are in just as much pain, society pays just as much in medical support, and families are just as devastated. And a lot of those other means of death are just as tragic and preventable as those by guns. The entire question boils down to that of cost vs. benefit. You believe that cheap and easy transportation, access to delivery of items that improve the standard of living, quick access to medical care, a means of traveling to see Grandma more often, is worth the tens of thousands of deaths annually that go along with automobile use. Second Amendment supporters believe that too, we just add that arms as a means of creating parity of force for defense of ourselves and our families, and to discourage tyranny, are in the long run worth the risk they create in taking innocent life. Do not assume yourself morally superior, because you make the same judgements daily in owning posessions and engaging in activities that kills thousands per year. The fact that people die by means of things that "weren't designed to kill" is of little consequence to the dead.

Mass murders, which comprise a tiny percentage of total firearm deaths, and "assault weapons", which comprise a tiny percentage of the weapons used in gun-related deaths, are not more important than the individuals or weapons used in the vast majority of deaths. Why so many anti-gun people are driven to distraction by these two extremely narrow facets of the problem is mystifying. It must be because people love a good sensation just as much as the media loves to sensationalize.

"Tell that to the parents" of gun victims who now favor gun control is no more a rational argument than is "Tell that to the parents" of murder victims who now favor the death penalty. Emotion is a fine motivator for an argument, but no substitute for rationality as the basis of the argument itself.

The right to keep and bear arms, and those who cherish that right, do not rise and fall on the dreaded bogeymen at the NRA. The vast majority of pro-RKBA citizens are not members, don't subscribe to American Rifleman magazine, and couldn't pick Wayne LaPierre out of a lineup, yet anti-gun types seem to believe the whole gun rights community would collapse without the dreaded NRA. Well, with 80,000,000 gun owners, if the NRA vaporized tonight, someone would reinvent it under a different name tomorrow morning. That or one of the dozen of other 2nd Amendment advocacy groups would move to the fore, eager to absorb the membership. Gun advocacy groups aren't going anywhere, not with the number of firearms owners there are in this country.

[jimmy the one]

48. armed fantasy land

sylvie: You're living in a fantasy land... anti-gunners rarely present arguments.. When faced with real discussion, almost invariably they are at a loss, start in with ad hominems and snark, dismiss everything they have no good answer for as a NRA Talking Point, deny, obfuscate, redirect, argue in circles, and pretty much put on a clinic for every emotion-driven logical fallacy on record.

This is rot; In a proper forum with unbiased judges guncontrol arguments generally win hands down. Such as child access prevention laws which mandate safe storage of guns & ammo which demonstrably have been shown to lower child death rates in states which enable them. The nra answer? already laws on the books to cover negligence - yeah weak & ineffective & sidestepped by the 'daddy's already suffered enough for leaving his loaded gun out where robby got it'.
Guncontrol argument: BG checks will help prevent & dissuade people disallowed from gunownership from obtaining guns. NRA argument: It won't affect criminals just law abiding citz and Slippery Slope to TOTAL GUN CONFISCATION.

sylvie: You guys are pissed. We understand. You lost bigtime. Utterly. Humiliatingly. Because you overplayed your hand. And nothing, absolutely nothing pisses a person off more than to think they're playing a winning hand, so cocksure of themselves, and then fuck it up royally as you did.

More rot; What's this 'we' & 'you'? 'We' democrats who predominantly supported the guncontrol legislation? 'YOU' predominantly RIGHTWING REPUBLICANS who opposed obama/biden guncontrol efforts?
'YOU' are really in the rightwing republican camp on this one aren't you sylvie? 'We' can tell by the venom in your post above directed at like 80 - 90% of democrats.

sylvie's specious 'argumentation', aka apocalypse next week, or were you just quoting david koresh maybe?: 1 Disarming the population in the face of an armed police, armed military and armed criminals is not a progressive issue. It is in fact regressive, harkening back to the days when only titled nobility could possess advanced weaponry, and more recently to authoritarian regimes who could not rule without such draconian control.
2 You don't have to tell us "no one is going to take your guns". We already know damn well you ain't. Or anyone else. What we as pro-RKBA people intend is to head off the possibility of someone trying..
3 The worst brand of American exceptionalism is that which contends "it can't happen here", as if there's something so special and protected about the U.S. that we couldn't fall to a tyrannical regime

sylvie: 4) Second Amendment supporters believe that too, we just add that arms as a means of creating parity of force for defense of ourselves and our families, and to discourage tyranny,

Which proposed guncontrol law of 2013 would have disrupted 'parity of force for defense'? You create a straw man argument, one that does not really exist, & then you exploit it as if there were some underlying truth within your false dilemma.

Do not assume yourself morally superior, because you make the same judgements daily in owning posessions and engaging in activities that kills thousands per year.

Your post I replied to is one, big, example of 'moral superiority' -- which alternates between fabricated pro gun 'righteous indignation', regarding gun control efforts - eh, maybe the same thing.
Accidental deaths generally result from ABUSE of cars & drugs & alcohol et al, whereas gundeaths are predominantly done by using the gun in the way it was designed to function - to kill & incapacitate.

[sylvi]

49. Thank you

Your hyperbole, strawmen and snide insinuation pretty much prove several of the major points of my post. Like I said, you're your own worst enemy.

[tblue]

67. I'd give you a wide berth.

Anger management may be in order. People this aggitated and hostile really, really should not be allowed to touch a gun. IMHO.

[kappa maki]

89. THANK YOU for a sane, reasonable, rational and truthful post.

I do not expect the pearl-clutchers to understand your points, much less agree, but thanks for trying.

[morningfog]

51. Man this group is sure full of assholes.

What a bitter bunch of paranoid assholes. Keep up the good fight! They are a dying breed, we will win out with time.

[Thinkingabout]

52. And as long as there are nuts with guns running around with guns just shooting and killing people

We will continue to pass regulations to get this under control. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!! For those who disagree go and get this senseless killings stopped, don't cry about "rights" when the right if innocent citizens are having the right of life and pursuit of happiness curtailed by gun violence. Use this energy to get it right.

[gejohnston]

53. As Cesare Beccaria pointed out so many years ago

Cesare Beccaria said it best in his opus On Crimes and Punishments:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."
Most killers are not "gun nuts", most are criminals. All of the laws in the world will not curb "gun violence" because the people committing the violence will still be getting the guns.

The biggest problem gun prohibition lobby has is its inability to make logical valid arguments with out logical fallacies and dishonesty.

[Straw Man]

58. Love you too.

Man this group is sure full of assholes.

Drop by anytime. Don't be a stranger.

[CreekDog]

63. and most of them don't bother to post on the rest of DU to support liberal issues

in fact, most of the group's members (many PPR'd by now, even long time ones) have a reputation of posting right wing attacks on liberal ideas of all kinds, not just guns.

but mostly the reaction to non-gun related issues is indifference.

[CTyankee]

59. I think we are close to a tipping point on gun safety regulation.

Gun safety regulation is going the way of marriage equality, with the states taking the initiative to lead where the federal legislators have not. This is a concern of the NRA, make no mistake. That organization, and its supporters, will make major fights to overturn these progressive measures in the states, including the new one we have here in CT. It will also play out in presidential elections. The Republican Party has got to be worried that their sun has set in terms of winning the White House if things keep going this way.

It is fascinating. The major shift by the American public on the marriage equality issue took the repubs by surprise, and even some Dems. What was generally viewed as a lefty, bi-coastal, liberal view has become middle of the road in more and more of the rest of the country. I think the same thing is happening on gun safety.

But here's the thing to bear in mind: we on the gun safety side of the issue have lives. For gungeoneers, it is their full time jobs.

We lose interest in the constant nit picking and obfuscation. We don't "lose" arguments (altho they won't admit it) as much as just get tired of refuting the same talking points over and over. We've proved it numerous times and we go on to our real jobs, our real interests, our own families.

I think it is time we devote more time to organize voters on our side. Expect to see more NRA talking points listed here on DU as this fight heats up. We can respond with plenty of facts that squarely agree with us (facts having a liberal bias). But once the argument becomes an exercise in the definition of insanity, we need to shift our energy, time, money and talent to winning or preserving our state victories with an eye on making future inroads with our federal legislative bodies.

I know we have lots of issues that we care deeply about. The pro gun people seem to have only ONE. It has not escaped my notice that the tactic now appears to be featuring less and less "gun porn" (because they caught on that it only appeals to their own crowd and turns off everybody else). Now they are chock full of revolutionary Americana and Cesare Beccaria (to give a little 18th century European "tone" to the conversation). It will only go so far. We, too, have our American and other historians, easily more than the other side.

And, consider this: if the Dems keep winning Presidential elections, it is only a matter of time before we replace enough SCOTUS members to make inroads against Heller (as even the NRA likes to suggest to keep their coffers full). Stay tuned on this. It promises to be a very interesting time!

So, eyes on the prize, folks. Let the other side dither. We've got our work cut out for us. I am planning to do my share to defend the CT law that we recently passed and that the NRA has targeted. The arc toward justice is surely bending our way.

[gejohnston]

61. just three thoughts

We lose interest in the constant nit picking and obfuscation. We don't "lose" arguments (altho they won't admit it) as much as just get tired of refuting the same talking points over and over. We've proved it numerous times and we go on to our real jobs, our real interests, our own families.

execpt that you don't refute any talking points. Your side does an excellent job of stringing logical fallacies and insults together. Cesare Beccaria has been proven correct and continues to be.

know we have lots of issues that we care deeply about. The pro gun people seem to have only ONE. It has not escaped my notice that the tactic now appears to be featuring less and less "gun porn" (because they caught on that it only appeals to their own crowd and turns off everybody else). Now they are chock full of revolutionary Americana and Cesare Beccaria (to give a little 18th century European "tone" to the conversation). It will only go so far. We, too, have our American and other historians, easily more than the other side.

You mean former historian, now bartender, Michael A. Bellesiles?

But here's the thing to bear in mind: we on the gun safety side of the issue have lives. For gungeoneers, it is their full time jobs.

This is where it falls apart. The side that has the most to win or lose is the most invested, and the puts the most effort. In this case, the marriage equality folks are on the same footing with the "gungeoneers".

[CTyankee]

62. Oh, I think the "most invested" thing is changing. Newtown did that.

Public polling on this issue is transforming politics even as we type here on DU.

Handwriting is on the wall. It is only a matter of time.

[gejohnston]

64. based on MAIG polls

Last edited Fri May 3, 2013, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

BTW, movements that last, such as womens rights (Wyoming and Nebraska) and marriage equality (Iowa), started in the middle. Fashion trends and fads start on the coasts.

[CTyankee]

65. I do hope you are not suggesting that gun safety regulations are fads or fashion trends.

Real families from all over the country are suffering from the loss of loved ones due to gun violence. Having had that suffering in my own family, I can relate to that sense of loss. My family's loss happened in Texas, Gabby Gifford and those who were killed when she was grievously wounded was in AZ, the Aurora shooting was in Colorado. All over the country.

I don't know what the MAIGS poll said. I think I will do more research about the organization. Our mayor in New Haven is a member.

[gejohnston]

66. using gun safety as the new buzz term is.

Last edited Fri May 3, 2013, 02:31 PM - Edit history (2)

Real families use them to defend themselves against violent criminals. Using DoJ estimates, about seven times more than those murdered.
The problems is, none of the passed or proposed laws don't address the issues. That isn't to say all of them are bad. I support the background checks, when done right, but not restricting the civil liberties for the many for the act of one. Nor do I support scapegoating target shooters and hunters because of drug dealers and gangsters killing each other (along with innocent bystanders).

Like I said before, and studies plus posts around here back me up, that gun control is more about cultural imperialism than cutting violence.

[CTyankee]

68. Is "cultural imperialism" the NRA's new buzz term? Sounds catchy.

I know this is something you do not want to hear, but your side's day in the sun is rapidly fading. Newtown was the turning point. As I have laid out in my rather long post, your political fortunes are in decline. As Bob Dylan sang:

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.

[gejohnston]

69. I coined it myself

but most pro control posts are little more than bigoted rants and not remotely rational. BTW, IIRC, that song was about his conversion to fundamentalist Christianity.

[CTyankee]

70. We used to sing/play it a lot in the anti-vietnam war days, when things were definitely

not going our way. Lotta hippie punching (literally), lotta spitting on protesters, lotta derision.

WE WON.

[gejohnston]

71. You did?

Had Nixon not been elected, the war would have ended before then. The protests, and the hippie movement, ended when the draft ended. Unfortunately, most of the hippies became what they claimed to detest. Which is too bad, I like many of their ideas.
I was a kid then, so I can't say "we" because, I really wasn't there. Ironically, many of those Greatful Dead songs were written by a libertarian cowboy in Wyoming.

[CTyankee]

72. woulda, coulda, shudda...

I was in the ecumenical anti-war movement with William Sloane Coffin, who was then the Chaplain at Yale and Rabbi Abraham Heschel. I got involved as a young mother of a son and had a neighbor who was a UCC minister working with Clergy and Laity Concerned About Vietnam. I was terrified that my little boy would some day be drafted into a terrible war that was totally unwinnable. The defeat of that war signaled a change in the way this country viewed foreign wars in the service of preserving the colonialism of western Europe. The country forgot the lesson it had learned when Bush took us into Iraq. There were those of us who remembered the Vietnam War Era and warned that we were repeating old errors. We were right.

[gejohnston]

73. Didn't say you were wrong

although there was a good chance your son would have stayed in the US or gone to Europe, Korea, or Japan. Of course, there was a chance he wouldn't. I worked for a guy that volunteered for Vietnam and landed up in Germany.

Since I am at least a few years younger than your son, my drill instructors (both Army and Air Force) were there. Same with some of the Sgts over me. One of my Air Force DIs was Army infantry in Vietnam before joining the Air Force. Based on the "BS round table" at the NCO club, I over heard, most would agree with me that if anything, we should have backed Ho against the French before he went to the Soviets. But, some genius thought it was more important to keep France in NATO. Have to remember, these folks were fighting the French and Japanese for 20 or 30 years before we showed up.

Iraq was won. We won the war, you don't win occupations. As predicted, Iraq went from Grenada to Northern Ireland very quickly.

Speaking of being spat upon, one of the older guys in my Army unit was an MP in Korea during the Vietnam war. He once had to transport a prisoner to Ft. Leavenworth. Protesters in the airports spat on him calling him a "baby killer" and hugged the prisoner. The problem was, the baby killer was the one in shackles. He was convicted a Korean civilian and her baby. More often than not, things are not what they appear. That is why I dislike ideologues that seem to have an over-simplistic world view.

[CTyankee]

76. This meme of spitting BY anti-war protestors was not my experience at all.

But then we were with CALC, a group organized at the National Council of Churches. Bill Coffin was no spitter. He was a decent guy and believed deeply in what he was doing. Not above reproach in his personal life but those were the times. I loved those days working on Riverside Drive in an old NCC warehouse building. I loved every minute of it. It was exciting, I felt I was in the middle of an important moment of history. I remember hating Richard Nixon more than anyone else in politics for a long time. Sadly, Nixon seems to be almost "likable" compared to what came later...

[gejohnston]

77. That is what he said his experience was

no one experience is more or less true or representative to those who had different experiences. My experiences during the first Gulf War were completely different than someone in a US or French tank unit, but they were just as real.

[CTyankee]

78. Wow, this has been some walk down Memory Lane!

That boy of mine is now a Senior Prosecutor in New York. He never had to go to war.

[gejohnston]

79. good to hear

[CTyankee]

80. Just got my Friday AFternoon Challenge up. Take a look...

[CreekDog]

74. ah, well Robert "Tab" Hunter was the best known lyricist, but your reference proves nothing

all you try to do is bring up some irrelevant thing, like in this case, the politics of the lesser known and lesser important Grateful Dead lyricist whose own politics have changed more than the wind.

and you bring it up to prove something about hippies when it doesn't even prove anything about the Grateful Dead.

but given that you argue this way on guns, i'm not surprised you argue so carelessly and in bad faith on other topics.

[gejohnston]

75. you totally missed the point.

speaking of careless and bad faith, the word projection comes to mind.