Now that the Illinois CCW ban is history, let's eliminate "may-issue" laws

[friendly_iconoclast]

They violate both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

[rdharma]

1. No!

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Care to elaborate?

[rdharma]

6. No!

[friendly_iconoclast]

7. How very eloquent...

[rdharma]

8. Wasn't meant to be eloquent. Nutjob shown had a CCW in "shall issue" jurisdiction! nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

10. So? Anecdote =/= data, and he didn't shoot anyone.

[rdharma]

14. No. He hasn't shot anybody...... yet!

Prefers armed intimidation so far. Had all his gatts confiscated the last time he did that with the ex-wife and her new boyfriend.

I'm sure you haven't seen the last of this joker......... and it's going to end badly!

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Better alert the Department of Precrime, then

[rdharma]

17. They've already done what the law allows.

His gatts have been taken away by "gatt welfare officers" and he's got a restraining order against him.

I've seen this routine before. Like I said, it usually ends up badly!

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. At least you're not advocating arresting all CCW holders...

...apparently "just because":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014498060#post5

bowens43 (14,397 posts)
5. insane. completely fucking insane

what kind of evil jackass do you have to be to carry concealed weapon. If you carry, you should be in jail with theother criminals.

You lot do seem to attract authoritarians...

[rl6214]

47. "Like I said, it usually ends badly!"

No, you said it's GOING to end badly.

[rdharma]

63. Probably! nt

[rl6214]

68. "Probably"?

rdharma (2,158 posts)
14. No. He hasn't shot anybody...... yet!

Prefers armed intimidation so far. Had all his gatts confiscated the last time he did that with the ex-wife and her new boyfriend.

I'm sure you haven't seen the last of this joker......... and it's going to end badly!

[rl6214]

46. Have you raped anyone

Yet?

[S_B_Jackson]

60. How is that photo supposed to convince anyone?

Proper trigger control, and I hate to break it to you but he could try with that firearm till the cows came home, he's not going to shoot anyone with a training gun. It's incapable of firing.

[CokeMachine]

9. Quit asking him hard questions!

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Apparently, we should be leaving the job of vetting permit holders...

...to people like Michael Bloomberg.

[rdharma]

49. No. Leave it to the local sheriffs.

If some CCW holder that he approved becomes "disqualified", then it should be the sheriff's obligation to pull that permit.

In "shall issue" jurisdictions, the sheriff is only required to check if the CCW holder is initially qualified. He is not required to do any follow-up after that until the CCW holder comes up for renewal.

[gejohnston]

50. is that true in all states?

or just yours? That may very well be the case in New York, even though it is may issue, since the ATF does not let the state allow CCW holders be exempt from NICS.

[hack89]

54. How about we remove the Sheriff's discretion when it comes to approving

and broaden his responsibilities to ensure the permit carrier remains eligible.

[rdharma]

59. That would work.

But you'll have the sheriffs pitching a hissy fit due to their "additional mandated responsibilities". Much like you are currently seeing in CO with the mag limit enforcement law.

[hack89]

61. All you need is a system that accurately tracks who is convicted of a crime

that makes one indelible to carry guns - link it to the database of CCW permit owners and the Sheriff does not have to do anymore then read the alert the system sends him and go visit the permit holder.

[rdharma]

62. A restraining order doesn't mean that one has been convicted of a crime.

Think about that.

[hack89]

64. So add restraining orders to the alerts that LEO gets.

it should not be too hard. Anything that makes on ineligible to own a gun should be reported if known and the police need to go collect those guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Restraining orders are already a disqualification for that.

Various police departments are better than others at collecting said guns.

[rdharma]

74. Exactly! It's not the issuing authority's job to revoke CCWs for restraining orders.......

......... in "shall issue" jurisdictions.

After doing the initial check, the "shall issue" authority has no further obligation. It's not their problem after they've collected the permit fee and issued the permit.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Well, sort of.

The permit is immediately invalid. (The bill was written by Sen. Lautenberg, who died today. )

Once the paperwork on the filing of the RO beings, the permit is a worthless scrap of paper. I don't think anyone goes to collect the permit. Who cares. When the police review it, they will find it is not valid.

Much like a revoked driver's license.
Law Enforcement maintains those databases, so they are the ones with that job.

[rdharma]

80. Review it?

Like in the field?

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Yes.

I've had mine checked a couple times.
One would also fail a NICS check with a gun dealer.

Where it goes bad, is that a lot of private sellers use a person with a CPL in their hand as prima facie evidence they are eligible to buy a gun. Which may not be true. A permit might be revoked before it expires. (Just like a private seller of an auto might use your revoked license as proof you can test drive it on a public road.)

Private sellers aren't allowed to use NICS. So, this is their fallback. But, that doesn't change between a shall-issue or may-issue state.

[rdharma]

83. All they can verify is that you had a CCW isssued for susch and such a a period.

Like a fishing license.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Precisely.

And any license is revocable.

(Universal background checks solve this problem for revoked CPL's mistakenly being used as evidence of eligibility.)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

101. If you do that in Illinois, it will reduce campaign contributions to sheriff re-election committees.

In Illinois, if you want a license for any activity, it's not too difficult to run into the pay-to-play policy.

[oneshooter]

67. In Texas CHL's are handled by the Texas Department of Public Safety.

The State Police. Local LE has no input or influence in the matter. Local Sheriffs can, and do sign off on SBR's, Suppressors, and AOL's.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/

[Travis_0004]

78. Thats not the difference between Shall issue and may issue

The difference is in shall issue states, a background check is run, and if you meet the requirements of the law the sheriff is required to issue you a permit.

In May issue counties, it is up to the sherrif who to issue permits too. Maybe they will issue permits to people in affluent neighborhoods, but deny them to people in poor neighborhoods. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that happens.

There are states that are shall issue (like Kentucky), that run monthly background checks on every CCW holder. If something comes up that disqualifies you, they will pull your permit. There are probably some may issue states that don't follow up on permit holders.

I think the ideal system is a shall issue state, that runs NCIS checks at least quarterly, but I have no problem with a monthly check, especially with how easy it can be automated.

[spin]

2. I support "shall issue" concealed carry as it prevents discrimination. ...

Many will disagree with me but the history of gun control shows that all too often the privileged and the upper classes are able to obtain a permit to carry while the lower classes find getting a permit to be extremely difficult and very expensive.

I feel that is fine to require that anyone who gets a carry permit has to have a background check, be finger printed, obtain a photo for their license and show proof of firearms training. The total cost should including the training should be held to a reasonable level and the license should be good for at least five years.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. +1. Can't agree more

[petronius]

5. + another. 'Shall-issue' with a comprehensive training requirement is my preference

As long as fees and overall costs are kept as low as feasible, and never become an arbitrary barrier (as seems to be the deliberate case in some jurisdictions)...

[spin]

51. In Florida you can go to a gun show and take a concealed weapons class. ...

Then you show up a range and show that you safely can fire a couple of rounds at a close bullseye target. It is also possible to use your DD form 256 if you had honorably been discharged from the military as proof of firearms safety training.

To be honest I used a copy of my DD form 256 as proof of training because first I am somewhat of a cheap bastard and secondly because I had been shooting handguns for 30 years before I applied for my carry permit. I also was friends with two firearms instructors and consequently was very familiar with when and if it was legal to use a firearm for self defense in Florida.

I usually advise anyone who asks me about getting a concealed carry permit to seek out a good instructor and pay the higher fee as the price is worth it. One of the best instructors I knew was an ex-police chief from Cincinnati Ohio. He would even provide one on one instruction on both the law and take his student or students to the range. He also require them to fire a handgun at various distances from 25 yards to 10 feet or less. As they did so he would provide advice on both the basics of target and self defense shooting.

One of my co-workers who followed my advice and who I had introduced to shooting handguns went through his course and this instructor was so impressed with his ability that he tried to convince him to try completive shooting. While it is totally irrelevant, I will point out that my co-worker was Black merely because often many people who post on this board feel that most gun owners are racist. I will admit that the first time I took my co-worker to the range he was worried that he would face discrimination but told me afterward that he was amazed at how he was welcomed. Perhaps some shooters are racist but at the ranges I have shot at in the Tampa Bay Area of Florida, I never seen any evidence of this. The experienced shooters that I have known have always been happy to introduce and help any new people to our sport.

Unfortunately this instructor who knew how to safely handle firearms ignored the basic safety rules for driving a vehicle and was not wearing his seat belt when he had an accident which was not his fault. Tragically he did not survive.

If I ever ran for and achieved a seat in the Florida legislature I would propose a few changes to the concealed weapons law. I would require an applicant to take a dedicated course on the legality of concealed carry and the use of firearms for self defense and I would require him/her to fire more rounds on a range to prove proficiency with a handgun. I might limit the range to 21 feet or less as shooting at 25 yards is rarely necessary for civilian self defense. I would realize that my proposal would make me unpopular with the NRA although I am a member but i feel it is logical and makes good sense. I would also push for universal background checks as long as there was no requirements involved beyond which is involved for buying a firearm from a dealer. I also would push for universal background checks as long as they basically duplicated the check required when an individual buys a firearm from a dealer.

I probably would not gain any support from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party might not ack me because of my pro gun rights views and I would definitely get a low rating from the NRA if I sought reelection.

But i have absolutely no intention of ever running for office at a state level as I realize that this is a rich man's game and I am a retired member of the lower middle class at the best. I also am simply enjoying my retirement and my freedom from all the hassles that most people have to endure.

[gejohnston]

52. I can relate to the training

Like you, my wife and I could just use our DD 214s. We took a class at a gun show out of curiosity. The "training" portion was indeed a joke. It consisted of the instructor explaining the trivial differences between a Colt and Smith and Wesson revolvers (this was only three years ago). He passed around a couple of Colt .38s (vintage Detective Specials IIRC). I could tell most of the students could not figure out how to open the cylinder. The "live fire" consisted of firing a couple rounds with these out of the revolver.
But the, what do you expect for $40?

[spin]

53. I feel that owning a firearm involves tremendous responsibility ...

even if you just intend to use it for plinking or home defense. That's why I am in favor of gun safety training in high schools and a requirement that if you wish to buy ammo or a firearm that you have to present evidence that you have received at least some safety training.

Getting a permit to carry a firearm in public should require an even higher standard. Obviously you don't have to be a target shooter to use a handgun for self defense on the street but anyone who wishes to do so should be very familiar with the laws in his state and be able to hit the center of a full sized silhouette target at ranges from 5 to 21 feet fairly rapidly (perhaps 5 rounds in 5 seconds). If the applicant is unable to do so, he/she should spend some time practicing before the license is issued. I have helped a number of people do this with one or two range sessions and I am not an instructor.

I do realize that any person that uses a firearm for self defense will find that a real life encounter is not like putting holes in paper on a shooting range. That's why it is so damned important to be fairly proficient with your carry firearm and before you are issued a license you should be willing to take the time to acquire at least a fair amount of skill with your weapon of choice.

I have often watched security guards qualify on the range and to be honest I have decided if I see a security guard draw his weapon I will seek cover. However they qualify at longer ranges than would be required for legitimate civilian self defense.

But perhaps I am setting too high a standard. In most encounters when the victim shows he/she is armed the attacker flees. I have found few instances where a innocent bystander was injured by a person who was legally carrying. In fact I can't think of any except for those people who have an accident discharge because they didn't have a modern handgun in a proper quality holster and were not founding it.

[shedevil69taz]

100. if you are active duty military

Like me you don't even need to be a resident of Florida, and all you need to do is have the first commanding officer in your chain of command sign a memo stating you are qualified on the standard issue M9, send in a fingerprint card and passport photo, and three weeks later I got my non-resident Florida conceal carry permit. Lots of states have reciprocity with this permit

[Eleanors38]

70. Yessir. The last vestige of Jim Crow is "may (not) issue."

[jimmy the one]

12. historical prohibitions on carrying concealed

icono: .. let's eliminate "may-issue" laws.. They violate both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Do they violate those amendments? since when? You only want to impose more revisionist history, & put the country further on the slippery slope of gun disease.

Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (1891).

Montana: The right of .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. (1889).

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and .. but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (1974).
1879: A well regula.. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed.

Mississippi: The right of .. but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.1890.

Missouri:.. shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.1945.

New Mexico: No law shall abridge the .. but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
1912: The people have the.. but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

North Carolina: A well regulated militia being .. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. 1971.

Oklahoma:.. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. 1907.

Tennessee:.. the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.1870
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."

Texas:.. but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.1876

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.1868
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."

Colorado:.. but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.1876
Florida 1885: .. but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne."
Georgia: .. but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.1877
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

[CokeMachine]

13. Yawn!!

That's all for you for now.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. I noticed you left out all the ones that didn't ban the practice or contain racist language

An oversight, I'm sure...

[rdharma]

18. Look at Arkansas! nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. Yeah, and now that language is gone. Let's hear it for progress!

[rdharma]

22. Notice the date on that change of language in Arkansas.

Could it be that they were forced to make this change with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The computer says "YES" !

[friendly_iconoclast]

23. So it would reactionary for them to return to "may issue"

[rdharma]

24. No reason to do so! nt

[spin]

55. I personally feel that gun laws should be up to the voters in a state ...

who elect their representatives as long as citizens are not denied the right to own firearms for sport and self defense and as long as the requirements are not designed to discriminate against the poor or minorities. Any fees or restrictions imposed should be reasonable and the process to obtain a firearm for any honest person should not require steep hurdles that are almost impossible to overcome.

Concealed or open carry should be a state decision but if allowed it should not be limited to the rich or the privileged. I see no real problem with allowing Donald Trump or Don Imus having a carry permit in New York City as long as Joe Average who lives in a crime ridden neighborhood can also obtain one for a reasonable expense and effort. That's largely why I support "shall issue" for those states that chose to allow citizens to carrying deadly weapons. "May issue" offers the opportunity for discrimination to creep into the process. If the voters in a state decide to elect representatives who pass laws to eliminate all forms of carry in public in their state, I see not problem as long as it applies to every citizen who is not employed in law enforcement.

[gejohnston]

21. Florida banned open carry eight years later

of course it was selectively enforced. Look up Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516,. 4 So. 2d 700 (1941)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/3857/

[spin]

45. You mentioned Florida....

I have a Florida concealed carry permit and Florida has been a "shall issue" state since 1987.

Currently I see no problems with the restrictions on concealed carry in Florida as they seem entirely reasonable. Until a year ago I could have ended up in a lot of trouble if I was walking across a parking lot in the colder months and a wind blew my jacket back and someone noticed that I was packing heat. A recent change to the law corrected this problem. Some parts of the state law were ignored by some cities in Florida and they set rules that made it confusing on where I could legally carry my concealed handgun. Once again this was corrected and now the all the rules apply state wide.

I prefer "shall issue" concealed carry as exists in Florida as basically any citizen who wishes to obtain a carry permit, pass a background check, show proof of firearm safety training, is willing to get a passport photo and fill out some forms can get a carry permit good for seven years for a reasonable cost. The process is fairly easy without a lot of unnecessary hurdles and it matters not if the applicant is black, white or hispanic or if your local police authorities wish to discriminate against you for some reason.

Overall the program has proved to be very successful in Florida with only a few exceptions such as the Zimmerman/Martin incident. The overwhelming majority of those who posses carry permits in Florida have proved to be responsible and have followed all the regulations for concealed carry. Currently gun violence in Florida is at an all time low although concealed carry may not be responsible for this fact.

[Starboard Tack]

25. No, let's make "may issue" the law nationwide.

Last edited Sat Jun 1, 2013, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)

And let's apply very strict requirements, including rigorous psychological evaluation. Same should apply to LE before they are permitted to carry.
Guns are extremely dangerous devices, by their very nature, and should not be carried in public, except in exceptional circumstances.
Your OP is both irresponsible and naive, unless you are being sarcastic, which I would assume if I didn't know you better.

[gejohnston]

26. no interstate commerace

that is why drivers and marriage licenses, other than CDLs, are issued by states. Psychology, like any soft science, is subjective. Since it is subjective, it has no place when it comes to civil liberties.

They are dangerous, but not as dangerous as cars. While negligent discharges do happen, and otherwise good people do stupid shit, they are very rare.

He is spot on, giving a judge or cop arbitrary authority has no place in a liberal democracy. That might fly in a former empire where the people are subjects, but not in a society that is the Enlightenment in action.-

[Kurska]

27. It is a really easy to say something like "Rigorous Psychological Evaluation".

People don't seem to understand what that actually means.

There are only 93,000 clinically trained psychologists in the United States, there is around 800,000 Police officers alone and more than 6 million concealed carry permit holders. Even if every single one dropped everything were doing (and somehow acquired the skills to perform one lots of people with Phds in family system etc...), assuming they could see one a day (incredibly generous given scheduling conflicts), it would take 2 months of constant work just to clear the backlog.

Our nation's mental health system is already taxed to the breaking point, I can't imagine what a requirement like that would do to the system.

[Starboard Tack]

28. Do to what system?

There is no system, but there needs to be. Psych testing can be computerized and automated with very little personnel required. All it takes is a society that places public safety ahead of libertarian fantasies.

[Kurska]

29. "Psych testing can be computerized and automated with very little personnel required."

No, you can administer a personality assessment via a computer. These are self-report and alarmingly easy to trick. You can find a guide online for how to "pass" the MMPI in a matter of minutes. A real mental health examination is a several hour process with a trained professional.

I continue to be surprised at how little the average person in America actually knows about mental health care.

[Starboard Tack]

32. Couldn't agree more about how little the average person knows about healthcare.

Some people think the MMPI is a test one passes or fails.

[gejohnston]

34. he didn't say pass or fail

he said easy to scam.

[Kurska]

35. And some people don't understand English grammar, notice the quotation marks?

That implies that the test isn't something you really pass, but in that this hypothetical instance it would be being used inappropriately to determine something that is very much a pass fail (Whether someone gets a gun or not).

It'd be like someone saying they "passed" the SAT, because they got the score they needed for an event that was pass/fail to happen (getting into a certain college persay). With the added bonus of the MMPI not even remotely designed or normed to determine something like whether someone should be allowed to own a gun (I am not aware of any personality inventory with this stated purpose, probably because it isn't likely to work would very well because of the nature of personality inventories).

I've found a video to explain this grammatical concept

http://www.hulu.com/watch/19049

[gejohnston]

31. there is a quote for that

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr136955.html#cy9YjbwRGui5uSIE.99
Libertarianism falls into categories libertarian capitalism and libertarian socialism. One is feudalism and the company town. The other works great in hunter/gatherer economies. I am neither of those. that isn't to say they don't have a few good concepts. Perhaps a better label, would be consistent liberalism.
and UK is safe? Dude, I felt safer in Metro Manila and DC.

[Starboard Tack]

36. You seem obsessed with the UK.

When did I ever say it was safe, or safer than anywhere else? I was in DC last week and felt totally safe. I've lived in some of the supposedly roughest places on the planet and always felt safe, but that's just me. Life is too short to indulge irrational fear. Some folk don't feel safe going to the bathroom.

But I'm not talking about giving up any "essential liberties". I'm talking about societal rules, which every society has the right to make when it comes to the general welfare of that society.

[gejohnston]

38. Because UK and Japan are held up as models of such

rules. I lived in Japan. The "essential liberties" you give up in Japan are:
jury trial
impartial judges, since acquittals are not good for careers.
exclusionary rule
right to a lawyer during questioning
right against self incrimination
right to not get the shit beat out of you during questioning

Is there any civil liberty Parliament can't strip away tomorrow? Besides, UK is an interesting place, and I liked my times working with the RAF.
Wasn't the PATRIOT Act in the name of "public safety"?
who makes the rules? Fundies make the same claims on different issues. The fundamental core of the Enlightenment and liberalism is that the individual is sovereign, the State does what the individual can't do for themselves like build roads enforce laws etc. Society is a collection of individuals that share a common culture and some basic values. Those individuals elect representatives to a reflect their views on the rules should be, collect the money needed, pay for, and carry out those duties. The whole is the equal to the sum of its parts and no more.

Some of those duties of the State is maintaining the education system and social safety net. That is what divides the classical liberal, like Washington who instituted a welfare system in DC in his first term and Madison that vetoed a "faith based initiative" because it is the State's responsibility, from the modern "libertarian" who are really Arachno-Capitalists like that idiot that came up with the worst "march on Washington" idea imaginable. Civil disobedience is one thing, there are causes worth dieing or going to jail for. Protesting DC's, when you are not a resident of DC, gun law is not one of them.
classical liberal-Thomas Paine who wanted to take "soak the rich" to a whole new level.
modern libertarian-Alex Jones.
see the difference?

[Starboard Tack]

39. Of course I see the difference between Payne and Alex Jones

In terms of individual rights and basic freedoms, I see very little difference among the western democracies. One is better here, another is better there. I've not lived in Japan, but I have lived in several European countries, Canada and the US. They are all variations on a theme, IMO, none standing above the others in terms of individual rights.
The rights of citizens to arm themselves and defend themselves and their homes is universal. How they arm themselves is limited by legislation. This is so in all countries, including the US. The US has less restrictions than any other country in this regard and also has the highest homicide rate and gun violence rate. In order to lower those rates, some compromise is obviously necessary, and such compromise may impinge on existing individual freedoms. The impact should be minimal and as easy to adapt to as the mandatory seatbelt regulations of the 70's and the hands free regs. that are being enforced in many jurisdictions today. There's a lot of wailing and moaning, but, at the end of the day, life will go on and fewer Americans will feel the need to walk around armed and afraid of each other. Fear is a terrible thing, mainly because it is so marketable.

[gejohnston]

40. here is the trick

The rights of citizens to arm themselves and defend themselves and their homes is universal. How they arm themselves is limited by legislation.

I'm skeptical if UK or Japan has that right. Seriously. In fact, what self defense weapon is legal in UK? Pepper spray is banned in Canada and DC.

The US has less restrictions than any other country in this regard and also has the highest homicide rate and gun violence rate. In order to lower those rates, some compromise is obviously necessary, and such compromise may impinge on existing individual freedoms.

The two are not related. There is no evidence of any cause and effect. Most of the "gun violence" are in fact suicides, that would not be prevented. We have more cities over 250K, where most of these murders take place. We also have more gangs and organized crime. We have higher drug addiction rates. Those other countries have more deference to authority than the US. This is why letting 12 year olds buy ammunition in Canada and OK for Canada. I wouldn't propose that in the US. Until a few years ago, a Finn could buy a rifle at 15. Not here.
Your argument falls apart when one looks at the fact that no evidence can be found of murder or suicide rates dropping being because of gun laws. Yeah there is the claim about Australia, but the murder rate was already dropping. The one study claiming is outnumbered by three that doesn't. Why didn't Canada have more machine gun crime than us before 1977? You needed a license to buy a handgun, but buying a machine gun was as easy as buying a bolt action, it just had to be registered.

The international experience is no less complex. Justice Breyer cited one study finding, in the justice’s words, “that strict gun laws are correlated with more murders, not fewer.”

According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That is part of why I reject the whole "the problem is the gun laws" meme. Every ideology has what I call an ideological mythology. Those are positions taken based on emotion and or ideological reasons having nothing to do with empirical evidence. When the choice is between intellectual honesty and maintaining the mythology, guess which wins? Gun control happens to be the secular left's. One of the right's happens to be supply side economics. Some of them are accepted by other ideologies to form coalitions. That is why you see Ann Coulter ranting about the "evils of gay marriage" when she really doesn't believe a word she says, but it gets WEPs to lick it up and ask for more while voting for an someone who admires atheist sociopath Ayn Rand.

[Starboard Tack]

41. I also reject "the problem is the gun laws"

The problem is the tradition of solving problems with firearms, which stems from the American desire for quick fixes, instant gratification, simple solutions to complex problems and answers to questions that haven't been properly formulated.
I had my first gun at the age of 9. There were no restrictions on air rifles and shotguns. Nobody thought of carrying any kind of gun around unless they were going to hunt or shoot skeet. Guns weren't used for self defense, because nobody carried them. And it's pretty much the same today in the UK. A gun in the home was another story. Farmers and country folk often kept guns and rarely would anyone trespass on their land.
It isn't the law that troubles me, but rather the mentality of those who think they are safer in a society where guns are routinely carried by anyone, including and especially LE. It boggles my mind to contemplate such stupidity.
That is the issue here, concealed carry, not ownership or home defense.

[gejohnston]

42. solving problems

dueling existed in Europe did it not?
What I find interesting about the whole "wild west" meme is that, it didn't exist. People in places like Wyoming didn't wear a revolver to go to the store or bar. There were a number of reasons for this. Some places had town ordnances, but mostly because for the same reason you wouldn't carry a canteen of water. The only documented quick draw duel in Wyoming's history were two drunk railroad workers. Each emptied their guns, all rounds missing any living thing. Not exactly a Tom Mix script. It would be a Gunsmoke episode though.
It was always perfectly legal for me to open carry in Wyoming. Not customary other than someone going to the range on a motorcycle (it was the only legal way to carry it. Putting it in a saddle bag or backpack would be the same as putting it under the seat or glove box in a car.)
Most 19th century US, like European toters at the time, where middle to upper class city slickers. In the US it was mostly women.

Some Americans are amazed UK cops survive their shifts. Of course, news of a machete madman being able to freely walk unmolested for over twenty minutes on London's streets after murdering someone in front of witnesses kind looks like a society in decay.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. What "(L)ibertarian fantasies"? Most states already ARE "shall issue".

And since none of them seem of a mind to repeal it, perhaps you may wish to reconsider your
desire for more controls on your fellow inhabitants...

[Starboard Tack]

37. I'm aware that most states are "shall issue"

And I'm sure that will change in due course. I have no desire to change it, but will applaud the inhabitants of those states when they do, as I applaud those states who have recently passed legislation in favor of public safety. Things are inching in the right direction, which is a good thing.

[friendly_iconoclast]

58. *Any* legislation might be termed as being "in favor of public safety".

[Starboard Tack]

77. I disagree

How can any law permitting more guns on the street be defined as being in the interest of public safety? Such laws are in the interest of gun peddlers and individuals who feel insecure. I acknowledge that such individuals are members of the public and that they feel safer when carrying a gun. There is no evidence that the public, in general, benefits from such legislation, just as there is no evidence that the US is any safer by strutting around the world with its military. Just the opposite, in fact.

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. The NRA will tell you what *they* favor is "in the interest of public safety"

So will any other political org or politician discussing what they favor.

Therefore, the claim is rote and so close to being meaningless as to make no difference whatsover.

[Starboard Tack]

94. The NRA is a fascist organization. Who cares about their lies?

If you think public safety is meaningless, or some kind of political claim, then we have nothing to discuss. You need to do some reality testing when it comes to the difference between the safety of the general public, society at large and the personal preferences of individuals who live in a different reality to the rest of us.

[rl6214]

48. Same should be said for voting.

[Starboard Tack]

79. I've got news for you. Voting is a constitutional right.

Carrying a concealed weapon is not. 2A talks about the right to bear arms, not to sneak around with guns hidden under your clothing.

[rl6214]

87. What the hell is bearing arms?

Your interpretation of "sneak around with guns hidden under your clothing" is very narrow minded bias towards YOUR interpretation which has been proven to be wrong by many courts and state laws which allow concealed carry.

I think I'll go with state law s and legal decisions over YOUR opinion.

[Starboard Tack]

88. Bearing arms means carrying a weapon of some kind.

I'm aware of the laws in various states. Doesn't mean they are good laws, or that need to agree with them. If you insist on carrying a loaded gun around, I think you should follow the local law. Good luck to you and those around you.

[rl6214]

91. Exactly

Bearing arms means carrying a weapon of some kind.

I'm glad we agree on something. I follow the local laws and they say I can carry a concealed weapon. No luck involved or needed.

[Starboard Tack]

95. The law saying you can, does not mean that you must.

Depending where and how you live, I accept there may be a reason you feel a need to carry. My issue is with those who feel that need everywhere that it is legal. That's what I call addiction.

[jimmy the one]

96. bear arms = confrontational

rl: What the hell is bearing arms? Your interpretation of "sneak around with guns hidden under your clothing" is very narrow minded bias towards YOUR interpretation which has been proven to be wrong by many courts and state laws which allow concealed carry.

States in the past have written prohibitions into their constitutions to prevent carrying concealed weapons (see post 12), aka 'sneaking around with guns hidden under your clothing'. 1 Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (1891). 2 Montana: The right of .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. (1889).

rl: Bearing arms means carrying a weapon of some kind.. I follow the local laws and they say I can carry a concealed weapon.

In 1791 there was a big difference between 'carrying arms' & 'bearing arms', & even rightwing shyster scalia acknowledged it in heller decision:

scalia, heller: At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989).
When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Wm Rawle demonstrates diff between carrying & bearing, 1825, A View of the Constitution:
All insurrection, the object of which was to suppress an office of excise established under a law of the United States, and the marching with a party in arms to the house of the excise officer, and committing acts of violence and outrage there, with a view by force and intimidation to prevent the execution of the law, has been held to amount to a levying of war against the United States.
A conspiracy to subvert by force the government of the United States, violently to dismember the Union, to coerce repeal of a general law, or to revolutionize a territorial government by force, if carried into effect, by embodying and assembling a military body in a military posture, is an overt act of levying war; and not only those who bear arms, but those who perform the various and essential parts which must be assigned to different persons, for the purpose of prosecuting the war, are guilty of the crime

It's ridiculous, from above, to think 'those who perform the various & essential parts' of the conspiracy, would not be carrying arms about their persons, whether pistols, knives or clubs. Thus you can see the diff between carrying arms & bearing arms, by wm rawle. Here again Rawle gives an example of carrying, apart from bearing:
An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace.

[rl6214]

98. Why whine to me about it?

Your buddy said in post 88 that to bear arms meant to carry arms.

[GreenStormCloud]

66. There is already a universal, very effective, psych test. It is called - past behavior.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. It isn't perfect, but it is the best. People who have reached maturity without getting in trouble with the law, or having a history of violence, rarely go on to become violent criminals.

[Starboard Tack]

81. What a crock!

What do you consider maturity? And what do you mean by rarely?
Very few people become violent criminals, fortunately.
At what age do you suggest weeding them out?

[ileus]

30. Rights shouldn't be denied...

Once we get past the debate of if my family and I are worthy of protection in public, then we shouldn't have to hope and pray someone at the local level also believes we should have that right.


We can't let anyone get in the way of assuring the safety of our person and family.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. There is no right to carry a concealed weapon.

[friendly_iconoclast]

56. Then there would be a right to openly carry one.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. that would be off topic.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. There is in my state.

[Lizzie Poppet]

131. I concur.

I consider it a close-run thing, but concealed carry isn't a protected right.

[jimmy the one]

43. and he was so sure

1 Colorado:.. but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.1876
2 Florida 1885: .. but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne."
3 Georgia: .. but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.1877

friendly_icono.. you left out all the ones that didn't ban the practice or contain racist language.. An oversight, I'm sure..

Well you're quite wrong, even tho you were so 'sure' - which about sums up your proclivity regarding your pro gun ideas & suggestions.
I wouldn't have included other states without prohibitions on carrying concealed, for there was no reason to - duh. DUH. There doesn't have to be 100% agreement to disprove your contention that concealed carry prohibitions violate the 2nd amendment.
.. That several states in the past have deemed legislation necessary, approved by their state constitutions, to prohibit concealed carry, and these laws were NOT challenged as violating the 2ndAmendment in any way, is my point. In other words guns could be regulated to prevent even carrying them in towns, & this was not considered any sort of infringement.
.. And what does 'racist language' have to do with your argument? was I supposed to include constitutional rkbas with racist language? gee I didn't know dat, but pls explain why.

Under your, um, reasoning, icono, had I listed state weather regulations for ocean swimming & the littoral states which have them, you'd have claimed that failing to cite their absence in kansas an oversight? or wait, that no kansas regs meant the other regs were invalid, or what?

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. Is there some point you wish to make with this serving of word salad?

[jimmy the one]

69. yo ho ho & a bottle of coke

icono: Is there some point you wish to make with this serving of word salad?

That's your reply? a sidestep? a 14 step tapdance?
I made several points which any unbiased reader will surely comprehend, & all you can come up with is some weak reference to 'word salads'.

coke machine: I just love anyone that thinks they are "the one", jimmy or not.

ha, from someone going by the double entendre' 'Coke Machine', this is rich.
I'll bet you've been vetted by the fbi & local & states authority on occasion, hope you understand why. I'd rather go by an english naval term 'jimmy the one', rather than conjure up thoughts of the steppenwolf song 'GD the ******'.

Mine's explanation does a bit better: Royal {British} Navy The first lieutenant in a Royal Navy ship is a post or appointment, rather than a rank. In minor war vessels, destroyers and frigates the first lieutenant is second in command, executive officer (XO) and head of the executive branch; Colloquial terms in the Royal Navy for the first lieutenant include "number one", "the jimmy" (or "jimmy the one&quot and "James the First"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_lieutenant

I adopted the name since I was stationed on so many US navy destroyers & frigates, as well as sub & destroyer tenders, it kind of grew on me, even tho it's english. Ever been above the arctic circle? or transatlantic cruise to trondheim, cokemachine? sailing the fjords is super, & sailed past where the tirpitz was sunk by raf in wwII, while I was on duty on a nato exercise.

If you continue with your cheap shots coke machine, I will report you for harassment, which is about all you do to gun control advocates or people you disagree with. I have ample evidence (about a dozen in my x-files) of single line 'tweet posts' by you meant only to harass people with nothing contributing or of substance to back you up. THAT, is one definition of trolling. Have a nyth day.

[CokeMachine]

86. Come on JTO please don't hide your response to me in the word salad of a response to someone else.

Last edited Mon Jun 3, 2013, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

Please stand up and respond to me directly. I almost missed the reference to me. Cut and paste JTO's last paragraph here.
I give snarky responses to those that deserve them. You or ?? really have nothing to offer except a lot of cut and paste of others posts. I'm in your x-files? -- you are one scary dude. Just who are you going to report me to for harassment? Maybe the blocksalot group hosts? Will Sculley be visiting me?? I hope so, I've always liked her.

Word count doesn't make a poster good otherwise you would't copy/paste everyone's words to pad your word count. Ever heard of short and sweet. Have a good night.

Do I know you from somewhere?


ETA: I finally waded through the salad dressing. Should I send you a picture of the football team I played on so YOU and your buddy can see why my nickname in high school is what it is. Jesus Christ -- please respond to me directly or just put me on ignore, Responding directly to members will un-salad your posts. Is Sculley on her way yet?

Take Care JTO

[CokeMachine]

65. Yawn!!

[Eleanors38]

71. Don't get me in the mood. I'm going for lunch. Vietnamese.

[CokeMachine]

84. For breakfast?? I'm on the west coast.

I try to never get anyone in the mood. Well, maybe just that one special person. Just had a Calamari steak sandwich for a late lunch, Good stuff!!

Eat Hearty!!

[Eleanors38]

92. Mmmm, sounds good. I'd have that for breakfast.

[NYC_SKP]

90. Hay Ky in Austin?

You must have the Chicken Satay or the Pho, or both!!!

Oh, also, this made me laugh:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12591977

[Eleanors38]

93. Well, in fact I had the Pho with discs if fresh jalapeno

Tossed in. Sinuses all clear!

There seems to be a lot of traffic in ATA. Maybe it's the gestation of a fourth gun group?

[NYC_SKP]

97. I wonder if this animated gif showing changes in US laws over time is bogus:

Whatever one might say could be done to limit CC, states seem to be generally siding with gun owners.

[Eleanors38]

99. States have powers to regulate constitutionally the right

to carry, either openly or concealed or both.

They cannot prevent both means.

[BainsBane]

102. Yes, you all organize for gun proliferation here

while pretending you support gun control measures in GD. "We agree with you on everything except an assault weapons ban." Complete fucking bullshit.

[premium]

103. At least you can say your piece here

without being worried about being blocked, unlike the Bansalot group that you and your cohorts have set up.

And I doubt that anyone here really cares what you think is "fucking bullshit", I know I certainly don't.

[BainsBane]

104. I'm gong to link to this thread regularly

Whenever any of you post in GD, so people can see what you really are. Bookmarked.

Obviously I know full well you don't care what I think. I'm a human being. My life has no value here.

[premium]

105. Ohhhhhhhhh, I'm really worried now.

So what? Go right ahead, we've got nothing to hide or worry about, link to your hearts desire.
Matter of fact, I'll start linking to here anything you post in Bansalot group.
Fair is fair after all.

[BainsBane]

106. I'm proud of my views

They don't promote policies that result in tens of thousands of deaths every year.

[premium]

107. Good for you,

neither do ours.
At least in this group, we can debate, unlike your little Bansalot Group.

[BainsBane]

108. This thread is about increasing gun proliferation

and that results in a higher death toll. Yet you find that funny. That really says everything there is to know about you.

[premium]

109. Uh huh.

Suuuuuuuuure it will. You don't know that. I see that your complaining about this thread in GD and have complained to Skinner about it.
Citizens of IL. who take the time to go through the steps of getting a CHL aren't going to increase the homicide rate in IL., your statement is ridiculous at best.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022975916#post45

Pure comedy gold.

[premium]

110. Hmmmmm, MN is a Shall Issue State,

What are you doing to get that statute repealed?

Ya know, just sayin.

[BainsBane]

130. Calling the legislature

Trying to get better gun control legislation. But yes, there is a reason this city is known as Muderapolis and why there have been several shootings in front of my house, including one last month that took out four cars including mine. So lots of guns here and lots of people dying, just how the gun cabal wants it.

[premium]

133. And how many of those murders are done by citizens with CC licenses? nt.

And if CC laws are so bad, then why has not one state, including yours, even considered repealing it, instead, the last holdout, IL. will now become a Shall Issue state.

[premium]

111. Wow,

now you're complaining about this thread in the Bansalot Group.
What's that make it now? 4? 5 different threads now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623333#post5

[Lizzie Poppet]

112. No, that's YOUR take on the thread.

For others, it's about state-to-state consistency in regulation, about de-politicizing the permit-issuance status quo that exists in the handful of "may issue" states left, etc.

[BainsBane]

113. is the result not to make it easier to carry guns around

So that they are everywhere. What ever happened to the 10th amendment? Why is that the only part of the constitution you people give a fuck about is the second?

[Lizzie Poppet]

114. You have not the slightest clue what I "give a fuck about."

But by all means keep up the "telepsychology." it's entertaining as hell...

[BainsBane]

115. You comment about uniformity of laws

made it quite clear. Take a gander at the Bill of Rights some time, and this time look beyond section two. Then think about how your firends in the gun lobby are systematically dismantling the First Amendment.

[Lizzie Poppet]

118. You're still doing it. Just stop.

Seriously, you haven't the slightest idea of my level of familiarity with the Bill of Rights (which I'd wager a very great deal significantly exceeds your own). Lay off the bullshit amateur psychoanalysis and actually argue a fucking point now and then.

Also consider reading with due care. My comment about the uniformity of was wasn't in any way expressing my own viewpoint on tat matter. It was pointing out that said uniformity is likely the subject of the thread for some (and not "gun proliferation&quot .

And you have a nice day now, okay?

[BainsBane]

119. Odd that you should feel a need to defend something

You disagree with. That isn't something people do.

[Lizzie Poppet]

122. You're STILL doing it. What a fucking train wreck...

I also didn't say I disagreed with that point. Do you make even the slightest effort to absorb what you're reading, to properly interpret what was actually written?

FFS...

[BainsBane]

124. There's a simple solution for that

Express your views plainly, and there isn't room for misinterpretation.
For some reason you aren't comfortable doing that. But no, I didn't believe you were defending something you didn't believe. The obvious irony of my post was lost on you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

129. I already did.

The initial post you read (and apparently failed to adequately comprehend) could hardly have been plainer. Your subsequent flailing doesn't change that in the slightest.

Oh, and yet MORE inane telepsychology ("...you aren't comfortable...&quot . I begin to suspect you're just doing the rdhrma/bongbong thing.

[premium]

120. Do you even have a clue about what state Pre-emption laws are?

It gives the State legislatures sole authority to set firearms laws, why should someone be legal in one location within the state and then be a criminal within another location within the state?
All it does is make the firearm laws uniform within that particular state, it doesn't apply nationwide, each state is able to set their own firearm laws as long as they are within the Constitution.

[BainsBane]

123. No fucking shit.

[premium]

125. Then what's your problem?

You think that each city/town/county should be able to set their own laws, thus creating a patchwork of different laws within the state concerning firearms?
This is a good thing to you? Make more potential criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens?
In what world of yours do you think this is a good thing?
Or is your agenda to make criminals out of otherwise law abiding gun owners?

[premium]

116. So what are you doing to repeal Shall Issue in MN?

[BainsBane]

117. It's pretty clear this is all a game to you

So I'll leave you to play with yourself.

[premium]

121. IOW,

you've lost the debate and now you'll take your marbles and go home.
Thanks for playing.

[BainsBane]

126. lost the debate? What a joke

You really don't have the slightest clue. There is no debating anyone into having a conscience. No amount of conversation is going to convince you to care about the people murdered by the policies you promote.

[premium]

127. Back atcha.

You've never had any intention of honestly debating anyone in this group, that much is painfully obvious.
You spread mis-truths about what we believe in, you run around the board trying to ostracize gun owners here who don't toe your line.
Talk about not having the slightest clue? Try looking in the mirror.

[BainsBane]

128. The victim complex again

You really need a new line. Self pity is really unattractive. You aren't the victims.
The children dying in cities around this country because of the laws you promote are the victims. You're correct that I had no intention of debating with you people. I've wasted hours doing that on this site. I know what I'm dealing with. What I saw in this thread was confirmation of what I suspected as a result of those debates. This story about supposedly supporting the President's gun control measures is nothing but a fiction. So when certain people say "I probably agree with you on everything except AWB" I now have proof that they are not being honest.
Besides, you said you were proud of your views. Now suddenly making people aware of them is "ostracizing" you. You really should pick a story and stick with it.

[premium]

132. Now you're an internet psychoanalyst?

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 12:30 PM - Edit history (1)

Guess this didn't go the way you thought it would.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109

[friendly_iconoclast]

141. I prefer to not trust interpretation of *any* of my rights to Michael Bloomberg...

...and/or those that would hold him up as a role model.

You've been banging on about how you're the moral better of your opponents, and now you're trying to shut down debate in ATA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109

(Apparently, you needed to be reminded by management of what is allowed here and what is not)

You lot have always had a nasty authoritarian streak, and now it's becoming more apparent along
with a double dose of Pat Robertson-style moralizing and faith-promoting rumor.

[BainsBane]

143. It's not your rights that you're interested in

The constitution is not subject to Bloomberg. The court has repeatedly ruled that both the federal govt and the state can regulate firearms. But you seek to dismantle those regulations because apparently there aren't enough people dying.

You already can hide a gun to take out with you in public so you can feel important. What you want is to impose guns on municipalities where they don't want them, precisely in places where they kill the most people. I'm not trying to do anything about guns in the bumfuck hollow where you live. This thread is about taking the right of self determination away from cities and imposing your tyranny of guns on places you don't live and will never visit. More and more people will die, as there is a clear connection between concealed carry and homicide, which of course you know. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
It's not a coincidence that the NRA is a virtually white only organization. AT a recent convention of 45,000, only 12 were African American. The ratio of black to white slaveholders in the Antebellum South was higher than that. Spreading guns into cities reduces the population of color and paves the way for restoring white only rule in this country, which is why the GOP and NRA are joined at the hip.

So Skinner says you can wallow in your cult of death. Congratulations. Here are some of your recent victories. https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=cpsugrccggmnoe&gs_rn=17&gs_ri=psy-ab&tok=czs91ipMICNpo3Yv7-nZ7A&suggest=p&cp=5&gs_id=j&xhr=t&q=mccaskill&safe=active&biw=1006&bih=625&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&authuser=0&ei=TmW6UZulG4TIywGi9IGICg#um=1&safe=active&hl=en&authuser=0&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=gun+shot+victims&oq=gun+shot+victims&gs_l=img.3..0i10l3j0i5i10j0i10i24.2399.5797.0.6034.18.17.1.0.0.0.220.1770.7j9j1.17.0.cpsugrccggmnoe..0.0.0..1.1.17.img.YjmEFBdfpaU&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47883778,d.aWc&fp=b9aeb46809fd7009&biw=1006&bih=625

[gejohnston]

144. about that mother jones article

You should slide your cursor over the links for their sources. Using themselves, some blog, and injury prevention magazine written by Brady Center hacks isn't very impressive.

BTW, your google images link includes gang warfare, fueled by coke heads and bong owners, and Cambodian democide. Nice cheap appeal to emotion.

The easiest to debunk is "myth one"
see paragraph four
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/cuomo-says-he-will-outline-gun-measures-next-month.html?_r=0
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/pro-gun_advocates_angry_over_n.html

"myth" five
was based on a study by a ER Doc named Author Kellermann. It was so roundly debunked by criminologists during peer review, I'm amazed gun control advocates still use it. Back in the 1970s, they used to say don't resist violent crime, any violent crime, because resisting will make you worse off, which is the opposite of any study done by DoJ.

[gejohnston]

147. one question

contacting you. We are all used to a certain discourse from the Gungeon crowd. That thread goes far beyond what "pro-gun Democrats" espouse. It is seeking to spread concealed carry into urban areas, when all evidence shows that concealed carry leads to higher homicide rates. It left me completely shocked, which is why I chose to post about it here.

Can you provide evidence of this? Better yet, can you provide evidence of this base on a peer reviewed study by a neutral and credentialed criminologist or sociologist? No, ER docs and economists funded by MAIG or the Joyce Foundation don't count. If there is such a correlation, can you show cause and effect? Can you explain why US murder rate has dropped even as concealed carry laws have been liberalized?

[CokeMachine]

149. Here's the whole thing with edits -- up to two so far -- stay tuned.

From BB in ATA.

Why is this okay?
Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 06:31 AM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=123735

when the TOS say the site is for Democratic and progressive views? Could someone start a "safe haven" group where they work to ban abortion or same-sex marriage? Why is gun activism that is in clear opposition to the positions taken by the Democratic Party and our President allowed?

Edit: In case you don't realize it, that's a proposal to put more guns in the hands of people in the inner cities. Most of the gunners live in rural areas, but want to see concealed carry extended throughout the US, in areas far away from where they live. So here you have on DU people plotting to put more guns where they are most deadly, particularly for people of color. Your site is currently being used as a staging ground to promote policies that spread guns throughout the United States.

Apparently she is not used to being challenged -- sad state of affairs -- nevermind the link explains it!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125519981

She is one of the chosen few though. Messing with the SOP and it's still here????

[BainsBane]

155. You know full well there are no peer reviewed studies

because the NRA has made illegal federal funding for such research. Knowing that, your request is cynical. However, there is evidence from crime statistics on correlation between concealed carry and higher homicide rates. The Mother Jones article references some of that, and they have published other pieces showing such a correlation. Your bete noire Bloomberg has started to fund research into guns at Johns Hopkins, so you have yet another reason to despise him.

As I said, I believe the the purpose of the policy is to kill people of color to reestablish white only rule in the nation. The GOP and the racists who make up the NRA cannot regain political control without decreasing the population of color. That's where policies like that discussed in this OP enter. The gun lobby and the GOP are one interest, and they are now joined at the hip with white supremacists.

[gejohnston]

157. what a fact free post.

because the NRA has made illegal federal funding for such research. Knowing that, your request is cynical. However, there is evidence from crime statistics on correlation between concealed carry and higher homicide rates.

That is in fact not true. The CDC is prohibited from lobbying and advocating for stricter gun laws. That is not research. The DoJ, through its research arm National Institute of Justice, does in fact do such research. They hired legitimate criminologists like James Wright and Gary Kleck.

The Mother Jones article references some of that, and they have published other pieces showing such a correlation. Your bete noire Bloomberg has started to fund research into guns at Johns Hopkins, so you have yet another reason to despise him.

I said credentialed and neutral criminologists, not ER docs, who are not scientists, who happen to be paid hacks. I doubt those studies are peer reviewed by criminologists and certainly not published in criminology journals. Sorry, you lose. There is a difference between science and advocacy research. The latter being what the Koch funded climate change deniers are good at. Am I comparing Bloomburg to Koch? Yes. That said, simply looking at the FBI statistics shows that the studies are questionable at best. I take that back, a complete crock. BTW correlation does not mean causation. Remember, the trend to lower violence started while states started liberalizing CCW laws.

As I said, I believe the the purpose of the policy is to kill people of color to reestablish white only rule in the nation. The GOP and the racists who make up the NRA cannot regain political control without decreasing the population of color. That's where policies like that discussed in this OP enter. The gun lobby and the GOP are one interest, and they are now joined at the hip with white supremacists.

You do know that the McDonald in McDonald vs Chicago is African American? Sorry, this whole thing reads like an Alex Jones script, and I am not going to give it the dignity of saying much else.

[friendly_iconoclast]

165. "I believe the the purpose of the policy is to kill people of color to reestablish white only rule."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172123735#post155

And there it is- accusing DUers of abetting genocide and racism. You lot are quickly sinking to a new low.

[beevul]

154. Dismantle? Really?

In what world is removing discretion from a "may issue" system, to a "shall issue" system "dismantling anything?


Can we all assume you'd be fine with "may issue" for drivers licenses too, and that if they were "may issue", and people wanted to make them "shall issue", that you'd be making similar accusations of people "trying to dismantle" regulations?

"I'm not trying to do anything about guns in the bumfuck hollow where you live."

You don't support the awb then right? And bans on hollow point bullets like in new jersey?

Well then, I guess you don't support enough gun control to be posting in castle bansalot then.

Be sure and let them know.

"This thread is about taking the right of self determination away from cities and imposing your tyranny of guns on places you don't live and will never visit."

And you don't try to exert or support the exertion of rule making in places you don't live and will never visit?

Bleh.

[friendly_iconoclast]

164. Naked and uninformed stereotyping on your part; "the bumfuck hollow where (I) live"...

...is a racially-, and socioeconomically-mixed suburb directly adjoining the City of Boston.

"...imposing your tyranny of guns on places you don't live and will never visit. "

Erm, said suburb directly adjoins the City of Boston, and my work regularly takes me to
decidedly unbucolic areas such as Longwood/Mission Hill, Forest Hills, Jamaica Plain, Eastie
and Dorchester. For that matter, I was at the Museum of Fine Arts a couple of days ago to take
in the Michelangelo drawings and to revisit a few other galleries.

Like I said, you lot sure are fond of faith-promoting rumor. Looks like your carefully crafted prejudice has run up against some inconvenient truths...

[BainsBane]

172. It's a comment on rural/ex urban vs. urban way of life

which is at the heart of policy about guns. The gun lobby counts on whipping up hysteria among people that live in urban and suburban areas and then seeks to impose those right-wing gun policies on the rest of the country. I have yet to meet one gun zealot on this site who lived in a city. There may be a few, but they are overwhelmingly white suburban and rural people. You don't break the pattern. That is also why the issue breaks so clearly on partisan lines. People in cities tend to be Democrats, while those in rural and exurban areas vote Republican.

So you have just confirmed the rule. You don't live in the city and you resent the fact that us uppity urban folk think we have a right to govern ourselves. Everyone knows the only people who count are suburban folk. The rest of us need to bow to their will, even if that means having our children slaughtered so you can assert authoritarian gun rule on places like Chicago, thousands of miles away from you. It really is awful that Chicago's murder rate is down 40%. That concealed carry bill should take care of that soon though.

[beevul]

173. Allowing people to choose for themselves...

Allowing individuals to choose for themselves, is by definition, NOT authoritarian.

Preventing individuals from choosing for themselves, as you would prefer, IS authoritarian.


Or do you think that we on the left wish to assert "authoritarian abortion rule" too?

[BainsBane]

174. You aren't allowing people to choose. You are removing that choice

You are in effect imposing abortion on urban areas. You are saying everyone in cities like Chicago MUST allow concealed carry because that's how YOU want it, when you don't live in Chicago or even Illinois. That is the equivalent of forcing women to have abortions. But as long as privileged white men set the rules for the rest of us, that's all that really matters.

There really is nothing more offensive than laughing at the loss of human life. More people have died from guns since Sandyhook than have been killed by the war in Iraq and you think this is stuff is funny?

[beevul]

175. LOLWUT?

"You are in effect imposing abortion on urban areas. You are saying everyone in cities like Chicago MUST allow concealed carry because that's how YOU want it, when you don't live in Chicago or even Illinois. That is the equivalent of forcing women to have abortions. But as long as privileged white men set the rules for the rest of us, that's all that really matters."

No hahaha. Just no.

If anything has been imposed, it is the prohibition of your chosen prohibition.

I am saying places like Chicago MUST allow individuals to carry concealed if they choose to.

As in allowing individuals that choice.

Allowing someone a choice does not force anyone to exercise that choice.

As far as I know YOU don't live in Chicago or even Illinois either, so whats your point about not living there.

"There really is nothing more offensive than laughing at the loss of human life."

Except perhaps when someone says that someone was laughing at the loss of human life, when in fact no such laughing was happening. No, wait, that's not funny either.

You did that.

[BainsBane]

177. Exactly, you're saying they MUST

impose the policy you want, even when the overwhelming majority of the population votes otherwise. You are imposing your will on voters across the country from you. You are imposing authoritarian gun rule.

EVERYTHING about guns is about the loss of human life. EVERYTHING. When I think about gun policy, I think about the dead children in Sandyhook, I think about the shootings in front of my house and the children and adults killed in this neighborhood. I think of women shot to death by their abusive husbands. The ONLY reason I take the positions I do is order to try to spare more of those people dying. I understand it's quite possible you never think about those people killed. But those of use who care about gun control think about it all the time. So when you laugh in the context of such a discussion, I see is as incredibly callous.

[beevul]

179. Sigh

"Exactly, you're saying they MUST impose the policy you want, even when the overwhelming majority of the population votes otherwise. You are imposing your will on voters across the country from you. You are imposing authoritarian gun rule."

Then I guess most of America has "authoritarian abortion rule", and "authoritarian speech rule", and "authoritarian self incrimination rule", and we can assume you're against them, because they're authoritarian and imposed on voters across the country from us, right?

Do you have any idea just how stupid the argument you're making sounds?

"EVERYTHING about guns is about the loss of human life. EVERYTHING."

Yep. That's why there are ten thousandish gun homicides in a country that has 49 states with conceal carry, with the last state pending, and 300 million plus guns in the hands of 80 million plus people.

If things were as you say, the numbers would be far far greater than they are.

"When I think about gun policy, I think about the dead children in Sandyhook, I think about the shootings in front of my house and the children and adults killed in this neighborhood. I think of women shot to death by their abusive husbands. The ONLY reason I take the positions I do is order to try to spare more of those people dying."

If that were true, you'd be doing whats doable, and treating it like a triage.

Instead of treating mental health, instead of going for better mental health reporting, instead of taking care of things against which there would be little to no opposition, you aim squarely at the guns.

Actions speak louder than words.

"I understand it's quite possible you never think about those people killed. But those of use who care about gun control think about it all the time. So when you laugh in the context of such a discussion, I see is as incredibly callous."

Yeah that's it...pro-gun people are unthinking uncaring unable to empathize troglodytes.

I was laughing at you.

Your problem, and the problem of so many of those in your "movement", is you seem only to be able to guage empathy by the degree with which someone agrees with you, or is willing to capitulate to your propped rules.

[gejohnston]

176. More people have died from guns since Sandyhook than have been killed by the war in Iraq

You must mean just US military. How about UK, Australian, Danish, Italian, troops? Iraqi troops? Iraqi civilians?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

It was privileged men, white and black but mostly white, who made the rules for Chicago that you love.
Before you said that gun owners were largely rural, which usually means not privileged.

[BainsBane]

178. I mean US soldiers, yes

Last edited Sat Jun 15, 2013, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not talking about gun owners. I live in a hunting state. We have lots of gun owners here, and some are in my own family. My Republican brother in law hunts for deer and duck every year, and he supports all of the President's gun control provisions including the AWB, even though he didn't vote for Obama in 2012.

Gun policy is set by the corporate gun lobby via their lobbying groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America. The laws are set in the interests of promoting corporate profits, and that means protecting access to guns for criminals and gun carters, hence the opposition to background checks. A parallel might be opposition to universal health care. Lots of poor people oppose Obamacare, but that opposition is ultimately orchestrated by the insurance industry. So yes, lots of poor people think the government is coming after their guns. That's what the NRA tells them. They are footsoliders for their corporate masters.

I don't love the rules for Chicago. I just believe Chicago has a right to make its own rules. I believe they have a right to privilege public safety and human life above corporate gun profits. You refuse to acknowledge their right to democratic self determination and instead insist that policy be directed by corporate gun interests.

Why can't you just acknowledge the basic reality that life in the city is not the same as in rural and exurban areas? Why must you impose your way of life on everyone? How is it that making sure guns are at large in cities in Chicago is more important to you than the children who will be killed from those guns? Is there no point at which human life registers into your thinking? Is it really so trivial to you?

[beevul]

180. What a sham argument.

" How is it that making sure guns are at large in cities in Chicago is more important to you than the children who will be killed from those guns?"

How many children are killed by law abiding concealed carriers nationwide annually?

Such things as such a rarity, that I doubt you could find any stats about it.

[gejohnston]

181. just a few things

I'm not talking about gun owners. I live in a hunting state. We have lots of gun owners here, and some are in my own family. My Republican brother in law hunts for deer and duck every year, and he supports all of the President's gun control provisions including the AWB, even though he didn't vote for Obama in 2008.

does he have a semi automatic shotgun?

Gun policy is set by the corporate gun lobby via their lobbying groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America. The laws are set in the interests of promoting corporate profits, and that means protecting access to guns for criminals and gun carters, hence the opposition to background checks. A parallel might be opposition to universal health care. Lots of poor people oppose Obamacare, but that opposition is ultimately orchestrated by the insurance industry. So yes, lots of poor people think the government is coming after their guns. That's what the NRA tells them. They are footsoliders for their corporate masters.

Not at all. Actually criminals don't get their guns at gun shows. That was true even before NICS, according to the ATF. The black market will be

I don't love the rules for Chicago. I just believe Chicago has a right to make its own rules. I believe they have a right to privilege public safety and human life above corporate gun profits. You refuse to acknowledge their right to democratic self determination and instead insist that policy be directed by corporate gun interests.

Their policy was set by a federal court. The ban was overturned by SCOTUS when an African American Chicago resident filed suit. They have every right to make their own rules as long as it is consistent with the BoR. Otherwise it would be hypocritical to oppose Oklahoma banning abortion. Speaking of public safety, there is no evidence by any honest study by a neutral and credentialed criminologists that gun laws or prohibition works. Before you go off on about CDC funding, NAS had a panel of criminologists look at the studies done. Their conclusion was that they were about as scientific as NRA propaganda.

Why can't you just acknowledge the basic reality that life in the city is not the same as in rural and exurban areas? Why must you impose your way of life on everyone? How is it that making sure guns are at large in cities in Chicago is more important to you than the children who will be killed from those guns? Is there no point at which human life registers into your thinking? Is it really so trivial to you?

Why can't you just acknowledge the basic reality that people should have the right to defend themselves and have the means to do so? There are inexpensive biometric pistol safes on the market so the "for the children" emotional appeal is garbage. Why should good and peaceful people in Chicago be at the mercy of predatory gangs? No, that isn't some bullshit code word. Are you saying that people in cities shouldn't be able to defend themselves? Some people don't believe people should defend themselves at all. DC City Government basically says that, but if sued by citizens for the police failing to protect them, the argument is "the police have no duty to protect you".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
You ask "Is there no point which human life registers" my question to gun control advocates, why do they only care about gun deaths? Aren't stabbing victims just as dead? Aren't rope suicides just as tragic? Why do they call people who legitimately defend themselves from violent attackers "vigilantes" as though they could have walked away? In my mind, that makes the Gun Prohibitionist lobby look morally repugnant as they are intellectually bankrupt IMNOHO. My problem isn't with some fictional disregard for human life. My problem is with false accusations of racism, intellectual dishonesty, intellectual bankruptcy, guilt by association.
Corporations..... Let's look at the leaders of the Gun control movement
Josh Sugermann, rich white guy
Joyce Foundation, corporate foundation
James and Sarah Brady, rich right wing
Donald Trump, rich right wing
Mike Bloomberg, rich right wing
Mike Moore, rich, white, and uneducated.

[friendly_iconoclast]

182. Do you have any actual evidence for your claims, BB? Or are we to take them on faith?

Claims like this one you made about the OP, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109#post2

.It is seeking to spread concealed carry into urban areas, when all evidence shows that concealed carry leads to higher homicide rates.

Please post some of that evidence- with sources.

[friendly_iconoclast]

183. And that would be a no, I take it?

[CokeMachine]

150. Would that be you??

Check out the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125519981

That's all!!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

134. full disclosure:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109

[premium]

135. Didn't quite turn out the way she was hoping, did it?

I love Skinner's reply.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

136. it got the thread another rec, more exposure ... unintended consequences, I'm sure.

I love the way people are "up in arms" (pun intended) about the Fourth here lately, aren't you?

[premium]

137. Up in arms about the 4th,

but more than willing to jettison the 2nd.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

138. when they take away the second there will be No Arms with which to take up for the Fourth -

I guess, at this point, it is all theoretical anyway. but, at least, in theory, at one time .... an individual had equal rights.

[DonP]

142. Just another in a long line demanding/begging to close the Gungeon

If you can't make any progress in trying to change people's minds, ... just demand the authorities shut them up and ban them immediately, so only your side of an issue can be heard. That's a nice progressive attitude

But maybe it was just her turn to whine in ATA. Life's been tough for them since the closed the Meta snake pit and all the vipers had to go somewhere else.

She's pretty typical of gun control fans, they can't differentiate between the thug that shot up a car and a pharmacist in St. Paul with a background check, fingerprints and a concealed carry permit. Anyone with a gun is a thug, or a thug in waiting, to them. At least this one had the decency not to try and argue with Skinner like several others have. But I'm betting life around her will be very unpleasant for a few days, since she stamped her little feet in several fora and still didn't get her way.

For me the big issue is, as much as I like DU, it's not the real world. It's a web board. Getting somebody banned or a post hidden is not actually achieving anything in the gun control debate. Plus, gun controllers seem to be cheap "people" and count on Bloomberg and his ilk to write all the checks while they play games online. They never seem to actually put their money where their mouth is.

IMHO, If Skinner did ever decide to shut down the Gungeon, for whatever reason - it's his sandbox, his rules - we'd all probably find other boards with like minded folks to talk to and discuss shooting sports related things with. DU would lose one of it's higher volume forums for advertising revenue. but as I've said before, to Skinner's credit, it's not his issue, but I've never found any other gun control board anywhere on the web that allowed participation on the issue. Now, watching the crew in Bansalot, I know why. They just can't hold up their end of any discussion without blowing up and trying everything in their meager power to get rid of any differing opinions. We see it every week or so here. They asked for a safe haven, got it and still post here all the time ... because no one goes to their echo chamber. The same 4 or 5 people post and re-post a few times a day.

"Castle Bansalot" would not even come close to making up the revenue difference I'm guessing, with it's handful of "fans". DU would become a shallow echo chamber on this issue for one small, loud and cheap-ass purist segment, that doesn't represent the majority of rural and suburban Dems that we need to win elections. I hope not, but we'll see.

[DonP]

145. I stand corrected, she's up there whining about us again.

Nothing says class as much as repeatedly damning your fellow DU members as cold blooded killers and correcting your host.

Gee, I wonder why gun controllers have a hard time changing people's minds? They're all such friendly reasonable folks.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

146. don't look now -

she went in for the double down.

[DonP]

148. I can't tell if she's lying or just dumb?

She keeps saying that we are all trying to "push guns into urban areas", as if "shall issue" is a brand new idea. I think she might be going for a racist label on all the gungeoneers, since none of their other stunts has worked yet.

What is it now, 35+ states have shall issue and have no problem with CCW permit holders in their cities, excuse me urban areas?

She also keeps claiming that more CCW permits has resulted in more violence, none of which is supported by anything even vaguely resembling facts.

No wonder they keep getting their ass kicked in these discussions.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

151. CCW status

Unrestricted in 4 states, shall issue in 38 states and may issue in 8 states.

[CokeMachine]

152. I'm betting both.

She knows how to play the system (SOP).

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125519981

Have a good night!!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

170. please,

don't make me choose between Door #1 or Door #2.

[rrneck]

153. I joined DU right after the 2008 election

after reading in Alternet about that guy that shot those burglars down in Texas. The comments in the article seemed to be coming from pro gun Dems. I had no idea there were any out there. So I joined up here to revisit the issue. I thought maybe I had been wrong about the whole gun thing all these years.

Since I have been here, after almost fourteen thousand posts the bulk of which have been in the gungeon, I have yet to see a single anti gunner win a debate. Not one. And if anyone wants proof, they just need to go to "Castle Bansalot". It's existence is proof of the intellectual bankruptcy. They couldn't take the heat, so they built their own kitchen.

[HockeyMom]

156. There are sites other than DU,

such as Brady, One Million Moms, where there are far more Dems that are not so pro-gun. Yes, there are a some of us here, but we are few and far between. I have been here steady since right before Kerry's campaign in 2004.

No, you will not win an argument with pro-gun people of either party, especially if you are an anti-gunner living with someone who is pro-gun. Even on anti-gun sites, there are very few of us who live in a gun household. It is not an easy situation and we generally share on how to cope with it. The most you can expect from you family member are small compromises.

DU is not the place to be if you are anti-gun. Yes, it suprised me too.

[rrneck]

158. Generally speaking

DU is anti gun. There is a protected group dedicated to gun control activism. I am not aware of a protected pro gun group. The "gunnies" asked for one and didn't get it. Gun control legislation is trumpeted by Democratic legislators and DU is dedicated to supporting them. There have been frequent calls for the elimination of the "gungeon" and pointed demands that certain members get banned because of their pro gun views. I am not aware of any corresponding demands from the pro gun side.

While the owner of the site has little sympathy for pro gun arguments he is aware that Democrats own guns and discussion on the topic should be allowed here. He believes, much to his credit, that people should be free to speak their minds. The owners have developed a jury system designed to distribute the power to control content across the membership. As a result anybody expressing pro gun views has to endure significantly more abuse than those expressing anti gun opinions. I've been on 319 juries so far, and if the post or poster in question is pro gun, at least one jury response is invariably a personal attack. That's one sixth of the membership. I have never seen a pro gun personal attack in a jury result.

Any fair viewing of any thread in the "gungeon" will reveal any number of inane, taunting, nonsensical posts from the anti gun side and very few if any from the pro gun side. Anti gun trolls have free reign there. How many flamewars occurred in Meta when one or two members were blocked from the gungeon? Do you recall any flamewars when a "gunnie" got banned? How many administration comments in the profiles of banned members refer to "anti gun troll"? "Gun Troll" bannings result in protracted grave dancing. I recall only one thread that reveled in the banning of an anti gun member and that was for views other than guns.

DU is simply not hostile to anyone posting anti gun opinions. Not at all. Not even a little bit. The hostility you perceive is the fact that your partisan fundamentalism is being challenged by a minority of members. Those members are able to do that because of the way the site is managed. The site is managed that way because the owners are aware that there are a lot of gun owning Democrats even if they don't care to indulge in the ongoing scrum in the gungeon.

I find it interesting that you feel more comfortable discussing the issue on sites sponsored by lobbyist organizations, and you characterize your position on the issue in the context of a mixed marriage. "Anti gunners" lose every debate because they aren't looking to actually debate the issue. They are looking for support for their partisan positions. That, in itself, is not a bad thing. Consensus through mutual support fosters group cohesion. Group cohesion wins elections. There will always be hangers on that seek to profit from unthinking partisanship and there are not a few here. They are the most cowardly of trolls that tell people what they want to hear for their own emotional aggrandizement. They, like the lobbyist websites you find more comfortable, are lamprey attached to the ass of American politics and damage our cause as Democrats.

[DonP]

160. Worth noting, none of the sites she lists allow dissent of any kind

All the sites she feels comfortable visiting, are all one sided. Even the Brady Facebook page edits any and all posts that don't agree with them and applaud their work. I've seen them "disappeared" in less than a few minutes.

FWIW, DU and Skinner is still the only place I've found, anywhere, that allows both sides to express themselves.

[rrneck]

161. DU is in a good spot.

The jury system allows DU to respond to demographic changes over time. While I am sure that Skinner et al are good Democrats, they have bills to pay like everybody else. Take it from me, it's hard to make a living by not telling people what they want to hear. I think the "DU experiment" is a fascinating and important contribution to political discourse in this country. It's nice to know that Skinner, Earl and Elad have been able to find a successful marketing niche by allowing frank and honest discourse on the issues of the day.

[DonP]

162. They are under a lot of pressure to shut down opposing viewpoints

But happily, they seem to be able to tell the difference between a handful of demanding loudmouths pushing an agenda and a true consensus shift.

[CokeMachine]

163. Very well said!!

Good job

[Tuesday Afternoon]

171. ^^^ Wish I could rec this thread AGAIN just for THIS POST ^^^

fucking Bravo and Well Said.

[gejohnston]

159. I have a question

do they actually allow discussion at those sites? I noticed anti gun postings on YT and Facebook always have "comments are disabled" or "comments must be approved", and I have seen reasonable posts (like pointing out the absurdity of claiming that it is easier to legally buy a gun in NY than a gold fish.)
Then of course there is the echo chamber.
Why do you think they do that? Insecurity in their own positions?

Anti gunners can't win debates because the movement is intellectually bankrupt based entirely based on emotion and ideology. Stringing logical fallacies together with personal insults and other propaganda techniques, might play well among those who already believe, but not the public at large.

[HockeyMom]

166. Sorry, I have heard all the pro-gun comments for 40 years

living with a gunner. I would just like to discuss how I feel with people who feel the same way. Would you want people here on DU discussing and promoting Republican views? No, and we have a Jury here, that will vote on TROLL posts who express those views.

[gejohnston]

169. political philosopy is different than

the empirical. Pointing out FBI stats, studies done by DoJ hired criminologists, technical differences etc. is empirical. It has nothing to do with "Republican views" or "Democratic views". It is the results. The fact that the planet is getting uncomfortably warm is not a Democratic view, it is empirical science.

Political philosophy is discussing the balance between the individual, the corporation, and government in society and the role of government in society. While Bloomberg's, Sly Stallone's, Rudy Giuliani's, and Mitt's views on guns happen to be shared by many Democrats doesn't change that fact that these four guys are conservative to right wing. Carol McCarthy was still a registered Republican during her first term, and ran as a Dem after losing a GOP primary. While I read her views and votes evolved over time, she voted with the GOP most of the time on other issues. Which is OK, If I had her or your (as you explained before) experience, maybe I would have the same opinion but it would have anything to do with my anti corporatism and disdain for racists and religious fundamentalists.

But I do agree with you about the NRA. The manufactures, US and European, don't control the NRA. The NRA controls them. Bill Ruger, the founder of Ruger firearms. Or Dan Cooper, who got canned from a gun company he founded because he gave money to Obama. The manufactures lobby, the NSSF and other gun rights groups, supported the TM amendment.

In the meantime, you are a proud New Yorker and I a proud Wyomingite trapped behind the Cornbread Curtain.
Have a great weekend. If your hubby decides to buy a new gun, please insist he at least buy American, there are too many Glocks.

[CokeMachine]

139. Careful,

you'll get your post alerted buy a poster you've never seen before and may have just joined to alert on you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

140. :S

[HockeyMom]

167. I have more or less stopped posting on gun issues here

because I feel it is hopeless. I have been on DU since 2004 and have over 10,000 posts. If Democrats don't support Gun Control and Safety issues, who will? Certainly not Republicans and the NRA.

[CokeMachine]

168. It depends on what you mean by gun control and safety.

Last edited Fri Jun 14, 2013, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm all for the UBC and safe storage requirements on one side and for Shall Issue CCW on the other side. I'm also against banning. Look how the WOD is working out.

Hope you have a great weekend!!