About that "Should America work towards becoming a gun-free Country?" poll in GD

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Only 40% say America should be gun-free and it has stayed that way since the poll's inception.

That means that even on a Progressive website the political impetus for much of what the chattering class is promulgating just can't find any purchase. We can only wonder what such a poll would look like in a more pluralistic sampling.

It also shows that when the Prohibitionists complain, "Nobody is trying to take away your precious!" they're pretty much lying out of their patooties.

[NYC_SKP]

1. Here's a link to that thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4662934

It's a push poll by it's phrasing, but I don't think the results would be much different if they'd left out this part:

Should we be passing legislation to remove items that serve no purpose but causation of death from our great Nation?

Agree with you on all counts, especially the very trollish use of terms like, "your precious".

It's such an obvious indicator of failure to make a cogent case, that it surprises me that it continues and makes me suspicious of the messengers.

[krispos42]

24. Well, asbestos has a purpose other than the causation of death

I guess it should be re-legalized. Along with lead-based paint, leaded gasoline, and thalidomide.

That thread should have been locked and reposted here or in GCRA.

[ZombieHorde]

2. "Nobody is trying to take away your precious!"

I have always interpreted this phrase as being about politicians. Most to all of people who voted that the US should be gun free probably don't actually try to take anyone's guns away.

[gejohnston]

3. How do they define "gun free" country?

It won't be gun free, any more than Bermuda is gun free, even if you disarm the police. It reminds me of a recent quote by Canadian anarchist Stefan Molyneux:

If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. That's a terrifying quote. Absolutely accurate but that makes it all the more terrifying.

[MicaelS]

5. I think some of the so them really do want to disarm the police.

Some have said as much. Given how much hatred is directed toward cops on DU (and I have done my share of it) I'm not surprised they want to disarm the police. What is so ridiculous and naive is they really think TPTB would willingly allow that to happen.

You have to remember the belief system of a lot of these anti-gun people. They are naive and really believe that guns are the sole problem. That guns are an evil corrupting force in the world. That if all the guns in the world were destroyed we would suddenly have World Peace™ and we could all hold hands and sit in the shade and sing Kumbaya.

They just conveniently ignore thousands of years of human history where people starting slaughtering each other with rocks, sticks, bone tools, then eventually progressed to edged metal weapons. Because that would mean the real problem isn't weapons, it is that humans like to kill one another and will find any means to do so.

[Common Sense Party]

8. The same government that can listen to our phone calls, read our e-mails and texts,

can throw us into prison on scanty or spurious evidence, the government whose reach seems limitless...THOSE are the only folks that should be trusted with firearms?



Yeah, that makes sense.

[spin]

9. Throughout history the rich who usually control their nation ...

have largely opposed the masses owning weapons.

Usually a only privileged few are allowed that right. Such people usually pose little danger to the ruling rich.

[DonP]

6. I'm surprised the "owners" of GD allow such a pro gun thing to stay

Anything that doesn't mesh with their version of how things should be usually gets closed pretty quickly.

I guess this one snuck up on them.

[spin]

7. Through the years there have been other gun control polls on gun control in GD. ...

All that I can remember showed that the majority of those who voted in the poll opposed gun confiscation.

[DonP]

10. This thread has it all!

Multiple obligatory penis references, check

Requisite "Redneck Knuckle Draggers at Gun Shows posts", check

References to gun owners being "white wing racists", check

Demand to rid DU of all "Gun Humpers" immediately, check

Hoyt's family album pictures, repeated ad nauseum in mutliple posts, check
(but at least he left out the creepy pictures he saves of people's asses sitting in chairs at Starbuck's with guns)

"No regulations on gun ownership" references, check

"The NRA buys off SCOTUS judges and all politicians", check

Dueling posts of "Ban all guns" and "Nobody wants to ban your guns" in the same sub-thread, check

and more.

Funny, the numbers don't seem to change over a decade, but Banslaot's resident poets laureate keep claiming "the tide has turned".

Yup, it's all there to read and enjoy.

[sarisataka]

11. One poster did find the key point of GC's lack of progress

but didn't realize it-

But we have to keep protesting because it makes us feel like are doing something, to imagine that one day somehow we will live in a better country.

The vast majority of GC proponents sit and talk, complain and insult so they feel like they are doing something. Their efforts go exactly as far as their key board.
They swap ideas of the day the world will some how be utopia; when someone does something.

[DonP]

12. All talk, no action in the real world and above all else - no money

They never actually join any gun control groups and never, ever put their money where their mouth is on the issue.

It's a totally online movement.

Least Popular Gun Control Bumper Sticker: "I support Gun Control - here's my check"

Most popular: "Where's Bloomberg?"

[sarisataka]

14. I find it ironic

that I, a small penised, gun humping, white wing racist potential murder, coward... ah hell, there are too many epithets to do justice, seem to be far more pro-GC active than any of our resident Zampolits or their followers.

When I spoke to my state rep about GC ideas he found them quite reasonable and logical but told me there was no way he would introduce any legislation. His explanation was that despite all of the polls, there is no support for gun control. His office rarely hears any support for GC from his constituency. This is a district that has been solid Blue since we became a state. Yet whenever there are proposals re gun laws he hears plenty from the "pro-gun" side.

The "pro-gun" side has given a road map to success. In 1986 there were 1 unrestricted, 8 shall issue, 25 may issue and 16 no issue state CCW permit laws. Twenty-seven years later the total is 5 unrestricted, 37 shall issue, 8 may issue and 0 no issue states.
It took a long time but the CCW side did not give up at the first setback. Instead they mobilized support and kept reintroducing legislation until states changed the laws. It was done state by state.

GC proponents watch one of the national groups introduce a bill in DC, get all hyped that this time it will work and when it fails sit back and bemoan that the NRA has bought every politician and bribed SCOTUS. They then wait for another tragedy so a national group will restart the legislative process. In the mean time they talk about how overwhelming public opinion is, the backlash that is coming and how each loss actually proves they are winning. There is no state level action to speak of and popular support is five moms who get together over lunch. The only reason we hear of the moms is because 20 jackasses open carrying hang out in the parking lot to make some kind of point.

At this rate the GC side should just ask Bloomberg to buy out every US gun manufacturer and shut them down. He could easily afford it.

If I run across Tim again this year I'll ask if he wants to try introducing my ideas. I know many gun owners who support UBC and accountability.

[krispos42]

25. Gun control will not stop domestic abuse.

It will not cure mental illness. It will not affect violent gangs.

Even if, as proponents claim, strict gun-control laws would (at some point in the future) make a serious dent in the US homicide rate, it would not heal the societal problems that tend to cause murder to happen. So by implication, it's not a big deal if domestic abuse, mental illness, and gang activity continue unabated just as long as gunfire isn't involved.

Nor will gun control insure the poor, assure equal protection for the GLBT community, defang the political power of the rich, prevent voter surpression, break the corporate monopolies, redress income inequality, curb military bloat, reduce fossil fuel use, or protect entitlements.

But the largely illogical and symbolic culture war that many gun-control advocates wage triggers a much larger and more powerful political activation of gun owners... that tend to vote Republican.

We can't do things that heal societal problems if we're not in power, and we can't be in power if our party platform is galvanizes the other side far more than it energizes us.

The endless tilting by Bloomberg Quixote against protruding pistol grips not only doesn't change the murder rate by any statistically significant amount, it prevents action on the root causes by putting Tea Party extremists and their allies in office.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

26. Hear! Hear!

[spin]

13. It often amazes me that here on DU where most people advocate political correctness ...

it's perfectly alright to stereotype all gun owners and insult them in any manner you chose.

It does seem somewhat hypocritical.

Still it is a popular sport in our nation today to not show respect and to be impolite to those who disagree with your views. Perhaps that is why "compromise" is an endangered word in our lexicon.

I've learned over the years that insulting others maybe great fun but is a futile exercise. It's far better to engage in a polite discussion where both sides can listen and consider the viewpoints of those they oppose. I fear the rise of the internet has greatly enhanced the level of impoliteness in our society.

When I first discovered DU, I was an extremely strong gun rights supporter but over the years the discussions that I have read and engaged in have taught me a lot and consequently I have modified my views.

Before DU, I used to discuss gun rights on more conservative forums. Being a life long Democrat I often felt that after I had visited these sites, I needed a good shower to wash off all the extreme right wing propaganda. To be fair there was even more hatred on these sites than on DU. It was also impossible to advocate any liberal causes as it would lead to you being banned. Of course on these sites almost everybody agreed with my views on gun control so consequently there was little challenge in posting on them and I learned little or nothing. Posting here on DU has enabled me to learn a lot more about the issue of gun control and the history of firearm rights in our nation.

All the penis size insults and other insults such as being called a "white wing racist", a redneck or a "gun humper" have absolutely no effect on me except to strike me as somewhat immature and humorous. I often suggest to those that insult me that they come up with a new creative derogatory term and complement them on the rare occasions where they do. Of course I avoid insulting them back in return. What would that achieve?

The bottom line is that both sides of the gun control debate have excellent arguments in their favor.

Sadly I feel that I could make better arguments for strong gun control than many who post here if I choose. I feel I could argue for strong gun control and not have to resort to insults when I found myself losing.

One of the main problems I fear many gun control advocates have is that they have little knowledge of the subject. Knowing how firearms work such as the difference between a semiautomatic rifle that looks like a fully automatic or select fire military assault weapon is not rocket science and that knowledge can be obtained on the internet in minutes. Sadly many gun control advocates have little interest in learning any technical details about firearms and merely state that firearms are "bad." Many of those who advocate another assault weapons ban will point out that "black rifles" have absolutely no value for hunting and there is no reason to hunt a deer with a 20 or 30 round magazine. A little research would teach them that rifles such as the AR-15 or AR-15s modified to shoot larger caliber rounds are quite popular and growing more popular with hunters. This research would also reveal that most states that allow deer hunting with any semi-auto rifle limit the magazine capacity of the firearm used to 5 rounds while hunting.

The misconception that AR-15s are not used by hunters is propaganda pushed by those who wish to pass another assault weapons ban. Obtaining all your knowledge about firearms from those who favor strong gun control is every bit as foolish as taking the views of the NRA as gospel.

Sometimes I fear that both those who advocate for strong gun control or for gun rights have little respect for the intelligence of their readers.

[Eleanors38]

16. "...family album pictures..." LOL! BAWaahaa!

[DonP]

17. Why else would somebody save and treasure pictures like that?

Gotta be some close relations in some or all of those pictures.

At least that's what I think every time he posts them.

But I got a couple of posts hidden a year or so ago when I pointed out that there was something really twisted about taking and collecting pictures of fat guys asses at Starbuck's with guns showing.

Now, I'm a gentler and calmer person and if he wants to collect odd pictures of family and strangers, good for him and his "hobby".

[Eleanors38]

19. The biggest critics of porno have the best libraries.

[rrneck]

20. Nobody alerted on it fror 22 hours.

It got a ton of responses so it got left.

[ileus]

15. Let's face it most of us Democrats are reasonable on the 2A.

Some of use are even progressive and move it into the realm of human rights.

[Eleanors38]

18. So we have 40% who want to take guns away...

and 60% who reject that kind of "work."

At once, the lie is given, and the truth is outed.

[De Leonist]

21. There is something about that makes me skeptical about the whole conversation.

I'm not a gun owner and when it comes down to it I don't really care. But I have kept some attention on the debate over the years. However I'm just not convinced that gun possession or lack there of is really the evil/good that either side seem to believe. I guess if your living in a neighborhood with high violent crime than I could see how either might give a person a sense of security. But I have a hard time believing that that sense of security whether it's based on either gun possession or gun control is any real security. Wouldn't real security and public safety be far more effective if a shared sense of community actually existed along with an awareness that any society is built on a Social Contract?

With regards to gun ownership for reasons other than as a method personal security again I don't really care. If you wanna collect, hunt, or just shoot at the range I see no problem with that. But I do think open carry is kind of pointless, and kinda douchebaggy. I realize that with conceal carry in most states you need some kind of training and that yes the same requirement probably exists for open carry. But really what point does carrying your firearm out in the open serve if your just a private citizen going on your merry way and not say like a security guard. I've heard it argued it can be a deterrent. I suppose that could be true but to me it just seems to be attention getting behavior. Now I'm not saying it should be outlawed but if your carrying concealed than why carry your firearm out in the open since it'll probably end up to be more hassle than it's worth. For those who practice open carry I'm not trying to call you douchebags I just think the behavior itself is douchebaggy. I mean if you carry for self-defense than what's wrong with concealed carry ?

[gejohnston]

22. growing up in Wyoming

I only saw one person open carry a pistol (as opposed to high school rifle club members going to school on rifle club day) because it was the only legal way for him to ride his motorcycle to the range (this was years before Wyoming liberalized its concealed carry laws. At that time, our concealed weapons, including knives and sling shots, laws made California look like Vermont.) While legal, never customary outside of hunting or backpacking out in the sticks. Although TV westerns depict otherwise, it was quite rare in town.
Florida banned open carry (although there are exceptions) in 1893 because many African American migrant workers open carried and upset some white people. Of course, the law was selectively enforced for several decades.

Edit to add a couple of other opinions:

Wouldn't real security and public safety be far more effective if a shared sense of community actually existed along with an awareness that any society is built on a Social Contract?

I think that is a major reason why other high gun ownership counties like Switzerland, Norway, Finland, and Iceland have crime rates. The same is true of places like Japan.

For those who practice open carry I'm not trying to call you douchebags I just think the behavior itself is douchebaggy. I mean if you carry for self-defense than what's wrong with concealed carry ?

I think it depends on the reason the local custom and the reason why. The motorcycle rider, or a hunter going in Burger King wouldn't be. The guy who tries to bait cops for a false arrest pay day and puts it on You Tube is. One of the exceptions in Florida is if you are fishing. There was a guy who would pick his urban fishing spots if there was a nearby cop. His goal was to get hassled by a cop and put it on You Tube. What he was really fishing for was a cop that didn't know that provision in the law just so he could sue for false arrest. That is douchebaggy. Everyone else falls someplace inbetween.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Let me just say

THANK-YOU for your polite thoughtful and comments.