What are anti-gun liberals afraid of?

[Jackson1999]

I usually just ignore the flames and stereotypes tossed at gun owners by supposed "liberal" Dems in this forum, but I am tired of it and need to respond.

Why do you so willingly embrace policies that have their roots in racism, sexism and classism?

Why is it you (rightfully) rail against Bush administration violations of the Bill of Rights but are so willing to dismiss the second amendment? Don't you see the hypocrisy?

Why do you take such a scary, conservative option that the masses cannot be trusted to defend themselves.

Why do you turn your backs on the the rich history of liberal leaders from John Kennedy, to Eleanor Roosevelt who understood that gun ownership was a fundamental, and important right?

Why do you claim to fight so much for civil rights when control laws mostly impact the rights of poor and minorities?

Why do you insist on painting gun owners as right wing rednecks when half of all gun owners are Democrat or Independent? You are just playing into Republicans' hands.

What don't you understand about legal precedence, where limitations placed on the Second Amendment can be used in court to put limits on other rights?

Don't you realize that modern gun control laws in places like California and Chicago started as tool to railroad black activists?

Why haven't you read about how African American's in the south, who had no protection from the law, successfully armed themselves in defense of Klan attacks? Would you deny them that right today?

Why do you shy away from logical discussions based on facts and, instead only resort to unsupported attacks and stereotypes?

Why do so quickly jump to the defense of people with unpopular opinions to exercise their right of free speech but reject the right of the poor and disenfranchised to defend themselves?

Why have you NOT read A Liberal Democrat's Lament by Robert Cottrol http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/104ali.htm

I am a liberal Democrat and gun owner. I don't love my gun. I love my rights.

[skooooo]

1. what do I fear?

Idiots with guns. They go nuts and kill people. 'nuff said.

[Jackson1999]

2. My point has been proven nt

[Donnachaidh]

3. hardly.

Why do you OBSESS over what others think about your guns? THAT'S the more telling question. :shrug:

[The Straight Story]

5. Folks obsess because what others think about guns can lead to legislation

Why do women who want the right to choose care what the RW thinks about abortion?

[skooooo]

11. Your gun can change my life, and the life of others.

Your abortion changes only your life - or people who choose to be affected.

[The Straight Story]

17. And we have laws already to punish people who change the lives of others

Whether it be via a gun, car, fist, etc.

[skooooo]

23. And after some idiot..

...kills 10 people in a church, then turns the gun on himself that really helps the situation, doesn't it?

I don't know what the answer is - except I think there should be a limit, and control over what kind of weapons are sold.

I know that just really gripes some of you gun fetishers, but that's how I (and many other people) feel.

Arguing about it in a forum isn't going to change the way anyone thinks probably.

[The Straight Story]

34. I don't even own a gun

So I have no gun fetish.

I just think the problems with people getting violent with one another has nothing to do with guns, and is intellectually lazy to believe the cause is the tool used.

guns don't drive people to commit crime, they are tool used by those wanting to.

Solving the big problems that lead people to do such things is hard work though. Like getting rid of poverty, health care for all, etc.

Millions upon millions own guns, and yet only a tiny fraction of them use them for something like harming others.

If we had in the press each day a story about every gun owner who did not use their gun, you would have to read for hours upon hours before you found someone who did.

[skooooo]

64. Here's an idea...

How about we take the guns away from the idiots, and let you figure out the "REAL" problem (since I'm just intellectually lazy). Once you figure it all out, we'll give them back.


I'm out of here. Carry on with your oh-so-intellectually-vigorous discussion without me.

[SteveM]

156. When you get more intellectual, try defining "idiots," and explain how...

"...we take the guns away from the idiots..." Like, who is "we"?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

86. It does take someone to pull the trigger but we're not allowed to own cannons or nukes - why?

Because they're weapons that are easy to use and kill a lot of people from far away, so why guns?

[X_Digger]

89. Actually you CAN own cannons..

..just takes more paperwork.

[The Straight Story]

109. When it comes to nukes then, are you willing to go to war against iran over them?

A gun can be used day to day without harming a single person (hunting, skeet shooting, target shooting, etc) - but a nuke cannot be.

So if you are really scared of them and want people not to have them because there are some crazy people out there that might use them (and again, their only use at all is mass killing) are you willing to suit up and go fight iran if they obtain them?

[AtheistCrusader]

151. In some states, Cannon are legal.

:hi:

[imdjh]

183. Cannons. Cannon as plural is odd and irritating.

[one-eyed fat man]

207. but it is correct

can·non Pronunciation (knn)
n. pl. cannon or can·nons
1. A large mounted weapon that fires heavy projectiles. Cannon include guns, howitzers, and mortars.
2. The loop at the top of a bell by which it is hung.
3. A round bit for a horse.
4. Zoology The section of the lower leg in some hoofed mammals between the hock or knee and the fetlock, containing the cannon bone.
5. Chiefly British A carom made in billiards.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[one-eyed fat man]

160. cannon

You can buy these cannon without paperwork. There is no background check. There are people who shoot them for fun and in competition. In fact, under Federal law, they aren't even considered firearms.



I will grant that it does garner funny looks from passing motorists when towed behind the truck, but never had a cop stop me.

[backwoodsbob]

87. after some guy knifes ten people will you call for knife control?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. There are limits and controls over what weapons can be sold.

[Xenotime]

225. There isn't enough.

[SteveM]

159. Your "feelings" have led to hatred...

"I know that just really gripes some of you gun fetishers, but that's how I (and many other people) feel."

Using a term like "gun fetisher" has tipped your hand. You not only "hate the sin" but "hate the sinner" as well. That is the dynamic of prohibition. Good public policy needs more than your and others' "feelings."

[tisfortomi]

189. The key word is "feel"...

"I don't know what the answer is - except I think there should be a limit, and control over what kind of weapons are sold.

I know that just really gripes some of you gun fetishers, but that's how I (and many other people) feel.

Arguing about it in a forum isn't going to change the way anyone thinks probably."

There already are limits. Quite a lot of limits, and quite a lot of control, actually.

Why don't you come back to the argument when you have something more than a vague feeling? Legislating feelings usually ends up badly.

[SPedigrees]

52. My car could change your life.

Despite the fact that I am a safe driver with 45 years experience, it is far more likely that I will damage you someday with my automobile than with my semi-auto rifle.

[polmaven]

74. I'm sorry,

but that is one of the most lame "excuses" people use......"Oh, maybe we should ban cars", or "Maybe we should ban kitchen knives", etcetera.....Tell me what the intended purpose of a semi-automatic rifle is....other than to shoot it.

A car's intended use is transportation. The intended use of kitchen knives is the preparation of food.

Now, I am not one who thinks all guns should be completely banned. But very stringent regulations ARE perfectly acceptable.

[beevul]

112. What you seem unwilling to concede...

"Tell me what the intended purpose of a semi-automatic rifle is....other than to shoot it."


You seem unwilling to concede that guns used to kill people other than in self defense, are being MISUSED.

You make no distinction between shooting a gun lawfully, or unlawfully.

Why is that?

[polmaven]

119. My argument here is NOT

that guns cannot be used lawfully. My argument is that the SOLE purpose of a gun is to shoot it. If the poster had used the argument that YOU just used, I would have no problem with it....but that poster sounded like so many other NRA nuts that say things like "well, cars (and/or kitchen knives) can kill people too, so lets ban those too". That is a horrible argument that I am SOOOOO sick of hearing.


Again...I DO NOT want to ban gun ownership.

[beevul]

129. Ok, maybe we got off on the wrong foot, debate being heated and all.

I'm willing to discuss this calmly and rationally if you are.


"Again...I DO NOT want to ban gun ownership."


That begs the question:


What DO you want Re: guns? And why do you want it?

[tisfortomi]

190. Cutter/cuttee?

"My argument is that the SOLE purpose of a gun is to shoot it."

And the sole purpose of a knife is to cut things. The problem lies in what you cut, or in what you shoot. Cutting/shooting certain things is legal and innocuous. Cutting/shooting others is a horrible crime.

Can we agree that the violation isn't inherent in the tool?

[SPedigrees]

121. My deer rifle is for hunting.

next question.

[SteveM]

157. What you mean by "stringent regulations" and how would they be enacted (nt)

[one-eyed fat man]

162. Certainly, but of course.........

No one ever uses a car for a purpose it was not intended..............


No one ever uses kitchen knives besides to slice and dice vegetables................


No one ever uses a baseball bat to club someone to death.................


No one uses farm implements to commit genocide...................


Maybe, just maybe, a murderous son of bitch, intent on mayhem, would use just a plastic jug with a dollars worth of gasoline to torch a nightclub because he saw his ex-girlfriend dancing with someone else and burn 87 people alive..............


............but if things like that were to ever happen, we should take car keys away from sober people to stop drunk drivers.

Yes, a gun is intended to shoot, however, the person aiming the gun determines if the intent is to do good or evil. The gun will function exactly the same whether fired by a good man or a bad man. You don't do anything but amuse the bad man by making the good man jumps through hoops.

[one-eyed fat man]

180. You ascribe no blame............

to the individual?



Should the Netherlands have a ban on black German cars?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3855699&mesg_id=3856318

[left is right]

122. The difference between gun owners that kill people and car owners that kill people

is the fact that the car owner is required to pass a test, obtain a license, and maintain insurance. Sure, drunks may lose their license and continue to drive; however, during holiday weekends when drinking and driving are perceived to be high, the cops man roadblocks, sobriety is tested and those deemed inappropriately operating vehicles are removed from the roads immediately. We don't wait until they commit a crash that kills 20 or 30 people. No such safeguards are in place for gun owners that may experience a momentary lapse in appropriateness either because of rage, fear, or jealousy.

[HALO141]

163. And why is that?

Because the keeping and bearing of arms is a right whereas driving is only a privilege. Simple concept but one that vexes many people.

Look... Take all that "intended use" bullshit and put it aside for a minute. "If it saves just one life..." (That justification is used at least as often as the automobile analogy.) If the whole point of the argument is about SAVING ONE LIFE and the value of that one life is such that it makes no difference how many people are pissed off, inconvenienced or have their rights usurped then banning automobiles is even more valid than banning firearms because automobiles account for more deaths every year than do guns.

Now... If you're not willing to go down that road then it really isn't about saving lives, is it? It's far MORE a question of what any given person finds morally repugnant or, at the very least, which is the greater evil - Do we err on the side of liberty or a vain attempt to child-proof the world? As such, I don't really care what makes you nervous or scared or angry. Grow up and start looking to yourself for that sense of security you're so desperate to have and stop expecting others to do it for you. Or just give up and continue being nervous, scared and angry. As I said, I really don't care. If you're not free to be, what some may consider, wrong then you're not really free. The simple fact is that there's no argument anyone can make that will convince me to concede my freedom.

"If life were fair then we'd all have cancer."

Have a nice day.



(Edited for minor grammatical changes.)

[HALO141]

161. Not having one could allow you to change my life.

Guess which is more important to me.



If we're going to start restricting things that "COULD" change someones life (and I'm forced to assume you mean change it catastrophically) then we'll have to ban the vast majority of the things you come in contact with every day.

Grow a pair and move on.

[AtheistCrusader]

173. You're right. One of my guns could save your life.

But I'm sure that's not what you meant.

[polmaven]

56. You are not REALLY

going to try to pretend that a woman's right to control what happens with her own BODY is the same thing as an unfettered right to own a high powered automatic assault weapon, right?

[skooooo]

66. It would seem so.

:eyes:

[beevul]

82. Ermmm...

"high powered automatic assault weapon, right?"


Those have been TIGHTLY controlled since 1934, and to my knowledge, only 1 (one) legally owned automatic weapon has been used in crime since then.

So called "assault weapons" are not automatic, they are semi-auto matic, just like most so called "deer rifles".

[polmaven]

97. My POINT - like you really didn't understand it,

is that ownership of a gun is not anywhere NEAR a comparison of a woman's right to control her own BODY. Semi-automatic, automatic, highpowered, it makes no difference. Gun ownership is either for pleasure, or for killing. What comparison does it have to women's health issues?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

105. One is explicitly protected by the Constitution.

One has been ruled to be protected by the Constitution. Seems pretty obvious to me.

David

[beevul]

107. Oh, and right you are.

One is a constitutionally enumerated right (read:restriction placed upon governmental power), and one is not.


Whatever your point, MINE was that you were using a falsehood to make yours.

[polmaven]

113. Unbelievable!

You actually think that an unlimited right to own a gun is comparable to a woman making decisions about her own health issues.

Oh, and I think the SCOTUS has decided that a woman's right to choose is also constitutionally protected, and that some limitations on the second amendment are constitutional as well.

[beevul]

115. Kindly keep your words in your own mouth and out of mine, sir/madam.

"You actually think that an unlimited right to own a gun is comparable to a woman making decisions about her own health issues."

I said nothing of the sort, and you well know it. UNLIMITED was a word YOU inserted.

"Oh, and I think the SCOTUS has decided that a woman's right to choose is also constitutionally protected, and that some limitations on the second amendment are constitutional as well."


Welcome to the present, so do I.

I said nothing about "constitutionally protected", I said ENUMERATED.


Maybe you ought to read what I actually wrote, instead of what you THINK I wrote.

[polmaven]

120. Did YOU not read the OP either?

What don't you understand about legal precedence, where limitations placed on the Second Amendment can be used in court to put limits on other rights? etc. etc.

An argument for NO LIMITS on the second amendment if I ever saw it. Then, the poster to whom I originally replied, compared that to a woman's right to choose. A specious comparison at best, a downright insulting one in actuality.

[beevul]

128. I read every word.

"What don't you understand about legal precedence, where limitations placed on the Second Amendment can be used in court to put limits on other rights?"

That sentence, and the principle it espouses, are essentially correct. It says what it says. what you have read into it, is NOT what it says.

Painting ones opponent in a debate as an extremist, which IS what you are attempting, is the oldest trick in the book, and a transparent one at that.

"Then, the poster to whom I originally replied, compared that to a woman's right to choose. A specious comparison at best, a downright insulting one in actuality."


Please explain how it is insulting.

[polmaven]

134. Why does it not surprise me

that you do not understand how comparing the two is insulting. A woman's right to he own health issues...issues regarding her own body, compared to the right to own guns, a choice a person makes with no consequence to his or her health is certainly insulting to women.

I'm quite sure that many on DU disagree with that, because so many at DU have such little regard for women's rights. I am leaving this topic now, and will not come back to it.

If you are unable to see the clear references to restrictions on gun ownership being either right wing or racist, then I think it is you who needs to re-read the post.

[Iktomiwicasa]

136. The right to defend

oneself is a MAJOR health issue :)

[beevul]

138. I dont know why.

I said "Please explain how it is insulting."


To wit you reply "Why does it not surprise me that you do not understand how comparing the two is insulting".


Why would you reply to me like that? All I was doing is asking you to explain where YOU are coming from in saying that it is insulting. In a world where so many people see things so many different ways, do you really never expect that?

"I'm quite sure that many on DU disagree with that, because so many at DU have such little regard for women's rights."

You'll not find ME among them. I fully support not just the rights of women, but of ALL people of both sexes, to ingest into, exhale out of, modify, tatoo or otherwise, thier own bodies. I even go so far as to support a persons right to end thier own life if they wish. Because I believe people need to be free.

"I am leaving this topic now, and will not come back to it."


Thats your choice.


"If you are unable to see the clear references to restrictions on gun ownership being either right wing or racist, then I think it is you who needs to re-read the post."

I see the references to them clearly in the OP, and I never said I didn't. I'm sorry you weren't made aware of the racist roots of gun control, or its relation to the right wing. I see you denouncing those things, but I don't see you denying that they are true.

[AtheistCrusader]

174. The only one arguing about unlimited right to own weapons is you.

We're plenty limited, thank you.

[hack89]

181. So reasonable limitations on the right to choose are OK?

and it is simply a question of determining what is reasonable?

[Jackson1999]

123. How about the right of that woman to protect her body from a rapist? nt

[polmaven]

135. I have said several times

in this thread that I do not oppose the right to own a gun. What I was objection to was the insinuation in that post that there is no difference to a right to own a gun, and a woman's right to choose to end a pregnancy.

I happen to believe that one does have the right to own a gun. There should, however, be very strictly enforced restrictions on that ownership. The founding fathers could not ever have forseen the firearms that now exist, or they would have enumerated restrictions as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

175. Wrong again.

There was a 20 shot 'assault rifle' in use by the Austrians the same year the 2nd Amendment was ratified. Girandoni Repeating Rifle. The Austrians used it on the French. Meriwether Lewis carried one on the famed Lewis and Clark expedition.

[hack89]

182. If the founding fathers could have foreseen abortion as a right

do you think they would have enumerated restrictions?

I suspect they would have had a bigger problem with abortion than with assault rifles.

[rrneck]

139. Actually a firearm

does offer the ability to control one's own body if s/he is using it for self defense. Small arms are designed to to protect the human body from assault from all sorts and kinds of critters, especially people.

[raimius]

179. Not quite

Owning a semi-auto is legal.
Owning an unregistered, untaxed full-auto will land one in prison for about 10 years...

Gun ownership has many reasons. Your statement would be on par with me stating "abortion is ONLY for convenience." Both are incorrect.

[one-eyed fat man]

195. Wasn't pleasure an issue

when she got knocked up? Except in cases of rape, isn't getting pregnant a foreseeable outcome of unprotected sex?

Those who are against abortion argue that the choice to abort ends a potential life.

Those who are against guns argue that the choice own a gun creates a potential crime.

Neither are satisfied with only making the choice for themselves, they want to inflict their choice on everyone else.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

104. Who argued for an unfettered right to own a high powered assault rifle?

[polmaven]

116. Did you read the OP?

What don't you understand about legal precedence, where limitations placed on the Second Amendment can be used in court to put limits on other rights? - and following paragraphs arguing why limitaions are unacceptable.

Sure sounds like an argument for NO LIMITATIONS on the second amendment to me.

[Jackson1999]

124. Absolutely NOT

I was arguing that if we say that we can pretend 2A does not mean anything, the same can be said about the other amendments.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

155. Sounds like he's speaking about UNCONSTITUTIONAL limits to me.

I never saw the OP advocating overturning the NFA of 1934 or other such reasonable limits.


David

[cognoscere]

131. As someone who has a Hillary logo

in your sig line, you might want to refrain from using the tactics of the far right if you're trying to refute an argument. Non sequiturs, half truths, and outright lies are the tools of Rove, Limbaugh, and other subhumans.
You wrote, "...unfettered right to own a high powered automatic assault weapon..." The next time you are in a sporting goods store, I suggest you try to buy a gun - any gun. Even a BB gun. Firearm ownership is one of the more fettered activities around. Generally, you have to be over 18, not a felon or mental case, and you have to pass a background check to verify that info. To that, add Federal and state controls on automatic weapons and your assertion starts leaning heavily towards fatuous.
As for "high powered" which is another rhetorical buzzword, I seriously doubt there are any full auto aficionados anywhere who would mind being restricted to 9mm or 45 cal. if it meant they could easily and cheaply own an Uzi, a MAC 10, or even the venerable Thompson.
In closing, it's obvious you feel strongly about your position and that usually is a good thing. However, when emotion is allowed to trump fact...well, we've seen how well that worked out in the Bush era.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. Actually one is much more explicit than the other...

especially after Keller.

It will be interesting to see if the courts step in to stop the petty infringements on guns and ammunition that bigoted asshats like Fenty, Bloomie, Daley, and others are doing as they have is some cases with abortion.

[Jackson1999]

6. I don't obsess

I am just saddened by the hypocrisy on the issue by so called liberals.

[skooooo]

4. So I don't agree with you...

SO SORRY!!!! NOT.

[liberalmuse]

8. Not at all.

Note the poster said they feared, 'Idiots with guns'. The poster said nothing regarding taking away guns. Those of us who chose not to own a gun have rights, too, such as:

1. The right to send our kids to school or to a friend's house to play without worrying about some careless gunowner's kids shooting them.
2. The right to go out in public without having to worry about being gunned down by a homicidal gun nut
3. The right to express our displeasure with gun fetishists'. It's pathetic and a bit obscene shoving your iron dicks in our faces. IMO, the 2nd Amendment applied to the right of the colonists to have militias, much like our Army Reserves and National Guard, where guns are kept in a safe under lock and key. If you need to own a gun to 'complete you', then sorry, but don't be surprised of some people view that as a bit sad, and telling.

[skooooo]

10. ty! nt

[The Straight Story]

14. Don't we already have laws addressing those issues now?

At least 1 and 2.

3 would be like me saying that a woman's right to choose is something she should just not talk about, and if she did she had an abortion fetish.

Protecting rights and choice - not sure when that became a bad thing to some on the left.

[Jackson1999]

21. I respect your opinion but....

..sorry that the Constitution does not agree with you. In fact ALL NINE justices ruled that 2A was an individual right. Read the link I provided and get back to me.

[yay]

110. lol

"If you need to own a gun to 'complete you', then sorry, but don't be surprised of some people view that as a bit sad, and telling."

If you need to own a (___) or do (___) to 'complete you', then sorry, but don't be surprised if some people view that as a bit sad, and telling.

One can say that about ANY hobby, the fact that you feel that you are some how "morally superior" to someone who owns a firearm and shoots them for a hobby tells us a great deal about how narrow minded you are.

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. Congratulations- You were the first to Lovejoy the thread!

Aaand you got the Freudian bit in there as well. Bravo!

When all else fails, trot out "It's for the children!" meme.
As made famous by:






BTW, do you let your kids go to houses with swimming pools?

[dashrif]

143. Oh

Obscene is not reading DC v Heller
Obscene is calling a gun a DICK
Obscene is a so called liberalmuse being so bigoted to think all legal gun owners as a whole feel incomplete without an firearm

Now that is telling

But then obscene is in the eye of the beholder

[krispos42]

147. The government is not obliged to protect your right to not worry.

You have, of course, the right to worry or not worry, as you so choose. But the government is not required to set up conditions so that you do not have to worry about guns.


And I'm not really in favor of the "if it saves one life..." meme floating around here. This is exactly the same kind of public argument made by the reich-wing about a whole boatload of immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional activities they've endorsed, performed, and protected.

[Tim01]

25. Wow, that was fast.

[earthside]

16. Guns Don't Kill People ...

... people with guns kill people.

A 'gun' is an inanimate object, it is only as useful or as harmful as the person using it. Unfortunately, too many folks on the left have a kind of knee jerk response to the guns debate; the deeper issue is our violent culture. But criticize violent movies and violent video games here and see what you get.

Indeed, the concealed weapons laws, at least in my state of Colorado, have pretty much destroyed the myth that when people have guns they will just go crazy and start shooting people for little reason. We've had concealed carry in this state for ten years ... no increase in gun violence because of that law at all, despite the dire predictions from the gun control crowd.

Liberals and progressives, I think, do need to be consistent. The Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment, I defend that as it is popularly interpreted, just as I defend the right to abortion as part of our privacy guarantees.

What we should do, it seems to me, is stop focusing on the guns and try and get the corporate "entertainment' industry to stop glorifying violence.

[Political Heretic]

44. There was also little increase in gun ownership in Colorado, so no - it proves nothing.

:shrug:

It is however pretty easy to look at countries with stricter gun control laws and note their UNIVERSALLY lower rates of gun violence.

[one-eyed fat man]

146. sure like Rwanda

no civilian ownership of guns there, but that didn't keep them from hacking to death with farm implements a million Tutsis in a hundred days?

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

The Khmer Rouge, who did use guns, didn't butcher at that rate. There is no substitute for a murderous heart! A gun might make a killer expend less physical efforts than a machete, but Julio Gonzales, the asshole in Brooklyn who was pissed cause his ex-girlfriend was dancing with someone else and used a bucks worth of gas and a match to torch the Happy Land Social Club in 1990.

Eighty-seven people BURNED ALIVE, in a matter of minutes. Light the fire, block the door, who needs a gun to commit murder?

[patriotvoice]

184. Stricter gun control laws = fewer guns = lower rate of gun violence. Your argument is a tautology.

What you must prove, to carry your point, is that stricter gun laws UNIVERSALLY lead to lower rates of violence.

[Callisto32]

192. Fewer guns= Fewer guns being used.

That makes sense. However, the correlation I think you really need to make is Fewer guns = less violence.

[sendero]

18. The problem is..

... no law can do anything about that any more than a law can do anything about idiots in general.

[Warpy]

7. No, it's mostly city slicker against country bumpkin

I was very antigun when I lived in east coast cities. I hated the damned things and wouldn't have shed a tear if they'd all spontaneously melted down one day.

I moved out west years ago, and realized very quickly that things are different out here in bear and cougar country and that poor folks count on that one elk or deer a year to fill their freezer and provide a break from beans and the occasional tough old stewing hen.

Other than that, I haven't seen a divide between rich or poor, black or white, educated or uneducated, white collar or blue collar.

I live in town and don't own a gun, although I'm sure the neighborhood bristles with them. I recognize the need out on the edge of town and in rural areas, though.

[Jackson1999]

12. Good point...but

I would submit that "urban" is just a code word for "black." For example, here in Washington, DC, a "liberal" Council woman representing the whitest and richest part of DC pushed a law requiring range training with a HANDGUN in order to own a SHOTGUN. Now, DC does not have any firing ranges, so who is this going to impact most? People who can't afford the $250 or don't own a car. Hmmm...I wonder who that is.

I too used to be pro-gun control as well until I decided to educate myself on the issue.

[polmaven]

79. I think we are going to have to have

some kind of glossary pointing out which words are and are not racist "code". I mean, during the primaries we learnded that "arrogant" is code for "uppity". And to think, I have been using the words arrogant and urban all my lif, and never knew I was a racist.

Urban is urban....Living in a city. Whites, African Americans, Asians, Latinos.....all sorts of people are "urban". It is not "code" for anything other than living in a city.

[havocmom]

81. good observation

:thumbsup:

[Dogmudgeon]

9. I'm afraid you'll steal my penis

Not that you'd want it or anything ...

--d!

[NYC_SKP]

80. "Got your Penis!!!"

:rofl:

[Dogmudgeon]

130. It never looked THAT big before

Are you sure that's mine?

--d!

[dashrif]

144. SIZE QUEEN

:rofl:

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. Where did he say that he thought someone was going to? No sense in dealing with facts eh.

[Irreverend IX]

70. Nice personal attack.

Good job making the OP's point.

[AllentownJake]

15. I'll take a quick stab at this

Some areas of this country, largely Urban areas, have problems with gun violence. Generally speaking these guns are bought in large quantities in suburban/rural areas than are sold in the inner cities.

The dumped guns are than used to commit crimes in the inner cities. The cities due to judicial warnings are unable to pass their own gun laws to protect themselves from these activities. The representatives from the suburban and rural areas, state and locally right laws to prevent the cities from doing this and judges are appointed that don't understand the issues the cities are facing.

My problem isn't the guns, it is our archaic legal structure, and lack of enforcement of existing legislation over guns.

[Jackson1999]

22. I will partially agree with you

But please understand that in places like Washington, DC, it hasn't kept criminals from getting guns. It has only limited the ability of people who live in those neighborhoods to defend themselves.

[AllentownJake]

27. Washington D.C borders Virgina

Which has some of the loosest state gun laws in the country. Its kind of like what's going on, on the Mexico Border. Mexico has strict gun control laws, the southwestern states don't. There is a black market that has been created trading guns for drugs and drug money.

Same thing exist in DC.

Think Virginia Tech, the guy had recently been in a behavioral health center. He should have never been allowed to buy a gun legally in the first place. If that information would have been communicated to a state or federal database, well, he would have had to have gone to the underground market which is more expensive and harder to find for a nut case loner than the local store that has a giant picture of a Gun as its sign.

[Jackson1999]

33. yes, and that VT background check gap has been corrected nt

[AllentownJake]

36. Really?

I was treated 3 years ago for depression, I can go to the Gun Store right now and pick up an AR 15? I don't like guns (I know how to use one and have fired them, its just not my thing) however, I can get a gun in 3 days no problem. All I have to do is lie.

[Jackson1999]

39. Did the doctor think....

That you were such a danger to yourself or to others that he sought a court order to get you committed? If so, then no, you can't own a gun.

[AllentownJake]

42. Do you know how often the 3 day rule is overturned by a court order?

I think after your fun research you should do some research on the mental health situation in this country.

Most people in behavioral health centers are there voluntarily or because of a suicide attempt. All you have to do to get out is say, I won't kill myself or harm others, after 3 days without a judge's orders there is nothing anyone can do but let you out and the evidence needed to keep you confined is...rather substantial.

[Jackson1999]

49. As it should be nt

[AllentownJake]

53. Yep and as it should be

people shouldn't own assault weapons.

[NutmegYankee]

59. Just what is an assault weapon?

Seriously - what is it?

[AllentownJake]

63. anything that can be converted to firing automatically is my definition

[NutmegYankee]

69. Through what method? Some could be machined to do it through great cost.

Most semiautomatic weapons cannot be made into an automatic without extensive machining and replacement of parts. Other than that criteria, what else makes them an assault weapon?

[virginia mountainman]

91. Than rest easy,

Because the ATF, considers ANYTHING that can be easily converted to fully auto, to BE, fully automatic.

Remember this fact, just because it LOOKS like an AK47, does not make it one...The "guts" are very different inside it.

[Statistical]

187. Well good news there are no "assault weapons" then.

BATFE considers ANY weapon that can readily be converted to automatic or burst fire to ALREADY BE A CLASS III item.

In otherwords regulated the same as existing automatic weapons, tanks, missiles, rockets, and other explosive ordinances.

So done and done. No AWB ban needed.

[Jackson1999]

126. This is an assault weapon

Nutmeg, ignore the other post about something being converted into an auto gun. I can't be done, or is so difficult and expensive it is easier to build one from scratch.

Basically, an "assault weapon" as defined by law is a semi-auto rifle that has at least 2 of these features.

pistol grip
baynet lug
collapsable stock
grenade launcher mount. (note, grenade launchers are NOT available.)

The guns themselves are the same as any other semi-auto rifle. The problems is that they just look scary. The are actually less powerfull than many other weapons.

An "assault rifle" is a one that can fire fully auto. These have been tightly controlled for some time.

The confusion is intentional. When the first AWB passed, most people thought they were banning machine guns. this is not the case.

[krispos42]

148. They have a problem with drug-gang violence

which manifests itself in dead bodies with bullet holes in them.

The issue is not that city-dellers own guns and have a compulsion to use them to kill random people, it's that criminal gangs need to kill people as part of their business operations.

Cities and counties that have strict gun-control laws that substantially inhibit and discourage gun ownership have found that the pool of available guns for criminals to buy or steal has not shrunken enough to form any kind of inhibition to criminal availability. Only a few hundred or few thousand guns need to be in a major city's criminal population to fully meet crimnal demands. If one person in 10 in Chicago owns a gun you have an available pool of over a quarter-million firearms... a 20 year supply, perhaps, even if not a single gun was sold in the Chicago area.


The problem is the gangs. And the best way to destroy the gangs is drug legalization, not gun illeglization. This won't solve every social problem, but it will go a long way towards helping it.

We still need to do things like universal single-payer health care, break up industry monopolies, re-erect protective tariffs, re-unionize, get off of oil, and heavily subsidize higher education if we're going to have a healthy, prosperous nation, but drug legalization is the fastest and easiest first step.

[The_Commonist]

19. I find that the gun nuts...

...are much more afraid than "anti-gun liberals."

I just don't want guns in the hands of lunatics.
Other than that, I really don't give a damn about guns or gun rights.
It would probably never even cross my mind, if it weren't for all the lunatics out there shooting things up.
Then, when I or someone else says "we should do something about all the lunatics with guns" it becomes a whole 2nd amendment thing and the gun nuts go crazy!

What are gun nuts so afraid of?

[AllentownJake]

24. A psychological examination

If you feel the need to own an assault weapon or get your jollies by shooting things, you probably aren't going to score well on an examination to determine whether or not you should own one.

[Jackson1999]

35. how about for a deer hunting semi auto rifle??

Do I need an exam for that? After all, it is more powerfull than any so called "assault weapon"

Oh, and if you still insist on using that term, please tell me what makes them more deadly than any other semi auto rifle.

[AllentownJake]

38. American Citizens do not need automatic weapons

and if your hunting a deer for sport, I really don't see why you need more than 3 shots. I mean its for sport. Do you really need as many shots as possible to kill a deer or any other animal? If so your probably a pretty bad shot, and shouldn't be bagging a deer to begin with.

Frankly speaking, as a game commission thing, you should only be allowed a rifle that can fire three shots semi-automatically for a deer anyway.

[beevul]

83. American citizens don't need LOTS of things.

So what?


And automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since 1934.

Infact, the ATF concisers anything "easily convertible" to automatic fire to be ALREADY automatic, such as open bolt designs of semi-automatic weapons.

And we all know what a bastion of gun rights defenders the ATF is, right? :sarcasm:

[X_Digger]

85. "Assault Weapon" != automatic weapons

"Assault Weapons" are not automatic, nor can they be easily converted. Since 1986, gun manufacturers were made to change the design of weapons to make them not easily convertible- those pre-86 guns that the government considers 'easily-convertible'? They are regulated as though they already had been converted- FBI background check, local LEO sign off, fingerprinting, random BATFE inspections. There have been four or five incidents of full automatic by design or converted weapons used in crimes since the 1934 National Firearms Act restricted their sale.

Most states limit a hunter to a 5 round magazine in any semi-automatic rifle, "assault weapon" or not.

Then again, the second amendment isn't about hunting.

[Jackson1999]

127. AUTO WEAPONS ARE HIGHLY REGULATATED ALREADY!!

Why don't you understand that? Oh, and BATF also regulates ones that can be easily converted.

I challenge you to find one case where someone was killed by a semi-auto rifle that was converted to full auto. You have been believing the lies for too long.

[SteveM]

158. Any barroom fuck-up can toss out psychological terms...

In actuality, the average gun owner is no more or less disposed to psychological maladies than the average American.

"Most private weaponry is possessed for reasons of sport and recreation... Relative to non-owners, gun owners are disproportionately rural, Southern, male, Protestant, affluent and middle class... ...There is no evidence suggesting them to be an especially unstable or violent or maladapted lot; their 'personality profiles' are largely indistinct from those of the rest of the population." J. Wright, P. Ross, & K. Daly, "Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in the United States" (1983) at p. 122; see also pp. 107-08.

'Clear that up for you?

[Jackson1999]

26. I agree!!!

I don't want guns in the hands of lunatics either? So what laws do you propose that will keep guns out of their hands while preserving my rights?

No guns for felons--already a law
no guns if you've been confined to a mental institution-check.
no guns for spousal abusers--check, already a law.

[AllentownJake]

32. The laws aren't enforced.

The shooter at Virginia Tech bought guns legally after being confined to a behavioral health center.

[X_Digger]

92. And Virginia changed it's laws to fix that situation. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. Good. Since its already illegal for people adjudicated mentally ill to possess firearms, it....

sounds like you agree with the NRA.

David

[AllentownJake]

54. Check out the mental health system in this country

and get back to me. The key word is "adjudicated"

I could have a serious mental illness and as long as I've never had to be confined against my own will I could by a gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Yes you would be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[AllentownJake]

68. and yet I could be in a Behavioral Health center 27 times

just as longs as I always went willingly and stayed till the doctors told me I could leave, (which could be a day if I don't have health insurance). Would love to see a study on average stay at a behavioral health center broken up by those having insurance and those not having insurance.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

166. Yes you could. What do you propose?

[DrCory]

94. What Are You Suggesting?

Persons who have received any form of treatment for mental health issues should be permanently prohibited from possessing firearms?

[Dennis Donovan]

20. Dems/Liberals want to ban all guns...

...or so the sorry old canard propagated by the NRA goes.

May I ask you; does a person with documented emotional issues have the right to own a gun?

Does a convicted felon have the right to own a gun?

Does a normal person (non-felon, non-emotionally-ill) have the right to own a weapon of mass destruction (i.e. an assault rifle capable of killing scores of people before a reload)?

The only regulations regarding firearms the Dems have supported pertain to the three instances listed above.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

[Jackson1999]

29. again, I agree with 2 out of 3

Most gun owners (including the NRA) agree with the first two.

The "assault weapons" thing is nonsense, however. They are no more dangerous than any other gun. Machine guns have been highly controlled since the 30s.

[LAGC]

172. Does a convicted felon have the right to own a gun?

That's a good question. Considering most states restore civil rights (like the right to vote) upon completion of a prison sentence, why shouldn't felons get their right to keep and bear arms back too? This is an issue where the "pro-gun" NRA disagrees but the "anti-gun" ACLU might actually side with the ex-offender. Food for thought.

[quiller4]

226. Restoration of rights is neither simple nor automatic

In most states one must petition for restoration of rights after fulfilling sentence and paying all fines. Since fines are so high and ex-offenders as a rule do not earn a substantial wage, many spend the rest of their lives paying of fines and are never able to regain their rights. ACLU challenged that in court and lost.

There used to be a provision to petition for restoration of second amendment rights. My ex did so in the mid 1970s and had his restored. He had a felony drug conviction when he was a college student. Today in my state (Washington) he would be able to petition for restoration of voting rights but not second amendment rights.

[AllieB]

28. Most liberals support the Second Amendment.

I think what you're seeing around DU lately is the reaction to the uptick in mass shootings lately, including murder-suicides. I want to see better background checks for gun owners so that the mentally unstable cannot legally get their hands on weapons.

[Jackson1999]

30. Good idea nt

[Jackson1999]

31. and your reasonable response give me hope ;-) nt

[elocs]

37. My opinion is that gun posts more properly belong in the Gun Forum.

It's done here at DU with other subjects where they are moved to the proper forum so it should be with guns. That's why there is a very specific forum for guns.

[Political Heretic]

40. I'm not afraid. But I do have certain values. One of which is the rejection of gun culture

I am at odds with those who believe that any sort of regulation or prohibition on gun possession is wrong on spec.

Your historical examples are irrelevant. That was then. This is now.

Your slippery slope argument about legal precedence is simply false. There are already limits placed on the 2nd Amendment and has no precedent standing in any legal interpretation of other amendments.

I don't believe the 2nd Amendment provides a guaranteed unregulated individual right to be bear arms. Even if you do believe that "militia" refers to an individual right for you to go stockpile any sort of weapon you choose, I'm not sure what you do with the "well-regulated" part.

I'm for "well regulation."

I don't care who has made what previous interpretations or what past laws have said. I value a culture that was a little bit more like our European counterparts and a little less gun obsessed. Nothing you say is likely to change that.

[X_Digger]

96. Well regulated like your colon, not your bank. n/t

[Bluebear]

41. I want better background checks & don't see why people have to own AK-47s.

Would I like gun control? Yeah, that may have worked if we started in 1890, but the toothpaste is out of the tube. I certainly don't want only the bad guys to own weapons and fully support your right to own guns.

What I don't understand is why the pro-gun lobby is against tightening background checks such as the gun show scenario; also, why can't assault weapons whose sole use is to kill humans be restricted?

[Jackson1999]

47. Don't believe the hype

a civilian ak 47 is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle.

[AllentownJake]

55. and for $50 bucks you can buy a conversion kit

that makes it more dangerous. You aren't talking to idiots here.

[Jackson1999]

60. Totally Wrong

You have been misinformed. It is easier to build an auto from scratch than to convert a semi.

[beevul]

88. Bullshit.

You are spreading misinformation, and you know you are.

Anyone familiar enough with the law to know it has in it the term "ajudicated" does.


Gentle reader, see link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x218981#219038

[virginia mountainman]

93. I am not so certain.....

Show me a $50 conversion kit, and I will show you a ad, that the ATF uses to "sniff people out" who do such highly illegal things.

[DrCory]

108. Can You Provide A Link...

Or anything to prove the existence of these kits, so often referenced on DU, that are so easily available?

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. No, he cannot- any such link would be a fraud or a LE sting operation

The "full auto kits" oft mentioned here turn out to be the above, or:

something the poster 'remembers' seeing decades ago (pre 1986) or
a source-free reference from someone else.

[adiabatic]

140. Tell ya what: You buy one for $50 and I'll buy it from you for $500.

Tidy and quick little 1000% profit. Okay?

[AtheistCrusader]

176. Well someone is.

Hopefully you didn't actually buy that 50 dollar bag of pinball machine parts from a federal agent trolling for criminals.

Here's a hint: the parts won't fit in newer rifles. Buy all you want. They don't work. Enjoy your stay in jail.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. Rational questions, I applaud you. Here are some answers, I'll try and be rational also..

The so called gun show loophole is about private sales. All firearms dealers selling firearms at gun shows perform the same background checks performed at a gun store. Private individuals selling privately owned firearms aren't required to do a background check at a gun show, their house, a parking lot, etc. They cannot knowingly sell a gun to someone legally prohibited from owning one. Many people in the pro-gun lobby here have suggested opening the NICS (National Instant Check System) to private sellers so that those checks could be done on private sales. Clearly checks and balances would have to be put in place to prevent abuse. In regards to "assault weapons", please realize that the AR-15 (semi-auto small caliber weapon that looks like a military M-16) is one of the most popular weapons in the country despite this fact rifles of any type are used in less than 3% of crimes, so assault weapons are very infrequently used in crimes and very often used for target shooting and hunting small game and predators. So given those facts most pro gun people find restrictions on these weapons to be pointless especially considering the last AWB banned weapons with certain cosmetic features primarily and did not affect other weapons with the same rate of fire but without the cosmetic features. Thank you for your polite, rational question. I hope I have provided an answer that sheds some light on the subject.

David

[Jackson1999]

45. The discussion is off topic..

the basic question in the OP is, how can you call yourself a liberal, and defend peoples rights EXCEPT for the right to arms.

[AllentownJake]

50. Like any other right there are limits

and honestly, I really don't know what "liberals" you are talking to.

Do I support the right of my neighbor to have a shotgun, rifle, or pistol after a background check...yes

Do I support his right to have an AR 15, AK-47, or a 50 caliber machine gun. Not really.

[Two Americas]

77. no there are not

You are talking about rights as though they were privileges.

Certainly people have the right to own anything they choose to own, or the concept of rights is rendered meaningless. Private citizens not only own missiles and nuclear weapons, they make them and sell them. A private citizen can, and should be able to open a museum with tanks, battle ships, fighter plans and missiles or any other sport of weapon.

Storage, handling and use of weapons for the sake of public safety does not vacate the right spelled out in the Second Amendment, let alone the entire concept of rights as you suggest here.

The Bill of Rights limits the power of the government, it does not dole out privileges. If we are going to change the meaning of the word rights to means "things that we think people should be allowed by the government" we have undermined the whole theory of self-government and human rights upon which our entire system is based.

Prohibition laws of any kind are a bad idea. They foster a police state climate, as they give law enforcement an excuse for stops and detentions. They lead to corruption. They are disproportionately used against poor people and minority people. They divert resources away from fighting more serious crimes. They create black markets and criminal syndicates.



...

[beevul]

90. Well said, Two Americas.

You get it.


I wish others did, as well as you do.

[ZombieHorde]

48. Spiders, anti-gun liberals are afraid of spiders. nt

[uberllama42]

71. I am afraid of spiders. Does that make me anti-gun?

Just wondering if that's a transitive relationship. Your input if valued.

[ZombieHorde]

84. I posted the same thing in the "What are gun nuts afraid of ?" thread.

So if you are afraid of spiders, then you are most likely either for or against gun control.

[leftofthedial]

51. what we need is *MORE* guns.

Like health care, we need a single-payer universal gun-providing system. At a minimum, every member of every household (except illegal aliens) should be given a fully automatic weapon, a shotgun, a deer rifle and a handgun. The program should provide all the ammunition they can use. In addition, each registered vehicle should be provided a .50 caliber machine gun for hood mount, with an automated Head Up Display target acquisition and firing control system installed on the dash (conveniently located between the radio and the climate controls).

THIS SHOULD NOT BE OPTIONAL!

Remember, guns don't kill people; idiots and nutjobs kill people!













:sarcasm:

[frebrd]

57. How can anyone call him/herself a liberal ........

while still opposing the Second Amendment rights of (many)tens of millions of firearms owners? This baffles me completely.

:shrug:

[Jackson1999]

61. I am with ya! You should join the Pink Pistols

[X_Digger]

98. I recently signed up with Pink Pistols

..to help teach gun safety :)

[virginia mountainman]

99. Your not the only one it baffles..

It is one of the great mysteries of modern times...

How Democrats, can fall under such a spell, lead by the Republican party...

Sara Brady, Paul Hemike, Mike Bloomberg, are all, Republicans.

Even Carolyn McCarthy, was a Republican.

But yet, so many in our party, enjoy being their sock puppets

[jody]

58. Pro-RKBA supporters want to disarm criminals, Anti-RKBA supporters want to disarm victims.

When attacked by a criminal and seconds count, police are only minutes away or perhaps will never come in Contra Costa County, California.

DU thread discusses "Many Contra Costa crooks won't be prosecuted" and "Misdemeanors such as assaults, thefts and burglaries will no longer be prosecuted in Contra Costa County because of budget cuts, the county's top prosecutor said Tuesday."

[Paladin]

67. Do You Suppose It Could Have Something To Do With......

...the prominent Democrats who have taken bullets in their brains?

Here's a "Why" back at you: Why are you dredging up the same old gun militant talking points in a vain attempt to make liberal Democrats feel guilt-stricken about supporting rigorous gun control measures? The sort of measures that are in place in other advanced countries---you know, countries where mass murders by gun-wielding maniacs aren't a weekly occurrence. There's not a single new original thought in your entire post.......

[AllentownJake]

73. Yes and I can't remember the last assasination of a Brittish liberal leader

Awesome point.

[beevul]

95. Thats...

"Why are you dredging up the same old gun militant talking points in a vain attempt to make liberal Democrats feel guilt-stricken about supporting rigorous gun control measures?"


Thats UNREFUTED gun militant talking points to you, mister.

[Cheap_Trick]

106. Amen!

:applause:

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Happyhippychick]

75. Hint: when one uses the word "liberals" repeatedly in trying to make his/her point...

it's like a big neon sign. Just don't tell the freepers, I wouldn't want them to know how obvious they are.

[AllentownJake]

78. Yep,

I expect this thread to be posted there with bragging points on how well someone did on DU soon.

[X_Digger]

101. Boogiemen behind the door award..

Much easier to suspect conspiracy than to examine why views inside the same political party may vary.

ie, "No TRUE democrat could feel that way, must be a FAKE one!"

which is usually followed by..

"Oh you really think that way? You must've been brainwashed by {GOP | NRA | RW media}"

[GeorgeGist]

76. Unregulated militias come to mind.

[Kip Humphrey]

100. 300,000 gun related deaths in US since Columbine.

[beevul]

103. Over two million alcohol related deaths since columbine.

[RaleighNCDUer]

125. There is significant crossover between the two.

That's what happens when the stores advertise

"Guns - Ammo - Liquor"

[friendly_iconoclast]

117. And millions of deaths from heart disease. Time to ban assault trans-fats! n/t

[FudaFuda]

150. Cut that by more than half to account for suicides, & criminals shot by cops & other criminals.

There are innocent deaths due to criminal and negligent misuse of firearms in the USA every year, every day. But when you spout statistics designed to inflate and exaggerate, like by including suicides in a total of 'gun deaths', I don't listen. Another one is when gun control advocates list gun deaths of children, and then you find out they count anyone 25 and under to be a child. I guess Twain was right about lies, damned lies, and statistics.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

191. More like cut it by 90% under those conditions.

[krispos42]

154. 180,000 of those are suicides

The balance are homicides.


Would it help any if those people were killed with "other"?

[beevul]

118. They aren't afraid.

They're angry. Filled with rage. As any bunch would be after getting thier asses handed to them in court and in debate for over 15 years.

There are other words that could be used to describe them, and parallels that could be drawn, but I wont be pointing out that which is self evident at this time.

[Pullo]

132. I guess we should be happy they're not into firearms n/t

[logjon]

137. duh

guns are scary!

[spin]

141. The "anti-gun liberals" are afraid of the truth. They can't handle it. (n/t)

[Joe Steel]

142. Gun cultists can't function on that level...

Why do you shy away from logical discussions based on facts and, instead only resort to unsupported attacks and stereotypes?

Gun cultists can't function on that level and rational persons have to bring the discussion down to the level they can understand.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

169. Did you get a rational person to come up with that?

[Mythsaje]

145. To me it boils down to the Right of Self-Defense...

No question. People have the right to defend themselves against deadly threats by whatever legal means are at their disposal. Anyone willing to deny law-abiding folks this right are no allies of mine.

[Critters2]

211. You're really that scared?

Sad.

[Scout]

149. find a liberal who is actually against an inanimate object and ask them n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

168. There was one here who said that guns were actually evil.

[X_Digger]

170. That would be Joe Steel. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

171. Along comes someone with a memory. Thanks.

[AtheistCrusader]

177. Well, I've caught mine holding a seance or two

but no ouiji boards just yet.

Keeping an eye on them though.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

178. The worst things mine ever do are load themselves and try to sneak out.

[yodoobo]

152. Getting shot.

[Iktomiwicasa]

153. You are in no danger

of getting shot by my legally, rightfully owned weapons, unless of course you attack me and mine with malice.

[Critters2]

198. Tell that to the 37 dead kids in Chicago. nt

[virginia mountainman]

204. Yea...That Chicago gun ban is really working out...

What a record of fail.....

[Critters2]

197. Yep. Me, too.

Seems pretty basic, really.

[AlphaCentauri]

164. I would ask, what people is afraid of to make them buy a gun?

self defense? from who?

[Pullo]

165. "Afraid" of those who want to ban them.

....or they could be investors looking to secure their hard-earned capital. Think of firearms as dual-purpose in that regard.

It doesn't take a social scientist to understand that crime is usually inversely proportional to the vitality of economy. So, yes, self defense is a BIG reason to buy a firearm.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

167. I haven't been scared of anything in particular when I bought mine. Heights generally bother me.

In regards to your question about self defense, some options are an abusive ex, dangerous animals and criminals in general.

David

[raimius]

193. Afraid? Not so much.

I enjoy target shooting, and I want to be well-versed in one of my job skills (military).

Only later did owning firearms gain a self-defense element for me. I found myself in a couple situations which could have easily turned violent. One of my friends was also the victim of a random act of violence. Being one to be prepared for many eventualities, I decided that it would be a decent idea to prepare for that kind of situation as well. Do you have a first aid kit, tools, spare auto fluids, a fire extinguisher and a blizzard survival kit in your car? I'm that guy...

Frankly, I would be very angry at myself if I had the skills to protect myself or those around me, but had failed to bring the right tools.

[Nosmanic]

185. True

I've gone back and forth on the gun issue. But I believe that the laws are too relaxed and enforcment in rural area's is very relaxed, if not just not possible to enforce because it's rural. Saying guns aren't inherrently bad is like say hate speech is bad they're just words but that's not true. Really the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed for real legal restrictions. But that's really unlikly to happen.

[ManiacJoe]

186. Which laws do you think need tightening?

[Caliman73]

188. guns = hate speech?

With an analogy like that I have a difficult time believing that you have "gone back and forth on the gun issue". If you believe that guns are inherently bad and equivalent to hate speech, then you aren't understanding the idea of the 2nd Amendment. First of all "hate speech" however deplorable, is still protected by the First Amendment. The protections are waived when speech crosses over into incitement to cause physical harm to someone. That however, is beside the point. The Second Amendment was enumerated to ensure that each citizen of this country understands that the government is subservient to the people. Firearms are to be used to defend life and freedom from all who wish to take them including the government. That was the agreement of the Founders. Obviously these men were the government and they did not want to be engaged in constant struggle to maintain order. Shay's Rebellion was put down as well as the Whiskey Rebellion and the leaders of those plots were tried and punished. The concept however remained clear. Firearms can be used for very bad things, but they are no more good or bad than the person who picks them up to use them. If someone means to do my family or myself harm, I will defend against that. I do not hate the person I am defending against. I may not even know them. I defend my family because I love them, I defend myself because I love my life and have an obligation to be around for my family. The government has no obligation to defend my family's lives and my life and would never do so as vigorously as I would. That is the nature of the recognition of the 2nd Amendment.

[slrassoc]

194. gun ownership

The difference between a conservative and a liberal, with respect to gun ownership, is that a conservative will use guns to defend their liberty. A liberal will not.BANG...you loose.

[jsi]

196. Bang

sirassoc -

Well...... I've owned and used guns since about the ripe old age of six,

And I'm now 58.

And I'm a liberal, and have always been.

I sense that your use of the phrase "to defend their liberty" is a stalking horse

For some kind of argument you have in the wings.

Please bring your argument to center stage.

And, by the way, should you choose to kick in my front door,

You would be met by alternate buck and ball, for starters.

So don't be too damn quick with your party assumptions.


jsi

[Critters2]

199. There is no "liberty" worth taking a human life for.

If I shoot another, I have become the oppressor. That is not liberty.

[jsi]

200. hawk in the yard

Critters2 -

I was parked on the front porch this early morning, drinking my tea before going to work, and watching a dozen valley quail in the SE corner of my yard.

Caught a shadow out of the corner of my eye.

A Cooper's hawk going about ninety miles an hour 18" off the ground just whacked one of the quail.

And it was all over. That fast.

Cooper's flew up, quail in foot, to a fir tree to eat breakfast.

So, was the Cooper's hawk an oppressor?

Is the natural world not liberty?

Enquiring minds want to know.


jsi

[Critters2]

201. I'm pretty sure those quail would call that hawk an oppressor.

Interesting that you identify with the hawk.


On the other hand, are all those who are killing children in Chicago, for instance, eating them or otherwise making good use of their deaths? Do you seriously think that's an apt analogy?

[one-eyed fat man]

203. a better analogy

In a world of wolves and sheep, there are sheepdogs.

Oddly enough, the sheep expect the sheepdog to die protecting them from the wolves, but generally don't trust the sheep dog.

[jsi]

224. Guns, Gawd, Glue

Actually, sir, you just attempted to turn my observation into an imposed and chosen identity of your choice.

Which is not even remotely the case.

Neat rhetorical trick, if you can pull it.

I'll refer you to Mr. Swift's (in)famous essay re: the children in Ireland, to offset your general "strawman" arguments re Chicago.

Now, back to horrid guns.

Lessee, I've got

Lots of carpentry and cabinetry tools ( those were my first two trades)

Plumbing tools, gardening tools,

Shovels, hoes, rakes and saws.

Mechanic's tools, chainsaws,

Weedeaters, lawnmowers, electrical tools, the list goes on and on.

Used 'em all my life.

Plus you have glues, lubes, solvents, sandpapers, nails, screws, bolts, steel wool, all the supplies ...... you get the picture.

And the really big surprise here;

Guns and ammo follow the tool and supply metaphor perfectly.

And right smack dab in this hyar tool collection I have some guns and ammo.

Morally, philosophically, whatever, that 12 ga shotgun racked up by the back door

Is the same damn thing as the screwdrivers in the kitchen utility drawer.

Plenty of people have been killed with a shovel.



Now, if money is your only tool,

And the only thing you do hire the guy or gal or government with all that equipment and knowledge to do something you can't,

Well, that's your lookout.

So be it. I don't have a problem.

But I do have to say this zone is starting to sound and smell a lot like Mr. Orwell's "Animal Farm."


jsi

[one-eyed fat man]

202. You would

not defend yourself or your children from murder?

Some thug's "liberty" to rape and dismember you outweighs your liberty to not be a victim?

Perhaps your life is too worthless to defend, but, choose for yourself, not others.

[Critters2]

209. In my faith tradition, we feel empathy for all victims.

The minute you raise a gun on another, that person becomes the victim of your violence, and real empathy keeps you from harming them. The question we are called to ask is not "Who's going to pay for the harm done me?", but rather, "How do I see that no one ever suffers such harm?". Violence against those who do violence is not the answer to this question.

The question is not whether my life is valuable, but whether I stop the cycle of violence by being violent. My life is too valuable to give in to violence.

[rl6214]

220. WOW

You would not defend yourself? Ever?

You are just allowing the violence to continue by doing nothing. Someone has to stop the violence. You are just contributing to it by doing nothing.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."...Sir Edmund Burke

[spin]

208. If there are angels, I hope one travels close at your side. (n/t)

[Critters2]

210. I use the term "Paraclete", but yes, someone is traveling by my side. nt

[one-eyed fat man]

212. You may

rely on Divine Intervention to save you. Or perhaps "Heaven helps those who help themselves." Regardless, suicide is against my faith tradition.

Odd you should choose to be so smugly dismissive, for as Orwell noted, "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

[Critters2]

213. I've never asked anyone to commit violence on my behalf.

To do so would be against my faith. I believe all violence is wrong. Please don't pretend you need a gun to protect me.

[one-eyed fat man]

214. You misunderstand the quote

You have the luxury to eschew violence because soldiers and policemen exist. They stand to defend those who are unable or unwilling to do for themselves.

My gun has nothing to do with you. I retired from the Army long ago. I am under no legal imperative to protect anyone. I would be mildly curious on how you would handle the quandry?

If you were the victim of an unprovoked violent criminal attack and someone intervened to stop your attacker would you complain? and to whom?

Is being a victim just bad karma and learn to live with it?

[Critters2]

216. Actually, I'm deeply concerned at the fact that order is maintained

with either violence or the constant threat of violence. I don't support that, nor do I ask anyone to do it on my behalf.

I know it's a shock to learn that not everyone shares your assumptions.

[tisfortomi]

217. Shocked?

"Actually, I'm deeply concerned at the fact that order is maintained with either violence or the constant threat of violence. I don't support that, nor do I ask anyone to do it on my behalf.

I know it's a shock to learn that not everyone shares your assumptions."


I would propose to you that the "threat of violence" is one of the ingredients of social order. The degree to which it is present is a negative indicator of the health of the society, but it has been present to some degree in every society this planet has brought forth. Perhaps we one day will evolve to the point where it will not longer be necessary. Perhaps not. In any case, we are a long way from that point.

The paradox of violence is that those who eschew it will end up being ruled and abused by those who don't. If your assumption is that violence is the greatest evil, I must confess that I don't share it. My view is that aggression is the greatest evil. There is a qualitative difference between aggressive violence and defensive violence. Defensive violence against aggression is clearly a lesser evil. Even a relatively healthy social order will find it necessary to avail itself of the lesser evil as a tool against the greater.

I would submit that your stance is disingenuous and somewhat hypocritical since you clearly do benefit from the maintenance of order, whether or not you agree with the means by which it is maintained. Do you have a practical alternative to propose? Something more concrete than "If we all eschewed violence, what a wonderful world it would be"? Steps by which we can collectively move away from violence as a tool and on to more enlightened means of social control? Never forget, though, that social control is what we're talking about here: the actual dirty business of trying to coexist on this small planet.

The current, admittedly imperfect structure provides you with a relatively high degree personal security, freedom, and material comfort. Yet you feel justified in claiming a moral superiority over that structure. The Brahmin deigns to wear the shoes the Untouchable has made.

Shocked? Sadly, no.

[razors edge]

215. Do not rage against the dying of the light. n/t

[rl6214]

221. So you are going to console or comfort whom?

The victims after they have been raped, stabbed, shot?

[virginia mountainman]

205. What a load of hooey.....

Come and infringe on my liberty, and see what it gets you..

[jody]

206. RKBA is about one of the pre-existing rights and whether one wants to prohibit those rights or

supports government's obligation under our constitution to protect those rights against the tyranny of a simple majority of votes directly by voters or indirectly by the voters representatives.

Are you (a) pro-choice on pre-existing rights or do you (b) want to prohibit pre-existing rights?

[rl6214]

219. Nice first post

Will there be a second?

We'll see.

[Name removed]

218. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rl6214]

222. Another stupid "gun lover" post

Don't have anything substantial to bring to the debate so you try to take it to an emotional level by throwing out the "you love your gun" arguement. Weak.

Then let's throw one more emotional jab in there with this comment, "you obviously do love your gun - are IMO sick bastards".

Grow up. You want to debate the issues, learn to do it without the name calling and juvenile accusations, they do nothing to support your case.

[one-eyed fat man]

223. This may come as a shock.............

but from time to time there are people who need killing.

If someone were to break into your home and begin raping your children, after you asked them, "Pretty please, stop!" and they didn't what are your options? Call 911, so the police can eventually come draw chalk outlines around their broken corpses?

Would you meekly acquiesce while they choke the life out of you, or scream claw and bite in futility?

Hate guns all you want, you will never be able to gather them all up and melt them all down. There are plenty of folks do precision metal work as a hobby. Do you think the guy who for entertainment builds a quarter scale steam engine in his garage doesn't have the skill to build a machine gun just as easily?

Now, if your intent is to keep guns away from bad people, I will work to help you. But if your approach is to write rules only the good people have to obey I will oppose you as you are merely an enabler for the most evil criminals among us. All your misplaced loathing does is ensure is that evil-doers will have a monopoly on guns and no end of defenseless victims.