Skip to main content

View Diary: Regarding Guns... (95 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  care to define what you mean by magazine? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RonV, johnny wurster

    since in hunting rifles, this would ban all multiple round weapons except double barrels.  Did you perhaps mean detachable magazines or clips or did I misread what you proposed?

    •  Anything that holds more than six rounds of ammo (5+ / 0-)

      is too much. And yes, I want all such weapons banned, including "hunting" rifles.

      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:01:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe the diarist... (5+ / 0-)

      Was referring to removable magazines.

      A five round internal magazine in a bolt action cannot be easily swapped out.  

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:02:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but he says anything that holds more than 6 round (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RonV, VClib

        so I have to believe he is referring to all mags and not just clips.  However, I would point out 6 rounds is a devastating amount of firepower in a 12g shotgun.  In the Old West, a shotgun was called a "street howitzer" because of its destructive power and some such guns were termed "street sweepers" by others in modern times.

        The author may wish to re-think his section on magazines since even antique weapons as a Henry would be banned under his definition
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        •  With that number of rounds... (3+ / 0-)

          the most you can kill is six people. That's still six people too many for me, but at least it's not 20 children.

          I have no problem banning antique weapons. I'd like them all banned, frankly, but I'll start where I can.

          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:08:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  would you also ban the manufacture of guns? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RonV, VClib

            After all, though I am no gunsmith, in a pinch, I think I could still come up with a fairly well performing zip gun
            http://en.wikipedia.org/...
             

            •  If I had my way, there would be no guns. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Debby, DefendOurConstitution

              Period. End of story.

              But until we can change the culture so that people will stop believing that gun = safety, there's no chance of that.

              "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

              by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:14:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  problem with this POV is it does not seem (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RonV, VClib

                to take into account the realities on the ground and it offers little ground for discussion

                •  The realities on the ground right now are (5+ / 0-)

                  unacceptable.

                  It's time to change them. What are your suggestions, beyond "guns, guns and more guns"?

                  "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                  by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:34:01 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you requested responses to your grand proposal (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    VClib

                    but I did not know that meant having to submit a grand proposal of my own.  Basically, I find that the best way to deal with a large problem is to break it down so it is a series of smaller problems.  One thing I find helpful with that is educating myself on the topic by discussion and research.

                    I would suggest we pick one aspect of the problem, say extended clips, agree on the definition of the vocabulary that will be used and proceed from there.  While overarching problems such as world hunger or climate change may be easy to see, finding a silver bullet to solve them is much more difficult as these problems are usually the result of a series and groups of processes which cannot be tackled all at once    

                    •  That's reasonable. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DefendOurConstitution

                      I admit I want my grand vision realized yesterday - or, rather, this time last year so we could have avoided Aurora and Newtown altogether. But any step in that direction is good.

                      What I'm not good with is defense of the status quo. "BBSA" (But but Second Amendment) is a shameful response and should be as socially unacceptable as smoking in public or offering drugs to children is already.

                      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:02:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  however there is a significant number of gun (0+ / 0-)

                        owners willing to discuss restrictions on ownership, just so long as there is an agreement as to the vocabulary used and both sides agree to educate themselves thoroughly on the other side's position and to continue to educate themselves during the course of the discussion.

                        •  I believe I have educated myself on the RKBA (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          DefendOurConstitution

                          position. I don't agree with it at all, however.

                          The main two cries I hear from RKBAs are these:

                          1) But, but, Second Amendment!

                          2) I have a right to defend myself against [fill in scary stereotype not based in reality here]!

                          The first is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the intent of the Founders when they established the Second Amendment. The second is based on fear, prejudice, racism, and frankly stupidity.

                          With regards to the first: Wealthy landowners (which is what the Founders were) would not have established a law allowing the citizenry to own weaponry for the purpose of overthrowing the nation or its government. The fact that the phrases "a well-regulated militia" and "necessary to the security of a free state" are in that amendment tells us that the Founders were saying "if you want to own a gun, you have to be in the army and defend this nation in wars." They were NOT saying "you can have a gun so you can shoot anyone that you feel is threatening you." Your home does not qualify as a "free state."

                          With regards to the second: People using the self-defense line invariably end up saying "black men" or "Mexicans" when I press them to tell me WHO would break into their nice, middle-class suburban home? Never mind that the crime rate in their area could be (and usually is) close to zero; oh, no. It's those scary black and brown people (read here: if you're not white, you're automatically a criminal) that are going to break into their homes, rape their wives and daughters, murder their families, and steal the good silver. It's bogus. It's bullshit. And it's racist.

                          "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                          by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 04:22:34 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  since I have taken neigther argument (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            it is not productive to expect me to defend what others have  said; instead it would seem a better use of time for us to discuss real world related solutions which could be enacted, for example, the discussion of restricting the size of clips available to civilians (noting while clips are magazines, not all magazines are clips)

        •  Perhaps a grandfather clause for specific pieces. (4+ / 0-)

          could be discussed.

          But IMHO that's the end-details of a comprehensive ban, which I believe is needed.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 12:09:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  So add a clause on shotguns. Not rocket science.nt (2+ / 0-)

          Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

          by Sharon Wraight on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:44:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  If he has such little respect for human rights... (0+ / 0-)

          Why would he care about whether a collector could have an antique firearm at all?

          •  Ownership of guns may be "constitutional" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SoCalSal, DefendOurConstitution

            if you're willing to squint instead of read the words that are there - but it's by no means a "human right" to own a gun. Also, there are far more important human rights, like living out your entire life - a right which those 20 kids and six teachers at Newtown did not get to exercise thanks to the gun lobby in this nation.

            Their right to live out their lives will always trump your "right" to own a gun. And frankly, I don't give a damn about your antique firearms - as long as they are so antique that they can't be fired or used as guns anymore.

            "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

            by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:44:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Self-defense is a human right. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              Think of how ridiculous it would be to claim that the Constitution may give you freedom of the press, but that they should still be allowed to outlaw little sculpted lead blocks with letters on them.

              The tools necessary to exercise a right are every bit as protected as the right itself.

              There is no more important right than the right to self-defense.  Certainly if that school teacher had had such a right, there might have been fewer deaths. But thankfully, Connecticut has an assault weapons ban, doesn't it?

              •  Defend yourself with something other than a gun. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DefendOurConstitution

                You don't need a gun to defend yourself. It's the lazy coward's way out of that problem.

                The moment you're ready to kill another person to "defend" yourself is the moment that I no longer take you seriously. You passed that point a while ago.

                "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:58:10 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Now you're being stupid. (0+ / 0-)

                  What's a 110 pound woman supposed to defend herself with? Or an 60 yr old man?

                  We can't all have fantasies of besting 20 ninjas with our bare hands, like liberal college hippies daydream about.

                •  does that mean you would not take anyone (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  seriously in a debate who has killed before, albeit in a socially accepted context such as self defense or in war?
                  After all it seems to me that many here may say they would kill in self defense but would hesitate for their own safety  but would not hesitate to use any means to hand to defend others

                  •  Yes, that's what I mean. (0+ / 0-)

                    Killing another person or being willing to will absolutely strike you off my list as a "moral" person. Find another way to defend yourself that doesn't involve killing others.

                    I have already said that if confronted with a gunman trying to kill my children, I will throw myself on him to stop him. I will not, however, attempt to kill him. For one thing, I will not kill. For another, I'd rather see him pay for his crimes in some way that makes him have to consider them for the rest of his natural life instead of getting the coward's easy way out by being shot.

                    War is abhorrent to me. That should be enough said. I realize that those who are on the front lines rarely have a choice in that moment, but I would be a conscientious objector long before it ever came to that.

                    "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                    by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:12:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  He (she?) means... (0+ / 0-)

                    That you shouldn't kill the rapist, you should be willing to let him force his penis into your orifices and very ungently jackhammer you until you bleed, after which point he can slice your throat open or stomp on your head.

                    We have to think of the rapists, their lives are just as valuable as anyone else's. Anyone that says otherwise is a horrible person.

                    •  No, I mean that you shouldn't shoot or kill him (0+ / 0-)

                      I mean that you can and should find some other way to stop him because frankly his victims deserve the justice of knowing he's rotting in prison for the rest of his life.

                      And frankly, at this point, I'm dismissing anything else you say as deliberately inflammatory and openly pro-gun ideological. When you can talk about facts instead of dragging in your continued logical fallacies and Fox-News-inspired garbage, we'll talk. Until then, I'm ignoring anything else you say.

                      "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." - Hubert Humphrey

                      by Killer of Sacred Cows on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 10:24:00 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You don't know what you mean. (0+ / 0-)

                        If your attacker is bigger than you are to any great degree, there is no other way to stop him. If you vigorously defend yourself, he may flee... and certainly if he does so I don't condone the victim shooting him in the back after the danger has passed.

                        But should he not flee (and there are many reasons he might not), there is little choice.

                        The elderly, women... hell, even men like myself, how can I defend myself from a larger attacker intent on doing me harm? God forbid there are more than one.

                        It is not a holy or moral thing to forego killing such a person. Even if you would sacrifice your life for theirs, their next victim is on you.

                        I have loved ones, I have a wife, a young daughter, and another child on the way. If the choice is between some maniac and one of them... that's no choice at all. To worry about trying to preserve the life of their would-be-murderer is so absurd it doesn't even truly deserve a response. Something's wrong with you, something in your brain, and I pray to whatever fictional deities might be listening that all your political proposals fall flat and never be acted upon.

                      •  I have had several CVAs, granted small ones (0+ / 0-)

                        but ones that left neurological deficits.  Should anyone attempt to injure one of my granddaughters, I would try to stop him by whatever means at hand to whatever extent is necessary.

                        If I could I would retreat to the safe room and call 9-11 but assuming he breaches the room and threatens the grandkids, I will try to stop him.  I have an ewisa I use as a cane as well as various edged weapons but I also have several firearms which I would use in a heartbeat if necessary.

                        I consider myself a pacifist dating back to 1973 but, while I have the right to decide if I should personally die in lieu of injuring another human being, I have no right to make that decision for my granddaughters.  If they wish to live, it is my duty to ensure that they are as safe as I can make them.

                        Sadly, I guess that means you will dismiss anything else I say which is a pity because I have enjoyed our discussions.  However, I must assert that I have a responsibility to my family which supersedes my personal philosophies

            •  the use of the term "human rights" make me (0+ / 0-)

              nervous as it seems to be only one step removed from the concept of "Natural Rights"  While Natural Rights as originally conceived circa 1775 makes perfect sense, the term has been bastardized in current usage as to mean something entirely different

            •  No right is more absolute than the gun totin' (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Killer of Sacred Cows

              right of Second Amendment absolutists, didn't you know that?  Children's right to live another day - lesser than 2A; people's right to live without fear of getting shot at grocery store, mall, church/temple, movie theater, etc. is also much lesser than the 2A rights.  2A rights are God given and only the mullahs in their religion can even question the sacred text of the 2A.

              Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

              by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:59:17 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Yup get the (4+ / 0-)

      'you need to be an expert to discuss this' card in early - SOP for this user.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Culture (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Law (27)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Health Care (20)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • International (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site