Skip to main content

View Diary: Another day in the (gun crazy) U.S.A. (132 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That statement (6+ / 0-)

    contradicts itself. Lawful people by definition do not commit crimes, whether with a gun or anything else.

    •  This is absurd. There are only two kinds of people (9+ / 0-)

      in our country, those who have been caught, and those who haven't. Counting every variety of transgression of the law in our country, given the complexity of our society, almost everyone who is not comatose violates at least something at least daily. And given the prominence that you place on ending drug prohibition (thanks for that, by the way) I wouldn't believe you for a second even if you did claim to be an intoxicant virgin. (In Utah, non-Missionary position sex is still prohibited, and don't even think about entering the office pool on the Super Bowl.)

      Lawful gun owner, lawful gun user, lawful gun carrier, lawful gun possessor, an otherwise unlawful person (whatever that is) doing any of those things lawfully, there is much room here for interpretation.

      You're just hostile about the negative publicity.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:51:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are 2 sets of people gun-owners. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, wishbone

        The first set, and by far the largest, will go their entire lives never endangering anyone with a gun.

        The second set may not have committed any crimes yet, but eventually will.

        Punishing the first set for the not-even-happened-yet transgressions of the second is absurd. It's the same mentality that has Israel bulldozing homes in occupied territories. "We can't tell which is which, and the bad ones are so dangerous we must take extreme steps to protect ourselves, even if we steamroll over the rights of the innocent!"

        And of course there's the never-quite-voiced hints that they think the innocent ones may be secretly helping the guilty somehow, and maybe those insinuations are the most despicable part of all of it.

        But again, I'm trying to use logic and rationality to persuade the irrational and emotional to be a bit more reasonable. I might as well be talking to the wall.

    •  you may lawfully own the gun (8+ / 0-)

      that does not in any way prevent your committing a crime with the gun.....

      so yes, lawful gun owners commit crime (see Loughner, J)

      •  So (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rockhound, NoMoreNicksLeft

        what do you propose to do about that?
        Do you propose restricting rights on the premise they MIGHT be abused?

        •  yep. (7+ / 0-)

          n/t.


          We are not broke, we are being robbed.

          by Glen The Plumber on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 02:57:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  hey I am up for amending the 2nd ..... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, bhut jolokia

          the constitution is amendable, after all.

          No responsible owner has anything to fear from our plans.

          You have a reason for your gun, have no criminal record or any medical issues - and you have proper storage arrangements - then  you would be fine.  

          Mrs Lanza would need to show that her storage was not accessible to her sons.

          I make no apologies.

          •  And reasonable people has nothing to fear from (0+ / 0-)

            warrantless wiretaps.

            At least that is what the right-wing told me.

            Did you believe them?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:41:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  why are the two comparable? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              not remotely the case.

              You do your RKBA case NO favours by being exaggerately alarmist.

              •  I find infringing on Constitutional liberties (0+ / 0-)

                as comparable to....infringing on Constitutional liberties.
                Imagine that.

                "RKBA no favors..."
                Thanks for the concern trolling, but I don't need your advise, I have a vote.
                And that vote won't go to anyone that supports infringing on the Constitutional liberties of innocent Americans.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 11:40:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  we are talking about amending the constitution (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber

                  so that would mean that liberties in the constitution are thoroughly respected...... you do understand this, do you?  Take time to think, before you answer, this time.

                  Why any one would feel threatened by the proposed rules I outlined above, I cannot understand.

                  And don't give me that 'freedom' crap.  After Dunblane, when we had the wit to change the law and make handgun ownership very very rare in the UK, some US citizens were falling over themselves to say on our TV that we had lost our freedom.  Freedom to do what, other than to own handguns, we asked?  No answer came.  

                  •  The method you suggest to infringe on (0+ / 0-)

                    Constitutional liberties, does not change the fact that you want to infringe on Constitutional liberties.
                    I am flabbergasted you found that to be an intelligent retort.

                    "why anyone would feel threatened"
                    This is the same argument the right-wing gave when they pushed for warrantless wiretaps. Didn't convince me then, doesn't convince me now.

                    "don't give me that 'freedom' crap"
                    Of course not, as you have already made clear, you prefer taking freedoms.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 01:39:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  still no answer to offer; ok. (nt) (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber
                      •  I did give an answer. Namely..... (0+ / 0-)

                        Anyone whom infringes on American's constitutional liberties, will NOT get my vote.

                        My offer stands.
                        We will find out how many Democratic seats will not. I hope you will find trading American liberties for them worthwhile.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:13:45 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  still not answering my question (0+ / 0-)

                          STILL, and either you know that, or you are a numbskull.

                          I am assuming the former, and have drawn the obvious conclusions.

                          •  And what question is that? (0+ / 0-)

                            I assume that you are referring to the question where you essentially asked "other than the right we are going to take away, what rights will you lose?"
                            Frankly, I found that question so asinine that I thought it was simply a rhetorical question.

                            When the right-wing pushed for warrantless wiretaps, what liberty was lost other than having your phone wiretapped without a warrant?

                            While we are on the subject of foolish points, allow me to mention that you, as a Brit, complained about Americans talking about your society....and you are using that as an example why you, as a Brit, should opine about ours.
                            Irony overload. Mind. Blown.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 11:24:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

        •  Guns should be banned (4+ / 0-)

          as the country becomes more diverse, the political support to ban guns will increase.

          It's only a matter of time.

        •  Absolutely, yes. (2+ / 0-)

          The sh*t those people [republicans] say just makes me weep for humanity! - Woody Harrelson

          by SoCalSal on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 05:53:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site