Skip to main content

View Diary: There is nothing more that can be said (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I would argue most responsible gun owners (27+ / 0-)

    support registration and safety requirements for guns.  Gun registration benefits the gun owners, ultimately the same as auto registration benefits auto owners.  In the case of autos, while they are still stolen, registration makes them much easier to recover much faster and makes them harder to sell or dispose of than what they would be without registration.

    With rigorous registration and background checks, weapons that are stolen can be recovered more quickly as there would be no "gray market" for guns which currently exists.  It is the same for "straw man" purchases where responsible gun owners can still buy weapons as gifts (the appropriateness of such can be suspended as a topic of conversation for the minute) but are responsible for the purchase and state that the weapon is being purchased as a gift for whom.

    The problem right now is the visible gun advocates are people like Nugent and LaPierre who really only represent a lunatic fringe of gun owners    

    •  We have a problem here too (29+ / 0-)
      The problem right now is the visible gun advocates are people like Nugent and LaPierre who really only represent a lunatic fringe of gun owners    
      With Kossacks who feel that registration and licensing are some "big government" gun-grab, either now or in the future.

      They will not support mechanisms that would do everything you say, and be a massive boost for law-enforcement, because of some paranoia about an imagined future.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:30:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  which is the reason for dialogue (24+ / 0-)

        for every Kossack who thinks registration is a gun grab, there is another who would support a complete ban on all guns (including my wallhanger with the rusted out barrels) and hold gun owners totally liable for any crime committed by any gun they have ever owned.

        The answer lies somewhere in the middle and hopefully our dialogue will move the discussion to that center

        •  Exactly (32+ / 0-)

          There is only one person on Daily Kos who I know for a fact is against all restrictions, including registration. There are probably a handful altogether, but the extreme views are often the loudest, and this issue is no exception. There are many Kossacks who are gun owners, and believe in sensible restrictions and laws that might prevent tragedies like this from happening again. They are less likely to speak out, because they run the risk of being demonized by virtue of even admitting they own a gun by the handful of people who think that is one step away from being a mass murderer.

          I have seen a lot of people here admit they won't even read any diary about guns or gun violence, because they are always so toxic. That is not acceptable IMO. This isn't a fringe issue, it is one that affects all of us, and everyone needs to be engaged in the discussion.

          You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

          by SwedishJewfish on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 11:33:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It DOES need to be addressed, (9+ / 0-)

            and with mutual respect. Otherwise there will be no progress, and everyone will remain firmly entrenched. I've noticed that, over the last couple of weeks, the tone has changed a bit. I may be delusional, but it seems that the cooler heads are getting slightly bigger slices of the pie lately. I do hope so.

            Maybe I'm just getting luckier with better quality diaries..? :-)

            •  I have totally seen that. (5+ / 0-)

              And when extremist on either side start bullying the conversation, others seem better able to talk them down.

              Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

              by Smoh on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:29:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  See my comment below (5+ / 0-)

                And please talk me down.

                I just can't seem to accept the arguments some people make that put ownership of guns on equal footing as the basic human right to life, and the more I hear such arguments, the more convinced I am that the people advancing these ideas are either moral or actual idiots that should never be allowed near guns or sharp objects.

                Granted, I'm being a bit judgmental, but then, I'd hope to judgement would serve me well to recognize them on sight so I could avoid them for self-protection, since some of them are concealed carry wackos that present a risk.

                What about my Daughter's future?

                by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:23:25 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Can I talk you down? (3+ / 0-)

                  Many people who own guns actually feel that they are protecting their lives, and/or the lives of their kids. In some (IMO pretty rare) instances, there is legitimate basis for this. If you live in a very rural area where police can take up to 30 minutes to respond to a distress call, you can see why someone would want to have a gun in their home. If you live in an area where predatory animals prowl, you are probably going to want a gun. You can read my post a little downthread about my reasons for owning a gun (although I no longer do) for protection.

                  The gun lobby also plays on both legitimate and manufactured fears, and blow them completely out of proportion. Fear and paranoia are the best tools in their arsenal. The result is people who believe, in the core of their soul, is the only thing that stands between them and a tyrannical government that will throw them into FEMA concentration camps is their arsenal. It's easy to laugh at them-and sometimes it is absurd to the point of being humorous. But at the same time, it helps to understand the mindset.

                  Just get informed, get facts and logic on your side, and use them. If the person you are debating with gets nasty and disregards everything you have to say, and won't make even the smallest compromise because they think it's all just going down the slippery slope of confiscation and tyranny, then they are probably too far gone to reason with. Don't waste your energy on them, they are a very small minority  and should not be allowed to dominate the debate.

                  You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                  by SwedishJewfish on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:05:34 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Much better job than I would have done. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Canis Aureus

                    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                    by Smoh on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 04:47:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I do use facts to argue (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SwedishJewfish

                    For example, providing some here.

                    The problem is with people who have become "gun nuts" (terrible label, but it is descriptive), i.e., they seem to have crossed the moral rubicon where they put a higher value on the right of an individual to possess firearms than the human lives threatened by said guns in places public or private.

                    Their answer to the problem of too many guns is more and more guns.

                    Facts and reason don't seem to register with them, and as you say, a lot of them seem to be living in a hell of manufactured fears that makes it impossible for them to think clearly.

                    Beyond a point, I think such people have lost their moral bearings and ability to reason. Their thought process has become reflexive and motivated by fear.

                    Giving them facts about the increased risk to themselves by possessing weapons (statistically, there is a knock-down argument for that) does not register either because they magically think it won't happen to them.

                    So they seem care more about guns, than themselves or others.

                    Now put guns in the hands of such people and I think we have a legitimate concern about public safety and the rights of others.

                    Personally, I don't think any civilian needs a rapid fire semi-automatic weapon of high capacity for any reason other than to compensate for feelings of inadequacy or irrational fear, and I sure don't want people with those issues to possess them because we can see what happens, and it is not acceptable "collateral damage" to protect "right" of some nut to play with automatic weapons at the expense of innocent children's lives.

                    That is, arguably, insane, immoral and idiotic.

                    I can't seem to get that out of my head, and accept the argument that all these guns are OK.

                    What about my Daughter's future?

                    by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:49:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Your using the an alternate version of the same (0+ / 0-)

                      argument that has been used to justify torture, extraordinary rendition, warrant-less wiretaps, no-knock warrants, and drone strikes.  You want to take away people's liberties in the name of a cause you think is just.  

                      they put a higher value on the right of an individual to possess firearms than the human lives threatened
                      You then follow this up with:
                      it is not acceptable "collateral damage" to protect "right" of some nut to play with automatic weapons at the expense of innocent children's lives.
                      Wit this you try to imply that one who owns guns and refuses to give up their liberties is some sort of sociopath who wants to kill children.

                      You also said:

                      I don't think any civilian needs a rapid fire semi-automatic weapon of high capacity for any reason other than to compensate for feelings of inadequacy or irrational fear,
                      Combining this with your previous statement above, it is clear that you have continued to cling to your position ignorance regard weapons as demonstrated by your use of terms.  The issue isn't turning the argument to terminology.  It is that you deliberately misuse terminology as a tactic for your argument.  

                      With regards to your "compensate for feelings of inadequacy or irrational fear". this is a nice convenient label that certainly allows you to put yourself upon a nice moral pedestal.

                      •  It's really much more simple (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Beetwasher

                        You are reading in too much so let me make this simple by re-stating my position:

                        I think the right to life is a basic human right that is superior to the legal right (in some countries) to bear arms, and when those come into conflict, the inferior right must be subordinated.

                        Children are living things. Guns are objects.

                        I absolutely put the right of children to live above the right of adults to own guns.

                        And you may note that the US Supreme Court has ruled the right to bear arms is hardly absolute and unlimited given they have upheld laws that limit what arms may be allowed and the conditions to be applied, so the legal question is merely the definition of that. If you doubt that, maybe you should check the facts.

                        Wit this you try to imply that one who owns guns and refuses to give up their liberties is some sort of sociopath who wants to kill children.
                        No, your imagination has run wild, I said no such thing.

                        Most gun related injuries and death are not the work of sociopaths; indeed many are the result of mis-use or mis-adventure by legal gun owners that probably don't fit the psychological profile of a sociopath although I'm sure a lot of them (particularly the murder-suicides) have psychological problems of other classifications, chronic or temporary.

                        With regards to your "compensate for feelings of inadequacy or irrational fear". this is a nice convenient label that certainly allows you to put yourself upon a nice moral pedestal.
                        No, I'm not putting myself on a moral pedestal. I have stated my moral convictions; you may disagree or have other moral convictions that inform your opinions and that's fine too.

                        Certainly some gun owners clearly have feelings of inadequacy and irrational fears, something the manufacturers and sellers of weapons use in their advertising of guns and promotion of their use; go to any website of the manufacturers of these weapons and you can see for yourself. Likewise, you can read or listen to what man gun owners say for themselves. Perhaps that's an inconvenient truth for people such as yourself that do not share these feelings or beliefs, but society cannot and should not ignore this because such people are a danger to others.

                        The simple solution is to strengthen gun regulations to outlaw weapons of unreasonable force and capacity that enable persons (psychopathic or not) to use them against others.

                        If you are going to argue that no such limits should exist, that the "right to bear arms" should have not limits, then fine, please make that argument.

                        In case there is any doubt, I would consider such arguments immoral, irrational and counter to the interests of a civil society.

                        And the facts support that; societies that strictly regulate or man guns have far fewer gun related casualties and are safer places to live.

                        What about my Daughter's future?

                        by koNko on Sat Feb 09, 2013 at 11:26:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  I'll be honest with you; the notion of (0+ / 0-)

                  clinging to guns to preserve the very foundations of life & liberty still strike me as a "new" or at least "new-ish" development. I remember when the civilian "assault rifles" were first mass marketed and they were seen as a novelty item. I was a kid then and hadn't yet owned a weapon (much less shot one) but still saw the shift occurring and thought it was interesting, but never saw it as a foreboding harbinger.

                  The funny thing is, with the shift in marketing to "scary death doom fear" stuff, I've since shifted to the idea that more control is a good thing. Before, guns really were seen more like "just another tool in the shed" and not such a... prop. The culture of the NRA's hard shift right has encouraged a paranoia that I find unsettling.

            •  I'd like to see more respect for life (3+ / 0-)

              Before we go all-in for respect of guns and any so-called "rights" to possess them in balancing these debates.

              It's pretty screwed-up when people try to equate the right of owning guns as equal to the right to life, and suggests a rather narcissistic lack of mutual respect on the part of some gun advocates.

              Such equivalence is totally immoral, totally irrational and, IMHO, totally fucked-up.

              Just my 2 cents, of course. I welcome opposing views.

              What about my Daughter's future?

              by koNko on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:13:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'll state that I am not opposed to a (4+ / 0-)

        registration, but because registration lists have, in fact, been used for actual confiscations in the past, there will be a trust deficit. Any future registration scheme will have to come with some guarantees spelled out in the law that specifically protect from arbitrary confiscations.

        If such protections can be provided, I'd gladly register. I also think there should be training, licensing, and secure-storage requirements too, but that's another subject.

        •  They haven't, been used in the past. (6+ / 0-)

          California briefly tried to remove some rifles, years ago.

          No guns were siezed, some were handed in and the whole program was abandoned.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          Who is twigg?

          by twigg on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:09:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They have, been used in the past. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tom Seaview, noway2

            Not only did registration lead to a failed attempt at confiscation in Cali, but it also lead to the successful confiscations in  Australia and GB.

            Why do you think that an attempt at confiscation, made possible by registration refutes the idea that registration leads to confiscation?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:23:02 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Now we are afraid that (6+ / 0-)

              the UK or Australian governments will confiscate our guns?

              I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
              but I fear we will remain Democrats.

              Who is twigg?

              by twigg on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:54:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Because it didn't work (4+ / 0-)

              And it hasn't been tried since. Because it won't work, and politicians know this. A plurality of gun owners, when asked, have stated that they would not comply with any law requiring them to turn in their gun(s). Because there are 30 million guns in this country. Because we are facing long odds of even getting something as simple as the AWB passed, even after an assault weapon was used to massacre 20 babies and 6 adults right before Christmas. Because it would be political suicide to even try such a thing.

              As I'm sure you know, Australia and the U.K. never held that gun ownership was a fundamental right, and it was not common to own them. There were comparatively few guns to confiscate. And IIRC, at least in Australia, they did not actively confiscate, they had a compulsory buy-back scheme. Not everyone complied, and I haven't read anything that shows these people were persecuted for that. In any case, the point still stands that the UK and Oz are very different than the U.S.

              The argument you are trying to make is frankly outside the realm of possibility, and I don't think it is made in good faith. I think this is an example of trying to confuse people and divert attention away from the real issues we face. If you are against something as innocuous as registration, which does nothing to impede on your 2nd amendment rights, I don't think it is even worth engaging with you on this topic.

              By the way-did you even read the diary? Have you read the blog posts? Do you have any comment on that, and do you care to discuss it, or are you just here to make the same arguments you make in every diary concerning gun control? Because if it is the latter, I would prefer that you not hijack this diary.

              You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

              by SwedishJewfish on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 01:44:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I specifically responded to a specific post. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                noway2

                Which is why I used the 'reply' button.
                If it is not a discussion you care to respond to, I suggest you refrain from the 'reply' button.

                Back to the specific topic being discussed....Although it is true that registration won't happen, the question being discussed was whether or not registration leads to confiscation.
                It does. Demonstrably.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:37:16 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's my diary bub (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ChuckInReno, citylights, gramofsam1

                  And I want it to remain civil, and work towards progress. I have seen enough of your interactions to know that you aren't interested in that, and the only reason you come into diaries like this is to disrupt and derail.

                  If you have something new and worthwhile to add to the discussion, by all means.  But if you are just going to repeat the same tired NRA talking points that you use in every diary, I am going to ignore you, and suggest that others here do the same.

                  You must work-we must all work-to make a world that is worthy of its children -Pablo Casals Please support TREE Climbers for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation.

                  by SwedishJewfish on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:15:09 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Lets also quote the famous NY Governor (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              "confiscation could be an option"

              As the old saying goes, don't piss on my head and tell me it is raining.

        •  I have heard this about CA as well as Canada (8+ / 0-)

          and Australia but whenever I do research, I am unable to find sites which are not advocacy sites.  Does anyone have information on these 3 situations, as I have found contradictory information on all 3 attempts at registration

        •  Cars, boats, airplanes, (7+ / 0-)

          are all registered, and can be (and are in fact in the case of cars) deadlier instruments than guns.  It's ludicrous to think guns should be exempted.  
          Note to 2nd A. fans:  Registration does not equal infringement.

        •  I live in (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tom Seaview, zett, noway2

          a state that has had registration of handguns for decades. It takes place when you purchase, whether from a licensed dealer or a private person. If our experience here is any indicator, then do not expect much from registration, either way.

          No one here has tried to confiscate handguns. It is a minor inconvenience for someone buying a gun, since it requires two trips to the local cop shop. Not really that big of a deal. But, it hasn't stop criminals from having handguns either. Nor has it made solving gun crimes easier.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:41:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not that simple. (0+ / 0-)

            Registration alone won't help so long as there are other states where gun there isn't registration.   Registration combined with universal background checks, ending straw purchases, and enforcing existing laws add up to the kind of comprehensive approach the could work.   That is why a federal solutions is necessary.  And once it's in place, it will take time to have it's real effect.  

            I'd also add in voluntary buy back programs, ammo background checks, limits on personal arsenals (with exceptions for antique guns, etc. for collectors), registration for collector's so they could sell, trade, with less restrictions.  

            The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

            by Back In Blue on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 08:43:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your chances of getting registration remain nil (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper, FrankRose

              It is a non starter.  The door will be slammed in your face every time it is brought up.  There are many gun owners, not just hunters, who do support things like background checks, cracking down on straw purchases, targeting crime, etc.  The problem that keeps coming up is that for some, this is not enough and they continue to demand people's liberties.  The answer to this will always be no.  You can point to as many bodies as you want and the other side can point to even more bodies by other causes, but nobody is demanding the surrender of those liberties.

              The choice remains, work toward real progress to prevent crime, focus on the issues that contribute to and cause the epidemic problems OR continue to try to push a moral issue that is akin to banning abortion and go nowhere.

    •  "Responsible" gun owners should be ready to accept (23+ / 0-)

      limitations on ownership and regulatory needs beyond simple registration, I feel.

      They own weapons.  These things are meant to kill or otherwise hit targets.  They are things, not freedoms.  And, even responsible gun owners have their guns either turned against them or made useless by various situations that otherwise threaten them.

      Dialogue, sure.  But, there's a new bias in town, I feel.

      "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

      by wader on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:51:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  question about bias is if it is useful or is it a (8+ / 0-)

        stumbling block.

        Since you place responsible in quotes (and I may be overreading this; if so i apologize), I have to ask what limitations on ownership would you suggest?  I have seen on this site proposals to ban all weapons with a magazine which would include all guns except single and double barrels and pepperboxes, off the top of my head.  Sometimes, I think some folks don't realize the magnitude of their proposals    

      •  They are things. But the ownership of those things (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2

        are a right.
        Hence, being included in the Bill of Rights.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:24:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  But not without restriction. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SwedishJewfish, Glen The Plumber

          Felons lose their right to possess firearms.  The US has arguably one of the broadest protections for speech in the world but even that is limited.  Limiting what can be possessed and who can posses them already happens now.  Limiting where they can possess them already happens now.  The Constitution provides rights but also mechanisms for determining whose rights get precedence when rights collide. No rights are absolute, all of them come with limitations, the second amendment is no different.

          •  All rights do have restrictions. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            noway2

            I simply don't support more restrictions upon them.

            If you want to discuss expanding one or more of them, I am willing to listen.
            I am not willing to listen to contractions on any of them.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:42:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  The problem with your argument (0+ / 0-)

        is that it implies that you get to define what is reasonable.  By it's very nature anything that is not in agreement with you becomes unreasonable.   Many here have done nothing more than state demands and ultimatums and say that these things are reasonable.  Perhaps to them, but not to others,  And yet we continue to go around and around wondering why we're getting nowhere.  It doesn't matter how many times demands for restrictions are stated, the answer your going to get is no.

    •  "Responsible" gun owners are not responsible (18+ / 0-)

      ... if they allow the LaPierres and the Nugents to be the voices for gun rights in this debate.  Their silence is their complicity.   We all read the polls showing responsible gun owners supporting universal background checks and the like.  But where are those gun owners?  

      The 85% of NRA members who support universal background checks have to resign from the NRA as long as it continues its current extremist course.  They have to stand up and speak in public, demanding more controls.  They have to actually BE responsible, rather than just assuming the title.

      To me, responsibility would include accepting the need for universal liability insurance for guns and ammo.  Recognize the dangerous nature of your weapons and the costs they impose on society.  Be willing to pay those costs yourself, rather than expecting the rest of us to do it for you.  Be willing to declare your guns and let them be tracked, by an insurer if not by government.  Stop taking refuge in paranoid fantasies, and open your eyes to the paranoid reality your guns place the rest of the country in.  You want be thought of as a responsible gun owner?  Show some responsibility.

      Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

      by Dallasdoc on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 05:50:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please (8+ / 0-)

        Its pretty convenient that your definition of responsible are only people that agree with your solutions for gun control.

        To me a responsible firearm owner is one who uses their guns legally and practices proper firearm safety at all times.

        •  That's not enough anymore (16+ / 0-)

          Responsible gun owners in an age like this one have to be advocates for gun ownership that doesn't imperil society.  If they let the extremists advocate for their rights without protest, they are complicit with that extremist agenda.  There are times when you don't seek out politics, it seeks you out.

          Silence = complicity.  No way around it.

          Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

          by Dallasdoc on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:19:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  To me, a responsible gun owner (13+ / 0-)

          does not continue to belong to and support an organization whose priority is NOT about the responsible ownership of guns, but rather the proliferation of them and fueling the profits of  the weapons industry.

          If most of the NRA does not agree with its leadership, then they should resign and form a group that speaks to their principles.  That is the responsible thing to do.  I think this is what Dallasdoc was saying, in large part.

          "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

          by StellaRay on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:22:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your statement can also be read as (0+ / 0-)

            Lets see if we can shame people into opposing the NRA in order to weaken it.  If we can achieve that, then we will finally be able to impose our will upon these people and cram the restrictions we want down their very throats.

            Apparently, CNN reports that as of about two weeks ago, there have been 500,000 new members joining the NRA since the Conn shooting, bringing their total to roughly 4.5 million.

            I am one of those.  I have been a gun owner with a concealed carry permit for a lot longer.  It wasn't until the screaming for gun bans in the wake of that incident that I felt it necessary to add my $35 to that of these other half a million Americans.  My purpose in doing so was nothing more than to oppose and stop the bans by any means necessary.  Background checks, enforcing laws, dealing with societal poverty, and a myriad of other things are and were fine, but no, the Left had to jump into the wacky end of the pool and start screaming for bans.

            •  Bully for you. (0+ / 0-)

              The only "bans" the left is interested in are on assault weapons and munitions, and no apologies for it.  

              You think you need the right to have a weapon of mass murder, and I think I have a right to be free from that threat.  So we'll see where it goes.

              However, make no mistake about it, I find your need to arm yourself to the teeth to be crazy, as you find my need for a more peaceful, less violent society to be "wacky."

              "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

              by StellaRay on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 04:21:08 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  The rogue cop, Dorner, it strikes me that he is (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, Glen The Plumber, mrkvica

        making a statement about a lot more than just the LAPD.

        I read his unredacted manifesto this morning, after having only heard media reports of what was happening (it's up on paste bin). One of his main statements was that none of what he, himself, was doing would be possible with a good AWB, and he commends DiFi for trying to institute it. He talks vehemently about ending mass murders even as he, himself, is shooting people. I think he's trying to do something so visibly terrible, to show that even a responsible gun owner can snap, even someone in the police force who is extremely high-level at that, that it will push for greater gun laws. There's a ton about this in his 11,000 word manifesto. I think he's making an extremely interesting point, as horrific as what he's done is, but I think his enactment of the horrific is quite intentional to specifically say "There's no such thing as a responsible gun owner, see..." and it's pretty evident in his words and actions.

        There is something interesting about the questions he raises about gun ownership and responsibility, law enforcement, racism, and how these are all interconnected. I think he's pushing for a fight to end easy access to guns, in part, through intense provocation.

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:36:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I tip for your ideas (5+ / 0-)

      but I guess I don't know any responsible gun owners because I only see them howling over registration and how it's the first step to a gun grab.

      Get old and do lots of stuff in the process. Half of the fun is trying everything out. --Noddy

      by Debby on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 05:57:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  may I suggest you are not watching all of (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Onomastic, Debby, SwedishJewfish, noway2

        the diaries and comments on Kos if you have not seen any responsible gun owners.  Personally, I do not remember howling over registration and gun grabs but there was a recent full moon.................

        •  I'm talking about (5+ / 0-)

          people I know in real life. I do see a diversity of opinion here and read about it elsewhere but I've only heard howls from people on the ground. It's disheartening.

          Get old and do lots of stuff in the process. Half of the fun is trying everything out. --Noddy

          by Debby on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:55:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it may be an indication of where you live (5+ / 0-)

            I live in a very Red state and find very little sympathy for my POVs here; however this does not trouble me because I don't make the mistake of thinking my current milieu in any way reflects reality beyond its own very narrow boundaries

            •  It probably is. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Onomastic, SwedishJewfish

              I'm in a Red State though they say it's purple but I think that results from the urban/rural divide: blue cities, red countryside. And the red countryside (where I grew up) ideas aren't just limited to my state. The boundaries don't seem that narrow.

              Get old and do lots of stuff in the process. Half of the fun is trying everything out. --Noddy

              by Debby on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:21:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I live in a rural area of a purple state, and I (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Onomastic, SwedishJewfish, Debby, ancblu

                know responsible owners who are in favor of some controls. I think it's a mistake to make sweeping generalizations. That gets us into a lot of political trouble, on the topic of gun control and in general.

                •  The problem lies in the definition of some control (0+ / 0-)

                  One persons reasonable is another persons infringement.  Most reasonable gun owners do recognize the need to regulation.  There is disagreement on where the limit of regulation should be.

                  Someone mention above that they have noticed a shift in the atmosphere here claiming that cooler heads seem to be winning the day.  Perhaps.  I have noticed other shifts too.  

                  In public, the "we will not compromise" crowd is gaining momentum.  NRA enrollment continues to soar.   There are many new members in gun related forums.  More and more people around the water cooler are talking about gun restrictions most of which are opposed to it.  I've seen my non gun owning neighbors get mad about the idea of imposing restrictions and claim that they are going to go get their carry permits before someone tries to outlaw it.  I've seen guns fly off the shelves in record numbers and ammo go all but extinct.  

                  Here at DKos, there are fewer active RKBA members.  No, the antis didn't win.  Most of them left because of the toxicity of the environment here and went elsewhere.  Most are currently lamenting the fact that they see that the Liberal agenda is undoubtedly going to take a back seat for a while because this nation is going to see a hard shift towards the R party in the coming elections.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site