Skip to main content

(Sign the petition asking President Obama to help start a national conversation about gun control.)

I served three years in the U.S. Army. I've fired bigger guns than the gun fetishists would ever dream of firing—from a .45, to an M-16, to an M-60, to an M-203 grenade launcher, to a .50 caliber, to ... one of these:

Multiple Launch Rocket System
Each time I fired one of those weapons, it was in a controlled environment, with multiple layers of safety wrapped in. During peacetime, that made sense. But things weren't too much different during wartime. I didn't deploy, but when pulling guard duty at high-value targets in Germany during the first Gulf War, we weren't given ammunition. A sergeant kept that tightly controlled. Here we were, a potential terrorist target, the most highly trained military force in the world, and they didn't trust us with live ammo. And for good reason.

Down in Kuwait, those on guard duty were given live ammo, but even then safety barriers were erected to prevent accidental shootings, as former cavalry soldier John Cole recounts:

[I]n the middle of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, even with clear Rules of Engagement, every time I went on gate duty, there was a piece of tape over my ammo clip on my M-16 and M1911 .45. Why? Because the most heavily armed military in the world did not want accidental shootings. If a situation arose, I would have to eject my ammo clip, remove the tape, and reinsert and work the action before I could fire.

This was in a combat zone. Yet I have spent the last two fucking days dealing with armchair commandos telling me they need unlimited firepower to be safe in… Connecticut.

And that's the crux of it—a bunch of civilian gun fetishists who fashion themselves the front lines in the defense of freedom from tyranny of something or other. Black helicopters? The U.N.? Barney Frank?
The “tactical” turn is what I want to flag here. It has what I take to be a very specific use-case, but it’s used - liberally - by gun owners outside of the military, outside of law enforcement, outside (if you’ll indulge me) of any conceivable reality-based community: these folks talk in terms of “tactical” weapons, “tactical” scenarios, “tactical applications,” and so on. It’s the lingua franca of gun shops, gun ranges, gun forums, and gun-oriented Youtube videos. (My god, you should see what’s out there on You Tube!) Which begs my question: in precisely which “tactical” scenarios do all of these lunatics imagine that they’re going to use their matte-black, suppressor-fitted, flashlight-ready tactical weapons?
People don't really buy assault rifles to hunt. If you can't take down that deer with a single shot, then you have no business hunting. Learn how to fucking aim.

Of course, we can sit here and lambast this new "tactical" culture all we want, but what can be done about it?

(Continue reading below the fold.)

Both England and Australia enacted bans of varying levels after their own spate of gun massacres, and those efforts have paid off. People aren't getting mass murdered in schools and malls anymore. But those two nations didn't have anything akin the Second Amendment putting a break on controlling access to weaponry. We, on the other hand, have a culture that fetishizes guns, a gun lobby that has effectively neutered any effort at sensible gun laws, and a Supreme Court that has encroached on the right of cities and states to regulate gun access by ignoring the "well regulated" part of the Second Amendment.

But all the past massacres had a fraction of the impact of Friday's. There's is something so viscerally sickening about young children being harmed in any way, that it can't help but be different. There's a coming debate, and it's not going to be good for the gun absolutists. That doesn't mean they'll lose. The gun lobby is strong, and they're about to mount the mother of all defenses. But it means that they'll be put on the spot in a way that they haven't been in ... forever.

Part of it is their own short-sighted greed. If they were an organization truly focused on self-defense and hunting, there'd be no need to fight tooth-and-nail for high-capacity magazines, or for armor-piercing bullets, or for assault rifle ownership. Let people own their hunting rifles and revolvers. People somehow made do with those for several centuries. But there's no need for a weapon with a magazine.

Adam Lanza used an assault rifle to shoot his way past a locked door. He then moved quickly to neutralize the administration office before doing his horrible deeds in two classrooms. He only stopped and turned a gun on himself when police arrived. Take away that rifle, and shooting his way past the front door would've required a reload. Attacking the administration would require a reload. Attacking the two classrooms would require multiple reloads. Those reloads would've been chances for people to try and take him down, or for people to escape. The time he would've spent reloading would've slowed him down, shortening the number of victims in the attack before first-responders arrived on scene.

[Clarification: Lanza clearly had to reload during his attack. I meant the difference between swapping out a 20-30-round magazine, to reloading individual bullets into a revolver or cartridges in a rifle.]

But no, his idiot "survivalist" mother (how'd that work out for her?) had to purchase her small arsenal, to protect herself against phantom threats on her "freedoms"—urged on by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and the gun manufacturers. And instead, she ensured her own untimely doom and that of too many innocents.

So yeah, if I were the benevolent dictator of this country, I'd simply outlaw guns with magazines. That would leave plenty of guns for people to hunt with and defend their homes. As for government tyranny, good luck fighting off government drones with your assault rifle. It hasn't gone so well for Al Qaida, I hear. Might as well stick to the ballot box. I'd also spend a crap-ton of cash on mental health services. But you'll never get rid of dangerously crazy people. You can get rid of ways they can inflict the most harm.

Of course, you have a conservative movement and its NRA friends who think that 20 dead kindergarteners is an acceptable price to pay for their "freedom" to own weapons better suited for highly trained security forces. You have have a conservative movement that would fight to its last breath for those 20 when they were fetuses, but can't bring itself to get outraged once they were born. You have a conservative movement that will now scream about liberals "politicizing a tragedy" to take away their guns—validating every Obama conspiracy theory they've held since Day One of his presidency. As if we'd give a shit about their stupid guns if innocents weren't regularly dying because of them.  

The gun lobby may yet win this battle, but I don't think it's as forgone a conclusion as in the past. There has been a palpable change in the public mood on the issue. And as the political world learned last year—Democrats can win without the gun-fetishists, while Republicans can't afford to cede more ground in white suburbia—where pro-gun control sentiment runs strong. The NRA can't wield the electoral card as strongly as it once did.

And note, every person who comes out in favor of the status quo, who fights sensible regulation, will be fighting for a status quo that gave us the Sandy Hook massacre. There are gun laws that could've prevented or mitigated the damage done. Let them say that the deaths of those children—and the adults who died trying to save them—was an acceptable price to pay for their supposed "freedoms" to wield whatever arsenal they see fit. There are 20 sets of presents in a small Connecticut town that won't be opened this Christmas. Let the NRA and their friends shrug that off.

This time, it won't be the popular—or politically expedient—position to hold.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:40 AM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The Sandy Hook Gun Safety Act (176+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WSComn, TomP, profewalt, commonmass, Miggles, Desert Scientist, cassandracarolina, SME in Seattle, Bob Duck, WisePiper, ktar7582, blueoregon, Mimikatz, athenap, No Exit, JohnGor0, Alice Olson, Jim R, rmonroe, rbird, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, crankypatriot, TheOpinionGuy, crystal eyes, markdd, salamanderempress, MPociask, CroneWit, kurious, NYmom, AlyoshaKaramazov, S F Hippie, means are the ends, blue aardvark, tytalus, karma13612, lirtydies, dewtx, BlueJessamine, tampaedski, elginblt, Chacounne, political junquie, Phil S 33, Jorybu, glitterscale, pixxer, el dorado gal, davehouck, kat68, Sunspots, john07801, Williston Barrett, mkfarkus, thomask, amsterdam, mwm341, dotdash2u, MartyM, misterwade, Mayfly, Siri, MKinTN, Womantrust, blueoasis, sable, Hohenzollern, Silvia Nightshade, artebella, Swamp Cat, Byron from Denver, niteskolar, Mr MadAsHell, SneakySnu, Neither Nor, rb608, DRo, Livvy5, TexasDemocrat, Alexandra Lynch, willyr, angelajean, TomFromNJ, FiredUpInCA, Colorado is the Shiznit, rmabelis, spooks51, cocinero, lmcclatchie, flash123, Marcus Junius Brutus, stone clearing, Avilyn, dejavu, DJ Rix, Chi, Heart of the Rockies, Railfan, msmacgyver, Hayate Yagami, cosmic debris, SanFernandoValleyMom, JustinBinFL, puakev, artmanfromcanuckistan, The Marti, gramofsam1, DBunn, jw1, quill, nicolemm, whaddaya, koosah, TexDem, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, GayHillbilly, sdf, mconvente, devtob, BasharH, jakewaters, RFK Lives, Rumarhazzit, Involuntary Exile, fixxit, sillia, pittie70, Annalize5, Radical Moderate, tardis10, etherealfire, Pescadero Bill, Isaacsdad, webgiant, Nadnerb in NC, Loudoun County Dem, askew, citisven, LaraJones, yawnimawke, Farugia, AnnieR, Churchill, wilderness voice, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan, sethtriggs, sebastianguy99, kl5, bartcopfan, side pocket, Pola Halloween, glendaw271, cashblaster, stevenwag, IreGyre, Gentle Giant, SherriG, VTCC73, schnecke21, mayim, lcrp, belinda ridgewood, Trendar, basket, jacey, Hey338Too, DvCM, Jeff Y, home solar, skybluewater, TheLawnRanger, retLT, zestyann, jayden, sngmama

    Since the only safe gun, is no gun, a ban on all civilian possession of semi-automatic weapons of any type.  Waivers may be considered under certain, extremely tightly regulated circumstances.

    Mental health screenings and background checks for all gun owners and possibly household members. Longer waiting periods and extensive background checks upon purchase of new guns.

    A limit on the number of firearms one person can own. We can discuss what what would be a reasonable limit.

    New taxes, fees, licenses on guns, ammo and accessories to pay for it.

    We can discuss lengths of grace periods for turning in illegal weapons and those in excess of mandated limits as well as compliance with mental health screenings. We can also discuss nature of penalties for non-compliance and enforcement entities.

    What else?

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

    by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:43:28 AM PST

    •  Excellent list. (100+ / 0-)

      I would specifically ad closing the gun show loophole, and requiring background check for ANY transfer of ownership, even to your neighbor or family member.

      Wear it proud. Wear it loud. Outlaw concealed carry. That gun hidden under your coat won't deter shit.

      by WisePiper on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:57:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tag the guns (93+ / 0-)

      like we do auto tags - renewed annually so they have to show they still own the gun and haven't sold it or given it away, require gun transfers between individuals to be done the same as auto ownership.

      In other words, treat gun ownership pretty much the same way we do auto ownership - the purchaser must have a carry permit in order to use a gun, must have someone with a valid carry permit to remove the gun from the sales premises, the gun must be tagged before it leaves the sales premises, and the tag renewed each year, the prospective gun owner must have liability insurance on the gun just as we must have liability insurance on cars, to receive a carry permit the person must take a class and pass a test that includes a demonstration of safe use.

      We already have the auto system in place, tacking the gun system onto it would be simple - the agencies would add guns to their licenses and tags for autos.

      The initial tagging and all would require a temporary agency set up to get as many guns as possible tagged and the people licensed to carry, but once that rush was over, maintaining it would be easy enough.

      Hunters already sight in and inspect their guns before they hunt (good hunters do, anyway), so why not have a gun inspection when they buy their hunting permits?  

      Gun enthusiasts who love competition shooting already have their guns inspected before the competitions, why not make it a more formal inspection?

      We already limit people from acquiring driver's licenses if they don't meet certain criteria, we can do the same for gun licensing and ownership.

      All knowledge is worth having. Check out OctopodiCon to support steampunk learning and fun. Also, on DKos, check out the Itzl Alert Network.

      by Noddy on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:59:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Help out a firearms n00b here... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      absdoggy, rb608, Pescadero Bill

      What -- besides a bolt-action rifle, a really Old West 6-shooter, a derringer or a musket -- isn't "semi-automatic" these days?

      America: still a developing country.

      by here4tehbeer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:05:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't Know, Don't Care (11+ / 0-)

        No civilian should have a gun that fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. Maybe some people can make the argument that they need one for some reason, and we will provide waivers for those people if they can convince a regulatory committee and pass the mandated screenings.

        This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

        by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:12:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Obviously they would make more revolvers. (5+ / 0-)

        And I'm thinking an actual law would define it better.

      •  Most pistols you see are semi-automatic (26+ / 0-)

        Shotguns are not, though they carry 5 rounds in a clip and usually one in the chamber, but require a pump action to reload the round in the chamber.  

        Revolvers have six rounds total, and act on a revolving mechanism for loading the next round--again not semi-automatic technically speaking.  

        There are many hunting weapons that are bolt action, as are many sniper type rifles.  These require manual reloading for each round.  

        The semi-automatic part refers to the mechanism of reload.  In a semi-automatic weapon the expended round is automatically ejected and the next round is automatically loaded into the chamber, there is no action required by the shooter to load the next round.  Magazine can be from 15 rounds in a standard pistol magazine 30 in an extended.  The Bushmaster .223 that is a copycat of the M-16 I used in the military is a gas powered semi-automatic rifle, that has a standard magazine of 30 rounds.  It can have extended magazines of much greater amounts.  

        Knowledge of these terms is important in the gun debate to come, and being able to distinguish between gun type, caliber, mechanisms of reload etc. will help you in that debate as that is what gun enthusiasts often try to trip others up on.

        •  Which Is WHY We Don't Need To Get Into Those (15+ / 0-)

          details. Make it simple. Ban all semi-automatic weapons from civilians unless they get a waiver.

          You want a gun (not necessarily YOU specifically)? Fine, you will make do with bolt action rifles and revolvers, and you will have mental health evaluation if you want to keep it.

          And you will pay taxes and fees etc. to fund the regulation necessary to keep us safe from you and your guns.

          This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

          by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:22:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wrong headed in my opinion (7+ / 0-)

            If you are against guns, fine.  But to so willfully demonstrate your ignorance of their nature makes it far easier for an opponent to disregard you opinion - on the basis of your lack of knowledge of the subject.

            "... the best of us did not return." Viktor Frankl

            by RMeister on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:34:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I Have Enough Knowledge To Know (8+ / 0-)

              That weapons that fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled have no place in the hands of a civilian.

              Period. That's all I need to know.

              This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

              by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:37:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But the police are OK right? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annieli, 43north

                http://www.marionstar.com/...

                CLEVELAND (AP) — Cleveland residents are expressing anger over the minimal information released in the deaths of two people killed in a barrage of 137 bullets fired by Cleveland police.
                •  Strawman (7+ / 0-)

                  We will not stop all gun violence. And police for the most part have the requisite training and supervision to carry these weapons and also are the one's who will be faced with the necessity to have them under certain situaions. Civilians don't, and have no necessity for them.

                  What those police did was wrong, but it's not comparable to a civilian having access to these weapons and you know it.

                  This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                  by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:56:14 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My ASS. Cops have been gunning down (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Boris49

                    civilians and using bullshit "thin blue line" excuses for going on a century now.  Of course, if WHO they're gunning-down is of no consequence to you? TYMMV.

                    As to "the requisite training and supervision".
                    Please.

                    How many shots did Mayor Bloomberg's Police shoot at a man not shooting back?  How many civilians caught a bullet - that the news claimed was from the gunman?

                    "... um, it appears the gunman fired one round... and the civilians were shot by (mumbled) which the NYPD regrets."

                    •  Stay On Topic, Cops Didn't Slaughter 20 Six Year (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Jeff Simpson, wilderness voice

                      Olds.

                      I will not be dissuaded by your strawman bullshit.

                      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                      by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:50:08 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Eleven civilians shot or wounded (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Beetwasher

                      IIRC, though they all survived.  I believe the police were under the impression he was another of the spree nutjobs when he was "only" there to kill one person.

                      Are you against police being heavily armed as well as other people?  You've struck me in your other comments as a gun-possession advocate.

                    •  And exactly how many of those victims (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Beetwasher, wilderness voice

                      of police violence could use their own weapon to fight back?  The myth of "I need my guns in case of GOVERNMENT TYRANNY!!1!!" is a strawman.  No one ever, when confronted with trigger-happy cops, ever gets the last word (or even the first one, really).

                      We need to dispel the notion that one person, no matter how heavily armed, is going to deter a "government invader" of any type.  "Red Dawn" is fiction.

                      Yeah, cops are often in the wrong.  But pulling out your high-powered weapon is only going to get you deader AND given them justification for the shooting in the first place.

                      (aka NobleExperiments). ‎"Those who make a peaceful revolution imposible make a violent revolution inevitable" ~ John F. Kennedy

                      by smrichmond on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:00:24 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My uncle (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Beetwasher, 43north

                        was a Seattle cop for 27 years.  He worked in the Georgetown district, which was a tough place to be.  In his 27 years, he never drew or fired a weapon (and he worked the street, not a desk).  Maybe it helped that he was 6'6" tall and weighed 260 lbs and could pick you up with one hand.

                        On quite a few occasions here in Phoenix, cops have had to shoot someone during the course of a pursuit or crime.  What is interesting (just as in your case with the guy being shot at 137 times) is how few times the felon is actually hit.  And that's by trained officers expecting trouble.  Pistols are notoriously inaccurate beyond about 20-25 feet.  Only on television can you routinely hit someone 100 ft away with one shot while both of you are moving and dodging bullets (see NCIS: Los Angeles for details).  Considering that most gun owners have remarkably little training, how does anyone think they're going to do better than a police officer?

                        rmeister-  After I got back from Vietnam I bought a pistol, thinking I would use it for self defense.  Two years later I sold it to a pawn shop, unfired.  Way too much temptation to use it on myself.  Never owned a gun since, and in 67 years, I've never even been threatened.  I'm more afraid of the jackass that carries one into the local Wal-Mart or Taco Bell.  Too much Rambo there.

                        NancyK-  I applied for the Redmond Police Department when I got back from Vietnam.  One of the questions on the oral exam was "what would you do if someone started to pull a gun on you?".  You flunked if you said, "put your hands up, now".  You don't know the intentions of the person with the gun.  And it's irrelevant if he's a spree shooter or just there for one person.  You shoot him.  You don't have time to psych him out, or decide he's suffering an identity crisis.  Wait that long and you're dead.

                        Smrichmond-  totally agree with you.  If you're really into suicide, pull a gun on a cop.  Or seriously believe that your little arsenal is going to hold off anyone but your neighbor.  When was the last time the government came knocking at the door demanding someone's guns?

                        "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

                        by rwgate on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:28:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Ever watched an expert fire a revolver? (4+ / 0-)

                It can be fired as fast as a semi-automatic pistol, just takes a lot more skill.

                I'm not discounting your opinion, I'm saying I think the attitude you include with it is counter-productive in a political battle.

                "... the best of us did not return." Viktor Frankl

                by RMeister on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:53:53 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I Don't Really Care If You Like My Attitude Or Not (5+ / 0-)

                  If you want to make that argument, guess what? I could just as easily support banning ALL handguns as well. Works for me just fine.

                  This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                  by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:58:35 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm trying to be respectful here (7+ / 0-)

                    Wish you would do the same.

                    I'm saying if there is going to be a protracted political battle on a contentious issue, being purely confrontational is a losing strategy.

                    "... the best of us did not return." Viktor Frankl

                    by RMeister on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:04:56 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No One Said It Was Going To Be Easy (5+ / 0-)

                      All the more reason for us to stake out a hard line position from the get go and while the momentum is on our side.

                      Negotiating 101.

                      I will not be the one negotiating the contours of whatever legislation will come out of this, so my attitude is irrelevant. But I'll tell you this, the defenders of the status quo will get no sympathy and no quarter from me with the body count they are raking up. Respect? Respect is earned and I have none for those who will defend the status quo and stand in the way of progress. Welcome to the internet.

                      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                      by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:09:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Where did I take a position on Gun Control? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Americantrueandblue

                        You are choosing to see things that aren't there.  Just because I know something about firearms doesn't mean I oppose restricting their ownership.

                        "... the best of us did not return." Viktor Frankl

                        by RMeister on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:20:17 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Where Did I Say You Did? (0+ / 0-)

                          This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                          by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:20:55 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It was implicit in your response. (0+ / 0-)

                            RMeister said:

                            I'm trying to be respectful here. Wish you would do the same.
                            Your response:
                            Respect? Respect is earned and I have none for those who will defend the status quo and stand in the way of progress.
                            The implication, intentional or not, is that RMeister was defending the status quo and therefore undeserving of respect.
                    •  No. Wrong. It's time our side took this to the (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Beetwasher, Laconic Lib, The Nose

                      point of being confrontational. What do you think the NRA has been doing for decades? And why do you think they keep winning?

                      You seem to just want to back people into a timid posture going into this upcoming confrontation from the start.

                      To hell with being timid anymore.

                      Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

                      by Pescadero Bill on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:12:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Don't listen to their "counter-productive" (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Beetwasher, Laconic Lib, sukeyna

                    bullshit. It is absolutely productive to suggest drawing lines on the kinds of weapons allowed civilians.

                    Good on ya.

                    Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

                    by Pescadero Bill on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:07:05 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  How does this conflict with what I am saying? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      43north, salamanderempress

                      My point is this:

                      if you want to say I support banning all civilian ownership of guns, then say that.

                      But if you want to talk about handguns, assault rifles, etc.,
                      then know what you are talking about.  Then we can start working on policy.

                      WE expect climate change debate to be informed and well-considered, and that's possibly to fate of the earth.  Why should this be any different.

                      "... the best of us did not return." Viktor Frankl

                      by RMeister on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:14:57 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Yes I have seen experts fire (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Beetwasher, Arenosa

                  a revolver.  That's exactly why I don't want an amateur anywhere near one.  They don't have the skills, and they're more a danger to everyone around them.  How many true experts do you know?  

                  I have a former friend who bought a Glock, which he then proudly showed around the office like it was a new baby.  He did take a course to qualify for a CCP, but that's not even required here in Arizona anymore.  I asked him if he had ever been threatened (he's 45, no military experience).  He related how he was hiking, arrived at the trailhead where the cars were parked, and saw two suspicious looking characters hanging around one of the cars.  Not looking in, just suspicious looking.  He stared them down and then flipped open his jacket so they could see his gun.  He said they took off running.  I suppose I might run too, if some stranger out in the woods showed me his gun like that.  

                  I'm really tired of the gun nuts who think it's their job to protect everyone in range from the bad guys.  What if they think I'm one of the bad guys?

                  "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

                  by rwgate on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:41:58 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I think that what's being said here (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                43north

                is that you have no know the products so you know what to fix.  The firearms market is very fluid.  Customizing your weapon is done easily, at incredibly cheap after-market prices.  The Bushmaster model used by the Newtown shooter has something called "Bump" action.  It makes the firearm nearly automatic.  But it appears to be legal in most states.

                You really have to get into it because if you don't, they will.

                If you really want to know what we are up against, go here:

                http://www.youtube.com/...

                The video is matter-of-factly scary.  Read the nutjob comments, then shake your head and wonder about who we've become.

                •  No, I Don't Need To Get Into It (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Laconic Lib

                  While they are getting lost into their nitty gritty details and trying to derail the conversation, we will ignore them and go around them and pass legislation banning all semi-automatic weapons. Period.

                  This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                  by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:15:33 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Beetwasher, I think most everyone (6+ / 0-)

                    that commented are on the same side.   The reason for understanding what is out there and what is the terminology for such, is that it prevents loopholes in legislation.  For instance, banning semi-automatics might seem like that will cover everything, but then there are speed loaders for revolvers that allow all six rounds to be reloaded very very quickly, effectively making it a six round magazine.  Those details will have to be addressed as well. Also terminology like assault weapons tends to refer to rifles and carbines, but often overlooks pistols etc.  

                    Understanding what is out there helps to prevent people from "legally" working around a loophole that was possibly overlooked for lack of knowledge.  

                    •  And I'm Sure There Will Be Experts Involved (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Jorybu, NancyK, rwgate

                      In crafting the legislation, and those loopholes would be dealt with.

                      I'm not a member of congress or a gun expert, and I don't need to be one to have this conversation and those demanding it of me are doing so for one reason only; to intimidate and disrupt anyone from partaking in the conversation who is NOT a supposed expert.

                      I will not be intimated by them and I don't need to know those details. It's enough for me to know that semi-auto weapons need to banned from civilians and that this would be one effective way to begin limiting gun violence. Period.

                      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                      by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:31:29 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  OK, now tell us 100 times about how. (0+ / 0-)

                    How.  How are you going to go about gathering up these guns?

                    1) buy-back scheme.  Awesome.  300,000 guns come in.
                    2,000,000 are "out there".

                    2) arrest after use, search warrant the residence and business of the person caught with the gun.  10,000 per year?
                    5,000?  1,000?

                    3) Subpoena the records of everyone on the NRA rolls, of every gun publication, and KICK IN THE FUCKING DOOR.
                    Here, let me explain how a "dynamic entry' works:

                    BANG!  ON THE FLOOR ON THE FLOOR LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS STAND UP FROM THAT CHAIR! ON THE FLOOR TASER!!! HE'S NON-COMPLIANT -- GUN!!! BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG... CLEAR!!!

                    Lather, rinse, repeat.  Do what the Israelis do.  Bulldoze the house.  If they don't come out?  TOO FUCKING BAD.

                    Warrants?  Fuck baby, we're not in 1999 any more.  They come pre-printed, with fill-in-the-blank.
                    Somebody get an ID off the body, so I can fill this paperwork out.  We can staple it to the door frame.  I'm good, you good?  Where's the next one.  I love the smell of Napalm in the morning!  Saddle-up, we're outta here.
                    You good with that Beetwasher?  Is that how it should work?  I mean, you're saying GET FORCEFUL and I want to know where the line is.
                    •  No One Said It Would Be Easy (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      salamanderempress

                      But that's no reason we shouldn't try.

                      And yes, if you have an illegal gun, you will have to deal with LE coming to take it away. Damn straight you will.

                      You break the law, you deal with the consequences.

                      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                      by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:57:13 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  but this is true even of a 6 shot revolver n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  An instance, perhaps, of "Know your enemy"? (0+ / 0-)

              In my (admittedly limited) experience, there are few faster ways in which to energize the more moderate members of a given group toward defending the whole than to attack their particular domain with a combination of gusto and ignorance.

              For instance, I have a number of firearm enthusiast acquaintances that took umbrage with the previous iteration of the assault weapon ban. A significant degree of their criticism stemmed not from the actual goal of the ban (which they generally found to be laudable) but rather, from the language of the ban (which they perceived to be have been written from a position of ignorance on the subject of firearms.

              In essence, these are people that fundamentally agree on the position that ownership of assault weapons should be prohibited; and yet they find the very term 'assault weapon' to be insulting.

              Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe it is only to our benefit if we become more knowledgeable about an area we seek to reform and regulate - it strengthens our arguments, it ensures that we are targeting the correct sub-issues, and it prevents us from sounding like agents of moral panic. What, in turn, are the downsides?

        •  I agree that terminology is important. (5+ / 0-)

          In my field, I bristle when "cement" and "concrete" are used interchangeably.  No doubt in the gun world, folks cringe when "clip" is used synonymously with "magazine".

          "It is not, you fucking liberal prick." ..My RW friend Dave's last words to me.

          by rb608 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:40:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  With me, it's somebody "filming" something. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rb608, IreGyre

            No they didn't... they most likely didn't even "tape" something :/

            But hey - everyone understands what's meant even if technically it's wrong.

            America: still a developing country.

            by here4tehbeer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:34:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Now you have me curious. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              here4tehbeer

              If I am using a digital video camera to record an event, what is the industry correct verb for what I'm doing?

              "It is not, you fucking liberal prick." ..My RW friend Dave's last words to me.

              by rb608 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:20:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Video record" is probably the closest right now, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rb608

                or just plain "record" or "recording" (although no one's going to scream if you use the verb "film" or "filming").

                A more accurate term would be "capturing" or "imaging" - but that just takes the romance out of it :)

                America: still a developing country.

                by here4tehbeer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 01:27:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Semi-automatic shotguns are common.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jorybu, Laconic Lib

          However, they don't typically have a magazine, so are limited to 5 - 7 shells.

        •  Actually there are semi-automatic shotguns (10+ / 0-)

          back in my previous life I was an avid gun enthusiast (hunting guns).  I owned a couple of semi-automatic shotguns - a 12ga and a 28ga. Both could hold a maximum of three shells.

          Now here is a thought. They make and sell what is termed a "street sweeper". It's a 12ga short barreled-pistol grip semi-auto with up to a freakin' 50 ROUND CANISTER!!!
          I know a guy who owns one. One of those little right wing tough guy wannabes...

          Think of the carnage something like this could inflict......  

          "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

          by fugwb on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:43:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Is that canister the same thing as a drum? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fugwb

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

            by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:44:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  yes n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Farugia, cany

              "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

              by fugwb on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:16:47 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thank you. Not a gun owner of fluent on terms. It (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fugwb

                really helps people like me when these things are spelled out.

                202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:44:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Actually (19+ / 0-)

          There are a lot of good revolvers out there. Often they are far superior to semi-autos due to their simplicity. Better if you feel you need a gun around the house for basic protection, but aren't willing to take it out and clean it once a month. They are also simpler to learn to clean.

          Anyone who really imagines they are going to get into a fire fight in their home with rampaging hordes of "invaders" wielding multiple fully automatic weapons and whatever else you see in movies needs to step back and take a breath. No matter how many guns you own or how big their manly, manly calibre or long, hard, erect magazines, you're going to lose that fight. Sorry, but you ain't Rambo. And the screenwriters aren't there making sure you win.

          In the real world, a simple .38 or .357 revolver is plenty to deal with most home security issues. Or a pump-action shotgun. The goal is to NOT shoot, (firefights are bad. Sorry to pop your bubble, they just are. No sane person WANTS to get into a fire fight) but to present the possibility of unacceptable loss to the attackers (like being shot). Be calm, be assertive and act like you are willing to shoot. If you are NOT willing to shoot someone (and you better be DAMN sure), never, EVER point a gun at them. They will take it away from you and shoot you with it.

          Too much gun policy in America is set by the rancid paranoia of the gun psychotics. People who have no law enforcement training, no military training and no training whatsoever beyond way too many action movies and hours playing video games. Whiny pathetic losers whose only sense of power comes from imagining just what they are going to do the brown people and liberals when their time comes to make themselves heard.

          •  Right on. Perfectly stated. (4+ / 0-)

            Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

            by Pescadero Bill on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:09:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  excellent (5+ / 0-)

            I own a short barrel 357 for this  very reason.  I keep it loaded with Glazer Safety Slugs (http://en.wikipedia.org/...).  If I ever need to fire more than 3 things have gone really wrong.

            As a soldier I am gone a lot and I worry about my family.  I wanted something for “home defense’ and initially thought of a 410 shotgun.  When I went looking the gun shop dissuaded me.  He pointed out that shotguns are hard to handle indoors and relatively easy to take away compared to a small revolver.  He also pointed me to the safety slugs to prevent accidently shooting through a wall.  A “normal” 357 magnum round will go clean thought the dry wall in your house and your neighbors.  Safety Slugs will put someone down but unless you hit them in the head or heart it wont kill them (at least for an adult).  

            I want the gun laws to change but its important to remember there are LOTS of responsible gun owners and lots of responsible gun store owners/employees.  

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:36:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good point about the shotgun (0+ / 0-)

              And the Glazers. A shotgun is unwieldy in narrow corridors if you need to keep multiple fields of fire or get into close combat, but is good if you are firing down a hallway from a secure position.

              Also the reason I keep a longsword and a long dagger for defense. The longsword is fine in an open room, the knife is for close fighting.

            •  Taurus Judge (0+ / 0-)

              Fires either 45 Colt or .410 shotgun shells.
              Taurus Judge

              -7.38, -5.38 (that's a surprise)

              I lie to myself because I'm the only one who continues to believe me. - Vermin

              by 84thProblem on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:14:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Absolutely. We have shotguns loaded with (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Jorybu, rwgate

            pellets and a handgun that is not auto. We sight the guns once a year and if beyond registering we would gladly do as required. THe only reason we have guns at all is for 2 reasons. Twice in the past I had incidents where someone came into my house while we were sleeping. One was an ongoing harassment of a woman alone with a baby.  Without a gun we were totally at thier mercy... We the shotgun especially we could call out a warning and they vamoosed.

            At one time I hunted and had an 30 aught 6 but since I no longer hunt it is gone to a gun shop.

            I want regulation because then there would be less reason to be fearful of the loons being armed to the teeth and coming to exact revenge for some imagined slight or because they want your stuff even if it means killing you to get it. I will submit to any regulation of my guns. I voluntarily keep my possession of guns limited despite the RW jackasses who speak of having all the guns and a willingness (as many incidences  have shown) to use them. I can only shoot one gun at a time and if there are too many I have already lost despite movies showing heros dodging bullets and taking on armies.

            I think we shouldn't call it gun control but rather gun regulation so that it mirrors the language of the 2nd amendment.

            Fear is the Mind Killer...

            by boophus on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:18:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  thanks for those details - appreciated. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          here4tehbeer, Jorybu

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:04:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Classification of revolvers (0+ / 0-)
          Revolvers have six rounds total, and act on a revolving mechanism for loading the next round--again not semi-automatic technically speaking.
          I don't understand this classification. Why is this not considered semi-automatic?

          After you fire a revolver, isn't it ready to fire again with no further action except pulling the trigger?

          •  yes and no (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            IreGyre, Jorybu, rwgate, 84thProblem

            First it depends if the revolver in question is single action or double action.  A single action pistol requires the hammer to be brought back every time.  A double action does not.

            In the sense that you do not have to load a round every time, a six round revolver is semi-automatic.  But you do have to reload by removing the spent casing.  Semi-automatic has come to refer to guns that eject the casing allowing for “loading again” vice “unload and then load.”

            It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

            by ksuwildkat on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:47:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  there are ways to reload revolvers faster but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jorybu

              it is still a bit slower for most than semi automatic pistols with preloaded clips. It takes practice but a revolver with the right reloading set up can allow all six to be smoothly dropped from the revolver and ready for a loader with six bullets aligned to be inserted all at the same time can be very fast. But again it takes a little more dexterity and an extra step or two plus regular practice to make it close to the speed of practiced shooter replacing clips in a semi-automatic... which needs no manual ejecting after the clip is empty. eject/remove spent clip, insert new loaded clip, chamber round, ready to fire vs. with a revolver: open revolver, drop out the casings, insert 6 bullets using loader, close revolver ready to shoot....

              Pogo & Murphy's Law, every time. Also "Trust but verify" - St. Ronnie (hah...)

              by IreGyre on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:37:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  yup (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jorybu

                I have a speed loader for my pistol and I am pretty well trained on using it.  But compared to how fast I can reload the 9mm I use for work.....

                It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it. Robert E. Lee

                by ksuwildkat on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:43:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Ok - that's basically what I thought, but I wanted (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ssgbryan, Jorybu, mayim, rwgate

          to make sure I fully understood the terminology / definition / mechanics, etc.

          I tend to agree with one of the commenters below: all things considered, if the purpose is truly just basic personal or home defense, I don't know why anyone would not want the simplest, lowest maintenance, most reliable solution. When I was growing up that was a damn baseball bat :/

          Granted, this is a city boy talking. I might have a much different outlook if I lived out in the middle of the boonies.

          Or had been absolutely convinced by the voices inside my head radio that the black guy in the white house was conspiring with the blue helmets in the UN to take away mah stuff.

          Sigh.

          Thanks for the detailed response. It's much appreciated.

          America: still a developing country.

          by here4tehbeer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:11:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Lever-action "cowboy rifles, and shotguns? (0+ / 0-)

          Are manufactured in pump-action, two configurations of double-barrel, single-shot, bolt-action and semi-automatic.

          Some lever-action rifles from decades ago contained as many as 26 rimfire .22 rounds, and as-few as 4 rounds of very stout stuff like .45-70 or .444 Marlin.

          Otherwise, very accurate information!

      •  Lever-action, bolt action, pump action.. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beetwasher, rb608, here4tehbeer

        Revolvers are still being manufactured.

        The dire straits facing America are not due poor people having too much money

        by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:18:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Revolvers, pump action shotguns (11+ / 0-)

        The "Old West" 6-shooter is still perfectly functional, and more reliable than a semi-auto handgun, less apt to jam.  Many cops still carry them for that reason.  Responsibly, if you have a reason to shoot, you're supposed to aim each shot, not just spray the whole countryside.

        •  Exactly. But too many movies (10+ / 0-)

          and video games teach people that the function of a gun is full auto fire or emptying the semi-auto magazine. Full auto is for suppression only. No real soldier ever fires at a target in more than three round bursts and, if he expects to really hit something, he aims and fires one at a time.

          Two well-aimed shots is enough to drop most anyone. Center mass, a hand span apart. If you can't do that you have no excuse owning any gun.

          Years ago, when Amadou Diallo was shot here in New York, standing in the hallway of his apartment, I was simply flabbergasted to read that the cops had fired 40 rounds and hit with only 19 at a range of less than 15 feet. Two cops entirely emptied their magazines. Who trained those bozos? What sane officer empties his magazine at a single target? What competent officer can't hit with every round at that range? At that range I can put six rounds into a space you can cover with a playing card. In about two seconds. And I suck.

          And if supposedly trained, special street crime unit cops can't do it, what makes you think YOU can? And if you can't competently manage a handgun, why in God's name should you be allowed to own a semi-automatic rifle?

          •  Completely agree (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Laconic Lib, ssgbryan, rwgate

            Police training seems to have become awfully militarized lately, too.  They carry tazers and still shoot someone who grabs at them - a recent local case.  

            We didn't have tazers when I was a cop, and we nevertheless didn't shoot all those drunks who grabbed at us.  We were expected to handle the situation, subdue the drunk, and not leave a trail of bodies behind us.

      •  Well, in centerfire calibers.. (0+ / 0-)

        there are a large variety of bolt and lever action rifles that would qualify as not subject to a semi-auto ban. For pistols, you would have revolvers. I feel that a single shot only limit is too broad, as this would also eliminate about 90% of legitimate sporting weapons. I would also suggest that banning semi-auto .22 rim fires might be over broad, since these are very popular with ordinary shooters but not with people intent on these mass casualty events. I also would plead for a little less harsh invective with respect to Adam's mother - it feels a little too raw to me to already be using terms like "idiot", even if true. Flame as you wish.

        Your black cards can make you money, so you hide them when you're able; in the land of milk and honey, you must put them on the table - Steely Dan

        by OrdinaryIowan on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:36:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not to flame, but Adam's mother bears almost as (10+ / 0-)

          much responsibility in this incident as her son.  Perhaps if you live in a house with a son who has what were described as "metal health" issues, you should not indulge your survivalist fantasies or your enthusiasm for shooting sports at the expense of the safety of your community.  

          Parents will always love their children, and if their children happen to suffer from mental illness, they perhaps love them even more, and as much as they wish to protect their children from discrimination or abuse due to their mental disability, there must an appreciation for the potential harm those children could pose to society.  To do any less is to be complicit in whatever actions those children go on to inflict on others.  

          When word of this shooting was first flashed on the media, we all knew who the shooter would be, not by name or identity, but we knew the words that would be used to describe him.  They would be similar to all the others.  

          And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

          by MrJersey on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  She Should Never Have Been Allowed To Have Guns (5+ / 0-)

            She herself should never have passed a MH screening and been allowed to purchase a weapon, from what I can tell.

            Anyone that paranoid should not be allowed to own guns.

            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

            by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:17:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Can't disagree with that.. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beetwasher, jakewaters

            and thank you for your restraint.

            Your black cards can make you money, so you hide them when you're able; in the land of milk and honey, you must put them on the table - Steely Dan

            by OrdinaryIowan on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:22:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  My main problem with (RIP) his mom was (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annieli, ssgbryan, OrdinaryIowan

            that she obviously didn't store her weapons in such a way a child with problems couldn't reach them. He reached them, alright.

            That she either didn't care or didn't see the potential (gosh mom, just look around!) caused enormous calamity and loss of life. That single judgement lapse will change the lives of all those people harmed, including first responders, family and friends forever.

            All because a kid that had no business with a gun had at least four of them.

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

            by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:51:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  There are more type of revolvers than 6-shooters. (4+ / 0-)

        In terms of sales, semi-autos exceed revolver sales.  In terms of revolvers, many different types other than the ones in Western movies.  Probably the best selling of the revolvers are the 5-shot .38 caliber snubnoses.

    •  Mandate an RFID device in every gun (23+ / 0-)

      that cannot be disabled without disabling the gun. Then forbid the carrying of loaded guns in public places.

      This is very doable; the technology is dirt cheap.

      Of course, we should limit the number of times a gun can be fired without reloading--six times sounds about right to me.

      Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

      by Tim DeLaney on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:07:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Awesome idea (12+ / 0-)

        Hell, everybody carries around a GPS in their phone now.  Cars with Nav system has a GPS.

        The government already knows everywhere you go.  Why should any law abiding gun owner care if their gun can be tracked?

        What if a criminal stole your gun?  Wouldn't you want the government to locate the gun electronically so the bad guy couldn't kill somebody with it?

        Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

        by yet another liberal on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:22:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm with you, but RFID has a range of 10s of feet. (0+ / 0-)

        Beyond that your gun needs a battery and basically a cell-phone radio.

        •  There are all sorts of configurations. (0+ / 0-)

          From the link I supplied:

          RFID systems typically come in two configurations. One is a Passive Reader Active Tag (PRAT) system that has a passive reader which only receives radio signals from active tags (battery operated, transmit only). The reception range of a PRAT system reader can be adjusted from 1-2,000 feet.
          Moreover, as technology advances, ARPT systems will undoubtedly be able to extend their range as needed. In any event, being able to tell if a person some tens of feet away is packing heat is surely a plus.

          As others have pointed out, any talented gunsmith could, illegally, and at the risk of a prison sentence, remove or defeat an RFID device. So what? There are also people who can disable emission control devices in order to improve a car's performance. I don't see them as a big problem.

          It took several decades for the anti-smoking folks to make real headway, and I expect this fight to be at least that long. I do not suppose that there are simple pass-one-law-and-it's-fixed solutions. But we must start, no?

          Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

          by Tim DeLaney on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:15:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Only problem (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas, cany, ssgbryan

        is the disable the gun part. Sure the RFID chip is cheap and easy. But a handgun is a very basic mechanical device, No electronics needed. And even if they were, they would be easy to strip out an replace. Until we're using phasers, this idea simply won't be practical.

        But put in the RFID chips, definitely. Just know the competent gun runners will disable the chip ASAP.

      •  Guns are too simple (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pixxer, high uintas

        Any gun can be taken apart completely, usually with only a few tools. Some parts may require fine machining and good metal, but you can build guns that require very little in the way of specialized, hard-to-manufacture parts. Anyone who has a bit of motivation and reasonable skills can take a gun apart and replace any given part with another. Some parts need excellent machine shops to build substitutes, but nowadays even that is something accessible to the general public. There will always be machine shops willing to build parts people need or want. For that matter, for $125 a month I could have access to positively futuristic tools at a local place for me to use without supervision, and if I spent the time to learn about the parts, I could certainly replace any part on some more ordinary guns. Soon, with the spread of CAD/CAM accessible to the general public, having individually machined parts made to aerospace standards will be easy, and probably relatively anonymous.

        And the day after RFID tagged guns go on the market, there will be a hundred YouTube videos up showing you how to deactivate or remove the RFID.

        Cry, the beloved country, these things are not yet at an end.

        by rcbowman on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:22:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am very dismayed at the thought (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beetwasher, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan, sukeyna

          that elementary safety measures should be abandoned because they can be defeated.

          Should we toss away every bulletproof vest because somebody invents Teflon coated rounds? Or shoots for the head?

          If a person possessed a gun whose RFID tag had been removed or defeated, would that not brand him as a criminal? Shouldn't we want to know who the criminals are?

          Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

          by Tim DeLaney on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:52:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Great list, I would add (14+ / 0-)

      requirements of an ATF inspected gun safe for anyone with a legally purchased firearm.  

      Stiff criminal penalties for anyone whose firearm is not locked up and subsequently used in a crime.  

      Requirements to maintain proof of knowledge on use and safety of any firearm owned.  Qualifying on said weapon yearly.  

      The only possible exceptions I could see to a semi-automatc weapon ban, if there were any, would be for active duty military, police and veterans or retired police.  You want bigger guns, you have to serve.

      •  Sure they can keep the weapons... (5+ / 0-)

        but the ammo stays locked up at their base armory, or their police station, or an authorized, licensed and registered shooting range.  No ammo leaves those areas unless it is signed for by someone going on duty who needs it for that shift.  When the shift is over, the ammo is signed back in and accounted for.

        Or they can carry a revolver or something else that is not semi-auto.  

        Personally, I don't think that semi-automatic weapons should be in the hands of ANY civilian, regardless of previous employment or training.  These are weapons of war.   Someone wants a trophy after serving, fine.  But the gun is disabled so that it CANNOT be fired ever again.

        Whatever the cost of our libraries, the price is cheap compared to that of an ignorant nation -- Walter Cronkite

        by stormicats on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:48:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  And the record keeping needs to be better (11+ / 0-)

      No destruction of sales records after some short period of time (I think it's 3 days here in Florida - what is the point?).

      I see others thinking like me and starting to talk about these sorts of restrictions.  I'm beginning to have more hope that this time it is different.

    •  Penalities for Weapons in possession of others (14+ / 0-)

      Significant monetary and/or criminal penalties for the gunowner whose weapon is found in the possession of anyone other than themselves, provided that they have not previously reported the weapon as stolen (and perhaps a limit on how many guns can be "stolen" from one owner before they lose their own license).

    •  Ban all magazines (9+ / 0-)

      Senator Feinstein's proposal is to limit ammunition magazines to 10 rounds. This is wrong. We should ban all magazines. Make them reload after every shot.

      PBO is doing a competent job, but he needs to be more liberal.

      by jimgilliamv2 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:18:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So we ban revolvers, too? (0+ / 0-)

        Single shot is silly. But a ban on magazines over, say 12-15 rounds is reasonable. Just as we put limiters on cars to keep them under 155 mph.

        •  Just curious. Why 12-15 rounds? Why not 6-10, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

          for instance?  Why did YOU chose 12-15?

          202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

          by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:56:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Concealable double-stack magazine weapons (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cany, Laconic Lib

            come in around there.   Essentially he's not giving anything up.

            •  TY. What, exactly, is a double-stack magazine? (0+ / 0-)

              202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

              by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:05:15 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cany

                as with this rifle magazine, double capacity is achieved by alternating rounds rather than stacking them sequentially in a single vertical stack

                yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

                by annieli on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:28:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Thank you. That pretty much does it! Appreciate (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  annieli

                  that.

                  202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                  by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:38:16 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Actually *I'm* not giving up anything (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Beetwasher

              I don't currently own any guns. But, yes, as you note, existing magazines come in that range so why change them? But 30-round extended mags and larger mags for rifles should be outlawed, especially cheaply made 100-round mags.

              If I had my way, I'd ban most "military" style rifles simply because they are the toys of grown up little boys who really can't be trusted with them (if you want to play Army that bad, join the fucking Army). I'd ban rifle mags over 5-6 rounds and handgun mags over 15. I'd ban handgun calibers over 10mm or .40 cal. I'd ban black talon and other "cop killer" bullets. I'd ban laser sights. I'd ban everything that makes guns "cool."

              I'd ban any and all concealed carry. I'd ban open carry without good cause -- and, no, "cause I wanna" isn't good enough. Neither is "freedom!" I'm sorry your penis is so very tiny.

              Hunting rifles? Fine. When you're hunting. Shotguns? Fine when you're hunting or shooting skeet. Handguns? Fine. At the range or in your home in a secure safe.

              Want more than three handguns? Sure. Get a collector license and submit to stricter scrutiny and yearly inventory and justification. Same with rifles.

              No more than two of the same type of weapon, ever. No private arsenals.

              Every gun is licensed and ballistic tested every year. Every gun is kept securely locked up.

              No car trunk sales. If you want to be a gun dealer, you need a brick and mortar shop and submit to monthly inventory checks.

              There's probably more needed, but this seems a good start. Plenty of freedom, but better and needed security.

    •  i would add (6+ / 0-)

      yearly training and safety courses required for gun ownership, with a very steep price for courses that involve ownership of guns that are not automatic or semi-automatic.

    •  A total ban on private sales. (15+ / 0-)

      A total ban on private gun sales.

      Or, if you must have private sales, the state controls the private sale.  You post an ad, somebody wants to buy it, the agency facilitates the sale and takes custody of the gun to transfer it from seller to buyer.  Hell, in my state (Ohio), the state is the only one who can sell liquor.  

      Banning private weapons sales takes a lot of issues out all at once.  Including putting a MASSIVE dent in the guns traveling to Mexico from private US sellers who know damn well they are selling to the drug cartels.  And maybe 80+ will stop lying dead in the streets of Tiajuana every night from gunshot wounds.

    •  I just added this to my Xmas wish list (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beetwasher, jakewaters

      (well if I had one I would - I guess I could slip it onto my kid's list, next to money machine jetpack and moving Disneyland into our backyard)

      Really, though, I can't think of anything better for the Holidays than a picture of Obama sitting on Boehner's lap with a Gun Control Bill from the American people.

    •  I take issue with this: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Americantrueandblue

      "New taxes, fees, licenses on guns, ammo and accessories to pay for it."

      In this way, you are punishing all gun owners and not only preventing them from the purchase of fire arms, but also taxing them exclusively for your proposed changes.

      States already make use of revenue derived from hunting licenses: your average hunter probably contributes 2-3 times more toward wild-life conservation and state park maintenance then your average tax payer.

      Overall, your proposal seems to treat guns in general like a vice; alcohol, cigarettes, etc.  You seem perfectly happy to make sure all of the costs from your proposal are paid exclusively by gun owners, the wide majority of whom have respected this nations gun laws for centuries.

      I am hesitant to support any proposal whereby the author intends to inflict major monetary costs to others while escaping the effects of his proposed changes/taxes entirely.

      My advice to you would be to consult with people who would actually be affected by your proposed ideas and try to at least appear to take their views into consideration.

      •  You Want A Gun? You Will Pay To Keep Us Safe (9+ / 0-)

        From you and your gun.

        Don't like it? Don't buy a gun.

        Guns are worse than any VICE. They are a KILLING DE-VICE, and should be regulated as such.

        This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

        by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:02:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Honestly ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Americantrueandblue

          ... your argument is absurd.

          You use the internet.  I am the federal government.  I am going to tax you an extra $10 a month for using the internet, even though you have always used it in a responsible, non-harmful way, and use that money to start suing the parents of children would download music for free off the internet.  Don't like it? Don't use the internet.

          You drive a car.  I am your car insurance agency.  I am going to increase your monthly payments by $100, even though you are a responsible, accident-free driver, because somewhere, someone crashed into a telephone.  Don't like it?  Don't by a car.

          Shall I continue?

          It is fine to be angry, but you all want to punish people who didn't do anything wrong, while escaping sharing the burden of the costs you say are necessary.  If it is that important, you should be willing to help pay for the costs.

          •  What's Absurd Is Comparing Guns To Internet And (6+ / 0-)

            cars.

            If you don't see the difference, you are blinded by your love for your guns.

            Guns have one purpose, and one purpose only and if you want one, you will pay to keep all of us safe from you and your gun.

            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

            by Beetwasher on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:45:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you own a gun? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Americantrueandblue

              Do you even know anyone that owns a gun?

              Do you know anything about any of the gun control laws that are currently in effect at the state / federal level?

              Have you ever been to a fire arm safety / hunter safety class?

              Do you live in a nice house, in a nice part of town? Do you occasionally see police officers on your street, doing anything besides assigning tickets to motorists?

              Can you think what it would be like to live in a not-so-nice house, in a not-so-nice part of town?  Can you imagine your wife and children living with you in that house?

              The world is not as black and white as you seem to think it is.  Continue to be angry and lash out at all gun owners if you want to, but know that an inability to recognize and identify with the concerns of others is not a strength; it is a weakness.

          •  Unfortunately, yes, all owners would be (6+ / 0-)

            taxed to pay for something someone else may do using their hobby's devices. Just like we are all taxed occasionally for something other people use or do.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:47:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It just strikes me as punitive (0+ / 0-)

              I would argue that the position taken in the article and the proposed petition would have greater weight if the establishment of the new standards and enforcement weren't placed entirely on the backs of gun owners.

              Additionally, if there is any hope in eventually realizing this ideal, it would have a better chance of becoming realized if it didn't appear to be punitively targeting this particular group on multiple fronts (weapon bans, federal registration, etc ... and oh, by the way, your paying for all of it).

              •  It's not punitive at all. The punitive costs are (4+ / 0-)

                what we collectively pay already to investigate and prosecute gun crimes, on top of the costs of burying the dead or healing the wounded. We all pay for that, and if anyone's stake in this should be increasing, it's the companies that manufacture and sell guns. It seems like every gun confiscated is just an opportunity to sell more guns while society absorbs the true of the cost of doing business.

          •  Those examples happen every day (3+ / 0-)

            Car insurance goes up for reasons beyond people's control.  So to health care costs.

            Heck, you even pay more on your PHONE BILL for things like USF

            You haven't though this through

      •  That hunter derives something, often times, too: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        schnecke21

        Food. Food that, were they buying it, would be FAR more expensive than their hunting permit costs.

        202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

        by cany on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:58:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Taxes are not punishment (11+ / 0-)

        This is no different from the fees involved in owning a car.

        You are using right wing talking points.

        Gun owners should have spoken up sooner, it's too late now

      •  By your logic (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Beetwasher

        teetotalers and non-smokers have no standing to propose regulations or taxes to mitigate for the cost to society of the effects of cigarettes and alcohol.

        Taxes are not punishment. Taxes are levied to cover the costs of civilization.

        Although I drink minimally, I recognize that the cost of my bottle of wine has to include taxes. I also expect that the cost of driving a car includes taxes and insurance. If I didn't drive, like many who rely on bicycles and public transportation, I would not have those costs. Guns should be no different.

        "The American people are so used to being told they have freedom and democracy that they've forgotten to check to see if it's still true.." -Commenter on Facebook

        by Arenosa on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:37:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I still disagree (0+ / 0-)

          Taxes are often used by the government to enact a change in the behavior of the populace.

          The argument for introducing them is along the lines you note: paying for the cost to society of whatever you happen to be taxing.  However, the reasons for implementation almost always derive from society wanting to limit the activity being taxed.

          Arguments have been made for everything from more expensive cigarettes, to gasoline, and alcohol.  In each case, those laws attempt to place a burden on the consumption of those products, as a mechanism to curb their overall use.

          There is also a more nuanced difference with the taxes proposed to be levied at gun owners.  Whether with cigarettes, or alcohol, or gasoline consumption, or car insurance, the likelihood that an individual's use of those substances is much more likely to affect society.

          If I drive 50 miles a day to and from work, I will 100% of the time generate C02 and other pollutants.  If I drive a car, sometime in my life, I will probably be involved in an accident.  If I smoke a pack a day, I will probably have non-small cell lung cancer by the time I turn 65.

          In contrast, I will probably go the rest of my life owning a fire arm while not going bat-sh!t crazy and being involved in a killing rampage.  The chances of that happening are infinitesimal, while liver damage to drinkers, lung cancer to smokers, pollution and accidents for car drivers are practically a certainty.

          •  Keyword: "probably" (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beetwasher

            All it would take is one time that someone steals your gun, or a not-so-sane relative or friend gets hold of it while you are transporting it from your gun safe to the shooting range, and your firearm can be used to kill people.

            Are you saying we don't need a change in the behavior of the populace with regard to guns? We do need to limit the activity being taxed when that activity involves ownership of lethal weapons! If taxes result in curbing the overall use of high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons, that's a plus for society.

            "The American people are so used to being told they have freedom and democracy that they've forgotten to check to see if it's still true.." -Commenter on Facebook

            by Arenosa on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:19:35 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Chris Rock came up with the perfect solution (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beetwasher, jakewaters, Arenosa

      $5,000 per bullet. For the roll your own ammo crowd, sell gunpowder for $50,000 per ounce.

    •  Let me point out that many people who are (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beetwasher, Arenosa, mayim

      mentally ill aren't always mentally ill. My depression is biological, but triggered situationally. When I'm not in the throes of depression, you wouldn't know I suffer from it unless I told you.

      And people become mentally ill. So they could be responsible gun owners, no record of any mental illness, and buy a gun after mental health assessment and background check are done, only to fall ill weeks later.

      The mental health part is complex and improbable to regulate/detect. The only way it's practical to factor in is if it shows up in the background check.
      I chose to not have firearms in my home because I had two small sons that antagonised one another to no end. (Fast friends now.) And I am a little timid due to my occassional dance with depression.
      My two dogs and my own considerable bulk and intelligence should be enough to deter anyone who somehow managed to find my house and enter it. If they're armed, hey, help yourself, buddy. There is nothing inorganic in my house worth dying for.

      My friends and family who have firearm hobbies and sports wouldn't like it, but I'd support a ban on all citizen ownership of handguns unless the owner is a member of a sport shooting club. I believe that's what Australia did.

      I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

      by Gentle Giant on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:36:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And Toxology tests (0+ / 0-)

      Paid for by purchaser.

  •  Well said. Thank you. (26+ / 0-)

    "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it." Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by pvasileff on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:45:25 AM PST

    •  and some folk want NO legislation, ever. (13+ / 0-)

      So there's a lot to talk about.

      •  Too bad for them. At this point (12+ / 0-)

        it is clear that the problem is beyond talk. Anyone who still thinks there's anything to "talk" about is beyond reason. We need legislation to stem the tides of insanity in this country.

        We aren't going to be able to fix the real problem any time soon (that is, the absolute insanity that characterizes our whole national way of doing business). What we need is legislation that reduces the likelihood that these multiple forms of insanity can find expression in the slaughter of innocents--even the "not so innocents", frankly.

        Stop the slaughter/s. Period. Barring that, reduce the likelihood and/or severity of the slaughter.

        They say the country was "divided" entering this election. Well, the "majority" won. So, let's get a goddamned referendum out there--I venture to bet that the MAJORITY in this country would sign on for legislation.

        I'm tired of the "tyranny of the loudest", or the richest, or the ones with the biggest lobby, whoever can make it look like they've got the "biggest guns" (pun intended). whatthefuckever.

      •  and the best way... (8+ / 0-)

        ...to gaurantee no legislation is to talk it to death.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:15:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You're absolutely right, grump!!! (6+ / 0-)

      Conversation = Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah....etc.

      Legislation = YOU MAY NOT!!!

      'Nuff said....

      Dream on, dream about the world we’re gonna live in one fine day…

      Liberal = We're all in this together
      Conservative = Every man for himself
      Who you gonna call?

      •  you know, that's the shits about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssgbryan

        "democracy", especially when "democracy" is founded on the less-than-perfect model of "majority rules": sometimes you end up in the minority, and waaaaah waaaah waaah, you don't get what you want.

        There should be a straight-up referendum: people's vote.

        The original foundation for America's democracy (the Iroquois League of Nations) was a consensus-based system--that means, everyone comes to the table to talk, talk, talk, until a compromise is reached that everyone can live with.

        The founding fathers did NOT adopt that portion of the League's system of governance. We have straight-up "majority rules." Unfortunately (or fortunately) according to this system, it is possible to end up with 49% of the people being very unhappy about the result. But. That is the system we have.

        And I personally believe that the MAJORITY in this country would prefer NOT to have guns. Period.

        So let's put it to the test.

    •  There is a petition to introduce legislation (9+ / 0-)

      at the Whitehouse Petition page. It already has over 140,000 signatures.

      https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/...

    •  petitions don't matter, elections do n/t (4+ / 0-)

      big badda boom : GRB 090423

      by squarewheel on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:22:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  which is why I think we need a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        referendum to be voted on nationally.

        Of course, the wording of said referendum would be another thing that would have to be "talked to death", but, really, until we have a clear statement of the MAJORITY position on gun legislation, we got nothing to talk about as far as I'm concerned.

      •  BS, short of taking to the streets (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gramofsam1, jakewaters

        this petition is a very effective way to get the message across that our citizens are fed up with living in a country where this kind of utterly senseless violence occurs.

        When will people understand that elections are not as important as action.  Elections only happen every two years and in this past election important topics like gun control weren't even on the table.

        If we are not willing to speak up for our beliefs in-between elections, how can we think that elections will reflect our voices?

    •  Listen to whom? (12+ / 0-)

      You know what pisses me off?  I know this is wrong, but after Friday, I simply do not care what the fuck right-wing nut jobs have to say.  This is coming from anger, and is not appropriate, but really, do we need assholes around the table who've spent the past four (or twenty) years shitting on it?  At what point do people who have been actively trying to delegitimatize our President and progressive thinking in general finally get ignored and shut out of the conversation?

      •  Personally, I don't 'even believe in this (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mconvente, ssgbryan

        form of democracy--that is, in the "majority rules" form of democracy, precisely because it leaves open the possibility for a discontented near-majority (i.e., 49% vs 51%). But the fact is, it is the system we have. The founding fathers did not adopt a consensus-based system--they adopted "majority rules."

        The right-wing nut jobs are NOT the majority in this country. So yeah, it's time to tell them to suck up and live with the system we have. That's not inappropriate: it's what we "signed up" for.

        Majority rules. Period. If the majority wants legislation regulating, or banning--the majority may even want a constitutional amendment canceling out the Second--then that's what needs to happen.

        "Conversation" is what you get with a consensus-based system. We don't have that system.

        •  But what happens is the majority doesn't want it? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grumpelstillchen, high uintas

          If you put it to a vote, do you think the majority would vote to get rid of the 2A?

          •  If the majority doesn't, then the rest (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ssgbryan

            of us have to STFU and work on solving the issue in alternative ways--starting best, imo, with working on the underlying CAUSES (like, gee, ever wonder whether it's the fact that we have so many guns, or that our whole way of life in this country is so fucked up that it makes people do crazy shit they might not otherwise do?? and on and on).

            As I said, I personally am NOT a fan of this straight up majority rules system--precisely because, until 2008, I have NEVER been in the majority in a presidential election. "My" guy has never won. Not until now.

            It has been horrific to watch my country--one that I love deeply--engage in a cultural, social, political, even physical (as in infrastructure, environment) decline based on the views, votes, policies, etc.  of a "majority" with which I have very little in common. A majority that I most often vehemently OPPOSE.

            That is the price you pay for this system of democracy: if the majority is opposed to gun legislation and regulation, then we who are for it must find other means of addressing the issue.

            But the first thing we need to determine is where the majority actually stands. That can't happen through random polling, surveys, even elections--unless the referendum speaks specifically to that issue. It certainly would have to be a referendum that stands alone--not one of seventy goddamn things you're supposed to be informed enough to vote on. Single-issue referendum. The issue is divisive enough in this country, and significant enough, that it merits an election of its own.

            I don't think the first step should be a referendum on changing the 2nd Amendment. Um, that would not be productive--it would cost lots of money, lots of hot air, fighting, talk talk talk , and would go nowhere.

            Referendum would have to begin with: Do you support stricter regulations of gun ownership, sales, manufacture,  licensing and [whatever]....?

            I don't know what the specific language would have to be, but I certainly would not go after the second amendment on first run, if ever.

            If a majority said "Yes", then you'd have to start working out the details, but at least then you would know: Yes, or no. And you could then assume your "rightful" position in the woeful construct of straight-up democracy: you are either in the majority or in the minority.

            And that's what you get to live with.

            To me, it seems we cannot even talk about talking about gun legislation in this country until we know exactly how many people are for it and how many against it.

  •  we can't loose sight of the racism behind (63+ / 0-)

    the paranoid gun fetishists (and there are a lot of them):

    But it doesn't take much time reading through conservative websites to see what actually drives the desperate need to own high-priced killing machines. There is a vast, festering paranoia in conservative circles about the "looters" and "parasites" coming to take their hard-earned material possessions in the supposed coming debt-fueled collapse of society. There is continual worry about some dark-skinned assailant attempting to enter their home and potentially steal their property. Radio shock jocks react to stories about carjacking by demanding that more people carry guns in order to litter the streets with more "dead urban thugs." There are large segments of the population that want nothing more than to eliminate subsidies to the poor and then await the desperate masses who will supposedly come to their doorstep with a lead welcome. Ron Paul and Alex Jones' legions of followers have been told to "defend your supplies from those who refused to prepare" for the supposed riots coming when EBT cards are canceled. It's doesn't take much investigation of conservative media consumer attitudes to discover that these sentiments are shockingly widespread.
    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/...
  •  Thank you. You've clearly and precisely (15+ / 0-)

    nailed the points that the gun fetishists absolutely must address.

  •  I am prepared for more crap along the lines (44+ / 0-)

    of Gohmert and Huckabee before this is all over. Really offensive, ridiculous garbage, given "equal time" by the media because, you know, "both sides" deserve to be heard.

    Maybe that's a good thing. I think there is a strong possibility that even some gun enthusiasts are going to be put off by the obvious (and truly tasteless) straw-grabbing about to be undertaken by the apologists for mass murder.

    Get your goddamned guns out of my church. This means you.

    by commonmass on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:47:08 AM PST

  •  It's Time NBC/MSNBC Lifts Their Ban (36+ / 0-)

    You have both the military and liberal bona fides to lend one of the most credible voices to the national discussion happening and yet to come.

  •  let the debate be about violence, not guns (18+ / 0-)

    fulfilling every "gun grabber" stereotype held by the militiaheads ain't gonna get us anywhere.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    so howzabout we choose our battles wisely and instead of inciting the entire wingnutosphere, we use this opening of dialogue to push the progressive policy solutions we all agree on that everyone knows help alleviate violence, like ending poverty, providing better education, etc.

    Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

    by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:47:39 AM PST

    •  exactly, it's still about health care writ large (15+ / 0-)
      So yeah, if I were the benevolent dictator of this country, I'd simply outlaw guns with magazines. That would leave plenty of guns for people to hunt with and defend their homes. As for government tyranny, good luck fighting off government drones with your assault rifle. It hasn't gone so well for Al Qaida, I hear. Might as well stick to the ballot box. I'd also spend a crap-ton of cash on mental health services. But you'll never get rid of dangerously crazy people. You can get rid of ways they can inflict the most harm.

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:49:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So (5+ / 0-)

      Start by an executive order banning the sale and manufacture of the ammunition used by semi automatic weapons, then a sale limit the number of primers to 10 a month. Nobody is grabbing their precious guns..Just limiting ammunition.

      Do something...marinedefenders.com

      by profewalt on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:54:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We're only talking about changing the (15+ / 0-)

        definition of Destructive Device.

        Once we accepted that the Federal Government could regulate how long a shotgun had to be, this ship sailed.

        That was 80 years ago next year.  

        If they can regulate fully automatic weapons to a degree that means 98% of us can't get one, they can do the same with weapons with removable magazines.

        Settled law, if we didn't have people on the bench with flatly malign intent.

        This place needs a PVP server.

        by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:04:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Correct (8+ / 0-)

        I don't think we can have a conservation going forward without reflecting on what the conversation has been to date:

        - guns are a bulwark against social collapse (implying social collapse), in one of two overlapping and contradictory forms: (1) the government loses its monopoly on law enforcement; (2) the government takes your guns.

        - these have at their root an extremely antisocial group that the people who are sufficiently privileged to own guns can defend by force their claim on power and privilege.

        - attempts to change the conversation have also been derailed in a number of ways, not just in the Supreme Court, but by claiming that it's an electoral loser, as if that means it should never be discussed; ahistorical appeals; or accusations of racism on the part of the gun control supporters.  Each collapses of its own weight.  (1) If gun control is an electoral loser, than the mere perception that a candidate favors gun control would cost the election.  Didn't happen with Obama twice.  (2) If the vision of the Second Amendment is to provide a check on the government, why can individuals own Apache Helicopters?  Owning assault rifles, in other words, is insufficient.  (3) If dispersed, unregulated ownership is to be a check on the federal government, by what right can you claim David Koresh didn't speak for you.  You have to believe that the Second Amendment negates the entire idea of a federal government that retains the power to equip a standing army.  (4) If it's about crime prevention, explain how it is that, gun deaths increase at a logarithmically greater rate than the declines in property crime relative to other industrialized countries.  (5) If opponents of gun control really want to bring up race, they need to explain how it is that James Madison had the interests of black people higher on his list of priorities than the CBC.

        I think the conversation about guns we've had to date is exactly the conversation we've had about everything else in this country, where the dominant voice is "fuck you, I've got mine."

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:26:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  kos, I've said many times (0+ / 0-)

        that I support the 2nd along with all the other rights that are left still intact. I agree that those people who are into survivalist weapon worship have pushed the envelope way too far and need to be reeled in. I don't have guns and rely on those who have the info to tell me what can be done.

        But it seems to me that the Supreme Court that we have now are bound and determined to ignore reality and will widen the definition of what is allowed even more if given the chance.

        My concern is that whatever laws are written they can pass SCOTUS' definitions.

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:47:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  What is your proposal (25+ / 0-)

      for what should be done between now and the time poverty is eradicated and the education system optimized? And why are you afraid to "incite" the wingnutosphere? They hardly require incitement, and they are not the people whose opinions those of us in the reality based community should be trying to reach. I'm not even thinking about what wingnuts want or how they will react.

      It is mystifying to me why anyone's reaction to Friday's atrocity would be to worry about what the wingnuts might think.

      •  why fight an uphill battle? (5+ / 0-)

        why not take the fight to safer ground, where the NRA won't be marshaling millions and going full-court press with the lobbying?

        i am not "afraid" of inciting the wingnutosphere; this is about strategy.  why divide the left when all we agree on those social policy prescriptions?

        fighting poverty yields near-immediate results, as does investing in education.

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:02:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because all battles in this area are uphill (15+ / 0-)

          Not fighting an uphill battle = not showing up = enabling the next Sandy Hook. Not acceptable.

          And if you don't think the NRA is going to be marshalling millions and going all-out with lobbying in the next weeks and months, whether or not we do anything, you're deranged.

        •  They're doing that already (8+ / 0-)

          regardless of what we do. I really don't understand what you are suggesting. Should legislation to reinstate the assault weapons ban (which was already ridiculously lenient) not be brought forward by Senator Feinstein as is the plan? Should progressives not advocate for it's passage? Should we not contact our legislators to register our approval or disapproval based on that person's position?

          There's nothing we can do or say that will affect what the NRA does. They are who they are and will never change. All we can try to do is marshall our forces. There's no such thing as a downhill battle. That's why it's called a battle.

          Chewing gum and walking are not mutually exclusive pursuits. They can be done in tandem. Focusing on poverty (very few spree shooters are impoverished by the way, do you know that?) seems so tangentially related to the pressing need for gun control reform as to seem to be calculated to obfuscate and delay. Which I'm sure can't possibly be your intention, leaving me without a clue as to what your intentions can possibly be.

        •  Safer ground? (8+ / 0-)

          Since when is fighting poverty and supporting education ever been easy?  Have you not been paying attention to the all out assault on teachers, school funding, school lunch programs, head start, food stamps, etc., etc.?

          I don't think there are as many on the left who would not be in favor of reasonable, productive, gun regulations as you think.  

          I'm still waiting for one reasonable reason for anyone to own an assault weapon.  

          Oh, and we should be fighting poverty and funding education regardless.

          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 Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:14:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  because it's a much tougher sell for the GOP (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy

            even before clackamas and sandy hook, public opinion was heavily in favor of things like health care, safety net programs and even education.

            since sandy hook, the palpable shift in the (gun) violence debate has made it so congress doing nothing really kinda isn't an option.

            so, if congress must legislate in response, which makes the most sense:

            a) pursue social policy prescriptions that are already popular and would unite the left in the fight while not agitating the NRA types

            b) pursue gun control laws that would galvanize the crazies in a new york minute while splitting the left

            presenting these progressive social policies as the antidote to (gun) violence, brings a whole new dimension to the debate.  but i'm repeating myself.  i said all of this in the diary i linked originally.

            Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

            by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:28:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, I read your diary. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Laconic Lib

              Rational, yes.  But I don't agree that "health care, safety net programs, and even education" are going to be significantly less of a battle.  Nor do I think the baggers will change their tune.  When I see Sarah Palin or any other gun-toting GOPer come to the table, maybe there's a chance.

              Until then, this is an opportunity we may not (and certainly have every last hope not) have again. People want to see something concrete, definitely tied to gun violence. Not something that may work over a generation.  I've got two kids in school.  Sorry, but I put their lives over anyone's 2nd amendment rights.  I want all options and remedies on the table and acted upon and won't rest.  I've already written to my congress critters, the president, signed petitions, contact local and state government and as a board member on my town's teen center, I'm working with the schools, town government, and police to amp up security at our school and even on our buses.  Believe me, the mom's in my republican town are on a rampage.  I believe we have the moment we need to make progress on all fronts.  

              So where do you stand, personally on high capacity magazines and assault weapons?  I'm still waiting for a legitimate answer from anyone as to why they can't or shouldn't be banned again and you're one of the most reasonable RKBA'ers I know so I honestly would like to know what you think.  

              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 Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:23:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i think cracking down on internet ammo sales (0+ / 0-)

                is totally doable.  limiting clips to 20.

                renewing the AWB is all well and good, but it would only preclude new purchases. and the fight over it would make health care reform look like a church picnic.

                the agencies currently tasked with supervising gun sales and what not need proper funding and tools to better keep guns out of the wrong hands, i.e., better enforcement of already existing oversight.

                in the end, the 2nd still exists.  unless it is repealed, there will always be limits on limiting gun ownership.  

                which is why i think we ought to be striking while the iron is hot to push social programs as the solution to the (gun) violence problem, because the nexus between poverty, education, and violence is well established.

                it's one hell of a sticky wicket.

                peace

                Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

                by Cedwyn on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 07:05:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  This just isn't true Cedwyn: (9+ / 0-)
          fighting poverty yields near-immediate results, as does investing in education.
          Emphasis added.

          With all the good will in the world, if red America and blue America against all odds acted as one, if 90% of the defense budget were redeployed into education, fighting poverty, enhancing the safety net...

          changing the American gun culture, eradicating the violence in the American soul, is still a matter of generations, not years.

          You know we don't have that sort of time.

          Restricting access to weapons and ammunition whose primary use is to kill a lot of people very very quickly can be accomplished in 2013. We need to act on this NOW, while the national mood has briefly changed.

          When an asshole like Joe Scarborough is open to restricting certain weapons, it's clear that we have an opportunity to accomplish real change that may never come again.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:36:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What does poverty or education have to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ginger1

          do with what happened in Newtown? Nothing.

          The only strategy in your comments is to divert attention and focus from the issue at hand. Guns, the sick and false glorification of their use and the illness of our societies relationship to them.

          Because an open defense of the status quo gun and ammo regulation is so grotesque and offensive at this point the most ardent and valiant "defenders of the 2nd" dare not expose their petty insecurities in the wake of 20 slaughtered kindergarteners.

    •  What!!! (7+ / 0-)
      howzabout we choose our battles wisely
      We're LIBERALS, damnit. LIBERALS!!!

      ( Snark should be evident, but I'm gonna tag anyway. Folks are tense around here.)

    •  Here's how I see it--the pro gun lobby has (18+ / 0-)

      consistently pushed for laws that make it all too easy for violent criminals and mentally disturbed individuals to get their hands on guns. As a mother, I feel like my children's right to live trumps their right to own an assault weapon.

      •  but if we have fewer violent criminals (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fuzzyguy, just another vet, tonyahky

        and fewer mentally disturbed people, isn't the same end result achieved?

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:30:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Improved mental healthcare is a very important (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cedwyn, webgiant, schnecke21

          goal in reducing violence in society overall. But we are having an epidemic of violence right now.

          Creating a mental healthcare system that is capable of providing appropriate care to everyone who needs it will take years to build. Not only do we need to train more professionals to work in the field, we need to build more facilities and most of all, conduct more research in order to give the mentally ill the kind of help they need and deserve.

          One problem many people don't talk about in regard to caring for the mentally ill is the lack of residential care facilities--and the fact that the facilities we do have are very poorly run, to the point of being abusive toward mentally ill and disabled persons. I read somewhere that 85% of all developmentally disabled females in residential care facilities will end up being sexually abused within two years.  Reports of other types of abuse and neglect are rampant. This is totally unacceptable, and in order to create a system that can properly care for those who may need residential care, this issue must be addressed.

          In addition, there is a real lack of outpatient services available as well. In too many instances, providers have to rely on pharmaceuticals in order to treat their patients, without be able to provide other types of desperately needed care, such as behavioral or occupational therapy, etc. (I have dealt with this as a parent of an autistic child.) For some patients, these types of therapies may provide much better outcomes than drugs alone. In some cases, therapy works better than drugs. But these kinds of services are expensive and time consuming, and many insurers don't want to pay for them. Medicaid cuts have resulted in reductions to these types of therapies as well.

          I am a strong proponent of building a better mental health care system--it is something that would benefit many, many families like my own. But we need to deal with the problem at hand--and keeping guns out of the hands of those who are mentally ill is the best, most concrete step with can take right now--especially assault weapons.

        •  This doesn't have to be an either/or thing (6+ / 0-)

          Yes, there are other good things, but assault weapons are a national menace.  Always have been and always will be if they remain around.  This is the one window we've ever had to stop them.  Yeah, it's still not a slam dunk (which is sad), but it absolutely must be tried.

          Not to mention that dangerous and unnecessary guns are an obvious and easily understood direct cause of this massacre and all of the others.  The more attenuated you get, the more you lose people.  So gun control may actually be the easier sell right now.

          Finally, what is this divided left of which you speak?  Joe EFFING Manchin--the guy who actually shot a piece of legislation in a campaign ad--was on Scarborough this morning saying gun control had to happen.  No division on this side of the fence that I can see.  

          Meanwhile, by pushing ahead, we can divide the right on guns the same way we divided them on women's rights and abortion--pitting the quasi-realists against the absolutists.

          Nate Silver is to Joe Scarborough as Billy Beane is to Grady Fuson

          by Superribbie on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:50:42 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  need them all. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryduck, tonyahky, ssgbryan, Laconic Lib

          better mental health & more sane gun laws.

          and a more equitable society.

          An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

          by mightymouse on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:21:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Although I understand your point, why not ? (7+ / 0-)

      At some point we need to confront the wingnuts on their bizarre gun fettish.  

      I wonder if members of our miliatary ( like Kos has done here)  could do a service to this discussion by sharing safety protocols that are used in the miliatary ?  It might give legitimacy to the discussion of regulation of certain types of weapons and protocols to ensure safety.  For example no argues that is OK for private citizens to own tanks,  missles, etc.  Shouldn't semi-automatic rifles qualify ?   I think we need the discussion to be led by credible folks who are knowlegable about weapons, guns, and they are used safely. Although  I support gun control, I recognize I dont have much credibility because I choose not to own a gun.

      Me, I tried target shooting .  I stink, mostly due to poor eye sight.  I know better than to ever have a gun in my house, because I would be much more effective with a baseball bat.

      "Life is short, our work lasts longer" Rose Wilder Lane

      by HarpLady on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:13:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  eh, they're being confronted (0+ / 0-)

        the public is very much losing patience for the NRA's "let's arm every schoolteacher" type of solutions.

        something clearly has to give.  my point is that it's a lot more fun to pit gun control against social programs shown to alleviate violence and give the GOP a real sophie's choice.

        how on earth are they going to say with a straight face that we can't fund education to help eradicate poverty and violence because, um, well, Susan Rice and freedom and...yeah!  

        and i triple-dog dare them to do nothing at all.  

        Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say - Grateful Dead

        by Cedwyn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:40:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You must be joking. (0+ / 0-)

          You think their gun advocacy will trump their economic proscriptions. Not in a million years. Like every other plurality of social fringe extremists, from religious fundamentalists, homophobes, zenophobes, mysogenists they coopt, the Republican party simply targets and exploits those specific fears to goad people into a singular economic goal. And that includes and exacerbates the insecurities of gun culturists. It is a tool that will be cast aside the moment it is no longer politically expedient. And your suggestion is that Democrats mimic the Republicans in their approach to gun control. Wrong wrong wrong.
          The only legitimate strategy is to be right on the issue and move forward. Right on the issue is more effective gun control. It's that simple.

      •  I can do that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mayim

        I spent 25 years in the Army, and I have NEVER felt the need to have a weapon in the house.  I am very, very familiar with what a pistol or rifle can do.

        People who need military grade weaponry suffer from LPS:

        Little Penis Syndrome

        And nothing more.  And nothing they day is going to change my view of them - they are nothing more than balless wonders who are trying to compensate for their general lack of manliness.

        General Army Procedures (YAPMV - Your Army Post May Vary)

        Weapons are kept in the Arms Room - It has a solid metal door, multiple locks, multiple walls, no windows or any way of easy entrance.

        Weapons are kept in Arms Racks - every weapon is locked down.  The locks are specialized - very difficult to cut.

        The Arms room is alarmed to the Provost Marshall - any alarm is met by a shit-load of heavily armed MPs.

        Access to the Arms room is limited.  The Unit Armorer is background checked to a very high degree.

        Inventories are done repeatedly - ANY time a weapon isn't accounted for, in the Army at least - THE AREA IS SHUT DOWN - NO ONE IN - NO ONE OUT.  Whatever your mission was, is now FIND THAT WEAPON.  You ain't goin' home, to chow, to the bathroom until that weapon is found.  The moran that lost the weapon is looking at UCMJ action.

        (Folks that have been in the military will see the humor in this:

        In one of the units I belonged to, the Armorer had a "bad attitude" and was leaving the military.  Over the course of a year, he had ordered enough spare parts to build an M-16A2.  When he left the Army - he put the weapon in one of the racks.  

        For civilians - this means there was an extra, unaccounted for weapon in the arms room.  Chaos and multiple investigations ensued.)

        Can't draw a weapon without YOUR weapons card.  Your weapons card can be taken from you at any time, if your unit leadership thinks there is even the SLIGHTEST RISK that you might decide to take out that "25-meter target in the tower".  

        Can't take weapons to your room - only into the dayroom (Where we set up cleaning stations after weapons firing.)

        No ammunition is kept in the Arms room.  Ammunition is kept at the ASP (Ammunition Supply Point)

        ASP:

        Unit orders it's ammunition in advance.  Each unit has a limited amount of ammunition.

        When I would go to pick up ammo - I had to sign for and account for every last bit of it.  God help me if I lost any of it - because I would be handing in my stripes if I didn't.

        If I signed for 100 rounds - I had to account for and return all expended brass and any unfired rounds.  Which is why at the range, we expend all ammunition - it is easier to turn in brass than unfired bullets (more work for the ASP to repack everything).

    •  I don't know that would alleviate violence. (0+ / 0-)

      I think they are good in and of themselves, but ending violence?  

      One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

      by Inland on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:40:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Tough (6+ / 0-)

      You're no better than any other gun apologist spewing their crap in the aftermath of this crime.

      Of course we need to address societal ills, including poverty, joblessness, and health care; especially mental health care. No one is arguing that.  

      But every nation on this planet has jobless people, mentally ill people, hopeless people.  Funny thing is, virtually no other nation has our rate of gun violence.

      Guns are the problem, and the time is long overdue to deal with them.

      You and your fellow RKBA members can try to deflect and obfuscate until you're blue in the face.  I don't think it's going to work this time.

    •  If we chose our battles "wisely" on say gay (6+ / 0-)

      marriage like some said in 2002, where would we be today? We get shit done by getting in people's faces.

      If we happen to insult a few gun nuts because we are angry about the obscene violence, then I am all for it.  And no, I am not labeling all gun owners as gun nuts, but I hope that this latest tragedy will help some who had leaned towards the more  absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment take a hard look at their own views on this.

      Sandy Hook demonstrates at an emotional level how fucked up to the very core the gun culture in this country is.  Progressives have ceded ground on this for way too long.  What has happened to gun rights over the past 30 years is IN NO WAY progressive.  Libertarian or anarchist, maybe.  Anyways, in the process of finally addressing this, a bit of name calling may happen.  But that's how things get done in this country.  

    •  Could the nation live with a law like the one in (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ssgbryan, schnecke21, mayim

      NJ where military style assault weapons are prohibited, a NJ firearms ID is needed for the purchase of long arms, an ID issued after fingerprints and a background check, and a special permit is needed to purchase a handgun, a permit that is issued by your local police chief who presumably knows the background and situation of the purchaser.  In the event of a child with mental health issues in the home, a permit would probably not be issued.  

      Some of the gun violence in NJ does indeed happen with legal purchased firearms, but a good deal of it is with weapons bought in straw purchases from other states, especially Pennsylvania and Virginia and brought into the state and sold illegally.  If you have adjoining states with very weak handgun laws and do not have arms inspections at the state's borders, illegal weapons come up the Jersey Turnpike every day.  

      And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

      by MrJersey on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:42:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah it's certainly not about political (0+ / 0-)

      affiliation. It's about deception, arrogance, stupidity and fear mongering on the issue of gun control.

  •  They worry about Obama's 'Police State', and yet (53+ / 0-)

    One of their 'solutions' is that armed guards/police be placed in schools, government buildings, public places..... sounds like a police state to me.

    To protect us against the 'bad guys', who most of the time just happened to be 'good guy' honest gun owners, right until the second they pulled the trigger.

    "Marco Rubio es un pañuelo Rosa!" - Montgomery Burns

    by Fordmandalay on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:47:56 AM PST

  •  Remember, you can't spell "Freedom..." (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, No Exit, TheLawnRanger, TKO333

    without "dumb."

  •  when someone brings up Switzerland (33+ / 0-)

    and the Assault Rifle if every 18-year old's home, remind them that ONLY the people in the army get guns (and they have universal conscription)
    '

    If we want to limit such guns ONLY to active and reserve military, that should be fine by me.

    Or alternately, to own any firearm, you MUST undergo the equivelent of BAsic Training and Gun Safety rules for a 5-8 month period before purchase, that's fine too.

    Then see if they have something more reasonable.

    We have no desire to offend you -- unless you are a twit!

    by ScrewySquirrel on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:49:08 AM PST

  •  Great diary! Thank you! (5+ / 0-)

    I totally, totally agree with you.

    And thank you for making the point that it is the access to automatic weapons that makes these massacres possible.

    Yes, mental health care sucks in this country, but that isn't the point.

  •  The NRA gun culture has "zombified" folks (7+ / 0-)

    To the extent that a rational conversation is nearly impossible.

    But now its clear what these powerful weapons can do in the hands of those who want to kill innocents.

    Maybe now a conversation may occur so that these weapons are outlawed once and for all without sunset 10yr provisions.

    Voters will support legislation crafted to do so even if its by narrow margins.

    I suspect on a broader view, that other legislation with devastating social effects like union busting in Michigan Indiana etc will be on the ropes once its clear, just how negatively they affect society.

    Yet another loosing talking point for "conservatives"

  •  A suggestion: AMMO. (7+ / 0-)

    There is indeed a (vastly misinterpreted) 2nd Amendment permitting the citizenry to keep and bear arms.

    I don't see anything in there about the right to unlimited ammunition.  And without the bullets, the assault rifles are really just expensive clubs.

    If somebody wants to make their own ammo for an automatic/semi-automatic, let them have at it.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:51:57 AM PST

    •  That's Too Cute By Half And Couterproductive (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, fuzzyguy, salamanderempress

      that's just out there in face palm territory

      There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

      by bernardpliers on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:03:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Counter-productive? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        john07801

        Given the present Supreme Court, it doesn't matter what Congress says about gun control.  Unless 5 right wing Catholics suddenly recognize a regulated militia anything short of a constitutional amendment is not going to change gun control laws, as any lesser attempts to legislate will be deemed unconstitutional.

        I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

        by bobdevo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:30:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Unless Your Goal Is To Sabotage Gun Control (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Americantrueandblue, ssgbryan

          It's sort of like saying you could eliminate drivers licenses by just making gasoline cost $25 a gallon.   Or we could just pick something random, like to purchase any gun, you have to lick Danny DeVito's ass.  

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:41:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You do understand that any legislation (0+ / 0-)

            short of a constitutional amendment is not going to change the status quo, right?  The Supreme Court has ruled REPEATEDLY of late that you cannot truly regulate firearms.

            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

            by bobdevo on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:50:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hardly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib, bobdevo

        You've got restrictions now on buying fertilizer.  And ammunition does use explosives.

    •   building on your point: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobdevo, john07801

      Ammunition should be manufactured with a nanotech ID in every bullet. Every bullet that is sold should be signed for. And that includes re-loader supplies. Unidentifiable bullets should be evidence of bad intent and made illegal. Bullets that show up in places they don't belong would then be traceable back to the buyer and if they are stolen, then that theft should be immediately reported.
      Bullet control is much more doable than gun control, per se.
      With 88 guns per 100 people (estimated, but I think that's lowball) and many of them magazine load, collecting them up or outlawing them is just not possible. And registration of every gun, also not going to happen without a civil war, but bullet control CAN be done and SHOULD be done.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:32:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And there is microstamping (0+ / 0-)

        a new technology which matches guns to shell casings.

        Microstamping works much like an ink stamp. Lasers engrave a unique microscopic numeric code on the tip of a gun’s firing pin and breach face. When the gun is fired, the pressure transfers the markings to the shell casings. By reading the code imprinted on casings found at a crime scene, police officers can identify the gun and track it to the purchaser, even when the weapon is not recovered.
        Of course, gun fetishists ridicule this and all other emerging, gun-control technologies.

        The system isn't broken; it's fixed - OWS sign

        by john07801 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:07:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That would be good too. (0+ / 0-)

          But a revolver keeps it's casings and dollars to donuts, gun makers will figure a way to fit a "leaf bag" to semi-autos to catch the brass, leave no evidence.....
          And tell me again how responsible they are being?

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:12:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  They already have. (0+ / 0-)

            Said devices are termed, rather uncreatively, 'brass catchers'.

            Having said this, microstamping firing pins is but one of several emerging methods with which to track and control ammunition.

  •  Repeal the 2nd Amendment (13+ / 0-)

    The "right to keep and bear arms" has impeded sensible gun control legislation for a half-century.

    The gun rights lobby counts on the 2nd amendment to obscure the debate about gun control to whether the founders intended to allow civilians to have weapons more powerful than anything they could imagine, and whether the "well-regulated militia" is a requirement or a parenthetical statement.

    And with the debate left circling the drain, they use their 5-4 control over the Supreme Court to ensure that any gun rights legislation gives full consideration to their concerns.  So even strong gun rights advocates are calling for very minimalist things like bans on high-capacity clips and semi-automatic assault rifles.

    •  No, it really hasn't. It's only in the last 10 (10+ / 0-)

      years we've had Justices deciding to ignore settled law and simply use the gavel to craft what they think should be our gun laws.

      "Well regulated" is clear as day to any Justice who isn't seeking to pervert the law for their own ends.

      When a Justice has malign intent?  Shit, they claimed the 14th allowed Jim Crow.

      This place needs a PVP server.

      by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:15:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  but that's my point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Laconic Lib

        We were making slow progress on some reasonable gun control policies right up until the gun advocates starting talking up their freedoms under the 2nd amendment.

        Then the conversation metamorphosed from being a sedate discussion of public policy into an arcane back-and-forth about the intent of the founding fathers and the risks of Big Government.  

        That's a huge win for the NRA, even without the added benefits.  It's not clear that a clear reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the Federal Gov't from regulating the private ownership of tanks and cruise missiles.

        The 2nd amendment is a joke.

        •  There were always some nuts claiming the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sandino, ssgbryan

          2nd says things it doesn't.

          It's not clear that a clear reading of the 2nd amendment doesn't prevent the Federal Gov't from regulating the private ownership of tanks and cruise missiles.
          It's clear.  "Well regulated" is perfectly clear.  It could hardly be clearer.

          It was clear to everyone in 1933 when we said you couldn't saw off shotguns or have a Tommy Gun.

          It's clear now.  

          There are no words we can ever write that will prevent bad faith rulings.

          Look at the stack of Amendments passed during Reconstruction, and how crystal clear they were, and what the Courts went ahead and let States do to African Americans anyway.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:22:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  no it is not (0+ / 0-)

            I agree with you and I don't think "well regulated militia" is clearly limiting.  And right now the prevailing view is that it is not.  

            It's not even clear to me that the restrictions on fully-automatic and explosive weapons are constitutional.

            The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it stems from a time when well-armed private citizens were the country's armed forces.  Putting it into its appropriate context in modern times would seem to suggest that private citizens should be able to arm themselves with whatever ordinance they can afford.  That is ridiculous, but so is allowing the manufacture and sale of assault rifles.

            Which is why the 2nd Amendment needs to go.  Not because I don't think gun control can't proceed with it in place, but because that's what the gun lobby believes.  And they will continue to use the Constitution to bludgeon sensible legislation for as long as the 2nd amendment holds force.

            •  The prevailing view for 60 years was that Seperate (0+ / 0-)

              could be Equal.

              If you think you will get different conclusions out of Scalia and Alito and Thomas just because you change the Constitution, I have to come to the conclusion that you're just not willing to face what has been going on at the SCOTUS for the last 12 years.

              This place needs a PVP server.

              by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:37:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Remember, (5+ / 0-)

      the Second Amendment was crafted by a collection of legislators that virulently mistrusted a standing army and were implacably opposed to having one.  So, allowing everyone to have weaponry in case the British invaded again and we needed a reprise of the Minutemen made sense.  Fast forward 200-odd years and we not only have a standing army, but one that is larger than the next 25 countries' combined.  If the Canadians decide to start something, I think we'll do just fine without have a latter day Paul Revere riding through Detroit and calling the residents to arms.

      Nate Silver is to Joe Scarborough as Billy Beane is to Grady Fuson

      by Superribbie on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:00:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, No, No (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, ssgbryan

        The Constitution explicitly authorizes a standing army.  The Second Amendment may qualify the militia clause, of Article 1 but it doesn't eliminate it.   And not "everyone" had "arms" - the states had regulated militias, including standard issue weapons and common places of storage, provisions for training, etc.  More people had privately-owned guns than "kept and bared arms," which has a military meaning, so the categories were overlapping but not coextensive.  What the Second Amendment means is that for those times when the federal government didn't call up state militias, those state militias were not disbanded.  But they did not have the authority to overthrow the federal government by force, and if they did, the issue was moot after the civil war.  It's goal was to co-opt, not reward, opponents of a standing army.  

        To take the gun people seriously, we're supposed to believe simultaneously that the federal government is ineffective or unwilling to keep order but powerful enough to suppress liberty.  Either it's incoherent, or devolves into us v. them right wing blather.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:59:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •   Right away, if gun sellers are serious (11+ / 0-)

    TODAY will be the day that extended magazines, assault rifles and magazines that hold over 10 bullets are taken off their shelves, sent back to manufacturers and future orders cancelled.  Today that would tell us who is serious about protecting people, especially babies.

    Every time history repeats itself, the price goes up...East Wing Rules

    by Pithy Cherub on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:52:20 AM PST

  •  What we have (18+ / 0-)

    Are unsecured arsenals stored up all around the country waiting to go off.

    We have stockpiles of munitions and military grade weapons stored up all around the country and not secured.

    What.  The.  Fuck.

    This is utter stupidity.

    And it isn't even random people storing up arsenals of military weapons, it's the most insane of the bunch who are "securing" arsenals.  For what fucking purpose?  Are these accountable officials securing these weapons?

    This is stupid.  This isn't securing the nation, it's terrorizing us.

    Republicans: Taking the country back ... to the 19th century

    by yet another liberal on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:52:31 AM PST

  •  The last time there was a ban... (0+ / 0-)

    Gun violence increased.

    Enact another ban, and things will get worse.  Banning things which are readily available illegally does not reduce crime, it just fosters criminal economics.  

  •  Well said (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, Karl Rover, john07801

    Wish to God we had (to misquote the Big Dog) the collective brass to get this done.

  •  exactly what they are: (10+ / 0-)

    gun fetishists. I know several. Don't know what they're thinking today, but what they said after the Aurora massacre: too bad those movie goers weren't carrying....

    This time, its got to be different.  

    Victory is sweet-November 6, 2012

    by al23 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:53:51 AM PST

  •  Wow--you didn't pull any punches (13+ / 0-)

    It was very telling that some people's first response to this horrible tragedy was a visceral need to protect their...........guns. Tells you a lot about their priorities.

    To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate--that is strength undefeatable. (Helen Keller)

    by kareylou on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:54:03 AM PST

  •  Todd Rundgren, "Gun" (12+ / 0-)

    He nails it on a song he wrote a few years ago Click on the link to hear it: Gun

    I like the noise and I like the smell
    And where the lead ends up, what the hell
    I've got a gun
    So you be the robber and I'll be the cop
    Cowboy saloons where someone gets dropped
    GI Joe goin' over the top
    I don't much care as long as I pop pop pop my gun
    You better run
    'Cause I'm young, dumb and I've got a gun
    Public idiot number one
    'Cause I'm young, dumb and I've got a gun
    The constitution says that I'm so blessed
    That I can clean my piece on the supreme court steps
    My pretty gun
    There's many like it, yeah but this one's mine
    A good replacement for a lack of spine
    When tribulation makes me need to unwind
    And pierce the air like I'm in Palestine
    Here's my gun
    This is my rifle, this is my gun
    This is for fighting and this is for fun
    I hate to gush but I'm your biggest fan
    I really love the way you fit my hand
    You're with me always like a wedding band
    More than a friend to me, my true identity
    You're smooth and hard and that's the way you stay
    Bright and polished like a Chardonay
    Fully loaded as a New Year's Day
    With a round in the chamber
    A round in the chamber

    "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert

    by Rob Dapore on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:54:03 AM PST

    •  I thought the song was a word play... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ssgbryan
      This is my rifle, this is my gun
      This is for fighting and this is for fun
      I hate to gush but I'm your biggest fan
      I really love the way you fit my hand
      I thought his lyrics was refering to his penis the whole time...

      Maybe my mind just always go there...

      But now that I read the lyrics again, I really like this line.

      There's many like it, yeah but this one's mine
      A good replacement for a lack of spine
      Guns really are for cowards who are afraid of life and of reality.  The are pessimists just waiting for the horrible situations that await them around the next corner.  They easily can construct scenerios where they will be the only smart ones left after the hoards of marauders try to take all of their valuables and then, with their trusty arsenals of weapons, they are able to defeat the bad guys.  Who will be laughing then...  

      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:25:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Guns don't kill people... (7+ / 0-)

    People firing guns at other people kill those people.
    Let's go beyond changing possession laws for guns and ammunition.  Just affecting the 'hardware' won't be enough.

    Let's also restrict people in this process.  From fruitcake gun owners who refuse to understand how much this problem now weighs upon our nation to gun manufacturers who think free enterprise includes their 'right' to sell instruments that deal death.  Cloaking one's self in the 2nd amendment doesn't give anyone the right to kill babies.  Doesn't give anyone the right to kill at all.  That's not what the 2nd amendment is for.

    I said this in another place on the blog today:  The NRA has 4 million members.  That's less than 2% of the US population.  How come they get to hold the country hostage over the issue of guns, devices that only deal death or the threat of death?  Why do we listen to them?  Why do our leaders fear them?  Why are we letting these bullies push us around?

    "Please don't dominate the rap Jack, if you got nothing new to say." - Robert Hunter

    by WSComn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:54:16 AM PST

    •  "less than 2% of the US population" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LeftyAce

      and the spent a whopping $3/4 Million on this last campaign cycle....
      Didn't DKos community spend over $1 Million in campaign donations this cycle?

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:37:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  BRAVO Kos! (10+ / 0-)

    More of us who do know guns and don't have a knee jerk fear of them need to speak up like this.

    There is a middle way, and we must find it before more babies are killed dammit.

  •  I demand the ability to exercise my right (20+ / 0-)

    to keep and bear arms in the visitor galleries of the U.S. Congress, on the floors of the Capitol building where Senators and Representatives keep their offices, and in all the analogous spaces in state legislatures across this country. If Louie Gohmert and all his fellow Republicans can propose open-carry laws for schools, day care centers, churches, bars, and sporting events, then it's outright discrimination to prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying their weapons with them as they watch their elected representatives enact laws and regulations. If I'm crazy and take down a dozen or more Congresscritters with my Glock, then that's the price of freedom, which a true patriot like Louie would surely appreciate. After all, the real-world effect of the NRA's policies is to make schoolchildren expendable, and if kids are going to be sacrificed on the altar of unlimited, unregulated gun rights, then it's only just and fair that the legislators who enact the laws at the behest of the NRA be just as expendable.

  •  Kos, I hope, I hope, I hope you're right. (12+ / 0-)

    My husband has been a gun control activist for years, until the Supreme Court made it clear that we weren't going to be able to achieve any meaningful progress. Just last week, a federal Appeals Court overturned the state ban in IL on concealed carry.

    I've spent the weekend with a sense of despair that Newtown is the latest but alas not the last unimaginable massacre.

    I hope you're right.

    "It's not enough to be right. You still have to use your nice voice." -said by my then six-year-old daughter; "Love binds us all."-willb48

    by be the change you seek on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:55:00 AM PST

    •  Ironically, those court decisions are more (0+ / 0-)

      threatening to the 2nd Amendment than any gun control activist is in the aftermath of a tragedy this universally heart-breaking.  The the farther the pendulum swings in one direction, the faster and more extreme its swing back is.

  •  Simple (12+ / 0-)

    you can own any gun you want, but no weapon shall have a magazine capacity over 7 rounds. That's it. And it's a federal offense to own a bigger clip. Prosecute a couple hundred violations and it will sink in. We got by quite well hunting with weapons limited to 5 round capacity growing up. Nobody needs a 20 round clip.

    •  If we do that (0+ / 0-)

      we also need to put a limit on the number of magazines you can buy at any given time, so that people don't compensate by just buying more ammo.

      •  not really (0+ / 0-)

        if someone has to stop to re load, it gives people the opportunity to fight back or escape. Of course, much damage could be done, but where the teachers who apparently attacked the POS shooter in Conn. with bare hands had no chance, if forced to stop and reload, or even change weapons, they would have a better chance of disarming him.

  •  I agree. It's possible we can work out (8+ / 0-)

    some compromise for weapons of historical value, like Granpa's Colt 1911 from the war.

    Pay for a special permit.  Submit to special inspections. Or, better yet, keep it locked up at the range.

    Nothing over 10 rounds, period.

    I will happily submit to having my Garand blocked down to 4 or 5 rounds, for that matter.

    In other countries, after mandatory after market modifications to limit capacity of internal magazines has worked.

    This place needs a PVP server.

    by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:55:28 AM PST

  •  We DON'T need a "uniquely American solution" (22+ / 0-)

    to this.

    Gun control (and health care) are things that other countries frankly handle a lot better than we do. We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Just look at Australia or any other country that has solved this problem. Cut and paste. Revise as necessary. But spending months to study this is a big waste and more people will die unnecessarily in the meantime.

    To keep our faces turned toward change, and behave as free spirits in the presence of fate--that is strength undefeatable. (Helen Keller)

    by kareylou on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:55:48 AM PST

  •  Everyone who fights sensible and intelligent... (7+ / 0-)

    gun regulation and control is a participant in this and all other massacres that occur.

    They are as guilty of killing these children and their teachers than if they had pulled the triggers themselves.

    But something tells me, they still don't give a shit and never will.

    Tax and Spend I can understand. I can even understand Borrow and Spend. But Borrow and give Billionaires tax cuts? That I have a problem with.

    by LiberalCanuck on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:56:36 AM PST

    •  That's right. (4+ / 0-)

      Any legitimate gun user should be in the forefront of gun registration efforts. It should have zero impact on hunters, target shooters, et cetera, any more than having to register your car impacts your freedom to travel.
      To demand that there be NO control over these devices is simply to enable the illegitimate gun users.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:41:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Second Amendment (8+ / 0-)

    protects the right to bear arms; not weapons of mass destruction. Which is precisely what these killing machines are.

    Fuck you, I put on pants yesterday.

    by MBNYC on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:57:13 AM PST

  •  Profoundly insightful post. Thank you, Kos. (7+ / 0-)

    Sometimes the devil is in the details.  You pretty much dismantle these bogus arguments that the gun nuts rely on (eg, black helicopters; FEMA troops) by drawing from your real life experiences about the nuts and bolts of how guns work.  Tremendous insight about a subject that, frankly, I and (I suspect) many other Kossacks had grown severely discouraged about during the last decade or so.

  •  Well said, Marcos (13+ / 0-)

    As an ex-lightweapons infantryman (11B10), I appreciate that you highlighted the fact that even well-trained soldiers do not have immediate access to their weapons and ammo, even in combat zones.

    While on patrol in Vietnam, we were locked and loaded, on boogity-boogity (full automatic), and fingers on the triggers. However, when we were in stand-down at division HQ, our weapons were secured in a locked arms room.

    We all stand submissively before the global ATM machine network like trained chickens pecking the correct colored buttons to release our grains of corn. Joe Bageant

    by Zwoof on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:57:39 AM PST

  •  Thanks for including this part: (19+ / 0-)
    his idiot "survivalist" mother
    I'm not hearing enough about this. The kid was partly a product of what he learned at home.

    Tracy B Ann - technically that is my signature.

    by ZenTrainer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:57:53 AM PST

  •  The professional org create adults, responsiblity. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    The stuff on you-tube shows the recent turn to the "tactical" and what troubles me most are the comment streams. Those are hardly mature, adult ego-state, people in those comments. They are kids playing Navy Seal.

  •  a thought (4+ / 0-)

    The other day when the Oregon shooting happened my husband and I were discussing how desensitized our country is to violence and how nothing would change. After the Aurora shooting I remember commenting to him that there would be another soon and we pondered on where it might take place. It always puzzles me why America as a whole is reactive instead of proactive. There are common sense people out there who have been saying our violent culture and our gun culture might be a bit of a problem for decades. So, why does it take the slaughter of 20 children for people to wake up? Why, when children have been slaughtered for years in this country and all we have heard is we can't take away Second Amendment rights (and of course, very few people want to do that...we just want sensible laws) that this time is different and suddenly people want to do something (maybe because the children lived in a nice upper middle income town). Aren't all God's children precious? What is it about our culture that doesn't allow for being sensible and proactive?

  •  Magazine limits... (7+ / 0-)

    ...and a massive tax on guns and ammo.  All for it.

    There are too many guns in America, of every type,  to successfully ban them.  And putting more people in jail, a "war on guns", is arguably just as totalitarian as the gun nuts think it is -- albeit for different reasons.  

    You don't get a safe or workable society by banning things everyone has anyway, you do it by creating a society where the first thought of damaged young men is not blowing away first graders.  Focusing on guns -- maybe it is an appropriate step in restoring the idea of a commonweal.  But it is also a way to avoid looking at the ways in which a winner take all society that endlessly glorifies military accomplishment, violence, and cruelty creates the crazy we reap.  

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 07:58:21 AM PST

    •  I have a different view (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jessical, ssgbryan

      In my mind, this is simply placing the entire burden of gun enforcement policy on the economic backs of gun owners that already are responsible and safe with their fire arms.

      People demanding change and then wanting someone else to pay for it smacks of ideology to me.

      If gun control is as important as progressives say it is to them, then they shouldn't have any problem helping to pay for it.

      •  meh (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deepbreath

        One, whether you (or I) pay 1200 bucks or 600 bucks for a new revolver is a matter of total indifference to me.   Unless you are a heavy duty collector, that cost amortizes very quickly over total ownership time.   A high tax might effectively scale back the culture of cheap, readily available weapons.

        More to the point though, look at the diaries on here the last few days.  The anti-gun ideology is going to be with us regardless.  Do you want a "war on guns" drug-style campaign?  Because no mistake, that is what many of our liberal brethren are recommending here.  They see guns as the problem, as a stand in for their own dark side and vision of anarchy and doom.  They are not going to change, and they don't care if you are responsible or safe.   Nor do they care that in a country with 300 million guns, banning them is a non-starter -- this is a holy war, and they are fired up.

        I think as a society there are much more important issues than this one.  Coalitions mean living with compromises and things we don't like much.  I'd rather see us adopt measures that restrict availability without creating a new class of criminals.  

        ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

        by jessical on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:08:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I just wish they would chose an approach (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ssgbryan, jessical

          ... that had an actual chance of success.

          The federal registry is something that should have happened long ago.  Getting rid of loopholes like those in VA for gun show purchases is perfectly reasonable.  Better screening of purchasers and enforcement of safety and storage of firearms all have value.

          But banning firearms?  All firearms?  It appears to me that the average progressive must not have any interaction with firearms at all.

          •  I think that's true (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            deepbreath

            I think a New York style ban on guns (with permit exceptions) or a Canadian style scheme (hunting weapons only) are what people are picturing.   Both seem very difficult to imagine for the larger US.  

            But all I think we need (hah) is to change the culture a bit, to make fondling one's guns and imagining power seem exactly as whacked as it is.  

            I think progressives vary wildly on this.  It is a topic which can contain both utter outrage and complete agreement among the like-minded, a heady combination, so I know plenty of otherwise sane people to whom firearms are the devil.  But also know many well armed queer urbanites, so it isn't universal.  In both cases there is the myth of power, the idea that one can look to the gun for choice and freedom in the face of a sometimes oppressive society, or the idea that the gun contains the roots of the bad act somehow.  The people I grew up with might indulge that myth a bit, but guns were mostly for deer and varmits.  Here in Seattle on the queerest queer edge, it is a bit colder and meaner than that.

            Ultimately I just don't think guns are the problem as such, though knocking back the romanticism would, I think, help make badass shit like recent events less frequent.   So would serious concealed carry classes, not only gun safety but what it means to take a life and why nobody would ever ever want that, even if the life is their worst enemy.  But the problem to me is a society where enough young men grow up wanting to murder their broken childhoods that a few of them act out.   The solution is a world with hope and community.  Which not all the gun laws in the world will create, though a few might help along the way.

            ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

            by jessical on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:32:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  All of our children are precious (8+ / 0-)

    Have you noticed this is only happening (the talk of reasonable laws) because this happened in an upper middle class mostly white town? The reptilian brain kicks into action. Lawyers know to sway juries you have to convince them it could happen to them. Which I find sad. It is very common for Americans to only identify with something if it happens to their groups. We had a little girl sexually assaulted and murdered in this area a few years back. She was black and from a poor neighborhood. There wasn't much of an outcry and the case has never been solved. Had it been from the upper middle class white neighborhood (where I live) you can bet there would have been a huge outcry. A little black boy was gunned down a few months back in one of the crime infested neighborhoods in one of the large cities. Where was the outcry then? Why does it take a tragedy of this magnitude for people to wake up? Because so many of us are still operating strictly from the reptilian part of our brains. We must all do better than that.

  •  Well written, Kos (4+ / 0-)

    But, this is a political site. Let's keep the politics in mind.

    Do not start out for a total gun ban. That not only won't win, but will lead to us losing a number of swings states. And the Senate.  I query whether putting another GOPer in the white house is too high a price to pay.

    Kos, you can lead on this. I know guns. Pretty darned well. Grew up with them, and have them in our house. But folks here need a leader who can educate the community ABOUT guns. There's a hell of a difference between a single shot .22 and a fully automatic Uzi. And "semi-automatic" does not mean "full on rock and roll."

    I've tried in another diary to start the conversation about what would be the first, sensible, and successful legislation. But, I kinda got shot down.

    Somebody with higher TU status than mine has got be the designated "gun educator" for the site. Otherwise, about half the site is going to run off and shout things from the mountain tops that will reinforce stereotypes and screw the dems for the next couple of election cycles. And, we still wouldn't get sensible gun regulation.

    Equality! It's what's for dinner!

    by DyspepTex on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:00:05 AM PST

    •  like support for gay marriage, immigration reform (7+ / 0-)

      legalized marijuana, taxes on the rich, and a black man in the white house?

      half the site is going to run off and shout things from the mountain tops that will reinforce stereotypes and screw the dems for the next couple of election cycles
      things have to change - things ARE changing...some people think now is the time

      btw, gun people are in the minority and don't really have the right to set the terms of the debate

      Coming Attraction: "Tea Party II - now with more stupid!"

      by memofromturner on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:17:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Kos wasn't suggesting a total gun ban. (4+ / 0-)

      Not even as an end point.

      We really don't need a Designated Gun Authority.  The site is not suffering from a shortage of people handing their agency over to someone else.

      This place needs a PVP server.

      by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:20:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Here's the thing DyspepTex (0+ / 0-)

      There is a difference between a single shot .22 and a fully automatic Uzi.  But they can both kill someone and that, in my opinion, is why it will never be enough for many progressives.

      If they ban assault weapons, then a kid just takes his dad's .30-30 to school.  If they ban handguns, he takes his .22.  And then, instead of conclude that gun bans don't work, progressives will simply demand bans on those guns.  Rinse and repeat.

      The focus should really be on the people side, in my opinion.  Keeping guns out of the hands of crazies.  The national registry with requirements for purchase and storage is a good start, but without enforcement (which will undoubtedly require some form of inspections, potentially leading to Constitutional issues) these efforts will largely be symbolic.  After all, all those guns used in this tragedy were probably registered.

      I also take issue with the state determining what is appropriate for an individual's personal protection.  Having a request from an individual living in the inner city for purchasing a 12-gauge for home protection being denied by a federal appointee living in care-free suburbia doesn't sit well with me.

      •  I'd like to hear your justifications.in (0+ / 0-)

        Why would progressives conclude gun bans don't work? The federal assault weapons ban reduced gun violence from 1994 to 2004, with one school shooting in 1999. In 2004, gun violence levels went back up to their pre-1994 levels. Without the assault weapons ban, gun violence continues to rise. Gun bans work to reduce gun violence, especially the assault weapons ban.

        As for "a kid takes his dad's 30-30 to school", sounds like a very good argument for gun safes for dad's, and every other gun owner's, guns in any house in which there are children. Sure, dad could still take his 30-30 to school, but chances are dad is less likely to want to kill his bullies on the office playground with something as bulky as a 30-30.

        He would prefer the 30-30 as a backup option to a few handguns, which would take awhile to get what with the new psych tests and marksmanship classes. By the time he would be finished, he would either have no handguns, or we'd know he would be extremely unlikely to want to kill the bullies on his office playground.

        Earlier someone mentioned a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Sounds good, and doesn't prevent your inner city friend from getting a pump action 12ga shotgun. We can probably agree on the sole exception being the five or six shot revolver, provided speed loaders require a permit.

    •  no one is talking "full gun ban" (0+ / 0-)

      if you want to educate, go ahead, the floor is yours.

      write a diary. make it informative & people will like it.

      An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

      by mightymouse on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:30:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  A desire to ban semi-automatics does not (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

      necessarily mean someone doesn't know what a semi-automatic is. The fact that such a ban is difficult to get our brains around is a sign of how out-of-control our gun culture is. What the hell is wrong with bolt action rifles? What do semi-automatic pistols do for the average civilian that revolvers couldn't?

  •  Well regulated militia is the watch word! (11+ / 0-)

    I've heard all sorts of arguments about why this does not imply a National Guard, but even if that were true, "well regulated" is, or should be, a guiding principle.

    Although I don't hunt myself (and I don't at present even own a gun) I know many hunters, some of whom prefer bow hunting or muzzleloaders because of the challenge that they require. It implies good marksmanship and woodcraft to them.
    A true sportsman does not require a multi-shot weapon to bag game.  At the same time we are past the point where most people need to hunt to put food on the table.

    Why is it that they can talk sense in Australia, but not here?  Australia is as much a frontier country as we think we are.

    Thanks KOS for putting a sane view out there.  We need lots of these.  I've signed the petition!

    •  Follow up shots aren't about bad aim when (6+ / 0-)

      you're hunting large game.

      They're about mercy.

      And, yes, that's got nothing to do with 30 round magazines.

      This place needs a PVP server.

      by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:22:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I can see this. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, Sandino, Laconic Lib

        But clips should be no more than ten rounds.  If you can't  finish the job by then you have no business hunting!

      •  You can't own a one shot mercy pistol? (0+ / 0-)

        Seems to me follow up shots about "mercy" don't have to involve shots from the same gun. One shot to wound, then a single shot pistol kept around for that mercy shot.

        Nearly every time I hear a hunter comment about what they need in order to hunt, I'm reminded of just how lazy most hunters have become. It's like they'd still want more-than-one-shot magazines for a deer tied to a stake.

        •  Do you really prefer that (0+ / 0-)

          someone cover 150 yards through heavy brush before dispatching a wounded animal?

          What did Elk ever do to you?

          Obviously, even having to load another round into a rifle would beat a "mercy pistol", when a clear shot from range still exists.

          You do realize that Australia, the country pro and anti gun fetishists in the US are both convinced "banned guns", doesn't really have any problem with people who actually hunt having bolt action center fire rifles with internal magazines?

          That's because hunters do in fact have a legitimate need for them.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:56:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm still stuck on this. How could possibly (0+ / 0-)

          think

          "Yeah, a bunch of guys with glorified zip guns in their pockets, that's totally safer than hunting rifles that hold more than one bullet"?

          The other day, I was telling someone he didn't need any special knowledge to advocate for good gun laws.  

          For a minute, you just made me really question that claim.

          Then I realized - this isn't about gun laws.

          You're looking for excuses to insult a group of people you dislike for purely cultural reasons.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:58:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Could DKos form a militia? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LeftyAce, mightymouse, ssgbryan

      If we promise to march in straight lines and in cadence would we be considered well regulated?
      I always wonder about this because most of the time, the government gets more than a bit nervous about groups of heavily armed civilians. They tend to call them "gangs".

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:47:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  "gun fetishists" (10+ / 0-)

    thank you for calling this what it is.

    Now, what we need to do is separate these fetishists, who are paranoid to the point of insanity, from people who actually ARE responsible with their weaponry.

    Dare i say that the majority of American gun-owners are NOT fetishists, but who may be afraid that the few guns they have will someday be taken form them.

    These RESPONSIBLE gun owners need to goddamn help the rest of us make it impossible for people to amass arsenals of automatic weaponry.  

    this needs to stop.

    And if you are RKBA, then YOU need to fucking step up with the rest of us to do what's right.


    "A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous..........got me?" - Don Van Vliet

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:03:14 AM PST

  •  Not sure I understand the focus on assault rifles (4+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure I understand the current focus on "assault rifles".

    If the news reports are correct, the assaillant in the Conn. school shooting was in possession of an assault rifle and two hand-guns.  It seems to me that had the shooter been prevented from accessing an assault rifle only, the shooter still would have had two perfectly lethal guns with which to shoot people.

    Yes, any restriction on any guns is a step forward.  But assault rifles are responsibel for only a very minor fraction of the 100,000+ gunshot injuries that occur every year in the US.  If we only focus attention on limiting access to assault rifles, we would not see any real reduction in gun assaults or in gunshot injuries.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:03:32 AM PST

  •  The Bushmaster company (3+ / 0-)

    The Bushmaster line of assault weapons, like the one used in Newtown, is manufactured by the very old American company, Remington Arms, at its original factory in Ilion, NY. That plant is one of the only large-scale factories left in the Mohawk Valley, once a key part of America's industrial heartland.

    The Bushmaster line sells semi-automatic rifles as a spin-off from Remington's regular market, the US military.

    Other factories in the valley which once manufactured electric appliances, tools, shoes, garments, bicycles and other civilian products that could not be sold to the Pentagon have long since been abandoned.

    If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks. -Frederick the Great

    by Valatius on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:03:47 AM PST

  •  Not so sure on the banning thing (6+ / 0-)

    But I do think we need to enact a licensing system. Currently, you have to jump through more hoops to be able to own a car than to own a gun. Driver's ed, a written and road test, insurance, annual registration fees, license renewals. Why not something similar with firearms? Maybe as part of the test, could even have a short psychological profile test.

    Additionally, 30 day waiting periods, along with an actual background check. Gun shows included in that of course, no exceptions.

    You need a license to drive, a license to run a business, but any idiot can buy a gun.

    by Hannibal on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:03:47 AM PST

  •  This is one your best. Bravo, Sir! n/t (7+ / 0-)

    Almost nothing has a name.

    by johanus on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:04:41 AM PST

  •  I hope that last bit (7+ / 0-)
    This time, it won't be the popular—or politically expedient—position to hold.
    ... is extended to the vigorous opponents of gun regulation who have made this site their second home. I have long questioned the lenience shown to this faction of users, and in the aftermath of this tragedy I can't see the advantage in allowing 2nd Amendment absolutists the luxury of setting up shop and engaging in inflammatory debate while people are becoming bent on action.

    After 9/11 a certain type of user was warned not to persist in certain types of behavior. This was proper, and appreciated. 2nd Amendment absolutism is a similar threat to the site, as it is exhausting to have the same circular arguments again and again, to say nothing of the aggressive dickish behavior on the part of many.

    I sincerely hope the policies regarding so-called pro-gun progressives are undergoing a solemn review in light of recent events.

  •  My diary on the topic (12+ / 0-)

    A modest proposal

    We cannot reliably identify dangerous people in advance. These mass killers by and large have no criminal record (or nothing significant) prior to taking many lives.

    So, we either (1) make it difficult for ANY citizen to own a weapon suitable for killing a lot of people at once, or (2) we turn America into a place where every gathering of people has trained, skilled, heavily armed people (plural) - because you have to assume a surprise attack by a heavily armed highly skilled madman with body armor, and a couple of civilians with pistols are going to go down first, probably before they even know they are targets.

    If we're going to go for (2), then let gun owners pay the taxes required to hire, train, and equip all these security people. The more bullets a skilled user can fire with said weapon in a minute, the higher the tax.

    Freedom is not free. That also applies to gun ownership. If you want to own an AR-15, you can pay a few thousand dollars a year in taxes to protect all of us from the madman with an AR-15. Who, as Sandy Hook shows, may be your own relative.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:04:55 AM PST

  •  Machine guns (4+ / 0-)

    Arent' used that much, are legal but you have to go thru a lot to own one.

    What about still allowing military style ones but the process would be the same or similar to buying a machine gun?

    100% federal subsidy for gun safes would sure help plus stimulate the economy.

    Just as with drug hotlines if we had gun hotlines there would be chance of abuse but I don't think that would be way out of line.

    The biggest problems I see though, and I'm a gun owner is that the marketing for guns has changed.

    As the amount of people who actually hunt or even shoot regularly has gone down, the market has gone more to catering to violent fantasy or end times porn, rather than shooting or hunting.

    Go to a gun store now and better than half the guns are military knock offs.

  •  Why do people buy AR's? (6+ / 0-)

    Gun enthusiasts and even non-gunners who are given an opportunity to shoot one will tell that they are fun to shoot. They are a step up from the 22LR most of us who shot as kids typically used. They are very accurate...generally the rifle exceeds the accuracy capability of the average shooter. They are not too expensive; $1000 or less will buy a decent quality rifle held to rigorous manufacturing quality standards. You don't need a gunsmith to add features or keep them running. Anyone who could change points and plugs on a car (when they had them) could do most gunsmithing necessary to keep an AR running virtually forever.

    However, that is not the reason for the increasing popularity of the AR platform. The increase is due to 2 primary reasons: War and Advertising.

    We've been at war for 10 years. Unlike Vietnam, we've learned to appreciate the sacrifices of our military. We hold them in high regard. We want to be like them, to emulate them.  Or, we remember our time in the service and want to recapture our youth. This rifle has been around for 50 years and most of the vets alive today were trained on it.

    You can't see many TV shows or movies nowadays where weapons aren't front and center.  The good guy decimating  the bad guys without "due process". Cop shows. SWAT, NCIS-LA. War movies. Seals. Delta Force. Guns are central and, in many cases the M-4 or M-16 is the weapon of choice.

    And then you have violent video games. Extremely violent video marketed to young adults.

    We have advertised and glorified these guns and the people who wield them.

    This week we learned what one of these weapons will do in the wrong hands.

    Most of us who watch violence on TV recognize that it is not real.  That cops don't walk through buildings double-tapping suspects. TV and John McClain at the movies is not real.  There are no zombie threats.

     If you shoot and AR, you probably use it at a gun range, punching little holes in paper targets...not humans. I can't think of anyone I know who would even think of using their AR in anger...unless the SHTF. And that isn't ever likely to happen in America. It hasn't happened since the Rodney King cop trial verdicts in LA.  It hasn't happened to any extent in all of the natural disasters we've experienced since that point.

    You cannot take the gun out of American life. You can ban the AR, but you can't change the culture overnight.

    If you are 'anti-gun', you need to do more than protest the AR.You need to work to change the culture in America. TV needs to become less violent. AR's need to be taken off the big screen. Video games need a whole lot less violence.

    And you need to deal with the real issue: mental health. Anyone who would kill children OR adults with a weapon is a sociopath. They need to be removed from society until they can cured.

  •  Good analysis. Thanks. (10+ / 0-)

    A response to this:

    The gun lobby may yet win this battle,...
    IMHO, no, they won't. Friday changed us. Think of the Limbaugh/Fluke episode where women -- at least a lot more -- became furious, posed proudly as "sluts," and basically said we aren't taking this any longer. I also won't leave room open for pre-concession. My intention is to win, prevail and leave those in the gun lobby to call a whaaaambulance.

    I think a similar shift has taken place with this horrific act, at least I hope so. Those old arguments about "freedoms" don't really connect when such horror occurs.

    And if the gun lobby does win, I intend to lobby for "one of those" (that picture posted at the beginning of the diary. I think it's a tank) because I figure that would be the only way to survive.

    You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else. -- Sir Winston Churchill

    by bleeding heart on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:05:09 AM PST

  •  These idiots (7+ / 0-)

    don't need assault rifles.  If they get their rocks off shooting them, fine, keep them locked at the range in an armory where they're turned back in after they've gotten their thrills.

    If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a ball! - Rip Torn ("Dodgeball")

    by cka on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:05:35 AM PST

  •  I Don't Know if This is A Good Idea or Not (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    singe, commonmass

    but I'll throw it out for discussion.

    How about some pictures of the bodies as they lie in the classrooms -- like the ones shot multiple times. Hide the faces. Show the blood and gore.

    I'm looking for as much a visceral reaction as possible. I want people so sick to their stomachs that whenever someone like Wayne Lapierre opens his trap their immediate reaction is to hurl.

  •  Right on, Kos (5+ / 0-)

    Though I will make one suggestion. There is no need to create these straw-man scenarios that the gun fetishers are stocking up for (i.e. the UN, black helicopters, etc.). We know good and well what most of these people have their guns for.

    In one way or another, they are armed and ready to use their weapons against the "other." For most, the dream is pretty simple. They actually LONG for the day when some poor (black) person comes charging through their door after their precious possessions. With their little dicks in hand, these small men desire the situation where they get to "protect" their family by unloading 20 rounds into some (perceived) crack head who is bound to steal their television.

    Ironically they invite this danger to their family and this assault on their property/sanctity so that they can join in what they believe is the real fight to take back America - good, honest white folk killing bad, menacing dark folk.

    Some of these people might share in the UN helicopter illusions. Most are way simpler.

    "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." ~Bobby Kennedy

    by Grizzard on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:06:02 AM PST

  •  I worked at a German army base (14+ / 0-)

    immediately post-9/11, and we were searched by armed guards every time we went through a gate.  I have never seen such cautious handling of heavy weapons before.  Those who are professionally armed for their work take due care in handling their weapons.  But they don't belong in civilian hands.  Deer don't need assault weaponry to take them down.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:06:38 AM PST

    •  I was an armed guard at a military base (11+ / 0-)

      post 9-11.   Anytime I was ever issued a firearm by the military there was always great caution taken.  Ammunition is counted at the armory on turn in with severe penalties for even chambering a round.  The armory personnel used to rotate their loading of tracer bullets and did not tell the guard what the order was, as that was one tool to see if the ammunition was messed with during shift.   At turn in we had to dry fire our weapon into fire barrels and hand in our weapons and magazines to the armory for inspection.  They did a thorough job as well, making sure there was no evidence of firing the weapon and no rounds missing.  All of that before you could go home.  My extensive experience with firearms has taught me that many gun enthusiast do not have the respect or knowledge needed to be a responsible owner.  

      •  I remember those barrels (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lily O Lady, Jorybu, ssgbryan, sngmama


        and didn't know what they were for until I saw a guard discharge a weapon into one.  One thing I can't fathom is what gun owners envision doing with an assault rifle.  IF they are inappropriate for shooting large deer or elk, what the heck ARE they meant to be used for? How does anyone justify ownership of a weapon like that?

        "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

        by louisev on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:26:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I've signed one (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass, Karl Rover, blueoasis

    this morning, how do we know if this is the sameone, or does it matter how many times you sign one?

    I will help however I can.
    I'm prepared to do more than I did to re-elect Barack & Joe on this !

  •  your mentioning having your mag taped down (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dotdash2u

    while standing guard duty in Germany stirred some memories decades old of a family friend who was a tank commander under Patton.  From memory, he was discussing in a group of vets how one of the men in his command in the waning days of WWII was prosecuted, and if I remember correctly, was sentenced to Leavenworth, for shooting a German civilian off a bridge abutment for target practice.

    From memory, the circumstances were that it was not a combat zone and I don't remember if the soldier mentioned were on guard duty or why he was armed.  The salient point was the gratuitous killing of a civilian and the subsequent punishment of the shooter.  The narrator then noted that everyone in the unit had to turn in all of their ammo immediately after this incident, which he did not agree with, as they were in Germany and the war was still going on at that time.  (I would have thought, if they were on garrison duty or R&R, that they would have already have turned in any ammo but then there are always a few folks who find ways to circumvent the rules, such as the rules against looting.
    Your mention just sparked that stray memory  

  •  Markos....do we really need to see an ad (4+ / 0-)

    from Concealed  Carry magazine right now on your site while we discuss this, demonstrating "the best gun for concealed carry?"    ??

    I see traitors, but they don't know they're traitors....

    by hcc in VA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:08:12 AM PST

  •  Rather the president spent political capital... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, high uintas

    ...improving mental health services in the USA. Can't help thinking that will do more to prevent these shootings than any amount of gun control.

    Religion is closer to a vice than a virtue; Religion is an excuse to discriminate and call it a first amendment right; Religion is the theft of liberty and free thought from pre-birth.

    by IgnoreAtYourPeril on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:08:39 AM PST

  •  If you've ever fired one of these weapons (9+ / 0-)

    You will know beyond any reasonable doubt, these are not weapons designed for hunters.

    These are killing machines.

    If you buy an assault weapon, you are buying a killing machine.

    There has to be a better way.

    by lotac on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:08:39 AM PST

  •  Patriot acts (5+ / 0-)

    1) Drone warfare started out as an unarmed souped up RC airplane with GPS and a camera. The folks on the other end of the camera would see "Bad Guys" and call in an Air strike only to have the "Bad Guys" flee before the airstrike arrived. The "Logical" next step was super-sizing these RC airplanes and "strapping" a missile to them.

    Local law enforcement have reached the surveillance stage of drone warfare and if history repeats cash strapped local police who will no longer be able to afford "Swat teams" will have to resort to armed drones. So the "Tyranny" these "Patriots" will attempt to fend off will turn their house into splinters and them into goo while the police watch from a safe distance away.....

    2) A typical next step of the oppponents of Gun regs is a patronizing "Let's not be hasty"

       A quick head count of those still in congress;both houses; who voted for the 10 phone books worth of the Patriot Act; and the other 5 phone books to fix the screw-ups in the 1st 10 phone book ; without reading it first would be in order.

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:09:15 AM PST

  •  In addition to "prepper" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

    Mom, as I saw her referred to in an article quoting a family member (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/...), there is, as you say, the divisive political network that thrives on  as much national disunity as it can muster. I just got a recycled e-mail chronicling the "congressional testimony" of Darrell Scott, mother of Rachel Scott, a Columbine massacre vicitm. He supposedly surprised legislators by citing that the NRA and gun lobby was not responsible for his daughter's death. What was responsible, it appears, is prayer being taken out of school. Interestingly, I went to a church-sponsored holiday performance last night and the pastor ended the evening with the same pronouncment. I don't know if the Scott testimony thing was authentic and I doubt he "surprised" too many of the more extremists in Congress by his testimony, if in fact it occurred like that. Like Heritage Foundation and Free Republic, which both covered the issue straight-faced and laudably for Mr. Scott's sentiments, I'm sure many members of Congress delight in that sort of easy fix--God back in school, like the good old days when Ward Cleaver had all the answers. Of course, there's no saying that Mrs. Lanza didn't pray nightly for or with her son. There's no way to prove that this event might not have occurred if she had prayed more for and with her son. It is probably easier to prove that her paranoia, fueled by Right wing venom and democracy-hating, racism and nativism, combined with plenty of guns and ammo and these things' impact on her child-rearing contributed much more to this event than the lack of prayer, in the schools or anywhere else. BTW, every time I shot a 50 cal. or 20 mm cannon, my response was often, "I'm glad there's nobody down range of this." Thanks

    I discover myself on the verge of a usual mistake. ― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

    by dannyboy1 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:09:32 AM PST

  •  Thanks for the explanation Kos. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Williston Barrett, blueoasis
  •  My nephew was stationed in Korea (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leu2500, blueoasis, ssgbryan

    At Camp Gary Owens right on the DMZ. They weren't issued ammo either when on guard duty.

    White-collar conservatives flashing down the street, pointing their plastic finger at me..

    by BOHICA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:10:07 AM PST

  •  Problem;guns wear out sllooowwwwlllllyyyyyy. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, mightymouse, ssgbryan

    Solution; use marketing and anti government paranoia to increase number, types and firepower of guns needed to be " safe and free" geometrically.

    Is this a great economic system/culture or what?

  •  When the last assault weapons ban (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

    lifted, I know alooot of people who purchased guns they couldn't get before.

    Guns have one purpose: a tool for killing and injuring.

    As for semi-automatic ban, you better make sure that there isn't some part that you can just sell on the market that can turn a gun semi automatic or fully automatic.

    Sadly, just talking about the assault weapons ban motivates these gun nuts to buy more weapons now because afterwards, only criminals can get their hands on them. :|

    I was talking to someone the other day. "So you bought an AK47 shortly after the last ban expired... what have you been doing with it since?"

    "It's unloaded and sitting in my gun cabinet."

    "Why'd you buy an AK47 instead of a hand gun?"

    "Because there were a lot more requirements [at least in Michigan] for a hand gun than an AK47. Like you have to get a steeper background check for a hand gun. You also have to go to the police station and tell them what gun you want to buy."

    I... I wanted to face palm.

    Why hello there reality, how are you doing?

    by Future Gazer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:11:22 AM PST

  •  I guarded the American Embassy in Berlin (19+ / 0-)

    during the Kosovo War.

    And very often had to escort senior goverment officials to meetings with people from hostile nations. Some of the meetings themselves were classified.

    I was allowed no ammunition or sidearm, even my sword other military attache' from other countries had them.

    Simply put, there is no reason why any civilian needs to have anything more than low caliber revolver for the home or a single shot bolt action rifle for hunting. Nobody, NOBODY who isn't in the military needs anything more than that.

  •  So what is your opinion... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    commonmass

    ...of people who advocate for concealed carry and call current court cases that will probably force Illinois to allow that or open carry a victory.  I just wonder.  It is your house after all.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:12:38 AM PST

  •  LOL at "coming gun debate" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, delver rootnose, Laconic Lib

    Wow you fell for it, Markos.

    There will be no debate. Nothing will happen. Nothing ever does.

    We'll visit this again in a few months or so. Rinse and repeat.

  •  Another "Librul" job-killing idea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    I like the outright ban rather than making ownership "prohibitively expensive."

    If guns are outlawed excessively  expensive only criminals the wealthy will have guns.

    As an added bonus Blackwater  Xe Services Acadami would have to perform their international murderous mission equipped only with six-shooters.

    The dire straits facing America are not due poor people having too much money

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:13:58 AM PST

  •  A few random thoughts (3+ / 0-)

    Thoughts which are NOT to be interpreted as a defense of the status-quo in gun regulation. Far from it.

    If I am not mistaken, AR stands for Automatic Rifle, not Assault Rifle.

    And people DO use them to hunt with. My husband is one of those hunters .

    He uses an AR because it is lighter weight, and has far less kick, which makes a world of difference for him because he has an old rotator cuff injury.
    So far he has only had to use the semi-automatic feature once, but he was able to quickly and humanely kill a deer with a second shot because the first shot missed when the deer lept

    He is a very good shot BTW, because he has been an avid target shooter since he was a kid, and because game animals move, and move quickly, so even the best marksmen can miss sometimes.

    Most responsible gun owners (my husband included) do not have a problem with regulations that restrict the availability of semi-automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, and background checks, nor do they have a problem with purchase limits, etc.

    The NRA advocates for the weapons and ammunition manufacturers, not for gun owners any more. So understand that the NRA does not necessarily reflect the views of much of its membership, or the views of responsible gun owners who are non-members.

    They rally their membership by spreading lies ("Obama's going to confiscate your guns!" "Your Constitutional rights are at risk!"), and they have largely abandoned their original mission which was to educate and advocate gun safety.

    Witness the lifting of Virginia's one-gun-per-month law...Gun owners across the state, conservative and liberal, NRA members and not, protested the lifting of the limit, to no avail. The move was orchestrated behind close doors by the gun lobby and conservative politicians.

    "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

    by SNFinVA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:14:22 AM PST

    •  This. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JesseCW, blueoasis, high uintas
      Most responsible gun owners (my husband included) do not have a problem with regulations that restrict the availability of semi-automatic weapons, large capacity magazines, and background checks, nor do they have a problem with purchase limits, etc.

      The NRA advocates for the weapons and ammunition manufacturers, not for gun owners any more. So understand that the NRA does not necessarily reflect the views of much of its membership, or the views of responsible gun owners who are non-members.

      They rally their membership by spreading lies ("Obama's going to confiscate your guns!" "Your Constitutional rights are at risk!"), and they have largely abandoned their original mission which was to educate and advocate gun safety.

      Witness the lifting of Virginia's one-gun-per-month law...Gun owners across the state, conservative and liberal, NRA members and not, protested the lifting of the limit, to no avail. The move was orchestrated behind close doors by the gun lobby and conservative politicians.

      •  It is time to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas

        separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

        Not all responsible gun owners are NRA members, and not all NRA members are responsible gun owners.

        There are plenty of responsible gun owners out there who certainly do not oppose restrictions on gun ownership, and in fact embrace it.

        If we can appeal successfully to these people, reasonable people who understand fully that with rights come responsibilities, we stand a chance of turning this ship around and having some sensible legislation enacted that restricts the availability of these weapons in an effective way.

        It seems to me that the time has come to shift the Overton Window, away from a discussion about Constitutional rights to own guns, and to instead focusing the responsibilities of individuals and society at large.

        Those responsibilities include keeping such deadly weapons out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals, criminals, and others present a danger to the general public.

        Which means we need better mental health treatment and screening, limits on purchases, and so forth.

        "The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.

        by SNFinVA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:04:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I Don't Care What SCOTUS Says (4+ / 0-)

    The second amendment is one amendment, not two:

       

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    I don't care what SCOTUS says, you can't separate the first part of this amendment from its second part.  And if you go back to the time of our Founding Fathers (as conservatives often like to do, but not in this case), the reason for the linkage of these parts into a single amendment is clear (IMHO).  They wanted a well regulated Militia to have guns so that they would be ready to supplement the regular army in the Country's defense as they had done during the then recent Revolutionary War.  This is further supported by the fact that the amendment states that the Militia is necessary for the security of the free State, which was definitely true during our Founding Fathers time.  If they simply wanted the amendment to allow people in general to have guns, there is no logical reason why they would have mentioned the part about the Militia at all.

    Flash forward to today and the well regulated Militia, it can be argued is our National Guard and Reserves, meaning that their right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.  But for the rest of us, I don't see anything in the second amendment that prevents the Congress from making laws which provide at least some infringement on the sale and possession of guns.

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:15:35 AM PST

    •  And this is my interpretation (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ssgbryan

      They foresaw the possible need for a well regulated militia. They wanted people who knew arms, how to use and care for them in order for them to be "well regulated".

      The second part is as important as the first and is not contingent on the first part, in fact I believe it is the other way around. They gave people the right to be armed and declared that it could not be infringed so that they could have a well regulated militia if needed.

      "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

      by high uintas on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:10:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We have to shine the light on Cerberus and busines (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, blueoasis, ssgbryan

    The gun lobby can make as much noise as they want. The financiers like Cerberus have control of these companies. The financiers could have turned this off after one crisis. Instead, they pumped out a new culture, the "tactical". The business community is equally important. We shame every business donating to NRA politicians. Remember the walk of shame at UC-Davis. We need one of those for the Cerberus employees or the gun dealers or Target. We got one called Black Widow Arms here in Virginia. It is all the predictable mumbo-jumbo 2nd Amendment stuff to sell the "tactical" culture.

    The death of those 20 children hurt us all bad and it is unbearable that it took this.

  •  Take the profit out of gun sales. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    Put the burden of maintaining a weapons database onto the gun manufacturers and ammo manufacturers. Pass legislation requiring a new department of gun regulation to be financed by taxing the weapons manufacturers. In addition limit future sales of all assault weapons to civilians.  

    Lots of good suggestions here about ways to limit gun purchases.  If cost of maintaining databases of purchasers and weapons were put onto manufacturers (to be shared/overseen by ATF and FBI) profits would go down and fewer civilian sales would be made.

    "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe it." Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by pvasileff on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:16:24 AM PST

  •  Terrorism - like Oklahoma City (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    I seem to remember that event was followed by hand-wringing from the right about access to weapons of mass destruction - appropriately so.

    There are parallels - Timothy McVeigh knowingly targeted children in a way that directly killed many of them.  He wasn't judged 'mentally ill' but I don't see how that's meaningful in this kind of event.

    More importantly, whether the perpetrator is considered ill or not, why isn't this judged an act of terror, and why can't the right wing and gun owners respond to it as we do other terrorist acts?

    I don't hear gun owners crying about TSA checks to prevent terrorism.  I don't hear gun owners crying about controls on explosives.  

    I seem to remember that gun owners called the 'fast and furious' event entrapment and the arming of gangs when the banning that kos champions would have killed the reason for the investigation in the first place.

    I grew up shooting.  I did lots of shooting as a young man.  When I moved to Chicago I gave up my guns because it DIDN'T MAKE SENSE to have them.  I've lived in Chicago (inside the city limits) for 20 years without getting mugged once let alone needing a gun.  My ex-wife was mugged once by unarmed kids who grabbed her purse when a pigeon shit in her eye (I am not kidding).

    Having a gun escalates any situation.  Solving too many guns by having more guns seems like an insane action.

    I'm ready to follow Pres. Obamas lead and kos proposal.

  •  I don't think that the Gun Lobby is feeling (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    very strong right now. I see reports from others that Facebook pages have been pulled down. And now suddenly the GOP wants to remove the Debt Ceiling--which to me is a big giant sign that they are trying to deter talk of this issue by singing a different tune about the so-called "Fiscal Cliff"

    That tells us two things. They aren't feeling strong about guns control debates in lite of public outrage, and have shown their hand about the true nature of the so-called "Fiscal Cliff" [which we knew all along was fake].

    And yes, YES! If you have to have a huge clip in a gun to hit a deer, you have no business hunting.

    In fact, I have known of some hunters who have decided to hunt using primitive weapons, like bows and flint locks, because they don't have to deal with yahoos who suffer from buck-fever, blamming away at anything that moves.

  •  Let's take a page from the GOP playbook (4+ / 0-)

    In the same way that the GOP thinks its okay to require a transvaginal ultrasound before a woman gets an abortion, let's also require an annual, full home inspection for every firearm a person owns.  If any guns are not properly secure or are missing, impose massive fines, confiscate any other weapons, and revoke the right to purchase any new weapons for 5 years.

    In addition to that, I am also for taxing both guns and ammo on a yearly basis.  The higher the caliber of weapon or ammo, the steeper (as in THOUSANDS of dollars a year for an AR-15 and the like) the tax.  All revenue generated from those taxes would go to offsetting the horrific costs imposed by gun violence as well as efforts to prevent more violence.  

    Another thought is to limit the number of bullets any individual is allowed to buy.  Want more?  Bring back your empty casings before you are allowed to purchase again.

  •  SWAT teams don't use 30 rnd clips taped together (8+ / 0-)

    Nor, AFAIK do most soldiers, even on active patrol.

    Maybe special forces carry that amount of firepower. Maybe units in heavy combat (e.g., Falluja) adapt it.

    But, otherwise, NO Professional needs, wants or uses that type of 'tactical' configuration.

    So what the hell are untrained, ordinary citizens doing with that ridiculous arsenal?

    Start by banning big clips.
    Follow by limiting per-person ammo sales.

    No internet ammo sales.
    No ammo at gun shows.

    Anyone can get a box of shells every 3 months
    You get an extra quota with your hunting license.
    Farmers and people in rural/mountain areas get a larger quota.
    Outdoor professionals (e.g. guides) get bigger quotas.
    Licensed ranges can buy unlimited quantities, but only for on-site use (note: big business boost for licensed ranges)

    Or something.

    It's time to THINK.

    Maturity: Doing what you know is right - even though you were told to do it

    by grapes on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:18:30 AM PST

    •  I once offered that same opinion in an RKBA diary (5+ / 0-)

      and was told that I didn't understand that assault weapons and large clips were necessary to control the problem of feral pigs.

      It was around that time that I decided never to comment in another RKBA diary.  The lives of humans vs. feral pigs: tough choice, apparently.

      To believe that markets determine value is to believe that milk comes from plastic bottles. Bromley (1985)

      by sneakers563 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:19:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Antidepressants could be involved (0+ / 0-)

    in many mass shootings

    • An autopsy concluded that Columbine killer Eric Harris had the SSRI antidepressant Fluvoxamine in his bloodstream at the time of his death.

    • Jeff Weise, who killed nine people and himself at a Minnesota high school in 2005, was taking increasingly high doses of Prozac at the time of his spree.

    • Robert Hawkins, who killed eight people and himself at an Omaha mall in 2007, reportedly “had been on antidepressants” at the time of his shooting. He allegedly had taken antidepressants since he was six years old.

    • Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 and wounded 23 at Virginia Tech in 2007, had been prescribed Prozac and had previously taken Paxil for a year, but he apparently had ceased taking his medication at the time of the shooting.

    • Andrew Engeldinger killed five people and himself after being fired from his job in 2012. A police search of his house revealed he’d been prescribed the antidepressants Mirtazapine and Trazodone, as well as the insomnia medication Temazepam.

    • Eduardo Sencion, who killed four people and himself with an assault rifle at a Utah IHOP in 2011, was a paranoid schizophrenic whose “medications were changed” during the summer prior to his attack.

    • Robert Kenneth Stewart, who murdered eight people at a North Carolina nursing home in 2009, submitted to a blood test that revealed he had Lexapro, Ambien, Benadryl, and Xanax in his system at the time of his spree.

    • Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people and himself on Valentine’s Day in 2008, had allegedly been prescribed Xanax, Ambien, and Prozac, although according to his girlfriend he had stopped taking Prozac prior to the massacre.

    •  you know I have seen this... (7+ / 0-)

      ...argument posted here and elsewhere.  It smells of diversion in my opinion.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:23:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So they were being medicated??? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, JesseCW

      A side effect of anti-depressants is not, you will have urges to kill people.

      Xanax is an anti-anxiety and from I have heard it makes you drowsy not into a killing machine.

      Ambien effects people differently but it knocks me out.  Meaning, I fall asleep.  Can't even stand.

      Benedryl is also something that will make you drowsy.

      So all your list proves is that these people had some mental issue and they were getting help for it.  I would say that improving our health system could be a factor in prevention since clearly all these people had seen doctors.

      If they had all been on some kind of blood pressure medicine would that be significant?

      •  I was depressed in the early 90s (0+ / 0-)

        and given Prozac. Yes, a side effect of that drug on me was it made me want to do bodily harm to everyone around me. If mr.u were here now I would let him tell you about muscling me to the ER because of how crazy I was. That drug made me violent and I'm the kind of person who takes spiders back outside to be free.

        I'm not saying that this should be a distraction from talking about guns, but certain drugs have been known to cause people to become violent and we shouldn't sacrifice the truth because we think it's inconvenient.

        "The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine

        by high uintas on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:19:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Scientology teaches that psychiatry caused (3+ / 0-)

      all the great evils of the last 100 years, from the Holocaust to Columbine.

      They attempt to discredit the concept of using medication to treat mental illness any way they can, often using front groups like Say No To Drugs or Narconon.

      Individual Scientologists have produced "Documentaries" toward this end, and they have established at least one "Museum" to disseminate this propaganda.

      Of course, many people repeating their rather skewed claims are simply dupes.

      When someone has a heart attack even though they're on cholesterol reducing medication...do we blame the medication?

      Do we say 'Look at all these diabetics on insulin who died!  Insulin is the problem"?!??!

      This precise list has, according to a simple google search, been posted in half a dozen places in the last 12 hours.

      Word for word.

      Someone is pushing talking points.

      This place needs a PVP server.

      by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:21:14 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not pushing any agenda here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas

        just putting some facts out there.  From personal experience (during a nasty divorce) I know that the wrong meds can really mess you up.  You can be so messed up that you might not realize in time that you're on the wrong drug.

        •  This is, word for word, being posted (5+ / 0-)

          repeatedly on multiple sites.

          Anyone can cut and paste a chunk of it and slap on quote marks and check it out on Google.

          The wrong meds can really mess a person up  - but more than 10% of our population is on some sort of psychiatric medication.

          Since mass casualty shooters come from a pool of already disturbed people, of course a lot of them are going to be on psychiatric meds.

          That doesn't mean the medication caused it - it means the medication didn't stop it.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:28:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I accuse (4+ / 0-)

    When one reads that a disturbed person had access to legally-held semi-automatic weapons that allowed him to spray 20 six- and seven-year olds, along with their teachers, with between 3 and 11 bullets each, Wayne LaPierre and his co-conspirators should be regarded as accomplices in the slaughter of the innocents. One reads that the majority of even NRA members doesn't agree with the murderous extremism of the leadership which is more driven by the crass commercial interests of gun manufacturers.

    Not to be forgotten is the American Legislative Exchange Council and companies such as State Farm that provide it's board. They provide and push pro-gun laws. They all have the blood of the innocents on their hands.  

  •  Kos Hit It Out of the Park here ! (7+ / 0-)

    Been reading here for 9 years !
    This is one of Markos best essay's I've read

    Thank You Markos !

  •  I have to say... (0+ / 0-)

    ... I am much more in favor of a national gun registry / mandatory standards for gun ownership and storage then I am for banning any weapons nationally that are not already banned to civilians.

    Crazy people are the problem here.  Preventing them access to ALL weapons should be our focus, not punishing the millions of responsible gun owners because we happen to disagree with their philosophy on gun ownership.

    Reading through these posts, I see a lot of demonizing the other side going on, without regard to their views at all or belittling their every concern that tighter regulations and bans would bring.  The other side would probably note the irony of a federal government, one that has proven incapable of protecting a large number of its citizens, taking steps to prevent those citizens from defending themselves.  Comments mocking of the need for home safety/defense from posters probably probably sipping a mocha latte in Pleasantville somewhere are particularly irritating.

    An inability to look at an issue from the other side is supposed to be a conservative characteristic ... lets try and keep it that way.

    •  Comments mocking of the need for home safety/defen (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

      What sort of dangerous, wild-west area do you live in?

      •  I am fortunate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        high uintas

        I currently live in a nice apartment, in a nice area in Maryland.

        At various times in my life, I have also lived across the street from crack houses, in 1st floor apartments with bars on the windows, and gone to movie theaters with bullet holes in the screens.

        I can recognize that many people are not as fortunate as I am now, and live in places where if your only means of self defense were your local police department, you wouldn't make it past the 5th grade.  You may scoff at this reality, but it is never the less real.

        It is this reality that circumstances differ geographically that makes it incredibly hard for me to support any position that limits the right of an individual to protect themselves.

        •  You still don't explain ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Arenosa

          how protection is enabled by being allowed to carry a military grade weapon of mass destruction capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a few minutes.

          If you want to argue, list your arguments.

          •  I make no argument (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Arenosa

            for military grade weapons.  I have personally never been in a circumstance in which I felt that possessing an M4 would be necessary for my own protection.

            I posted as I did as the conversation was starting to move away from a ban on assault weapons and instead focusing on banning firearms in general.

            That said, just because I don't feel I need one, doesn't mean I have the right to force my preconceptions on other people.  While I feel the ban on automatic weapons currently in place is justifiable, I am less confident in the new 'assault weapons' ban being proposed.

            Personally, if you are going to force people to do anything, I would force them to be educated in the safe handling and storage of their firearms, while maintaining a federal registry that effectively screens out those capable of coming into contact with these weapons.  The idea floated about state/federally run storage facilities for of these weapons was a good one, and in the case of home storage, then mandatory safe storage would seem a prudent deterrent (subject to state/federal inspection).

            •  I'm glad you bring up (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              deepbreath

              the issue of mandatory safe storage. I'm not in favor of banning all firearms, but I do think that all the training and licensing and fees in the world are useless if firearms are left anywhere other than a securely locked cabinet or safe when not in use, with the ammo securely locked up in a different location.

              My remaining concern on that issue regards other members of a gun owner's household. Having weapons locked up is of no use if other (possibly unstable) family members know how to unlock the cabinet, have access to the key, or know the combination. And that's a bit harder to regulate.

              "The American people are so used to being told they have freedom and democracy that they've forgotten to check to see if it's still true.." -Commenter on Facebook

              by Arenosa on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 02:41:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you Kos. Very well put together (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueoasis

    Power to the Peaceful!

    by misterwade on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:19:34 AM PST

  •  the NRA can primary republicans (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OpherGopher

    republicans are in the majority in many state legislatures, in many governorships and in the house.  We have a congress and a president who regularly attempt to run around laws and the constitution in the name of "national security", or any other reason they can think of.

    Ignoring "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment isn't even remotely a challenge for them.

    the NRA will win, again.

    look at the people being directly hurt by the fact that they keep electing republicans into office in places like MI and WI, and you realize how far we have to go.

    20 dead kids in Connecticut ?  Pales in comparison agains fears of death panels and FEMA camps.

    We don't have an NRA problem we have a voter problem.

    big badda boom : GRB 090423

    by squarewheel on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:21:51 AM PST

  •  A good place to start the war (3+ / 0-)

    against the gun thugs would be revoking the tax-exempt status of the NRA Foundation.

    If anyone truly believes that any wing of the NRA refrains from overtly political agitprop, I have several bridges to offer you cheap.

    When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

    by PhilJD on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:24:08 AM PST

  •  If carrying guns everywhere is such a great idea.. (7+ / 0-)

    Why aren't people allowed to carry guns into Congress--where the tea partiers refuse to pass any sort of gun control legislation; or into the Supreme Court--where the wing-nut majority Justices refuse to interpret the Second Amendment with any degree of sanity?  

  •  Turn the tables through "Originalism"... (0+ / 0-)

    Since the only firearms available at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted and ratified were single-shot muzzle-loaders, the Second Amendment should only apply to these weapons.  

    Any other more modern variety of firearm should be fully subject to whatever reasonable regulation, restriction, or outright prohibition that Congress or the States shall choose to adopt.

    Hey "conservatives," how do you like Constitutional Originalism NOW?

  •  That exists right here on Dailykos. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crankypatriot

    To anyone who believe it doesn't, check this diary out

    Armed Revolution in America Today

    Check out all of the people who rec'd it and their comments in the diary.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:26:02 AM PST

  •  mentally ill get the shaft again (0+ / 0-)

    same day as sandy hook a disturbed man in China slashed 22 kids with a knife.  I was hoping for a solution that prevents all kinds of attacks, not just some types.  Reading all the stories here you can see that the invisible mentally ill population is going to continued to be ignored and budgets to help them (and prevent these act) will continue to be slashed.

  •  ARMED REVOLUTION IN AMERICA TODAY (0+ / 0-)

    That was a title of a diary rec'd by many gun enthusiast here on Dailykos.

    Armed Revolution in America Today

    It talks all about how the AR 15 is the weapon of choice, and please just go and check out the comments sections.

    "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

    by ranger995 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:28:09 AM PST

  •  "Freedom", bullshit! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    The Nazis took over promising "Freiheit".   Because freedom has always been  the battle cry of Fascism.

  •  Cole was a human sacrifice (0+ / 0-)

    Anbody with an ounce of sense will tell you that advertising you are carrying a gun when the gun is in fact empty is nearly suicidal in its stupidity.

    Cole and others like him are like sheep staked out for slaughter by a maneater by a US military willing to make concessions to the sovereignty of local government, but not willing to drop putting out guards for show.

    Not a valid counter to conservative claims about firearm self-defense.

  •  I dont want to be armed to the teeth... (4+ / 0-)

    I think, what makes me angriest about some of the comments I have read and heard over the past few days (and here, at DKos, nonetheless!) are the idiot comments about how the teachers and principal should have been armed. Then, you know... they would have... uh... pulled their Glock out of their bra and started gunning away??

    Are we supposed to force teachers to carry guns now? Ad target shooting to the list of PDPs they need to keep their license? Because that is utterly grotesque. Anyone who thinks that is even on the table needs to do some serious soul searching.

    I don't want to carry a gun, I didn't get a Masters in Education so I could play Rambo. I want to live and teach in PEACE!

    Is that too much to ask of our society?

    I will ad that I actually do know how to shoot a gun with great accuracy. I actually enjoyed target shooting. I choose not to own a gun.

    Don't mess with MY rights!!!

    who doesn't want to wear the ribbon?!?

    by redacted stew on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:29:42 AM PST

  •  What is a "gun fetishist"? (0+ / 0-)

    How do you define one, kos?  

    Is this just a term of demonization, or does it apply to a certain type of person in particular?

    Would you define someone who owned a Remington 870 with a ten shot magazine full of "OO" buck shotgun shells to be used for home defense a fetishist?  

    Or would that be anyone who believes that a private person should be able to possess firepower similar to that of the ordinary foot soldier in today's Army?  

    A person who wants to own Stinger missiles?   I think we can all agree on that one, but it's a matter of degree, and I don't know where the line gets drawn when every gun's intended purpose is to kill another human being.  

    Similarly, I find it fascinating that some people think nothing of arming Libyan and Syrian rebels with state of the art weaponry, like shoulder fired missiles and mortars, but would prohibit an ordinary citizen in this country from possessing a weapon that is roughly equal in firepower to that of the average grunt.  

    So where do you draw the line between "normal" and "fetish"?  

    Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause. - Gandhi

    by SpamNunn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:29:47 AM PST

  •  What can WE do??? Educate ourselves---learn all (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tim DeLaney, ranger995

    can about the laws of your state; the types o f weapons that are most dangerous; who the Congress people are that support the too liberal approach on gun laws, and so much more.

    We can't simply say: no more "assault weapons"----too vague, and won't work besides.

    Get more facts, so we can intelligently refute the bullshit that comes from 90% of the wingnuts.

    THEN---start working on your local legislators, and your Congress critters......every week.  Hound them.

  •  2nd amendment rights (0+ / 0-)

    Perhaps the better arguement should be that if the gun lobby wabts its 2nd amendment rights they should be limited to using the same weapons that were available then.  My best uneducated guess would be muzzle loaders and other smooth bore single shot weapons.

    I hope some politician has the balls to stand up to the NRA.  I mean after all, the NRA isn't a majority, why should it call the shots (no pun intended)?

  •  Guns & The Anti-Smoking Campaign (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tim DeLaney, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

    I'm amazed that the American Lung Association and others were able to dramatically change the smoking habits of this country.  It took decades of sustained effort and seemed impossible at the start, but the anti-smoking campaign has reduced smoking to a fraction of what it once was.  They achieved this by attaching a social stigma to smoking.  I don't know if the same tactic would work with guns, but the success of that campaign might offer some useful lessons.  

    This isn't going to be easy, because a lot of stupid white men and their faithful servants in the Republican Party are deeply invested in owning guns.  I don't think we can overestimate the extent to which their manhood and their self-esteem are intertwined with gun ownership.  Guns are a useful surrogate for their shriveled little peckers, and they will fight any legislation tooth and nail.  And, gun owners are an important part of the GOP political constituency, so Republicans have a vested interested in opposing any attempt to regulate guns.  This is going to be a long, hard slog....

    How can we have a third party when we don't even have a second party?

    by Eagleye on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:31:55 AM PST

  •  "Well regulated militia" was all about DISCIPLINE (5+ / 0-)

    That's the common element in military training, because, most especially because, you have deadly force at your fingertips. Our all-volunteer military has been so successful because it's the most disciplined force ever created, despite the many failings of leadership and civilian control at times.

    The goddamned Supreme Court should have recognized this is the key phrase in the second amendment, and it's why it's the first clause" "A well-regulated militia...:" REGULATED. TRAINED. CONTROLLED. UNDER AUTHORITY AND DISCIPLINE. This was well-understood by the framers and it's only the $)@#@ing modern gun industry and their lobbyist co-conspirators who have introduced different ideas so they can make more money.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:32:27 AM PST

  •  The NRA's terrible return on investment in 2012 (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, mightymouse, ssgbryan

    The NRA spent a million dollars in campaign contributions.  $720,000 went to federal candidates, $300,000 went to PACs and outside groups.

    The NRA spent $17 million in local elections.  $11 million was spent trying to defeat Democrats, I'm assuming on anti-candidate ads.  They spent $6 million to back republicans.  The top recipients were Mitt Romney and John Boehner.

    Of the $19 million spent, less than a million dollars went to winning candidates, a 4.7% return on investment.

    Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -H.L. Mencken

    by Kwaidan on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:33:43 AM PST

  •  Do you feel that a person living in a high crime (0+ / 0-)

    neighborhood has the right to buy an assault weapon to defend themselves against gangs who are similarly armed?

  •  If you ban semi-autos people will opt (0+ / 0-)

    for speed-loaders.  

    They were used by law enforcement before they switched over to semi-autos.

    Another thing I've read but have no info on, is body armor. Not a lot of legitimate uses that I can see.

    I think the most likely option will be to ban future assault  weapons and clips but leave the existing inventory out there. That will only serve to raise the price but still leave millions available for those who want them.

    "The human eye is a wonderful device. With a little effort, it can fail to see even the most glaring injustice." Richard K. Morgan

    by sceptical observer on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:34:49 AM PST

  •  For some reason (0+ / 0-)

    I keep thinking you were a howitzer guy.

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:36:17 AM PST

  •  Lotta gun nuts in my family. Zero assault weapons (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoGoGoEverton, annieli, Yonkers Boy

    I suspect they'd support a ban on assault weapons.

    Grandpa had pistols in every room in his house. Three revolvers in his night stand. He had a secret stair step that lifted up to reveal a pile of guns.

    I think if he was around today, he'd support a ban on assault weapons.

  •  Turns out, guns aren't so easy to use: (11+ / 0-)

    there's a huge overestimation of the ability of people, under pressure, to hit what they are aiming at, much less aim at the right things.

    That's why people who have hitting what they are aiming at in the job description go through an enormous amount of training.

    But Americans watch movies where the bad guys always miss and the good guy never does.  Or the good guy gets a superficial wound...which he is able to ignore...before shooting the gun out of the hand of the bad guys.  And a whole bunch of shows where your normal mom or dad is able to take down an army.   It's a fantasy.

    One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

    by Inland on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:38:02 AM PST

  •  Mother doubled down on stupid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, ssgbryan, sukeyna

    I'm not down with this Mother having a "heart of gold" as reported, maybe she was a sweetheart but more important is that she was a survivalist nut. Not only did she go and arm herself as if invading barbarians were at the door but she did not lock them up from her obviouse "off" son. Or if they were locked up the son knew where the key was. Stupid, stupid Mom. What is it about the stat you are more likely to die by your own gun that you had trouble understanding? Not you, eh? What you all believe. As part of control, bullets have to be part of it. For personal defense in a home you should not be allowed hundreds of rounds, or thousands as was the case with an earlier shooter.
    Maybe have owners turn in the empty casing to get more amo so they can't hoard them. Buy and use rounds at gun ranges.

    •  She had a brain of mush, we know that much. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bigtimecynic, annieli, ssgbryan, sukeyna

      She's dead, so it doesn't matter. We need laws to ensure exemplary punishment of the next one, and there will be a next one.  Negligence with firearms should be punished with enough severity that nobody will be negligent with firearms.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:48:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here in western PA last week a young boy was shot (6+ / 0-)

        and killed in his car seat, after his father tossed his rifle into the back o fthe truck on the way home from the shooting range.  In order for this to happen, the goddamn idiot father had to be guilty of three things that no responsible gun owner would EVER do when transporting a gun:

        1. The gun was loaded in the car.
        2. A round was in the chamber.
        3. The safety was off.

        Somewhere along the way, gun fans started thinking that just because they love guns, they are somehow qualified to handle them. Obviously that is frequently not the case.

        Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

        by bigtimecynic on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:56:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for bringing that case up (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigtimecynic, ssgbryan

          I live more or less there and before CT that was another clear-cut case of negligence where the dad gets off with zero punishment.  It's way too close to the Jewish joke where the guy kills his parents and asks for mercy because he's an orphan; this guy killed his son and too many people think that's punishment enough.

          You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

          by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:16:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I always have the safety off.. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ssgbryan

          But that is because the last thing I always do when I put up a gun is eject the magazine, charge the weapon, point the gun in a safe direction, and then pull the trigger.  This guy obviously didn't clear the weapon before taking it to try to sell it.  I truly makes zero sense but such is the way of things.

        •  Like a pack of cigs (0+ / 0-)

          I guess guns need big ugly warnings for the stupid users. At least when shit happens we can all look at them and say, well, didn't you read the warning. Butt head.

  •  More and more I think we should amend the 2nd. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    statsone, mightymouse, high uintas

    Yeah it would be tough, but I just don't see much serious comprising agreements amongst serious people NOT being held up but tons of UNSERIOUS people with NRA money lining their pockets.

  •  I feel I understand where Markos is coming from (3+ / 0-)

    on this.  I have been around guns my entire life.  I started target shooting a red rider BB gun at 5, and was firing revolvers and shotguns at 8.  I hunted regularly in middle and high school and carried a variety of weapons in doing so.  I joined the military and carried an M-16A1 in training, and an M-16A2 in the few times I was armed while serving.   I once also carried a M-249 light machine gun in the days following 9/11.  

    Though all of that experience in using weapons didn't make me a gun enthusiast.   Instead it made me keenly aware of the power and dangers associated with these weapons.   Thankfully I never had to use or even point a loaded weapon at a person, with the exceptions of combat school where we used blanks to set off the MILES gear lasers.  

    I have actually not ever owned a weapon in my adult life for private use.   I stopped hunting long ago.  I lived in Japan for many years where they have a ban on weapons, and I don't feel a necessity to expose my daughter to a dangerous weapon in our house.   I am for a semi-automatic ban with few exceptions.   I am also for making it much much harder to get and retain a firearm of any type.  I like to say that I am not anti-gun, I am pro responsible gun ownership.  

  •  I'm a gun owner and here's what I fucking want. (12+ / 0-)

    I want handguns outlawed for civilians. The primary function of a handgun is public concealment.

    I want semi-automatics outlawed. If you are too fucking uncoordinated to work a bolt-action or level-action rifle and reload your chamber between shots, then go buy a Nerf gun.  If you need a semi-auto to down your prey while hunting, stay the fuck out of the woods.

    I want detachable magazines outlawed.  And all internal magazines should have a max capacity of 6-8 rounds.  This would require frequent reloads and give a window for people to rush a shooter in a massacre situation.  I also want speed-loaders outlawed, which would prevent rapid re-loading of internal magazines.

    I want gun show sales shut down. I want a limit of 1 gun purchase per year.  I want annual inspections for guns just like we have them for cars, to make sure people aren't modifying their weapons.

    And I want the goddamn spineless fucks in the Democratic Party to earn the fucking (D) after their name.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:43:19 AM PST

  •  The armchair tacticians (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

    or "commandos" as John Cole so fittingly calls them, never fail to misplace the element of surprise, one of the worst errors a tactician can make. One may know when an attack may occur, but not where; or where an attack may occur, but not when, & either presumed condition may itself be a ruse. The odds of an attack against any point may be fantastically long. If you arm every teacher in a school, that is not an  element of surprise. It merely changes the plans of the attacker. It's all so idiotic. Round & round they go. & the teachers do have to teach. That's their primary job.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:43:29 AM PST

  •  On a trip to the local barbershop (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

    several years ago, I remember paging through one of the hunting magazines. They had an article promoting assault rifles as good guns for young hunters. I laughed at the absurdity of it back then, but it wasn't really funny.

    It is way past time that we enact sensible regulation on the ownership of weapons, and I think following the example of auto ownership and liability insurance is a good idea.

  •  Did a little research into the AR-15... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, ssgbryan

      Its precursors were developed to overcome some specific and incredibly pertinent warfare scenarios. This is from Wikipedia, so it's merely a start, but research on actual battlefield conditions found that:
       Weapons were too heavy and bulky, they needed to be smaller and lighter so as to be able to be brought to bear faster.
       More bullets made for better battle outcomes: higher kill ratios.  Now, that's in a firefight, with people shooting back.

       But the two biggest factors, in my mind are one that is addressed in the entry, highlighted below...

    ...most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. They also found that the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random; accurate "aiming" made little difference because the targets no longer sat still. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.[22] Other studies of behavior in battle revealed that many U.S. infantrymen (as many as 2/3) never actually fired their rifles in combat. By contrast, soldiers armed with rapid fire weapons were much more likely to have fired their weapons in battle.[23] These conclusions suggested that infantry should be equipped with a fully automatic rifle of some sort in order to increase the actual firepower of regular soldiers. It was also clear, however, that such weapons dramatically increased ammunition use and in order for a rifleman to be able to carry enough ammunition for a firefight he would have to carry something much lighter.
    Existing rifles met none of these criteria. Although it appeared the new 7.62 mm T44 (precursor to the M14) would increase the rate of fire, its heavy 7.62 mm NATO cartridge made carrying significant quantities of ammunition difficult. Moreover, the length and weight of the weapon made it unsuitable for short range combat situations often found in jungle and urban combat or mechanized warfare, where a smaller and lighter weapon could be brought to bear faster.
     That factor right there, which I'm sure is very similar from the auto to semi-auto weapon as far as boosting the psychological will to shoot in a critical situation, has apparently been known for 60 years, and bears looking into regarding lowering the psychological barriers to sociopathic action by would-be shooters.  This would seem to be beyond saying "It's easier to shoot a lot with a semi-automatic gun" if there's research showing that small shooting capacity induces a psychological vulnerability in people that makes them far less likely to act on such violent impulses.

       The second factor I really wonder about is the addition of the pistol grip to any long gun, and how it affects its utility in close combat situations.  "Shooting from the hip" has long been a double-edged adage referring to acting instinctually or emotionally without planning or thought, but it derives from a kind of literal shooting skill that is much more effective at close quarters than shouder-firing and is specifically enabled in a weapon with a pistol grip.
       Oh, Wiki link

  •  One more time (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan
    [I]n the middle of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, even with clear Rules of Engagement, every time I went on gate duty, there was a piece of tape over my ammo clip on my M-16 and M1911 .45. Why? Because the most heavily armed military in the world did not want accidental shootings. If a situation arose, I would have to eject my ammo clip, remove the tape, and reinsert and work the action before I could fire.

    This was in a combat zone. Yet I have spent the last two fucking days dealing with armchair commandos telling me they need unlimited firepower to be safe in… Connecticut.

    When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

    by msmacgyver on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:50:47 AM PST

    •  Well, to be fair... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10

      ...the people saying this stand in at least as much opposition to most of CT's population as US troops stood in occupied Iraq.

      You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

      by Rich in PA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:56:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Responsible Gun Owners (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, deepbreath

    The people in the best position to change the gun culture in this country are the responsible gun owners.  It would be in their best interest to stand up right now and clamor for sensible gun restrictions.  As gun owners, they would have a lot of political credibility.

    How can we have a third party when we don't even have a second party?

    by Eagleye on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:53:27 AM PST

  •  Great Post (0+ / 0-)

    I tried to touch on some of this in an article I wrote recently for the site but don't have your level of understanding and experience with guns. I would love to see every single one of your ideas enacted.

    Progress 365 not just a slogan a goal - 300 progressive seats in the House and 65 progressive seats in the Senate.

    by jusjtim35 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:54:42 AM PST

  •  Let's take back the term "pro-life." Right now. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Brian1066, pixxer, Laconic Lib
    You have have a conservative movement that would fight to its last breath for those 20 when they were fetuses, but can't bring itself to get outraged once they were born.
    How about we take back that term, "pro-life" right now, while we can. We, the ones who want to inhibit the ability of the murderous to become mass murderers.

    Don't let the anti-abortion lobby monopolize the term, while their pet party drops all interest in protecting people once they're born. Protecting children from bullets seems like the true pro-life stand, if you ask me.

    You can argue whether life begins at conception or not, but it doesn't end at birth as the GOP seems to think, and it damn well shouldn't end in a peaceful American town at age 6, 7, 9, 20, or even 90, at the wrong end of an assault rifle.

    Cry, the beloved country, these things are not yet at an end.

    by rcbowman on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:55:54 AM PST

  •  Shotgun is the best defense weapon for your home. (11+ / 0-)

    Period.  That "click clack" noise of a shotgun round being chambered will cause all but the looniest home invaders to TURN AROUND AND RUN.  Plus, when you are filled with adrenaline and stressed to the max, AND aiming at a moving target . . . .  Rifle, pistol, etc. = round penetrating walls, windows, while missing the moving invader after 10, 20 shots.  Shaking, unstable hands.  Limited vision.  Too late, you're already dead--who knows?  One shotgun blast with a wide or no choke, and you'll hit your target enough to stop him.  Meanwhile, police are on the way, and there is your critical moment to ESCAPE.  I am a big advocate of hunting, shotguns, self defense--all that is RKBA--FOR ONE'S HOME aka CASTLE.  This lunatic stuff, however, is beyond the pale.  Simply.  Beyond.  As KOS points out well--government tyranny in 1800 and 2012 are not even close.  BEFORE the government becomes tyrannical, let's vote in folks who will keep it that way.  Once it's lost to a dictator, if even possible anymore, we are all toast--regardless of how many AK-47s are in the 'hood.  

    Mix the blood and make new people!

    by Yonkers Boy on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:56:17 AM PST

    •  Absolutely. If you are at the end of the hall (5+ / 0-)

      with a shotgun, NOBODY it making down that hall.

      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

      by bigtimecynic on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:01:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  But then ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... due to lack of assault weapons to sell, the market shifts to ...

      ... shotguns.

      And a kid brings his shotgun to class.

      Do you then, go ahead and ban shotguns?

      If the answer to this questions was 'no' then I don't think you would have as much resistance on the right (or middle) as you generally get.

      However, to hear a lot of the folks commenting on this article, the next logical step would be to ban shotguns, and then high caliber rifles, and then low caliber rifles, ...

  •  The difference (4+ / 0-)

    Most of the sensible use cases for civilian firearms have little to do with how the gun culture appears to operate.  

    The survivalist scenarios aren't very realistic (except when they go nuts and shoot innocent people, unfortunately that part is all too real).  They are a dangerous mutation of a right wing morality play -- Ayn Rand with an M-16 taking on the hordes.  It's part of American culture; the lone protagonist taking on a world full of evil baddies with just his guns and wits.  

    And a lot of this is stochastic terrorism.  People are hyped up into survivalist or dominionist scenarios; every once in a while, one of them will prove to be mentally unstable and will go commit some horrific act like what happened in Sandy Hook.  Then the survivalists and racists will use this to excuse more of their live-fire fantasies.  It is a uniquely American scenario, much more plausibly deniable than a truck bomber in the Middle East: it only works here because of the cowboys-and-guns culture.  It is self reinforcing: most of us, when this happens again and again, ask "who are these people and how can we disarm them?" -- there is a right wing counterculture that views this as part of the normal order of things: the disasters are either (a) proof of their survivalist crap, and/or (b) somehow deserved it, perhaps by not doing the Ayn Rand with guns thing and taking the bad guy down -- never mind the "tactical" issues with this, not doing so is, in the eyes of right wing culture, a sign of moral weakness.

  •  Great Post! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Back In Blue

    I tried to touch on some of this in a diary I wrote a few days ago but I don't have your level of understanding or experience with regard to guns. I can honestly say I hope every idea you suggested gets enacted.

    Progress 365 not just a slogan a goal - 300 progressive seats in the House and 65 progressive seats in the Senate.

    by jusjtim35 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:57:12 AM PST

  •  Oh, they can dream alright (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    Back in Houston there was a guy (we'll refer to him as
    "gun nut" but I sort of liked the dude) that was dating one of the most liberal women I have ever met.  One of the guys that we knew claimed to be an SF weapons expert.  Possibly true, possibly total BS.  As an ex-Army officer much of what he said had at least a ring of truth to it and he was in the service.  We'll refer to him as Your Everyday Sniper or YES Man.  

    We were at a party and YES Man had a 50 cal. sniper rifle in the trunk of his car.  It's Houston, work with me here.  So he mentions it to Gun Nut and Gun Nut of course wants to see it.  There in the garage the 50 cal is unveiled in all its, ahem, glory.  Gun Nut proceeds to pick up the weapon and cradle it like someone would pick up a wounded bird.  It was truly surreal and eye opening.

    BTW Gun Nut was really a pretty safe dude.  Practiced good gun safety.  Never carried.  Locked up his guns.  Pretty much the model gun nut.

  •  Do we care to remember ... (0+ / 0-)

    Connecticut HAS an exemplary set of gun control laws, and the guns used in the Sandy Hook tragedy were purchased a  complete compliance with these laws.

    Of the 30,000 firearm fatalities each year ... 18,000 are suicides.

    And the real issue isn't the high capacity "ugly guns" which are the tool of choice for both mass murder, and casual shooting at glass bottles and tin cans.  

    Each year we have a couple or three "9/11"s in which people die by ones and twos in botched robberies, escalated, domestic disputes and the "normal business practices" of criminal organizations.

    If we actually took safe and sane regulatory measures to prevent some of the annual 12,000 fatalities due to illegal gun activity ... and of necessity, these measures would be expensive, intrusive and resented (much like the current " over regulation of automobiles and recreational watercraft)  ... there would still be the occasional mass murder of The Innocents

    Because the gun genie is well and truly out of the bottle -- and has been since the Civil War.  So many guns in private hands ... the overwhelming majority of them used lawfully and carefully -- and so tied up with some people's dearly held ideas about  their Liberty, Citizenship and Manhood.

    So President Obama can put on his Pastor In Chief hat yet once again ... he can exhort yet once again how we "must do better" ...

    But frankly ... if the death of 20 precious beautiful little white children isn't going to legitimatize Federal gun control programs ... well, the daily one-at-a-time deaths of Inner City Urban Youths aren't  likely to get much political traction, either.

    But ... it's a good vicarious sob-fest and pearl-twist, and it'll probably last until the next distraction major human interest news event.

    •  CT's gun control laws suck quite frankly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CwV, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

      At a minimum we need to qualify people that want to purchase military style weapons (and really all such weapons) prior to their purchase.  I'm pretty sure this woman that bought these guns didn't have much of a clue about how to employ them.  She obviously didn't understand how to lock them up or otherwise keep them from people that were completely batshit insane.  She simply wasn't qualified to have such a weapon.  In like manner, I am completely unqualified to drive a tractor trailer and everyone in the country agrees that is a common sense precaution.

      If you think that nothing will come of this tragedy, I believe you are gravely mistaken.

    •  We have WHAT? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blanchy, Laconic Lib, ssgbryan

      There is practically no gun control in this state, rifles and shotguns, even assault rifles are easily obtained. Ammunition is available at every Mall*Wart. Teenagers here have access to firearms just as easily as they have access to alcohol and often from the same careless parents.
      I don't know how many people are actually licensed for concealed carry but I was recently at a party where half the people there were packing loaded pistols (I found out after the fight).
      If we have "exemplary" gun laws, we sure don't have any enforcement of them.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:28:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exemplary (0+ / 0-)

      I have seen other comments to this effect on other sites.  "Exemplary", of course, means "an example".  So, CT certainly has "exemplary" gun laws in that they are an example of a set of state gun laws.  They may even be superior to the gun laws in some, most, or all other states.  To argue that they are of high quality on some absolute scale is ludicrous in light of what has just occurred in CT.

  •  So, GOP assholes, were these teachers overpaid? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, viget, tardis10, Laconic Lib, sukeyna

    Were they union thugs?  Go ahead, tell us what you really think about them.

    Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

    by bigtimecynic on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:03:06 AM PST

  •  Crazy idea? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    deepbreath

    But it just might fit within 2nd Amendment.

    1) Limit (but not ban) personal use of assault weapons.  Such weapons must be registered, require a security check and a gun safety check, possibly a mental health screen.  IF the applicant is cleared to own, said weapon MUST be registered in the state of residence and MUST be housed in a locked facility at a GUN RANGE for target shooting only.  The gun must be checked in and out of the facility for each use. There would be no limit on the number of such weapons a person could own, but they MUST be housed at an appropriate facility.

    2) Limit (but not ban) the sale of ammunition for such weapons to sale at gun ranges only.  Possibly limit the number of rounds that can be purchased at any one time.  I realize that some non-automatic weapons use the same ammo.  But let's face it, some states still limit the sale of hard liquor to liquor stores that are only open at certain times... why can't we do the same with ammunition?

    3) As a compromise, offer the NRA the status quo on non-automatic personal use weapons such as revolvers, shotguns, bolt-action rifles, muzzle loaders, etc.  No further restrictions on such weapons.

    4) I don't know what to do with semi-automatic pistols.  It is reasonable that such weapons fall within the purview of 2nd amendment and castle doctrine precedents.  There is a reason to have such weapons at one's domicile for protection.  I would like to limit the magazine capacity to 6-8 rounds, but that might be difficult.

    In any case, I think there is room for wide agreement on limiting, if not outright banning, of assault weapons.  Without the Bushmaster, it is unikely 20 children and 7 adults would be dead today.  Certainly, there would have been some casualties, but not as many.  We NEED to start there and have some kind of RATIONAL discussion about limiting highly lethal weapons and ammunition.

    We have controls on things as diverse as narcotics, chemical precursors for drugs, radioactive materials, even antibiotics, that require licensed practioners to dispense, prescribe, approve the sale of, or operate.  All these things can be lethal if used improperly. All can do immense good if used appropriately.  Why should ammuntion and weapons  be any different?

    And to everyone, I realize these thoughts have been echoed in the comments, I wanted to put them in one place, because I think they are common-sense proposals that can start a dialogue between both sides of the aisle.  No one wants to see any more innocent children killed.

    And also, it's something that my rightwing father and I both agree upon.  He is not a gun owner (nor am I, I abhor the things), but he supports the NRA and their policies.  He votes R every chance he can.  He thinks these are sensible reforms.

    Why not start talking today?

    People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

    by viget on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:08:16 AM PST

    •  Keeping guns stored outside the home (0+ / 0-)

      .. is a perfectly reasonable option.  I would argue that many (if not most) safety-conscious gun owners already do this.

      The trick lies in the personal protection department.  It would be extremely hard for me to make a case that I required my Assault Rifle for home defense.  However, a shotgun is an entirely different matter.

      Perhaps an addendum: weapons of this nature are to be stored in either a non residential, state/federally maintained location, or if housed at a residence/non federally maintained location, then proof of safety measures must be presented to the federal government and these safety/storage measures are subject to inspection.

      My overall concern though stems from what I am gathering in a lot of these posts: is that to most progressive commentators, a gun is a gun.  And 8 months after the assault weapons ban is in place and some kid brings his dad's .30-30 to school, they'll jump back on the gun-ban train.

  •  "There has been a palpable change..." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    Based on my facebook feed, I am inclined to agree.  People I know that are essentially apolitical and do not ever comment on matters of public policy are definitely engaged on this and they want action.  It's sad that it took this event to wake people up, but it did.  Now is the time for action.  Enough talk.

    "Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." - Robert G. Ingersoll

    by Apost8 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:11:42 AM PST

  •  Another veteran agrees with kos. (5+ / 0-)

    I was raised on a farm, so we had a .22 lever-action rifle and a 20-gauge pump shotgun for hunting (no magazines, just the 4-5 rounds you could slide into the receiver, nothing semi-automatic, and no handguns). My two brothers and I learned how to shoot them safely from our father, and used them for hunting and some target shooting (primarily so we wouldn't waste ammunition while hunting). As I said these were for hunting--I ate a lot of rabbits and squirrels growing up on the farm, and pigeon pie was a specialty of my grandmother.

    I later spent four years as an officer in the U.S. Navy in the early 70's, so I learned to fire weapons there, but of course nowhere to the extent that kos did. Being an officer, I mainly learned how to shoot a .45 sidearm in the Navy, which I had to wear (and fortunately never had to fire) when I helped to distribute the cash for the twice-a-month paydays--but then I was also escorted by two of the biggest toughest and armed Marines who had orders to shoot anyone who tried to steal any of that money (which could be substantial), or even me if I tried to run away with it. Again fortunately no one was ever stupid enough to mess with those two Marines (I was a cream puff compared to them). Nowadays, military pay is done electronically with direct deposits to bank accounts, so there goes another old Navy tradition (the new way is better).

    But after I left the Navy (and the farm), I've never had a gun and have never had the desire to own a gun. And I'm even more happy about that since my curious grandson likes to spend some sleepovers with his grandmother and me. So outside of the military and police, and real hunters (who would preferably kill only what they then eat--I also don't care for hunting now either), I think the costs of gun ownership (mainly the once again obviously all-too-sad intangible costs) greatly outweigh the benefits.

    And kos is absolutely correct about the military controlling access to the arms and the rounds even within that highly trained military community. So the civilian community having fewer safeguards and restrictions that that of the military regarding training and access to guns and ammunition (and in some cases very similar guns) is just absolutely nuts to me and makes no sense whatsoever.

    Anyway that's my two cents. I support additional controls on semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, as well as spending more for research on, attention to and support of mental health services to try to identify and help those with mental problems before we have to go through another Sandy Hook--which if we do nothing, again, will unfortunately happen, again.

    These are troubling times. Corporations are treated like people. People are treated like things. ... If we ever needed to vote we sure do need to vote now. — Rev. Dr. William Barber, II to the NAACP, July 11, 2012

    by dewtx on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:15:58 AM PST

  •  Gun politics & history in Britian (0+ / 0-)

    Very detailed summary at this Wiki

    And thank you, Markos.

    Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

    by willyr on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:16:17 AM PST

  •  My question to Markos (3+ / 0-)

    Are you OK with having a very vocal group of gun bullies here at DKos?

    If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

    by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:19:00 AM PST

  •  Good post, Markos. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Back In Blue, tardis10, ssgbryan

    I also note that the carnage continues. Two police officers were murdered last night in Topeka, Kansas. I would snark about, "if only they had had guns and were trained in their use," but I'm simply too sad.

    http://www.cnn.com/...

  •  Good that you flagged the suburbs (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Back In Blue, delver rootnose

    Here in Missouri, the  NRA tried to get concealed carry through a referendum in the early 1990s, vastly outspending the opposition. It still lost, as the suburban vote killed them.

    But then they just got a Republican legislature to pass it a few years later over the Democratic Governor's veto, referendum results be damned.

  •  Thank you for this, Markos. nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Churchill, delver rootnose
  •  Guns = (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    = violence
    = death
    = blood
    = destruction

    Outside of procurement of food, there are no positive uses for this "hobby." Outside of being attacked by a bear, there are no situations made better, not worse, by the presence of a gun.  I will not be persuaded otherwise.

    A hobby is productive, creative, enlightening.  A sport is energetic, uplifting, life-affirming.  Guns are the opposite. Gun "enthusiasts" need to drop the euphemisms they use to mask the abomination to nature that guns truly are.  

    “No, Governor Romney, corporations are not people.” ~ my new Senator Elizabeth Warren

    by Domestic Elf on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:51:12 AM PST

  •  "I'm the NRA" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    I would dearly love to take out a full page ad in the Washington Post or some other right-wing rag with a full head autopsy photo of Lanza's mother and the caption "I'm the NRA"...

  •  As an Ex-Artillery Officer (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    Although gun control will not of itself solve the problem, some reasonable limits surely would help. I'm sick of the tired evasion that guns don't kill, people do. Obviously people with guns often kill other people and at times go on an insane, homicidal rampage. Automobiles are dangerous in the wrong hands, so people have to prove they can handle a car and get a license to drive one. Guns should be licensed and registered too. Why is that so unAmerican? There should be a public discussion of what sort of weapons are legitimate. I don't think even the NRA would insist that everyone should be allowed to fire guided missiles, rocket launchers, or artillery. It might be helpful in a reasonable discussion to decide where to draw the line: automatic or semi-automatic firearms? armor piercing projectiles, hgh-capacity clips? Justice Scalia. the "originalist," should acknowledge that the second amendment was proposed in an age of single-shot muskets or rifles that took some time to reload. And perhaps the bizarre interpretation that joining a "well regulated militia" had nothing to do with the right to "bear arms" might be revisited! I must confess that as an artillery officer I fired every weapon from a 45 hand gun to an 8 inch howitzer, which to me was hard work, not fun.

  •  Not quite right (0+ / 0-)

    A gun without a magazine fires one shot per cylinder without reloading.  What you meant was a detachable magazine that can be quickly swapped.  Further, even if the magazine is not detachable, it needs to have limited capacity for the limitation to have any benefit to society: a fixed, 100-shot magazine is probably just about as deadly as the Aurora shooter's detachable 100-shot magazine.

    o The closer we get to fixing it right the first time, the better off we'll be.


    My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.—Carl Schurz
    Give 'em hell, Barry—Me

    by KingBolete on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:06:23 AM PST

  •  "People don't need assault rifles to hunt" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan
    People don't really buy assault rifles to hunt. If you can't take down that deer with a single shot, then you have no business hunting. Learn how to fucking aim.
    Obviously you have never had to defend a fruit orchard against a gang of four-legged horned terrorists.    I have six in sight right now.   I'm wondering where you get one of those rocket thingies.   /snark

    (I think the damn things know I am a vegetarian.)    Excellent article.    People in rural areas often bring up the need for weapons to fight off {cougars, bear, snakes(!), moose, coyotes.}  

    In reality few nonprofessionals can protect themselves against these threats.    You won't know about the cougar until it is too late, few hunters can hit a charging bear in the 10  seconds they have in the rare encounter with an agressive bear, and if a pack of coyotes attacks your dog it will be dead before you can find your gun.    

    Hunting is very different from protecting against the (very rare) sudden attack by wildlife.

    And as for personal safety?   I have been the victim of a recent ecounter with bad people and have had all the monkey-brain fantasies of "if only I had a machine gun."   Well, in reality I had no idea what I was up against until it was too late.   Any weapon I had would have been turned against us.    The best weapon was our telephone.

    My monkey brain wants big weapons, my rational brain has the only sensible reply:

    Get a dog.

  •  1973 OKLA prison riot, Nat'l Guard had 1 bullet ea (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    In July 1973 in the largest Maximum Security Prison in Oklahoma, at McAlester in SE Oklahoma, there was a prison riot.  There were over a thousand prisoners there.  There were a hundred or so National Guardsmen there to control the week-long riot.  I know a guy who was a National Guardsmen C....ins. He told me they were only given

    ONE BULLET.  I kid you not.

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up !

    by Churchill on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:20:32 AM PST

  •  on Wiki...223 bushmaster favored by hunters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    I've never heard of a hunder using an M-16/AR-15 time of weapon with a 20-30 round clip to hunt a deer.  

    On Wiki the gun enthusiasts are trying to spin this their way.

    80 % of Success is Just Showing Up !

    by Churchill on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:30:50 AM PST

  •  "Owning & operating a gun... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ssgbryan

    should be at least as hard as owning & operating a motor vehicle" is something I've said (too) many times.

    To echo a commenter above:  
    Establish federal "strict liability" rules for guns and ammo (as we already do with explosives) with training & licensing included.  This would bring the expertise of insurance underwriting professionals to bear on the task of figuring out "who's qualified" to own & operate same.  

    Commercial liability insurance would provide monies for dealing with the damages caused by the use of the product and remove a considerable cost from the health care realm as well as provide timely compensation to the injured without slogging through the courts.

    And what do I ask in exchange for this lucrative new private insurance market?  Federal single payer health insurance for all of us.

    [as the Konovalov's own torpedo is about to strike the Konovalov] First Officer Andrei Bonovia to his reckless Captain: You arrogant ass. You've killed *us*!

    by HDTVGuy on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:40:03 AM PST

  •  But we don't want political exeptions. (0+ / 0-)

    Imagine, in California where I live, a Colt M-16 is a highly regulated "assult rifle."  On the other hand, a Ruger Mini-14 is not an "assault rifle."  Why?  They are both semi -automatic.  They fire the same ammunition.  They both accept high-capacity magazines - the Mini-14 will accept an M-16 30-round magazine.  The only difference is that the Mini-14 has a wooden stock with no pistol grip.  If you put a pistol grip stock on it, by law it becomes an "assault rifle."  I can imagine the phone call: "Senator, this is the President of Ruger.  Did you get my check?"

    While the only people writing gun control legislation are people who know nothing about guns, or people profiting from their sale, we are going to keep having this madness.  

    If they use the terms "automatic," "assault weapon," and "clip," they have no business making our laws.  If they use the terms "tactical," "militia," and "survival,"  they  have no business making our laws.  It's time for the adults to take charge.

    A right answer to the wrong question is a wrong answer.

    by legalarray on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:49:37 AM PST

  •  It's not just the NRA. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver rootnose
    And note, every person who comes out in favor of the status quo, who fights sensible regulation, will be fighting for a status quo that gave us the Sandy Hook massacre.
    Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections
  •  Thank you for your post, Kos. This = Poetry: (0+ / 0-)
    Of course, you have a conservative movement and its NRA friends who think that 20 dead kindergarteners is an acceptable price to pay for their "freedom" to own weapons better suited for highly trained security forces. You have have a conservative movement that would fight to its last breath for those 20 when they were fetuses, but can't bring itself to get outraged once they were born. You have a conservative movement that will now scream about liberals "politicizing a tragedy" to take away their guns—validating every Obama conspiracy theory they've held since Day One of his presidency. As if we'd give a shit about their stupid guns if innocents weren't regularly dying because of them.

    "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

    by bartcopfan on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:53:13 AM PST

  •  Great to have you in the debate (0+ / 0-)

    Your status as a veteran is important. It's a privilege to read your stuff.

    My dad was in the Signal Corps during WWII. After he came home there were never reminders of his service. He made sure we didn't play with guns, and my mom even "confiscated" the other kids' toy guns when they came to my house.

    Guns are not toys. They are serious business, and deserve to be treated as such by government. In accepting the nonsense that the Second Amendment gives us all a "right to own" a gun, in D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court made its biggest mistake since Plessey vs. Ferguson.

    We need a Brown vs. Board court, not a D.C. vs. Heller one.

    http://www.danablankenhorn.com

    by Dana Blankenhorn on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:08:03 AM PST

  •  So true about Lanza's Mom (0+ / 0-)

    "his idiot "survivalist" mother (how'd that work out for her?)".

    I hold no compassion for her death!  If she wasn't a gun wacko, she probalby wouldn't be dead (i care nothing about her death), but there would be 20 1st graders attending school today that now won't ever do that again!

    When i hear of someone getting killed by their own gun in a non-suicide fashion, I don't feel any sorrow for their passing.  I feel sorrow for their family and friends, but not for the idiot who owned the gun and didn't use it properly.

  •  Somebody shine a bright light on the NRA (0+ / 0-)

    The NRA is the lobbying arm of the gun industry. They use the word freedom and feed paranoia to sell guns. They devalue real freedom to live without fear of your neighbors and their own credibility, and they devalue life, to improve the profit margins of the owners of the companies that make guns.

    Guns in the hands of citizens don't provide freedom, and are almost never used for protection. Guns are made and sold to make money, with no concern for the tens of thousands killed and crippled every year by guns.

    The gun lobby is like the tobacco lobby, the oil and coal lobbies, among others, and the bloated banks that support them. Their purpose is to sell products regardless of the catastrophes they cause.

    We need a government that supports the needs of the people, not the greed of the few.

    Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. -Carl Sagan

    by howardfromUSA on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:16:32 AM PST

  •  amen to this post. (0+ / 0-)

    I believe in democracy, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That makes me a liberal, and I’m proud of it. - Paul Krugman

    by Gentle Giant on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:20:23 AM PST

  •  Interesting, isn't it, that Scalia had no problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    delver rootnose

    putting the dubious "rights" of gun owners to own and carry guns in public above the actual rights of human beings to be alive and "secure in their own persons" (in Heller), yet he had no problem putting the even more dubious "rights" of homophobes to discriminate against people they don't like above the right of gay people to have "equal protection under the laws".

    I.e. he's OK with "rights" that he likes, such as gun ownership and states being able to discriminate against gays, and not so much with ones that he doesn't like, such as children staying alive and being gay.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:32:46 AM PST

  •  About That "Gun Lobby" (0+ / 0-)

    Can we call it the "killer lobby" instead?  Or something more appropriately descriptive?  They're advocating more than just guns.

  •  No debate. (0+ / 0-)

    Please don't pretend you're interested in a national debate when you are already labeling people like me gun fetishists. It makes it obvious you're not interested in debate at all.

    In terms of debate, I'll revise and extend my remarks when the emotional fervor has been rightfully replace by reason and logic.

    •  this isn't... (0+ / 0-)

      ...the Vulcan debating society.  Neither is the country.  Fear motivates those who buy guns and those who hate guns.  To require emotionless 'reason and logic' is just ploy to have NO discussion and keep the status quo.  Just like saying 'let's not politicize the tragedy' or it is 'too soon to discuss' is a political statement for the status quo.

      So your concern is duly noted.  Please stay out of the way of people trying to get something done.

      We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

      by delver rootnose on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:51:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Too bad rational debate isn't on the menu. (0+ / 0-)

        Just as long as you aren't kidding yourself that this is a 'debate' driven by 'facts' or 'logic'.

        As far as getting out of the way, I'm not going to do that.

        I'm not going to engage the histrionic amongst us, but I'll be here if this site ever gets around to actually thinking about the issue instead of pulling a 'Tea Party' and refusing to engage in an actual discussion.

  •   so they choose arms over life (0+ / 0-)

    Id rather be a tax and spend democrat than a borrow and spend republican any day. I pay my bills. - me

    by AustinLiberal on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 05:34:47 PM PST

  •  great diary (0+ / 0-)

    last line, I know it was a rhetorical flourish but it sticks

    twenty sets of presents for Christmas

    Some of those kids did not celebrate Christmas. In fact I believe several were Jewish were killed ON one of the last days of Chanukah.

    I know it seems trivial but am trying to think of every one of those kids that died including who they were

skybluewater, SME in Seattle, pie, Renee, Ed in Montana, chuck utzman, jo fish, Alma, nofundy, RF, CJB, hester, mwm341, deben, glitterscale, musing85, Pandora, nicolemm, NYmom, Avila, byteb, just another vet, Caniac41, Pescadero Bill, Andrew C White, VetGrl, eeff, etatauri, saluda, devtob, elfling, SallyCat, Bob Friend, emelyn, cvannatta, Heart of the Rockies, geordie, Zinman, EricS, fugwb, annrose, SoCalJayhawk, Pithy Cherub, cosmic debris, mkfarkus, farmerhunt, vmckimmey, retLT, Miss Blue, jalbert, PeteZerria, Terre, thea lake, lirtydies, artebella, CocoaLove, csuchas, fluffy, dejavu, athenap, Teduardo, TexDem, 2laneIA, fishhawk, ranger995, flash123, crankypatriot, johanus, Jujuree, lcrp, inclusiveheart, econlibVA, Major Kong, ybruti, mungley, Pola Halloween, lyvwyr101, Sybil Liberty, llellet, sebastianguy99, Armand451, TexMex, machiado, el dorado gal, indycam, OpherGopher, citizenx, dewtx, ChemBob, Laurence Lewis, fixxit, Beetwasher, Annalize5, Mikado, Pam from Calif, Inland, Overseas, Ice Blue, Little Lulu, Steve in Urbana, markdd, Sandino, rb608, AnotherMassachusettsLiberal, Marcus Junius Brutus, WisePiper, Blu Gal in DE, Rusty in PA, landreau, sillia, hcc in VA, littlewren, mightymouse, Oye Sancho, ChuckInReno, Jim R, Over the Edge, Jim P, lgmcp, forbodyandmind, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, rcbowman, Naranjadia, tonyahky, koNko, ktar7582, kck, blueoasis, SherriG, bren, eglantine, global citizen, StrayCat, unclebucky, bleeding heart, Zwoof, MBNYC, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, suspiciousmind, Texdude50, blueoregon, blueness, nannyboz, kurious, bstotts, dochackenbush, Hedwig, Palmetto Progressive, Thinking Fella, tegrat, john07801, Loudoun County Dem, tgypsy, aravir, puakev, yoduuuh do or do not, DvCM, LillithMc, flumptytail, Dave in Northridge, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, certainot, davehouck, Kayak, NoMoJoe, jayden, jfranks, jhop7, Wreck Smurfy, Rumarhazzit, GeorgeXVIII, JML9999, BasharH, vet, TomP, gizmo59, rmonroe, MKinTN, chilipepper, mconvente, Chacounne, Involuntary Exile, NewDealer, smrichmond, Swamp Cat, binkaroni, lineatus, mikeconwell, HalifaxLewis, TomFromNJ, Jeff Y, home solar, No Exit, ashowboat, glendaw271, Jim Lacey, Womantrust, msdobie, Karl Rover, Quilldriver, Mayfly, GrannyOPhilly, statsone, bluebelle7, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, BerkshireDem, Bule Betawi, zmom, DemSign, Kansas Born, WSComn, LinSea, Domestic Elf, Magick Maven, don mikulecky, maryabein, Norm in Chicago, CamillesDad1, JesseCW, virginiasabres, TheOpinionGuy, glitterlust, Denise Oliver Velez, kl5, histOries Marko, IreGyre, stevenwag, vadasz, louisev, jfromga, Livvy5, karma13612, Wendy Slammo, citisven, Nannyberry, Larsstephens, Railfan, Its the Supreme Court Stupid, commonmass, smileycreek, Ejeanbob1, Mark B, political junquie, moenrj, Laurilei, FogCityJohn, stegro, Captain Marty, gramofsam1, eb23, Lost and Found, Arenosa, manyamile, tb mare, anonevent, ThirtyFiveUp, DrTerwilliker, USHomeopath, cocinero, leu2500, Glass Navel, Actbriniel, slice, rmabelis, Mac in Maine, no way lack of brain, Onomastic, annieli, Angelica Jo, Front Toward Enemy, sboucher, spooks51, stone clearing, implicate order, jm214, Trev2HI, Mr MadAsHell, RedlandsDem, BlueJessamine, ontheleftcoast, Rick DeVille, kevin k, lillyspad, NormAl1792, Todd E, KelleyRN2, jakewaters, Alice Olson, corkys debt, PorridgeGun, Hohenzollern, sethtriggs, thomask, Muskegon Critic, muddy boots, gof, jhb90277, blue58, Empty Vessel, enhydra lutris, whaddaya, PhilJD, VTCC73, Caddis Fly, erichiro, StateOfGrace, Desert Scientist, cailloux, jimgilliamv2, jolux, Miggles, SoCalSal, Sunspots, jvmwordsmith, DRo, googie, Azazello, Laurel in CA, Mathazar, Rejoinder, Monsieur Georges, quill, absdoggy, jacey, weatherdude, nominalize, stormicats, DeadHead, ursoklevar, Williston Barrett, TheLizardKing, Siri, David54, tb92, S F Hippie, AnnieR, a2nite, swampyankee, Yonkers Boy, Lorinda Pike, ivy redneck, belinda ridgewood, willrob, Nztorg, Olkate, pittie70, ricklewsive, cassandracarolina, tytalus, Noddy, Kenneth Thomas, arizonablue, etherealfire, raina, Glen The Plumber, MikeIa, Spirit of Life, dotdash2u, artmanfromcanuckistan, Melanie in IA, Sue B, TheLawnRanger, Rosedale, Lily O Lady, Blue Bell Bookworm, onceasgt, koosah, 6ZONite, sunmusing, remembrance, glorificus, Tim DeLaney, SanFernandoValleyMom, Panama Pete, broths, minnec, Rileycat, SheilaKinBrooklyn, entrelac, Ree Zen, ggfkate, NEPatriot, AguaEcon, basket, paccoli, rosarugosa, LaraJones, Icicle68, bob152, GreenMother, tresgray, Avilyn, smalakoff, peterfallow, Hey338Too, marcr22, tampaedski, Friend in Miami, sparkysgal, CwV, palmer18, Rich452, The Marti, markc9503, Fulgour, Sharesay, CurriousOutsider, Blackhawks, dannyboy1, H E Pennypacker, Milton Findley

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site