Skip to main content

Sites like Dkos, C&L and shows like Rachel have mocked conservatives for bringing in nothing but men to testify on women's rights, and showing their contempt towards feelings about women by assigning House committee chairmanships to nothing but men. And this criticism and mockery is well deserved, showing that they have little or no concern for the desires and rights of a large segment of the population, listening only to people who have zero first-hand experience of the subject matter and a biased viewpoint as well.

So, if there is discussion at the highest levels on gun control, who will liberals be inviting to the table and giving an authoritative voice to, from the pro-gun side of things?

Or will liberals shut out such voices and thus become that which they previously mocked?

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

  •  There is absolutely zero chance (7+ / 0-)

         that "pro-gun" folks will not be represented.

    The free market is not the solution, the free market is the problem.

    by Azazello on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:10:21 AM PST

  •  Who decided in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WereBear Walker

    England , Australia , Israel , Japan ?

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:11:59 AM PST

  •  Don't you think all these murders are a result (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WereBear Walker, FutureNow, Debby

    of pro-gun folks having their say? I think it's time for them to STFU.

  •  What a loaded question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WereBear Walker, trumpeter

    Absurd on its face.

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

    by yet another liberal on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:13:01 AM PST

    •  In what way? (0+ / 0-)

      Others have posted that there are something like 300 million guns in private hands right now. Even if it is several guns per person, that still means that a huge segment of the population is going to be affected by any change in law or regulation.

      You say without explanation that the question is absurd on its face. So, on what other issue, if any, do you feel that those most affected by legislation or regulation should have no say in the matter?

      •  You think they're just going to be silent? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        We'll hear from the gun rights people.  I need to invite them to the table?  Hardly.  They run the show.

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

        by yet another liberal on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:31:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sure we are going to hear from them, loud and shrill. But given that the vast majority of privately held guns have never been and will never be used in commission of a crime, it seems that there are more than enough reasonable, rational individuals who own guns out there (and use and store and transport them in a competent, safe manner).

          Is there anyone with first-hand experience of being a shooter and gun owner or collector or whatever, whose viewpoint you think is worth listening to in such a debate?

          Or is the liberal side of the issue going to look like the Republicans and the Bush tax cuts ("we've made up our mind already, thank you for wasting your time talking to us").

          •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            But you seem to like to generalize, so I think you'll probably see it that way.

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

            by yet another liberal on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:44:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I do indeed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I do like to generalize, as it tends to cut through the partisan and personal bias and make people confront issues as matters of consistent principle rather than as a specific ideology. The text of the diary is a good example, and has unfortunately angered a few trolls.

              If liberals cannot make a case for their beliefs without using the same tactics that are mocked when conservatives use them, I think that says quite a bit, and none of it is good.

              Raise your hands if you think "the end justifies the means, but only for things you believe in."

      •  The NRA has had their say for YEARS ... (3+ / 0-)

        ... and Sandy Hook is the result.

        Penn State - Rug too small, dirtpile too big, not enough brooms.

        by WereBear Walker on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:34:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Louie Gohmert will have his say (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WereBear Walker, trumpeter, Azazello

    ...of that you can be sure. Rest easy, you champion is on the job.

    "Who is John Galt?" A two dimensional character in a third rate novel.

    by Inventor on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:18:41 AM PST

  •  Maybe I should keep score (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Utahrd, BlackSheep1

    First five comments:

    1) Uses "pro-gun" in quotes, like perhaps it is code for something
    2) A reasonable question
    3) A call for censoring of opposing views
    4) An unspecified assertion of absurdity
    5) An assumption that because I asked the question, Gohmert is my champion

    Of them, I like number 2 the best, if only for the appropriate sig line (but I agree with number 4's as well).

    But, actual answers to the question: zero

  •  Being a woman is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    just like being a gun enthusiast.

  •  It may be time to give (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cany, trumpeter, HappyinNM

    them the same level of consideration that it has given to the gun control side over the past decade.

    Their opinions have ruled the country, without even a tiny nod to opponents, for the past several years, and the result has been an unending stream of gun violence.

    •  Do you know, or just feel? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      On the unending stream of gun violence, the federal assault wepon ban was in force from 1994 to 2004. Go to the FBI web page and look up stats for the number of homicides by the weapon types most affected by that ban from 1990 to 2010.

      If you wish to argue that the pro-gun side has ruled the country and the result has been an unending stream of gun violence, then do so from the framework of what that stream of violence looked like when the most profound national gun control legislation in decades was in force, before it was in force and after it expired.

      Don't assume what is in your power to confirm.

      •  Well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        There are a lot of other things that went into the rise in violent crime in the 1990s including population demographics. But besides, the assault weapons ban did not go nearly far enough. The UK or Australia are much better comparisons. I reject the idea that we need millions of guns in the U.S.

        •  On the concept (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I saw an interesting argument on this topic. Let's say you want to ban "assault weapons", whatever they might be defined as. For sake of argument, do it the other way. Define for yourself what firearms shall be allowed for civilian ownership, now and forever by Constitutional decree, and anything that exceeds that is forbidden. A lot of people who say they just want to ban assault weapons tend to hedge when asked what firearms they would never ban, which makes them look like the "ban abortion by slow degrees" conservatives in state houses across the country. This strikes me as a bit deceptive, regardless of the topic or who is using it.

          There are plenty of things that we do not need, but it seems that all too often the person deciding it is someone who does not see a need for it. Which is why a bunch of middle-aged men were sitting in front of a Republican-led committee on women. Their opinion of what women "need" is a lot different than that of...actual women.

          Everyone makes the argument "but X is different". Guns are different. Abortion is different. Drugs are different. The war on terror is different. Everyone wants a special exemption to let them push their particular "this is the way things should be" on someone else. Lives are at stake, therefore we do not need to listen to opposing views.

          If you are not a gun owner, odds are you have never felt a need for a gun. If you are going to be making decisions for people who do feel they need a gun, isn't it a exclude these people from the decision-making process?

          Are Democrats just going to borrow the Republican playbook for this topic? There are a lot of replies to my simple question that sound like exactly that.

          •  Well (0+ / 0-)

            Who's "Democrats"? If the question is what Congress is going to try to do, I don't think there is any question that the gun advocates are going to have a seat at the table if not possibly EVERY seat at the table the way they have for at least a decade now.

            That would not be my personal approach, but it isn't up to me. I'm advocating for myself. I put health and safety above somebody's hobby. I find it frankly sickening that a lot of people feel their hobby is more important than 20 dead six year olds not to mention thousands of others. But I'm not an elected representative so it doesn't matter what I think other than my votes and occasional donations.

            Don't worry. You are not going to lose your voice. There will be plenty of people who will make sure that doesn't happen.

            •  That's rather cynical (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Don't worry. You are not going to lose your voice. There will be plenty of people who will make sure that doesn't happen.
              Do you think I voted for any of them or think they would speak with my voice?

              And you say "for at least a decade now". Wasn't it around 2006 that both parts of Congress became majority Democratic? I think it a bit of hyperbole to assign gun advocates "every seat at the table" during a period when Democrats held majorities in the Senate and House.

              •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

                After tens of thousands of gun deaths occurring with no legislative action or really even a peep from the Democratic Party on this in years, I have become rather cynical. Keep in mind, it's not just Republicans who shut down debate on this issue. People like Howard Dean and Ben Nelson participated as well. (And I love me some Howard Dean, but I cannot agree with him on this.)

                But who knows. Maybe now a door is cracking open.

  •  Like casinos & cigarettes? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If we ban guns, like many Kossacks would like to do; what would happen on Native American reservations?

    Would federal marshals move in and seize the tribe members's guns?  Phil Sheridan would approve.

    Would tribes still be able to sell hunting permits, like some tribes run casinos or sell cheap cigarettes?

  •  Okay, here's my answer. (2+ / 0-)

    We don't know.

    What I do know is it won't be you or me. It will be people chosen specifically for their positions and hopefully their knowledge. We don't know those names. We don't chose those people. They are chosen by elected officials.

    As to the broader question of whether folks who are gun owners will be represented, of course. That is precisely how we got where we are today. People like me, not a gun owner, are never heard. Well, until now, anyway.

    You posed bait as a question, then you wonder why you don't get an answer?

    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 11:58:40 AM PST

    •  Nobody cared (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      about the perspective of people like us until this incident happened.

    •  Not bait (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I did not post the question as troll bait. The intent was to ask the serious question "are we better people than them?". Unfortunately, so far the answer is pretty much "no".

      And you do discount yourself.

      People like me, not a gun owner, are never heard. Well, until now, anyway.
      Is your opinion on gun control one of the things you base your voting preferences on? If so, then your voice is heard through your elected representative just as much as anyone else's is. You are heard just as much as an African-American, a Hispanic, an Asian, or pretty much any other demographic that Republicans went out of their way to offend in 2012.

      Yeah, NRA. I'm getting to that.

      The NRA has a huge bankroll and a lot of influence precisely because there are a huge number of civilian gun owners. I am a gun owner but have never been an NRA member, but there used to be a time when the NRA's main focus was gun safety and responsible gun ownership. But in recent years they have mirrored the downward slide of the Republican party. The for lack of a better word, "crazies", used to be the fringe of the NRA but now are the mainstream voice.

      Their opposite number, something like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has nowhere near the membership or finances of the NRA. If money and lobbying gets things done and influences the legislative process, and liberals are not interested enough to get out there and make it happen with an opposing force, then your vote is all you have.

      •  I live in CA so BOTH my senators, but not my (0+ / 0-)

        rep, are pretty much gun control advocates to some degree and my state has the most strict laws in the nation in terms of gun ownership etc. My rep is GOP. I live in a red county. He doesn't represent much of anything I believe in.

        Regardless of Brady, polling from today shows that a majority of Americans support limiting high capacity clips and other things.

        The problem with the polling, as we all know, is that many of those are blue voices supporting some kind of control that are not mirrored, like me, by their representatives just like more votes went to dems that republicans in the last election though the house remains GOP.

        Regardless of what we WISH, the system works the way it does and hearings or bills on the issue will include those giving testimony--just as I suggested--at hearings. They will be chosen, in the house, by those least likely to be on our side. And that's the way it is.

        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 01:34:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  President Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shamash, Catte Nappe, BlackSheep1

    said clearly that he will have law enforcement officials on the commission, and I suspect that those individuals will be drawn from a range of different parts of the country.  

    Law enforcement in rural Montana is vastly different from law enforcement in Manhattan, and I will believe that this will give a pretty good idea of what will/will not  work nationally, and where geographic/demographic adjustments have to be made in the decisions.

    I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

    by Wayward Wind on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 12:08:14 PM PST

  •  Shamash, you ask a good question. Let's ask anothe (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    r question, whether it be good or not. What would NOT be subject to a ban?

    LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:09:08 PM PST

    •  Good question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Since I am of the mind that it is people who are the root cause of the problem, my "not ban" list of things leans towards actions rather than items.

      I think that someone with no history of mental illness or violent crime should not be banned from owning a fairly wide selection of firearms.

      I think that we have training and licensing requirements of different thresholds for other activities, and this can be used as a model for different types of firearms. You need a license to drive a car, you need a different license to drive a commercial passenger vehicle like a bus or a tractor-trailer, where you have more force at your disposal or more lives are in your hands.

      You drive drunk, you lose your driver's license but keep your car. You commit violence, you lose your gun license but keep your guns. In either case, if that car or gun leaves your house under your control or your original offense involved the car (hit and run) or gun (violent use), you have committed a criminal offense that can warrant a legal impounding of the offending item.

      We sort of have something like this already, but haphazard. States have different concealed carry requirements, the federal government has strict requirements for a class 3 license, and so on.

      I do not think "need" should enter into it. If you are competent and have no behavioral problems that would counter-indicate it, you should be able to own a gun.

      The "gun show" loophole is a thorny issue. I do not need to get the government involved if I sell someone any other item. Unless that item is something that requires registration, like a car title, or a prescription. Perhaps private sales of firearms could require filing a form within 30 days, listing the gun and serial number, and a signed statement saying the seller confirms the sale and verified the buyer could legally own that weapon. Being criminally and perhaps civilly liable for an improper or unregistered transfer would make people more cautious about who they sold a gun to, and since the original purchaser of the new gun would be registered from the sale by the gun dealer, it leaves an ownership trail, much like the provenance of a famous painting.

      It is not perfect, but I think it would be an improvement, and it does not involve prior restraint or the assumption that people are criminals just for owning or wanting to own a gun. It leans towards owner responsibility rather than gun control. If you like it, feel free to cut and paste it anywhere you want.

      •  It seems a reasonable start to me. I'd ask about (0+ / 0-)

        one exception -- some firearms don't have serial numbers (I'm thinking about black-powder items mostly, but other antiques are the same). In that case, how should the particular item be tracked?

        LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

        by BlackSheep1 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:52:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site