Skip to main content

Among all the arguments (here and on other boards) since Newtown one thing has become clear.  We are not talking the same language.

To most of us it is a justice, political, economic or practical issue: the lack of consistent national regulations on firearms result in many unnecessary deaths.

To the Second Amendment absolutists we are attacking their religion, period.  They have a sacred 27-Word Gospel that must be upheld above all other rights, religions or people; even if it results in the deaths of 32,000 Americans annually (and rising).

So I propose that those of us that wish to change the situation to reduce the carnage have to understand how the religious mindset works.  Really it is no different than "pro-life" people that murder as a way to satisfy their god or the Taliban that murders girls for daring to educate themselves: it is all about dogma and the only thing that defeats dogma is education and exposure of the zealous ideas that benefit a few at the expense of others.

Below the fold I will expand on their sacred texts, which explain why we will never be able to convince them that their religion can/should be changed to accommodate other people's rights (in the same way that the Catholic Church will never be convinced to ordain women).

1. The Gospel

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.
2. The Supporting Texts:

Probably none better exemplifies their companion sacred texts like:

Guns don't kill people ... (courtesy of twigg)
and the many variants of that sacred text, which just like all other sacred mantras must be repeated often.

The best recent explanation of these other sacred texts was actually diaried today by AlecMN in the diary called Top Ten Reasons We Do Not Need Gun Control.  A fine compendium of their sacred texts that protect the sacred Gospel, and nothing stands out more than the fear of getting their idols taken away:

2) Registering Stuff Means It Gets Taken Away.
Now on that topic there was a great diary written a few days ago by kavip going over the facts that it would take diligent federal regulators over 80 years to confiscate all those guns. (kavip also covers the "Hitler regulated guns in Germany and look what happened!" sacred text as well as anyone else can discuss such a ridiculous notion.)

Before we move on, we must visit the most popular sacred text the NRAvangelicals use: MENTAL HEALTH IS WHAT KILLS PEOPLE!  Not much to expand on that as we don't need to beat a crazy dead horse.

So don't try to argue articles of faith with logic - it is futile! NRAvangelicals will only get more rabid and recite their sacred texts again and again no matter what number, logic or reason you may have. Reason has no power against articles of faith, just ask the witches of Salem or the people that lived under the Inquisition. Faith trumps all!

Now that does not mean that the NRAvangelicals are not welcome to comment, not at all! detroitmechworks always welcomes them with a great video/comment like this.  I will limit myself to wishing them a Happy New Year.

3. The Real Power (i.e. their Vatican)

Just like any large religion, NRAvangelism can only be sustained with loads of cash and also with properly placed political dummies.  We are all familiar with how Congress is owned by the NRA, mostly Republicans, but sadly 26 House Democrats openly took money from them just this past year and one Senate Democrat (Manchin). Open Secrets has a great little tool to see how much money is thrown around and to whom it goes.  Nothing sums up their influence over Congress like this blog by the Sunlight Foundation does (portions below, but whole post is well worth reading, LINK, particularly for their graphics showing the magnitude of the NRA influence in the House/Senate):

Of the 435 members of the new House, 205 – or 47 percent – received some money from the NRA during the last campaign. More than half have taken NRA money at some point in their career.  Of the Senate’s 100 members, 42 received contributions this past cycle and exactly half have received contributions at some point in their career. All told, 88 percent of Republicans now in Congress have received a contribution from the NRA at some point in their career, as have 11 percent of Democrats.

The NRA’s beneficiaries include key players such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas. Sessions, one of the NRA’s top recipients ($4,950 this cycle, $64,000 over his career), will serve as the chairman of the House Rules Committee next year, a post that puts him in a position to decide what legislation gets onto the House floor, and what does not. Reid received $4,950 from the NRA the last time he ran (2010), and has received $10,450 over his career.

In the House, the majority party can exercise near complete control over the legislative agenda, and that majority party next year will still be the Republicans – a party where the NRA has many friends. We find that 81 percent of the House Republican Conference (189 of 233 members) received some money from the NRA in their most recent campaigns, and 88 percent (204 of 233) have received NRA money at some point in their careers; Among House Democrats, 8 percent (16 of 201) received NRA money this cycle, and 10 percent (21 of 201) have ever received NRA money.

...

In the Senate, 84 percent of Republicans (38 of 45) received NRA money during their most recent election, and 93 percent (42 of 45) have received contributions at some point. Among Democrats, 8 percent (4 of 53) received contributions the last time they ran, and 15 percent (8 of 53) have received contributions at some point.

...

More than anything, these numbers help us to identify who the NRA considers its friends in Congress, and something about the closeness of those friendships.

It is also important to note that the vast majority of the NRA’s $18.6 million in political spending this past cycle went to independent expenditures, including $13.1 million into the presidential race.  ...  While the NRA’s spending this election failed to yield the desired outcomes, the group spends at levels that politicians both fear and crave, which gives it power.

...

It’s also important to note that for decades, there have been practically no resources and pressures on the other side of the issue. Members know that opposition to gun control brings political rewards (the support of the NRA) while support of gun control brings only political liabilities (the opposition of the NRA). Without a group on the other side, the calculus for members is clear, and explains why the United States has among the most permissive gun ownership laws in the world.

So we thought the Obama Campaign had a great ground game?  Wrong! According to Slate nothing surpasses the NRA's ground game:
Today, the NRA’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, has become expert at maintaining the siege mentality that birthed it. Former NRA leader Wayne LaPierre famously attacked gun control legislation in 1995 as giving “jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.” More recent mailings have claimed that the group is “fighting a multi-front battle with anti-gun radicals in the Obama administration” willing to use “ANY means necessary to DESTROY our freedoms.”

The NRA also has a better ground game than many other lobbying organizations. The group relies on scores of independent gun magazines, thousands of gun shops, and gun clubs across the country to help spread its message well beyond its membership.

And that is just at the Federal/Congressional level.  Very important as they know that their agenda is best served by inconsistent gun regulations across different states, which they challenge one by one - although it sounds inefficient this is actually their savior, write laws for the legislatures they control and fight states/cities that have laws they don't like in court.  Their influence is so large that (from the New York Times 4/12/2012):
That expanded bill, passed with little debate by the Legislature and signed in December by Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, is the newest of more than two dozen so-called Stand Your Ground statutes that have been enacted around the country in recent years. Those laws are now coming under increased scrutiny after Mr. Martin was shot to death by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator, in late February. Similar legislation is pending in several other states, including Alaska, Massachusetts and New York.

Though the laws vary in their specifics and scope, they expand beyond the home the places where a person does not have a duty to retreat when threatened, and they increase protection from criminal prosecution and civil liability. All contain elements of the 2005 Florida statute that made it difficult to immediately arrest Mr. Zimmerman, who has said he shot Mr. Martin, who was unarmed, in self-defense.

Critics see the laws as part of a national campaign by the National Rifle Association, which began gathering on Thursday in St. Louis for its annual meeting, to push back against limits on gun ownership and use. That effort, they say, has been assisted by conservative legislators in states like Wisconsin, and by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which has promoted model legislation based on Florida’s law; the council, known as ALEC, is a conservative networking organization made up of legislators, corporations like Walmart, a large retailer of long guns, and interest groups like the rifle association.

The success of the campaign is reflected in the rapid spread of expanded self-defense laws as well as laws that legalize the carrying of concealed weapons. Only one state, Illinois, and the District of Columbia now ban that practice, compared with 19 states in 1981. Bills pending in several states that would allow concealed weapons to be carried on college campuses, in churches, in bars or at other sites would further weaken restrictions, as would either of two federal bills, now in the Senate, that would require that a permit for carrying a concealed weapon that was granted by any state be honored in all other states.

(emphasis mine)

_______________________

So where does that leave progressives that have no interest in taking anyone's guns away but want to stop the carnage of nearly 100 USA gun deaths every single day?

Just think, on the most horrific terrorism attack we had nearly 3,000 people die and we're OK tolerating ten times that, YEAR AFTER YEAR!  As a matter of fact if you take all US Citizen deaths in terrorist attacks since 1920, including the horrendous 9/11 attacks the total does not reach 5,000; add to that the 6,520 or so military deaths that have taken place on the War on Terror (includes Iraq and Afghanistan) and we reach a horrific 11,000 to 12,000, but more horrifying yet is that this is the number of homicides committed with guns that we put up with YEAR AFTER YEAR! And of course that doesn't cover one sacred tenet I failed to mention above: SUICIDES DON'T COUNT AS GUN DEATHS!  So for those of us that consider suicides and accidental gun deaths as still dead people the total was about 32k last year and it is rising.

We can diary, argue and comment all we want, but until we organize and take on this crisis as the threat it is to our liberties (you know like living in peace or living at all) we will not have much impact.  We really need a grass-roots campaign that will take years (and probably decades) to have some impact.  Short of that we are just tilting at windmills like Don Quixote.  Sure, excellent diary series (like Tom Begnal's Another day in the (gun crazy) U.S.A. started on 12/21/2012 and published every day ever since, and many others) are essential at creating a consciousness of what we are facing, but diaries more will be necessary and in the end some action must result that will change the political paradigm from the current "it is political suicide to take on the NRA" status.

We need to take on the social justice issues related to this (how disproportionately it affects young Black men), the national security (imagine if terrorists were killing 1,000 Americans years after year! we'd sure have action until it was stopped or at least reduced to the 15 or so terrorist deaths that we live with these days), and the economic issues (as diaried by TeacherKen earlier today and based on Eugene Robinson's Column in the WaPo):

Remember, treatment of trauma from gun shot is expensive.  It raises medical costs for all us.

Yes, we have wonderful trauma centers, such as the one in Arizona that was able to save the life of Rep. Gabby Giffords.  They have surgeons experienced in treating gunshot trauma, including from high-velocity military quality weapons such as the Bushmaster AR-15s used in Newtown, to shoot the firemen near Rochester, and by the DC sniper.  Increasingly they are getting the experience not from serving in places like Afghanistan or Iraq, but in inner cities.  

Merely on economic grounds, should not we be discussing the cost to all of us of our current perverted gun policy?

What about the morality of legislatively preventing the federal government from collecting data that shows how high the costs of  our guns really are?  Would we tolerate the automakers prohibiting our keeping statistics on auto deaths?  Would the reduction in drunk driving fatalities that we have achieved have been possible had the producers of alcoholic beverages or the professional associations of restaurants and bars been able to prevent collection of data on drunk driving?

Supposed we only halved the death rates, both homicide and suicide, from guns?

That's 15,000 lives / year we would save.

Or what if instead of being 38 times that of Britain our gun homicide rate were only 10 times.  

Instead of 11,078  being murdered by gun in 2010, the figure would be 2,915, or a savings of more than 8,600 lives in one year.

Just think of the economic impact of saving that many lives and injuries! Half of the costs for the approximately 200 people that go to U.S. emergency rooms every day with gunshot wounds are estimated to be paid by the Government, a few billion a year right there.  This is yet another unspoken tenet among NRAvangelicals - never talk about the injured, what it costs to treat them and what they must live with! (just tell Gabby Giffords that the injured don't count either)

So I leave you with a somber poll. Not snark at all, we are probably going to live with guns around us for the rest of my life (I'm in my 50s), and with every product that has a real or perceived societal value we acquiesce (usually silently) to how much societal damage is acceptable in exchange for the societal benefits.  Case in point, the automobile - the true American icon with 200-250 million people driving, and just about 100% of Americans enjoying the benefits of a car ride or delivery at some point - results in a lot of deaths and we try to mitigate them (to the point that total annual car fatalities are nearly half what they were 40 years ago, in spite of the number of drivers, cars and passenger miles increasing dramatically over that period), but due to the societal value we put up with a certain number of deaths.  Sad and depressing as this line of thinking is, we have to decide how many total deaths and children's deaths are tolerable before we institute some sensible/national firearm regulations that will reduce the number of deaths?  (BTW, the same Bloomberg article I quoted above projects that in the next couple of years gun deaths will surpass automobile fatalities.)

I end with the words of TeacherKen:  Stop the gun madness

Originally posted to Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 03:29 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

Poll

How many children should we sacrifice at the altar of the NRA every year before we do something about it?

25%42 votes
0%1 votes
1%2 votes
0%1 votes
0%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
0%1 votes
1%2 votes
1%2 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
1%2 votes
66%110 votes

| 165 votes | Vote | Results

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

  •  Anyone interested in joining Repeal or Amend the (8+ / 0-)

    Second Amendment please send me a message and I will send you an invitation to join.

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 03:37:06 PM PST

    •  Can I join? (5+ / 0-)

      I'd like to amend it. It is worded in a rather clunky manner, what with grammar not being the same back then as it is now.

      Here's what I'd like to see, off the top of my head....

      As it is cruel and immoral to strip a creature of it's ability to defend itself, it's young, it's home and group - such as ripping the claws from a cat's toes or tearing the teeth from a dog's mouth; the right of natural persons to keep and carry small arms shall not be infringed.
      Begins with a moral statement, gives not one but TWO examples of that moral statement so that the reader can get a sense of the intent, uses a semi colon to separate the explanatory clause from the declarative statement.

      Clearly I am interested in amending the 2A.

      It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

      by JayFromPA on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:33:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Makes no sense, ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

        unless you meant to say "its" rather than "it's" throughout.  (The word "its" with an apostrophe ALWAYS means "it is".)

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:24:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Religius fundamentalists have never made sense (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          to me.

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

          by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:34:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's all you've got? Really? Nothing more? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy

            I avoided splitting the infinitive "to strip" when it would have seemed a more emotionally active sentence if I had done so.
            I used commas in the correct manner for a list.
            I used the semi colon to separate the two clauses.
            I know the correct spelling of "separate".

            ... And you decide that I deserve to be hit for stumbling into what may be the only exception there is to the "Apostrophe signals possession" grammar rule?

            Seriously? Well, fine, hammer at me then with those billy clubs, Mr Grammar Patrol. Although you really should double check your own sentence: "Religius fundamentalists have never made sense to me."
            And I don't mean the spelling of 'religious', I mean the placement of the adverb inside the verb / participle phrase. Mote in my eye, beam in thy own, yada yada yada. I don't pretend to be free of mistakes, and neither should anyone else. So shall we drop this and move on past this pettiness?

            ...

            I still want to join. Clearly I wish to amend the second amendment and you have not stated a desire to discriminate on the grounds of the sort of changes to be proposed.

            It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

            by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:36:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  This is a good start... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas

        But you need a clause in there that describes those small arms as the sort that the police and military use. Something like:

        As it is cruel and immoral to strip a creature of it's ability to defend itself, it's young, it's home and group - such as ripping the claws from a cat's toes or tearing the teeth from a dog's mouth; the right of natural persons to keep and carry such arms as those soldiers carry into battle or police use in the course of their duties
        Of course, it's going to be awkward to say "second and twenty-eighth amendment rights".
        •  Bad idea. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          Because that would open up a number of items of which I am unaware to civilian possession.

          By the way, police ARE civilians. Police are civilian law enforcement.

          And such arms as soldiers carry would include whatever they might carry. It's not what I already know is carried by soldiers that gives me pause, it's what I do not know that gives me a sense of caution. So let's not make a blanket "if a soldier carries it" statement, eh?

          It's safe to trust a sane person with the keys to nuclear weapons, but it's not safe to trust an insane person with the cleaners under the kitchen sink.

          by JayFromPA on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:42:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  a slight rewording (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution
        As it is cruel and immoral to strip a creature of it's ability to defend itself, it's young, it's home and group - such as ripping the claws from a cat's toes or tearing the teeth from a dog's mouth; thou shalt not rip the fingernails from natural persons.
        •  Makes a lot of sense (unless you worship at the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bhut jolokia

          altar of their idols and read the 2-words gospel).

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

          by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 03:48:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fundamentalists read the words "arms" and... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DefendOurConstitution

            ...come away believing that AR-15 Bushmasters are bodily apendages.

            The guns seem to become a part of their identity.

            Somebody pointed out in another diary that, although many people own bananas, you never hear of people being refered to as "banana owners", as if owning bananas is a significant part of their identity.

            But I regularly read here that any desire that guns be well regulated is tanamount to a form of bigotry against a class of people called "gun owners".

  •  Mental heath , (11+ / 0-)

    ask for mandatory mental health checks for purchase and keeping of guns and get told its impossible / crazy / not worth doing etc etc etc .
    They claim they want the mental health system to be improved but they do not want gun owners to be required to use the improved mental health system if it gets fixed up .

    They want the people who voluntarily choose to get help to get help , but they also want the ones who are homicidal and have no desire for help to be able to buy and keep guns .  

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

    by indycam on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 03:44:23 PM PST

    •  Here's CA law on this issue, such as it is: (4+ / 0-)
      Sales or Transfers of Firearms to Mental Patients
      It is unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, loan, supply, give, or allow possession or control of any firearm or other deadly weapon to a person who is deemed to be a danger to self or others and is a mental patient in a facility or on leave of absence from the facility; communicates a serious threat of physical violence against another to a licensed psychotherapist; adjudicated a danger to others or a mentally disordered sex offender; found not guilty by reason of insanity of any crime;
      found incompetent to stand trial; placed under conservatorship by a court as gravely disabled wherein possession of a firearm would present a danger to self or others, or who has been taken into custody and placed in a county mental health facility for treatment and evaluation because he or she is a danger to self or others as a result of a mental disorder. (Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 8100, 8101, 8103.)
      I'm not sure how some of this is enforced. I took mom's gun away BEFORE she was 5150'd and took it to the local police department, but this law requires the weapon be transfered/given up etc. in that case. This is, specifically, the part that would pertain to my mom:
      It is unlawful for any person to knowingly sell, loan, supply, give, or allow possession or control of any firearm or other deadly weapon to a person who is deemed to be a danger to self or others
      Being a danger to self or others IS a 5150, yet I was never even asked the question, nor was she.

      I do not know how some of this is enforced beyond that case. It's great intention, but how it actually works out? Dunno. Perhaps there needs to be a checklist of things given to family of one 5150d. I had no idea she HAD to give up the weapon, by law. I just used common sense and since I didn't want it (ultimately the conservator and then, again, ultimately inheritor of the dang thing had I wanted it), I did what seemed logical.

      It was a matter of weeks after I turned in the gun that she was 5150'd at the hospital.

       

      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 Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:04:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know why you are saying this to me . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

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

        by indycam on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:29:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm just trying to add to what you said. Not (2+ / 0-)

          taking you to task, Indy. I don't know how we include mental health without further violating privacy issues. It's not that I am set against something, but I just can't see my way through how that would be done.

          I just thought it might be helpful to see a state statute on the matter and relate my experience with that statute.

          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 Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:43:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Someone who has never sought help , (4+ / 0-)

            someone who no mental health professional has interacted with , someone not

            a person who is deemed to be a danger to self or others and is a mental patient in a facility or on leave of absence from the facility;
            is who I am talking about .

            I was not talking about

            a person who is deemed to be a danger to self or others and is a mental patient in a facility or on leave of absence from the facility;
            The problem with the lets just improve the metal heath system approach is , a homicidal person who wants to buy a gun will not be forced to seek help or an evaluation even from mental health professionals . The seller of the gun has no duty / responsibility to assess the mental state of the gun buyer . Even with the best mental health system , if there is no requirement , a gun buyer with no history and intent to murder walks away with a gun .

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

            by indycam on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:00:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I get your point completely. (2+ / 0-)

              In my example, my mom had NOT seen a mental health expert when I took the gun away, but I had an appointment for her which then didn't matter shortly after as she was taken to hospital by police as she called them to report she was being held against her will by strange men.

              So you see the difference.

              I get where you are trying to go. How in the world, though, can we ask laypersons to assess the mental health of another? In some cases it might be really obvious, but in others not obvious at all.

              My mom, for instance, could really fool people a lot of the time.

              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 Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:17:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  source, BTW, is here [pdf]: (2+ / 0-)

        Enjoy:)

        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 Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:29:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That is problematic. (3+ / 0-)

      You can't yet give someone an objective test to determine if they are at risk of becoming violent due to mental illness.  That sort of test only exists on TV shows.  You can once someone has demonstrated that they are threat to themselves or others take steps to mitigate the harm.  Federal law is perfectly good.  Any person who been involuntarily treated for mental illness is bared from owning guns.  The problem is that states are not doing their part to submit this information.  

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:12:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It sure exposes the absurdity of proliferation, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, bhut jolokia

        more guns means more people that should not be near them will have access to them.  We don't need to regulate mentally ill people (although we sure need to help them), what we need is a sensible set of national regulations/standards that will keep guns out of the hands of children, criminals, mentally ill people, people that could potentially become unstable, in short - EVERYONE! Then we can judge who should be able to own a gun based on the data and keep track of them in case they become unstable.

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

        by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:27:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  There's a problem. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dogs are fuzzy, soros

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking how many considered themselves politically liberal. A sea of hands appeared, and Dr. Haidt estimated that liberals made up 80 percent of the 1,000 psychologists in the ballroom. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when he asked for conservatives, he counted a grand total of three.
      As you can see, it's possible that some non-objectionable personality quirks might be exaggerated to prevent people from  exercising their rights. And there's no way to fix it either, if they try to shrink-shop for someone who leans in the other ideological direction, we'll just hear rants about how the system is being subverted.
  •  typo (5+ / 0-)

    I don't think you meant to say "necessary deaths."

     

  •  Interesting the use of Jack-boot thugs by (6+ / 0-)

    La Pierre. Now compare with this, written here, by a dem:

    When you are confronted with a jackboot thug beating you in the street, then what?  
    Or this:
    I make no pretense here, the unarmed masses have been plowed into the ground as fertilizer. 279 million worldwide since 1900 killed by their governments.

    I could go on and on about the similarities to some of "our side's" RKBA supporters and the NRA or the America! Tyranny! bunch.  

    It's just bizarre, imho.

    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 Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 03:51:02 PM PST

    •  Why don't you go ahead and cite their names? nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OldSoldier99, PavePusher, FrankRose

      Principle before Party! Recession 2013!!

      by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 03:52:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You can't answer the questions so you attempt (10+ / 0-)

      to ridicule them?  How's this legitimate discussion or are you just trying to shame others into silence?

      I gave you my reasons for these positions and what did you say?

      NOTHING!

      I agree it's bizarre, the cognitive dissonance we're witnessing in our "reality based community".

      Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

      ~Frederick Douglass

      What I think you fail to accept is the line for the majority of Americans is when you come for the guns.  This position is neither left or right, liberal or conservative. As I've mentioned to others, here in the great State of New York, the bastion of liberal idealism that we all share.  My co-workers, my neighbors, total strangers coming from States like Massachusetts, etc when asked about GC, none of them agree to taking the right away.  Even non-gun owners, SUCH AS MYSELF, understand the difference that you try to obfuscate and belittle.

      History will not change because you wish it to.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:51:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Happy New Year! But if you don't like it ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        from my buddy

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

        by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:29:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  link (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

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

        by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:30:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Got it thanks, great song but by posting this as (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, PavePusher, FrankRose

          your reply you're telling us that you refuse to address legitimate issues and questions your diary raises.

          Sweeet!  Hey, now I know you aren't serious about these issues we are now confronting.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:57:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't believe I have ever said word one about (4+ / 0-)

        taking weapons away, G. And I certainly don't advocate that you sit down and be quiet.

        So there's little reason for the continued hostility.

        We just completely disagree.

        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 Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:50:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hostility is when you take my words out of context (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, PavePusher, FrankRose

          and post them with the proviso, "it's bizarre".

          Orwellian doublespeak.  

          We do disagree and let's not diary jack here.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:54:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  well, G, I believe it is bizarre. Nothing (2+ / 0-)

            Orwellian about it. But we can leave it here.

            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 Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:41:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hostile labeling now wrapped as "belief". (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              soros, FrankRose

              "When I call you a racist pig, I say it out of love, not to upset you but to get you to change your ways, really! It is for you're own good, after all."

              We will never find solutions to your created problems:

              Compared with 2010, the new figures show violent crime down 3.8 percent overall. Property crime was down 0.5 percent.

              Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7 percent, robberies dropped 4 percent, aggravated assaults declined 3.9 percent, and forcible rapes were down 2.5 percent.

              Facts are inconvenient to your belief system that it must be about the gun or the failure/lack of gun control.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:17:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Funny that a religious person like you attacks (0+ / 0-)

                others beliefs when your own faith-based beliefs are unquestionable!

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

                by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 03:50:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm a religious person, since when? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  You know what they say about making assumptions, right?

                  Besides your description is the exact opposite of what I ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

                  Let me clarify it for you so there are no confusions.

                  Religion manifested in this world has brainwashed and killed millions, it continues to kill millions and it should be banned.  That is if you really want to abrogate the Constitution, screw the 2nd A...ban the 1st A!

                  GW's "political free speech of lies" led us into unfunded wars that have gone on to directly kill millions and will continue to kill millions more from the destruction of infrastructure such as power plants, water plants and hospitals.  

                  These wars led to us cutting our social safety nets pushing millions of Americans into perpetual poverty AND POVERTY KILLS thousands, actually 133,000 per year!

                  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                  If you really want to abrogate rights, how about "the right to privacy"?  It's because of your absolutist mentality to "medical privacy" that denies us the ability to track and trace those people on prescription drugs.  Drugs kill more people than any gun ever will.

                  Prescription drugs taken as directed kill 100,000 Americans a year. That's one person every five minutes.
                  Your red herring has been revealed, thanks for sharing.

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:52:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Like I said, a fundamentalist can never see that (0+ / 0-)

                  the religion they worship could somehow be wrong.

                  I am for fixing many things in our Country and in our laws, but the fact that some are wrong doesn't mean that we cannot do anything about the others.

                  We are also different as I am tolerant of other people's religions even when they are fundamentalists and they are wrong.  I said tolerant, not that I will be silenced when any fundamentalist freak comes to try to impose their religion on me (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses or NRAvangelists).

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

                  by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:27:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  This looks like a blatant example of taking (0+ / 0-)

      something out of context.
      Link the actual thread.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:48:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I understand them just fine - they're wrong (11+ / 0-)

    reasoning with the the absolutists will do no good.  They are not rational.    The only thing we can do is defeat them by dealing with those who are rational.

  •  Why do some people assume that disagreement = (11+ / 0-)

    misunderstanding?

    I tire of this statement. "We need to understand them." No, we don't. We understand them quite well.

    I understand the anti-choicers, the heterosexist bigots, the 2A above all else peeps, the free market purists, the anti-tax idiots, the charter-school loving advocates, and the religious zealots just fine, thank you. That's why I know they're wrong.

    That's one thing that bugs me about my fellow liberals. This insistence that we "understand and respect" our foes' viewpoints. That's nonsense. I understand it quite well, thank you, and no, I don't respect it.

    That's why I disagree with it. I'm not going to change my language or viewpoints to satisfy the ever-increasing minority. That's ceding ground when we don't need to.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:05:49 PM PST

    •  I agree with you, I am only trying to explain (7+ / 0-)

      to others as it took me a long time to realize it (I am dense) that there is no reasoning with them, just like with any of the other religious absolutists.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:10:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think I DO understand them better after all this (7+ / 0-)

        discussion/hair pulling/aggravation (but note, they are not exactly alike and there ARE some darned enlightened gun owners here and I would suppose elsewhere). I have learned that I dislike the NRA more than I ever imagined. I have learned many gun owners SAY they don't like the NRA, but in reality actually agree with a lot of the NRA's more aggressive positions.

        I have learned their side has a very sophisticated legal strategy, and who knows how it will play out. They got "keep" out of Heller. Now they are working on "bear" (they hope to get shall issue permitting to be a nationwide thing and a lot of the litigation I am reading aims (pardon the pun) to achieve that).

        I have learned that, to many, the second amendment is as God-like as it gets.

        I have learned the second isn't absolute but we don't know, really, what regulations the court will ultimately allow.

        I have learned that the fight in my state--even my own county--is WAY bigger than I ever imagined including a lawsuit brought by a group in ca in concert with the NRA over the carry issue.

        I have learned that what may be an obvious trade off for the good of society via limitations/regulations is absolutely NOT viewed that way by many, if not most.

        From forums, I have learned that there are WAY too many obvious CT nuts with guns and WAY to many guns in their hands; WAY more than I imagined.

        I have learned that no one can really explain away the need to hoard weapons via "self defense". It's a paranoid ruse.

        I have learned that many believe we need to work on the source of the problem (which I do agree with, but that will take decades to see significant results) versus regs being put in place to support those changes.

        And I could go on.

        And what this has done is move me farther into the pro-regulation camp and cemented me more firmly there.

        I really have learned a lot.

        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 Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:25:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Abrograting rights is not a liberal or progressive (11+ / 0-)

        position that I would ever support.

        The "absolutism" you reference is not one-sided here, both sides practice it.

        We already have the tools necessary to stop the violence we are witnessing, you don't want to fund those solutions so you belittle anyone presenting them.

        NICS overhaul and mandatory reporting would stop 99% of people not legally allowed to own guns from getting them.

        Fully funded mental health services.

        Standards for violence in movies, video games and television could be controlled right now by the FCC.

        Children are taught that violence is the only solution in dispute resolution.

        When will you take responsibility for encouraging violence in our society by ignoring these legitimate issues and making it only about the gun?

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:02:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Welcome to the party! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

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

          by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:31:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But it is about "the gun" (4+ / 0-)

          I fear for this country as more enthusiasts and mentally un-balanced have easy access to weapons.  

          It appears we will have more killing sprees in our future.  More Sandy Hooks, more Auroras, Columbines (two armed guards were there).  

          It is pure insanity, loathsome, ugly,and obscene that our society is still able to find it tolerable to support the second amendment.

          •  We can agree to disagree or we can actually do (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, FrankRose, Robobagpiper

            something about it.  First choice to address your issue could be accomplished by amending the Constitution.

            What I find intolerable is that the violence we are witnessing will not stop with the ban of any item.  

            Addressing the way humanity expresses it's violent nature must be dealt with, if we are to evolve as a species and a society.

            Until then, it's all window dressing designed to appease your manufactured fears.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:21:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "to appease your manufactured fears" (5+ / 0-)

              Oh really????  

              If we do nothing, it is status quo situation, nothing changes.

              Changes have to be brought about to change this love affair with weapons of mass murders, suicides, and crimes of all types.

              It is the "gun" RKBA supporters do not want to give up despite all of the collateral damage "the gun" does to the innocent amongst us.  

              •  Um, "that colleteral damage" you reference has (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annecros, FrankRose, Robobagpiper

                dropped 17% in the last 10 yrs.

                Here's the link for a 3rd time, just in case you missed it:

                http://www.cnn.com/...

                Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7 percent, robberies dropped 4 percent, aggravated assaults declined 3.9 percent, and forcible rapes were down 2.5 percent.

                Despite the positive trend, crime remains a serious problem in many urban pockets riddled with gangs, drugs, and poverty.

                There were 14,612 murders last year, on average one every 36 minutes. That's a small decline from 14,722 in 2010, but it's a decrease of nearly 17 percent from a decade ago.

                Special note, the emphasis is on gangs, drugs and poverty...nothing to do with guns or their availability.

                How about we address these things? Awe, I know, that would mean we'd actually go after the drug money launders at HSBC and seize their $2+ trillion in assets that generate $38 billion a month in profits, dammit it...that status quo wins again!

                A side link in the article shows a correlation to police being downsized and an increase in crime. Daggonit, who could ever thought that would happen when we fight unfunded wars for 10 yrs, increase our military spending to the highest in human history while defunding our social safety nets to pay for it.

                Who wudda thunk?!

                Hell, if we seized HSBC's assets and "nationalized" them, we'd have enough money to have a cop on every street corner, bridges built out of gold  and have money left over to feed and cloth every one of the million plus homeless and their children!

                How about you review your "manufactured fears" again, in light of these facts, please.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:36:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  In my humble opinion, the lack of strong (2+ / 0-)

                  federal and state regulation of gun sales whether in gun shows or licensed dealers, the weakening of the ATF, and the lack of oversight by the House unless it's about "fast and furious" has led to a laissez-faire approach to weapons.  Whatever happens, happens.  Nothing we can do about it so we are not going to do anything about it.  

                  How about shutting down all gun and ammo sales say for a month and then see just see how that affects those statistics?

                  If crime and murders go down, perhaps there just might be a correlation to "the gun" and maybe that would open some absolutist's minds.

                   

                  •  Crimes and murders have gone down without (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    annecros, FrankRose, Robobagpiper

                    doing anything.

                    So please tell me why we would want to force ourselves out of office for the next generation when we embrace gun control?

                    Why?  Do you really think the Republicans have done that well welding the levers of power in this nation?

                    I don't.

                    And again, you're not actually addressing the issue are you?  Crimes have gone down, so why do we need to go after gun owners again?

                    Do you not understand the concept of Manufactured Consent?

                     

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:23:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Manufactured Consent? (2+ / 0-)

                      Like it has been Manufactured against those of us who would like to eliminate gun violence at all levels?

                      That's what it feels like to me.  So much of the propaganda comes fromRBKA absolutists.  If someone like me offers an opinion or speaks out against the selling of weapons of mass murders, we are then accused of undermining the election of Democrats. To me, that is manufacturing the status quo.

                      Now is the time to get tough, speak tough, take tough stands, and get rid of those weapons and ammo that have been used in mass murders.  

                      I just wonder what would happen if gun shows and gun dealers had no more guns  or ammo to sell.  

                      •  Who is being the absolutist here again? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annecros, FrankRose, Robobagpiper

                        When presented with facts that crimes have gone down you still insist "something must be done about guns and ammo"....

                        Wow.

                        I don't buy into moral relativism.  I want all crimes to stop, that ain't ever going to happen, but we can eliminate the conditions that create the majority of the violence we experience in this society.

                        "Gun violence" has been proven to be a red herring.  We could however address poverty, the war on drugs, the institutional crime syndicate formerly known as our government, now couldn't we?

                        We could make the lives of millions of people better by instituting policies that would create living wage jobs, fund our schools, teach children peaceful resolution of disputes not violence as it is glamorized in movies, TV show and video games.  

                        We could, couldn't we? And we could stay in power while doing it.

                        So, will you take responsibility for the millions of deaths you are now supporting and ensuring by ignoring the things we can accomplish over your desired wish to get the guns?

                        It ain't about the guns, it never was but why do you insist that it should be?

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 11:20:09 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Gun deaths are on a steady rising slope for the (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber

                      last 10 years.  Look at the CDC data for total deaths by guns (nicely graphed here).

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

                      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 03:57:35 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  A red herring, thanks for sharing. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose, Robobagpiper, KVoimakas

                        Murders have gone down, period.

                        Crime has gone down, period.

                        Anything that tries to obfuscate these cold hard facts is a red herring.

                        If crimes are going down why are you making it about the gun again?

                        http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/...

                        WASHINGTON – For the first time in 45 years, homicide is no longer among the 15 leading causes of death in the United States, according to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

                        in 2010, there were 16,065 homicides, down from 16,799 a year earlier

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 06:23:36 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Thir fears are not manufactured, they are brain- (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber

                washed by their religion. How can we do something about a problem that doesn't exist?  It is like trying to explain to a creationist that dinosaurs did not roam the earth with humans, DOES NOT COMPUTE as the Earth is only a few thousand years old - no matter how much science we explain to them they will always revert to their sacred texts and worship their gods.

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

                by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 03:54:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Sadly I think you are correct, although I hope I (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            am wrong.  I think the gun deaths that are rising steadily since 2000 at about 330 more deaths every year will spike up soon because of the high capacity firearms, the laws getting laxer, all the "stand your ground" laws, and even the economic and mental health issues.  So I think the pretty straight line increase we are seeing now is going to spike, but once again, I sure hope I am wrong (although the status quo of 32,000 gun deaths per year is still an outrageous number at 88 deaths per day, but that is still better than more).

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

            by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:32:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope not according to the FBI: (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annecros, FrankRose, Robobagpiper

              http://www.cnn.com/...

              Among violent incidents reported to police, murders were down about 0.7 percent, robberies dropped 4 percent, aggravated assaults declined 3.9 percent, and forcible rapes were down 2.5 percent.
              Newark struggles with police cuts, crime

              Despite the positive trend, crime remains a serious problem in many urban pockets riddled with gangs, drugs, and poverty.

              There were 14,612 murders last year, on average one every 36 minutes. That's a small decline from 14,722 in 2010, but it's a decrease of nearly 17 percent from a decade ago.

              Who's zooming whom here? Did you note the problem wasn't anything to do with guns or their availability?

              Gangs, drugs and poverty.

              Hummm...how about we fix those things first????

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:21:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  We must make every effort to understand & respect (4+ / 0-)

      these & other people, but doing so doesn't mean we respect their ideas as having equal value; just their humanity.  

      Really respecting someone involves an obligation to engage them in self-improvement, aka dragging them out of their wrong positions, whether or not we succeed.

      I think that some of what the diarist is getting at is an understanding as Lakoff describes: moving below the surface rhetoric into the real meanings & historical motivations.

      Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

      by Leftcandid on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:38:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  With 47% of households that own firearms (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Robobagpiper

      I hope you understand 'elections'.

      Don't worry, I'm sure that your attempt to take Constitutional liberties from innocent Americans will go over swimmingly.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:06:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  thank you DOC...great diary... (4+ / 0-)

    I used to live and work on a ranch that had a public gun range...and used guns for work, food and play. some of the people were reasonable and nice people...sadly most would fit your description.


    We are not broke, we are being robbed.

    by Glen The Plumber on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:31:12 PM PST

  •  Something I don't understand... (5+ / 0-)

    ...is why as of thjis posting there are more votes for this option in the above poll:

    More than 10,001 (no child's death is too high a price as long as the 2A Gospel is upheld)
    ...than for the sentiment that 0 deaths is too many?

    Imagine the bad karma and harsh divine judgment that will bring on whoever voted for that option.

    Think if a deity judged a nation because of the nastiness of a hateful minority.

    "We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other." ~ RFK

    by paz3 on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:37:33 PM PST

    •  NRAvangelists always vote in packs and try to (6+ / 0-)

      derail any diary that maligns their sacred text, so they figure that by voting for the most unreasonable option they make the diary/poll look worse and hopefully others will not visit or vote.

      In any case, they don't buy the premise that children die because of guns, their Gospel won't allow it.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 04:42:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They didn't vote for ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher, Robobagpiper, KVoimakas

        the "most unreasonable option", they voted to express their opinion that a "right" must be respected, period, thus trying to assign a number of casualties resulting from its existence is nonsense.  

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:36:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  How does saying that more children's death are (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, splashy

          allowable to protect their rights express an opinion that their right must be respected?  How is it nonsense to assign deaths of children by guns to the right to own guns?  What's next, claiming that a drunk driver is not responsible for the people they kill because they have a right to drink?

          I guess you mean that it is nonsense to try to hold them responsible for what they do with their rights?  I cherish their rights very much, but no one's rights are superior to anybody else's right to live without fear (or to live period).

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

          by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:58:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only intelligent answers possible ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, KVoimakas

            are either  "zero" or "unlimited".  That's it.  Numbers in between are irrelevant.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:25:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  For the religious ones that worship at the altar (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glen The Plumber

              you are absolutely correct.  For people that live in a real world, not so much.

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

              by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 03:45:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  One problem: I am not religious. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                Just logical.

                "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 07:37:34 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe religious does not apply, but fundamentalist (0+ / 0-)

                  just like any religious fundamentalist is very apt.  Worship idols and a scared text and refuse to acknowledge that there could be anything wrong with your interpretation of your sacred text or with the consequences of your idols.

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

                  by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:21:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No text is "sacred" to me, ... (2+ / 0-)

                    but the Constitution comes close.  I have no idols, especially of the metal kind.  I just respect that a "right" is a "right", regardless of what those of you in the minority may think.  I don't conflate the right to be able to protect yourself as having anything to do with religion, fundamental or otherwise, because I'm realistic:  The constitution grants no one the right to force others to be defenseless.  

                    It's especially remarkable that you use this particular screenname when you clearly don't mean to defend ALL of the constitution, just the parts you apparently like.  And if called upon to defend it, what are you planning to use, spit?  Words?   Good luck with that.

                    "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                    by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:07:33 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Protest too much don't you? How creative attacking (0+ / 0-)

                      or mocking my screen name!  I care about the entire Constitution, you have been here defending the sacred text of the Second Amendment and how it trumps any other possible right that anyone might have.  Just cause your religion created a special right from the Second Amendment (and the NRA got it there by buying/bullying politicians) does not mean that sensible regulations on firearms are in any way a violation of anyone's constitutional rights.

                      Go back to your mantras:

                      - guns don't kill ....

                      - mentally ill people are the cause ...

                      - suicides don't count ...

                      They clearly are all that your religion cares about.

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

                      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 11:13:38 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Apparently subtlety is too difficult ... (0+ / 0-)

                        for some to grasp, so let me be blunt:

                        I am not a religious person.  Period.  You can continue to imply differently one hundred more times and it won't change the truth.

                        I do not own any guns; never have, likely never will.

                        I don't consider the Second Amendment to be any more special than any other Amendment, including the one that protects you from any consequences in continuing to try and misrepresent, repeatedly, what I've said.

                        Given that 40% of DEMOCRATS are gun owners, there simply are not nearly enough votes to accomplish your objective.  If you want to continue to waste your time trying anyway, knock yourself out.  Even if you can somehow achieve the miraculous and are successful in having some new regulations passed, their impact couldn't be noticeable for decades.  But by then, the mentally ill and criminally inclined will have moved on to arming themselves with lasers or some such, and then what?  I'm all in favor of practical solutions offered by intelligent people, I just haven't heard any yet ... and I'm not holding my breath.

                        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

                        by Neuroptimalian on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 11:35:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

      •  "Always vote in packs" (2+ / 0-)

        That is how elections are won.
        On a political blog, you may want to reflect upon the significance of voting.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:17:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The poll is certainly revealing, if sweked by reli (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bhut jolokia, Glen The Plumber

      gious people that find the question so offensive.

      Of the non-religious answers, about 2/3rd say ZERO, now I would not expect so many to want zero.  It is certainly what we should strive for, but not realistic unless we adopt a British model, which is not in the cards for the next 20 years.  I think 50-100 is a more realistic and doable goal.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:43:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The poll results simply show the wide gulf... (4+ / 0-)

      ...that exists between reasonable people, and the true believers.

  •  I wish we'd spend more time on the first part of (3+ / 0-)

    the "sacred" text: "A Well-Regulated Militia..."

    I don't know how effective we can be in pressuring our elected Dems to focus on this, but I think we had damn well better make a focused effort, because this is indisputable NRA dogma that we can use against them.  We can use it to make a persuasive case that assault weapons are strictly the province of the militias--aka, state National Guards.  Outside of that, ownership & operation is totally prohibited, unless one is a rigorously licensed collector or a rigorously licensed shooting range operator.  

    With regard to other guns, it's murkier.  But once we successfully redefine the public debate with respect to regulated militias, the NRA will lose ground.  And once they lose some, they will keep losing.  Frankly they've been gaining ground at an unsustainable rate; they were going to lose eventually because there will be nothing left to win.  The point is that once we relegate assault weaponry to militias, we can do other things, because the main dogma will be demonstrably false to enough people to topple NRA power.  

    That said, I think you err in writing off our failure to provide socialized mental health care as an invention of the NRA crowd as if it wasn't true.  It is true, and it should be obvious that mental health means not just clinical diagnoses, but anyone dealing with some combination of prolonged socioeconomic stressors.  A clinically sane guy (let's face it, it's usually a guy who commits gun violence) who loses his job/wife/child(ren)means of transportation house/combination can become mentally distressed, if not clinically ill.  If his friendships don't cut it, he needs a counselor; someone provided by Society to talk to him & get him real, tangible assistance to stabilize him, so he doesn't snap (because the truth is, any one of us could snap under certain conditions).  

    That's how an optimal society functions, but we here in the You're Own Your Own States of America have allowed psychos to hold office & make psychotic policies that create more social psychosis, which manifests as gun violence among other things, like child abuse, domestic abuse, animal abuse, the Tea Party, crime in general.   Getting our gun situation under control is key, but it isn't the big picture, & it would be a huge mistake to miss the opportunity to make a strong push for public mental healthcare by fooling ourselves into thinking it's just propagaNRA.

    Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

    by Leftcandid on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:01:18 PM PST

    •  Thank you for your comment. I did not mean to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Leftcandid, Glen The Plumber, splashy

      in any way imply that the mental health issue is not a very serious and real issue that MUST be addressed, I was only pointing out that to the evangelized it is always a facile excuse to try to avoid talking about guns.  We can and we must do both, address the very serious mental health issues and also find a way to reduce gun deaths by sensible regulations.  These are in no way mutually exclusive, rather they would work well in tandem.  We should be able to chew gum and walk at the same time.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:37:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  All adults are in the militia, by definition. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PavePusher, annecros, Robobagpiper

      Back in the 1700s, only males, but in this progressive era women would be as well. Everyone above the age of 16 who isn't otherwise disqualified.

      •  That doesn't sound well regulated. Also, while (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution

        such an all-citizen militia was the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, we now have a standing military.  There's no need for both; one needs to go.

        I'd kinda prefer abolishing the Pentagon chunk, myself, but what seems much more likely is redefining the state Guards as the well-regulated militias.

        Before elections have their consequences, Activism has consequences for elections.

        by Leftcandid on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:19:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well-regulated doesn't mean what you (2+ / 0-)

          think it means.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:30:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  They love the 27-Word Constitution except for (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Leftcandid

          those two words.  Of course they contort and give all sorts of meaning to well regulated, and when it is shown that they are wrong then they claim to be originalists.  If they are such originalists, then they should be clamoring that guns should only have the firing power of 18 century firearms, but they want 18th century (Scalia nonetheless) interpreted rules with 21st century weaponry.  Never consistent, but religious fundamentalists never are, they just recite their mantra(s) and worship their sacred text/idols.

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

          by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 11:06:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not an originalist. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy

            The second amendment protects only muskets the same way that the first amendment only protects ancient printing presses.

            But we can show that "well-regulated" doesn't mean progressive bureaucratic micromanagement until the late 1800s.

            And, not only does it mean "well-trained", in the context of the late 1700s, even that means little more than someone who knows how to load and point the thing. Someone who's read the user manual that comes with the gun is as "well regulated" as they ever meant for the militias to be.

        •  I'm ok with that. (0+ / 0-)

          Get rid of the military.

  •  Yawn. (4+ / 0-)

    YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

    by raincrow on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:46:43 PM PST

  •  Imagine the nerve! A poll that could somehow (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Sandino, splashy

    question their sacred text's purity!  No wonder some are calling it a push poll.  I have no agenda on the poll, other than to have people engage in a real discussion of what is an acceptable number of child deaths, and have from ZERO (I got attacked one time I did a similar poll for not having zero) to infinite, so there is no push poll.  As long as firearms are out there children (and many others) will keep dying.  AS a community we must come to an agreement as to what is the acceptable number for the value brought by the exceptional number of firearms without any sensible national standards and regulations.

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 05:57:52 PM PST

  •  Poll results turn my stomach. 34 voted that (4+ / 0-)

    gun rights are more precious to them than the lives of children.

    No, I'll never understand that thinking. I don't even want to.

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

    by SoCalSal on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 06:51:26 PM PST

    •  It is also shocking to me and that's how I came (5+ / 0-)

      to conclude that this has nothing to do with rights, reason, laws or the Constitution.  To the NRAvangelists this is purely about dogma.  How can you reason with someone that thinks it's OK to murder a doctor to save a fetus?  How can you reason with the Iranian mullahs?  How can you reason with people that are complicit in the murder of children every single day and refuse to even acknowledge that children are murdered by their idols?

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:40:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's no reasoniong with sociopaths. n/t (2+ / 0-)

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

        by SoCalSal on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:49:21 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sociopaths may be too strong, but complicit is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber

          certainly true.  Last week one of them was outraged that I would imply the are complicit and I told him that I am in no way implying their complicity - I STATE THAT THEY ARE COMPLICIT IN THE MURDER OF CHILDREN.  Now in their defense, they are blinded by their faith, which can lead to sociopathic behaviors as in murdering people (see Scott Roeder).

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

          by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:05:13 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I stand by my charge of sociopathy: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DefendOurConstitution
            so·ci·o·path  
            ˈsōsēōˌpaTH
            Noun
            A person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.
            That doesn't apply to all gun owners, of course; it applies to those who prize their guns over human lives. That was disturbingly evident in the comments of the particular band of RKBAers on the day of the Sandy Hook shootings. They were all over this site posting comments about their gun rights, and not one comment of grief or concern for the Sandy Hook victims and victims' families.

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

            by SoCalSal on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:01:25 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  They insist is is a push poll and that I'm a troll (5+ / 0-)

      to which I say: not a push poll and sorry to offend your gods, but I disagree with you.  This is a very real issue and there will never be any progress reducing the gun deaths (that continue to rise since 2000 at a steady pace) unless first we can all discuss the very serious issue of how high a cost in lives are we willing to pay for the (real or perceived) benefits of the rights attributed to the Second Amendment.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:52:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do you really want to understand? (7+ / 0-)

    Or do you just hope to dissect us until you can find some little mechanism or doohickey to exploit to turn us off?

    I mean, look at your poll:

    How many children should we sacrifice at the altar of the NRA every year before we do something about it?
    First off, we're not all NRA members. But more importantly, I don't see anyone talking about car bans here. 35,000 people will die in 2013 in car wrecks. Many of them children. And don't even get me started on the carbon output, or how the reduction in fossil fuel costs could boost the economy.

    But never once have I seen anyone here discuss banning cars. It's not about the deaths, you're more than happy to pour 100 people a day into that volcano. Why is that?

    •  Happy new year and welcome to the party! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:36:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  They wouldn't ban all cars. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, rockhound

      Just an arbitrary class of really ugly black cars that scare them, despite the fact that they are involved in deaths at a rate about 1/10th of what you'd expect based on how many of them are on the road.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 10:32:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We haven't banned cars at all! We have licensing, (0+ / 0-)

        registration, drivers ed, seat belts, air bags, speed limits and other traffic laws to reduce the damage cause by vehicles.  And that is why automobile deaths are down by about half in the last 40 years in spite of a huge increase in drivers and cars.

        I have yet to hear from any of your religion how national training, licensing and registration (which would slowly reduce some, clearly not all, of the deaths) is such a violation of the Constitution (I mean other than mocking my user name, changing the topic, reciting NRA talking points, refusing to accept that there are many children/people who die every single day because of the intransigence that the NRA - and those complicit with them - display again and again.  Heck you guys won't even engage in a conversation as to how many deaths are reasonable to accept on an annual basis to protect the sacred "right" as the NRA bishops have defined it (in our lifetimes, this "right" did not exist until the last 15-20 years - funny how you all claim to be originalists except for loving this recent definition of the 2A forged by the NRA).  And I doubt I ever will hear from any of you, just like I don't expect the people from Operation Rescue to admit they are wrong any-time soon.

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

        by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 11:24:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I could live with licensing. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robobagpiper, fuzzyguy

          Supposing of course you do it like you do the DMV, where I wait in line for half an hour and then I have a license, where the clerk doesn't give a shit as long as I have a pulse and the paperwork with me.

          But you're not going to do that, it's going to be some Soviet farce where the central planning committee tells me I have no need. That's the whole point, isn't it? If the licensing doesn't have any fewer people with guns in their hands, you'll feel as if you've lost again.

        •  WHOOOOSH! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy, NoMoreNicksLeft

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 05:59:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Clearly my conclusion eluded many (poor diarist (4+ / 0-)

    that I am) - I am not trying to understand the fundamentalists among us to try to reason with them.  My understanding has brought me to see that that is impossible (after trying for 4 years) and that we must move on without them to address this issue because they will never be part of the solution.  I guess admitting that the benefits they get from their Gospel given rights results in the deaths of thousands of children is too much to bear for them.  I'm not sure why, I admit that my right to drive my car results in the deaths of many, but then again I willingly submit that right to sensible regulations to reduce the carnage - I guess the fundamentalists never will.

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 07:47:02 PM PST

    •  The ting about cars (2+ / 0-)

      Is the deaths from them are going down every year, because there are more and  more safety features built into them every year.

      In fact, if more and more are self-driving, the deaths will go down even more.

      Can that be said about guns? That they are safer and safer every year? Have there been more and more safety features built into them every year?

      Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

      by splashy on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 11:16:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Eh, these gun nuts are just the... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, Sandino

    ...freak leftovers from the the humiliated LOSERS of "The Wawrh of Northern Aggression" who don't recognize the authority of no "Yankee" government. They think the Bluecoats might come after them again for some more ass-whompin' so they want a ridiculous amount of arms to defend the PRIDE of THE SOUTH!!! from the coloureds and the race-traitors who befriend them. Pure and simple. Stupid loser trash scared shitless of something no normal person has remotely thought about in a hundred years.

    •  Oh my. How intelligent. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      You should make this a college thesis.

      Nothing like clairvoyance and ALL CAPS to really drive a point home.

      You go, Tiger!

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:22:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A college thesis? in what universe... (0+ / 0-)

        ...does a college thesis matter to anyone? Bizarre. Not sure what is in any manner "clairvoyant" about making a rather obvious observation about the present and recent past. And "ALL CAPS" isn't "ALL" at "ALL" if it's only applied to a few words. But do soldier on, Kitten. I'm sure that at some point you might accidentally unload a witty barb or two if you just keep trying and trying and trying...

  •  Good night to all! See you tomorrow! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, Glen The Plumber

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

    by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 08:33:49 PM PST

  •  False equivalency on steroids. n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, Robobagpiper
    •  Guns kill children (OK, OK people with guns kill (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      children) or children take their lives with guns and discussing deaths of children WRT gun regulations is false equivalency?  (What is next? Saying that discussing insurance company profiteering is related to high medical costs?  What's that?  It is?  Not among the faith based, high taxes are the only thing that causes high medical costs!)  With views like that, perhaps Breibart would make you feel more at home.

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:16:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'll feel at hone where I please, thank you. (0+ / 0-)

        If I were to pump out a similar screed discussing Climate Alarmism with a religious subtext, I suspect false equivalency would be a significant criticism.

        Overlaying a religious patina is designed to suggest political advocacy is not empirically based, which I suggest is BS.

  •  35 voded FOR More than 10,001 (3+ / 0-)

    Children dying to support the 2nd?

    Here?

    WTH?

    Women create the entire labor force. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sympathy is the strongest instinct in human nature. - Charles Darwin

    by splashy on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 10:45:02 PM PST

    •  They are protest votes against abusive diarist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      that is picking on their religion and making fun of their gods/sacred texts.  Oh my, when will Markos do something to defend the religion of these defenseless people from wanton attacks? /snark

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:11:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about a poll asking..... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, Robobagpiper

    "How many children should we sacrifice at the altar of warrants for wiretaps before we do something about it?"

    The right-wing would have approved.

    Americans that support liberty however, would not.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 01:11:58 AM PST

    •  Your religious communities are always like that, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      but in case you missed it, we disused the consequences of the wiretaps many times - and those do not lead to children's deaths that I know of.  A more apt example is automobile deaths, and that we accept all the time (mostly implicitly but some of us explicitly).

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 04:09:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah...about that first sentence.... (2+ / 0-)

        What/whose 'religious communities'?
        What  about them is 'always like that'?
        What do you mean by 'that'?
        How does this have any relation to the 2nd Amendment?
        Basically, you need to explain 5 words out of that 7 word sentence.

        Moving on, warrantless wiretaps is a more apt comparison, because both you and the right-wing are insisting on infringing on liberties protected by the constitution for percieved security.

        Somehow I find infringments on constitutional liberties as very comparible to.....ya know.....infringements on constitutional liberties.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 05:29:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You worship the 27-word gospel and the idols (0+ / 0-)

          that are attributed to it, you will not accept that it is possible to have sensible national regulations (like licensing, training and registration) without grievously violating your sacred text and you refuse to even admit that guns can somehow be related to so many deaths and you think it's outrageous that I compare you to religious freaks?

          I have never tried to take away any right that anyone has under the Constitution.  Sensible national regulations are not equal to infringing on your Second Amendment rights, even if you and the other fundamentalists here think that it is.

          To me and to most Kossacks the Constitution has more than the 27 words of your sacred text and discussing the consequences of enjoying one's rights or what limit those rights may have when they are infringing on other people's rights is, well, a constitutional liberty (no matter how much you and all the very vocal fundamentalists here defend your sacred text and idols).

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

          by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:15:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, I support all liberties Americans (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joeshwingding, Robobagpiper

            currently have. Not that your rambling & incoherant demonstration of clairvoyance isn't impressive.

            You would prefer to sacrifice liberty for percieved security.
            I didn't buy that argument when the right-wing used it to push for infringing on the 4th, and I don't now that you try to push for infringing on the 2nd.

            "Sensible"
            1) Nothing says 'sensible' like an opinion-barfing rant about religion, idols &  gospel, while speaking about the 2nd amendment.
            2) So I assume you were on-board when the right-wing suggested 'sensible' warrantless wiretapping?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:32:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Try addressing the problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Robobagpiper
    So where does that leave progressives that have no interest in taking anyone's guns away but want to stop the carnage of nearly 100 USA gun deaths every single day?
    instead of blaming the weapon of choice for a mentally disturbed albeit not diagnosed person who snaps.

    Demand that we refund theMental Health Systems Act

    •  How about we do both? Since when is it an (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joeshwingding

      either or proposition?  I am a strong advocate for more services for all Americans, especially the mentally ill and we must address those issues.  Yet the constant call by the fundamentalists to always look at something else, blame something else and NEVER want to talk about what reasonable regulations are is very offensive (just as offensive as the guns don't kill ... BS that they constantly spew).  

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

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 08:19:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We can and should (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fr8dog

        Yet when a terrible act like this is committed there are many reactionaries that scream we should ban all gun ownership because of the actions of a crazy person. Or said another way we are going to regulate crazy on the general population.

        Washington is all too willing to jump on board the reactionary bandwagon in order to restrict even more freedoms from the general public. It makes them relevant and they never let a good crises go to waste, right? Its these kind of reactions that brought us the ever popular Patriot Act.

        You would think we would learn.

  •  "Reasoning with 2nd Amd. Absolutists" (3+ / 0-)

    Re:  Can you reason with 2nd Amd Absolutists?  Lets turn this one around.   Can you reason with contributing writers at the Daily Kos like Myles Spicer who writes an article entitled "Repeal or Amend the 2nd Amd." ?   Ans.  An unqualified NO.   I tried by asking him HOW he'd affect this Delusional Wet Dream Fantasy,  in view of the fact there's  a pesky, inconvenient section of the Constitution, Article 5, which few, including  Mr. Spicer,  have ever read,  but was required reading when I was  in law school.   Mr.  Spicers  response:  "It will take time & public education".   His response indicates gross ignorance of political demographics,  the Constitutional process  & lack of historical prospective.    Anyone out there with a more Informed response?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site