Skip to main content

Over the years, there have been extremist elements who have merged within both the Democratic and Republican parties with their own philosophies on the right to bear arms.  For the record, mainstream and classic Democrats have never been against the right to bear arms.  Let me give you a few examples:

-  Dianne Feinstein-   "I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me."

-  Jesse Jackson Jr.-  Mr. Jackson has a concealed carry permit and carries a pistol on him daily.

-  Harry Reid - Lifelong hunter and gun owner and now the leader of the Democrats in the Senate.

While the right to bear arms is unquestioned by mainstream and classic Democrats, the type of arms is the question.  Most certainly, no one should be able to possess a RPG or plastic explosives.  No one should own an electric Gatling gun or a M1 tank.  One form of gun control which has worked very well is the prohibition of the sale of armor piercing rounds.  We dont see armor piercing rounds being used in America.  Another item which is questioned is who should bear arms.  Too many deadly incidents nowadays are involving criminals and the mentally disturbed which are two groups of people who should not have firearms at all.  

There are elements within the Democratic party who will tell us they want rifles and pistols confiscated.  They want a complete prohibition of arms.  However, those elements do not represent the majority of Democrats.  The majority believe in the right to bear arms and let me tell you why.  In 1938, Hitler advocated complete prohibition and took arms away from the Jewish people.  We all know what happened during the next 7 years.  This, however, is not an isolated instance in history and the complete prohibition of arms has usually been the precursor of mass genocide and tyranny.  Over the years, there have been prominent Democrats and civil rights leaders the target of violence.  These Democrats recognize why it is important for them to carry a pistol like Dianne Feinstein.

As Democrats, we should focus on the type of arms which should not be owned and the person who is intending on owning them.  However, we should never suggest that we want a complete prohibition.  I cannot support a complete prohibition because of history.  

Of course, there will always be tragic events such as Newtown.  However, there is another tragic event in history which I will never forget and that is the Holocaust.  I have a firm belief that if the Jewish people were armed during those times there might have been a different history.  

On a separate note, let me say that I am very happy to live in a Democracy.  I am happy that we have the Republicans and Democrats and would be happier to see a third party emerge.  I am happy that we have three branches of government.  Some may view this government as dysfunctional, but I beg to differ.  It is this type of government which prevents the Hitler types from emerging and gaining power.  It is this government which will stop tyranny even more so then if we were all equipped with firearms.

Poll

Do you support a complete prohibition on arms?

24%21 votes
75%65 votes

| 86 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

  •  If guns are outlawed, only the law will have guns. (4+ / 0-)

    Anybody want that?

    "I'd like to thank spiritplumber and LieparDestin for fixing oopsaDaisy's computer who can tip, recc, and hotlist now. I tried but couldn't do it despite her constantly foulmouthing me, so thanks U two." -God

    by oopsaDaisy on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:50:43 AM PST

  •  I'm not for the right to bear arms (14+ / 0-)

    I think we need to repeal the 2nd amendment and then decide as a society what regulation is needed for firearms. Just like we do with every other manufactured thing.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:52:28 AM PST

    •  I think I need to flap my arms (10+ / 0-)

      and fly to the moon.
      Which is about as likely.

      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

      by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:53:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In fact, flying to the moon was unlikely once. (8+ / 0-)

        We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

        by i understand on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:54:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Getting there by the flapping of arms (6+ / 0-)

          is about as likely as repealing the Second Amendment.

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:58:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  adult discussion..?? (6+ / 0-)

            n/t.


            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

            by Glen The Plumber on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:01:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Certainly. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tom Seaview, PavePusher

              Analogy: a valid communicative tool.
              I stand by it.
              If you disagree?
              Get to work on it.
              You'll fail.

              "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

              by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:05:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Not so much ... (5+ / 0-)

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

              by indycam on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:09:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's just not going to happen. (5+ / 0-)

              There will be more and more restrictions placed on certain items, but the across the board ban that IS actually dreamt of by some just won't happen.

              "gun" or "firearm" means about as much as "car" or "vehicle".

              There are all sorts of guns, Handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns aren't going to be banned. Semi-automatic 'guns' will likely get increased restrictions on capacity. But there have been a variety of challenges to the 2nd and handgun ownership is always considered as protected as so many people truly believe these weapons promote personal and home security.

              There does need to be a freer discussion on what needs to be considered for restriction, as well as closing loopholes allowing sales without background checks.Large magazines will likely be banned and the ones in existence now will grow in value.

              However, the converse of "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns " is "Only rule-followers are going to follow these rules" - only those who are prone to follow the rules are going to adhere to new regulations; plenty of people will violate these rules, and they have been stocking up on potentially-bannable items for years.

              Not that we don't already have illegal gun-running in this country.... [1 | 2]

              Just sayin'...

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:37:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  nt (4+ / 0-)

                Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

                by Sharon Wraight on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:46:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  This (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tom Seaview
                  (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)
                  is bullshit.

                  "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                  by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:56:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  this sounds like an adult discussion... (6+ / 0-)

                    try again...and explain why Sharon Wraight's comment is not true.

                    FTR...I would like to see the 2a repealed...also wish for world peace...neither are likely...but nice goals to work towards as we take the small steps we can to make the world a safer place.


                    We are not broke, we are being robbed.

                    by Glen The Plumber on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:34:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  NT: No text? (0+ / 0-)

                      That is some heavy-duty reply....

                      Not tweetable?

                      No time?

                      Not true? (We can just say "not true" and get recs? I type too much.) If we were having an 'adult conversation' then a plain old "not true" is a child-like response.

                      See also "nuh-uh".

                      Or is that a typo and it was supposed to be "mt"?

                      Just askin'......

                      seems weird.

                      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

                      by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 05:26:07 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  No it's not. It's not BS (7+ / 0-)

                    No other developed nation has a right set aside for gun ownership. But they buy and own guns there, too.

                    We don't have special rights set aside for pets, for horses, for cars, for TVs, for refrigerators, and for a host of other consumer items. But we still buy them.

                    We don't even have special rights for the necessities of life, for safe food, clean water, shelter, clothes, health care, etc. etc. But we have one for deadly pieces of metal?

                    That's flat out insane.

                    There is absolutely no rational reason for placing guns above all other things for protection. Like some sacred, holy relic.

                    In reality, due to their lethality, they should be among the most regulated and restricted things in this country. Common sense tells us that they should be among the most difficult things in our country to buy and own, and should have zero set aside, special "rights".

                    •  That's not logical. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      oldpunk, BlackSheep1, PavePusher

                      While no other nations have a "right" for guns but still allow them, we're talking about nations that never had that right.

                      The United States would be unique in that it would be the first nation to have such a legal right and then abolish that right. I think it's reasonable to assume that a nation that does this is also a nation that would then offer what amounts to a complete ban.

                      There is absolutely no rational reason for placing guns above all other things for protection.
                      It's not above all other things. It's one of 20 or 30 protected things in the Bill of Rights. Equal to the freedom of assembly, or freedom from self-incrimination.
                      Common sense tells us that they should be among the most difficult things in our country to buy and own, and should have zero set aside, special "rights".
                      This boils down to "only the rich and well-connected should be able to have these". What a progressive sentiment.
                      •  Things. As in, inanimate objects. (3+ / 0-)

                        It's the only inanimate object given special rights.

                        And, no. If we repeal the 2nd, as we should and must, it does NOT mean that a total gun ban will follow. It just means that we'll finally be free of a stupid, unnecessary and deadly "right" that never should have been included in the Bill of Rights in the first place.

                        Again, they didn't put one in there for the necessities of life -- for food, water, shelter, clothing, etc.

                        They didn't put one in there for any other piece of metal or "thing".

                        Just guns.

                        That's just madness.

                        I think we need to do the following:

                        Repeal the 2nd and do away with the other confederate relic, the 10th. Neither serve any purpose but to divide the nation and endanger its people.

                        Next, ban all guns with removable, interchangeable or replaceable clips, magazines or drums. Limit guns to those with built-in chambers, and limit those chambers to six. If you can load multiples of bullets at one time, that gun should be banned. Single load, only, just as it was in the 18th century.

                        Ban all clips, magazines and drums. And do this for guns and ammo at the manufacturing, transfer, importation, sales and possession stage.

                        Have a national buyback plan for all banned guns and ammo.

                        Register all guns; license all gun owners. Gun owners have to be tested and retested each year.

                        The above will radically reduce gun carnage, and will finally put life above pieces of deadly metal.

                        •  No buyback. If and when we get that far, use (0+ / 0-)

                          a five year effective date, and let the market control how people come into compliance.

                          People make bad bets all of the time.

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

                          by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:54:39 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  You plan on applying these... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          kestrel9000, PavePusher

                          Restrictions to the government as well, aren't you?

                          Why are they more trustworthy than I?

                          How many Iraqis did the US government kill just this past decade? 50,000? 100,000? More? When I watch the video of police pulling a gun and pointing it at the back of the head of a handcuffed kid on the ground held down by many others and murder him...

                          Why would I ever trust the government more so than I'd trust a neighbor who has never killed anyone?

                          No, the problem isn't citizens with guns. Anyone that believes such lives in some Bizzaro World where up is down.

                          Register all guns; license all gun owners. Gun owners have to be tested and retested each year.
                          How would that do anything? Breivik met all those restrictions so he could buy his handgun. If anything, the Norwegian government made him practice at the shooting range many times before he was approved to buy one...

                          They insisted he train to become a better shot.

                          None of these crimes happen because the gun owner has less expertise with the firearm than gun controllers would like. What good would a registry do?

                          Are you just taking on that last paragraph out of habit after having repeated it as a mantra all these years?

                          •  Yes, the police should be demilitarized. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            Definitely.

                            And while I'd radically cut back our defense department if I could, as we spend more money on defense (really, offense) than the rest of the world combined, the military should be equipped as a military. Civilians should never be as well armed. Not even close.

                            I think we should end all of our wars, bring the troops back home, and stop being capitalism's police force. No more wars, ever, to protect or defend capitalist markets. And that's pretty much been the sole reason for every war we've waged, at least since WWII.

                            As for the guy in Norway. Sorry, but if the ban I speak of were implemented, he wouldn't have had the firepower to do what he did. Nor would any of the mass shooters here.

                            Again, no gun that can replace ammo via clip, magazine, drum or any other form. They would be banned at the manufacturing stage and all subsequent points along the way. No loopholes. No exceptions. The only guns any citizen could own or purchase would be those with bullet chambers built in, and nothing above six chambers.

                            All exchangeable bulk ammo would be banned, in any form.

                            And, yes, licensing and registration is common sense and should go along with the above. We do it for cars. It's even more important that we do it for guns.

                          •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)
                            the military should be equipped as a military.
                            Why? Why have a military at all? Are you anticipating invasion? Is the formidable Belgian Navy just waiting for us to let down our guard? Is the existence of the military the only thing that keeps the fearsome Chilean marines from landing on our beaches and subjugating all of us?

                            Let's just get rid of it. The world will be safer for it. Our wallets will be safer for it.

                            And when you've done that and demilitarized the police, then I'll give real consideration to disarming myself. Until then - "You first".

                          •  After all the enemies we've made . . . (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            it would be foolish to get rid of the military all at once, at least now. Yes, we would be attacked, given all the wars we started.

                            Ramp it down over time. Make it equal to that Belgian force you talk about. That would be fine with me. Cut, say, 75% of the budget over time . . . No more world's capitalist police.

                            As for the rest of your comment. Do you actually believe that arming yourself keeps you safe from our military? Really? Do you really think you'd win a shootout with them, or that they have any desire to come after you?

                            Paranoia is a big destroya.

                            Come on. And if they did come knocking on the door and you answered by shooting them, you think that would protect you and your family from destruction?

                            Sounds like you've watched Red Dawn one too many times.

                          •  Why would it be foolish? (0+ / 0-)

                            So you really think we'd be attacked? How?

                            Do you think Afghanistan has a Navy? Does Iraq have intercontinental ballistic missiles?

                            For a person who tries to paint lawful gun owners as paranoid, you sure have your own idiosyncrasies here.

                            We have two gigantic oceans on either side of us separating us from the world. No one is going to attack us, even though we might now deserve it.

                            I'd personally cut the military down to about $25 billion a year. Keep the airmen manning the nukes in silos, and enough of a satellite network to make use of them. Keep maybe a training corps of 20,000 officers or so in the Army. Scuttle the Navy entirely. Prohibit the use of drones entirely, prohibit military personnel from stepping outside the borders of our nation without a declaration of war from Congress, make it capital treason from one end of the chain of command to the other.

                            As for the rest of your comment. Do you actually believe that arming yourself keeps you safe from our military?
                            Dumb people use dumb fallacies. I might as well ask you if vaccines protect you from disease.

                            Of course a vaccine won't protect you individually from disease. They wear off quickly enough that a few years later you're usually pretty vulnerable, individually.

                            It's the herd effect that protects you. A lone man with a single gun can't stand up against a military. But hundreds of millions of people with hundreds of millions of weapons... that's another thing entirely.

                            I don't think you're dumb, not truly. You seem smart enough. But when you don't like the logical conclusion and you can intuit that it's out there to be stumbled across, you just shut down and refuse to follow through. And hence, you say things like the above comment. It's sad.

                          •  Actually, nothing you say is logical . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            Not in the slightest. It's all right-wing fever-swamp nonsense, without any basis in rational thought. You exhibit rather obvious signs of paranoid delusions.

                            Especially the fantastical idea that hundreds of millions of people with hundreds of millions of weapons would all agree on the same definition of tyranny, or see the same people or things as "the enemy."

                            Especially in America. Instead, if there ever were some kind of battle with hundreds of million of armed civilians involved, they'd be shooting at each other, not joining forces against the military.

                            Judging from your posts, I imagine that you and I are on opposite sides of the fence, politically, philosophically, ideologically. I'm an ecosocialist, a non-orthodox Marxist, with Buddhist leanings. My guess is that you're a righty, most likely a propertarian. We're not going to agree on much of anything, and certainly not when it comes to the definition of tyranny.

                            I see the NRA as a tyrannical organization, and the GOA as far worse. They both endanger American lives, and the NRA has far too much power over our laws. I also see gun nuts as authoritarians, with serious mental issues that already make them big risks when it comes to owning guns.

                            And I see capitalism itself as inherently tyrannical.

                            Now, do you think you and I are likely to pick up a gun and aim at the same enemy?

                          •  Right-wing? (0+ / 0-)

                            Since when is cutting the Pentagon budget to $25 billion right-wing?

                            Nevermind though. Rather than arguing against my comment with logic or reason, you've simply decided to stoop to character assassination. If you can't beat me in debate, I suppose the next best thing is to just start screaming about how I'm some evil fascist and endangering your life.

                            That's what your arguments all boiled down to anyway, after all.

                        •  diomedes77: do you seriously think (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          kestrel9000

                          Franklin or Adams or Henry or Jefferson would agree with you on that claim?

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

                          by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:08:04 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I do not think it matters. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BlackSheep1

                            They're dead.

                            More important than their agreement (or disagreement) is whether the reasoning they had for disagreement is valid. They weren't perfect, so it's not a given. But they were also quite intelligent and, for their day, enlightened. They can for the most part be given the benefit of the doubt.

                            And they certainly thought it important that guns be the provenance of the citizenry and not just of the government.

                          •  They thought it important because of militias. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            It wasn't for the twisted reasons now put forth by neo-confederates who just can't let go of the Civil War.

                            It was in order to make up government-run militias, to protect the state.

                            For good or ill, that's how they saw things.

                            Personally, I don't even view our two party system as a legitimate governing body, and I'd love to see them ousted. But not by guns. Not violently. I want our system overturned democratically, and capitalism to be replaced with an egalitarian, humane, just and fair system that doesn't need "reform" in the first place.

                            But, again, not through armed insurrection. Through the ballot box and staunch, continuous, outside pressure which forces the democratization of everything, including the economy.

                            Anyone who thinks an armed citizen rebellion will result in anything other than the mass execution of the rebels is living in a Hollywood fantasy. It will then lead to far more actual "tyranny" than guns nuts ever imagined. It will be the real deal, not just tiny raises in tax rates, or health care reform, or the election of a black president. They'll see the real thing instead.

                            We need a velvet revolution, not an armed one.

                          •  This is specious reasoning. (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, they talked about militias alot. This is not the same as "they thought it important because of militias".

                            If you ask someone why screwdrivers are important, they'll say  something like "to insert and remove screws for repair".

                            That may be the only answer you ever get. It does not mean it's the only reason to have a screwdriver. They work well to pry things apart. Sometimes people use them to build, rather than just repair. I've even seen them (foolishly) used to check if a wire's hot. People open cans of paint with them.

                            There are dozens of legitimate uses for that tool. Most people are familiar with many. But there's some cognitive disconnect that makes it so only one purpose is ever really mentioned let alone talked about. Same thing here.

                            No one in their era would have thought twice about someone using a firearm to defend themselves against a murderer or a rapist. They would not have prohibited that use.

                            No one in their era would have thought poorly of someone who collects a firearm, some finely made masterpiece to be hung on a mantle just to show off. They would not have prohibited that use either.

                            And so while they were concerned and maybe even genuinely worried about militias, they wrote the amendment so that it protected firearms period, without any qualifying conditions.

                          •  Wrong. The amendment was to support militias. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight, rustypatina

                            They weren't worried about them. They wanted them staffed and supported, to put down rebellion and insurrection. That's the reason for the 2nd amendment.

                            http://www.alternet.org/...

                            That's what the 2nd begins with the part about a well-regulated state militia being necessary for the defense of a free state, etc. etc.

                            And you're still not getting it. America is the only nation in the developed world with a set-aside right for gun ownership. But everyone of those countries without that special right still allow gun purchases.  

                            The 2nd was crazy and unnecessary from the getgo, and is even crazier and less needed now. Repealing it would NOT do away with gun ownership. But it would end all of the twisted, ignorant foolishness peddled by gun nuts.

                            It would end the absurdity of giving pieces of deadly metal their own place in the Bill of Rights when there is no place for safe food, clean water, shelter, clothing, health care or education.

                            And that would make it easier to enact sensible, rational, logical gun safety laws, regulations and restrictions.

                          •  Not wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                            And I've already explained how and why. I don't think it needs to be repeated.

                          •  You explained nothing. (0+ / 0-)

                            All you did was peddle right-wing bullshit.

                            I've had enough of this. Go back to your fever swamp and peddle your paranoid delusions to someone who cares.

                          •  I explained very carefully. (0+ / 0-)

                            There is a human tendency to list what's considered the "most important" or highest profile reason for something, and ignore all the rest despite support for those other reasons as well.

                            You ignored that, possibly because it was difficult to argue against something quite so logical. And when called on it, again you just denied the fact that I had done so.

                            You're the right-winger here. You want it so only the police and government have firearms. Me? I'd like to see people have the right to own and use them (lawfully) no matter the color of the skin or whether they are rich or of modest means.

                            I strongly support empowering all citizens. I trust them with firearms to be responsible and lawful.

                          •  I'll try one last time. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            Sorry, no. You didn't explain anything logically or rationally, and I told you why. Your stance on the topic is profoundly illogical. Especially the part of all those armed civilians apparently fighting together against the enemy of your choosing. Especially when it comes to your twisted belief that guns protect you from the military.

                            All guns do is make it far more likely that you or someone in your family will be killed by that gun. A gun in the home increases that chance by a factor of five. It increases it by more than ten if you're a woman.

                            On the streets? A person who carries a gun is 4.5 times more likely to die in the case of an attack. Their gun is used against them. An unarmed victim, OTOH, is far less likely to be killed.

                            You also have a major problem with reading comprehension. As in, you can't read. I said repeatedly that I wasn't calling for a ban on all guns, just certain kinds, so your comment here is patently false:

                            You're the right-winger here. You want it so only the police and government have firearms. Me? I'd like to see people have the right to own and use them (lawfully) no matter the color of the skin or whether they are rich or of modest means.
                            The discussion was about the 2nd amendment. If we repeal it, which I'm in favor of, that would not lead to banning all guns. Why should it? No other nation has a 2nd amendment right like ours, yet they have civilians who own guns. Guns are bought and sold without anything remotely like our 2nd amendment. It's flat out unnecessary, archaic and dangerous.

                            But the repeal would do away with a ton of confusion, misinformation and the twisted rhetorical grounds for preventing sensible, logical and rational gun control. It would put guns back into the realm with all other pieces of metal. It would remove them from the realm of myths of origins and right-wing fantasy. It would remove them from the realm of neo-confederate fever dreams of rebellion and insurrection. They could then easily be treated as the deadly piece of metal they truly are and regulated as such.

                          •  What claim? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            And I agree with the poster who says, so what?

                            It's pure idiocy for us to lock ourselves into 18th century thinking. Their world is not ours. We might as well be from different planets. Why follow the dictates of a few white male slaveholders who made up the American ruling class?

                            That said, do you think they could ever have imagined someone going into a theater and shooting off 100 rounds in two minutes? Obviously not. In their day, it was very difficult to load a rifle even for one shot. I think they would have written an entirely different amendment with current firepower in mind.

                            Remember, the 2nd was written after the government crushed Shay's rebellion, and they saw the purpose of militias being the protection of the state. Meaning, the protection against rebellion and insurrection. Which, ironically, would include all of the bozos now saying the 2nd gives them just that "right".

                            No, it doesn't. Following the 2nd, we have the Whiskey Rebellion and that was crushed by the new government and its militias. Contrary to right-wing myth, the founders never wanted civilians to be able to rise up and crush what they had worked so hard to create.

                            Read Article One, Section Nine for a good take on just how the new government felt about rebellion and insurrection. They thought suspending Habeas Corpus was just fine -- which I'm against.

                          •  Haha. (0+ / 0-)
                            That said, do you think they could ever have imagined someone going into a theater and shooting off 100 rounds in two minutes? Obviously not.
                            I always chuckle when I hear this argument.

                            Gee, do you think that strikingly intelligent men who lived in an era where all sorts of new machines were being invented could ever have imagined new firearms that might fire more rapidly than those they currently had?

                            Men who had already lived to see improvements in guns that allowed just that?

                            Where do you people come up with this crap?

                            Remember, the 2nd was written after the government crushed Shay's rebellion,
                            They weren't saints. Nor was the government some monolithic entity with which they all agreed. So using one incident or another to prove they were "evil" and it should be disregarded... that's asinine.
                            Which, ironically, would include all of the bozos now saying the 2nd gives them just that "right".
                            Even if your reasoning was correct, it would both be ironic and desirable that the 2nd give them that right.

                            What better way to prevent such a crime, than to turn the very law against itself to protect people?

                          •  indeed (0+ / 0-)
                            [T]hey could [n]ever have imagined someone going into a theater and shooting off 100 rounds in two minutes... In their day, it was very difficult to load a rifle even for one shot. [T]hey would have written an entirely different amendment with current firepower in mind.
                            I have complete faith that James Madison would have written an entirely different amendment with current firepower in mind. He wrote the Second Amendment 221 years ago. As a strikingly intelligent man, with new machines like the cotton-gin only two years in the future, he undoubtedly could foresee (if he bothered to think about it) somewhat faster firing arms than the flintlock musket, Brown Bess, long-rifle, etc., somewhat more accurate, with somewhat higher-impact bullets. (I read that muskets might get off one shot every 20 seconds, rifles only one shot every 30 seconds.) But I very much doubt that Madison imagined the firearms of today, or had such a thought in mind when he drafted the Second Amendment.

                            Btw, if the historical trend continues, then all the more reason to repeal or amend 2A ASAP, before firepower continues its trajectory 221 years from now, in 2233. (Will we each have private micro-drones, equipped with semi-automatic, ocular-guided death-ray lasers? What a safe world! ;-) )

                            Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

                            by Sharon Wraight on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 06:38:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Guns had been single-load for centuries. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            He really couldn't have imagined the firepower we have today. There was no precedent for it, and no likely trajectory toward it.

                            Guns had been around for centuries before Madison helped write the amendment, yet we were still stuck with single-load weapons. One bullet at a time. There was very little in the way of improvements along those lines.

                            (The invention of the lock in the 15th century set the stage for relatively reliable handguns. Rifle-like weapons have been around for a thousand years.)

                            Yes, guns could shoot further, and bullets had more impact when fired. Guns, overall, were much more stable. But it had been painstakingly difficult to load them for hundreds of years prior to the Bill of Rights.

                          •  C'mon, stop making sense. Weapons in year 2233? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            diomedes77

                            It's enlightening (if alarming) to speculate on what weapons might be like in the year 2233, if the Second Amendment is not repealed or amended, no? (Second Amendment was written Dec 1791, that's 221 years ago; 2233 is 221 years from now.) Seriously, let's draw the trajectories [apt word] forward, assuming no change in 2A.

                            Eye-guided targetting seems reasonably intuitive -- you just look at the target (maybe using some laser eyeglass apparatus, although that seems so 2100), release the trigger [mentally?] and it guides your projecticle. But physical bullets are so 13th c. The "death ray" I linked to is real -- released in 2010 by Raytheon, the video shows it shooting down a UAV. But even lasers might be outdated in 221 years. Stretching the limits of imagination, how about a polonium-beam gun? The difference between fully-automatic, semi-automatic, and single-shot guns seems like hair-splitting in comparison: perhaps an hour of inexhaustible ammo, could they get mortality up to the rate of 100/second? Then in theory one could kill an entire stadium of 30,000 people in just 5 minutes.

                            Of course, most of us aren't as strikingly intelligent as Madison.

                            If climate chaos, nuclear war, or other impediments have their way, perhaps in 2233 we'll be fighting with spears and stones.

                            Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

                            by Sharon Wraight on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:11:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Except that RKBA is already not equal. It is the (0+ / 0-)

                        only thing on your list that gets restricted on the basis of criminal history, etc. Hell, even in prison people have almost a 100% First Amendment Freedom of Religion right.

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

                        by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:52:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  That's simply not the case. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          BlackSheep1, kestrel9000

                          Your very right to free speech is restricted when they send you to prison.

                          All your rights are restricted in similar fashion.

                          When you get out, you can't even vote. Your right to vote is restricted in the same was as your right to bear arms. Not just that, but there are several dozen professions none of which have to do with firearms that you can't have.

                          Try to be a locksmith after a felony conviction.

                          •  Shit, I used to verbally attack the Bureau of (0+ / 0-)

                            Prisons from the inside all of the time. They couldn't touch me. And, yes ex-felons (most places, at least) can vote, and even some still in prison have that.

                            Simply no rights are restricted in the same fashion as RKBA. The occupational licensing thing is a completely different subject. The mere fact that you have to have a license for some profession tells you that there is no right involved.

                            You got nothing, dude.

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

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:18:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Historically challenged (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, Sharon Wraight

                        The English Bill of Rights in 1689 included a right to own guns. Specifically, for Protestants to own guns after a Catholic monarch tried to take them away.

                        That right was later repealed. Now neither civilians nor bobbies/coppers/Peelers/rozzers have guns (except embassy guards and the equivalent of SWAT teams), and few villains use them to commit crimes. The British police are adamant against arming themselves, for their own safety and that of the public. They do not have mass shootings, and they have far lower rates of gun crime, suicide, and accidents than the US.

                        According to the delusional logic being peddled by the NRA, the US didn't have any mass shootings, either. Our shooters all went to the UK, where they knew that there would be nobody armed to oppose them in schools, malls, political meetings, movie theaters, and other such locations.

                        America—We built that!

                        by Mokurai on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:55:11 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  OK (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KenBee, rockhound

                          talked with ole Don this morning, the 84-year-old dude who does mornings on the AM. Yes, indeed, sayeth the ole duck, you sure coulda gone into a gun shop in 1955 and walked out ten minutes later with an M-1 with a 20 round capacity AND a 1911, gone straight to the nearest elementary school, and slaughtered 20 kids in seconds,  were you so inclined.

                          THAT'S the question right there. what changed? It's not simply the availability of guns.

                          What actually did change?

                          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                          by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:52:41 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Kestrel, they did do that. (0+ / 0-)

                            Maybe not in 1955 specifically, but these things did happen. It's difficult to research them, because you can't just run Google. Unless since 2000 they've piqued someone's curiosity who did research and then wrote something that does appear on Google, they're just damned difficult to find.

                            A few may only have ever made the local newspapers, and if you've ever known anything about small town papers...

                            It's impossible to know how rare they were. Maybe the 2 or 3 I've heard of are the only ones that ever happened. Maybe not. I somehow doubt it.

                            So the "what has changed" may be more about how people's perceptions of solutions have changed, rather than the state of mind that allows these heinous crimes to be performed.

                            From what I can glean from the few incidents that I know about, such things were more the realm of men in their 40s who were having tax disputes (make of that what you will) than 16 yr olds disillusioned with life.

                  •  I'll HR you if you say that to anyone else. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber, rustypatina

                    Since your comment is directed at me I won't, here. But I will hide-rate you if you use uncivil discourse against anyone else.

                    Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

                    by Sharon Wraight on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:43:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Should (2+ / 0-)

        And likely to are two different concepts.  Agree on should; agree on unlikely.

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

        by Superribbie on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:06:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. Repeal the 2nd Amendment. (7+ / 0-)

      It's unnecessary, archaic and deadly, and we're the only developed nation with such a "right".

      Even though the language of that Amendment, and its context and history, definitely allow for serious gun regulation, it is used too often as a way to stifle that. It is used too often as a wedge by gun manufacturers to ensure their blood money and our elected officials fear it.

      Time to get rid of it entirely. It, along with the 10th, should be booted. They're the two confederate amendments, in a sense, and the confederates lost.

      It's too bizarre that we still let a few 18th century slaveholders dictate and/or constrain our laws today, in 2013. It's absurd that we haven't cast off this immoral relic long ago. The world of today is nothing like the world of the 18th century, and it's profoundly stupid to treat deadly pieces of metal as if they're sacred.

      Time to grow up, America, and get rid of an evil, immoral excuse for carnage.

    •  Go for it. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      valion, BlackSheep1

      You'll have plenty of opposition, including me, but stop stalling and start organizing if that's what you believe in.

      YES WE DID -- AGAIN. FOUR MORE YEARS.

      by raincrow on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:39:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was going to recommend this diary (6+ / 0-)

    but I can't deal with the last three sentences.

    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

    by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:52:37 AM PST

    •  it's the last three sentences that are... (0+ / 0-)

      the resonance of the bell rung with the word "unquestioned."

      It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

      by Murphoney on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:58:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, that last sentence in particular (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Free Jazz at High Noon

      is a tinge pollyannaish.  I'll stick with my recc. though

      "I'd like to thank spiritplumber and LieparDestin for fixing oopsaDaisy's computer who can tip, recc, and hotlist now. I tried but couldn't do it despite her constantly foulmouthing me, so thanks U two." -God

      by oopsaDaisy on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:02:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Godwin's law violations never get my tips..... (6+ / 0-)

      -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

      by dopper0189 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:17:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Holocaust reference (0+ / 0-)

        is why I didn't tip or rec, but technically, that's not a Godwin foul: diarist didn't compare anything in contemporary politics to the Nazis.
        Pardon me for splitting hairs....:)

        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

        by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:20:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  there is no such thing (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kestrel9000

          As a "Godwin foul."

          Godwin's Law says nothing about the correctness of any particular comparison involving Nazis, it simply says that such comparisons will be made. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.

          Context matters.

          --Shannon

          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:35:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

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

            Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis...While falling foul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate.

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:55:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  you're mistaken (0+ / 0-)
          It is this type of government which prevents the Hitler types from emerging and gaining power.
          however oblique and paranoid, however imprecise and inaccurate, it's a direct comparison, nonetheless.

          It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

          by Murphoney on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:28:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But the diarist is wrong on the facts. (4+ / 0-)

          Jews in Germany weren't big gun owners even prior to Hitler. There were few guns to confiscate. And Hitler didn't gain control through gun confiscation in the first place. Not even remotely. He gained control through propaganda, and by getting rid of his opposition in government -- the left. Divide and conquer. He gained control by lying to workers, gaining their trust, and then crushing them. He gained control by scapegoating the Jews, liberals, socialists, communists, feminists, etc. etc. and all too many bought into that.

          The Nazis were all too similar (in their objects of scapegoating) to the people who successfully bamboozled tea party rank and file.  

          The Holocaust had nothing to do with the lack of guns among the Jews or Nazi confiscation. They lacked guns long before Hitler came along.  

          •  diomedes77: let's take a look, shall we, at (0+ / 0-)

            what Hitler considered among his  accomplishments:

            Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

                Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
                All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
                Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
                Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
                The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
                Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

            That's a simplification ... but the particulars are available at the site noted in the quote below, along with a good bit more, regarding the way in which the National Socialists in Germany handled private ownership of arms. Note particularly that not only were firearms prohibited to persons of Jewish extraction, so were knives and stabbing weapons (sound much like the modern UK?).

            Why do you reckon they were so intent on that?

            To maintain their primacy over those they meant to conquer, enslave, or eliminate.

            "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

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

            by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:19:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  1938? He was well established by then. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              And, again, few Jews had guns in the first place. They just weren't into them as much as others who think they need them to be men. Americans, unfortunately, top the charts on that psychosis at the moment.

              You're also mistaking a government's attempt to cover all its bases and reducing its risks with the necessity of taking away guns to avoid defeat.

              There is no evidence to support the idea that Germany wouldn't have gone forward with the Holocaust, with or without guns in civilian hands. Hell, they wiped out military units again and again across Europe in the beginning of the war, and might well have won the whole thing if they hadn't  attacked Russia. What? Do you really think they feared disorganized, isolated and disconnected civilians, armed or not?

              Come on. Don't be ridiculous.

              •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                Kristallnacht was November 1938.

                The Nazis built on the Weimar Republic's registration laws from 10 years earlier.

                Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."4

                Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which consumed six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.

                Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.

                Same source I quoted above.

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

                by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:35:26 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What does that prove? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Sharon Wraight

                  Few Jews had guns in the first place. It wouldn't have mattered if they all were armed. Again, the Germans managed to soundly defeat armies, navies and air forces across Europe for several years at the beginning of the war.

                  Is it your contention that they were frightened of armed civilians, who lacked leadership, organization, communications and logistical support, and couldn't have gathered in large enough groups fast enough to make any difference?

                  Again, you're being ridiculous.

                  Even if every single Jew in Germany magically joined together into one unit to face the Germans, and every Jew had a gun, the Germans would have defeated them. Guns wouldn't have mattered. There were too few of them to go up against the Germans, armed or unarmed.

                  And, of course, they couldn't all have joined forces. Militaries, OTOH, are already organized, disciplined, armed and ready. They already have leaders and chains of command.

                  Civilians don't.

                  Gun nuts just don't get the absurdity of their fantasies.

                  •  so let me ask you this: once all the guns are gone (0+ / 0-)

                    what do you ban next?

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

                    by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:21:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  All the guns wouldn't be gone. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharon Wraight

                      My preferred scenario is to ban all guns that have interchangeable loading options. I'd ban all guns with clips, magazines or drums, and limit guns to built-in chambers. No more than six per gun.

                      There is nothing logical in assuming that a ban of some guns would lead to other bans, especially given the nature of guns, their lethality, their total lack of necessity.

                      Guns are just pieces of metal. They never should have been considered a "right" in the first place. They aren't human. They have nothing to do with our humanity. They have nothing to do with our personhood, who we are, our ability to express ourselves, or our freedoms.

                      They are simply lethal pieces of metal designed to kill and take away our freedoms.

                      Human rights are what we should have enshrined in the Constitution, not the right to pieces of deadly metal.

                      Safe food, clean water, a healthy environment, shelter, clothes, education and health care -- at the very least. Those things should have been enshrined.

                      Guns? Their inclusion in the set of "rights" is pure idiocy and endangers all of us.  

                      You can have the last word. I'm done with this conversation.

            •  No gun-control, because Hitler? Nice Godwinism. (0+ / 0-)

              Furthermore, there's some doubts about the accuracy of the book:

              contentious issues remain over particular aspects of the work, including the reliability of particular translated statements within the French and English editions, the questionable manner in which Martin Bormann may have edited his notes, and disputes over which edition is most reliable. As a result, a high level of critical awareness of its potential drawbacks as a source is advisable when using Table Talk.

              Join us at RASA: Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment. (Repeal will not ban guns, just help regulate them.)

              by Sharon Wraight on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 10:23:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  The diarist is now banned. Bojo'd (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, diomedes77

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

            because of a string of BS diaries, culminating in this one:

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

            The facts were totally beside the point to him.

            „Wer kämpft, kann verlieren. Wer nicht kämpft, hat schon verloren.“ - Bertolt Brecht

            by translatorpro on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 01:08:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Make that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Otteray Scribe

      next to last paragraph.

      "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

      by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:19:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  so had the Jews been armed, Hitler (5+ / 0-)

    would have been nicer????

    You jest.  He had more guns under his control than the Jews would have done, please!

    There are all sorts of reasons why prohibition is not the way to go, but that isn't it.  Let's stick to American reasons for American thank you.

  •  "Unquestioned"?? No, not "unquestioned" -- that's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10

    an unsupported tautology.  You attempt to argue from authority with that loose characterization.

    Reasonable people might come to different conclusions, might believe different answers -- but it is not reasoning if you don't question, first.

    It seems curiosity has killed the cat that had my tongue.

    by Murphoney on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:55:58 AM PST

  •  Well, you know how to cater to your audience... (5+ / 0-)

    I'm honestly surprised to not see more Recs on this from the usual suspects.

    I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

    by detroitmechworks on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:59:51 AM PST

  •  I don't know of many (4+ / 0-)

    democrats who support a full prohibition on firearms/full repeal of 2A. I certainly don't. I support sane, rational regulations on the most powerful, most deadly weapons on the market, but not outlawing completely.

    And as a disclaimer: I am a member of "Repeal or Amend the 2nd Amendment" but I was invited as the founder of Courtesy Kos to ensure their internal conversation remains courteous. I don't agree with the groups goals.

    Civility, courtesy, kindness. The CK mantra.

    by rexymeteorite on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:02:28 AM PST

  •  My rights are being shot up by your rights (10+ / 0-)

    Let's get a "well regulated militia" going if we are going to rely upon the Second Amendment as a justification for owning large capacity clips and assault weapons .

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:03:49 AM PST

    •  The Militia (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too

      The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is a document created during a different era.  I wish there was CSpan to cover the discussions on the 2nd Amendment during those times.  

      In regards to the "Militia", my educated guess is that its most equivalent to the National Guard in modern times.  Back in those days, they had the Army and the militia.  Today, we have the regular military and the Reserve/National Guard forces.  I do believe in a strong National Guard and, therefore, think they should be kept right here in America instead of being sent to Afghanistan or other places.  I believe they should be responding to our civil emergencies which seem to be growing more common.

      •  The National Guard... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoGoGoEverton

        Is nothing but another wing of the Army Reserve. It is activated far too often and sent outside the nation for anyone to pretend that it is a militia.

        Personally I would like to see the the standing military disbanded. Scuttle our Navy, keep only those defensive weapons and only in a capacity that they can be used to defend rather than attack others. Maybe reduce the army to a training corps of about 10,000 officers.

        After all, if guns are dangerous then they are most dangerous in the hands of the military. Say what you will about gun owners, but we're not murdering people throughout Waziristan with drone bombs.

      •  why not go to the source, michaelnodav? Look at (0+ / 0-)

        what the 2d Continental Congress MANDATED in the way of arms:

        http://www.politifact.com/...

        to wit, a state-of-the-art privately-owned, not-to-be-sold or confiscated (even for taxes!) firearm with spares and ammunition:
        http://memory.loc.gov/...

        Not only did Congress put this in writing, when some members challenged the law as "too onerous," guess what happened??
        From Politicfact, linked above:

        There was no roll call for the House and Senate bills requiring health care for seamen. But on the proposal mandating the purchase of musket, firelock or rifle as part of the larger bill to establish a uniform militia, 10 of the 14 framers whose votes were recorded endorsed the measure.

        One side note: In November 1792, an attempt was made in the House to reconsider the weapon requirement in the militia bill because some people were complaining that it was too onerous, an argument that echoes complaints from critics of the new health-care law. The proposal was defeated 6 to 50. The vote among framers was 1 to 6.

        It should also be noted that the president who signed the first two of these laws was our Founding Father-in-Chief, George Washington.

        Oh, and before the fight breaks out: "uniform militia" meant a militia with similar arms and capability among all its members, not a professional, uniform-clad military force.

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

        by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:28:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's the key. Also, if guns don't kill (3+ / 0-)

      To me, it's insane that we even have to debate this.

      It's insane that we ever got to the point where 300 million guns are in circulation. That's just pure madness. To make it even worse, we have special rights set aside for deadly pieces of metal, but zero rights to safe food, clean water, shelter, clothes, health care and education. As in, the necessities of life.

      What a truly backwater nation America is still, even in 2013.

    •  I'd be for that, crystal eyes (0+ / 0-)

      I think a monthly or even weekly training session, especially if the gov't paid for the range fees and bullets, would be very popular.

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

      by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:22:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  So (4+ / 0-)
    Democrats are for the right to bear arms
    if a person is for the opposite they are not a Democrat ?

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

    by indycam on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:06:11 AM PST

  •  Be aware of the straw man (5+ / 0-)

    and the mutual exclusivity arguments

    There are elements within the Democratic party who will tell us they want rifles and pistols confiscated.  They want a complete prohibition of arms
    This dairy seems to suggest that some significant polulation of the Democratic party wants to knock down doors and confiscate guns without concern to the civil ramifications.

    The answer to reducing gun violence is not per se confiscation of guns, or endorsing a "right to bear arms" without consideration of the militia clause.

    Gun control  is not a mutually exclusive choice the way it is presented here.

    The answer will lie in between with registration, training,
    and banning certain high capacity munitions among other needed restrictions.

  •  As a rational and I like to think sane ... (8+ / 0-)

    firearm owner.

    I think the vast majority of Americans can agree on these regulations:

    A fifteen day waiting period to purchase any firearm.

    A REAL criminal and mental health background check.

    Limiting all firearms to holding no more than 10 rounds

    Closing the "gunshow" and "private sales" loophole.

    Require firearm owners to report lost/stolen firearms.

    A deposit on ammunition (would make it costlier to hoard and clean up all the loose brass laying around.)

    A ballistic report created by the manufacture on every sidearm sold.

    I think in the past firearm regulation laws have been written by people not very familiar with firearms and they have left loopholes that manufactures were able to circumvent. There are enough rational and responsible firearm owners out there that we could draw up sensible legislation.

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:10:45 AM PST

    •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, a2nite, Cartoon Peril

      I would make the waiting period 30 days, the max capacity 5 rounds and the criminal and mental health check equivalent to admission into the National Guard, but you are correct that these are things most Democrats and many Republicans and Independents could easily support, as minimum requirements.

      It is time, also,  to enroll all long gun as opposed to handgun owners into the militia, for several reasons; to redefine responsibilities, create a federal registry, and to make militia service of actual value to the county in the event of an emergency.

      My problem with the Second Amendment is that it has never been fulfilled, but tweaked, twisted and deformed over the last 200 years into something less than useless. There is no necessity of repealing it, but it must be rescued from the fantasy world of intepreting it as protecting military battlefield weapons in every home to whomever can afford them. This currents situation is clearly not safe OR Constitutionally prescribed.

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:44:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I concur with the 5 round capacity ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raincrow

        I just thought the 10 rounds would be an easier sell to the majority of gun owners.

        I carried a sidearm in a professional capacity; my sidearm held 10 rounds and on the other side of my shoulder holster I carried 2 magazines that each also held 10 rounds.

        If I was ever in a situation where I needed to expend more than 30 rounds, than I had already failed. I should have found another way to extract myself from the situation.

        Barring a zombie apocalypse (which No, I don't think is a likely occurrence) no civilian needs a firearm that holds 100 rounds.

        A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

        by falconer520 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:41:19 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think I need a little clarification here... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Sharon Wraight

    ... are you suggesting that without the 2nd amendment our government would be destined to become a Fascist dictatorship?

    Seconding Sue B.'s comment from above - do you believe that the Holocaust would have been prevented if the Jews in Europe had been armed with guns?

    Lastly, are you sure that you have buy in from the RKBA group here that the "armor piercing round" ban actually does any good?  From what I've read on this site, they believe that they deserve to own the same ammunition as law enforcement.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:11:50 AM PST

    •  No other developed nation has that right. (4+ / 0-)

      Europe doesn't have 2nd amendment rights. But they still buy guns, and they don't have fascist governments.

      The premise is absurd. It's a right-wing myth that the only thing standing between us and fascism is gun ownership among citizens.

      It's "ironic", to be generous, that most of the people who believe this are themselves on the same side of the aisle as fascism. The right.

      •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        ... and I find it disappointing that the diarist doesn't respond to questions in order to support the hypothesis he  presents.

        In support of your statement I find it amazing that people supporting the 2nd Amendment apparently feel their rights are better protected in a government run by a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield administration than one run by the current administration.  My guess is that the opposite it more likely to be true.  If laws curbing the 2nd amendment were to be proposed and implemented by a Republican led government, they would be much less forgiving of individual rights than anything imposed by a Democrat's administration.  And if a meaningful discussion of the 2nd Amendment is to take place, now would be the time to do it.

        I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

        by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:38:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now is definitely the right time. (4+ / 0-)

          My guess is few people realize that America stands alone on this. We're basically the only people stupid enough to think owning guns warranted a special "right".

          No such rights for safe food, clean water, shelter, clothes, medical care or education, but we have one for deadly pieces of metal.

          Only in America.

          •  In another gun thread... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, Glen The Plumber, diomedes77

            ... it was argued that I don't even have the right to "life" because it isn't in the Bill of Rights.  The argument was that since "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Declaration but not in the Constitution, they aren't actually rights at all.

            I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

            by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:03:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  some restrictions are plausible to enact (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, falconer520

    Believing that Americans should be permitted to own and use guns under certain circumstances does not mean that one does not believe in regulation of guns.

    Everyone believes in regulation of guns to some extent. The question is in regards to the how and what of these regulations.

    I've certainly moved in my own position over the years.

    The stauncher gun control advocates aren't going to get what they want. I don't want them to. The question is whether or not they can frame the discussion in such a way that can lead to them getting SOME of the things that they want. A gentler approach is more likely to work here. Remember that many of the people that will have to be convinced will be newly changing/softening their positions here and will be quite unlikely to be fond of a heavy handed approach. We'll be quick to bristle at hyperbole and personalization. You might think we're monsters, but calling us that (which you didn't do) will likely hurt your cause.

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    by Skipbidder on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:20:01 AM PST

  •  Real discussion has to be without hyperbole (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    falconer520, Cartoon Peril, raincrow

    I saw a flyer on a bulletin board in a building that is in a very remote corner of the Navajo Nation that proclaimed that the Democratic candidate for President was about taking guns away from Navajo hunters who depend on their ability to find fame to feed their families.

    The NRA goes to great length to promote the idea that ANY gun control AT ALL, is an attempt to BAN YOUR GUN.  

    These hunters do not use expensive showy weapons.  They are sensible people that equip themselves with what they need.  If they spend a couple of days up in the mountains hunting for game, they are in an area where they may not see another human.  

    There is definitely violence on the rez, considering the poverty.  But there are a lot of fist fights and knife fights.  I don't recall hearing about anyone using Rambo style semi automatic weapons.  Probably no one out there would spend a thousand dollars on a rifle.  

    The argument in the big cities is enough different from the argument in the rural countryside or in the small towns, it might as well be on a different planet.  

    One thing that would be important in the debate, is to keep a distinction between urban and rural realities.  This is not an argument about hunting rifles or guns used to ensure one's personal security.  

    Is there really any social good to be derived from high capacity magazines and drums?  Should it be so easy to get guns that can fire so rapidly and easily that a dozen people can be mowed down before anyone can register what is happening?  

    I really don't buy the argument that we need to maintain a capacity to fight the military for the overthrown of the government.  From what I have seen, the government is pretty amenable to change through the ballot box.  Our issues really can't be hit with a bullet.  They take a lot of argument, study and a process of arriving at a rough consensus.  

    If we could shoot a particular banker and solve the fiscal problems we have been having at the national and international level, I might be for it.  Maybe.  But the truth is that our problems are systemic and derive from the fact that we have 7 billion people on the planet.  You can't shoot that.

    So, I think the solution is to see what regulation of high capacity killing machines can be achieved before the process bogs down in a lack of clarity over what the issues are.  

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:20:42 AM PST

    •  Wonderful typo, but a typo (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, Cartoon Peril, raincrow

      Navajo hunters looking to find fame....That could be a comedy routine for the casino crowd!

      Meant to say, finding game.  Food to put on the table.  

      hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

      by Stuart Heady on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:22:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  this, right here, I agree with: (0+ / 0-)
      The argument in the big cities is enough different from the argument in the rural countryside or in the small towns, it might as well be on a different planet.  

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

      by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:32:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This doesn't have to be a political issue (7+ / 0-)

    And the reason that we have such a clusterfuck on our hands is because it has become one.

    And I don't know a single gun owner who will tell you that they own a gun because Hitler.

    [edited out a last sentence because it was very unkind.]

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:20:55 AM PST

    •  I've actually heard the argument that we were not (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BoiseBlue, Cartoon Peril, Hey338Too

      invaded by the Japanese following WW2 because they feared our armed population.
      I try to show courtesy to my elders, so I didn't laugh.

      •  Remembering Jello: not a laughing matter (0+ / 0-)

        The very different pre-WW2 America happened to be a rural nation -- at home with and not afraid of the firearms that remained tools of their daily lives.

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

        by BlackSheep1 on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:34:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Boise, get real. EVERYTHING is political (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite

      in a democracy. If you are opposed to politics, go somewhere where its illegal. China comes to mind, as well as North Korea.

      Stop the Right NutWing rhetoric that politics is bad. Politics is aggravating and slow and frustrating, sure, but that is the price we pay to be able to discuss all issues.

      Anyone who says this "doesnt have to be a political issue" is really not dealing with reality as set up by the founders. WE INVENTED IT. Dont advocate throwing it out because you are frustrated with the process. If you dont like this process, you sure as hell wouldnt like the one the Right Wing envisions.

      Perhaps you mean BAD politics. Politics which is bought, which is demogogic or insincere, or politics which exists only to serve the interests of some person or some industry. That is politics, but the founders recognized it as BAD politics, undemocratic politics reeking of monarchy or feudalism. Is that closer to what you mean?

      Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

      by OregonOak on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:51:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oregon, this is right up to the edge of... (4+ / 0-)

        ... a personal attack on BoiseBlue (whom I happen to agree with on this point).  I think that if you were to read other comments by BB on this site, "Right NutWing rhetoric" is the antithesis of any comment made by her.  Maybe an apology?

        I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

        by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:57:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope. Don't campaign against Politics. (0+ / 0-)

          The more you do, the more you weaken what is left of the democratic process. You open a can of worms which you cannot predict, and its just wrong. Politics is what people DO in a democratic society. And they learn to love it, if they can.

          People who say that have sipped the Right Wing talking points. Its not right. Doing away with the credibility of true democratic politics is the exact opposite of what needs to be done.

          If he had said Bad or undemocratic politics, or demagogic or monarchial or corrupted or.. or some qualifier, I would never have posted at all. Too many people here are drinking Right Wing talking points and posing as "moderates." That is about as insincere as it gets.

          No apology.

          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

          by OregonOak on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:09:27 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am going to have to take issue with your post. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, BoiseBlue, raincrow

            What democratic societies DO is agree to be governed  according to the freedoms, rights, and laws granted to them by the government the democratic society put into effect.  Politics is a by-product of a democratic society, and probably does more to weaken the "majority rule" aspect of the democratic process than anything else.  

            I would also argue it's actually more right wing to argue that everything has to be politicized because that's what we "do".  Look at the vote on Hurricane Sandy relief - there was absolutely no reason to politicize that. Look at how the political use of filibusters in the Senate impaired the government's ability to fully staff any number of departments and agencies, effectively limiting the government's actual ability to do the job we created it to do.  And look at how the Tea Party has leveraged the threat of political retribution to prevent our country's quick and speedy recovery from recession.

            Politics is not what democracies do.  Democracies govern.  Politics is what minorities do to majorities to prevent government they don't like from occurring.

            I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

            by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:17:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

              Politics, as a word with constructive meaning, must be reclaimed from the Right Wing as a bogeyman word if we are going to reconstruct democracy here.

              We just need to define what bad politics is. There is good politics as well. What the Tea party does is mostly bad politics, by and large, but there is some legitimate politics in what they do as well.

              Daily Kos is a politics site. Does that mean it is inherantly a bad thing? I dont think so. It is what democratic societies learn to do, hopefully constructively.

              I think you mean to say that corrupt politics is what you object to, but I dont think anyone can really object to politics in a democratic society.

              Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

              by OregonOak on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:19:01 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I appreciate that you apologized to BB... (0+ / 0-)

                As for the use of the word "politics", I am sure that you know that the word has many meanings.  Context matters, and I don't believe that you and BB are referring to the same contextual use to the word.  I can't speak for BB, but based on our discussion I think that you and she are using the word in different ways.

                Yes, Dkos is a progressive political web site, which is why I am a fan of the site.  It's also why I took offense to someone being accused of mimicking right wing rhetoric (who wasn't) or being told to move to China or North Korea.

                I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

                by Hey338Too on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:11:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The term "politics" has been turned inside out (0+ / 0-)

                  since the Goldwater/Reagan Era. We are exiting that era now, and its time we took back the language they bastardized in order to gain power and keep it for 30 years.

                  I remember the time when it was a description of a higher calling to serve the people and help with society's problems. Younger people probably do not ever remember a time when "politics" had a connotation of service and progress.

                  I will claim that the word politics is the first word we need to make honorable again. It is not a dirty word. It is how things get done in a democracy.

                  I apologized for my tone, but I think it is really important that people understand what we are doing here.

                  Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                  by OregonOak on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:39:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, I'm just going to ignore (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Hey338Too, Glen The Plumber

          Your comments in reply are even handed and polite and got you nowhere. So I'll just back away....

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 01:22:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In reflection, my tone was overly strident. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            I had not meant to be offensive. I apologize for my tone.

            I truly believe that politics is not inherantly evil. It is the necessity of a democratic society, and it can be made to serve us if we use it with integrity. I admit, there is a lot of bad politics in America. Our job is to fix it.

            If we dont believe in politics, there is no reason to be here at Daily Kos, no reason to respond to each other and no reason to hope that discussion and debate make any difference whatsoever. I just do not believe any of that. I hope you can see my point.

            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

            by OregonOak on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:36:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I support gun rights, but the Hitler story is lame (8+ / 0-)

    Most of the Jews killed were not German Jews and so any law Hitler may or may not have implemented, the Jews in other parts of Europe wouldn't have been affected by German gun laws.  That is a right wing talking point and shouldn't be included in this discussion.  

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:23:05 AM PST

  •  The right (0+ / 0-)

    to bare arms? For some reason, I often read it that way oO

  •  the title point could have been made... (5+ / 0-)

    without so many right-wing talking points in the body of this diary. Something stinks here.

  •  Not sure if this part here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow
    I am happy that we have the Republicans and Democrats and would be happier to see a third party emerge.
    Is ok. Isn't that hr territory? Advocating for a third party and all?

    Maybe head on back to the edit part and fix it.

    It doesn't sound like you are hoping for a split within the Rs, so you must be figuring on an alternative to the Ds. Might find more kindred spirits over at FDL or something. Well, maybe if this makes the rec list.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 10:44:17 AM PST

  •  You had me until "Hitler ...". n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril

    Private health insurance: a protection racket without the protection.

    by rustypatina on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:34:23 AM PST

  •  Repeal the 2nd amendment nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber
  •  I don't know what your (9+ / 0-)

    belief is rooted in considering you weren't in Nazi Germany. The Polish army could not defeat the Nazi's either. A large population of Jews were observant and Orthodox, unlikely to want or to use guns.

    I have a firm belief that if the Jewish people were armed during those times there might have been a different history.  
    The Holocaust has nothing to do with a prohibition on guns and stating so is insulting to the memories of the deceased. The Holocaust was about exterminating a race, a religion, a people who did not fit with Hitler's image of the perfect individual.

    I consider your argument nothing more than a fear tactic.

    "Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass... it is about learning to dance in the rain." ~ Vivanne Grenne

    by remembrance on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 11:45:39 AM PST

  •  Sorry, but I can't recommend this diary, mainly (4+ / 0-)

    because of this sentence:

    However, there is another tragic event in history which I will never forget and that is the Holocaust.  I have a firm belief that if the Jewish people were armed during those times there might have been a different history.  
    This has multiple problems:

    1.  Nothing about our government is anything like the Hitler regime.

    2.  Many other countries were conquered and their peoples persecuted by Nazis -- even while fully armed.

    3.  No amount of personal armament can withstand a dictatorship.

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:07:03 PM PST

  •  Can we discuss what is actually in Feinstein's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    bill, and ignore the Second Amendment purists on both sides?

    Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

        Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
            120 specifically-named firearms;
            Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
            Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

        Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
            Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
            Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
            Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.

        Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

        Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
            Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
            Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
            Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

        Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
            Background check of owner and any transferee;
            Type and serial number of the firearm;
            Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
            Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
            Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

    America—We built that!

    by Mokurai on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 02:27:11 PM PST

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      A discussion about what's actually happening in 2013 is more useful than debates about history. I don't understand every aspect of the Feinstein bill but it seems reasonable.

      One thing I've never understood is this notion among some gun owners that as long as they own guns, and powerful guns, they will be safe from law enforcement and "tyranny". Really? Law enforcement (not to mention the military) will always have numbers, and the law, on their side. Guns give civilians a false sense of security in the face of criminals and law enforcement. A civilized society of laws is our best hope - not the wild West.

      The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

      by LiberalLady on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:59:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ooooo...you did a Full Godwin. I'm impressed! (nt) (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, jan4insight

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site