Skip to main content

This is going to be short. Here are some reasons why I am skeptical of any registration regime. These are off the top of my head and in no particular order.

The Trail of Tears / Indian Removal Act
Detention of Japanese Americans
Indefinite detention of US citizens
No knock warrants
Militarization of the police force
US airspace open for drones
The TSA
The Department of Homeland Security
The Guantanamo Bay detention camp
Enhanced Interrogation / water boarding
Warrantless wiretapping
No fly lists
Wounded Knee
Jim Crow laws
Black Codes
Prohibition
The Tuskegee Study
Eminent Domain
Dred Scott
Patriot Act

These are just some of the things that our state and federal governments have done to  the citizenry of this country, and you expect me to trust it enough with the names and addresses of every firearm owner in the country along with the number and types of firearms they own? Sorry, that is a step down a path I am simply not interested in. I have zero confidence that information won’t be used to target lawful gun owners at some point in the future. Call me paranoid, I don't care, I've got the evidence that shows what our elected government can do, has done and continues to do. Y’all need to find a better way to control criminal behaviour.

Please note, I am down under and it is time for sleep. No comments from me until tomorrow.

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

  •  But but but. We're a NEW ENLIGHTENED GOVERNMENT (9+ / 0-)

    or something.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:10:49 AM PST

    •  So you're afraid of the Government (4+ / 0-)

      And think having firearms holds them off. But if you register them, that somehow that takes away their power to hold them off.

      It seems to me your comment about "can do, has done, and continues to do" questions the effectiveness of your strategy.

      As does the relative firepower of the Military, and the fact that the purchase of your firearms and ammunition is already recorded, if with no one else due to loopholes, visa. As is the license you perhaps hold to "conceal carry".

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

      by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:17:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry... meant this to be a top level comment (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, oldpunk

        not a reply to KVoimakas.

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

        by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:18:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I know it was an accident, but I'll respond (7+ / 0-)

        anyway.

        Here's the thing: without registration, how easily do you think bans or confiscation would be? Hell, even WITH registration, it doesn't work as well as those who want to BAN would like.

        I have 6 or 7 (don't remember the exact number of handguns I have) registered firearms. All the rest don't exist when it comes to state or federal or even local (county) government.

        How would they know to confiscate?

        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

        by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:24:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wait, we're talking about "evil" Government here.. (8+ / 0-)

          As far as you know, they all now know you have unregistered firearms because you just said so. In fact, everyone who has ever posted anywhere that they're against registering their firearms is probably at the top of "evil Government's" list.

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

          by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:28:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Because you brag incessantly on Daily Kos? n/t (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miss Blue, vcmvo2, blueness, The Nose, poco
          •  And everything on the internet is true. (5+ / 0-)

            "No officer, I was lying on DK for a purpose..." etc

            Great defense and there's no proof one way or another (for THEM) if I have the roughly 30 firearms I say I have or if I only have the handguns that are registered.

            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

            by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:37:07 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So lying to authorities, a crime, is ok with you (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Miss Blue, The Nose

              As long as there isn't any proof. Do you think that's a moral position?

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

              by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:13:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think there's a time to disobey authorities. (7+ / 0-)

                Don't most of us? Civil disobedience seems to be a tradition on our side of the fence.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:26:31 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't recall civil disobedience including lying. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  The Nose

                  But I get the strategy of expanding that tent.

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

                  by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:59:20 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  From Wiki: (7+ / 0-)
                    Ronald Dworkin held that there are three types of civil disobedience:
                    "Integrity-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys a law she or he feels is immoral, as in the case of northerners disobeying the fugitive slave laws by refusing to turn over escaped slaves to authorities.
                    "Justice-based" civil disobedience occurs when a citizen disobeys laws in order to lay claim to some right denied to her or him, as when blacks illegally protested during the Civil Rights Movement.
                    "Policy-based" civil disobedience occurs when a person breaks the law in order to change a policy (s)he believes is dangerously wrong.

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:06:09 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  still don't see lying in there. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      The Nose

                      I think it's a tough sell to call something "civil disobedience" when the authorities don't know you're doing it.

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

                      by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "No sir, there are no escaped slaves in my house." (6+ / 0-)

                        Seriously?

                        Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                        by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:11:12 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I think that's a moral question... as I said. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          blueness

                          Setting aside the false equivalence of firearms and people.

                          I don't think lying about having slaves in your house is civil disobedience. It would certainly be willful breaking of the law.

                          I think you should watch this series, it discusses exactly the question you raised.

                          What's the right thing to do.

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

                          by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:15:54 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I've watched that and corresponded with (5+ / 0-)

                            Michael. I just received a form letter saying I might be interested in his book and hey, come join the forums, but I found the videos interesting.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:23:52 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wilful breaking the law IS (5+ / 0-)

                            civil disobedience by definition when it's done as a form of protest against the legitimacy of said laws.

                            That's what civil disobedience IS.

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

                            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:36:24 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think "protest" is the key word here. (0+ / 0-)
                            Refusal to obey government demands or commands and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment. It is used especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing government concessions.
                            If the Government doesn't know you're doing it... I don't see how that qualifies.

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

                            by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:53:15 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're misunderstanding it then, no offense (7+ / 0-)

                            to you personally: it basically means you are opposing the law by following the law as you believe it ought to be. It does not always mean actively, which is what you're talking about -- that is active civil resistance. Sometimes it is as I point out here, passive civil resistance, which is refusing to participate in laws you don't believe in.

                            I'm adding these terms active and passive although I'm not sure you'll find these distinctions through Google or whatnot.

                            But no, categorically untrue that the point is for the Government to "know." That's usually referred to as "direct action."

                            Civil disobedience, again, is just refusing to comply with a law you don't believe should be a law.

                            Often it's driven by an internal moral stance more than an external statement. Of course sometimes you can be loud about it too.

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

                            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:08:50 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't make up the block quote I put above (0+ / 0-)

                            miriam webster did.

                            So obviously I am not alone in my definition.

                            and lying is not "refusing to comply with a law". Unless you think the law of not lying is an unjust law and you just lie to authorities about anything.

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

                            by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:24:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Of course it's a moral question. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north, theatre goon

                            That's the entire point.

                            Sheesh.

                            Oh wait, are you saying that all the illegal OWS gatherings should have been arrested and jailed?

                          •  Your legal duty to OBEY outweighs (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, oldpunk, theatre goon

                            your moral duty to uphold your First Amendment Rights.

                            Apply for a permit to march/assemble for a protest.  

                            If denied, understand it's for your own good, the good of the Nation, and the preservation of Order.
                            Your right to be heard, to petition for redress has been weighed, measured, and found wanting.  The institutions of Wall Street must be protected from this sort of rampant hooliganism.

                            If a financial beating wasn't enough, we can arrange for a physical beating.  

                            "He resisted. I kept beating him, only because he continued in his refusal to comply.  I repeatedly instructed him to:
                            Lay flat, stay down!  Face away from me.  Face down! Put your hands above your head, arms out to your sides, legs spread. hands behind your back.  He just wouldn't do it, and kept his hands around his head where I was directing my blows.
                            Isn't that pretty much how the Rodney King trial testimony went?  A demonstrated refusal to comply with Law and Order.  The institutions of government are never wrong, nor are those persons employed to enforce the mandate:  OBEY.
                          •  Fantastic (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Oh Mary Oh

                            In this one thread you all have falsely equated illegally stockpiling firearms and lying to police with:

                            1) Housing run away slaves.
                            2) Occupy Wall Street protests against income inequality.
                            3) Victims of excessive police force.

                            You're putting Glen Beck to shame!

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

                            by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:30:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Point to the Section of the USC... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, mahakali overdrive

                            where this "illegally stockpiling" is cited.

                            Otherwise you conflate your desires with established law.

                            Bon Soir.

                  •  It very much is part of a tradition (7+ / 0-)

                    of civil disobedience, perhaps not those you're more familiar with which are mainly based on Gandhi's Satyagrahi -- or nonviolent resistance -- which requires one to adhere to truth as well as nonviolence as a form of civil disobedience. But civil disobedience is a pretty neutral term in many ways; it would include things like some Black Bloc tactics like willful destruction of property for the purpose of making a statement that the law is unjust (in that case, it was probably more about corporatism being valued over human life than a full-throated embrace of communist principles, but it could have included communist ideals about ending private property and seeing private property laws as unjust as well).

                    Just trying to clear the record; I'm not making any sort of argument or advocacy, just defining terms for the record.

                    In short, it is just refusing to engage in, recognize, or obey laws that one feels aren't just. That doesn't mean you have to be a saint, ethical, or non-violent, let alone tell the truth to someone.

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

                    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:35:12 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think your definition is too broad as to make (0+ / 0-)

                      the term meaningless. I expect most every criminal thinks the law they're breaking isn't just.

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

                      by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:58:16 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You may think that (7+ / 0-)

                        but the way I'm defining the term is how it's commonly used in practice. If you wish to define the term, you can, but that doesn't shift it in the common parlance anymore than renaming a "goat" a "fish" would?

                        I believe, incidentally, that most criminals don't feel great about the laws they break and don't do so on moral grounds: if you've ever known anyone who has served time and spoken with them, you'll hear little self-advocacy other than here and there. It strongly depends on what "crime" was committed. Many drug offenders feel it's stupid that they have been jailed. But those who have stolen things aren't generally doing so because they're communists (!) and those who have killed kids by driving drunk didn't generally do so because they were opposing jack shit. I would say few criminals tend to stand by their actions other than in a few cases where the law has been contentious, such as with drug laws or prostitution, or when a criminal is simply morally depraved (an exceptional case).

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

                        by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:14:29 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  *shrug* (0+ / 0-)

                          Lots of things are commonly used in practice in different circles. You're free to define it any way you want as well but you don't speak for the definition of "goat" either.

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

                          by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:26:31 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Look, we're talking in circles (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, PavePusher

                            and I think I'll just leave it to readers to decide about this conversation here at this point; I feel they've been offered adequate information to read this even from the most tabula rasa position.

                            I don't debate things I know to be factually true -- that's very dull in my humble view, and I haven't the foggiest what the purpose would be. I might as well play online Boggle to kill time. If you're angling for argument, try someone else. My intent to offer realistic definitional terms has been amply accomplished.

                            Good day to you.

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

                            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:39:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

                            It's fine to disagree as long as we're being agreeable.

                            Just to sum up my position...

                            It is not "civil disobedience" to lie to police about owning firearms. It is simply criminally lying.

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

                            by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:42:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sigh... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, 43north, Oh Mary Oh

                            I'm not going to disagree about facts. Facts are facts.

                            I honestly don't understand where you've taken on this position about the meaning and definition of civil disobedience in theory and practice: for me, I come to it from having been an activist who practiced various forms of it for years and who worked with other activists and radicals ranging from the Black Panthers to the UFW to many other reformers, including volunteering in a radical book store, and at present, being an adult educator who deals with social justice and civil rights issues, in part. This is where I've gained understanding of this term, in no small part. So if it has a different tenor for you, that's fine. But again, this is what it means in the common parlance of the terms. And I'm not interested in "debating" fact, even nicely. I will debate interpretation, analysis, and all manner of things other. But I will NOT debate real, basic, true fact, particularly regarding such a truly, truly simple definitional matter.

                            Good day is generally regarded as a polite phrase meant to say "the conversation has been concluded." So there's no need to respond back.

                            Good day and enjoy your afternoon!

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

                            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:50:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Enjoy your afternoon as well. (0+ / 0-)

                            But don't tell me whether I can respond to a post. You don't control our interaction, there are two parties here.

                            Asserting something as a fact does not make it a fact. I agree that you believe anyone breaking the law on supposed moral grounds is "civil disobedience". I don't agree. I will go with Miriam Webster on this one and stick with the definition I've seen as the term has been applied in practice and in dictionaries.

                            Lying to police is about owning firearms is not civil disobedience. Refusing to turn them over when lawfully demanded to do so (and so risk arrest for that refusal) could certainly be civil disobedience.

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

                            by i understand on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:57:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Please cite to the law... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk, theatre goon

                that says I must answer honestly when asked by a government agent at my door about my firearms.

                Good luck with that.

          •  That's not necessary (7+ / 0-)

            You're a fantastic poster whom I've long adored, as you know, but no need to take a personal aside like that. I'm thinking about what folks are saying and also why they're saying it, and it strikes me that there is a lot of fear of Government, which surprises me on a site which is meant for pro-electoral politics, but maybe that fear is a catalyst for why some concern themselves with electoral reforms at all?

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

            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:37:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Some of our RKBA commenters might do well (9+ / 0-)

              to consider the possibility that they're wandering into self-parody with their rhetoric.

              My first read-through of the comments on this thread (when there were only a handful) reminded me of Reality Bites, the one-issue anti-circumcision diarist. His commentary, too, while actually rooted in substantive concerns for the ethics of cosmetic genital surgery on infants, was goofy.

              We need substantive discussion about what kinds of policy will be effective in reducing rates of firearm injury. We don't need a handful of individuals repeating comments endlessly on one of the most widely-read sites in the English language about their very special vast collection of secret firearms-- especially if the rhetorical point is supposed to be that the feds can't possibly know about those super-secret firearms. Goofy.

              •  The policies that will reduce firearm related (8+ / 0-)

                deaths and injuries are the same that will reduce all violent crime and are at the core of the progressive platform.

                Jobs
                Education
                Jobs
                Single payer (with mental health care)
                Jobs
                Better social safety nets
                Jobs
                Marijuana legalization
                Jobs

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:12:27 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  It shuts down conversation (10+ / 0-)

                with those we need to be able to talk with.

                As you can see.

                If anyone wants to have a substantive discussion with gun owners, since obviously one cannot talk about gun laws with NON-gun-owners (!), then insults need be set aside very carefully. Even if one finds their statements "arrogant," or "goofy" or like "RealityBias," or any of the other ad hominems lobbed for whatever reason.

                They immediately stop any and all hope for forward-moving conversation, cause people to ball up into angry, defensive postures, this causes people to respond with increasing stridency, and no conversation happens except in two factions: gun owners and non-gun-owners. And these are fairly useless conversations IF the purpose is substantive discussion meant to be politically productive.

                I hope my comment finds you in good spirits and that you understand my point and more importantly, why it's relevant.

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

                by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:44:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do appreciate your point, and you. (5+ / 0-)

                  Truly, seriously, I understand that gun owners must be involved in any effective discussion of firearm safety policy. Policy needs to be rooted in solid evidence and actual knowledge. I have no objection to the use of firearms for hunting or recreational target shooting, but since I don't participate in those activities I don't have any insight into what kinds of regulations would be prohibitive for someone who does.

                  I'm happy to listen to/read discussion about what most hunters and recreational target shooters use most often, for what purposes. I appreciate it when people who know about topics with which I'm unfamiliar can help me spot a fraudulent argument that I might otherwise support-- like the Alaska bear story. I quickly un-tipped the author and un-rec'ed the diary when I saw numerous commenters pointing out what were obvious falsehoods to them and providing evidence to support their concerns.

                  That doesn't mean that every gun owner must be taken seriously, or that every argument made by a gun owner should be taken seriously. KVoimakas' very special cache of super-secret firearms is apparently a reason not to track ammunition sales, not to repeal the Tiarht Amendment, not to pursue firearm registration, not to pursue more stringent licensing of firearm owners, and not to limit sales of specific categories of firearm-- the names and specifications of which we must debate ad nauseum with no point beyond "it's too complicated; give up."

                  One person's exceptional commitment to his hobby really isn't a foundation for substantive policy discussion.

                  •  I don't disagree and wish that for this (7+ / 0-)

                    particular conversation, we would focus on "most gun owners" and their needs. Kvoikmas is someone who has been particularly involved with guns because he teaches gun safety courses -- which is not a bad thing since guns are legal: I'd look at it as something like teaching driver's how to drive or about safe alcohol use, that sort of thing. His perspective on guns is going to be very deeply attuned to them because he simply will think about them more and differently than most people, including casual gun owners. I will not criticize this or label it as arrogant; it may read that way online where it stands out against people who are mainly other types of gun owners. As someone who teaches gun safety, he naturally has a lot of guns because he needs to know them well to know how they function. It's like my notice of word choice use which may strike some as pedantic (Lord knows its been criticized here and called names outright at times); in my field... it's an asset and is not even remotely exceptional.

                    I like when you say this because this is very strongly self-reflective and why I think, yes, we all need to be able to talk with gun owners if we care about reform:

                    since I don't participate in those activities I don't have any insight into what kinds of regulations would be prohibitive for someone who does.
                    Name calling, singling out, vilification won't do it (this isn't directed at you but the whole site, which tends toward this). In turn, I'd like to see some who feel attacked cool their jets a little and speak more from a position of solution-based perspectives rather than defense, and that's the dynamic I hope to see end. Thus my saying something to you, and yes, I picked on you a little because I think you know I totally respect you! ;)

                    Interesting that you mention hobbyists because I think they are the MOST amenable to some gun reforms, personally, of any type of gun owner.

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

                    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:44:47 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  A very helpful comment (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rockhound, theatre goon, gerrilea, oldpunk

            that adds a great deal to the discussion.

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

            by kestrel9000 on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:04:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not an end times porn person. (13+ / 0-)

        I am a gun owner and a lifelong democrat.

        However the the person who posted this diary illustrates why this issue can be a loser for democrats still.

        I personally think one of the best things that could be done, if it was the ONLY thing done would be to register all guns and make the transfer of them like a title to a car, with a background check required to do it.

        However the poster shows that the level of trust to do that is not there at this point without dems suffering severe losses at the polls.

        I don't have a link to it right now but Schumer said something to the effect that Heller created an opportunity to bridge the gap between those who want to ban all guns and those who want no regulation.

        For instance, if we take Heller as an individual right that would protect broad classes of weapons from being actually banned (including assault rifles) by that would not prevent regulation of these rifles, then you could have more support for registration, or special testing to ensure purchasers are mentall sound.

        However as long as we have talk of banning guns or repealing the second amendment stuff that might actually have support won't pass.

      •  So you're afraid of the Government (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, PavePusher

        the more history & politics i read...the more i ''jokingly'' ask, when exactly the stone age ended & enlightened progressive civilization dawned

        Who is mighty ? One who turns an enemy into a friend !

        by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:52:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Point by point (4+ / 0-)
        So you're afraid of the Government
        No, not afraid, simply not trusting.
        And think having firearms holds them off.
        No
        But if you register them, that somehow that takes away their power to hold them off.
        No
        It seems to me your comment about "can do, has done, and continues to do" questions the effectiveness of your strategy.
        ?
        As does the relative firepower of the Military, and the fact that the purchase of your firearms and ammunition is already recorded, if with no one else due to loopholes, visa. As is the license you perhaps hold to "conceal carry".
        ?

        You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

        by oldpunk on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:52:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hilarious (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      vcmvo2, blueness

      And your true feelings finally show themselves, lol.

      You're one of those - the "government is coming to get you" crowd, lol.

      Oh, this is great.  All my feelings of frustration are poof!, gone.  Instead, I get to laugh at everything you write.  Lovely, simply lovely.  Makes my day.

      Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

      by Miss Blue on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:17:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They just keep building databases (12+ / 0-)

    Huge giant databases, consuming vast resources of wealth for administration and profit.
     What do they do with this information and power? So far I only see the rich getting richer. Are more and more people in America dying of hunger, and poor health accessibility? Are our inner cities populations preying on each other? Do we maim and kill in far away lands?
     Somehow we need to redirect our energies towards the things that have the most effect. Having Uncle Bill's firearm listed in a database misadministered and misused doesn't seem to add up for me.

    "The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced." -Zappa My Site

    by meagert on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:29:30 AM PST

  •  And you are going to stop... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MBNYC

    Armored Tanks, Artillery Shells, Drone Attacks, Chemical Weapons, and Stun Guns with...

    A gun.

    Yeah, good luck with that.

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

    by detroitmechworks on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:29:31 AM PST

    •  asdf (6+ / 0-)

      It's called guerrilla warfare for a reason.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:37:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, or called (7+ / 0-)

        armed insurrection against the U.S. government.

        And I really don't suggest making that argument on Daily Kos.

        They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

        by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:39:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not calling for it. (11+ / 0-)

          Just pointing out that it's not people armed only with rifles fighting people in tanks, with drones, missiles, etc.

          It's the guy down the street sniping the commander of the local garrison.

          It's IEDs.

          It's all that shit we deal with in Afghanistan except the supply lines are not in a different country (means of production, etc).

          To think that people with rifles would make no impact on a modern fighting force is not realistic.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:43:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  No one is advocating... (13+ / 0-)

          ...armed insurrection against our current government -- or even one that could reasonably be seen in the future.  

          Is it possible that, at some point in the future, there could be a tyrannical government in power that would be reasonable to revolt against?

          Of course -- it has happened all over the world, throughout history.

          But, that's not even what was being discussed, was it?

          No, here's what you responded to:

          It's called guerrilla warfare for a reason.
          Pointing out that asymmetric warfare is capable of standing against even modern armies is in no way equivalent to advocating for armed insurrection.

          You know, that whole "reality based community" thing -- we sometimes discuss, y'know, reality.

          :-)

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:47:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, and? (4+ / 0-)

            Let's assume for a second that you're right, that the United States may at some point devolve into tyranny. That's never happened in an English-speaking, common law jurisdiction, but let's assume it may, arguendo.

            That tyrannical government would control disciplined mass fighting forces capable of acting in large units, equipped with cutting-edge weapons. They would be acting against an atomized, scattered group of individuals more likely to hurt themselves than anyone else. They would also be capable of incinerating entire cities.

            I'd go further and say that this hypothetical government wouldn't bind itself to any conventions of warfare, and if it followed historical precedent, it wouldn't just be fighting you, it would go after your family, your wife, your children, long before you ever grabbed your gun.

            That's reality, if you really want to go that route. Red Dawn is a piece of fiction, and a not a particularly good one at that :-)

            They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

            by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:03:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  English speaking...means something? nt (7+ / 0-)

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:07:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's broadly accepted (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Miss Blue, Glacial Erratic, vcmvo2

                in historiography that English-speaking – shorthand for the entire panoply of societies that developed over time out of the British Empire, e.g. the U.S., Canada, etc. – have extraordinarily stable and participatory political and societal models of governance, yes. This not because of some innate or ethnic superiority, but due to the absence in our collective history of autocracies and the presence of a tradition of independent civil society institutions.

                Which do not require us as citizens to be armed. If anything, the inverse is true.

                They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:17:42 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  So that whole American Revolution thing... (5+ / 0-)

                  yeah, we didn't need arms for that...

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:27:50 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We prevailed in our revolution (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    vcmvo2

                    not because we out-gunned Britain, we didn't, but because of a combination of our geography, some sophisticated diplomacy – we had allies, they didn't, absent minor German principalities that were more of a drain on the Exchequer than anything else – and the awkward fact that the war was ruinous for the British economy. This is not the story we like to tell ourselves, but it has the virtue of being accurate.

                    Next?

                    They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                    by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:38:52 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And because we were armed. (4+ / 0-)

                      Or do you think we could've won without arms?

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:52:47 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Of course not. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        vcmvo2, mahakali overdrive

                        But absent all the other factors, we could have lost. There's a reason Washington sent Jefferson to Paris and not to some musket smithy in the hills; in part, to get the French navy to blockade Yorktown.

                        Not that any of this has anything to do with the matter at hand, the question of national gun registration, of course.

                        They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                        by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:00:55 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Heh. I love arguing the French thing with (5+ / 0-)

                          some right wing extremists I know here in Bum-fuck-nowheresville, Mi.

                          "We still would've won without the French!"

                          WTF history are you reading dude?

                          I'm not arguing that it was just the strength of arms that won us the war. Far from it.

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:07:56 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  But seriously... are we looking for (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC, oldpunk, 43north

                            another American Revolution? Because otherwise, the point is fairly moot. If so, it's not. If not, it is.

                            Why are we arguing about Washington's troops here? I was just at Mount Vernon last year. It was interesting. He seems to have lead a good military campaign to me. I like that he declined to become King of America. I'm less keen on his slave-owning whether or not it was prevalent in his time; seeing the slave-quarters out there made me sad, and worse, inside in the museum, there's a huge attempt to rationalize it as "normal" for the period. How so? I must illustrate to share the lengths the rationalizations were made. The museum curators dealt with this issue not by saying, "Sorry, it was pretty fucked up of the guy to beat his slaves. We know." Instead, they made scale models of the cornmeal that he fed them daily, from plastic, scented it like "real slave cornmeal," and put up a sign about "Look how much the good general fed his slaves, here, have a whiff! It was more than most slave owners of his day!"

                            Five minutes later, we went to the restaurant and all the help, I shit you not, was African-American. All of the museum staff were white!

                            Okay, so I'm getting off track. My point being that I don't see what Washington's revolution and armed military success has to do with the price of tea in China here.

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

                            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:55:33 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This was what I was reacting to. (6+ / 0-)

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:15:25 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I can't follow the argument at all (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KenBee, oldpunk

                            I think you two are talking at cross-purposes, but honestly, I can't say I'm sure.

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

                            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:24:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Wait, "devolve into tyranny", right? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk, PavePusher

                  Why would they devolve into what they already have?  They have a divine sovereign and they are still subjects, are they not?

                  I think you're missing a point here or two.

                  Their sovereign is still in total control there. Their government officials still swear an oath to her, to this day.

                  The comparisons begin and end there, don't they?

                  Our unitary executive hasn't been put back into the box, has he?

                  The concentration of authority into less and less hands still is occurring, is it not?

                  DHS is still alive and well, right?  

                  One of the things that prevented us from becoming a military dictatorship was the diffusion of power throughout the country.  From municipality, to village, to town, to city to county to State.  

                  Those barriers are almost gone through Federalization and the rise of the American Police State.

                  1. Indefinite military detentions of U.S. citizens

                  2. Targeting U.S. citizens for killing

                  3. Arresting witnesses for recording police actions

                  4. Using GPS to track your every move

                  5. Surveillance drones spying on American soil

                  Maybe you need to watch this:

                  Naomi Wolf's, End of America.

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

                  by gerrilea on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:35:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Maybe... (0+ / 0-)

                    ...you need to put down Soldier of Fortune or whatever it is you read and learn a little bit about the world.

                    Why would they devolve into what they already have?  They have a divine sovereign and they are still subjects, are they not?

                    I think you're missing a point here or two.

                    Their sovereign is still in total control there. Their government officials still swear an oath to her, to this day.

                    HMQ doesn't actually have 'total control'. The standard formulation is that she 'reigns, but does not rule'. In the UK, parliament, not the monarch, is sovereign. Technically, it's called The Crown in Parliament, both houses acting under Royal Assent, which hasn't been denied since 1747, IIRC. In practice, that means the House of Commons, by and large. Which is an elected body acting through a Prime Minister and his or her cabinet. There are more subtleties, but those are the basics.

                    The Queen is the head of state, not of the government. It is called Her Majesty's Government or HMG, of course. HM even has a web site, which you might want to consult before you opine further.

                    All told, though, this is frankly one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this site. Stunning.

                    They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                    by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:02:01 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sweet, compliments will get you no where with me. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KenBee, oldpunk, PavePusher

                      I'm not that easy.

                      ;)

                      Does she approve of her governments agenda each and every year? Yes.

                      She does appoint the Prime Minister.

                      She can dissolve parliament if she so desires.

                      http://suite101.com/...

                      The best assessment of the Royal Prerogative would seem to be that it still exists, although it is rarely exercised. I ask for Bagehot’s pardon, but the idea that the Queen holds real potential power cannot be easily dismissed.

                      Just because she many not exercise it, does not mean she cannot or that if is she did there would be a revolution.

                      The power is still there, ignore it if you will, I don't.

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

                      by gerrilea on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:22:26 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, I'm sorry. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gerrilea, oldpunk

                        I didn't mean to be rude, and I apologize for that.

                        That said, you don't understand how the UK government works. Some residual powers aside, The Queen can't act unless at the advice of Her ministers. That's nowhere spelled out in a document like our constitution and very much a matter of precedent, tradition and what not else, and she's certainly personally popular, but it's nowhere near what you claimed.

                        Anyway. It's been lovely, but I'm out of a job if I spend too much more time here :-)

                        They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                        by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:53:12 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  This, assumes, that military discipline is (9+ / 0-)

              maintained, and forces do not factionalize, or decline to participate.

              In unsuccessful insurrections against tyrannical regimes, this is the case. In successful ones, either the military factionalizes, or, more commonly, the bulk of the armed forces remains in their barracks (though whether out of a reluctance to attack the citizenry, or a desire not to run afoul of whoever ends up on top is an arguable point).

              No one is arguing for the strawman scenario you're mocking.

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

              by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:09:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Again... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glacial Erratic, mamamedusa, vcmvo2

                ...you're talking, in all seriousness, about a tyrannical government. Okay, fine, we have some idea of how they work.

                I did quite a bit of travel as a teen in the East Bloc. You assume, wrongly, that the only or even chief method of coercion such a government would have is armed force. That assumption could not be further from the truth. Armed force is the last, not the first resort.

                Rather, such a government – the USSR, the PRC, North Korea – rely on systemic surveillance and a very sophisticated system of enforced ideological conformity coupled with rewards and penalties.

                Historically, what brought such regimes down wasn't some romantic patriot militia, it was the collapse of ideological legitimacy. That's the common thread, not armed revolution.

                They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:28:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Was making no such assumptions. (9+ / 0-)

                  I was simply demonstrating a prime fallacy of your derisive strawman.

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

                  by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:40:38 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The only fallacies (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glacial Erratic, mamamedusa, vcmvo2

                    emphasis on the plural, I see here are these: one,

                    your claim that we need to, today, in all seriousness, prepare against our own government turning against us at some unspecified time in the future, by arming civilians to the teeth,

                    and two,

                    that this hypothetical totalitarian government would be measurably deterred by said armed civilians in some way rendering the actual armed forces ineffective.

                    I'm very much trying to be polite, but this appears to me at least to be the standard ahistorical NRA fabulation.

                    They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                    by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:55:41 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  So, the historical record... (6+ / 0-)

              ...is of no interest to you -- at least when it comes to this subject.

              That's fine.  Really.

              If you don't think such a thing could ever, possibly happen, that's your choice.

              I was simply pointing out the fact that discussing the reality of armed insurrection is not the same as advocating for it.  

              That's an accusation that's been made before, in fact -- that merely discussing asymmetric warfare is the same as calling for it.

              It is not -- and, as I said, this is meant to be a reality-based site.  What's wrong with discussing reality?

              It may not be a subject that you're interested in, but that doesn't mean that others can't discuss facts and history.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:13:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not at all. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2

                It's just really clear that I know quite a bit more about the historical record than you do. Pity, really.

                They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:29:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Really? (4+ / 0-)

                  Even when you dismiss the reality of the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare?

                  If you say so.

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:09:43 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Asymetric warfare is effective. (0+ / 0-)

                    Against an armed force not bound by the laws of war, public opinion, and so forth, that is. Your hypothetical tyrannical government presumably would not be. If it were, you'd have avenues of recourse other than armed rebellion, obviously.

                    But if we play your dystopian game according to the normal rules that apply to a situation like that, e.g. partisan resistance to the Nazis during WWII, we arrive at a place where we're talking about your hypothetical tyranny wiping out entire villages in reprisals on civilians. Historically, that is exactly what happens.

                    Say it happens to you, Kossack theatre goon. You have a gun, you pick it up. That's a death sentence for you, your family and maybe your entire neighborhood. Or maybe just a forced labor camp where you and yours slowly or quickly starve to death.

                    A little history is a dangerous thing, my friend.

                    They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

                    by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:24:21 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Huh. I suspect that (7+ / 0-)

                  there are some historically well-versed English speakers who wonder where you got the bizarre idea that there's a total historical absence autocratic governments in Britain and its one-time colonies.

            •  South Africa? nt (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tom Seaview, oldpunk, PavePusher

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

              by Texas Lefty on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:55:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Standard military doctrine is, and remains, that (9+ / 0-)

      only infantry can hold a piece of ground.

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

      by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:42:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  firearms registration (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MBNYC, vcmvo2, blueness, poco, exNYinTX, 43north

    I'd like to point out that private ownership of guns was strictly contolled in the Soviet Union, yet it fell without a shot being fired.  How?  Massive passive resistance.  You can only govern people who are willing to be governed.  India became free the same way: massive passive resistance.  The civil rights victory in the United States was also achieved by unarmed people who stood together and refused to be governed.  
    You gun people who think that you can influence events (against a massively superior force) are kidding yourselves.  You'd be taken out at the first encounter.  However, if you refuse to do what you are told, and others also refuse, the bully is stopped in his tracks.  Of course, there will be plenty of beatings and some murders before the bully gives up and accepts the will of the people, but I'd bet that it would be casualties on a much smaller scale than the toll in pitched battles with the army.

  •  So this comes down to the militia part of the 2nd (8+ / 0-)

    Amendment? You'd like to be able, presumably, to form a militia against the Government if they wanted to inter you as they did the Japanese, or if they attacked you or tried to detain you, as in your other examples? That's what I get from this diary: you want guns to protect yourself from a corrupt American Government which has broken down in the past.

    Yes? No? Modifications to this point?

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

    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:33:02 AM PST

    •  And since the 2nd Amendment covers that (6+ / 0-)

      Clearly, it's discussable on the Daily Kos... for those who might think they don't want to discuss the desire of some for an armed militia vs. calls for actual armed insurrection, clearly these are two very separate things (or, if not, then the Daily Kos is not very supportive of the U.S. Constitution, which would be frankly bizarre).

      Second post since no one replied to my first, perhaps due to this concern?

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

      by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:17:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, didn't immediately reply due to the time (5+ / 0-)

      difference here in Oz.

      I think the level of trust in the government was higher during WWII than it is now and people were more willing to put up with things like the internment. With that said I don't foresee people taking up arms against the government, I do see an having an armed populace as a deterrent against any such similar future actions.

      My point is that due to our governments past and present willingness to engage in abuse of power, I do not trust it enough to use the information gained from registering firearms to simply try and control criminal behavior.

      I don't believe the ultimate goal of knowing where each and every firearm is and who owns it is to catch criminals.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:23:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for starting a dialogue on this (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, theatre goon, PavePusher, 43north

        I see, so like a deterrence. I think this is the basic idea behind Malcolm X, along with a desire to ensure a sort of Civil Rights autonomy. Malcolm's ideas weren't wrong in my view, as much as I also deeply admire other ideals like those of MLK Jr. I see a point to all of it.

        The internment issue is a particularly interesting one because I feel like we're still dealing with this with undocumented Latino immigrants. I went to Angel Island last summer and saw the buildings they housed the Chinese-Americans there during the exclusion acts. I have always meant to diary on this. There were signs on the stairs, giant words, that stood in eerie contrast to one another. The many cramped little crumbling buildings stood in stark relief to the beautiful view of the Pacific that they overlooked. It was strange to see this and very real. A week later, we went to China Town and saw people amassed in the park there, all Chinese, many old enough to have perhaps been through that time or had relatives who were. The contrast was shocking. The contrast between the vibrancy of the free, bright, chaotic, unbridled life feeling in Chinatown and that old internment camp overwhelmed me.

        I feel like the reality of that contrast is the beginning of some conversation for me. Maybe this one. Maybe not. But one thing I know is that we should never forget where we came from, but also, we should never succumb to cultural PTSD either: both are stultifying. I have no answers, only questions.

        We live in a police state. I think everyone knows that, don't they? Or maybe it's simply more apparent to some than others? Sigh...

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

        by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:45:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Personally... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, PavePusher, oldpunk, 43north

          ...I would not say that we live in a police state.

          I would say that we live in a society with some traits similar to a police state (such as those listed in the diary itself), but we are a long way from actually being to that point.

          Even under the worst excesses of George W. Bush, we were still far from a police state -- ask some of those who have lived in the real thing.

          All that said, though, I believe that it is something that we must be watchful for.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:06:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Registration would be an easier pill to swallow (15+ / 0-)

    if the organizations most expressly advocating it weren't also talking about prohibition of defensive arms, piecemeal, one scary flavor-of-the month after another, as their long-term goal.

    Similarly, considering that this takes place in the context of calls to ban a class of arm that is used in less than 100 homicides a year (probably closer to 25), mainly because of a desire to ban the mean thoughts behind "weapons designed to kill people!!!!" (whether or not they're used for such), the skepticism of gun owners to not only the intent, but the long-term impact, of registration should be kept at the highest possible level.

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

    by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:35:10 AM PST

  •  Bullshit. (6+ / 0-)

    If you have a Social Security number, you're already in a national database. So there goes that "argument".

    You call this paranoid? I call this delusional rightwing tripe.

    They're not "assault weapons"; just call them "Freedom Sparklers".

    by MBNYC on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:37:57 AM PST

  •  Registration can only lead to confiscation. (10+ / 0-)

    I didn't tip/rec this diary because I think it goes too far, but I oppose registration for two reasons:

    1. Registration doesn't do anything but tell the gov where to go get the guns. For the argument that 'oh it's for insurance', insurance is a separate issue and costs money, which is not required to exercise any other rights in the Bill of Rights.

    2. Registration will not demonstrably stop any killings, small or large scale. People with murder on the mind will care if the gun they're using is legally registered or insured?

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:48:47 AM PST

    •  I disagree. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MBNYC, slothlax, mamamedusa, oldpunk, exNYinTX

      I do think that, as long as gun owners distrust the government, registration is a non-starter.  

      However, I do think that registration would help greatly in dealing with the straw buyer problem.  While it's true that criminals don't, as a rule, obey gun laws, it's also true that virtually every gun in the possession of a criminal today was, at one point, purchased legally by someone.  And I'd think twice before heading down I-95 to buy a trunkload of guns and selling them to some NYC gang member if I knew that each of those guns was traceable back to me.

      Can any of the RKBA folks suggest ways to better deal with the problem of straw buyers?  

      •  Fair point, but why would a straw buyer register (5+ / 0-)

        them in the first place? You don't have to pre-register a car, for example, before you buy it. And you just sign the title over and hand it to the buyer to turn in.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:20:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would be a condition of sale. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, mamamedusa, oldpunk

          In my hypothetical registration scenario, you can buy all the guns you want, but each one of them is entered in a database associated with your name.  And if one of those guns is found in the possession or a criminal, or has been used in a crime, you're held responsible, unless you had reported the weapon as being lost or stolen.

          I think it would be helpful but, again, it's not going to fly as long as lawful gun owners are afraid of confiscation.

          •  Pass-ability aside, how could that work for (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, oldpunk, PavePusher

            private sales? Gov agencies and businesses have an incentive to not game the system, but could we really allow private citizens access to such an important database?

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:10:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I presume the incentive... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mamamedusa, oldpunk

              ...would be to avoid prosecution.  Anyone selling a weapon would have to report to the government that the particular weapon was sold to a particular person.  That buyer would then become the individual responsible for that weapon.

              I think if it was possible to magically remove the question of confiscation from the equation, most gun owners would be fine with registration.

              •  Bill W - the purchase of a gun from a retailer (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Bill W, mahakali overdrive

                is recorded.

                If that gun, say... purchased in Georgia, is recovered in NJ or NY, then it's a matter of contacting the Maker or Importer.

                "Hello, Smith & Wesson?  Who did gun #xxx-xxxxx get sold to?  Guns South?  Thank you."

                "Hello Guns South?  Who did S&W Sigma s/n #xxx-xxxxx get sold to?  Darryl's Sporting Goods?  Thank you."

                That results in two ATF Agents going to Darryl's.
                "We need to see the records on this S&W Sigma."

                Sold To:
                Name: Clarence Thomas
                Address:  1234 Magnolia, Hotlanta, GA
                Age: 24
                ID:  GA Drivers #xxxxxxxxxxx

                You then go pick Mr. Thomas up, and upon investigation, eventually charge him with Felony trafficking... particularly if Mr. Thomas is on two or more firearms records, leading to guns recovered in NY or NJ.

                "Have you been to New York or New Jersey?"
                Nope.
                "Do you have these guns anymore"
                Nuh-uh.
                "What happened to them?"
                Dunno.

                Which is good enough to charge him with Obstruction, and hold him over. Dot a few t's, cross a few eyes, and you make a case for a straw buyer, perhaps getting the name of the runner, and reel the network up.

                Mr. Thomas "registering" that gun, would eliminate a call to S&W, and to Guns South.  Not the best chain-of-evidence if you're heading for a conviction.

                The store visit, to obtain a true copy of the Form 4473 is evidentiary, whereas a database result is corroborative.

                •  If that is the case... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...that such sales records are preserved indefinitely, why does it seem that so few investigations / prosecutions such as you describe occur?  Or do they occur and we don't hear about it?

                  •  I would guess funding for one. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    43north, Bill W

                    I've also heard that there are less firearm related federal prosecutions going on right now, but I don't know why.

                    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                    by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:21:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Bill, gun convictions are often (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Bill W

                    what's pled-to, instead of say "attempted murder".
                    Manhattan DA Robert Morgenthau was famous for this.
                    Two young men shooting up a playground comes to trial, and it's a matter of who started what first, to prove homicidal intent, vs. illegally shooting in self-defense.

                    The DA would accept a plea to the gun charge, 366 days in Ossining (Sing Sing Prison) where your friends are, and family can easily visit from the city.

                    It's yet another "felony conviction" but it was cheap seats compared to going for the actual crime - attempted murder, which should be a 10 year or greater sentence.

                    At the Federal level, I'm willing to bet this is viewed as a "flippable" offense.  Gun purchases, gun running, is a part of a larger Drug$ and Gang$ initiative.  That's where the money and interest is, that's where careers are made.

                    That's where both the Bush admin "Wide Receiver" and Obama admin "Fast & Furious" gun walking "sting operation" went wrong.  
                    "We'll let this go... and it will lead us to someone who's conviction is a headline career-maker."

                    Give up a large player in either or both areas of interest, and this pesky Federal straw purchase Felony can go away.
                    You might even see witness protection and a new start on life.
                    A reward for violating firearms law.

            •  all sales thru a fed licensed dealer (5+ / 0-)

              you as the seller are out of it, almost like a consignment sale, I'd assume the cost would be 40-175$, adding to the financial burden of poorer people purchasing for self defense and incentivising illegal 'workarounds.

                 Exemption for antique and low capacity sporting arms sold thru family connections, but we're all cousins anyway...

              but not in favor of registrations.

              Irony of gun resellers like that Arizona store making more money for handling private sales is not lost on me either.

              This machine kills Fascists.

              by KenBee on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:15:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah, that horse has already left the barn (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamamedusa, poco, exNYinTX

    For 30 years, since the days of Reagan, we have watched while our democracy has been replaced with a corporatocracy, complete with secret prisons, "papers please" laws, warrentless wiretaps, and executive-order assassinations of "enemies".

    The brave gun enthusiasts say they need guns to fight tyranny.  But that horse has already left the barn.

    That ship has sailed.  You are a day late and a gun short.  Elvis has left the building.  The cat is out of the bag.  Froggy went a' courtin'.

    That patriot exemplare Ted Nugent was offered the opportunity to fight for freedom using really big guns, and he preferred to crap his pants.

    David Koresh showed us what freedom-loving gun enthusiasts can expect if they ever try to use their guns for more than rhetorical talking points to fight the tyrannical government: defeat and public contempt.

    Besides, Australia already enacted extensive restrictions on gun ownership and gun crime and shooting injuries are significantly decreased.  And they didn't need Gauntanamo or drone spying to do so.  They have more freedom in Australia without guns than we have here in America with all those guns.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 07:55:50 AM PST

  •  And so far (8+ / 0-)

    citizens with guns haven't stopped a single thing on your list. In fact  many  of the things on your list have been applauded by the very same people now screaming against gun regulations.

    Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?

    by jsfox on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:04:26 AM PST

  •  It can't happen here! (7+ / 0-)

    Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

    by Tom Seaview on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:09:01 AM PST

  •  In other words, you want to shoot cops (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2

    I hope that works out for you.

  •  Whenever I start a research project, (16+ / 0-)

    the first question to be asked when formulating the null hypothesis is, "What is the problem?"  The second question is, "Is it a problem that can be solved?"

    In this case, the supposed problem is that criminals and a few mentally ill people have used firearms to kill people.  The second problem is whether banning or registering guns will keep criminals and mentally ill people from killing other people.

    The answer to the first is, obviously, yes criminals and a few mentally ill people have killed people with guns.  The second issue is whether gun bans or controls such as have been proposed will keep the former from happening.  The answer to that is, "No."

    People have been killing each other since long before gunpowder was invented.  The first murder on record is when Cain killed his brother Abel with the jawbone of an ass.  That had to have been messy.  

    Next question is whether it is workable to register every firearm?  Answer to that is also a negative.  I read somewhere yesterday there are about the same number of firearms as there are people in the USA.  Given that not every family has firearms in the house, law enforcement estimates gun ownership to be about .88 per household.  The exact number is unknowable due to the number of firearms "off the books."

    Now comes the question of whether banning guns will stop murders, or even mass murders.  The answer to that is also no.  As I noted above, people have been murdering each other in droves long before gunpowder was invented.  Let's take a look at just a couple of mass murders that make Aurora, Columbine and Newton pale by comparison:  The Oklahoma City bombing and the attacks of 9-11, neither of which used firearms.

    The determined killer is going to find a way to kill with or without firearms.  My experience has been that if somebody wants to kill somebody else, a firearm is not at all necessary.

    Want to turn a city block into a crater?  Look up TATP (triacetone triperoxide).  All you need is ordinary peroxide, which you can get at your local drugstore or grocery store.  The other ingredient is acetone, which is the active ingredient in fingernail polish remover.  Or you can get it at your local paint store in five gallon cans.  Six grams of TATP can reduce a cement block to pebbles.  Imagine what a five or ten gallon can of the stuff would do.  

    Thermite is another item.  It is nothing but aluminum powder and iron oxide (rust).  If you have some scrap aluminum and an old rusty car, plus a grinder, you can make all the Thermite you want.   I can probably find enough stuff under the average kitchen sink and typical garage to make an impressive IED.  

    This is a problem without a solution.  Band aid solutions may make people feel good in the short term, but it is much better to root out the underlying causes of these crimes than to blame the tools used.  

    Besides, passing unenforceable laws only makes scofflaws of otherwise honest citizens.  Take the Eighteenth Amendment for a prime example of the law of unintended consequences.  

    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

    by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:26:10 AM PST

    •  Holy shit. Can you write this up as a diary OS? (10+ / 0-)

      Seriously, I think all you'd need to do is copy/paste it into the 'new diary' form.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:30:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, people kill each other (5+ / 0-)

      but they don't kill each other with nearly as high a frequency in places where they don't have easy access to tools that are very effective in doing so. That is not because they don't get mad at each other (or don't have gangs, or illegal drugs, or some of the other characteristics associated with homicide in this country). It's because it's a lot easier to do it when you have a handy tool made for the purpose easily available. That has been demonstrated with suicide even after adjustment for many other factors.

      Nobody is saying that gun control (done more broadly, not in the weak way it has typically been instituted in this country) would get rid of ALL murder. It can, however, reduce the rate. There are lots of public health measures we take that aren't 100% effective in all cases but do help - like seatbelts and fluoride.

    •  Well, shit. Clearly nothing we can do about (7+ / 0-)

      30,000 deaths and about a billion dollars a year in expenses related to firearm injury.

      I guess we'll just have to accept it, the same way we just accept any other preventable cause of death, injury, and health-care expenditures in this country.

      Damn. And here I thought people participated in Daily Kos because they thought policy had some effect on people's lives.

      •  Well stated. (4+ / 0-)

        Fatalistic answers seem to be their #1 fallback position.

        If you get rid of X they will just kill people using Y!
        We can't make a law about it, we will lose elections!
        We can't do anything about it, there are too many out there already!

        Just stop looking at this glaringly obvious leading cause of preventable death.

        Abandon all hope ye who enter here!

      •  Logical fallacy. (10+ / 0-)

        Not sure where you got your data, since you did not provide a link, but just for the sake of convenience, let's say it is fact.  I think everyone could agree that the various proposals out there, which range from a 100% ban on firearms to just limiting the size of magazines, will not put a complete end to those figures.

        My question, and speaking as a scientist trained in statistics, just what percentage reduction in those figures you posit will those various levels of restrictions achieve?   10%?  50%?  80%?  See, the problem is that no one knows.  Too draconian restrictions will just create a black market, which will enable and enrich criminal enterprises, just as happened after the passage of the 18th Amendment.  It only takes one bullet to commit suicide or commit a single murder.  There are a lot more single deaths than mass murders.  A lot more.  

        I daresay that I have seen more dead bodies over my lifetime than almost anyone on this site.  And many of them got that way because somebody wanted them dead.  Almost all of them were single victims, and there were many causes of death.  Firearms are just one.  Probably more dead from knives and overdoses (both intentional and accidental) than almost any other form. Out of the thousands of bodies, only a small handful were the result of a mass murder.  And most of the mass murders involved less than six victims.  That is the exact same number of rounds in an ordinary revolver.  Additionally, most of the mass murders I have seen involved a mentally ill person wiping out their family.  In those cases, the perp waited for victims to come home and had plenty of time to reload.  Magazine size in those cases would have been a non-issue.

        So, what is a workable solution to the problem?  I had a discussion last night about getting rid of invasive species of plants.  The only way that works is to dig up the roots, not just cut down the plant.  

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:50:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, we'd have to start with data. (4+ / 0-)

          But since the agencies that would otherwise have that data have been prohibited from collecting and/or sharing it, that's difficult. Could we start, at the very beginning of this policy discussion, with agreeing to remove restrictions on public health data analysis related to firearm injury? That alone would be a step forward.

          Here's CDC data on causes of death broken down by age:

          Leading Causes of Death by Age

          The site provides pdfs of simple charts graphing the top ten causes of death for Americans in each category. For Americans age 1-44, the top cause of death is unintentional injury. Some of those are firearm accidents, but the vast majority are motor vehicle accidents; that's why we are constantly seeing PSAs about buckling seat belts.

          For Americans age 1-34, suicide and homicide are among the top four causes of death. Intentional injury drops down to causes number four and five only after age 35, when cancer and heart disease become prevalent enough to switch places with them.

          Within the category of death by injury, including both intentional and unintentional injury, homicide by firearm ranks among the top five causes of injury death for Americans age 5-44. Suicide by firearm doesn't enter the top ten until age ten, but from ages 10 on suicide by firearm remains among the top five causes of death by injury.

          •  Just keep in mind (10+ / 0-)

            100% of suicide by firearm involves just one bullet.  Also, almost all murders by firearm involve people who know each other, and there is seldom more than one to three bullets involved.

            When we talk about "high capacity" magazines, that becomes an argument reductio ad absurdum in relation to murders by firearm.  As I said, most mass murder cases I have worked on in the past forty years involved six or fewer victims.  The single worst was seven victims, all members of the shooter's family  and he shot them while they slept.  He used a .22 squirrel rifle, which does not make much noise.

            I am absolutely in favor of reducing crime of all kinds, not just murder and aggravated assault.  As a forensic scientist, I want solutions that actually work, and not just make people feel good.  Thinking you did something effective and actually doing something effective are two completely different things.  I have absolutely no problem with correlating the data the government has already compiled.  Forensic epidemiology is a legitimate area of study.  That needs to be the first step.  I think we are on the same page in that regard.

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:56:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Suicide by firearm also often involves impulse. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poco, oldpunk, Glacial Erratic

              Making firearms less accessible decreases the opportunity for someone experiencing suicidal ideation to take lethal action.

              You seem to be arguing against proposals I haven't made. I am actually quite receptive to honest discussions from a data-driven perspective about what specific policy changes would be most likely to reduce firearm injury with the least interference with personal liberty.

              I haven't encountered that discussion yet. At this point, I would settle for some agreement on the desirability of data collection-- but apparently "we can't analyze data we don't have" runs up against "I won't tell you how many guns I have and you can't make me."

              •  My point is that there is no way in hell (5+ / 0-)

                all firearms are going to be confiscated.  There is a firearm for every man, woman and child in this country.  Many of them are 'off the books,' so we don't know the exact number.  All we have are educated guesses.  

                If we want to address the problem seriously, the first place to start is with drugs, followed closely by mental health care.  The young man I mentioned that shot seven members of his family in their sleep was in his 20s, and a previously undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.  

                In our area, there is not a single psychiatrist who takes health insurance....you have to pay at the door.  The mental health center does not schedule appointments ahead of time.  You have to call in the morning between 7:30 and 8:00 to see if you can schedule an appointment that day.  Of course, even if you have your phone on speed dial, it is almost impossible to get through.  

                Imagine the logistics of going from door to door asking people if they have guns in the house and telling them they are going to have to register them with you.  "Guns? What guns?"

                I have told people, only half jokingly, that if they want to confiscate guns, how about they ask to be appointed the Gun Czar to collect guns in Johnson, Carter and Unicoi county in east Tennessee.  Or maybe Mitchell and Avery Counties in western North Carolina.  Just have your affairs in order, and you can tell your family they can skip funeral plans, because with all the caves, coves, hollows and ravines in the mountains, the body will never be found.  

                As I pointed out before, almost firearm related deaths involve only a single shot.  Limits on magazine or clip sizes will have no impact at all on those deaths.

                The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:47:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  So, you say the "public health data"... (5+ / 0-)

            is restricted, then you post it from a public website...

            Hmmmmm.....

        •  My evidence that it doesn't have to be this way (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, Glacial Erratic, oldpunk

          is the fact that it isn't this way in any other developed country in the world.

          It's also the statements of every authoritative voice I can find on the relationship between firearm regulation and firearm injury. The World Health Organization:

          (warning: pdf)

          Global health study on small arms violence

          Quoting that document, p. 11:

          Firearm availability varies greatly among nations. For example, in Japan less than 1% of households possess a firearm while surveys have shown that up to 48% of US households possess at least one firearm. The easy availability of firearms has been associated with higher firearm mortality rates. It has been shown that the presence of a gun in the home is associated with a higher risk of becoming a victim of suicide or homicide (19, 20).
          If firearms are available, social norms may dictate whether or not the weapons are actually used. In other words, in some societies it may be more socially acceptable to use firearms than in others, and this factor may explain why in some societies guns are available but are used less than in others.
          Relative to other weapons, firearms tend to be the more lethal (see Figure 5). Their effectiveness in achieving an outcome is thus an additional factor that might influence the choice of weapon. Given that some models of firearm are more likely to be lethal than others, the types of firearm available may also have a bearing on the health consequences. For instance, a US study showed that the proportion of patients admitted for treatment of gunshot wounds who had more than one entrance wound rose from 25% in the early 1980s to 45% by 1990. This upwards trend was accompanied by an increase in hospital mortality. A factor that may have contributed to this change in pattern is the shift away from the use of revolvers in favour of high-calibre pistols (21).
        •  We try to address preventable causes of death. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco, oldpunk, Glacial Erratic

          Right?

          The relationship between motor vehicle accidents as such a prominent cause of death among young people and any number of public health interventions to address that are too numerous to list.

          Wild increase in the proportion of death due to accidental overdoses >> change the labeling on over-the-counter and prescription medication to increase awareness of the potential for acetaminophen toxicity.

          Congenital anomalies as the number one cause of infant mortality >> add folic acid to all the bread to reduce the incidence of neural tube defects; add four-point oxygen saturation screening to routine newborn screening practices before hospital discharge to identify subtle cardiac anomalies.

          Intentional injury by firearm among the top causes of death for Americans who are far too young to die >> What? Shrug  our shoulders and declare it too complicated to think about?

          Let's say that a modest approach to firearm safety regulation-- say, repeal the Tiarht Amendment so the BATF can do its job and close the gun show loophole-- reduces firearm-related injury by 25%. I have no idea whether that would actually happen; the asinine restrictions on firearm-related data analysis makes it impossible to pin down any predictions. But 25% would be a lot. I would take it.

      •  Which no RKBA Kossack said, ever. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, 43north, theatre goon, rockhound

        Got another strawman you can knock down all by your self?

    •  You have a glaringly faulty underying assumption (4+ / 0-)

      The point is not to eliminate all gun violence or all murder.  By that logic we just should give up, have no laws, and live in anarchy, because there will always be someone who breaks whatever laws are on the books, so what's the point of having law?

      The point is to try to limit gun violence.  "Not 100% enforceable" does not mean "unenforceable".

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:56:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Argumentum reducto ad absurdum. (6+ / 0-)

        Hyperbole will not convince any logical person.  This is not a black/white, either/or world in which we live.

        The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

        by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:27:03 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your "problem" is absurd (0+ / 0-)
          The second problem is whether banning or registering guns will keep criminals and mentally ill people from killing other people.
          Nothing can achieve the state aim.  No one is positing that any gun control measures would stop all killings from happening.

          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

          by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:52:44 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you know how to do a Force Field Analysis? (5+ / 0-)

            That is also sometimes referred to as a cost/effectiveness analysis.  The cost of doing something has to be weighed against several factors.  First of all, is it doable?  Can it be accomplished?  An unenforceable law is just that.  Unenforceable.  The 18th amendment was unenforceable.  Most of our current drug laws are unenforceable.  

            When there is a problem, all options must be weighed.  My favorite statistic for this kind of problem is the multiple regression, but in order to feed the data into the equation, one must have data that are both valid and reliable.  That is not currently available.  When you are flailing away at a problem without a good idea what might or might not work, it is a waste of time, energy and money.  Kind of like the cowboy who got on his horse and rode off in all directions at once.

            The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

            by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:57:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's a dodge (0+ / 0-)

              When the "problem" is stated in a way that is impossible to solve, any remedy will fall short.

              There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

              by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:11:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Solution? I can wait. n/t (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk, rockhound, PavePusher

                The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:12:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  To your logic? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco, oldpunk, Glacial Erratic

                  Come up with a more realistic definition for a successful outcome.  The elimination of killing is not realistic.

                  The second problem is whether banning or registering guns will keep criminals and mentally ill people from killing other people.
                  Perhaps something like "The second problem is whether banning or registering guns will keep criminals and mentally ill people from killing as many other people as they would under current law."

                  There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                  by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:26:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Fair enough, and that could be a working (8+ / 0-)

                    hypothesis.  Now let's assume we can put a study together to come up with some numbers.  At that point, the decision makers have to come back to the larger question of, 1) is it legal, and 2) is it doable?

                    Traffic engineers and other safety experts have to grapple with this problem all the time.  So do leaders of military operations.  I grew up during WW-II and the operant question was how many casualties are acceptable for any project or operation.  In wartime, more casualties are acceptable than would ever be acceptable in peacetime.  

                    How much do we have to spend on highways to make them safer, before you reach the point of diminishing returns? There is an old joke about airplanes.  It is possible to make a crash proof airplane; it is called a Tank.  

                    The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

                    by Otteray Scribe on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:38:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thank you (4+ / 0-)

                      That's been my point all along, its a matter of degree.

                      The two main proposals that I've seen that make sense are limiting magazine size and closing the gunshow loophole, which address two different kinds of questions, one narrow, one more broad.

                      So, will limiting the size of magazines make it more difficult for someone to kill more than, say, six people before someone can intervene?

                      And will closing the gunshow loophole reduce the amount of guns available to criminals?

                      The benefits of allowing high capacity magazines and loose rules around gun shows must also be taken into account.

                      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                      by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:58:32 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I've been to two mass homicides. (4+ / 0-)

                        One used a 5 shot .38 special revolver. One partner assassinated his 4 business partners.
                        Five shots, four dead inside of a chinese restaurant.

                        Two: A plastic container filled with a gallon gasoline.
                        87 dead.

                        Not a single high capacity magazine used.

                        Otteray Scribe's point:

                        19 children under age 6, killed by a bomb, at the Murrah Federal Building.

                        38 children killed by explosives in Bath Township, MN ~ 1927.

                        Not a single high capacity magazine used.

                        •  That's anecdotal (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          oldpunk, Glacial Erratic

                          Not really gonna sway me.  Explosives are another issue.  Stick to the point.

                          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                          by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 06:01:06 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No, mass homicide and attacks on school children (4+ / 0-)

                            are the issue.

                            If not, then be genuine and come out with what's on your mind.
                            Others have done so, you can too, then this dance can end.

                            BAN THE FUCKING GUNS - ALL OF THEM.  NOW.
                            Either that, or let's address the issue of mass homicide by all methods, and the easily obtained materials and formulas for doing so.

                            Or, we can just settle for the moral victory:

                            At least we enacted a ban on the fucking guns. Sadly nothing really improved.
                             
                            Regardless, we banned the fucking guns.  Which really stuck-it to the Blue Dogs, Rethugs and Teahadists.
                            The real motivation for many here.
                          •  I'm reading your diary (0+ / 0-)

                            In the meantime, don't cast aspersions on my fucking motives.  I don't have a secret fucking agenda.

                            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                            by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:07:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Others, when prompted have responded (0+ / 0-)

                            with suppressed glee.

                            Yeah, well that... but it's about the kids.  Really.
                            Fuck Boehner and the NRA.
                            If you're not one of them, all the better, as we've bigger fish to fry.
                          •  Well I'm not others (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive, 43north

                            Judge me by the content of my character, not the first comment of mine you read.  Or something like that

                            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                            by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 11:53:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I like the proposals in your diary (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            oldpunk, mahakali overdrive

                            Those seem like constructive ways to deal with the issue at hand.

                            The issue here is not mass homicide and attacks on school children.

                            In this case, the supposed problem is that criminals and a few mentally ill people have used firearms to kill people.
                            From the start of the thread.  So it is about guns.  I'm not saying I have the solution, but I'm glad you have well thought out ideas drawn from experience, so I welcome them.  I am a pragmatist.

                            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                            by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:19:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

  •  The notion that we can close the private sale (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, mamamedusa, NewDealer, oldpunk

    loophole (which NRA members approve of) without registration (which NRA members disapprove of, in the same survey) is just silly.

    Law enforcement can already find out who owns any gun legally purchased from a dealer, by asking the manufacturer, then the distributor, then the dealer. Forcing law enforcement  to take days or weeks to do so through searches in paper records accomplishes nothing except briefly enabling gun crime. (When a gun manufacturer goes out of business, its records go to ATF, which is forbidden to computerize them, in accordance with the Tiahrt amendments.) The gun show/private sale loophole accomplishes nothing except enabling gun crime. Forbidding ATF to keep records of background checks (one of the Tiahrt amendments) accomplishes nothing except enabling gun crime. Forbidding NIH and CDC to conduct research on the health effects of guns (Tiahrt again) accomplishes nothing except enabling gun crime, gun accidents, and suicide.

    Well, I exaggerate. Such measures keep up salaries at the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and Right wing media. They also let us keep some of our nastiest, nuttiest Congresscritters, like virulently anti-abortion, virulently pro-gun, Culture of Death Todd Tiahrt.

    If the conspiracy theories were true, about repealing the Second Amendment entirely and confiscating all guns, with UN black helicopters, FEMA concentration camps, reparations and enslaving all Whites, Obama declaring himself Dictator for Life, whatever, registration would simply be going on in secret. But they aren't. Nor are we at risk of becoming Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, nor is anybody else who isn't North Korean.

    What the fearful fear does not in fact happen in any modern democracy. Elections and courts have proven over and over to be far better protections for human rights than guns born by anybody other than the police and the military.

    There was a time when guns were used in attempts to secure those rights, as well as to take them away. I could give you a catalog. We are past that time, primarily because guns turned out to be wildly ineffective for the purpose. Most of the attempts resulted only in imposing different tyrannies (Cromwell in the English Civil War, the Terror and then Napoleon after the French Revolution, Haiti, the Bolivarian revolutions in Latin America, any Communist regime). The militias who want to overthrow the US government today are at least as bad. (The American Revolution was better than the others, but the example of Canada shows that it was unnecessary. It also preserved slavery longer than it would have survived within the British Empire.)

    What does happen is that the US has a near-monopoly on mass shootings (no other democracy has had more than two—not two a year, but two total, in Finland) and on shooting deaths of children (85% occur in the US).

    However, the number of gun owners in the US is declining, while growth in private arsenals keeps sales rising. As with other social issues, the demographics and the generation gap are against continuing the gun insanity. At some point, the courts will acknowledge what historians already know, that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the Federal government from disarming state militias, not private citizens, and we can get on with sensible regulation.

    America—We built that!

    by Mokurai on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:56:23 AM PST

  •  Here's what Governor Cuomo of New York said (7+ / 0-)
    “Confiscation could be an option,” Cuomo said in that interview
    link

    Don't tell me that registration doesn't lead to confiscation. Doesn't New York already have some sort of registration of certain firearms?

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

    by Texas Lefty on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:50:05 AM PST

    •  No registration in NY (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, oldpunk, 43north

      To buy "long guns" you have to have a background check done by a FFL - and this includes gun shows.

      You have to have a permit plus a background check to buy a handgun. All handguns have to be listed on your permit. It could be considered a kind of back-door registration.

      The only way to avoid background checks in NY is through private sales. However in my experience most gun owners sell their guns to their friends or hunting buddies.. not strangers.

      Also there is an "assault weapons ban" in NYS. However I legally own an AK-47 and 2 M-4's.

      I also have high capacity (30 round) magazines for both - perfectly legal to own in NYS because they were manufactured pre-ban.

      Keep in mind - I live way outside of NYC. Regulations in the city are different and I am not familiar with them because they don't apply to me.

      •  NYC did away with "assault weapons" (0+ / 0-)

        defined as semi-automatic rifles and shotguns 15-20 ago.  The NY Daily News showed an 80 year old man with his WWII-era M1 Garand and the caption:

        "Mayor, come take it yourself."  The original draft did not permit the "assault weapons" to be removed from the City.
        It was amended fairly rapidly after the article ran.
        Amended again I see in 2010 probably to reflect changes in the NYS law, regarding magazines.

        http://www.nysrpa.org/...

        d. Disposition of assault weapons by permittees, licensees and previously exempt persons. Any person who, on or after the effective date of this local law, shall possess an assault weapon and a valid permit for possession and purchase of rifles and shotguns and a certificate of registration for such assault weapon, and any licensed dealer in firearms or licensed dealer in rifles and shotguns who is not licensed as a special theatrical dealer and who, on or after the effective date of this local law, shall possess an assault weapon, and any police officer or peace officer who, before the effective date of this local law was exempt from the sections of the administrative code requiring rifle and shotgun permits and certificates, and who, upon the effective date of this local law, is not exempt from the sections of the administrative code prohibiting the possession or disposition of assault weapons, and who, on or after the effective date of this local law, shall possess an assault weapon, shall, within ninety days of the effective date of rules promulgated by the commissioner pursuant to subparagraph 7 of paragraph a of subdivision 16 of section 10- 301, either:
        (1) peaceably surrender his or her assault weapon pursuant to subdivision f of section 10-305 for the purpose of destruction of such weapon by the commissioner, provided that the commissioner may authorize the use of such weapon by the department; or (2) lawfully remove such assault weapon from the city of New York.
        All assault weapons possessed by such permittees, licensees and previously exempt persons shall be subject to the provisions of this subdivision, whether defined as assault weapons in subdivision 16 of section 10-301 or in rules promulgated by the commissioner pursuant to subparagraph 7 of paragraph a of subdivision 16 of section 10-301.
        e. Disposition of assault weapons by non-permittees. Any person who, on or after the effective date of this local law, shall possess an assault weapon and who is not the holder of a valid permit for possession and purchase of rifles and shotguns and a certificate of registration for such assault weapon, shall peaceably surrender his or her assault weapon pursuant to subdivision f of section 10-305 for the purpose of destruction of such weapon by the commissioner, provided that the commissioner may authorize the use of such weapon by the department, and provided further that heirs and legatees may dispose of assault weapons pursuant to subdivision f of this section.
        f. Disposition of assault weapons by heirs and legatees. Any person who acquires an assault weapon on or after the effective date of this local law by the laws of intestacy or by testamentary bequest shall, within ninety days of such acquisition, either: (1) peaceably surrender such assault weapon pursuant to subdivision f of section 10-305 for the purpose of destruction of such weapon by the commissioner, provided that the commissioner may authorize the use of such weapon by the department; or (2) lawfully remove such assault weapon from the city of New York.
        g. Within thirty days of the effective date of rules promulgated by the commissioner pursuant to subparagraph 7 of paragraph a of subdivision 16 of section 10-301, the commissioner shall send by regular mail to every person who has been issued a permit to possess a rifle or shotgun and whose rifle or shotgun the commissioner reasonably believes to be an assault weapon as defined in subdivision 16 of section 10-301 or as defined in such rules, a written notice setting forth the requirements and procedures relating to the disposition of such weapons, and the criminal and civil penalties that may be imposed upon the permittee for unlawful possession or disposition of such weapons. Failure by the commissioner to send, or the permittee to receive, such notice, shall not excuse such permittee for unlawful possession or disposition of such weapons.
        •  Thanks for the info about NYC (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          43north

          Like I said ... I don't live anywhere near NYC. I have only been there 2x in my life. Both times were for a wedding. I hate the city.. I am a country girl.

          There is a completely useless "assault weapons" ban in New York State.

          Said assault weapons ban did not prevent me from purchasing any of those guns I mentioned above.

          I have purchased every one of them legally from either my local gun shop or Herb Phillipson's which is a regional sporting goods chain.

  •  That's What She Said You Said (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slothlax
    "This is going to be short."
  •  Not just that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, oldpunk

    I don't see what such a list is supposed to accomplish.  It seems totally unnecessary and useless.

    There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

    by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:48:11 AM PST

  •  Gillibrand's proposal sounds very smart to me (4+ / 0-)

    and also, she says only 10% of gun violence is even committed by registering guns.

    Check out her proposal to stop illegal gun trafficking. I think it sounds way, way smarter than almost anything else I've yet read: http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I think even gun supporters will get on board with this, as will those who don't support gun use. No one wants to see illegal gun trafficking which result in 90% of all homicides (and surely plenty of burgleries as well).

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

    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:16:59 PM PST

    •  The paper did a story (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco

      A few years ago they ran a story that said over half the guns used in homicides in our city were from out of state, originating from states with looser gun laws.  This kind of thing should already be law.

      There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

      by slothlax on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:00:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And armed citizens (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, Oh Mary Oh

    have been able to stop the Japanese interment or the Patriot Act or Guantanamo?

    Which, in fact, of the things on your list have been prevented in any way by people with guns?

    We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

    by denise b on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:36:36 PM PST

    •  Never claimed they would. (4+ / 0-)

      They are just examples of why I don't trust what the government would do with registration information.

      I will assume you aren't particularly enamored with the things on my list. But it seems that if the target is gun owners you would be just fine with such actions.

      You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

      by oldpunk on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:00:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would be fine with such actions (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, Oh Mary Oh

        against gun owners? I don't understand why you say that.

        We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

        by denise b on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:35:30 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, I wasn't very clear. (4+ / 0-)

          And my opinion probably has less to do with you specifically than it has to do with what I see as a prevailing attitude here on DKos.

          It seems to me that if the actions taken by the government in my list were solely directed at gun owners that not too many people here would have a problem with that.

          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

          by oldpunk on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:44:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course not (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            oldpunk, theatre goon, 43north, Oh Mary Oh

            Being in favor of gun control and being in favor of tyranny against gun owners are two different things.

            We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

            by denise b on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:00:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The attitude I see here towards (4+ / 0-)

              the RKBA group and other comments about firearm owners a basis for my opinion.

              You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

              by oldpunk on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:09:44 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's pretty hyperbolic (0+ / 0-)

                Unless you can show me.

                We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

                by denise b on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:34:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  From yesterday (0+ / 0-)
                  I see. You protect the constitution by shooting. Thanks for that. If you didn't go shooting, why we probably wouldn't even be able to masturbate.
                  At some point, I believe a violent statist will need to take charge of the issue and suppress the gun freaks with drone strikes and be done with it. Probably after one of your bretheren breaks into a maternity ward and shoots up a bunch of infants. That'll be the last straw methinks.

                  Somehow, I think the Constitution will be alright with a disarmed public.

                  Today in a diary, it was implied that owning a 30 magazine was to equivalent to owning child pornography.
                  Take your pick, 2nd Amendmenters... 10 years old? 13? 6? You like that freedom?

                  There. Child porn is the equivalent of 30-round magazines. Some things are not acceptable. Even Constitutional Rights have sensible limits.

                  Did you miss the comments from people calling to ban the RKBA group? Without fail there are references that gun owners are mentally unstable and that gun owners are compensating for small penises. Of course if you don't wade into gun diaries all that often you may not be aware of this.

                  You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

                  by oldpunk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:12:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site