Skip to main content

In a comment from my last diary, Robobagpiper wrote;

This. It's a matter of trust. When gun controllers incessantly go on with "ban this! ban that!" out of one side of their mouths, and sneer "you crazies! We don't want to come take away your guns" out of the other, there is zero basis for trust.

It really does come down to trust and I don’t trust you. How can I when firearms are called killing machines? Why should I when gun owners are routinely considered mentally unstable? Trust cannot be built when when gun owners are told they are compensating for having a small penis.

Based on such comments and opinions that are published daily regarding gun owners, I am fully persuaded that regardless of your proclamations of wanting “reasonable” or “sensible” (whatever those words mean) firearm regulations, I believe that you will keep pushing until you have banned the private ownership of guns all together. The total failure of your own policies regarding firearms drives you to do so.

Columbine occurred during the last assault weapons ban. Connecticut has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and even has a partial AWB. Despite these laws the shootings still happened. If you are a proponent of gun control these incidents prove that the gun laws you desire to put in place don't work and aren't strict enough.

In the days immediately following the Sandy Hook shooting emotions where running hot and even I called for limiting magazine capacity. Not much has changed since then with emotions still pegged on 11. There have been calls by more than a few on this site to:

•    Ban handguns
•    Ban semi-automatic rifles
•    Ban certain magazines
•    Ban concealed carry
•    Require mental health testing prior to gun ownership
•    Repeal the 2nd Amendment
•    Ban the RKBA group

Even if a new AWB is passed there will be more mass shootings and those will be cited as proof that we need more new laws and more new bans that are even stricter. I don’t believe that there is a single instance or scenario where you will decide that you have gone far enough. You cannot be appeased.

Nationally our violent crime rates are significantly lower than what they were 20 years ago.

       Violent crime     Murder/homicide        Rape     Robbery     Aggravated assault
1992       757.7                    9.3             42.8          263.7               441.9
2011       386.3                    4.7             26.8          113.7               241.1

This has been an ongoing trend, even with the introduction of self-defence laws like the ill named “Stand your Ground Laws” and the easing of restrictions on concealed carry. But the fact that violent crime is dropping in spite of this doesn't seem to matter, hence my lack of trust. I trust you even less when I see comments like this from someone whose diaries get posted on the front page.

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.

Then there was a diary, now deleted, that compared owning 30 round magazines with owning child pornography. Comparing me to a pedophile doesn't do much for building trust.

I expect comments like these from a right wing site, but not here. When I see seriously fucked up shit like that you have not only lost me on this issue, but I will actively fight against you.

Oh sure there might be six or seven people out there that favor more restrictions like mahakali overdrive and Meteor Blades who are calm and consider deeply what we could do, but those calmer voices appear to be a minority here. Subsequently I am convinced that your ultimate goal is to have only the police and military armed.

Color me jaded and uninterested in such a concept.

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

  •  Oh brother n/t (14+ / 0-)

    David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

    by PsychoSavannah on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:07:18 PM PST

  •  Soooo... (20+ / 0-)
    I expect comments like these from a right wing site, but not here. When I see seriously fucked up shit like that you have not only lost me on this issue, but I will actively fight against you.
    The lack of trust runs both ways, and this is exactly the sort of response folks on 'the control side' probably expect anyway.  So what exactly are you trying to achieve by writing this?
  •  Then stop proving our point. (4+ / 0-)

    You're delusional if you think that could happen.

    We're fools whether we dance or not, so we might as well dance.

    by PowWowPollock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:12:35 PM PST

  •  Guns are tools. For Killing. (20+ / 0-)

    You should have to show that you have a need for one.

    It is not a magic tyrant repelling safety blanket that prevents crimes.

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

    by detroitmechworks on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:12:52 PM PST

    •  And when someone denies that obvious reality, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reflectionsv37, bhut jolokia, Sandino

      It leads others to question their grasp on other parts of reality, as well.

      When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

      by Bisbonian on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:01:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  So are hammers. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, FrankRose

      Which, I've read, have been used in a significantly-higher percentage of murders than one would assume.

      In a "perfect" world, would only carpenters be allowed to own hammers (not to mention the plethora of other dangerous tools capable of causing death) because only they could show a need?  A non-carpenter homeowner couldn't own one?

      Even so, from a defensive standpoint, hammers lack the projectiles guns provide from allowing a threatening person to get close enough to possibly win the battle, thus they are far from ideal weapons when it matters most.

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

      by Neuroptimalian on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:23:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Firstly, I think you are implying a spurious (24+ / 0-)

    correlation between less violent crime and eased restrictions on concealed carry. There could be a third factor making both of those behave the way they are.

    Secondly, I support tighter gun regulations and other rational steps to make our country safer. Stuff like gun buybacks for instance. Its voluntary, the gun owner gets something out of it (money) and our society is a bit safer with less guns on the streets. Insurance is something I have also considered a sane regulation. Biometeric and pressure "locks" on weapons is another good idea (smart weapons), and biometric gun lockers.

    And I really believe that the most powerful of these weapons should not be in the hands of the citizenry. I am sure we disagree on that point. But I just don't feel there is any need for so much firepower to be in the hands of someone who is potentially going to use that against his/her fellow human beings. There is no legitimate reason to shoot 20 or 30 rounds in just seconds.

    Civility, courtesy, kindness. The CK mantra.

    by rexymeteorite on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:13:04 PM PST

    •  the onus is on you then (9+ / 0-)

      propose, define and defend what you consider "legitimate".  Demonstrate that even the legal usages of such is so fundamentally detrimental to public safety that it's mere existence is contrary to human existence such as weaponized NBC ordinance.

      Legislation based on "feels" is crap legislation.

      I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

      by wretchedhive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:51:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Gun buybacks are absurd. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, PavePusher, theatre goon

      Even if we hypothesize a gun buyback that gathered 1 million firearms and destroyed them, it would be less than 1% of those in existence.

      It's easy to see that criminals and non-criminals both would supply only the worst (possibly non-working) firearms with the least value, to maximize their gain.  

      And unless buying newly manufactured guns was then impossible or illegal, within a matter of a few years, those 1 million will have been replaced.

      What gun buybacks actually accomplish is making it more difficult for poor people to own firearms. The cheapest and least valuable firearms will be gone, supply will be lower, and prices will climb for the remainder.

      Of course, the most successful buybacks in many cities manage far fewer than 1 million guns off the streets. We're left to believe that lowering the number of guns by some microscopic fraction of 1% will somehow result in significantly fewer gun casualties. Even though criminals kept the good, working guns.

      There is no legitimate reason to shoot 20 or 30 rounds in just seconds.
      There's no legitimate reason for someone to not be able to do that.

      In fact, if we could force everyone to own machine guns, it'd be far safer. If that idiot Lanza had wasted all his ammunition in the first second, many children would still be alive.

      If he had only been forced to buy 50+ round magazines, the worthless piece of shits would have jammed on him immediately, and he'd have been unable to kill as many.

      For that matter, open up imports. Instead of only being able to buy from American manufacturers that make quality products (generally speaking), let these failfucks buy cheap plastic shit from China that will malfunction so often that they can't shoot anyone. He'll still be trying to remove the stovepipes when the cops show up, assuming a few teachers haven't beaten him to death for being a sicko fuck.

  •  I don't care if you trust me. You don't know me. (9+ / 0-)

    It should be completely up to the American people what regulations apply to firearms.

    We need to repeal the 2nd amendment. We need to ban handguns, assault weapons, and concealed carry.

    We need to shut down the industry that is pumping 6 million+ guns into our society.

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

    by i understand on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:13:58 PM PST

  •  What do you think of these numbers ? (10+ / 0-)

    Japan              0.07 /100,000
    United Kingdom 0.25 /100,000
    Germany          1.10 /100,000
    Australia          1.05 /100,000
    Israel              1.86 /100,000
    United States   10.2 /100,000
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    Would you have gone along willingly in those countries when they changed their gun ownership rules ?

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

    by indycam on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:18:50 PM PST

    •  I think those numbers indicate (12+ / 0-)

      that those countries have far better systems in place that address the root causes of violent crime than we do. Therefore I find the comparison lacking.

      Can't say yes or no to your final question. I can say that I am not interested in being a citizen of those countries though.

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

      by oldpunk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:30:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you have any proof of (7+ / 0-)
        those countries have far better systems in place that address the root causes of violent crime than we do.

        Do you know about pre / post Australia ?

        Do you see the number for Israel ?
        Isn't it odd that you are less likely to be shot in Israel ?

        I can say that I am not interested in being a citizen of those countries though.
        I didn't ask if you would .

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

        by indycam on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:47:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  as someone who lived in the UK for 6 out of the (15+ / 0-)

        past 7 years--I'll say that the publfc's access to guns is a a huge part of it.  There is a lot of violent crime in Britain--and a LOT of angry youth.  To a frightening degree--more so than here (in part because in a smaller country, such things are more concentrated).  Ever hear of the ASBO (Anti Social Behavior Order?)  Kids were terrorizing the streets of London all too  often.

        They've got their violence over there.  Remember the soccer hooligans of years past?  The London riots of just last year?

        And knife crime was high.  Far too high.  Non-firearm homicide rates are actually quite comparable to here.

        But factor in the firearms, man.....wow.

        The number killed overall?  Orders of magnitude lower over there.

        The reason is the guns.  They're just not available to the public.  Guns can be acquired--but it takes much  more effort.

        So the public is much, much safer.

        •  My husband says stuff like this (8+ / 0-)

          Having lived a bit in the UK too. We sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. I have no idea, however, how the US would reasonably disarm itself without 1. pissing off a lot of people and possibly provoking worse violence (which I see as a difficult paradox to solve) and 2. without altering the Constitution or amending it through the SCOTUS.

          Still, I feel there is a middle ground for some reform. I feel like sincere efforts have to address the differences between the U.S. psyche and the psyche of other nations which have very different ways of thinking about "rights" and "patriotism" and "history." My husband always concedes this point knowing full well that Americans are our own breed.

          We debate this whole thing often. It's interesting dialogue.

          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 Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:55:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  there is something deeply disconnected at the (8+ / 0-)

            heart of this country's self-identity--I think exposed more since 9/11 than at too many other times in American history--although it would have manifested itself in other ways.

            Primalism and progressivism don't mix very well, it seems--at least in our American version of the discourse.  We end up with a bloodthirsty battle of individual versus community which, ideally, shouldn't be a battle at all but a collaborative discussion.

            The right is loud.  It wants gun-totin', hypermilitarized, jingoistic, hell's bell's society.  The left wants communal, humanitarian, approaches--generally a softer tone.  The left approach is the one that favors society as opposed to the hyper-individual.

            But if we're going to have this pitched battle, we're not going to make much progress without one side simply steamrolling the other.  Hopefully reasonable heads on the GOP side can be persuaded to see the value of certain social legislation--but whoever wield the megaphone on the right these days isn't buying it.

            I'm optimistic that some small changes will be agreed upon--I'm pessimistic they'll make much difference.

            Our society does not value itself (which is why we use 'American Exceptiionalism to PRETEND that we do), and that  is, I think a fundamental reason why we're badly stuck and in freefall at the moment.

            Hopefully this changes in future decades as younger, more diverse and more worldly people continue to change the face of this country...

            •  bevenro - gun rights are not a left/right issue (10+ / 0-)

              About a third of gun owners are Dems and they can be an important swing group in many parts of the US. Don't position gun control as a GOP v Dem battle, it can only hurt the national Democratic Party.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:33:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  but they are. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk, coquiero, a2nite, chicagoblueohio

                are.  And the reason they are is because of the kinds of people who wield the megaphone and cultivate these simplistic battles are activists from each side.

                You can make the same argument about women's rights.  Civil rights.  Right to privacy.  Anything.  Of course they're not ACTUALLY left-right issues, but they become so.

                The Wayne LaPierres and the Alex Joneses represent the current position of groups like the NRA, and while they may not speak for gun owners as individuals, unfortunately they have managed to collectively.  Even the arguments that I sometimes see from some of the more hard-core RKBAers on DKos are shaped by the NRAs nonsensical rhetoric (which they didn't used to use a decade or two ago).  

                It SHOULD BE a collaborative discussion on how to reduce violence, with all sides willing to make some sacrifices and come to some compromises.  But it has become solely political.

                •  bevenro - it's in our self interest to separate (7+ / 0-)

                  them. There are strong gun control advocates in the Republican party, the Brady Center comes to mind, and strong gun owner advocates who are Dems, including here at DKOS. In my view people can be as passionate as they would like to be about gun control, just don't link it to the Democratic Party. There is no need for political linkage and trying to make gun control partisan, when there is no need for it, only hurts the national Democratic Party. I have seen this movie before and it has a very sad ending. Democrats became uncompetitive in the South, Southwest and Rocky Mountain West.

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:38:14 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  oh I agree. My initial comment was really (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mahakali overdrive, VClib, oldpunk

                    trying to express some thoughts on the individual vs. community mythology that has seemed to increasingly permeate political discussion...I think the gun rights discussion is one of the better examples of that polarity-which-doesn't-need-to-be-polarized.

                    But yes, I agree that politicization of this (and all) issues is essentially harmful--although I do see it as inevitable.

                    The word bipartisan is itself problematic--why can't we use collaborative?

            •  Off topic, one of the best things I've read (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive, wonmug

              "Our society does not value itself (which is why we use 'American Exceptiionalism to PRETEND that we do)"

              Profoundly insightful.

              •  Thanks--I've been (4+ / 0-)

                thinking about that a lot the last couple of days....

                We have lost self respect--I think 9-11 was one of the nails in the coffin but it has been going on since long before that.  I'm disturbed.  I've been disturbed for a long time about this country, but things have been substantially off since the 90s.  End of the Cold War may have done us some serious damage!

                I'm hoping that a hoped for improved economic situation and improved (and more vibrant) demographics over the next 20 years will change things over time...but it won't for awhile.

                But imagination, creativity, intelligence, community, safety--where the hell are those fundamental human principles in this country these days?  At least on the national stage?

                •  Probably a total aside but what you're saying (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk, a2nite, Eyesbright

                  is what we, in the Humanities, have also been asking: many, myself included, feel that this question of imagination, creativity, intelligence, community, these have been ironed out of the concerns of America even at the level of education. It was always our disciplinary objective to foster these basic things, and yet now they're challenged. We've identified this as coming from a corporate mindset, certainly, and that it's being exploited by these people toward college students who are struggling with economic uncertainty. In my experience, many young people feel the strongest need to choose between critical and intelligent thought and viewing themselves as a commodity -- a student worker/consumer -- to get a good job out of college.

                  So to me, this is sort of the bleak future of the question that you're posing with a bit about the future actors on that stage. It's frightening. As someone in this field, I do my best to strongly challenge it too.

                  Probably slightly tangential but so resonant with my own daily world and immersions.

                  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 Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:42 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  one reason I've returned to pursuing archaeology (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mahakali overdrive, mskitty, oldpunk

                    which was a dream of mine since I was about 8, is exactly this reason.  The sacrifice of dreams for--let's call them 'harsh realities' is false choice that millions of people feel compelled to make.  

                    People will say that, of course wealth doesn't buy happiness--but do they believe it?  Rarely.

                    It's the sacrifice of the soul, in essence (not necessarily a religious soul--but the soul of childhood ideals and dreams).

                    Einstein recognized education for what it should be--not a means to competitive advantage--although that may be an outcome--but a means to the honest development of self.

                    I remember being outraged at Obama's 2010 SOTU address because he addressed education solely as the sum total of math, reading, science and technology.  Solely.  These are all profoundly important.  But no more or less important than those other courses that teach the human condition.   The former are the tools--the latter is the truth, in a way.

                    I'm off to sleep, but thanks for yet another (if shorter) engaging late night exchange :)

              •  I had a similar thought (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oldpunk, a2nite

                It would make a fantastic stand-alone diary; it's philosophical, self-reflective, and a very interesting point of view.

                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 Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:44:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  That's awful! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      Oh my god, 10 out of 100,000! Unadjusted for gangbangers shooting each other in the illegal drug trade! Or suiciders who wanted something easier than a makeshift noose!

      Please, if I can just shackle my children and grandchildren into slavery, can you do something about that horrible number!?! I'll sell all their rights away if you can just turn a 10 out of 100,000 into a 1 out of 100,000! Do something, do anything!

    •  Where's Argentina and Russia? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      And why is our number up around 10.2? Aren't homicides around 3.something or 4 / 100,000?

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

      by KVoimakas on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:36:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  ugh.. is 'gun controller' an oxymoron? (5+ / 0-)

    must be time for dinner-
    i'm getting damn confused

    good post- thanks

    People who say they don't care what people think are usually desperate to have people think they don't care what people think. -George Carlin

    by downtownLALife on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:20:38 PM PST

  •  Lack of logic (9+ / 0-)

    How long do you think it would take a few thousand ATF agents to hunt out and "take away" 300 million guns?

    If you think this is even a possibility, you are not really thinking straight.

    Any brain that leads from the quite sensible proposed actions to "they're going to take away all my guns and leave me powerless" is a bit off.

    I am seriously considering getting a gun to protect myself from all the gun nuts who are proposing to start killing people if there is any gun regulation changes.

  •  I am trying to decide (17+ / 0-)

    How important it is that you trust me when you as a gun owner lost my trust sometime ago.

    You see it should have been the gun owners pushing for these controls instead waiting until they had no say any longer.

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

    by jsfox on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:32:26 PM PST

    •  it's probably way important on a number of levels (10+ / 0-)

      He's got the guns after all

      and if a strong liberal isn't on board imagine how the center and R side of the country is.

      a couple of senators plus Marrin County and the Upper East side doesn't a majority make.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:57:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A strong liberal (6+ / 0-)

        Would have pushed long ago for effective and meaningful gun regs. Instead you all have waited sat on your hands telling everybody to not rock the boat. Well guess what the boat is rocking and you guys can either be part of the solution or stand aside. Gun regs are coming like it or not.

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

        by jsfox on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:12:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton did. (6+ / 0-)

          By his estimation it caused him 20 House seats & the Republican Revolution.
          Which, in turn, led to his impeachment.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:31:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I completely reject the idea that a strong (11+ / 0-)

          liberal must be a strong advocate for gun control. The idea that the two must be linked is complete nonsense.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:37:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here's a hypothesis which seems to make sense (9+ / 0-)

            that I started to consider earlier and will thus repeat here, since it seems to make sense to:

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

            I see suddenly a new side to this debate that I hadn't before, which is two sides based on two distinct fears, perhaps, both grounded in self-defense essentially, but each of a different character. Each totally plausible depending on your perspective.

            I think anyone in the Nation could potentially be most afraid of mass shootings, more or less, due to how random these are. I think those who live in suburban areas, which is where most mass shootings occur, may be more sensitized to this fear.

            I think anyone with a strong visual lock on U.S. Government & U.S. History -- usually both the far Right and far Left wings (including some Progressives) -- could potentially be most afraid of government tyranny, FEMA camps, and rights being taken away. These folks may be more sensitized to this fear.

            I think this is really interesting and could use more excavating. Most farther Left Progressives on this site who are pro-RKBA are also STRONG Progressives in areas surrounding various civil rights and civil liberties, anti-war, anti-bigotry, pro-universal healthcare, etc. thus my guess is that a lot of concern with how the Government has been a source of injustice, rather than justice, already fills the minds of some people -- it does tend to fill mine, at any rate, as someone who's been profoundly critical of law enforcement, racism, and who is a very down-the-line-Leftist.

            Thus the disconnect in ideology may be happening more at this level.

            Interesting. This may be why there's an impasse in conversation so often.

            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 Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:48:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  No (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, FrankRose, KVoimakas

          Plenty of liberals oppose your restrictions and No they are not going to pass into law.

          We will not stand aside, I will oppose you all the way and win.

          Cheers!!

          Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

          by deedogg on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 05:15:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think it is pretty important that you trust me, (10+ / 0-)

      since I am a gun owning Democrat.

      As for pushing for controls, introduce some that will actually reduce violent crime and stand a chance of being made into law and you will have my attention. But calls for "ban them" and "Repeal the 2nd Amendment" show me there is little interest in actually reducing crime.

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

      by oldpunk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:17:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Once upon a time maybe, (7+ / 0-)

        I would have trusted you if I thought you honestly wanted to be part of a solution, but every reasonable suggestion is turned away as extreme or that we are trampling on your rights. What about everybody else's right to try and stop senseless gun violence.

        And as I said the Democrats will lose me and many others if they fail to push for meaningful effective regs on guns.

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

        by jsfox on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:04:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Prohibition is not a reasonable suggestion, (8+ / 0-)

          it is an extreme position that does trample on rights and doesn't address the root causes of the problems we face.

          The previous AWB did absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime. Obviously the goal of such useless legislation has nothing to do with crime and everything to do with controlling a significant portion of our population that is legally engaged in an activity certain people don't approve of.

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

          by oldpunk on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:13:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do not want your damn gun (15+ / 0-)

            I do not want the government to take away your precious guns. I want reasonable checks and balances. Universal background checks, no private sale loop hole. There are one set if federal laws not a patch work of differing state laws. Ammo is sold the same way Sudafed is. Guns are registered you are trained and licensed.  And when someone can give me a rational reason why a civilian needs to own massive ammo clips or a gun designed to inflict the most amount of damage on the human flesh I will give it a listen. Just because you think it is your right to have either is not a rational reason . Cause it is also settled law that the government can both regulate and ban certain weapons and ammo.

            Personally I think the Democratic/liberal gun owners on this site should have been the ones leading this charge instead of digging your eels and saying no to everything.

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

            by jsfox on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:48:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  define it (11+ / 0-)

              because gun ownership is an affirmative right, and does not require demonstrating rationality to your specifications.

              And no, not everyone is digging their heels and saying no to everything, there is a wide spectrum of views, but your blanket generalization is as much a detriment to realistic solutions as any other radical viewpoint.

              I see a very beautiful planet that seems very inviting and peaceful. Unfortunately, it is not.…We're better than this. We must do better. Cmdr Scott Kelley

              by wretchedhive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:03:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Universal background checks are... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, oldpunk, 43north, jfdunphy

              Nothing more than a registry. If there are no private sales or transfers, the government has a list of everyone and their address.

              Now I have to sign paperwork every time I buy ammunition. Maybe I'm accused of being a terrorist or spree killer if I buy more than two boxes (like Sudafed?).

              If they want to deny me, just trump up some licensing bullshit... or lose the paperwork?

              This is the "reasonable" you come up with?

            •  Let's look at this statement: (5+ / 0-)
              Ammo is sold the same way Sudafed is. Guns are registered you are trained and licensed.  And when someone can give me a rational reason why a civilian needs to own massive ammo clips or a gun designed to inflict the most amount of damage on the human flesh I will give it a listen.
              The GCA '68 required a ammunition sale registry be maintained for all except .22 rimfire ammunition.  It proved worthless to Law Enforcement, and was eventually abandoned.

              Sudafed, which I buy as it eliminates the sinus triggered migraines; is a pain-in-my-ass process, not due to allergy sufferers, but due to Meth-mouth.
              Registry of all ammunition purchases, and let's be modern here, centralized database registry - fuck that written record shit - is what's required.  We can then determine who's violating Federal, State and Local laws by keystrokes.
              Presumption of misuse, unless otherwise proven.
              Oh, Mr. Fox... you bought .30 caliber rifle rounds, and you live in the compact zone of our fair city.  Presumption is you intend to discharge a rifle, contrary to local ordinances.
              Search warrant.  Arrest.  Confiscation.

              What?  Hunting?  Elk in Montana.  Says you.
              GUILTY.

              Human Flesh:
              Guns don't have a "human flesh" setting.  Nor do bullets.
              The Bushmaster rifle will not do any more damage to a person, than a single-shot New England Firearms rifle in the same caliber.
              No voodoo, no juju.  No lie.

              Now if you just want them gone, and for another reason, I'm fine with that.

              Certain people believe if we outlaw guns from the civilians, that gives cause to disarm the police, and only the Feds and the Military have firearms (and criminals, but that's why you employ more locally stationed Feds).
              If that's your position, good - but to really prevent police abuses, it takes more than eliminating the M4 carbine in the car, and the Glock in the holster.

        •  And where will you go? (9+ / 0-)

          The last time the dems decided to sacrifice liberty for perceived security, gun control had far more public support.
          They got their asses handed to them in the next election.
          Where was your ilk then?

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:33:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Taking away your liberty? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite

            Universal background checks is taking away your liberty? Make our gun laws federal so that there is not a patch work of different state laws. Not allowing civilians to possess massive ammo clips is taking away your liberty. So far I have done nothing that is going o stop you from owning a gun.

            And if you can give me a straight forward rational reason why you need a gun like a Bushmaster I will give it an honest listen.

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

            by jsfox on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:01:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  absolutely NO on federalization of gun laws. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              43north

              I live in CA with the strictest. I do NOT want to become more like TX which is precisely what will happen if we federalize gun laws.

              NO!

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

              by cany on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:00:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Lets just look at the definition of the word, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, wishbone, Tom Seaview

              shall we?
              "Liberty NOUN:  1) a) The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                                          b)The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                  2)Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                  3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

              You will notice the word 'control' mentioned 3 times.  You want to take actions that people have the liberty to do and make them controlled (or, more accurately, illegal). Hence "Gun Control".
              The definitions of words do not change because their meanings make you uncomfortable.

              "straight forward rational reason why you need a gun like a Bushmaster I will give it an honest listen."
              Right after you give me a "straight forward rational reason why you need" freedom of speech, freedom of the press, reasonable search and seizure, and freedom of religion.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:33:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FG
        I think it is pretty important that you trust me...
        I don't trust you, and I'm pretty cool with that.

        I don't understand why it is important that I trust you.

        •  So you have a sign on your door saying (6+ / 0-)

          no guns?

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

          by KVoimakas on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:41:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Trust is important. (10+ / 0-)

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

          by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:48:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe you need to take... (13+ / 0-)

          ...a course in basic math.

          Around 40% of Democrats own guns.

          Alienate 40% of the Democratic base because of a lack of mutual trust, you lose elections.

          I mean, it's really pretty simple stuff...

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

          by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 06:52:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm pretty sure that there is only one of him. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, Nada Lemming

            And I still don't understand why it is so important that I trust him.

            •  Do the math. (6+ / 0-)

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

              by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 09:21:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  2012 election... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, bhut jolokia, vcmvo2

                do the math...

                Baby, where I come from...

                by ThatSinger on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:33:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No one ran on gun control... (6+ / 0-)

                  ...in the 2012 election.

                  Yes, it was in the Democratic Party platform, but was rarely mentioned, and no one ran on it specifically.  In fact, the Republican Presidential nominee had a very poor record when it comes to RKBA.

                  So, that particular math has nothing to do with the equation.

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

                  by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:06:52 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Guns were not an issue in the 2012 election? (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero, bhut jolokia, vcmvo2

                    Better let the NRA know that...

                    http://www.gunbanobama.com/

                    The NRA mounted an unprecedented campaign of fear and deception against President Obama last year... where were you, math class?

                    The fact remains, the Democratic Party did not adopt the "pro gun" stance RKBAers urged them PRIOR to the last election and they still won it handily... that's a mathematical certainty...

                    Try again...

                    Baby, where I come from...

                    by ThatSinger on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:26:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The NRA... (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      rockhound, deedogg, FrankRose, KVoimakas

                      ...wasn't running for election.  Yes, they ran a very dishonest campaign against President Obama -- and, at no time, did he actually run on increasing gun control.

                      I saw the NRA campaign of fear and deception and called it exactly that -- it was simply dishonest.

                      As I stated earlier, it was on the official Democratic Party platform, but it never became an important issue during the election itself.

                      So, no need to try again -- I was correct the first time, your irrelevant response notwithstanding.  Democrats did not run on a campaign of strong gun control.  You can repeat otherwise to your heart's content, it will not become true.

                      I always aced my math classes, by the way.

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

                      by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:46:45 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Democrats ran AGAINST an unprecedented (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero, bhut jolokia, vcmvo2

                        campaign of "gun confiscation" fear... and won... despite millions upon millions of dollars spent, the NRA clearly were unable to move even a tiny fraction of the 40% of Democratic voters you claim are just waiting to jump ship... DESPITE there being NO measurable "gun friendly" adjustment to the Democratic platform OR President Obama's public statements therein... had it not been for unprecedented gerrymandering in the House, they'd have RUN THE TABLE... not just the presidency, but the Senate and House as well... you can't point to a single race the Democrats lost because of gun control and yet you persist with this tripe...

                        Therefore your contention that they need to "soften up" their position on gun control to win elections is what's irrelevant... and mathematically erroneous...

                        Baby, where I come from...

                        by ThatSinger on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:57:10 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No, you are misrepresenting my stance. (5+ / 0-)

                          I stated that the Democrats did not run on gun control at all in 2012, and therefore did not lose races that such stances have lost them in the past (such as happened in 1994).

                          Yes, it was in the party platform, but it rarely came up in the actual campaign.

                          People didn't believe the claims of the NRA -- largely because Democrats were not running on a strong gun control platform.

                          So, this claim:

                          you can't point to a single race the Democrats lost because of gun control and yet you persist with this tripe...
                          ...is simply one that I did not make.

                          Your repeated attempts to attribute to me an argument that I have not made makes it clear that you either cannot or will not engage in this discussion an an honest manner, so I will leave you to your own devices now.

                          I mean, since you're making up an argument for me that I did not make, you clearly don't need anyone to argue with at all, do you?

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

                          by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:10:12 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Speaking of "misrepresentations"... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, bhut jolokia, vcmvo2

                            where or when did I say the Democrats ran on strong gun control in 2012?

                            I'll give you a hint... I DIDN'T... nice try...

                            What I DID say is the Democrats won DESPITE not adopting the "gun friendly" stance to attract more gun owner voters as advocated in RKBA's boilerplate... having failed in that endeavor, it appears you've now pivoted to warn against taking a stronger stance on gun control moving forward... your track record isn't all that impressive, unfortunately... that the NRA was unable to flip even a fraction of the 40% of Democrats who are gunowners in 2012 tells me that the existing platform isn't all that off-putting to most of them... you've certainly offered no proof of any groundswell of Democratic gunowners moving against the party advocating stronger gun/ammo laws in the wake of these recent slaughters...

                            Another misrepresentation... I never ONCE said that YOU claimed the Democrats lost any seats due to gun control, I MADE THAT STATEMENT MYSELF... because they didn't... again, where did I attribute that statement to you?

                            Again, a hint... I DIDN'T... again, nice try...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:26:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't claim... (5+ / 0-)

                            ...that you said Democrats ran on strong gun control in 2012.

                            I simply stated that they did not do so.  Your assertion that I attributed any such statement to you is therefore false.

                            Nor did I claim that there was a groundswell of Democratic gunowners moving against the party advocating stronger gun/ammo laws in the wake of these recent slaughters.  That being the case, why would I offer any proof of a claim I never made?

                            This would be another false assertion on your part -- attributing to me a stance that I did not make.

                            This claim:

                            I never ONCE said that YOU claimed the Democrats lost any seats due to gun control
                            ...is proven false by this statement of yours:
                            you can't point to a single race the Democrats lost because of gun control and yet you persist with this tripe...
                            So, yes, you did claim that I made a statement that I did not make, and yet now you insist that you did not.

                            So, not only did you, in fact, make the claim that you now claim that you did not make, the claim was a falsehood in the first place.

                            Your entire argument here is based on a series of falsehoods.

                            Really, if you can only defend your stance with such falsehoods, perhaps it is time for you to reconsider that stance.

                            Have a lovely evening.

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

                            by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:47:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I did not claim that you made the statement... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, bhut jolokia, vcmvo2

                            I said that you can't point to a race they lost due to gun control... that didn't mean that I accused you of saying they did... you're attempting to twist what I said into what you wish I'd said because you have no answer for what I actually said...

                            Perhaps I should have said "ONE can't point to a race they lost due to gun control"? There, I de-personalized it... feel better now? Now, admit that fact and stop pretending that it means I'm claiming you said they did... it's my standalone statement...

                            My entire argument here is based on the results of the 2012 election... your entire argument is nullified by the results of that election...

                            You have a lovely next 2 years...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:59:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  1994 (3+ / 0-)

                            20 of elections lost specifically because of gun control.

                            The NRA's points were hollow in the last election.
                            They aren't anymore.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:59:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Speaking of "hollow"… (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            vcmvo2, coquiero

                            It appears that empty threats of lost elections and armed insurrections are pretty much the basis of your entire argument(s) now... or perhaps the remnants...

                            I trust my party will be swayed by neither… I have no fear of the NRA...  I am confident that I am on the right side of history...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:54:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You don't have to fear the NRA (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            You need to fear the innocent Americans whose liberty you are sacrificing for your perceived security.

                            Shockingly, stripping away the rights of innocent Americans doesn't sway them to your cause.

                            After the election I will try to remember to ask you if you thought it was worth it.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 11:04:29 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh that's right... I forgot "because... LIBERTY"! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero, PsychoSavannah

                            The third pillar of your house of cards...

                            By RKBA "standards" I should HR you for "lying" about my position... I haven't once advocated anything but my support for strong, sensible regulations, far more in relation to ammo and clips, registration and background checks than actual gun prohibition... neither I nor the Democratic Party at large advocate wholesale gun prohibition... you disingenuously turn that into "stripping the rights of innocent Americans"...

                            I'm far more concerned with the LIVES of innocent Americans...

                            My various rights are regulated day in and day out... why the fuck is it only the 2nd amendment that must be absolutely unfettered or you've "been stripped" of your liberty?

                            Again with the empty "election" threat... my guess is after the next election you'll be right where you were after the last election... pretending the election wasn't about guns... again...

                            I repeat... I am confident that I (and my party) are on the right side of history... don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall...

                             

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 11:46:24 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It looks like we need to review the meaning (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            of the word 'liberty'.

                            "Liberty--NOUN: 1) a) The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                                                          b) The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                                                     2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                                                     3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

                            You will notice the word 'control' mentioned 3 times. Your ideas of 'gun control' takes actions that are legal today, and takes them away from innocent Americans.
                            Word definitions don't change because their meanings makes you uncomfortable.

                            The last election wasn't over guns.
                            1994 was.
                            How did the election of 1994 work out?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:45:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You have to go back to an election so long ago... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            that people who born the year it happened can now vote...

                            You're ignoring the massive MULTI MILLION $$$ campaign leveled by the NRA LAST YEAR that was 100% based on "Obama's gunna take yer gunzz!!!" Saying "the NRA wasn't running for office" is as disingenuous as saying "the Koch Brothers weren't running for office" or "Karl Rove wasn't running for office"... guns were very much on the ballot last year and despite the money and the lies and the fear and smear and the nervous meanderings of people like you and RKBA, nary a fraction of the 40% of Democrats who are gun owners flipped to Mittens... you continue to ignore that... I suppose I would too if I were you...

                            I have to register to vote... I can't go on the public airwaves and say "FUCK", despite being a devout Profanitarian... I have to obtain a permit to stage a public demonstration... I have to secure a bond against damage or injury as well... we accept certain restrictions and regulations on our various liberties day in and day out... what makes you so special? It's not the fucking constitution because the Supreme Court has ruled that your 2nd amendment rights are just as subject to regulation as any of the others... your hysterical bleating is beyond tiresome... grow up... we ALL accept certain conditions on our liberties... NONE of them are unfettered...

                            I will repeat one last time... I am confident that I (and my party) are on the right side of history... don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:30:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We have to go back to an election so long ago..... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            because that was the last time the Dem party tried to push gun control.
                            It was such an unmitigated disaster that the Dems haven't touched on it since--until now.
                            100,000 new NRA members in 2 weeks. Clearly, the difference between rhetoric and reality isn't lost on many people, as much as you want to deny it.

                            The NRA's fear-mongering was hollow last election, because Obama didn't run on nor touch on gun control.
                            Now it is a reality.

                            40% of Democrats are gun owners. Infringing on their liberties will cost the Democratic Party voters.
                            Where will the Dems make up those losses? What possible demographic will this court?

                            "none of them are unfettered"
                            Including the 2nd. There are already restrictions upon it.

                            "what makes you so special"
                            Nothing. That is why I am not insisting on infringing on the rights of innocent Americans for my irrational fears.

                            "Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd are just as subject to regulation"
                            The courts also found warrantless wiretaps to be Constitutional. I take it you are a fan of that infringement of liberty for perceived security as well.

                            "don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall..."
                            .... and don't forget to use an ellipsis at least 3 times every sentence.
                            Got it.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:51:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I presume yours will be one of those votes... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            to which I say "fare thee well"...

                            It was once argued that the Democrats would "lose votes" if they "went too far" on Civli Rights... it was once argued that the Democrats would "lose votes" if they "went too far on health care"... it was once argued that the Democrats would "lose votes" if they "went too far on same sex marriage"... I remain unmoved by your handwringing, just as I was umoved by the previous handwringing... doing the right thing is not without cost and at the end of the day, the Democratic Party is more involved in doing the right thing than political expediency... at least the Democratic Party I choose to be associated with...

                            If you choose to be the gun rights version of a Dixiecrat, be my guest... I certainly wouldn't want to trample on your liberty...

                            As for the style in which I choose to write, blame Herb Caen... it was he who coined the phrase "three dot journalism", indicating a random, stream of consciousness method of prose... I believe you know where to locate these last three ellispes...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:08:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I will not support nor vote for anyone that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            supports infringing on any American liberty.

                            "Civil Rights"
                            Civil Rights was an expansion of liberty.
                            Gun Control is a contraction of liberty.

                            "Dixiecrat"
                            You are the one insisting on limiting the rights of innocent Americans. Not me.

                            "random, stream of consciousness"
                            Yeah, that's a good assessment of your postings.
                            It looks like we finally found something to agree on.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:21:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And yet you persist in responding... (0+ / 0-)

                            you must find something compelling here...

                            Dixiecrats claimed their liberties were being trampled upon... opponents of the ACA claim their liberties are being trampled upon... opponents of same sex marriage claim their liberties are being trampled upon... merely claiming your liberties are being trampled upon does not make it so nor does it make you particularly right...

                            Interesting that for all your flaccid bluster about "liberties" you're now attacking me for how I choose to express the liberty guaranteed me by the 1st amendment... but don't tread on you, right?

                            Enjoy the last word... try to unclench your teeth before muttering it...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:41:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yet another similarity... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            Dixiecrats, opponents of same sex marriage, and those pushing for gun control all, wrongly, say their liberties are being trampled upon.
                            Fortunately, all it takes is the definition of the word to establish who is attempting to trample upon other's liberties:
                            "Liberty: NOUN:
                            1)a)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                               b)The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                             2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                             3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. "

                            The definitions of words do not change simply because you are uncomfortable with their meanings.

                            "you're now attacking me for how I choose to express the liberty guaranteed me by the 1st amendment"
                            I am not 'attacking' you. Perhaps it is this attitude of constantly feeling under 'attack', when you aren't, is part of the reason why you insist that innocent Americans give up their liberties for your perceived security?
                            It is your right to say whatever you think. NO one should suggest taking that away from you. However, I am free to respond.
                            And everyone else is free to vote upon it.

                            "try to unclench your teeth"
                            Try to  project less.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:52:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry... one last point... (0+ / 0-)

                            you appear to be saying that in the event the Democratic Party adopts a policy advocating more restrictions on such things as high capacity clips, certain types of ammunition and certain types of firearms and in favor of longer waiting periods, closing the gun show loophole and more extensive background checks, you won't support them or their candidates? Not to "project" but that seems to be your position... amIright?

                            In the event that's the case, all I can say is I look forward to your first post in this forum in support of a more "gun friendly" party or candidate... because it will also be your last...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:34:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Are you even paying attention to what you are (0+ / 0-)

                            writing at this point?

                            "I look forward to your first post in this forum in support of a more "gun friendly" party or candidate... because it will also be your last..."
                            Your post immediately prior to this, accused me of being hostile to the 1st amendment.
                            Irony? Hypocrisy? HILARITY!
                            Do try a semblance of consistency in the future.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:49:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The first amendment does not apply here... (0+ / 0-)

                            you are a guest of Mr. Moulitsas... per him, this forum is dedicated to electing more and better Democrats... check the FAQ...

                            Again, if you plan on advocating against Democratic candidates or in favor of Republican or 3rd party candidates in the event the Democrats sharpen their gun control position, I anxiously await your first post here..

                            Meanwhile, I urge you to seek a more effective tactic than threatening electoral armageddon should the Democrats dare to waiver from your interpretation of the constitution...

                            And with that, I offer your the final bleat in this misbegotten thread...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:10:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Correct. It doesn't. However it was YOUR statement (0+ / 0-)

                            that equated disagreement with 'attacking the 1st amendment'.
                            The very next post, you wish a person to be removed as a result of disagreement.
                            Hence, your own posts contradict each other, exposing a hypocrisy and a lack of self-awareness that is simply breathtaking.

                            Again, try to pay attention to the dreck you write.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:17:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My writing style does not violate site rules... (0+ / 0-)

                            Have a nice life...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:22:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Neither does mine. (0+ / 0-)

                            However your writing style does have a tendency to violate it's own 'logic' (I use that term loosely), and the English language.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:30:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you promote a GOP/3rd Party candidate it does.. (0+ / 0-)

                            regardless of your writing "style"...

                            You appear to be threatening to do so in the event you don't get your way... I just wanna watch it unfold...

                            See how easy that was?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:38:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I haven't promoted anybody. (0+ / 0-)

                            I have made a simple statement: "I will not vote for anyone that supports infringing on innocent American's liberties"
                            Any context you are getting from this extremely straightforward statement is simply a product  of your own 'random' imaginations.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:48:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't say you promoted anybody... (0+ / 0-)

                            did you nod off and dream that I did?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:59:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You mean other than in your very last post? (0+ / 0-)

                            "If you promote a GOP/3rd Party candidate it does.. You appear to be threatening to do so in the event you don't get your way..."

                            Please continue. I would hate to get in the middle of this debate between you, and........you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:05:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You should probably familiarize yourself with (0+ / 0-)

                            the definition of the word "if" before you go critiquing anyone else's writing style...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:08:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The word "If" doesn't appear in your accusation. (0+ / 0-)

                            That sentence was a response to site rules.

                            "You appear to be" is where your added context begins.

                            If you need anymore English to English translations over your own posts, you just let me know.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:28:43 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You mean this? (0+ / 0-)
                            you appear to be saying that in the event the Democratic Party adopts a policy advocating more restrictions on such things as high capacity clips, certain types of ammunition and certain types of firearms and in favor of longer waiting periods, closing the gun show loophole and more extensive background checks, you won't support them or their candidates? Not to "project" but that seems to be your position... amIright?
                            Or this?
                            In the event that's the case, all I can say is I look forward to your first post in this forum in support of a more "gun friendly" party or candidate... because it will also be your last...
                            Or this?
                            If you promote a GOP/3rd Party candidate it does.. regardless of your writing "style"...

                            You appear to be threatening to do so in the event you don't get your way... I just wanna watch it unfold...

                            Sorry, I'm still not seeing where I accused you of promoting anyone... you seem to be deficient in your ability to understand words/phrases like "if", "you appear to be", "seems to be" and "in the event"... apparently somehow you've projected an accusation from one or more of those words/phrases...

                            You're not very good at this, are you?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:54:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll just let you respond to....you. (0+ / 0-)

                            "If you promote a GOP/3rd Party candidate it does"-ThatSinger.

                            And does it appear that I am doing so?
                            "You appear to be threatening to do so in the event you don't get your way... I just wanna watch it unfold..."-ThatSinger

                            I guess it does appear that I am threatening to promote a GOP/3rd Party candidate. Are there any other brilliant observations you care to share with us?
                            "I didn't say you promoted anybody... "-ThatSinger---In his very next post.

                            Clearly I am not as good as you are at this. After all, you just managed to lose a debate to.......you.
                            Hats off to you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:39:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm sorry... still not seeing where I said you (0+ / 0-)

                            promoted anybody or even WOULD promote anybody. You've still not shown where I did so... try as I might, I can't see where I said you promoted anybody or even would... the closest I came to doing that was to say that if you did promote anybody other than a Democratic candidate here you'd be breaking site rules... if you took that and made the leap that I was definitively saying you had or would promote anybody, that's either a product of your fertile imagination or inability to process relatively simple English...

                            I see where I said "you appear to be threatening to do so in the event you don't get your way"... your copy/paste skills are quite impressive in that regard... bravo... that is certainly the inference I got when you angrily said you would NOT promote anyone you perceived to be denying you your unfettered 2nd amendment "liberty" (or ANY liberty for that matter but you seem rather fixated on the 2nd amendment liberties presently) which in the context of our discussion I think was reasonable for me to presume meant a Democratic candidate, nor would it be all that unreasonable to then presume you'd be supporting a different candidate... I'm not sure how much more benign and non-accusatory I could have been... "you appear to be threatening to do so"... that's my observation based on your indignant words... if I was mistaken, I'm happy to acknowledge that, but for you to pretend I said something I did not seems rather odd to me... if you meant to imply that if the Democratic Party takes a stronger stance on gun regulation you'd simply stay home, then why didn't you say so?

                            Just curious though, what would be your course of action in the event the Democratic Party does adopt more far reaching gun regulation to their platform?

                            I've "lost" nothing here but the time it's taken me to attempt reason with an obviously unreasonable person...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:33:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Clearly... (7+ / 0-)

              ...there are quite a few of us here who agree with him.

              How is this not obvious?  I mean, it's not like it takes an advanced degree to figure that one out.

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

              by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:44:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  maybe you need to prove (7+ / 0-)

            that any significant percentage of democratic gun owners opposes gun control, and would vote on that single issue.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 09:55:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am a Democrat (6+ / 0-)

              I do not even own a gun but  opposes what you consider gun control.  Because of the talk I have been seeing here and in other places on the left side of the web of late, I feel forced to vote on this single issue from now on.

              How many of us do you want to lose?

              Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

              by deedogg on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:02:57 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  what a pathetic joke (9+ / 0-)

                you're  democrat who would vote republican because of guns.
                even though you don't own one.
                so you'd vote for the people who want to repeal obamacare, deport people, take aways women's rights, destroy the water, air and planet, raise taxes on the poor, give tax breaks to the rich and about a hundred other horrific things I dont' need to list.

                if we lose people like you?
                you were never a democrat nor are.
                period.

                from this point forward, now I know when I see your name attached to a comment it's nothing but b.s.

                We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

                by Christin on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:30:44 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Glad you are willing to put party above country. (4+ / 0-)

                  I will neither support nor vote for anyone who infringes on the liberties of innocent Americans.
                  Non-negotiable.

                  And whether or not you consider me a 'real democrat' or not, I have been a strait 'democratic voter' (except for Nader in 2000).

                  Sorry bud, my vote requires a bit more than a letter at the end of the name.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:25:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  good (6+ / 0-)

                    when democrats vote for gun control, go right ahead and adocate for republicans who oppose it.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:47:35 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I never said I would "adocate" for republicans. (4+ / 0-)

                      I simply stated that I will not support anyone seeking to infringe on any of the liberties of innocent Americans.
                      Big difference.

                      However, there are a number of people that will jump from D to R over this.
                      Apparently "more and better Democrats" isn't of importance to you.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:53:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  again (7+ / 0-)

                        you have given no evidence of any signiicant number of people that will flip. and good luck on this site when you find yourself not supporting democrats.,

                        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                        by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:58:13 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  1994 (5+ / 0-)

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:01:07 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  yeah (4+ / 0-)

                            i guess someone clinging to 18th century values on gun issues would think nothing changes in 18 years. and you might consider the impact in 1994 of the insurance industry's 100 million dollar campaign against hillarycare.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:09:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, deedogg

                            I guess someone trying to infringe on the liberties of innocent Americans would think that innocent Americans would prefer voting for those that took their liberties.

                            Unsurprisingly, the evidence shows otherwise.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:19:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  once again (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Christin, bhut jolokia, luckydog

                            like most human beings, i don't consider gun ownership a liberty. for now, it is a costitutional right, thanks to republican packed courts, but it is not a liberty.

                            we will catch up to the rest ofthe developed democratic world. and you will continue to cry about your liberties, and fewer and fewer people will care. the tide of history is against you. enjoy.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:32:44 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then let us look at the definition of the word. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg, theatre goon, Otteray Scribe

                            "Liberty;NOUN
                                    1) a)The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                                        b)The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                                 2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                                 3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. "

                            It would appear that the dictionary disagrees with your assessment.

                            "the tide of history is against you. enjoy."
                            This sentence did give a belly laugh. So I guess that's a good start.
                            How I enjoy soaring irrelevancies, given by those without fact!
                            Please, do continue.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:50:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  play that game all you like (4+ / 0-)

                            it reveals you. most human beings do not consider gun ownership a liberty. you can apply that definition to anything. outside of the extremely insular gun culture, it looks ridiculous.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:53:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Its not a 'game'. It is a 'word'. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, deedogg, Otteray Scribe

                            Words have meanings.
                            Your discomfort of the definitions of them does not change their meanings.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:57:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  how embarrassing for you (5+ / 0-)

                            and we don't have the liberty to build meth labs in our homes, or drive 100 miles an hour. life is so hard.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:02:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Those aren't currently liberties. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg, theatre goon, Otteray Scribe

                            My criteria is simple. Do not infringe on the liberties that Americans currently have.

                            You disagree and are willing to run rampant on liberties that innocent Americans have today.
                            I am not.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:08:28 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  lol (5+ / 0-)

                            yeah, because nothing changes in the world. how horrible that we don't cling to everything that was in the original constitution.

                            keep parsing. it is revealing.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:11:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "nothing changes in the world" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, deedogg

                            Many things do.
                            I don't think that sacrificing the liberties of innocent Americans for perceived security should be one of them.

                            "parsing"
                            I haven't 'parsed' anything.
                            I have been consistent in my insistence of not sacrificing the liberties of innocent Americans for perceived security.
                            I was consistent with this when the right-wing pushed for warrantless wiretaps, and I remain consistent now when you push for gun control.
                            I have remained consistent. Why haven't you?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:43:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you parsed liberty (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bhut jolokia

                            first, it had an absolute value from a dictionary, then it only applied to current liberties, which is utterly arbitrary. but thanks for playing.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:57:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Hence, "current liberties" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg, theatre goon

                            Do I really have to define the word 'current' for you as well?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:23:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i know this is hard (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            BentLiberal, bhut jolokia, luckydog

                            but your dictionary definition doesn't use the word "current." so, you're not actually relying on any definitions, you're relying on your parsing of definitions to suit your agenda. which once again holds no currency beyond the insular gun culture.

                            you're convincing no one. you're actually revealing the convolutions of principle and logic necessary to maintain your position. do keep trying.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:43:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then allow me to correct my mistake.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg

                            "cur·rent adjective
                            1. passing in time; belonging to the time actually passing: the current month.
                            2. prevalent; customary: the current practice.
                            3. popular; in vogue: current fashions.
                            4. new; present; most recent: the current issue of a publication.
                            5. publicly reported or known: a rumor that is current"

                            If you need anymore English-to-English definitions, you just let me know.

                            "convolutions of principle and logic"
                            In this case 'convolutions of principle and logic' meaning 'word definitions'.

                            "you're convincing no one"
                            Ah...but you are.
                            And without a basic understanding of English.
                            Well played.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:00:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i know this is hard (4+ / 0-)

                            but you've parsed your way into perpetual stasis. no campaign finance reform, because that would infringe the current liberties of special interests and lobbyists and the wealthy. no new environmental laws or addressing climate change, because that would infringe the current liberties of polluters.

                            but please continue with your convolutions of logic and common sense. it does your cause good.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:10:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh no. After you, sir. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, deedogg

                            You are, without a doubt insisting on sacrificing liberty for perceived security.
                            You are right in feeling uncomfortable doing so.
                            I just don't think that fighting the English language is the best way of going about it.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 10:57:50 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Get over it. You are MUCH more at risk (0+ / 0-)

                            o fhaving your life ruined by an identity thief than anyone with a gun.  It's the 21st century, dude.  Get a grip.  MOST of us have moved past bang-bang to solve our problems.  Evolve already.  Please.

                            David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

                            by PsychoSavannah on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:30:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree. One is MUCH more at risk (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg, theatre goon

                            of having their life ruined by an identity thief than anyone with a gun.
                            I also don't support 'bang-bang' to solve my problems.
                            So why are you insisting on infringing on the liberties of innocent Americans?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:51:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  your patience ....i am in awe. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bhut jolokia, Laurence Lewis

                            because nothing you say will pry his gun s from his cold dead hands. nothing. ever.
                              but you tried. :-)

                            We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

                            by Christin on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 11:08:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Partially Correct. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, deedogg

                            I am unwilling to give up any American liberties for perceived security.
                            I wasn't when the right-wing infringed on the 4th Amendment for warrantless wiretaps.
                            I'm not now that you are pushing to infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

                            I am consistent.
                            Why aren't you?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:24:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Had nothing to do with guns (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nada Lemming

                            And everything to do with a (necessary) tax increase in 1993.

                            Fake history.

                          •  Bill Clinton disagrees (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg, Otteray Scribe

                            He contributed 20 House seats lost specifically because of gun control.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:09:40 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Link it, please /nt (0+ / 0-)

                            David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

                            by PsychoSavannah on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:31:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  He says it in his autobiography "My Life" (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg, theatre goon

                            I am unable to find the text online (copy-write issues, I imagine).
                            However here is a motherjones article that concurs:
                            "Months later, the Republicans, backed by the still-outraged NRA, romped the Democrats in the midterm election, gaining 54 seats and control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Clinton, for one, believed that voting for the the assault weapons ban had cost about 20 House Democrats their seats—meaning that the measure had caused a political backlash that led to a GOP the majority in the House."

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:44:46 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Anecdotes are not data (0+ / 0-)

                            The data suggested otherwise at the time.  The demographics have continued to drift against that explanation since then; gun-rights Democrats are an ever-shrinking splinter of our electoral coalition.

                          •  Gun control enjoyed far more support in 1994 (0+ / 0-)

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:31:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

                            Face it -- gun-rights enthusiasts were, for the most part, ethnic-white blue-collar males.  They've long since given up the pretense of being Democrats.

                            The whole premise of this diary is concern-trolling.  "Oh, golly, we'll desert you!"  And that will be different how?  For the most part, you've already left, and the remnant shard, while regrettable, won't make a difference any more.

                            Sorry to burst your bubble.

                          •  Speaking of 'bursting bubbles'. (0+ / 0-)

                            Support for gun control vs Support for gun rights.
                            1991: 78% (gun control) to 17% (gun rights)
                            1994: 70% to 24%
                            2002: 53% to 38%
                            2011: 43% to 44%
                            Today: 58% to 34%
                            The long term trend is unmistakeable.
                            Support for gun control is over 20 points less than it was in 1994.
                            Clinton attributes the push for gun control to losing 20 seats in the House, spearheading the Republican Revolution.

                            "the remnant shard, while regrettable, won't make a difference any more."
                            How much constitutes a 'shard'?
                            Is a 'shard' 5%?
                            With 5% of Dems jumping ship as a result of the Democratic party pushing to infringe upon their rights, Obama would have lost Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa, NH, Penn, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio & Florida.
                             Mitt would have won in a trouncing 347-191.

                            4%?
                            Obama would have lost Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nevada, Iowa, NH, Penn, Colorado, Virginia, Ohio & Florida. Mitt winning, with a mandate 331-207.

                            3%?
                            Obama would have lost Iowa, NH, Penn, Colorado, Virgina, Ohio & Florida.  Mitt rolling with a 305-233 win.

                            2%?
                            Obama would have lost Virginia, Ohio & Florida. Obama winning in a squeaker 272-266.

                            Every swing state has a large number of people who live in areas surrounded by firearms & also has very low crime.
                            You have no idea how absurd and insulting gun control sounds in areas like these.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 02:43:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  The first (3+ / 0-)

                          Democratic congressional campaign I raised money for, they raffled off a shotgun to raise money.  The Congressman-- a good Democrat-- posed for pictures holding it for the newspapers.  He had a 100% rating from the NRA.  I trust you would have worked really hard to help him get reelected.

                          If not, I do not give any weight to your words about supporting Democrats and how that effects your standing here.

                          Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

                          by deedogg on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:13:51 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  well (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Christin, bhut jolokia

                            with anecdotal evidence like that, who needs actual data?

                            and unlike some, i'm not a single issue voter. i'd have to see where he stands on a host of issues.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:51:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You said (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, FrankRose
                            good luck on this site when you find yourself not supporting democrats.,
                            Now you are trying to qualify your own support.
                            i'd have to see where he stands on a host of issues.
                            Good luck with that.  It discredits your argument.

                            As to your numbers of Democrats lost due to your acting like a fool.  I name myself.  The actual number will be how many you can insult prior to the next election.

                            Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

                            by deedogg on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:59:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I agree with you, in principle... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, deedogg, FrankRose

                            ...if not in specifics.

                            As to your numbers of Democrats lost due to your acting like a fool.  I name myself.
                            I'm not going to change my vote based on what some anonymous poster on a website says -- his argument is not persuasive, his insults are juvenile.

                            Now, were those actually running for office as Democrats to do something similar?

                            Yeah, they may well lose me as a supporter, even if I wouldn't go so far as to vote for the other side.

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

                            by theatre goon on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:27:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  true dat (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            not sure why some here have chosen to be so rude and hateful.  It supresses my willingness to work people on behalf of the party.

                            Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

                            by deedogg on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:20:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is just my opinion... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg

                            ...but I think that, for some of them, at least, they've discovered that there is currently no blowback if they attack those who happen to support the 2nd Amendment.

                            There are some who are opportunists, just venting their general ire on any target they feel can't fight back.

                            I mean, seriously, look at the number of personal attacks leveled against the RKBA group which get so many uprates that they can't possibly be hidden.

                            It's extremely disappointing, really, that so much of this community will turn a blind eye to a small minority of those who take advantage of this...

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

                            by theatre goon on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:40:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You bet your ass. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            deedogg

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:03:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  oh my gawd (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Christin, bhut jolokia

                    You would never vote, because they all have been limiting the rights of innocent Americans.  Do you read the articles here?  Read Jessilyn Raddack (sic) sometime.  

                    "I'm a Republican from the 80s". - The most "liberal" president in my lifetime.

                    by Nada Lemming on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:19:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  disappointing comment (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, annakerie, FrankRose

                  but not surprising.  You say that I am not a real Democrat, then outline a list of issues you apparently wish to throw away for the sake of being rude to me.  I have seen behavior like that before, it is what the Republicans have been doing in recent years.  See how it worked for them.

                  I guess you feel authorized to speak for the Democratic Party.  Well, I heard from two gentlemen about this very issue:  Terry McAuliffe and Howard Dean who were DNC Chairmen at the time.  They both gave insurances that the Democrats had learned their lesson and would not be pushing gun grabbing policies.  Guess times have changed and lessons have been forgotten.

                  Good luck with that.

                  I admit, I used to have a higher opinion of you than this.  Guess I was wrong.  Not the first time, will not be the last.

                  Cheers!

                  Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

                  by deedogg on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 03:06:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  That's called (4+ / 0-)

                cutting off your nose to spite your face.

                You're going to look mighty funny without a nose.

                I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                by coquiero on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:58:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  please demonstrate (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero

                that such an intelligent attitude is anything but anecdotal trivia.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:46:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  1994 (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, Tom Seaview, theatre goon

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:21:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  The Democratic Party did not adopt RKBA's (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ratcityreprobate, coquiero

            position in the 2012 election... in fact, the Democratic Party's policy on gun control did not change even slightly to reflect RKBA's position...

            How'd that election turn out again?

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:32:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Gun owners do have a say. (9+ / 0-)

      You will be sure to hear them next election.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:28:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There are gun owners--maybe a silent majority?-- (5+ / 0-)

        that support changes. Some are here and have spoken out.

        I don't think we are going back, Frank. Really I don't.

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

        by cany on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:01:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  People who rely on 'silent majorities' generally (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, deedogg

          don't do so well.
          There is no doubt that gun control will cost voters.
          Where are the Dems going to make up those loses at? What possible demographic does this court?

          Gun Control will make no difference in the South & the coasts, where both are locked down electorally.
          But look at all the swing states, especially Ohio (decided by less than 3%), Florida (less than 1%), Penn (5%), Virginia (<4%), Iowa (5.8%), Colorado (5.3%). All have higher numbers of gun owners than the coasts.

          Gun Control will create single issue voters. And in this case, the single-issuer will only vote one way. There is no possible political demographic it will gain.
          This is what happened in 1994 when the polling was far more favorable to gun control.

          You may want to take into account that you live in So. Cali, and you are on Daily Kos. Your viewpoint is skewed. I am surrounded by people with guns & I live in a very low crime area, quite frankly you have no idea how absurd & insulting gun control sounds to anyone in areas like this.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:07:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  One point for you (5+ / 0-)

      "You see it should have been the gun owners pushing for these controls instead waiting until they had no say any longer."

      Actually, yes. Imagine if the people with the relevant knowledge had built laws based on, for example, the safety rules at their local gun range (hint: most of what you see on TV would get someone ejected). Imagine if their national organization had retained some credibility by endorsing harmless things.

  •  We Often Don't Trust People On Opposite Sides (7+ / 0-)

    of an issue. It's hardly only arms.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:34:19 PM PST

  •  Most of the calm reasonable people have given up. (22+ / 0-)

    Because they cant' be heard over the nuts on both sides of the issue.

    Total confiscation of guns isn't going to happen.  Ever.  Calling for it is idiotic, as is fearing it will happen.  Guns are here to stay.

    Total deregulation of guns isn't going to happen.  Ever.  Calling to give up on regulating them is idiotic, as is fearing it will happen.  Regulation is here to stay.

    One side has a certain amount of people all for ending the 2nd amendment.   The other side has a certain amount of people that acts like the words "well regulated" in the 2nd don't exist, and think guns should be less regulated than motor vehicles, drugs, or fireworks.  

    Once again the calm, sane, rational people are drowned out in an ocean of insanity, and thus (and I've been saying this for a month), nothing will happen regarding the issue.  The nuts (on both sides of the issue) have made damn sure of that.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:39:22 PM PST

    •  It is probably worth mentioning that... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino

      ...these two quotes are not the same thing.

      Total confiscation of guns isn't going to happen.  Ever.
      One side has a certain amount of people all for ending the 2nd amendment.
      For example, we don't have a constitutional amendment protecting cars, but while cars are certainly regulated, many, many cars have still not been confiscated, even after all these years without a constitutional amendment to be twisted into knots by the likes of Scalia.

      Some see the repeal of the anacronism called the 2nd Amendment as a means for promoting rational discussion of reasonable regulations unhampered by Scalia's extreme constitutional interpretations.

      Repealing the 2nd Amendment might rightly be called difficult, perhaps even impossible if one takes a more pessimistic view, but it can hardly be called extreme.

      It wouldn't ban a single gun, in fact. Not even the AR-15 that shows up in the news so often these days.

    •  The weirdos outshout the calm reasonable ones (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eyesbright, coquiero

      Even in today's America, though, I cling to the hope that the calm reasonable ones still outnumber the weirdos.

  •  you are not alone, I have been working to blue (21+ / 0-)

    Arizona for years, volunteering, voting and talking, talking to everyone I could buttonhole and every person wants to know what about guns......  For years I have been telling them they were paranoid, no one would attempt such things anymore after the years of evidence showing no correlation in this country with increasing gun ownership and concealed carry and violent crime....

    It took one probably insane kid and a whole bunch of die hard gun controllers who believe ,no matter what the evidence shows, that crime is rising and violence is  worse now than ever to wipe out all that work. At least they say they believe it (often while wishing extreme violence on gun owners).

    I will still vote Dem and fight from the inside but most who trusted me as their go to for politics no longer will....

    And I certainly dont trust any of those you mention except for the small group mentioned by name. And will do my damndest to primary any who overreach, using this tragedy to further their pet goals.

    Whether serious control is enacted or not, the damage to our party is done. All we can hope is that real common sense wins in the end and we work on the causes of violence, not the tool used. Unfortunately I am not optimistic but one good thing, this site is not representative of mainstream Democrats

    And for all those screaming to ban all semi autos and everything that can hold more than a few cartridges while at the same time insulting me, my friends, all gun owners, their dogs and their entire lineage,  thanks for giving the repubs the house again in 14.... Hopefully we can mitigate the damage enough to keep the Presidency and Senate in 16 though an overreaching EO could kill that too...Though I think the President is smarter than that thank Ghu......

    At least Obamacare comes fully on line in 14, that gives it a couple years to prove itself and if it works well, it will be harder for the repubs to repeal it even if they end up with all 3.

    Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
    I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
    Emiliano Zapata

    by buddabelly on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:44:52 PM PST

    •  Good comment BB (12+ / 0-)

      Really need the health care. I like the Democratic view of taxes and labor too. Lot of good things could be damaged and I know at the end of the day any restrictions will be ineffectual at stopping some nut case from shooting up some school.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:02:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is very much, I think, how many (10+ / 0-)

      have felt here in regard to many issues that made zero sense to them for the kinds of reasons you are relaying.

      Here's a happy story about ObamaCare that's 100% real:

      I have had $700 monthly insurance, out of pocket, for years, with the deductible going up and up. My insurance company was holding me hostage, basically: I couldn't drop their plan because I had so many pre-existing conditions, including cancer. Their services were essentially useless, yet I feared dropping them because what if I needed another surgery due to a relapse or complications? Plus, I've had a few other ongoing medical problems to boot.

      I used to file to go on my ex-husband's insurance yearly "in-case." Nope. Denied for pre-existing conditions every time. I've had how many surgeries? Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth, easily.

      Now, because of ObamaCare repealing the pre-existing conditions clause, this past year, I applied to go onto my current husband's health insurance plan. This is the same plan my ex-husband was on. It's absolutely comparable with my last plan too except it's under $100 a month AND has an incredibly low deductible and low copays.

      About a week ago, I got very sick and had to go to the doctor and was able to afford it. Good thing the health insurance kicked in on the 1st: I'm slated for a consult for two minor surgeries that I've needed for years, each related to a different medical issue, plus got blood work done some of which hadn't been done in over ten years due to the cost.  The doctor I saw was totally confused too about why I hadn't seen a doctor about either main issue -- I just said, "My insurance didn't cover it, so I couldn't." She literally didn't get it. But the one time I'd seen a specialist, it cost a month's pay, and then they wanted more tests so I left it alone. And the last time I had surgery, the deductible alone ($3K for that) drained my savings completely.

      Now, just a small copay. Granted, I don't much like the new insurance otherwise! I really don't. Maybe we'll switch again too. But whoa, at least one condition could wind up requiring emergency surgery if not taken care of eventually. Which it wouldn't have been.

      Thank you ObamaCare. Seriously. From the heart. Here's some good news on this front.

      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 Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:10:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The house was going to stay in GOP hands in (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock

      2014 anyway. You know that.

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

      by cany on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:20:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Attention gun owners: (13+ / 0-)

    I don't trust you!

    So far I have not killed any of you.  I have not invaded your shopping malls or your elementary schools with my guns.  I have done zero, nada, zip to you.

    Unless you want to count the $250 I sent today to
    COALITION TO STOP GUN VIOLENCE

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:56:22 PM PST

  •  Why do you have a problem (12+ / 0-)

    with only the police and the military having firearms?

    Tyranny or some crazy tinfoil shit like that?

    Because whenever I hear one of your ilk talk this:

    "I need a gun because otherwise only thugs and gangsters will have them."

    to me sounds like:

    "I'm a vigilante."

    OR,

    "I need a gun because otherwise only the police and the military will have them."

    to me sounds like:

    "I need my guns to fight the government."

    OR,

    "I need my guns just because I can have them under the second amendment."

    to me sounds like:

    "I just like having em."

    None of these are justifications with any kind of serious merit. None of them.

    My answers:

    1. The answer to thugs and gangsters is laws and law enforcement.

    2. The answer to preventing government tyranny is democracy, transparency, and elections.

    3. Get a new hobby.

  •  Thanks, and yes... (5+ / 0-)

    I try to be thoughtful. I am still not sure what I think the best solution is which will work for all, but I'm willing to hear many sides of this indeed, and I see no reason -- none -- to dismiss anyone's point of view.

    I think much of the end of your post is very reflective about what I was talking about earlier in regard to some people having a deep mistrust of law enforcement, from the Left, and generally being wary of injustice in regard to civil rights, civil liberties, and so forth due to political regard for the abuses perpetuated by the MIC, the PIC, and so on which we do focus on a great deal on this site and from the Left side of politics, and which are very distinct from those on the Right side of politics, where a "mistrust of Government" is based more on the notion of a desire for freedom from Government more than a sense that Government hasn't enacted enough social justice. These are really opposite positions, no less, but they may seem to have similar outcomes of feeling like "I don't trust our justice system." At least I think many on the Left do fundamentally agree with this, particularly on the Farther Left. On the right, it's not the justice system which is in question: it's the Government as a whole.

    I would have loved to talk about this with the old CIJK group :/  

    I also think that many Progressives may have fairly neutral views about the justice system which is why social justice issues have sometimes taken a backseat to economic issues or electoral issues (even though they're obviously all intertwined).

    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 Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:46:29 PM PST

  •  I've stopped trying to convince (8+ / 0-)

    The current climate is too heated for any kind of respectful argument of the topic. It's like the abortion issue in the late 1980s.

    I'm settled on organizing instead.

    ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
    My Blog
    My wife's woodblock prints

    by maxomai on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:47:47 PM PST

  •  Well yeah. But ... (6+ / 0-)

    You do know that there's not going to be any meaningful gun control, don't you? In America, guns rule.

    A 10-round magazine limit and some "assault rifle" limitations are the absolute maximum that could happen. Maybe more background checks. Fine.  Big deal.

    They're ranting because their cause is hopeless and they know it. They need sympathy, not argument.

    Personally, I would prefer to live in a country where no gun can hold more than 6 rounds, and where no civilian has a semiautomatic weapon.

    Never, ever happen here.

    GOP: Bankers, billionaires, suckers, and dupes.

    by gzodik on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:57:06 PM PST

  •  Meanwhile... (8+ / 0-)

    ...while Kossacks cry out for total gun confiscation, the NRA has signed up 100,000+ new members since Newtown.
    That's three million dollars, in a few weeks, virtually all of which will be used to elect Republicans. Keep typing: there are a lot more new NRA members out there, and you're recruiting them.

    Keep fantasizing, folks. Keep tolerating a site where a front-pager advocates drone strikes against gun owners:

    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.
    DKos directly advocating for a violent government that would do such a thing is (a) exactly what the NRA is warning their membership about and (b) a good reason to question brooklynbadboy's sanity... and basic humanity.

    These laughable calls for a Supreme Court that will strike down Heller? They're even funnier, because all the running gun-grabbing masturbation on this site will leave us a Supreme Court that will strike down Rowe v. Wade and more.

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

    by Tom Seaview on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:50:25 PM PST

  •  Query to the anti-gun side (5+ / 0-)

    Queries, actually.

    1) Do you think that you are in perfect ideological agreement with all other liberals, specifically those here on DKos, on matters other than firearms?
    2) Of the gun owners and gun ownership supporters here on DKos, do you believe that all or virtually all of them have never used a gun in a criminal manner?

    3) Do you want to bring the full force of the government to bear on any of the non-criminals in question 1 because they are in ideological disagreement with you?
    4) Do you want to bring the full force of the government to bear on any of the non-criminals in question 2 because they are in ideological disagreement with you?

    5) If your answers to question 4 and 5 are different, explain this difference in logical and morally consistent terms, keeping in mind that neither group of people contain criminals and both groups are liberals.

    •  I'm not exactly anti-gun 100% (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shamash, oldpunk, coquiero

      but look at it in the context of, say, Voter ID.  

      Here's the scene:  Voting is a right, guaranteed by the constitution, the 15th and the 19th amendments.  A pretty strong right, I'd say.

      Now, forget about the GOP partisan voter ID scam of recent years--I'm not talking about that--but consider a legitimate implementation of a national (and free of charge) voter ID program over, say, 2 years, to allow everyone to gain access to the necessary documentation, and with legitimate drives in lower-income/minority communities to make sure that happens.

      Basically, it is effectively a program that could fundamentally STRENGTHEN our basic right to vote--but one that, if an ID were not to be obtained, would be denied.  So there are some hoops to jump through.

      Is an ID an imposition on those 99.999999% of us who are going to legally vote?  A bit, maybe--but we already have to register, right?  But basically, that registration, and the hypothetical ID, are really to protect those 99.9999999% of us from the possible actions of a minute few.

      I see gun regulation in a similar vein.

      That is not a direct answer to your question, but I hope the analogy is clear.

      •  Not bad (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, bevenro

        Thanks for the clear and non-confrontational answer. For my part, I would not object to a national-level "gun permit" card. Perhaps issued by localities, but according to national guidelines. It would not register any guns, but would be a way to identify someone as legitimately allowed to buy a gun, just like your voter ID lets people know you are allowed to vote or your driver's license shows you are allowed to drive or (hopefully) a marriage license shows you are married, regardless of the state the license was issued in.

        This would be an improvement on the private sale front. Legitimate sellers would be likely to ask to see a buyers ID just like a legitimate bar asks to see your ID for alcohol.

        The trick is that like Republicans have used voter ID as a tool to disenfranchise people, gun owners would rightfully be concerned that such an ID would be used to disenfranchise them. It could be implemented in a fair way so that it does not (just like voter ID), but the attitudes of many anti-gunners that oldpunk has highlighted reduce the trust.

        If liberals who are interested in improved gun safety would act differently than conservatives act towards minority voters, homosexuals and people who are pro-choice, it would help. None of the above, despite conservative protestations, are actually a threat to the fabric of our nation. Legitimate gun owners, the same.

  •  The bottom line is this: Something will change. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    S F Hippie

    Not enough for some, way too much for others. Then we will move on and in the future, the issue will come up again.

    We won't be making the decisions, anyway, right?

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

    by cany on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:14:48 PM PST

  •  This is a left-wing site. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oldpunk

    We should have a left-wing position on this issue. All that guarantees in the end is that the debate is joined. If DKos didn't advocate for gun control, a left-wing, progressive, activist website, who the hell in the world would?

    If you don't agree with the gun control position, just stay out of the gun diaries. Stay away from the site altogether during times where gun control is the subject of debate, like now. If you still agree with us on most issues, then we're still open with working with you on every other issue.

    Truth of the matter is, I would be fine with something very close to just freezing gun laws as they are now. No AWB.

    But that wasn't what was happening when sites like DKos weren't taking a stand on guns.

    The pro-gun side was rolling, rolling, rolling, towards an unknown and unprecedented extremist future.

    Every month a new gun restriction is repealed or overturned by the courts.

    Every month the people at the National Sports Shooting Foundation in Newtown compiled the numbers: Background checks up 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent. Month in, month out, year in, year out. Our silence didn't slow this down.

    This was during a time when Democrats were quiet on guns. This was during a time when Obama, in his first term, didn't put forward a single gun control bill, and actually loosened restrictions by allowing guns in national parks. As of the day before Sandy Hook, there was no sign of a slow-down in any of this. When pro-gun advocates are questioned, the only answer is they want more guns. There's no limit to how far their logic goes. The logic of more guns = less crime implies that they won't stop until every restriction on guns that has ever been enacted is repealed, and every American has been convinced to carry a gun. Repeal the gun control law of 1968. Repeal the machine gun ban of 1934. Meanwhile we are just supposed to accept these massacres on a regular basis as we march towards utopia.

    "It is, it seems, politically impossible to organize expenditure on the scale necessary to prove my case -- except in war conditions."--JM Keynes, 1940

    by randomfacts on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:39:07 PM PST

    •  Alot of us leftwing Kossacks don't believe that (7+ / 0-)

      This is an issue that truly divides us here. There are some other issues like Israel/Palestine that do the same. This issue might be similar to how abortion or religion, to name a few, fragment the right at times.  We can agree on most things and disagree from time to time on certain issues. I don't want to go the teabag purist route some on the right have taken.  Democrats specifically, need to be a big tent party to be successful. It only takes a few percent to change the landscape of our government and we need to be fighting for those votes.  

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

      by Texas Lefty on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:54:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I did not mean to Rec this comment, & now (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      I can't undo it. I have a touchscreen smartphone, & I was trying to hit "reply" & accidentally hit rec.

      I don't agree that a progressive, left-wing site leads by telling other progressives who disagree on this issue to shut up or leave.  

      Gun control is a complex issue, which in rural areas bears strongly on whether some families will will have enough protein for the year.  

      If a progressive site like Dkos can't have a thoughtful, respectful discussion of this kind of complex, difficult issue, then who can?

      Pe'Sla isn't safe until the loan is paid off. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe could use some help with that.

      by Kay Observer2 on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 01:17:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wrong (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon

      on so many levels It is hard to know where to start.

      How about:  this is not a Left/Right issue.  I disagree with you and YOU do not get to tell me to stay out of diaries or off the site while you are discussing your wrong position.

      I do give you credit for at least understanding that nothing will happen.

      Hey! glad to see you. Hope you are doing well.

      by deedogg on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 05:33:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes there is no trust these days. (3+ / 0-)

    Not for the NRA, who represents gun makers and cares not one wit for what the majority of gun owners think or want.

    Not for a big part of the gun manufacturers who seem to want a wild wild west world where everyone owns a gun and carries it everywhere.

    Not for the gun crazies who think they need an AKM with a hundred round drum magazine to hunt with?

    And not for the folks that dream up fantasy rebuttals where they have a desperate need for an AR-15 with a half a dozen thirty round magazines to protect themselves.

    The real truth of the matter is the US is the ONLY modern industrialized country where we unfortunately allow any semi same adult person to buy high powered military grade weapons and high capacity ammo magazines with very few restrictions.  

    50 million Americans own guns which means 80 PERCENT OF AMERICANS DON'T.

    Yes there is a trust problem, and it's gun owners and gun supporters not being trusted by those who don't own guns. Mainly due to the very vocal gun crazies that make the news every day (see youtube Tennessee crazy dude video) and every time the NRA opens it's mouth.

    Yes, it seems the truth does have a Liberal bias, So does reality it seems. And the Republicans will never change that, because they believe money makes reality.

    by Nebraskablue on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:25:11 PM PST

  •  Another "excellent" diary on how important it is (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, mskitty, a2nite, MarkC

    for everyone to have access to guns, while the rest of the world recoils in horror at twenty little six year old kids being slaughtered.

    Do I blame the NRA and those who have blocked, at every turn, even the most reasonable gun control laws?

    Yes. Yes, GODDDAMN right I do.  As far as I'm concerned the NRA is accessory to murder at so many turns. Full stop.

    I want to hear what you and the NRA can do to STOP THE CARNAGE, not how we offend you with our disgust at your positions.

    I need you to picture this:

    I assume since you are "pro gun" that you now what it is like to shoot something. (Or maybe not?)

    I do, I've shot things, grew up hunting, spent time in the military where I was trained and would have killed other human beings under the rules of war.   Never killed a person.  Shot squirrels and other things I won't mention, some just for "sport" I'm not happy to admit.

    Often had to shoot things more than once.  I don't hunt anymore.  There is far too much death out there, and it stalks and takes us all eventually... but usually not six year old kids, not like this.

    On walking into an elementary school classroom as an adult what strikes me is that it's just small. After years in college, and working at one, it really is a shock at how intimate those classrooms are for an adult sized person.  Little desks, little rooms, little human beings.

    But anyway... an insane person with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammo, walked into a little classroom full of six year olds, who almost certainly started to scream, and cry, and probably wet their pants (I would have) and cry for mommy, as the shooter put his his M4 up to his shoulder and the rounds cracked off.

     -Snap- -snap- -snap- .  So loud that it hurts an adults ears outside, much less in a room that small.  For a six year old it would have felt like their ears were going to bleed... just from the noise.

    And the room fills with the smell of gunfire, sound of screams, the sickly sweet smell of blood, feces, vomit, gut contents leaking out,  the sound of crying and whimpering.... I wish Wayne La Pierre had to help take out the bodies and clean up a bit afterwards.  As it is a second group of casualties, the first responders, will have to live with that image seared into their brains until they die.

    ...and if you hunt... you know what happened next.  Because almost no one survived. There are so many things that don't die when you just shoot them once, even with what should be devastating trauma, devastating wounds, from powerful bullets.  Life can be tough (ask Gabby Giffords) at least a few, out of twenty, little six year old human beings,  should have survived.

    So our shooter, who up until he started killing was just exercising his con-sti-too-shun-ull second amendment rights, MUST have, very methodically, put another bullet in them.   Maybe he just picked out the ones still whimpering, crying for mommy, struggling to breath against a collapse lung and sucking chest wound... maybe that.   But I bet he just picked out every tiny skull or chest and put another round in each of them.

    Please don't criticize me or others for struggling to find ways to make this kind of shit stop, by any means necessary.  (Out of your cold dead hands? That can be arranged.)

    Tell me what you can do to help make it stop.  And no, more guns does not work, unless you like places like Somalia and northern Mexico.

  •  attention gun owners: I don't trust you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, mskitty, a2nite

    Why shouldn't I be afraid of people who can kill me?  Why shouldn't I want to take that power away from you?

    Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

    by Visceral on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:06:55 PM PST

  •  Questions for you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MarkC

    Are you a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution?

    Do you own any arms more advanced than a musket?

    Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

    by AppleP on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 02:59:21 AM PST

  •  Do you own or are you defending 30 round magazines (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, MarkC

    If you are, you are on your own.  

    We are gun owners.   We have semi automatics, my 22 rifle for one.   But automatics, 30 round magazines, kits to militarize a rifle, etc., nobody needs them.  If somebody wants one of those, let them join the marines.  

    I don't know if banning will work.  There are statistics that it did cut down on gun violence while the ban was in effect.  However, banning did nothing to stop alcohol or drugs.    All I know is that the world is full of bat ship crazy people, and I don't want them armed.

    What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

    by dkmich on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 05:13:47 AM PST

    •  How many? (4+ / 0-)

      How many people is an acceptable number to be able to shoot before having to reload? One? Three? Five? Ten?  If the answer is "No level of shooting people is acceptable" then you are admitting that the problem is not the capacity of the weapon but is instead the intent of the person holding it.

      If you are the first target of a shooter, your personal tragedy is not lessened just because the shooter had to reload after killing you. Going after magazine size is not gun control, it is handicapping, giving fleeing victims a better head start or a sporting chance of tackling the shooter while they reload. I just do not buy that as good justification for a law.

      If your goal is the reduction of gun violence, magazine restrictions strike me as morally reprehensible, like saying "the first ten victims are freebies, after that we are going to clamp down on you." Do you think after seeing news report where only ten people were shot that you would think "Boy I'm glad we passed that high-capacity magazine ban and he was only able to shoot ten people. If he'd shot eleven people, that would have been a tragedy."

      Large capacity semi-auto weapons have been readily available to civilians for over 80 years, and for most of that 80 years were more readily available than they are now. Since the historical past is not littered with things like the recent gun violence, doesn't that indicate that presence of the large magazines is not the core problem?

      Going after the magazine capacity is like England banning the "wearing of the green" in 19th century Ireland. It is a superficial solution that ignores the underlying problem.

      •  You do make valid points, but.............. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shamash

        I still go back to "what do you need it for"?

        My 22 holds 12 or 13 shots, but.............  it has to be reloaded by putting the bullets one by one into a long tube which resides in the stock.   You have to remove the tube, load it, and put it back in before you can resume firing.    With clips, it's a zip.

        While it can be interpreted that the first 10 dead are "OK", it can also be interpreted that no law is full proof.   So when someone loses it, the damage can at least be mitigated by limiting the size of magazines and clips .  It is no Plan A, but it isn't a bad Plan B.  

        I repeat.   Why do you need large clips for big caliber guns anyway?    Skeet is with a shot gun.   Hunting is with a sporting rifle - not an assault weapon.   If you aren't certain you can hit and kill the prey with one shot, you shouldn't be shooting at it anyway.  

        What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

        by dkmich on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:16:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A couple of responses to that one... (5+ / 0-)

          Firstly, rights are not predicated on need.

          One could make the same argument as yours about, oh, say letters to the editor.  Why does one need to be able to send more than one in a week?  Or to use more than a certain number of characters -- all Free Speech should be limited to Twitter!

          That seems ludicrous, and that's because it is -- yet you argue to put a similar, pointless restriction on another Constitutionally-protected Civil Right.

          Secondly, I use twenty- or thirty-round magazines often, when hunting* feral hogs.  The largest group (what does one call a grouping of hogs, anyway?) I ever saw, I lost count at twenty-five -- there were at least half again as many as that.

          So, yeah, when trying to lower the number of a damaging, invasive, non-indigenous species with no natural predators, I often "need" as many rounds available as possible.

          So, two answers -- need is irrelevant, and there are uses for them, even if you don't personally know of them or have that "need" yourself.

          Just a different viewpoint, since you asked.

          *"hunting," in this context, is probably not accurate -- more like trying to limit the damage caused by these animals, "pest control" would probably be more accurate

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

          by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:26:22 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Rights? That sounds sort of right wing. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MarkC

            You can have a gun, but you can't have a tank or a rocket launcher.  Regulating guns is not depriving you of your right to own a gun, it is turning you into the well regulated militia you claim as the constitutional basis for your right to gun ownership.  

            Animals are entitled to humane treatment - even pesty ones and ones being euthanized.    If your state has a problem with feral hogs, let them handle it the same way states with too many deer handle theirs.    You don't get to go in and slaughter a freaking passel of pigs with a spray of generally aimed bullets.   That's terrible.

            Need is irrelevant and so is want.   We already have a militia, and it's called the national guard.  If the government decides to "come and get you", I don't care how many assault rifles you have, you're dead meat.  No matter how mean and tough someone is, there is always someone meaner and tougher.  I think the military qualifies as meaner and tougher, and the way the cops have been militarized, they do too.

            What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

            by dkmich on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:54:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Rights" sounds right-wing??? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rockhound, KVoimakas, FrankRose

              At that point, we clearly have nothing further to discuss.

              The rest of your "argument" is no better -- you refuse to acknowledge the reality that many of us live in.

              Have a lovely day.

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

              by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 08:18:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your reality might not be real or right. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MarkC

                Just because it is yours only makes it real - to you.    People who hear voices in their heads telling them to kill their spouse have their own reality too, but it is a delusion.  

                You cannot slaughter animals in a hail of bullets - and you have no right to that anymore than you have a right to arm yourself with nuclear bomb.

                 

                What we need is a Democrat in the White House.

                by dkmich on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:11:48 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And yet... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, KVoimakas

                  ...you continue to show that you simply have no idea what you're talking about -- and now you're adding a red herring in the attempt to attribute delusional thinking to those who disagree with you.

                  So... yeah... I'll take my reality over your fantasy-world any day.

                  Thanks for playing, though.

                  My advice?  Educate yourself on the issue before you go on about it -- you look very, very foolish, making such uninformed assertions.

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

                  by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:42:29 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  oddly enough it is a Sounder of hogs........... (4+ / 0-)

            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
            Emiliano Zapata

            by buddabelly on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 10:44:06 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  A "passel" of hogs or boars (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, rockhound

            I looked it up out of curiosity! Really interesting question.

            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 Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:39:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hey, thanks for this comment -- I knew nothing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            theatre goon, rockhound

            about wild boar hunting at all, although I know that they're epidemic in some areas of the U.S., so I looked it up and found this article, which says wild boar is one of the very best deals for hunters in all of California, like $8 for 5 boars. Also, an interesting and well written article!

            http://www.jackboulware.com/...

            Granted, I'm not a meat eater, but I must say I support hunting over eating meat that is... sanitized so you don't have to see it die-kind-of-thing. That's a very common view amongst  lots of vegetarians I know, actually: if you can kill it, you can eat it.

            The article is fascinating; I've never even seen a wild boar in California and must be looking in the wrong places because we have signs for them in our parks everywhere. I'm totally on a mission to find some now since I've seen about everything else from mountain lion to elks to a great white shark, coyotes and bob cats, whales, seals, sea lions, otters, wild turkeys, deer, and all the usual small critters like racoons and opposums. Never a boar!

            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 Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 11:52:59 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  There are no limits in Texas. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              mahakali overdrive, rockhound

              It's not even considered "hunting," as I pointed out.

              Not only will they destroy crops and damage the pature (they will dig up roots, leaving huge holes in the ground), they will eat newborn calves and kill the cow trying to deliver them.

              By some accounts, some sounders (thanks again, bb!) can contain upwards of 100 animals in some areas.  They've been doing aerial cullings, poisoning (which I absolutely disagree with) and even considered offering bounties for killing them -- not a one of which has worked.

              From the local yarning, the story is that they were endemic like this back in the fifties, but they eventually were thinned out by their own strain of smallpox.

              Whether that's true or not, of course, is not for me to say.  Sounds plausible, but I've never been able to confirm it one way or t'other.

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

              by theatre goon on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:03:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I wonder if they're here for the same (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                rockhound, theatre goon

                sorts of reasons... we are dairy country and filled with cows on all of the hillsides; maybe they're after the newborns. The park warnings always sound very intense. We have so many animals here (I forgot to mention rattlesnakes and, a little ways off, black bears in large supply).

                Out here, they regulate hunting pretty strictly, I think.

                They regulate everything pretty strictly, actually. It's what I don't much like about California. I remember hearing the weirdest court case once when I went in for some parking ticket. You always have to wait like four hours and hear all sorts of cases first. This one went on and on and was about a man who had foraged more mushrooms than permissible by law. He had no idea there was a limit. I mean, sorry, but mushrooms aren't exactly in short supply here, really and truly, and who even knows all of these random laws? This guy wasn't a professional or anything and went out to pick some mushrooms to eat, plain and simple, and when he declared them at whatever spot he had to with the park ranger, they cited him. He was miffed about that and said it incentivized people to lie (he had a point about that too).

                I've heard California referred to as a "nanny state" by folks from abroad commenting on how much policing there is here. It's striking all around. You cross the state line and will see more CHP, for example, than on a whole cross-country trip -- at least we did once driving across the whole U.S. and then into California, and by Barstow, we'd seen like ten cops and were scratching our heads.

                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 Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 12:19:23 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Need? (4+ / 0-)

          Why does "need" factor into it? Search for my previous comment in this thread on need for more thoughts on it. Your subjective impression of my lack of "need" to own a magazine of X capacity is no more and no less valid than a conservative Republican's subjective impression of a woman's "need" to an abortion.

          Allowing "need" as a criteria means that you are accepting that someone else who disapproves of you can use "need" as the basis for restricting conduct or possessions that you consider legal, moral, a fundamental right, or some combination of the above.

          We need to restrict abortion
          We need to limit voting to people with "proper ID"
          We need to keep same-sex couples from marrying

          I just don't buy the logic of "someone might do something wrong someday, therefore we are justified in prior restraint on what you buy." Someone might get drunk and pile their car into a busload of nuns and orphans, but this is not a justification to restrict me to buying wine by the glass.

          I don't have a personal "need" for high-capacity magazines, I just do not get a burr under my saddle if someone else wants one.

      •  not a convincing argument (0+ / 0-)

        You write:

        How many people is an acceptable number to be able to shoot before having to reload? One? Three? Five? Ten?  If the answer is "No level of shooting people is acceptable" then you are admitting that the problem is not the capacity of the weapon but is instead the intent of the person holding it.

        No level of drunk driving is acceptable, but we still assign a blood alcohol cutoff for legal driving. It is called balancing imperatives. These absolutists gun rights arguments are what have to go if you want to make inroads. I applaud dkmich for common sense.

        "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

        by MarkC on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:18:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Argument fail (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, rockhound

          Your argument is that we do not condone drunk drivers, who are the people misusing the alcohol. We do not keep everyone else from buying alcohol because of drunk drivers.

          Which is pretty much what I just said about high-capacity magazines.

          If you are going to make an argument against me, don't make one that agrees with my premise.

          •  Not my point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah

            You argued that since no level of shooting people is acceptable means the problem is the person's intent. But my point is that at a certain point you need to come up with an arbitrary cutoff that limits people, since you can't say no drinking, period. I'd like to say no shooting, period, but I can't. So some realistic balance between assuring people can shoot and making sure people do it safely means an arbitrary cutoff.

            You're argument is that no, since any alcohol impairs people, the problem is intent and you can't have an arbitrary cutoff. But I'm pointing out that isn't how we do policy.

            Get it yet?

            "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

            by MarkC on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 08:07:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Still not clear (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, rockhound
              So some realistic balance between assuring people can shoot and making sure people do it safely means an arbitrary cutoff.
              Speaking as a shooter, I am pretty confident that the only way the amount of ammunition in a weapon would affect my ability to "do it safely" is if it made the weapon too heavy to hold.

              If you are doing something safely, the arbitrary cutoff does not apply. I can carry as much alcohol as I want in a car. Neither does the law physically prohibit me from consuming an excess amount of alcohol at home, or buying it in large containers. The law only penalizes me and me alone if I misuse it.

              In the wake of a drunk driving fatality, I have yet to see a state or locality announce a ban on "high-capacity pitchers" of draft beer at restaurants or banning the sale of 40's at the local convenience store.

              The speed limit is less than the speed capacity of my car. The amount of weight I can load in a commercial vehicle is more than its rated capacity. A big bottle of cough syrup is not substance abuse if I follow the dosage directions.

              So yes, punishing the misconduct and not the safe and legal users is how we do policy.

              The "arbitrary cutoff" you mention for alcohol exists because you can drink a little and not be impaired. You cannot shoot someone "a little" and have them not be harmed. So, unless you are making the point that some shooting of innocent people is acceptable, then you do have an absolutist view on the matter.

              So, either you must engage in Prohibition or deal with the problem of the misusers, both of which are capable of preventing a shooting rather than mitigating it. Anything else is just handicapping.

              Get it yet?

  •  Pretty sure most robberies occur in states with (0+ / 0-)

    laws against robbery, so obviously those laws don't work & we might as well legalize robbery. I mean, why have any laws? Someone is bound to break them.

    Who cares what banks may fail in Yonkers. Long as you've got a kiss that conquers.

    by rasbobbo on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 07:52:13 AM PST

  •  It needs to be said that one of the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, theatre goon

    reasons a democracy needs the second amendment is that it does actually help provide for a strong military,and hence a strong national defense. One of the chronic problems of military conflicts is that often victory goes to the side that has the best marksmanship, not the best equipment and leaders.  
       On a tour of the Revolutionary War Trail in Boston, our group was told by a retired Army Sergeant Major of just how ineffective musket fire was for both the British and patriot sides. You had to be real close to make a difference. Well made weapons from Pennsylvania and marksmen from the backwoods colonies made a very big difference in the fight for Independence. Lafayette's letters to fellow aristocrats in France helped get some more accurate weapons over to the colonies.
        In the Civil War, even the naval battle of the Monitor and Merrimac was influenced by how accurate the rifle fire was of sharpshooters from the shore pinning down the sailors of the ironclads trying to make topside adjustments during battle, to make the turrets turn after being hit by the other gunboat. This naval battle ushered in the age of the more modern navies, going to the heavier gunship models vs. the sailing ships.
        In WWI, WWII, and subsequent US involved conflicts, there were plenty of instances where accurate rifle fire made a critical difference. One sniper has the potential of pinning down an entire battalion, and if done at the proper time, can help turn the tide of battle.
          On the other side, the medical profession has issued reports on the effects of gun violence on public health in this country, and there is no doubt that it is a public health problem.
         There is a balance to be struck, so that we can maintain a healthy democracy. There are real enemies of this country out there, who we need to be able to defend ourselves against. And there are real problems in our society, partly due to poverty, discrimination, drug abuse, lack of opportunity, and so on. IMO, a progressive agenda will get the country to a better balance than will the Republican agenda, which seems to rely on the idea that one can succeed if one "only works hard, and picks themselves up by their bootstraps."

  •  It's a well-written diary... (0+ / 0-)

    (coherently expressing a point of view, and stating valid concerns) but, sadly, I don't think it will either lead to fruitful discussion or help clear up the toxic atmosphere that has of late descended upon this side.

    In the absence of effective, self-correcting two-tier moderation (community effort plus admin effort), the tone will be dictated by small but vocal minorities of contributors. The very doubts that reasonable people have when discussing complex issues (and reasonable people holding a variety of vieware in majority here!) are a handicap in any discourse with the extreme, shrill, and strident.

  •  Gee, we have to earn your trust? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah

    There is something very precious about a diarist that not only generalizes about everyone that disagrees with him or her, but then pivots into a persecution narrative that is completely at odds with the history of the utter lack of gun control discussion at this site until Newtown.

    As someone who doesn't yet support repealing the Second Amendment, but who does support gun control, I welcome the idea of diaries that are not absolutist about the nature of gun rights. One that acknowledges that the NRA's purpose is to sell more guns, and that owners of guns have different needs from that group. But too often what we see is evidence of a subculture that for so long has operated in its own NRA-scripted world that people are literally unable to separate their own interests from that of a trade group. If I saw a DailyKos group called, Gun owners independent of the NRA -- that's the level of self-reflection that I just don't get when I get into discussions with gun rights supporters on this site.

    And regardless of what the diarist thinks about everyone but four or five people on this site -- I think a lot of people would welcome dialog with people who could actually begin to articulate a non-NRA gun rights position. I think that cars are similar -- it took a while for a lot of people to separate themselves from identifying with a blindly pro-industry stance for us to make genuine progress in emissions and mileage controls.

    Still, using the most extreme examples to paint everyone with whom you disagree with the same brush is not the way to get dialog started.

    "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

    by MarkC on Sat Jan 12, 2013 at 04:06:31 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site