Skip to main content

There's been a lot of hostility the last month between the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks.

Now, I freely admit to being one of the anti-gun people.  However, I also believe that I'm being reasonable.

I'm also willing to bet that the pro-gun folks also believe they're being reasonable.

So, on the flip, I'm going to offer what I think is a good baseline to work with.  The things that we CAN agree on.  I mean, if we can't agree on these basic assumptions, there's no way we're going to agree on anything else.

(Suggestions on the flip.)

1. The NRA are a bunch of assholes who do not speak for the vast majority of gun owners.

I think that we can agree on this one.  It's a decent, reasonable position, IMHO, and takes into account that the NRA vastly supports the Right Wing and Republicans.  Considering where their money comes from and where their money goes to, we can safely state that they are a wing of the Republican Party in spirit.

As such, their arguments and positions should be considered Republican positions.  I'm certain that we do want to consider Republican positions with regards to elections  (Mainly how they are wrong), but let's not pretend that we will alienate Democrats by calling them what they are.

2.  Guns are tools.  

I'm amazed that I even need to bring this up, but there seems to be some disagreement.  Guns are not instant "Turn you into a Murderer" items, any more than they are "Magic Safety Blanket that repels criminals and Tyrants" items.

Guns are tools.  With a very specific and defined purpose.  That purpose is to fire rounds at high velocity.  Can we at least agree on that?  Magazine sizes, caliber, etc are immaterial to the overall purpose of guns, and that purpose is to fire rounds.

3.  There are legitimate uses for guns.  There are also non-legitimate uses for guns.

Ok, this is where we might get a little bit sticky.  We are not going to agree completely on what constitutes a legitimate use, and an illegitimate use.   Can we at least agree that there is such a thing as an Illegitimate use of a gun?  Not talking random criminals who "Will Always Break the Law".  I am talking a legal, law abiding gun owner who uses a gun improperly.

I think it's not too much to ask that we acknowledge that at some point there is a line.  Where we want to draw that line is totally subject to scrutiny and argument, but dammit, there has to be at least acknowledgement of a line.  I am willing, despite my desire for almost NO guns, to acknowledge that there are uses and points at which someone should be allowed to have a gun, and perhaps should be encouraged to have a weapon of some sort.  I would draw that line closer to my goalpost of course, and I'm sure that the pro-gun side would do the same.  Can we at LEAST acknowledge that there should be a line?

4.  NOBODY wants more death.

Again, I'm surprised I have to mention this one, but I think it needs to be said.  Nobody wants more dead people.  How we get to that point can be debated, but straight up, NOBODY wants more bodies.  If there was a magic solution,  (And I mean REAL magic.  Harry Potter Style shit) that would allow the hobbyists to keep their weapons, while ensuring that no gun is ever used to kill another human being.  EVER... I'm willing to believe that we would all embrace it.

5.  We need change.

This is the one that I am a little worried about.  There are those who say we don't.  I'm willing to agree that things need to change.  Perhaps some of the things I care about will need to change in order to stop the violence.  But I'm willing to look at it, and find a real solution.

I want to work with the other side.  I want to find a solution that lets the legitimate uses for guns continue while getting rid of the vast majority of abuses that exist.

But if we can't even agree on these points.  I don't have much hope.

Originally posted to detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:23 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA.

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

  •  Well done (17+ / 0-)

    It would be nice if there could be a consensus about this issue but I doubt there ever will be, at least not any time soon. But this lists some good points which are probably mostly agreed upon.

  •  Here, I think (12+ / 0-)

    is a discussion starter. I see some stuff here I can agree with, and a few things I can't.
    Have a look.

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

    by kestrel9000 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:32:25 PM PST

    •  All good first steps. (7+ / 0-)

      Of course these are the types of things that need to be considered and actually brought up.

      I am quite disturbed that the first legislative actions have been more armed guards, etc.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:38:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the armed guards (19+ / 0-)

        there's legislation about that? I misse dthat.
        Those aren't ALL good ideas, but  alot of them are.
        I'm not into restrictiung existing hardware. I honestly do not believe that'll fix the problem; it'll create another one: you energize the other side.
        But a lot of this I CAN get with.
        Amorphous terms like "assault unicycle" have no place in the discussion. They mean whatever Dianne Feinstein and Carolyn McCarthy decide they mean.
        But pause on that for  a few.

        A background check for every gun sale

        Input all necessary records into the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System

        Prevent convicted stalkers from acquiring guns

        Penalize states that fail to provide records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

        Ensure that federal agencies provide required records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System

        Perform background checks on employees of federally licensed dealers during the course of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives audit inspections

        Strip riders from the administration’s fiscal year 2014 budget and all future budgets that restrict gun data collection and sharing

        Treat gun trafficking as a serious crime

        All of these are worthy.

        This:

        Begin the process of the FBI absorbing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
        sounds like something worth looking at.

        This

        Close the “terror gap”
        doesn't fly with me.

        I'll tell you why:

         I find it interesting that when that list was first created, I and every other liberal on the planet decried it as a fundamental violation of civil liberties, but once someone came up with the brilliant idea of using it to deny firearms, all of a sudden, it was a Good Thing.

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

        by kestrel9000 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:53:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I have issues with DIFI (10+ / 0-)

          She and I don't often see eye to eye.

          She's far too much of a patrician for my taste, and is very much a fan of "For Your Own Good" laws that favor corporations.

          Oh, and Armed Guard Legislation Here

          The terror watch list idea bothers me because of the list itself, not because of its use to restrict sales.

          I would also strongly support banning of semi-auto weapons, but that is solely my position.  I do not see the need for a semi-auto when a pump action is far more intimidating for home defense, and the need to fire that many rounds in quick succession is only necessary for either a weapon that can't normally do the job, or engaging multiple targets.

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

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:59:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  See (5+ / 0-)
            I do not see the need
            that's where I slam the door in your face.

            Need is irrelevant and that's non negotiable.

            So where do we go now?

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

            by kestrel9000 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:05:52 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  We can agree that the FSM will not vaporize (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher

            all firearms on the say-so of Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, Barack Obama, nor Wayne LaPierre.

            With that as a reality, stationing a certified police officer at each school building has merit.  
            Much as banning alcoholic beverages tonight, won't mean there's no need for police to observe motorists for operation under the influence tomorrow.

            The error is making that school into a prison with random stop-and-frisk, locker searches, backpack searches, etc... which fosters a climate of fear and distrust.

            Not that certain people aren't in-favor of a population which understands "it's place" compared to the occasionally benevolent dictatorship:

            "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."
            "I believe the Constitution will be fine with a disarmed public." ~ frontpager brooklynbadboy
            Same fellow who said the Mercs working for the 1% get a free pass, as they need to be as well-armed as the cops and military.  After all, we're former soldiers.
            Of course, the former soldiers not employed by Contractors need to be disarmed, as they're a PTSD incident waiting to happen.

            Or those veterans might take offense to being ousted from their homes by the very 1% lenders who by law, were prohibited to do so, while they were deployed.
            Our government did what?  Oh yeah, fined the lenders $100,000 per class (grouping of foreclosures) - not per incident.  

            "Welcome back from Iraq - you've 30 days to vacate.  Seems your wife slipped into a depression when she heard you were combat wounded - and didn't make two consecutive payments on time.  That you're current now, is of no consequence, see page 12, line 109.  Have a nice day.  Oh, and the DoD's been contacted, you're now a suicide risk, so kindly surrender your weapons to this Deputy."

            Can't be going against the 1% - it's unAmerican.

    •  I find that list generally good (6+ / 0-)

      I would suggest that perhaps even stronger measures against trafficking, though exactly what was proposed was a bit vague. I could accept a limit, perhaps 2 purchases in a rolling 30 day window, as one such additional anti-trafficking measure. I would like to see a legal requirement to report lost or stolen firearms, both by private owners and dealers.

      I support background checks for all gun purchases. I support improving background information reporting. I support adding stalking to the list of prohibiting crimes. I support a 10 round magazine capacity limit for all firearms. I would support a buy-back followed by moving high capacity magazines into the same category as civilian machine gun ownership (FFL required.)

      I don't know what to think of the desire to move the ATF into the FBI. I would need to know more about that proposal. Likewise, I have my concerns with saying that an American on the watch list cannot buy a firearm unless there is a clear method for a person who has been wrongly accused to clear their name. I am generally not in favor of that whole post 9/11 power grab called the Patriot Act as I think it goes to far.

      I take a rather dim view of assault weapons bans. The AR-15 is a prime example. The previous ban did not stop the sale of them. It prohibited the Colt AR-15 and exact copies, or firearms with 2 or more features on a list. Colt redesigned the receiver and came out with the Match Target 6400. They made sure not to sell with with 2 or more of the restricted features (such as bayonet mounts and folding stocks.) The Bushmaster xm-15 was generally available without the restricted features too. If specific features of a firearm are known to be key elements in their criminal use then we should look at prohibiting those features.

      A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by notrouble on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:09:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think the reason is... (7+ / 0-)

        That the original ban was not considered by itself.

        It was a part of a "Crime Bill" and as a result was more of an afterthought than a real attempt at solving the problem.

        A clear ban on specific features, or attempts to replicate said features, would be far more effective, IMHO, especially if we clearly set this for a long term solution instead of the sunset clause version we had.

        Any legislation on weapons needs to be in language that doesn't allow for loopholes.

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

        by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:13:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed, (5+ / 0-)

          thus the very last line in my previous post,

          If specific features of a firearm are known to be key elements in their criminal use then we should look at prohibiting those features.
          As an example, silencers have been restricted for this reason.

          A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by notrouble on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:25:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe not features so much as (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          detroitmechworks, Ginny in CO

          capabilities.
          Rather than specifying one specific piece of hardware or another (leaving the door open for "innovation" to get around the letter of the law), look at the capability of delivering so many bullets so fast for such an extended period.
          That is the feature of mass slaughter that is the most urgent, the capability of these weapons to kill lots of people in short order.

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:23:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  An excellent point, and a great discussion... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CwV, glorificus

            for another diary.

            I shouldn't have gotten quite as sidetracked as I.  There are 5 main points that I'm trying to make that we agree on.

            With the exception of one or two individuals who seem to be convinced that this is an anti-gun plot to take away their arguments, we can agree on these points.

            I consider this already a win.  ;)

            However, your point is valid and should be discussed.  (Makes note to write about in a WCWAO diary)

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

            by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:27:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        notrouble, SoCalSal, Ginny in CO

        Been going on a long time. When the laws change, gun-makers redesign them just enough to be legal.

        "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

        by cotterperson on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:43:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Great link, kestrel! (5+ / 0-)

      Good to the the Center for American Progress working on this. Just a snip:

      In this issue brief we recommend 13 legislative proposals and executive actions to prevent gun violence in our nation. These actions are targeted in the following three key areas:

      -    Better background checks
      -    Taking military-grade weapons off the streets and out of criminals’ hands
      -    Better data, better coordination, and better enforcement

      "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

      by cotterperson on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:39:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Diary recced (14+ / 0-)

    because I believe you to be sincere.

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

    by kestrel9000 on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:33:50 PM PST

  •  I'm pretty much on board with this, and (17+ / 0-)

    I feel I've been open to reason as well. Of course, I'm biased, so... my opinion and $4.50 gets you a decadent mocha at Starbucks.

    I think part of the disconnect comes from people who have never experienced firearms except in the context of criminal activity-- it is hard for them to imagine how one of them could be used in any "socially acceptable" way. To them, all I can say is... try to set aside prejudices and pre-conceived notions and realize that a lot of gun owners could be allies in legislation if given a chance.

    And please, try to understand that people like that Tennessee Tactical Whatever Company are in the news precisely because they are examples of crazy; a good example of a bad example. Gun owners are not all a bunch of freakish Libertarian Hitlers. We don't need to constantly reaffirm to everyone that we are, in fact, "against" murder or civil war like it is some sort of surprise.

    I do my best to recognize the some people are afraid of guns, or don't know much about them, or have been filled with tales of fear and inaccuracy. I'm patient and try to explain differences. I try not to make blanket accusations or ad-hominem attacks, so let's all try to stay on the civil side of things.

  •  Point 1 RE the NRA (10+ / 0-)

    I know that to be the case for the pro-gun folks. The NRA sort of like that inconvenient "tea-party cross" that the Republicans are forced to drag around on their backs.

    I just read something today of interest:

    Surprisingly, 74% of NRA members agree with this universal background check proposal, despite the intense opposition of their parent organization.



    Denial is a drug.

    by Pluto on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:48:10 PM PST

  •  Some people do want more death. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LinSea, cotterperson, theboz, Bisbonian

    This is why they shoot the gun at people or at their own head.

    Say "No" to Chained CPI.

    by Arlys on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:54:51 PM PST

    •  And these are not the folks... (7+ / 0-)

      that I would be discussing gun control with, now would they?

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:01:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know. Maybe they would simply argue (7+ / 0-)

        against your arguments.  I do know that I grew up with seemingly decent citizens in the early 60's who were convinced that the solution to what they saw as the country's woes would be the death of JFK and who continually repeated their belief that, were one willing to die, it could easily be accomplished, describing detailed scenarios.  They were not sorry to have their wish made real.  

        I, sorry to say, believe that there are those who do, indeed, want more dead people -- as long as they get to choose those who are the "other", the perceived enemy...  And I think they might sit in on "discussions" if only to refute "control" even when worded as "safety".  And, yes, I do know there is a difference between wishing and acting.

        I sincerely apologize in advance if this comment is in any way inappropriate as I am not intending to be offensive, just feeling my way on these issues.

        Dance lightly upon the Earth, Sing her songs with wild abandon, Smile upon all forms of Life ...and be well.

        by LinSea on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:20:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's part of the human condition. (4+ / 0-)

      And it's pretty universal.

      The assumption is that 10 percent of thehuman population distributed throughout the world is flying-under-the-radar "mentally unstable." Not good candidates as gun owners.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:04:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course, if you flattened that stat (6+ / 0-)

        ...and divided the number of private guns by the adult population of the US -- you'd have 30 million mentally unstable people running around with guns.

        Of course, that's not how data works -- but it is statistically significant to some degree.

        The question for Americans is how do you protect yourself today:

        a.  Buy a gun.
        b.  Get rid of all guns.
        c.  Wear bullet-protective clothing in public.



        Denial is a drug.

        by Pluto on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:34:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  d. Seriously regulate the guns. (6+ / 0-)

          And that's the one I hope we can get to.

          I have no illusions that it will not be hard, but we have too many guns in the country, and a serious need to deal with the problem.

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

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:36:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Unless you are talking about an aggressive (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            atana, poco, cotterperson, 43north

            ...buy back program nation-wide (which is how that is traditionally accomplished, by the way) -- I doubt you would see much change in your lifetime.

            I've given this matter a lot of thought and research -- and there is one of your points that I cannot fully agree with:

            2.  Guns are tools.

            My reasoning is very esoteric and somewhat quantum -- so I'll save it for another time.

            Permit me, however, to point out that you are repeating the most insidious and subversive of the NRA talking points. "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

            It's a mind virus.



            Denial is a drug.

            by Pluto on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:45:38 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, I am not. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PJEvans, Smoh, glorificus, Bisbonian

              Guns are deadly tools.  They are often put into the hands of people who use them wrongly.  There is no need for many people to own such a tool, and the encouragement of that, especially those that profit from it, is tantamount to encouraging murder.

              We have a whole lot of people in the industry who kill people by their actions at putting deadly items into the hands of those that they know will kill.

              There are killers here.  Killers who know exactly what they are doing.

              I strongly favor heavy regulation on them.

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

              by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:54:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Many people? (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                atana, Smoh, poco, Odysseus, 43north
                Guns are deadly tools... There is no need for many people to own such a tool.
                How many?

                It's human nature (and the nature of nation-states) to say:

                "If he has a killing tool, then I need one, too. To protect myself."

                Hence, nuclear proliferation.

                This type of thinking re "tools" is called "instrumentalism."

                Instrumentalism is the idea that a technologiy can be used as an instrument to any end that a person chooses to put it. In the case of guns, they can be used for shooting tin cans, killing people, hammering a nail, breaking a window, or myriad other inventive purposes. Ergo, guns are, in themselves, neutral.

                This is the position of the NRA.

                By equating firearm responsibility exclusively with human choice, the NRA abstracts away relevant considerations about how gun possession can affect one'€™s sense of self.

                To wit:

                €œYou are different with a gun in your hand; the gun is different with you holding it.

                Both you and the gun fundamentally change.



                Denial is a drug.

                by Pluto on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:19:03 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  On a ranch (6+ / 0-)

              in the Midwest, guns are absolutely a tool. Used to protect livestock, and a family's livelihood.

            •  Actually, a gun is a tool. I know from my own (0+ / 0-)

              early life on a farm with cattle if a cow steps in a gopher hole and breaks a leg a farmer is not going to call the vet, and my dad would not slit her throat.

              Guns are useful for putting down an injured animal or getting rid of varmints.

              Yes, it's all about death.

              Which is why I would favor many fewer guns in towns and cities.

              **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

              by glorificus on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 06:40:29 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  You might be surprised how much resistance (8+ / 0-)

    I'm getting from DKos RKBA to even the suggestion that they try to stay away from using clear NRA talking points.

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

    by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:58:09 PM PST

    •  That's because (8+ / 0-)

      you don't get to define what "NRA talking points" are, and seem unwilling to acknowledge that not everything the NRA people say (despite your conclusion that everything they say is a "talking point") is wrong.

      If something is right it's right, and if it's wrong it's wrong, and in either case should be addressed for what it is, regardless the "NRA position" on the subject.  How would you respond if someone suggested that you try to stay away from using "pothead talking points"?

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:51:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I thought we agreed that the NRA were assholes? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PJEvans, poco, glorificus

        Let's not cherry pick their positions for the tiny ones that are reasonable.

        They represent gun companies, not gun owners.  We fully have the right to ignore their talking points when spouted verbatim.

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

        by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:00:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Of course they are . . . (6+ / 0-)

          but ad hominum (or ad organizationum) is not valid argument.  If the NRA says that the vast majority of gun homicides are not comitted with assault rifles that doesn't make the statement a "talking point" or untrue.  And if someone from RKBA here on dKOS says the same thing that doesn't mean they are "spouting NRA talking points" and should just shut up.  Just for one example . . .

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:44:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A true point, and also has no... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco, glorificus

            relevance to the discussion.

            I'm certain that were we discussing the relevant points of a specific ban, it'd apply for statistical information.

            And yes, I've accused others of spouting talking points.  I have no problem whatsoever admitting to that.  There's a lot of fallacies tossed about in these diaries.

            How exactly does that discussion have ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about right now, which is a discussion of where we can agree?  

            What I'm gathering is that you don't feel that we can agree that the NRA should be excluded from the discussion due to... possible fallacy abuse.

            Apparently you're the only one.

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

            by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:53:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Apparently you just want (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, happy camper

              to pick a fight (while claiming otherwise).  I've said nothing defending the NRA.  I've "defended" the right of RKBA members (one of which I am not, by the way) to say things that they believe to be correct without accusations of "spouting talking points" being thrown at them.

              Why don't you provide a list of "NRA talking points" which we are supposed to assume without question to be untrue, and thus "exclud[ed] from the discussion"?

              Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

              by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:05:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  It actually does make that a talking point. It (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bisbonian

            happens to be a talking point constructed around a factually accurate phrase, but it is still employed to obfuscate. After a while, people are entitled to express displeasure at being exposed to the same old bullshit.

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

            by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:32:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Utter nonsense. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happy camper, 43north

              Facts are facts.

              Just because a group you happen to dislike (which I happen to dislike as well) refers to a fact makes it no less a fact.

              I realize you might like to characterize some facts as "talking points" in an attempt to ignore them, but that is simply dishonest.

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

              by theatre goon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:43:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  When "facts" are used to disinform, rather than (0+ / 0-)

                to inform, and the same conversation repeated endlessly, there will inevitably come a time when even the most patient individual (as I'm sure you, your self have experienced) will just declare "That sounds like an NRA talking point to me", and move on.

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

                by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:28:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Defending the NRA... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpotsmuggler

        Cite some "pothead talking points" in support of mass murder....

      •  This discussion/debate has been going on for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bisbonian

        around a half century that I know of. You, on the other hand, may or may not have that much exposure to it. In any event, phrases, tactics, etc. that have been employed for 50 years have long since qualified to be labeled as talking points. We don't make everyone reinvent the wheel before we allow them to buy a tire.

        More particularly, what I stated is that it has now become counterproductive for gun nuts to just keep beating, and beating, and beating the same dead horses i.e. using clear NRA talking points, and NRA type "discussion" style.

        The change is coming, and it ain't coming in terms of their being fewer firearms restrictions. In other words, what NRA and RKBA is doing can fairly be described as, at best, fighting using stalling tactics. And their losing more and more ground continuously. If I was in that position, and wanted to reverse it, I'd be looking for a new tactic. I mean, I'd try applying some creativity, instead of regurgitating rote responses. But, hey, you do it your way, and if you give me an opening I'll accuse you of using NRA talking points, and I'll score better than you will.

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

        by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:30:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Timothy McVeigh liked mint chocolate chip ice crea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea

      As a kid, I remember hearing that for his last meal, Timothy McVeigh ordered one of my favorite ice cream flavors.  The fact that a terrible person and I shared something in common doesn't mean that we share everything in common.  Hitler probably liked to eat bacon too.

      •  Thank you but we're getting a little sidetracked (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus

        The NRA are assholes.  We agree on that.

        This isn't like suggesting that the NRA's opinion on desserts might be in accord.

        This is more like their "More Guns, Gun control Bad" founding platform.

        I'm fairly certain you don't like blowing up buildings or killing Jews.  Let's not confuse the shrubs for the arrangement.  

        The reason we dislike the NRA is the inflexibility of their position and the rigidity of their talking points.  We cannot argue with their dogma, and they will not consider alternatives.

        I like to think that the RKBA members are a heck of a lot better than that.

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

        by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:07:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree that the NRA are counterproductive shits (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, Deward Hastings

          I despise them personally and it sickens me how they try to take advantage of tragedies to manipulate their followers.  That being said, I think we need to find ways to not demonize them and to give them some small amount of credit in the gun control debate.  Why?  Basically, the RKBA crowd here, who is hostile to the NRA, is the easiest group of gun owners you have to work with.  While they might not be on your radar, I know plenty of people who are good people, but unfortunately give too much respect to what the NRA has to say.  Those are the people I am most interested in getting on my side.  If we can convince them that we need to reform gun laws and everything else related to the violence in our society then we will be stronger than we are now.  I think that is why you are reaching out to the gun owners here.  I agree with you that we need to see the common ground here, and then we can move on to society at large.

          •  I hear you, but I respectfully disagree. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            glorificus

            The NRA is not representative of those folks, and will not change, even if those folks want them to.

            The NRA gets their funding from PACs, and industry.  They are going to continue to repeat the same points, much like the Tea Party.

            I simply feel that if we give an ultra-right wing organization like the NRA a seat at our table, they will simply continue to throw feces and ruin the meal.  Fox News is not going to stop harping on birther nonsense, and the NRA will not stop trying to change the subject.

            Seriously, I want to work with you guys.  Unfortunately, I can't shout through a brick wall, and neither can you guys.  The NRA has to go.

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

            by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:46:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am not disagreeing (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea, Deward Hastings

              What I am looking for is similar to what you are looking for.  You want to find common ground with liberal gun owners to move forward in some way to reduce violence and save lives.  I want the same, but I am thinking of how to convince my friends and family that are not politically liberal.  I want to side step the NRA rather than take them on.

      •  You can do better than that. Far better. I've seen (0+ / 0-)

        it and this little ditty, quite frankly, is not worthy of you.

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

        by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:34:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Can we possibly agree (8+ / 0-)

    that people who have actually purchased guns, have used guns and have educated themselves concerning guns, know more about guns from a technical perspective than those who haven't?

    For example, there are some mean looking pieces out there that are in reality pretty tinker toy as far as firepower is concerned. I mean, some of these guns that are being targeted as "assault weapons" - and I've seen them on DailyKos pictured as examples of "overkill" - are pretty much a light weight hunting rifle with some impressive looking bits of plastic.

    I'm just suggesting that perhaps those who do keep and bear arms have invested a great deal of time and money in knowing what they are talking about. In order to craft something that makes the country safer, shouldn't their knowledge be respected?

    Or do we just want to demand that we only be shot with less scary looking guns?

    •  If I'm hearing you correctly. (14+ / 0-)

      I hear the complaint that people who are making the law don't really understand what they're regulating.  (Correct me if I'm wrong as to your criticism.)

      As a result we need to clearly and specifically delineate what we are attempting to ban, if we are going forward.

      The law needs to specifically address the capabilities, not model number, appearance, or any other factor, of the weapon.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:17:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly! (5+ / 0-)

        And understanding the implications.

        Many people don't know that a pistol can be fired every bit as rapidly as a semi automatic rifle, for example.

        And God forbid a speed loader should be explained!

        It's a moot point to ban a gun that has a little extra plastic and a couple of screws and let another more powerful firearm walk.

        That, and  the people who keep and bear arms are the people that know these things.

        •  A pistol (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          43north

          as in a revolver.

          •  If you're referring to a single action, yes. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Phil S 33, Smoh, glorificus

            However, a single action revolver can only usually fire six times before you have to reload it.  ;)

            As we've seen from many of these mass casualty events, the reload period is when they get the perp.

            I personally think that a speed loader is not necessary for anything outside of very specific shooting events OR law enforcement/military purposes.

            Just my opinion, YMMV

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

            by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:27:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Which is why (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Deward Hastings, 43north

              murdering lunatics almost always carry TWO handguns.

              I'm thinking a murdering lunatic may find a speed loader "necessary":

              http://www.policeone.com/...

              With this in mind, let's take a look at a few combat-reloading techniques.

              Revolvers:
              When I entered law enforcement in the mid-1970s, the speed loader was a fairly new device. In the academy, we were still instructed on how to load from dump pouches, which was a perilous endeavor at best.

              The speed loader corrected this problem and made reloading the revolver a much simpler task. This device lets you load all of the revolver's chambers at once, giving the wheel gun a reloading capability similar to that of a semiauto pistol. Carrying a revolver for police service and not having at least two to three speed loaders to recharge it is, well, less than wise.

    •  Perhaps (6+ / 0-)
      I'm just suggesting that perhaps those who do keep and bear arms have invested a great deal of time and money in knowing what they are talking about. In order to craft something that makes the country safer, shouldn't their knowledge be respected?
      But it seems to me by the same logic we would be deferring to the bankers to regulate the financial industry. After all they have invested a great deal of time and money in knowing what they are talking about too, right?

      It's a a generic issue across a wide range of interests. The flip side of greater knowledge is often  less objectivity and greater vested interest.  

      I agree that we should listen to the technical knowledge the RKBA'ers have to craft better laws.   But we have to ready and willing to cut ties with them when their vested interest diverges from what's needed to reduce the carnage. And I personally think history - and even the conversations here - shows it necessarily will.

      •  Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, Smoh, glorificus

        It's already getting a little heated in here, but I'm still gonna try.  

        And I'm taking a little flak from both sides already.  ;)

        We need to have a serious talk about capabilities, and why laws on manufacturing need to address those capabilities.  

        Sure people can put things together in their basement, but that doesn't mean we should make it easy on them.

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

        by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:09:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Or maybe that "problem" would be solved by making (0+ / 0-)

          it illegal to do so. Do you know which other contries put up with the same sort of gunnuttery that we do? The correct answer just happens to be that none do.

          (I don't mean to jinx you, but you're doing excellent work here, by the way.)

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

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:42:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Respect earned (7+ / 0-)

      Yes I respect the knowledge of shooting enthusiasts. I'm just waiting for the pro-gun crowd to start participating in discussions of responsible regulation instead of knee-jerk reactions and quoting the 2nd Amendment as scripture.  

      In practical terms, this argument sounds a bit like asking us to give all due respect to the wisdom of slave owners when discussing how best to end slavery in the antebellum period. I'm all ears here, but somehow I don't think these are the answers we're looking for.

    •  How about we agree that people who once did, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bisbonian

      and have moved on, know more about the subject than people who are still in the sway of firearms infatuation.

      To most people, all things firearm are a relatively boring subject, and it's boring not due to lack of intelligence and/or information, but, rather, because firearms are a relatively boring subject.

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

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:38:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Dialogue is good (10+ / 0-)

    As long as we keep talking...

    I like shooting. I find a Zen in black powder. I have a single shot pellet gun. I like to shoot targets.

    Yes, there is a perverse thrill to controlling an explosion that close to my face. That alone should not be disqualification from using a firearm.

    My guns take so long to load that a stick serves better for home defense.

    I used to shoot in military competition, but had to stop when my rifle (National Match M1A) was banned in my state. Upset, yes. Destroyed, no.

    Should I, as a citizen, have a military weapon just to satisfy a sport? I (then) did not want to give it up. An older me adapted to the changes.

    I bought a handgun from a friend that was moving away. We met with a gun dealer and I waited my mandated time. Did you know it you use a gunsmith at a gun range, they will let you shoot it there until you clear background?

    I have an air pistol that has been highly modified for accuracy. Sure it was "just a pellet gun" when I bought it. Not any longer. Did you know they make an 8-shot .45 caliber pellet rifle that rivals a 9mm in slug size and speed? Damn thing charges with a scuba tank.

    Should my black powder, my .22 rifle AND my air pistol be registered with my local Sheriff (all currently not required), like my .357 pistol? IMHO, yes.

    I agree to disagree with anyone and everyone...as long as the dialogue continues. The other thing I agree to is to abide by the will of the people. But that will needs to be expressed using our free speech and reason.

    Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance. Kurt Vonnegut

    by ToKnowWhy on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:15:48 PM PST

    •  Thank you. (7+ / 0-)

      Last thing I want to do is to completely erase the shooting hobby from the planet.

      However, as you state, there needs to be regulation and oversight of it.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:22:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just sayin' One doesn't follow the other (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, Odysseus, LinSea, WakeUpNeo

        South Korea totally swept the metals in the shooting events at the 2012 Olympics in London.

        Strict Gun Control Laws in South Korea


        SEOUL, South Korea — When news of frequent shooting incidents comes out of the United States, Koreans let out a small sigh of relief for living in a place where gun ownership is strictly illegal.

        Military service for Korean men is mandatory, but that is probably the only time a regular civilian will have a chance to hold a gun.

        In South Korea, only government-authorized personnel could own or carry guns. After taking a physical exam, permits are handed out to very limited number of people: Body guards of the president or foreign heads of states, firearm workers at industrial mining or construction sites, certified hunters or Olympic athlete shooters.

        When a citizen is caught selling or buying guns – produced in Korea for export purpose only – penalty is up to 10 years in prison or up to $18,000 in fines. Even possessing a toy gun ‘that resembles a real gun’ is strictly prohibited.

        http://abcnews.go.com/...



        Denial is a drug.

        by Pluto on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:35:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Limit magazine capacity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rolet, oldpotsmuggler

    Impose mandatory prison sentences for 2nd offense possession of an illegal magazine. This will have the added benefit of removing neo-fascist militia types from society.

    Those who want to play Army in the woods can easily do so with a 10 round limit. Anyone willing to start killing people or otherwise engage in criminal activity because of a 10 round magazine limit is already a threat to society and such a law will help flush out the dangerous gun fetishists among us.

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

    by Inventor on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:19:23 PM PST

  •  The function of a gun is to kill (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cotterperson, oldpotsmuggler

    "Firing rounds" is a bullshit cop out.  It's main function is simply to kill another living thing.

    Obama: self-described moderate Republican

    by The Dead Man on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:37:00 PM PST

    •  While I agree with this statement, (6+ / 0-)

      there's a lot of hobbyists who will point to paper targets if the argument is made.

      In the interest of not alienating them, I chose the most general statement I could.

      Does that round have a strong possibility of killing?  Yes! Absolutely.  But not always.

      Hence the need to acknowledge that it is a tool.  Not a toy. It's also NOT an indicator that the person using it is a guaranteed murderer.

      Guns DO kill people.  Frequently.  They need to be acknowledged as such as well.

      I hear you, but on this one, I've chosen to point out the mechanical purpose.  While that purpose's design is for a specific use, it has been put to others.  

      We can at least agree on that point.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:42:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, but .... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annecros, notrouble, SoCalSal, glorificus

      I've known numerous people who hunt to supplement their food budgets. Some who like to hunt (primarily deer) give the meat to the food bank.

      The only time I shot a gun, my immediate thought was, "OMG. What if I hit something??" (I only went because it was a chance to visit the mammoth King Ranch in Texas ;)

      "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

      by cotterperson on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:55:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Firearms are sold for either hunting or "defense", (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Joy of Fishes

      so, yes, they are designed to kill and they'd be useless for their stated purpose if they could not do these things.

      However, a lot of them get used primarily for target shooting, and not much more.

      What we have to do is figure out a way to make sure that when a gun is used to kill, it is only used in ways that society has found acceptable, ie, hunting or the legal defensive of life.

  •  What a fine idea for a diary, (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto, Smoh, Joy of Fishes, Bisbonian, LinSea

    detroitmechworks, and well done. Thank you!

    I understand that guns are tools and can be used to do good, bad, or neutral things. Unless I misunderstand, though, I can't  agree with this:

    Magazine sizes, caliber, etc are immaterial
    Those are the things that make them so easy to use for "bad," i.e. killing a lot of people. That's why they were called "assault weapons" when they were banned. I can't think of a "good" purpose for civilians having them.

    Two things from memory, which may not be correct, but I'm pretty sure very-large-caliber guns are prized by white supremacist groups, who fear another Waco or Ruby Ridge. In the right circumstances, they can shoot down a plane.

    I strongly agree with everything else, though, and I hope we are able to reach a consensus. I don't know much about guns in general, but know more about the violent white supremacists who used to be in isolated areas of the Ozarks. (I live low-key ;) The group that was busted near me in 1985 was modifying weapons to make them automatic. Although they had some machine guns, the FBI was able to negotiate a settlement.

    Other such groups are probably still here, and I'd hate to see them murder a bunch of people. Some call them "domestic terrorists" and refer to their automatic weapons as WMDs. To me, that sounds about right.

    "Let each unique song be sung and the spell of differentiation be broken" - Winter Rabbit

    by cotterperson on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:37:17 PM PST

    •  I hear you. (5+ / 0-)

      I was going as general as possible.

      when we begin discussing various capabilities, that's where disagreement invariably starts.

      I wanted to start with a baseline, and so far, for the most part, there's been agreement.

      We can move on to specific capabilities next time, but the main point is that guns are tools.  Perhaps not everybody will agree on what tool is needed, (Some folks think a leaf blower is mandatory, whilst others prefer a broom) but we can at least acknowledge what they are.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:48:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is the conversation the POTUS (4+ / 0-)

    has tried hard, and failed, to create.

    Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

    by MrAnon on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:39:14 PM PST

  •  Can we also agree that we oppose stop and frisk (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    notrouble, annecros, cotterperson, 43north

    as it is done in New York City?

  •  Gun owner almost 6 years (7+ / 0-)

    Can't say I disagree with the five main points at all.

    But the thing I think the thing some in the anti-gun community would "not" agree on with me is the premise that "Citizens deserve a right to carry a weapon to defend themselves or their families".

    I don't believe that any rational interpretation of the 2nd Amendment gives people the freedom to own small armory's worth of weapons, to buy anonymous large quantities of military-grade equipment, ammo, etc, free from any and all government regulations. Period.

    However, if push came to shove and, say, a Democratic President were to stand up and say "The time has come to ban private ownership of all firearms" or "The 2nd Amendment needs repealing" or anything else, you would probably see me standing with the RWNJ's instead of against them, at least on principle.

    My wife is from England where they went and outlawed all firearms (that's the short and sweet version, I know it's more complicated than that) and although people might be able to bandy about statistics about how few people are killed in Britain by firearms on an annual basis, understand that she lived in fear of hoodlum youth and young adults who would vandalize their neighborhood home repeatedly...and her family had no way of defending themselves, legally, because of the firearms provisions.

    If people were doing that on my property here, without firing a shot I could probably get them to never come back.

    Police are great and all, but police response is reactive in that I have to wait until I have started to become victimized of a crime before they will even respond. Then there's response time, etc.

    I do not harbor any sort of hero or tough guy fantasies of stopping a mass murder in progress with my pistol. I don't even carry mine currently, because until I possess a concealed carry permit, I don't trust the general populace and/or police to not hassle me about carrying it openly, and thus don't. (Even though in Virginia, it is perfectly legal to do so).

    But I also am not going to allow the law-abusing thugs or criminals who might one day decide to target me, her, or anyone else I care about to meet me in my place of residence, which is supposed to be safe, and meet me unarmed.

    Period. I will not ever allow that to happen. No statistic will convince me otherwise.

    So unless and until the "anti" and "pro" gun sides can agree on that as well, I think you will continue to see rifts within the non-conservative community on the gun issue.

  •  Something else we can, perhaps, agree on (6+ / 0-)

    is that since most people advocate calling the police for protection, or that certain weapons only be the purview of the military, maybe we can look at what the police and military do that make them reliable stewards of force?

    Neither police nor military personnel are spawned from clone vats on Kamino, with obedience programmed into them; rather they are ordinary citizens that are given training and authorization.

    Since most people who eschew firearms don't seem to mind the police or military having weapons, then it stands to reason that "training" is the key factor here. Theoretically, if people who wanted to buy a tactical-style weapon were to undergo some sort of training program, then we'd be moving into the realm of the acceptable, yes?

    Get trained, get a license, and become a part of a "well-regulated militia" that can be called on by civil authorities in time of need.  

    •  Reminds me of an old saying... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes, Smoh, glorificus, 43north

      Once you've gone through the training to be able to kill somebody with your bare hands... you really don't want to kill somebody with your bare hands.

      I see your point, and while I understand it, the training must reflect the deadliness of the charge and capability being given.

      NO fly by night, joe bobs shootin range an' laisinsin...

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:03:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's what I mean, training (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes, glorificus

        that is more than just hitting the target... training that involves legalities, like when defensive gun use is legal and when it isn't, shot discipline, know your backstop, safe storage from children or how to secure weapons from break-ins when you're not around, etc.

        It would also include more traditional militia stuff like how to operate as a part of a team, why individual heroics only works in movies and will get you killed in real life, and so on.

        All sorts of things can be taken from a military or police manual. If the civil militia is called upon to, say, cordon off an area because of wildfires, or floods, or whatever, they will know how to do it properly. There would only need to be one policeman there to oversee things and affect arrests in need be (the militia wouldn't have arrest powers themselves)-- that way, police manpower could be stretched.

        Militia could also be called for search & rescue (which would not require guns but would need rugged individuals with a sense of teamwork) but could also be "deputized" to hunt for violent fugitives if needed or secure facilities from looters after a disaster.

        And so forth.

        •  Sounds a lot like the National Guard... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Joy of Fishes, Smoh, glorificus

          to be honest.

          I'm a big supporter of that.  ;)

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

          by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:20:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except that the National Guard (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joy of Fishes, glorificus

            is an auxiliary arm of the federal US Army.

            A state militia, a proper one, would be tied to the state-- couldn't be mobilized. They also would not have the discriminatory hiring practices-- women could take infantry courses if they wished, and diabetics, epileptics, etc could join, HIV-positives, people with birth defects or asthma, wheelchair-bound people if they were content to do so (they'd probably be administrative or radio operators rather than line types, of course...).

            I'd actually fill the course with a lot of Combat Engineer type things, really. That's the kind of stuff that is useful in an emergency, after all. And sapper training for a militia would be ideal in the highly unlikely event that there ever was an actual invasion by a large, organized, heavily armed outside force. Courses could be offered on CPR and other civil-useful stuff as well.

            •  If it paid... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Smoh, glorificus

              We'd be looking at a potential works program...

              Hell the Roman Legion spent most of their time building roads...  just sayin.  

              :)

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

              by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:57:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I'd imagine it would be something that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                glorificus

                people did voluntarily, although we could work out something like, say, gas used to attend militia events could be taken off taxes when filing in April.

                And if they are called up to help with a disaster and they respond, there can be other perks-- maybe a small stipend, and families get guaranteed placing or first pick for relocation if necessary, or something.

  •  Tipped and rec'd, with respectful disagreement (6+ / 0-)

    But I actually do not agree with #2. Guns are weapons, not tools.

    Definition of a tool:

    Device for making material changes on other objects, as by cutting, shearing, striking, rubbing, grinding, squeezing, measuring, or other process. A hand tool is a small manual instrument traditionally operated by the muscular strength of the user; a machine tool is a power-driven mechanism used to cut, shape, or form materials such as wood and metal. Tools are the main means by which human beings control and manipulate their physical environment.
    Knives are tools because they are a form of the simple machine known as the wedge, and are used for multiple other creative human purposes other than as a weapon. They can be used as a weapon, but they are used far more often for creative human endeavor, not violence.

    The only thing a gun that fires bullets is used for is to kill living flesh, be it animal or human. It doesn't double to shoot nails to help you hang a shelf. It will not be loaded with whipped cream to decorate a cake. You do not play paintball with a gun that fires bullets. It is a weapon. If it is carried as part of a job, like that of a police officer or soldier, it may be a necessary item for their profession, but the only function of that weapon is to use deadly force.

    I do not believe guns turn anyone into a murderer. I come from a family of hunters, and service members,  and my fiance owns firearms and hunts. I have every respect for the rights of gun ownership - but the first thing my father taught me about guns, especially the one he kept in the drawer of his bedside table when I was a child, was that it was NOT for any other use than killing people, and that they are not toys, or tools, or anything other than lethal weapons for killing, and that I (as a child) was never to even touch that gun. And I didn't.

    Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. ~ Yoda Political Compass: -8.50, -6.46

    by Cinnamon on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 02:57:12 PM PST

    •  I am with you. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes, glorificus, Cinnamon

      But we won't get agreement from the other side on that.  I thought long and hard about number 2 before I wrote it, and I came to the conclusion that it was the best statement because of the professional indicators you mentioned.

      I too would prefer to think of them as weapons, but unfortunately, that is not a basis for consensus on this issue.

      I chose to give a little, to HOPEFULLY get a lot.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:11:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  my thoughts (4+ / 0-)

    legitimate gun use: hunting, target and other sport shooting, plinking.
    Illegitimate gun use: shooting into the air to celebrate anything, shooting at your neighbors' pets.

    FWIW, I once lived near a gun shop with a small firing range and their storage area in their basement. One day a fire started down there; they tried to put it out before calling 911. Two people of the five inside survived (and one of them as a child who was literally tossed outside). The place was still smoking eight hours later.

    (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

    by PJEvans on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:00:36 PM PST

    •  I don't disagree. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes, Smoh, glorificus

      There are other uses, both legitimate and illegitimate.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:12:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it was off the top (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        detroitmechworks

        of my brain. I'm sure there are others. (Air rifle for scaring crows off. Especially useful if they're actually in range. Probably won't hurt them otherwise.)

        I think the most dangerous firearm my father had was an elderly horse pistol, which he actually registered. I don't know if he ever fired it, but I think he had some shells. (BATF considers it to be a sawed-off shotgun.)

        (Is it time for the pitchforks and torches yet?)

        by PJEvans on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:56:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Shooting at your neighbor's pets" (0+ / 0-)

      I used to live next door to a cop, who liked to shoot at our dog, over the fence.  With a BB gun, but hey!

      He's a Supervisor on the force, now...got a fancier truck.

      When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

      by Bisbonian on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:05:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Congress only cares about cutting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros

    SS, and other earned entitlements. They won't do anything about guns.
     

    Trade always exists for the traders. Any time you hear businessmen debating "which policy is better for America," don’t bend over. -George Carlin-

    by not4morewars on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:03:15 PM PST

  •  According to Fr Associate SC Justice Joseph Story: (0+ / 0-)

    The Second amendment permits local authorities the right to have an armed militia. Today, that means a police force and fire department. Nobody here, I presume, would advocate disarming the cops.

    •  There is some disagreement on that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glorificus

      The issue being the example of Britain, etc... with unarmed police.

      I just went with the ones I was fairly sure wouldn't be disagreed on.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:14:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's not what Story said, assuming... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky Kid, Smoh, LinSea

      you're referring to his Commentaries.  There he said:

      § 1889. The next amendment is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

      § 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

      Link (footnotes omitted; emphasis added).
      •  Some small morsel for further thought from Story - (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VetGrl

        "How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see."

        Born before the Constitution was and he says that gun control is necessary. Hmmm.

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

        by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:05:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A bit OT, but... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jon Says, glorificus

          Someday I want to be able to study the life and work of Justice Story.  I've read some of his decisions that bear on my professional life and Story seems to have had a remarkable ability to see how his words would play out years, even decades, into the future.  

          With that in mind, it's the sentence that follows the one you quote that interests me most.  It's too easy to put our personal view onto the words he chose, so I want to tread carefully here, but we might be in the midst of indifference to contempt to disgust.

          •  "among the American people there is a growing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VetGrl

            indifference to any system of militia discipline"

            Whatever lack of discipline he may have experienced that led to this is nothing in our terms. Modern RKBA not only exalts lack of discipline, it stringently argues that there vere really was intended to be any connection between firearms and "militia" (the exception, of course, being their fabeled Militia of One). With the exception of things like Marbury v. Madison, I find very little from back then that is really vital to our time and place (really, what remains unaltered?). But if I was going to go there, I would read your quoted material as indicating that Justice Story, viewing how deeply entrenched standing armed forces have become here and now, would be inclined to hold that very little of importance, if anything, remains of Amendment 2. Seemingly he would feel that it's time has come and gone .

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

            by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:43:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Damn good diary,and it brought many solid thoughts (9+ / 0-)

    and very little crap in the comments.

    Well done, detroitmechworks.

  •  Some people are thinking Armageddon... (0+ / 0-)

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

    by Stuart Heady on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:15:31 PM PST

  •  I would like to hear (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joy of Fishes, glorificus, Bisbonian

    from RKBA if there is a concenssus about what the responsibilities are for a responsible gun owner.

    •  Perhaps they will choose to share it. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amsterdam, Joy of Fishes, glorificus

      I'm not going to call for it though because, that's their choice, not mine.

      I've simply tried to establish the barest of baselines.  

      Already there are some shit-stirrers trying to pick fights, and I don't feel like playing.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:17:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I doubt there is consensus on much (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amsterdam

      We all probably agree in at least a few core things such as 1) operating a gun in such a manner that you never point the barrel at anything you don't plan to shoot, 2) store your guns safely so nobody will touch them if not for a good reason, 3) know your realistic limits so you place nobody in danger.

  •  Well done on the diary and (4+ / 0-)

    thanks for managing comments so the discussion didn't devolve to insult exchange.  

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

    by SoCalSal on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:22:44 PM PST

  •  detroitmechworks, thank you for providing ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    detroitmechworks, glorificus, LinSea

    ... this space to talk and for your moderating the comments.  It's good to see that there are areas of agreement.  I hope further discussion will help in gaining understanding where there is disagreement.  Who knows, I might change my mind on some issues.  I'm willing to listen.  

    I always prefer to believe the best of everybody, it saves so much trouble.

    by Joy of Fishes on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:02:14 PM PST

    •  I'm trying my best. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes, glorificus, theboz

      Actually, I have no control whatsoever over the comments other than to voice my opinion.

      I greatly appreciate and wish to thank both the members of RKBA and the SDTN and RASA members who have been highly respectful to each other in this diary for the most part.

      I hope that the next time I do a "WCWAO" diary the tone remains as pleasant.

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

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:13:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very impressive, DMW. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LinSea

    It's a messy topic.

    **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

    by glorificus on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 07:07:35 PM PST

  •  A Possible Solution... (0+ / 0-)

    Enact legislation that will provide mental health assessments for people currently owning guns who may be having mental health issues. While background checks need to be mandatory for all purchasers we need a mechanism to address the problem of current gun owners or people residing with them who may have slipped into mental illness.

    There should be a way for family, law enforcement, neighbors, and other concerned citizens to request an evaluation. If the person is found to be mentally ill by a competent mental health professional, a legal hearing should commence to adjudicate the removal of the guns and that name be placed on the registry to prevent further purchases.

    If you don't want to control the guns you can control a mentally ill person's access to weapons they could use on themselves or others.  We have mechanisms to limit the freedom of a person who falls into this category now, we just need to expand it.  Felons with guns is just one of the problems we have that causes gun violence.

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site