Skip to main content

It's kind of perplexing to me that there seems to be an almost manic focus on what the right wing lunatics gun-nuts say or do about their silly infatuation with guns.  As I usually write in my diaries, I have little interest about what the fringe right wing has to say about anything, any topic at all.  Why? Because they are insane!  Literally.

And that's my point; why so much focus on these insane people?  I have no problem debating and negotiating policy with intelligent, sane people, regardless of their political persuasion.  But I do have standards.  For example, before I would consider any individual to be a serious person, I would have to assess whether they are operating with a full deck of cards, when it comes to very basic stuff that has already been settled.

How do you debate science with someone who believes that the earth was created a few thousand years ago, and that the mythologized figure Jesus and dinosaurs walked around the earth at the same time?

The same with the gun-nuts and all their pronouncements and their threats of violence, and talk of the Second Amendment, and how they need their guns purportedly to protect themselves against tyranny.  And some of them strap semi-automatic riffles and walk around the streets of Portland, or go inside a JcPenny.

These people are crazy, outright deranged.  Why do I care what they think, how angry they are, how deranged their pronouncements are.  I could not give a shit! Really.

They are the useful idiots of the gun manufacturers.

And yet, in all the noise about this topic I can't seem to find very straightforward arguments about what needs to happen.  We need to remove guns from our society, from our streets, from our neighborhoods.  It's that simple.

We had 30,000 gun deaths in the U.S. last year, and there is an increasing number of mass shootings because our streets are flooded with guns.  This is insane.

So let's remove the guns one neighborhood at a time, city by city, state by state.  Some may say, "well, what about the Second Amendment?"  That's a joke; that language is an anachronism.  Either way, one can take the part that says "well-regulated" and use it to regulate civilian gun-ownership into non-existence.

Hell, if the religious fanatics can regulate women's health centers (that happen to perform abortions) to the point that we are about to have four confederate, I mean southern states, with no access to abortion services, sane people could certainly get creative and do the same against guns.

Why is it that the loonies, the really deranged people can pass a slew of crazy laws that suppress voting, allow people to "stand their ground" and shoot and kill citizens, force vaginal ultrasound, and a myriad of other truly bizarre laws, can move their agenda forward?  Think about that.  Basically, wild-eyed Bible-thumpers, stewing in an uncontrollable rage (do to their craziness), holding the Bible in one hand, and hugging their multiple guns close to their chests, while rocking back-and-forth yelling in anger, their forehead veins popping out, can pass truly lunatic laws.

There is something really wrong with that picture...

Don't be shy.  Act rationally, like an intelligent adult, and say plainly what needs to be said, what the entire world already knows and wonders in horror at the lunacy of our society: we need to remove the guns from our streets.

--------------------------

--------------------------


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

  •  Some humans are instinct-driven. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrsgoo, gerrilea, roseeriter, 43north

    When they don't get what they want/need, their instinct is to kill. The particular tool they use doesn't matter, except to tell us they're basically cowards and prefer to do their killing at a distance, where there's less chance they themselves will be hurt.
    Removing a particular tool is useless, even though it seems reasonable to argue that tools, whose only use is to kill other living creatures, will hardly be missed by people who aren't into killing. Instinctive killers, except perhaps the most cowardly, won't be deterred by reducing the availability of tools.

    What I think makes killing other humans easy is the classification of people in general as disposable. If you've got throw-away people, why not blast them to kingdom come?
    See? It's an attitude. It's the same attitude that lures people into video and gambling and sex and massage and beauty parlors to be entertained until they can be disposed of, later.
    Disposable people. Industries are running out of disposable things to produce. So, the only thing that's left to abuse is people, unless the producers of people go on strike. Can't have that. Mississippi knows. They've got the answer. The law will ride to the rescue. All that's required is to rule medical assistance for the producers of infants out of existence. Then the supply of disposable people is assured.

    It's in the nature of people to reproduce, just as it is in their nature to kill each other off.  Just let Mother Nature do her job.

    We organize governments to deliver services and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:10:15 AM PST

  •  Hey, good luck with that... (14+ / 0-)

    Can we now talk about rational gun control instead of mass gun removal?

    "So what if a guy threw a shoe at me!"

    by FoodChillinMFr on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:23:39 AM PST

    •  a gun ban wont be an effective control method (7+ / 0-)

      Remember... this is drug free  country. All bad drugs are banned.

      With 100% effectiveness. Marijuana has totally disappeared because americans abide by he law.

      Banning marijuana has be thoroughly effective.

      And there is no black market: americans are law abiders.

      But people like the sound of 'gun ban' so they will make his sound.

      We'll implement laws that actually work.

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

      by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:51:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Put that attention on gun manufacturers (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, oldpunk, lyvwyr101

        particularly ones well-known to be 'problems'.

        Feds aggressively pursue medical marijuana clinics but leave gun makers with dubious histories unmolested.

        Those gosh-durn American priorities....

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

        by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:16:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just the American manufacturers, or the ones in (0+ / 0-)

          Pakistan, the Philippines, Bulgaria, et. al. A BATFE full employment program!

          •  Just the ones in the USA NOWN (0+ / 0-)

            and SHOWN to be skirting rules, as per a recent post that I found quite eye-opening.

            CONVERSELY, companies following the rules and without a fingerprint like the 'bad ones' can be left alone. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

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

            by xxdr zombiexx on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 05:27:54 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  No way in hell will that happen here. I'll fight (4+ / 0-)

    that. I want to see a Canadian style law. All the long guns you want. No handguns or military style rifles. Which puts me at odds with my own husband - he think you should be able to have handguns. I hate handguns.

    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:37:44 AM PST

    •  That's my policy, too, mrsgoo. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      Long guns for hunting and handguns, but the handguns must be kept at a licensed and inspected range, a range that has three doctors on the premises 24 hours a day, and each doctor must be certified by the state in trauma surgery and have privileges in a local hospital, a local hospital that must be within 500 feet of the gun range.  

      I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

      by Tortmaster on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:52:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That seems like a bad way to go about it. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher

        Your desired regulations would essentially make it impossible to operate a gun range, and effectively ban handguns.

        Your approach reminds me of right-wing state legislators' use of overly-restrictive regulations to shut down abortion clinics and make the right to choose a right in name only.

        If you want to ban handguns, just go ahead and say you want to ban handguns.

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:01:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Won't happen. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, northsylvania

    Deep background checks for weapons ownership is a better idea.

    The road to Hell is paved with pragmatism.

    by TheOrchid on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:14:04 AM PST

  •  not even on the table- of discussion (6+ / 0-)
  •  It will happen. And it will be sooner (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, lyvwyr101

    rather than later.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:26:19 AM PST

  •  When the Japanese conquered Okinawa (5+ / 0-)

    They banned the ownership of weapons by the Okinawans. The Okinawans responded by developing some of the martial arts that involved using farm tools as weapons as well as deadly unarmed martial arts.

    In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

    by boriscleto on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:01:40 AM PST

  •  Guns aren't the problem (3+ / 0-)

    per se. What kind of guns are used for what purpose is. Permitting is a shambles in the U.S., as it is not in many countries like the UK, where people do indeed own guns; they are available at the local Orvis;  and use them extensively for hunting and target practice.
    They have strict regulation of permitting, and local authorities check to see if you have a locked gun cabinet and keep your ammo locked as well. This cuts down on mass shootings, though doesn't eliminate them entirely. It's a trade off, like putting a maximum of 30 Tylenol in a pack to prevent suicide.
    What is the problem is that the average Joe on the Left and the Right is coming to the conclusion that their government has no intention of representing the wishes of the common man. The one way that these people can be split apart is through cultural differences. It used to be gay rights and abortion, now it's guns. I have learned that when any position is framed as a starkly either/or position, there's a reason to distract people from serious systemic issues.

    "We are monkeys with money and guns". Tom Waits

    by northsylvania on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:02:55 AM PST

  •  HR for repeated accusations of mental illness. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, Tom Seaview, sviscusi

    It has long been decided that it is unacceptable in this community to make such accusations.

    It is insulting to both those the false charges are leveled against, as well as tying violence to those who are mentally ill.

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

    by theatre goon on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:07:02 AM PST

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

      The only thing that would make this diary conform to DKos community standards... would be its deletion.
      HR.

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

      by Tom Seaview on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:16:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, this diary is important (6+ / 0-)

      It exemplifies what is wrong with a large part of progressive America. We need to have a discussion about reaching out to cultural conservatives, because if they all side with Wall Street and the Republicans we'll never win decisively.

      •  I agree, let the asshattery be on full display. (4+ / 0-)
        These people are crazy, outright deranged.  Why do I care what they think, how angry they are, how deranged their pronouncements are.  I could not give a shit! Really.
        IF this is your reality?  Don't focus on the right to keep and bear arms Ray, you need to make certain they can't vote.

        So why not edit your diary and say:  

        Got a gun?  Per the laws of 2013, we the People, shall automatically cast a vote for the entire (D/L/P) slate on your behalf; in all local, State, and Federal elections.
        Then your gun owners will become irrelevant.  Until then, perhaps you should heed the advice of President Clinton, and engage not demonize the opposition.
    •  Can you specify which person, by name, ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador, blueness, lyvwyr101

      was accused of being mentally ill? Can you get hr'd for calling Republicans insane on this site? Which is more sane: Removing all civilian guns or allowing any random person to strap on as many handguns as he wants to his leg and walk into any bar, hospital or public school?

      HR abuse!

      I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

      by Tortmaster on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:03:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  A false binary. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PavePusher
        Which is more sane: Removing all civilian guns or allowing any random person to strap on as many handguns as he wants to his leg and walk into any bar, hospital or public school?
        Why are those the only two options—either a complete ban on all guns of any kind in civilian hands, or no restrictions at all on people going anywhere they'd like armed to the teeth?

        We know that sane regulation can work in restricting things without banning them; you can still buy cigarettes, for example, but that doesn't mean you can smoke them everywhere. Why do you think such regulations are impossible for guns?

        "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

        by JamesGG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:04:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for the HR. It's a good demonstration (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      of HR abuse; this stuff is helpful.

      Your characterization of the diary of course, is totally wrong. I don't think you actually read it.

      BTW, I'm not advocating for anyone to go home by home a take guns away; I'm advocating the use of regulations and laws to make it almost impossible to own a gun.

      It's a different approach.  It's almost comical to see how bent out of shape some people get when it comes to these totally stupid and useless (other than to kill, military, and police officers) artifacts.

      •  Thereby criminalizing (0+ / 0-)

        tens of millions of citizens, similar to what is happening in other spheres. Government control over "criminals" is much easier than control over innocent men.

      •  Yes, I read it. (0+ / 0-)

        It is in flagrant violation of the site rules against using mental illness as an insult.

        Clearly, you are not the only one that believes it is acceptable to break site rules when it suits you to do so.

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

        by theatre goon on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 12:24:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Diary is unrealistic & ecologically harmful (7+ / 0-)

    I agree we need fewer guns. But I think diaries like this reflect an urban misunderstanding of rural issues. I live in NYC but spent my summers on a farm and have studied rural and ecological issues.

    Right now, as a result of the conversion of farmland to new forest, there are according to experts more deer than there were when Columbus arrived. And there are few if any wolves in the East.

    Even in the suburbs, deer are proliferating and leading miserable starved out lives. A few years ago I was at a beach outside NYC and a starving deer wandered into the parking lot begging for food and looking through trash cans.

    We actually need more hunters but fewer guns, and much fewer guns in the urban areas.

    Also taking away guns isn't pretty. It's been going on in NYC for over a decade and given the biases of the people to take the guns (police) and the fact that they have to do so in open areas, this has led to hundreds of thousands of harassing stops and frisks of young black and Latino men -- leading to arrests and criminal records for all sorts of nonsense like possession of tiny amounts of marijuana and trespassing. Police even plant guns just to get to their quotas.

    Are you in favor of police stopping and frisking people constantly all over the country?

    We're not going to remove all guns from the civilian population nor should we -- not because of the 2nd Amendment but for a number of policy reasons.

    Also your claim that "our side" shouldn't negotiate with people you deem "crazy" is perplexing. People voted for these representatives. Are you suggesting that in addition to a stop and frisk police state that we abolish democracy and don't deal with any voters or elected officials our side deems to be "crazy"? What about the numerous people on "our side" who also seem pretty crazy to me? What political and policy position are "crazy" is partly subjective and many people even on our side would consider your own diary "crazy." Should no one engage you in the discussion?

  •  Aside from the obvious fact (7+ / 0-)

    that amending the Constitution to alter the Second Amendment is pretty much a nonstarter, the suggestion that it would be possible to remove the millions of guns that are already out there in people's homes is just about as practical as Republicans' idea that we somehow locate and deport each and every undocumented immigrant now in the U.S. and build a big wall to keep any more from getting in.

    Pffft.

  •  Its the extremes or extremists that are the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ER Doc

    problem, IMHO. The extremists seem to get severe FEAR anxiety about anything practical, fair or equal.

    THEY ruin everything!

    "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones." "Life without emotions is like an engine without fuel."

    by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 04:37:04 AM PST

    •  Extremists like the author of this diary? Yes. n/t (5+ / 0-)

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:22:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, cause he's speaking truthfully and his (0+ / 0-)

        common sense logical solution would solve the problem, but everyone would have to want the same result for it to work. BUT we know that will never happen..unfortunately.

         I do Believe, though, that he'd get the Majority of good reasonable people on his side:)

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones." "Life without emotions is like an engine without fuel."

        by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 05:50:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  roseeriter: So the FSM evaporates all guns: (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc, PavePusher, valion, oldpunk

          a) except those held by police
          b) including the police
          c) including our enormous military, leaving us with a lightly armed coastal defense force, similar to Japan.

          which results in:
          i) an end to all crime
          ii) an end to drug gangs
          iii) a change in methodology to bombs

          The record mass murderer of school-aged children is:
          1) Adam Lanza
          2) Andrew Kehoe
          3) Timothy McVey

          The record mass murderer of children under age six is which person from the list above?  _

          The method used in killing the most school aged children per incident is the use of:
          A) Assault Weapons, with high capacity magazines and extra-deadly fragmenting bullets.
          B) Explosives and/or improvised explosive devices

        •  "his common sense logical solution".... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon

          I must have missed that part.

          Quote, please?

      •  Ray, it might be good to add a snark tag (0+ / 0-)

        I'd go ahead & do it, but it seems both high-handed and disrespectful to go manhandling the intention and presentation of another to do that "for" you.

        Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
        Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

        by chmood on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:10:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The only problem is... (4+ / 0-)

    ...these "insane" people vote.

    And there are rather a lot of them.

    We will never destroy the Republican party by alienating votersw who should be with us.

    West Virginia voted for Wall Street's candidate last November. You know, the candidate who was going to turn around and gut Medicare and Social Security.

    I'm worried about 2014. It's likely to be a repeat of 2010, unless we start reaching out to people who share our interests but differ from us culturally. This talk of taking away guns is counterproductive in my opinion.

    •  It's not their numbers that worry me... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Pensador

      but their fanaticism - their refusal to hear anything but what they've been (self?) programmed to hear, their refusal to have any conversation on the subject (or even related topics) beyond the LaPierre Party line, and their utter willingness to impose their opinions (and judgments) on EVERYBODY.

      They ONLY chink I've ever found in their armor (so to speak) is the minute possibility of exposing to them the ways in which they've been lied to and used by the people they trust to fight for them.  Call it Betrayed Minion syndrome, or something equally entertaining, but flipping the jilted-lover switch is the only thing I've found that works (okay, personal tragedy works, but I decline to arrange that for others).

      Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
      Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

      by chmood on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:23:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'd love to eliminate all bad stuff from the world (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north, lyvwyr101

    But I'd be happy with incremental improvements.  You can't let the great become the enemy of the good etc. etc. etc.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:08:57 AM PST

  •  As long as we're looking at realistic solutions, (10+ / 0-)

    why don't we remove all 300 million guns by building a giant space magnet to suck them out of everyone's house, militia compound, pickup truck, gang hangout, back pocket, and hollowed-out Bible?

    What could go wrong?  

    Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

    by Mark Mywurtz on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:11:21 AM PST

  •  Find this somehow inconsistent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PavePusher

    with previous exhortations against government, corporatists, MIC and calls for revolutionary action.  

    We'll blog them into submission?

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:43:19 AM PST

  •  absolutely, but when did Amerika ever (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, a2nite, lyvwyr101

    do anything rational, at least since 1945?  Even on this progressive blog you wouldn't believe the resistance when I've even suggested very strict standards at least as to who could have guns.  But the best would be none at all.  Then no one could justify having one to protect themselves from someone else who has one.  Hunting?  Prehistoric...no one needs it for food, as for sport it's pretty morally indefensible.  But karma will take care that - anyone shooting at animals will find themselves at the other end of that gun somewhere in their journey through the multiverse.
    That said, my sister in Montana posted a picture of her new gun on her Facebook page.  Go figure.

    •  Hunting is important (4+ / 0-)

      for the control of certain animal populations. I think that sport hunting is often silly (like killing bears), but here in the northeast, the deer population is in deep trouble from over population. Unless we introduce wolves back into the ecosystem, hunting is pretty necessary.

      Hunters should be encouraged, however, to stop going for antler wracks (which is actually causing selection toward smaller and smaller antlers) and shoot both males and females for meat.

      •  deer overpopulation takes care of itself (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101
        Hidden by:
        chmood

        as in starvation, n'est ce pas?  It do not take subhumans with guns to right the ecosystem, do it?

        •  No, it doesn't (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          richardvjohnson, pistolSO

          Excess deer leads to environmental degradation, as they strip trees of bark and consume resources that other animals would eat. Also more modern problems arise, like more deer-car accidents, more tick fever, more damage to gardens and farms.

          Plus a starving deer is more miserable than a healthy deer.

          I don't know if you are a vegetarian or vegan -- which would argue for letting them starve. But for anyone who is an omnivore, it is an attractive option that this "free meat" is harvested for the benefit of both humans and the health of the national deer herd itself.

          •  well I would say there are more humane (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lyvwyr101

            ways to reduce deer overpopulation...as in reintroduce their natural predators, or barring that, euthanize them painlessly...aka being shot is probably not a good way to leave the planet ;)

            •  Being mauled to death by a predator.... (0+ / 0-)

              is "more humane"?

              That's certainly.... debateable.

              •  that's the way of Mother Earth... (0+ / 0-)

                dare we question?  I've not personally experienced death by gunshot wounds...but personally I would prefer to be mauled and eaten by predators to being shot and killed by jumped-up monkeys (us poor helpless but for technology heirs of all primates)

              •  I was thinking the same thing (0+ / 0-)

                If it's a choice between being torn apart alive by wolves, starving to death over several winter months, or a clean hunter shot, I'm pretty sure the latter is the least unpleasant. Hopefully, more hunters will adopt the ethics of the single clean shot, rather than the shoot em up ethic that seems to prevail with assault weapon hunters.

        •  HR for "subhumans" - SHAME on you! (0+ / 0-)

          Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
          Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

          by chmood on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:26:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Wow. Talk about a moral high-horse. (5+ / 0-)
      Hunting?  Prehistoric...no one needs it for food, as for sport it's pretty morally indefensible.
      Of course... because you don't see a use for it and because you don't think anyone needs it for food, it's "morally indefensible." And because your version of morality is so self-evidently and inherently superior to all others' versions, you are completely within your rights to impose your morality upon everyone else, regardless of what they want.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:12:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  no shit (3+ / 0-)

        as if everyone eating factory farmed meat served in styrofoam packages and shot full of antibiotics taken from animals that lived short, humiliating lives in totally unnatural environments will certainly address the problem of people killing each other over stupid shit or over nothing at all.

        yeah, that's the answer!

        either that or maybe we could all eat nothing but vegetables or become breatharians until we turn ethereal and become one with the universe.

        there's some real friggin' wizards around here lately, isn't there?

        Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List-686 pages of hyperlinks in PDF format Yesterday's history, tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

        by elkhunter on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:50:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I eat only plants and sea-animals which do not (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lyvwyr101

          enough common ancestry for me to empathize with them...
          I would be a total vegan but for the need for protein, not to be met with red beans and rice...

          •  That's nice for you. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            richardvjohnson, PavePusher

            You've made a choice that works for you, based on your moral values.

            It's the next step you take in your original comment that is the problem. What makes you think you have the right to impose your choices and your moral values upon the whole of society?

            "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

            by JamesGG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 01:49:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I do not try to impose moral values (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lyvwyr101

              on the immoral, only that I hope they don't shoot me with their allegedly legal firearms ;)

              •  And yet, you want to ban... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                ...all private firearms ownership, including for hunting, because you see it as "morally indefensible" and don't see the need for it.

                Those who do hunt for food (or to protect their food, like those who keep guns to shoot coyotes or varmints who threaten their flocks or stores) are invisible to you, so you seek to impose your own opposition to hunting for sport as "morally indefensible" upon everyone by banning the firearms they use.

                So you are, in fact, advocating to impose your moral values on others.

                "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                by JamesGG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 02:49:59 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  now honestly how many people do you personally (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101

                  know who shoot varmints to protect their flocks?  Desusional, yes?  Anyway, adios, vaya con Dios!

                  •  Read a few threads on this topic... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher

                    ...and you'll inevitably see responses from people who live in rural areas, who keep goats, chickens, or other livestock and who keep a gun around in case a coyote or other predator comes calling.

                    The fact that you are incapable of even envisioning a situation where one might want a firearm to hunt nuisance animals or predators, as if such a situation is completely unthinkable in your view of the country and those who believe such situations actually exist are "delusional," indicates that you're really out of touch with the rural lifestyle of many Americans—and seeking to impose your own set of values on their lives without any consideration of their lifestyles.

                    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

                    by JamesGG on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 03:04:11 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Wow. That was a fucked up comment. n/t (0+ / 0-)
              •  Nice to meet you, M. Hypocrite.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ER Doc

                Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
                Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

                by chmood on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:31:19 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  you admit you have insufficient 'moral value' then (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ER Doc

            ...at least by the "rules" you lay out here:  hand off if you're related, but the more distant the relation, the less compassion and empathy, and the decline of concern about how you treat them becomes completely valid.

            Morally speaking...exactly the kind of comfortable falsehood that stopped my vegan experiment.

            Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
            Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

            by chmood on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:35:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  moral high-horse, I admit to the charges... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101

        what or whom have you ever killed, and how did you feel about  it when you did?  Splain, Lucy, splain...

        •  Your moral superiority allows you to ride horses? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ER Doc

          Did you ASK THE HORSES?

          Would you listen if they said NO?  Or would you ignore them on the grounds of self-justification.

          Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
          Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

          by chmood on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 09:37:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  You need to read the recent diary on ignorance. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, richardvjohnson

      `'Cause you has it.

  •  You answer your own question: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, lyvwyr101
    Why is it that the loonies, the really deranged people can pass a slew of crazy laws that suppress voting, allow people to "stand their ground" and shoot and kill citizens, force vaginal ultrasound, and a myriad of other truly bizarre laws, can move their agenda forward?  Think about that.  Basically, wild-eyed Bible-thumpers, stewing in an uncontrollable rage (do to their craziness), holding the Bible in one hand, and hugging their multiple guns close to their chests, while rocking back-and-forth yelling in anger, their forehead veins popping out, can pass truly lunatic laws.
    You know why they can pass truly lunatic laws? Because there HASN'T been ENOUGH "focus on these insane people".  It's the people that say- "Oh they're crazy, no need to talk about them" that enable them to pass these laws.

    Every minute of every day, in EVERY conversation, the American people need to be reminded "Hey, the Republican party is insane. And if you vote for them, you'll get insane results."

    Otherwise, you get- well, pretty much what we have now.

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:02:06 AM PST

  •  Never happen. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, lyvwyr101

    Americans are too attached to their guns. Just look at the reasonable proposals being put forward by Obama/Biden...they're being treated like dictators who "want to take your guns!"
    We have to start somewhere. We have to implement what is being proposed and then work toward even more strict rules.
    But we will never ban ALL guns. Frankly, no nation ever has. But we CAN have really strict laws.
    Japan, for instance, has perhaps the strictest laws in the world - and very few deaths. The year they had 22 was great cause for alarm. here's why:

    To get a gun in Japan, first, you have to attend an all-day class and pass a written test, which are held only once per month. You also must take and pass a shooting range class. Then, head over to a hospital for a mental test and drug test (Japan is unusual in that potential gun owners must affirmatively prove their mental fitness), which you'll file with the police. Finally, pass a rigorous background check for any criminal record or association with criminal or extremist groups, and you will be the proud new owner of your shotgun or air rifle. Just don't forget to provide police with documentation on the specific location of the gun in your home, as well as the ammo, both of which must be locked and stored separately. And remember to have the police inspect the gun once per year and to re-take the class and exam every three years.
    We may never get to that point. But it's worth trying.

    Isn’t it ironic to think that man might determine his own future by something so seemingly trivial as the choice of an insect spray. ~ Rachel Carson, Silent Spring ~

    by MA Liberal on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:05:50 AM PST

  •  " we need to remove the guns from our streets"... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, lyvwyr101

    ...i propose a federal ban on transporting guns...totally. Maybe a one way permit from point if purchase to home address...that is all.

    If you need a gun to protect your property, fine. If you feel unsafe outside of your home without a gun, stay home.

    If you're caught with a gun outside of your property, you lose all of them and get charged with a felony.

    Rule #7...If you supported the Iraq war, you don't get to complain about the national debt.

    by suspiciousmind on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:21:44 AM PST

  •  Shit like this (5+ / 0-)

    is why people like me have problems convincing other Democrats and moderate independents that nobody wants to take their guns.

    You should do all of us who live in the real world a favor and delete this insulting, ignorant piece of dreck.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 07:33:47 AM PST

    •  no kidding (3+ / 0-)

      you know, i don't really give a shit what they do with the gun laws as the very worst case for me is that my 9mm clip capacity will go from 15 down to 10.

      my bigger concern is that Democrats will lose elections over the gun issue. then we are fucked and little else will matter.

      there's a whole lot of other issues in this country that need addressing and NONE of them will be dealt with if The Left throws it all away over the 2nd.

      these people who think it's a great time to insult everyone who owns a gun will find out that history does indeed repeat itself.

      Granny Storm Crow's MMJ Reference List-686 pages of hyperlinks in PDF format Yesterday's history, tomorrow's a mystery. Today is a gift and that's why it's called "The Present".

      by elkhunter on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 10:05:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Agree. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador, lyvwyr101

    Availability = Access = Use = Tragedy.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 09:18:35 AM PST

  •  My, such courage. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, Ray Pensador
    So let's remove the guns one neighborhood at a time, city by city, state by state.

    And you'll be volunteering for the seizure teams, amIright?  Pointman or nothing, eh?  We'll assign you to districts in West Virginia and Arizona.  Have a nice trip.

    But I doubt you have the courage of your "convictions".

    Some may say, "well, what about the Second Amendment?"  That's a joke; that language is an anachronism.
    If so, then so are the other nine first Amendments the the Constitution.  Article V awaits you, go hog wild.
  •  Am I irrational by your standards? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon

    I don't agree with removing all guns from hunters, ranchers, biathletes, jewelry couriers, armored car personnel, and maybe even people who are dealing with active threats to their lives.

    •  Not, you'e not irrational. If you read the diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lyvwyr101

      what I propose is to enact a very strict regulatory oversight to make it as hard as possible for people to carry around, eventually diminishing their ownership.  That's already happening in a way; only 30 percent of American own guns.

  •  All guns banned (0+ / 0-)

    I guess to a city person that would sound like a good idea,but to a rural area person you would be considered the nut.Some people in this country have really no choice but to hunt Foodstamps only go so far.Plus animal numbers do need to be controlled or over population causes big problems.So I believe in reasonable gun control,Assault weapons ban them,large mags ban them,full background check on everyone them are all good.But to stop hunters from hunting No.People should be able to protect them self .If we take it to far the NRA will just say they were right along .And we will lose everything.

  •  Ray, it pains me to disagree with you on this, but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ray Pensador

    you seem to be missing the elephant in the room:  Not all gun owners, but ALL those "cold, dead hands" types have been dreaming and preparing for decades in anticipation of "the day they come for our guns" - BECAUSE THAT'S THE DAY THE SHOOTING STARTS IN EARNEST.

    It won't last long as an 'armed resistance':  it will quickly mutate into a random slaughter of colored people in 'the wrong place', and escalate from their into an "all=out" war on the race traitors - you know, liberals.

    It may not last longer than a few day, maybe a few weeks...but the death toll will be greater than the casualties of the Southern Rebellion.  My guess is well over 2,000,000 dead, most of them "urban".

    I know you're sharp and intelligent (and thoughtful, El Pensador!) but you're advocating a step that would justify all their derangement and brainwashing in an outpouring of so-called righteous wrath against, well, US.

    Please, man, think this shit THROUGH.  I grew up around these people;  I've been related to them, I've argued with them (at exhaustive length), and you're in effect asking them to take out whatever rage, confusion, and/or malignancy they have built up in innocent blood.  Yes, the status quo is an awful thing, but going for the gun-grab is the surest way to make it as bad as possible, as quickly as possible.

    Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
    Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

    by chmood on Sun Jan 20, 2013 at 06:29:16 PM PST

    •  That's a very thoughtful comment. Hopefully (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chmood

      if you keep reading my stuff you'll eventually "get me."  A couple of things: I believe in the rule of law.  I have respect and believe in the United States Constitution (I actually served in the military years ago).  I never advocate the use of violence, except in self-defense (the actual legal concept of it).

      Out of all the comments here yours actually goes straight to the heart of the issue that prompted me to write this "snark" diary.

      I know what you're talking about; I know about these people, and how hate-filled they are, and that they are chomping at the bit to find an excuse to go all "AR 315" and get violent; I know.

      But a society cannot allow these types of threats to go unanswered, and especially, a society cannot for one second allow itself to be intimidated by people like this.

      A society cannot also countenance the acceptance of ignorance and absurdity, as it they were part of serious discourse and debate.

      This diary was a "snark," yes I admit it; I will write a serious diary about this topic next, and will make the actual points I think are most important.

      Either way, I do appreciate your impassioned and honest point of view.

      •  Apologies for TOTALLY missing the snark (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ray Pensador

        (not my first time doing so, I swear).

        Clearly, you get my point(s), and I release my dismay over your MISunderstood message...and very happy to do so.

        I agree that this needs a serious diary, and I've been contemplating one for some time...but my time is sufficiently curtailed that I mostly end up making comments on the diaries of others during my 'very tired' times.

        Thank you for your kind words;  I shall endeavor to persevere....

        Dick Cheney: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter"
        Mitch McConnell: "There's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue"

        by chmood on Mon Jan 21, 2013 at 08:03:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site