Skip to main content

The enemies of reason deny or distort established facts. They do that when they fight the teaching of evolution in biology classes, when they deny the human origin of global climate change or the devastating effect of over-population to the ecosystem of our planet. Some of them even adhere to the ancient believe, that we live on a flat earth in the center of the universe.
The opponents of gun control belong into the same category of people. They cannot acknowledge that wherever weapons are not allowed, such as in airplanes, or trains people feel safer, and intentional or accidental killings are mostly absent there. They also fail to understand the simple fact that our country has a dismal record in regard of gun related deaths by homicides,  accidents and suicides. In the year 2011 alone,  32,163 gun deaths have been reported, a figure about five times higher than the number of  our fallen soldiers in eleven years of war. The public at large seems to live comfortably with these terrible facts. Only some mass killings are able to stir emotions. However, the 28 dead people in Newtown are only a tiny fraction of the total death toll. It looks as if it were OK if we are taken out one by one; but it seems to be against our ethics if several people are being killed at once.
The comparison with countries with stricter gun laws clearly proves that the availability of guns is directly related to the number of shot-dead people. Yes, I know, guns do not kill. But man with his bare hands rarely kills either. What is deadly is the combination of both.
Well, there is the second amendment, which gives us the right to own any kind of weapon we desire no matter how many are killed or injured intentionally or not. The right of the victims to live  seems of secondary importance.
It is strange that only half of the second amendment is significant to the gun loving crowd. They constantly overlook that the right of weapon-ownership comes with a string attached. The right to own arms is contingent to the obligation of the armed citizen to  being part of the country’s militia. This militia demanded by the constitution is a support unit to the land and sea forces of our Nation, and when in service, members of the militia fall under the jurisdiction of the military justice system, as stated in the fifth amendment of our constitution.
I wonder what our patriotic gun owners would do if the federal government would call on them to take their arms, leave house and family, and join the fight in our war zones.   If such a system were still in place, we could have saved a lot of money and our deficit would be smaller.
By no means does the constitution allow private citizens to form bands, which nowadays call themselves militias, to use their arms  fighting our elected government for perceived or real  infringements of their civil rights. For this purpose we have elections and other rights spelled out in the constitution in places other than the second amendment.
Whenever I visit a place where large crowds gather, a mall, a sports event or the like, I cannot help to be aware that about half of the people  around me are owners of fire arms. I just can pray that  all of them are as law abiding and responsible as the National Rifle Association claims they are; that none of them ever will get drunk or take narcotic drugs, and that they never will get a mental illness that may cloud their judgement. I imagine all these people honing their killing proficiency in shooting ranges taking aim at cardboard targets in the shape of human silhouettes so that they can responsibly take out any intruder who came to steel their television set or other  things from their homes. I also know that some of the people around me are carrying concealed weapons. I cannot help to think that they are eagerly hoping for an opportunity to use lethal force to defend their fellow un-armed citizen from a real or perceived terrorist attack, or to cleanly take out a guy holding up the cashier.
Our country is like a fairytale land, where a terrible monster eats people one by one. But the country’s citizen are not aware that the monster exists. A cadre of well trained priests is able to persuade them to voluntarily sacrifice fellow citizen randomly and on a regular basis. The priests even provide the tools of slaughter and they are able to convince killers and victims alike that it is all in the name of freedom.

Originally posted to Karl Hainz on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:31 PM PST.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

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

  •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, noway2

    Five countries with stricter gun laws than the US.

    1. Columbia
    2. Brazil
    3. South Africa
    4. Somalia
    5. Mexico

    •  thank for that important info... (8+ / 0-)

      because we are so much like those countries.

      We are not broke, we are being robbed.

      by Glen The Plumber on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 08:46:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You mean strict like this? (4+ / 0-)
      But because of a loophole in federal regulations, buying restricted firearms through a trust also exempts the trust’s members from requirements that apply to individual buyers, including being fingerprinted, obtaining the approval of a chief local law enforcement officer and undergoing a background check.
      Christopher J. Dorner, the former Los Angeles police officer who embarked on a weeklong assault on law enforcement officers this month that ended with his death on Feb. 12, said in a rambling 11,000-word manifesto that he had used a gun trust to buy silencers and a short-barreled rifle from a gun store in Nevada without a background check.

      Yeah, real strict.
      Real strict when the only person that needs checked out is the original purchaser of a gun- wanna sell that thing a week later, no problem, sell it to the first person that has the cash-no check necessary.
         For all the hyped up hoopla about "criminals", and "bad guys with guns", and "outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns" horseshit spewed by the NRA, GOA, and those that drink their kool-aid, EVERY gun in the hands of ANY criminal, bad guy or outlaw originated, began its life as a legal gun, purchased legally.
         There is no refuting that, period.
         And does ANYONE believe for one damn second that all of those guns in the hands of these criminals, bad guys, and outlaws they spew about came about from the theft from their rightful, law abiding, responsible owners?

      Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

      by teabaggerssuckbalz on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 04:04:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        How many criminals and straw purchasers are looking to sign and notarize documents detailing their conspiracy to violate gun laws?

        I have a trust myself, not to avoid background checks but to avoid securing permission from local law enforcement where they have discretion to deny.

        •  So, who is the outlaw with guns then? Appears that (2+ / 0-)

          the exploitation of this law may very well make You seem to be one in a lot of folks eyes. Have any clue just how many dope dealers in my area have carried conceal permits in my town? Sure they were legal when they obtained them- how long until they're not?
             What came first, the chicken/ egg, or guns/gun deaths?
             I know you folks love to quote those old FBI stats from 2008-2009 as some sort of proof that gun proliferation is working but my own observation just following news tells me that the numbers once calculated for last year and the current will reflect a huge increase.
             From my old hometown news this morning for example:

          Rodgers, a student at City Day Community School, was shot in the head multiple times, according to Ken Betz, director of the Montgomery County Coroner’s Office. She was Dayton’s sixth homicide victim in six days, the most the city has had in a single week in at least four years.
          Wesley is suspected of shooting and killing 13-year-old Briona Rodgers in her home Sunday. He is suspected of also shooting and critically wounding her cousin, 13-year-0ld Alonta Culpepper, in the same incident.

            And as for where I live now? There's no doubt whatsoever that gun deaths are way up in direct correlation with gun proliferation. I know this all too well, my own kid was a victim of a double homicide from a gun, so quote whatever you'd like but I see this all happening in real life, not some ginned up NRA/GOA talking point.

          Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

          by teabaggerssuckbalz on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:28:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            My condolences for your loss, but that's no excuse to accuse someone of a crime for no other reason than he disagrees with you.

            I won't bore you with 2008-2012 homicide data, I don't have it and I don't have time to dig it up right now.  And I readily admit that a non-trivial portion of offenders with firearms are first timers.  

            •  I didn't accuse you of a crime.What I said was (0+ / 0-)

              that in the eyes of some folks the exploitation of this loophole is an end run around the law- which you even admit to. I think most folks here despise the rich who systematically exploit tax loopholes, i.e., Romney's dancing horse- it is an exploitation to avoid paying taxes, a crime in some folks eyes.

              Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

              by teabaggerssuckbalz on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:33:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                The law is code and custom of court, not the political whim of some public official.  This is no end run, it's exercising an opportunity lawfully afforded to me.  By doing so, I risk no one's safety or livelihood, nor do I deprive society of a single cent in tax or fee.

        •  End run around the law= (0+ / 0-)
          I have a trust myself, not to avoid background checks but to avoid securing permission from local law enforcement where they have discretion to deny.
            Nice try, gun troll

          Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

          by teabaggerssuckbalz on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:22:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            Certain jurisdictions have officials extremely hostile to gun owners.  The law allows me to bypass them while simultaneously standing up a safe, auditable and accountable vehicle for managing ownership of various items of value including Class 3 firearms.  That's not an end run, that's being reasonable and responsible.

            •  That's rather obtuse, call it whatever you want to (0+ / 0-)

              but by your own admission

              Certain jurisdictions have officials extremely hostile to gun owners
              you couldn't have your much desired penis extension, er guns, not due to some
              extremely hostile
              official but because the officials you refer to are following whatever law/ordinance where you live.
                As I said, some folks would look at that as questionably criminal, others I suppose would think your ass needs hauled off and your penis extensions, er, guns, confiscated.
                 Nice try though

              Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

              by teabaggerssuckbalz on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 04:16:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                I keep forgetting.  There's a certain breed of gun hater with an inexplicable obsession for phallic imagery.  They'll bounce around from conversation to conversation accusing people of performing all sorts of crimes against society and their penises.  Nothing good ever comes from the exchange.  I'll bow out here.

                •  Well, I don't hate guns, I have owned many over (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Karl Hainz

                  the years. Although I don't now, my interest in them is in big bore airguns that are not within the definition of firearms. Because as such I find myself at ranges on occasion to this very day and in doing so observe many a firearm owner. Not all, but many are simply fucking paranoid freaks. Some are lost in this fantasy world of 'I'm gonna have to take on the gubment one of these days because they're gonna come and try to take my gun. Others are plain and simple cowards, especially grown damn men who have never had nerve or testicular fortitude to stand up and say a fucking word to anyone about anything but magically get all sorts of courage after spending $700 on 3-4 lbs of steel nuts they can now pack. Very few come across as sane, generally the ones Ive talked to that have a sane and non plussed attitude towards guns are in law enforcement or military.
                     So yes, having had talked to a wide array, a good number of them become awful fucking manly the moment their little dickbeaters get to play with a gun.
                     Get in where ya fit in.

                  Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

                  by teabaggerssuckbalz on Wed Feb 27, 2013 at 06:41:26 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  praying wont make gun owners responsible (7+ / 0-)

    but govt can.  Good post.

    •  How do you know that? They can pray to the sainted (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      idols they have, they can recite their 27-Word Gospel, they can recite all the mantras handed down by the NRA high priests (with "guns don't kill people ..." at the top of the hit parade), and they can scream at the top of their lungs how responsible they are.  Actually I think you're right, none of those things they do as part of their religion will make them responsible - if one thing is clear it's that they want all the rights, all the privileges and none of the responsibility or accountability.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:03:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We are the background (3+ / 0-)

    to the would-be shooter/hero.  May we all stay clear.

    "Goodnight, thank you, and may your God go with you"

    by TheFern on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 11:43:55 PM PST

  •  Yet another me too diary that pulls out the same (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annecros, Shamash, andalusi, ban nock

    old claims that have been hashed over and debunked several times.

    1) it is about FEELING safe.  
    Response) The Law disagrees
    2) gun ownership is restricted to the militia.
    Response) Wrong says the courts.
    3) Point to death statistics and imply that criminal activity represents gun owners.
    Response) Epic failure, doesn't apply.
    4) It worked in other countries.  
    Response) Other countries don't have our legal foundation, and their violent crime rates in other areas a a lot higher.  Also, it is impossible to realistically compare a nation the size of a small state with a much more homogeneous population to the USA as a whole.
    5) when all else fails, blame the NRA.
    Response) The NRA represents only a minority of gun owners
    6) state a bunch of emotionally based ignorance that shows no understanding of the responsibilities associated with carrying a weapon in public.
    Response) You have wonder why gun restrictions goes nowhere?

  •  A couple things to bear in mind-- (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2, ban nock

    --regarding gun-free zones where people feel safer, it is worth remembering that spree killers frequently attack at gun-free zones. I've never been able to ask a spree killer why this is done, but I think it is safe to assume that they expect an easy and harmless target population.

    --Militias by their nature aren't expected to be deployed overseas to war zones, so that is a poor metric of patriotism. Militias in the early years of the US frequently would refuse to leave the borders of their home states to fight in outside territory because it wasn't in their interests. Plus, militias are great for defense, not so great for attacks. They are essentially insurgents, not force-projectors or occupiers. Plus, I reject the notion that randomly going overseas in wars of questionable virtue is "patriotic".

    You may get the impression I am totally bagging on you or your post; I'm not. There's actually some similarities in some of the thoughts I've had. Just those to stand-outs compelled me to comment.

  •  Great diary exposing more of the facile gun Cult (4+ / 0-)

    talking points.  Thank you.

    In what universe is it OK that we have one American getting shot every 5 minutes?

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 05:08:36 AM PST

  •  Step up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andalusi, noway2
    The enemies of reason deny or distort established facts.
    I would like the diarist to step up and state for the record that supporters of gun control, especially here on Kos, do not engage in the same tactics.

    Given that diaries and comments are a matter of permanent record and readily searchable, I do not expect to hear such a declaration, but I do expect to hear a lot of excuses.

    •  Facts get distorted (3+ / 0-)

      by people on both sides of this debate, by people who aren't interested in the facts but more the end result.  I'm not trying to false-equivalency anybody here, but the reality is that in any debate there are bad actors on both sides.  One side may have more bad actors than the other (Republicans over Democrats, for example).  However, neither side is perfectly clean, and to goad someone into claiming such a thing proves nothing, except one person made a dumb remark.

      I'm not sure what you're after, here.  Although you can just ignore my comment as an excuse if you'd like.

      "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

      by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:12:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bad actors have plagued the whole issue (0+ / 0-)

        for the last two and a half months and caused it to become a stalemate with a lot of hard feelings on both sides and nothing but scorched dirt to show for it.  As an example, I support background checks via permits for gun ownership, but have found myself taking a hard line no compromise approach because I have gotten to the point where I see any movement as nothing more than the staging area for the next grab attempt.  From many of the comments I've seen, including but not limited to here on DK, I feel well justified in this stance.

        Instead of making any sort of progress or developing solutions that everyone can live with, the whole thing became a game of posturing, demanding, and trying to take by force.  Even the major political players that set the tone, e.g. Biden, have admitted that the crap they threw out wouldn't do much good, suggesting that the whole charade was nothing more than an attempt at a political score, yet we continue to go around and around these very same issues again and again.

        •  I'm fed up with the idea (5+ / 0-)

          that Aurora and Newtown are the prices we pay for the freedom of gun ownership.  So despite being on the other side, I can understand your frustration.

          Me, personally?  I'd prefer no civilian gun ownership.  However I recognize that will never happen so I don't fight for that.  I try to get restrictions that make sense (mandatory training, permitting, etc.).  However I'm told that I can't be trusted to only fight for the things I say I'm fighting for, which is insulting.  If nobody can be trusted to do anything, then I guess the answer is that Aurora and Newtown and the like are indeed the price we pay for the freedom of gun ownership.  Which is an idea that I will never be able to understand.

          "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

          by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:00:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good points (0+ / 0-)
            I try to get restrictions that make sense (mandatory training, permitting, etc.).  However I'm told that I can't be trusted to only fight for the things I say I'm fighting for, which is insulting.
            I'm in favor of training and permitting as well. As far as being "trusted to fight for only those things", it is your actions that speak one way or the other. If you support legislation that includes training and permitting, but goes much further than that, then you are fighting for things beyond what you say you are fighting for.

            For instance, a person only in favor of training and permitting would not support an "assault rifle" ban just because that ban also included language about training and permitting.

            I'm not saying what the exact case is with you, because I don't know your exact position (the 'etc' in 'training, permitting, etc.' leaves a lot of room). I'm just making an example to show that a person's actions can show they are fighting for more than they say they are.

            •  Getting close to (2+ / 0-)

              an idealogical purity test.  If I were a senator, and I wanted X done, and the only way to get a bill passed with X was to vote for a bill with X and Y, even though I don't like/want/support Y, I may still vote for the bill.  Depending on how badly I want X.  This is the nature of compromise.  It's why congressional members often have to deal with the fallout of a "bad vote," a vote they didn't want to do 100% but felt that they should.

              You're right though, a person only in favor of permitting and training would therefore not be in favor of anything BUT those things.  Those are not the only things I like.  I would like to see an assault weapons ban, or a limit on magazine capacity (I think both generally accomplish the same thing).  If you really want to get into a discussion about what I favor, we can do that, although I don't think it particularly matters at the moment.

              If we can't have the conversation because gun grabbing assholes like me want to take everything away, so therefore there is no room for compromise, then what are we doing here?  But you're right, in that if I support a bill that includes things I don't like to get the things I do, that I am no idealogically pure.  I can't be trusted.  And we can't have any conversation, any compromise.  Then truly we do let some Americans die so the rest of us can have guns.

              "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

              by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 07:39:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This brings us to the nature of compromise (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                What is compromise in this situation?  
                So far, the discussion has been one demand after another.  Compromise is not I want A,B,C, and D, but I will settle for you giving me A, and B and you can pray I stop there.  That is negotiation with Darth Vader and that path only leads to dark ends.

                For me, an assault weapon ban, magazine capacity limits, registration, and insurance are non starters.  There is no discussion to be had about them because there is nothing that would get me to agree to any of those.

                A few weeks ago, I suggested an enhanced background check of gun owners through a permit process in lieu of a point of sale check.  My idea goes well beyond the NICS based background check.  I was also willing to concede on training requirements and multiple level permits for reduction in restrictions.  I offered having a national standard in exchange for national carry reciprocity.  It had something that both sides want as well as implementing the parts that are most likely to reduce crime and violence.  

                The result was nobody complained about it and nobody helped support it, even those who said that they could get behind it, who when I contacted in follow up to their comments remained silent.  This tells me that a lot of what is going on is nothing more than political bluster and this makes me even less willing to work towards a solution.

                •  I really like your idea. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  noway2, DefendOurConstitution, Avila

                  It's like a driver's license.  You can get the base license, but if you want to drive a motorcyle, or a commercial vehicle, you have to apply and pass tests to show competency for those additional pieces.  You want to own a class C weapon?  Better get that class C license.  And yes, it would then be easier to expand background checks with the licensing system in place.  You don't have a license to buy this firearm?  We don't sell it to you.

                  Compromise is not I want A,B,C, and D, but I will settle for you giving me A, and B and you can pray I stop there.
                  But who says it's this?!  Or is this just the "feeling" you get?

                  But in compromise in the US Congress, you know what happens when those people want C and D?  The people that don't want those don't support it and it doesn't pass.  UNLESS we elect clear majorities to do all of this work, but the odds of that happening are slim.  A lot of Democrats don't support gun control; the party is hardly of one mind on the issue, as evidenced by all the damn kerfluffles we have at DKos.  Yeah, sure, you're negotiating with Darth Vader--except that you're giving the gun grabbing assholes (like me) too much credit for the power we have.

                  "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

                  by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:14:47 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, that is the feeling I've gotten from the (0+ / 0-)

                    whole ordeal.  Real or not, it has become my perception and it does influence my position on the matter.

                    •  Trust me when I say (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DefendOurConstitution, Avila

                      I'm not going to tell you your perception is wrong.  That's a whole other can of worms we won't get into, but I understand that when you try to deny someone's feelings about an issue, you are in essence trying to deny their existence.  I won't do that.

                      I'm just curious because being on the gun grabbing side, I don't see that attitude a lot.

                      "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

                      by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 09:11:05 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Would you support? (0+ / 0-)

                Abortion legislation that required a physician perform the procedure if that legislation also banned all abortions past the first trimester?

                You're getting what you want in a bill that has things you don't want, after all.

                I don't think either of us would see that as a compromise on the abortion issue, since to get something sane and reasonable you have to sign on to something extreme that does not represent your actual position on the issue.

                Please consider that I might view an assault rifle ban that also happens to have things I like to be the same sort of "compromise". If things we both agree on are in a separate bill, we'll both support it and both be happy with the result. Try to cram it all into one package and it loses my support. That still leaves you free to support an assault rifle ban and me free to oppose it.

                I don't see how this attitude qualifies as an ideological purity test.

                Also, please remember the definition of the word "compromise". If you are genuinely interested in compromise on gun control, it means you are willing to relax restrictions in one area to get something you want in another area. You know, giving something to get something. Compromise. Merely discussing the degree to which someone moves towards your goal while you fail to move at all in their direction is not compromise and using that word would be inherently deceptive (no matter how much Republicans use the word "compromise", do you think that is their intent in the budget talks?). If you are not actually interested in compromise, I can accept that as your position, it's just nice to have the positions laid out accurately.

                •  Okay. (0+ / 0-)

                  You're right, if the items are in different bills it's not an issue.  However that rarely happens in Congress.  And for the record, no, I would not support that particular proposal on abortion.  Not because it isn't a compromise, it is, but I weigh other issues as more important than the thing that I want that I would get in that bill.  If any of what I just said makes sense.

                  And yes, to have compromise there has to be something both sides want.  What do 2A adovcates want that they don't already have?  The ability to purchase rocket launchers?  No restrictions on convicted felons?  I'm not saying these to be inflammatory, I just don't know.  What can you not do now that you would want to see in the future?  Remove all restrictions on gun ownership?  Which again, is no compromise and just as extreme as total restriction of gun ownership.

                  "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

                  by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 08:20:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Example (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Silvia Nightshade, andalusi

                    A compromise might be setting up a single national standard for training and permitting, to be administered by the states, so that a permit in one state is equally valid in all states. This is a genuine compromise that helps everyone. States that have lax or non-existent permitting are made more strict, those with excessive or un-achievable permitting are brought down to a level that can be reached. It would also probably include the training (or testing of competency) that you and I might both support.

                    This is a compromise. Gun control advocates are giving up severe restrictions in some parts of the country, but getting a national standard that can reduce lax restrictions in others. Gun supporters are gaining freedom for gun owners in some states, but accepting restrictions in others.

      •  The new guy (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, andalusi

        To cut the diarist some slack, it is their first diary and they are a brand new member, so they probably did not know the chipper-shredder they just jumped into.

        But to make a blanket statement that gun control opponents are "enemies of reason" in the same class as flat-earthers, while either denying or being ignorant of the too-often hateful and uninformed rhetoric on the gun control side, pretty much puts the diarist in the class of people who deny or distort facts, a class which he then spends the rest of the diary criticizing.

    •  Here is a fact: over 100k get shot every year, or (0+ / 0-)

      one every 5 minutes!

      As far as tactics used here on DailyKOS by gun fundamentalists, they are no different than the ones used by the NRA or any other fundamentalist group.

      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

      by DefendOurConstitution on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 10:05:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  My I suggest (2+ / 0-)

    you format your diary a little different?  I can see you have new paragraphs, but without the white space of a line break between paragraphs it comes off as a wall of text and is difficult to read.  Thanks.

    "I don't want a unicorn. I want a fucking pegasus. And I want it to carry a flaming sword." -mahakali overdrive

    by Silvia Nightshade on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:15:25 AM PST

  •  You lost me just after the squiggle when you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    grouped all people who think differently than you into a single category and started making things up about them. I'm sure you put a lot of effort into this post, wouldn't it be better if I read it?

    I read an entire post this morning that would broadly be characterized as anti gun by front pager Dworkin, and I tipped and recced because it was polite, reasonable, and well intentioned. I even left a comment that was non confrontational and about a peripheral issue. That type of writing I do what I can to encourage. You should aspire to do as well.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 06:20:48 AM PST

    •  sincere thank you (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, ban nock

      and I didn't even think of it as anti gun ;-).

      I learn a lot form RKBa folks and am convinced there is a tremendous amount of common ground, starting with the acknowledgment that we all (yes, all) want to see gun violence reduced.

      we just don't agree how, though in a democracy that is par for the course.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Tue Feb 26, 2013 at 11:21:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site