Skip to main content

UPDATE:  Title changed from 'Gun Owners' to 'Gun Rights Advocates' since it's really the advocacy crowd I'm addressing here.  Changed in response to the first couple of comments.

Could'ja keep the lunatic, sociopathic, terroristic fringe of your movement in other words, the ones who are actually DRIVING THE GUN DISCUSSION AND SHAPING POLICY) in check?

Don't criticize me yet--you need to look at the comment thread here:

WTIC Connecticut

Please--do what you can.  Those of us on the other side have no influence here.

Thank you.

(see below)

I went to the comment section on WTIC (Connecticut's local CBS affiliate) to see what people were saying about Starbucks' (completely normal, civil, and human) decision to close their Newtown store so as to not have to entertain a gun-right carnival right down the street from where twenty 7-year-olds and their teachers were shot to death.

Being a normal human being (and not, say, a member of the Taliban or Westboro Baptist Church or Michelle Bachman), I figured that there might be a few comments praising Starbucks, some pushback from gun-rights advocates, some loons, etc.

No.  

All loons, all the time.  Advocating for the extreme militarization of every elementary school (hell--I hope they extend it to parent-child classes and nursery schools too!)

I address 'RKBA' people because--it is YOUR responsibility to speak out against the nutjobs, the sick fucks, and the Wayne La Pierres who have completely hijacked the second amendment in the name of 'Extreme American Exceptionalism'; -- in other words the rewriting of our constitution to no longer constitute a framework to mutually better oneself and society, but as a license to 'greedily do whatever the hell I want to get what ever the hell I want, and the society I live in be damned straight to hell'.

The second amendment is here to protect the 'security of a free state'.  Not to turn all the rivers to blood.

This is YOUR chance, gun owners.  We on the other side of the debate, who want to limit these things (in a manner that is reasonable, fair, and in accordance with the 2nd (and the Supreme Court cases concerning it-including heller) can not get through.

You have to do it.

You can start by posting on the CBS local page--in the name of gun rights owners with common sense.

Expect to be down-rated, insulted, and pushed back upon.  Hard.

Better than being massacred in school.

Please realize that this is a condemnation of insanity and an appeal--I am NOT here to condemn gun-owners--not in the least.  I hope I've presented this in a civilized manner so that you can recognize this.

Originally posted to bevenro on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:15 AM PDT.

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

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

  •  I've heard gun owners say the same thing. (9+ / 0-)

    More than one NRA life member has noisily resigned their membership in protest, most famously Bush the Competent.

    Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:24:23 AM PDT

    •  I know. I applaud them and don't mean to suggest (9+ / 0-)

      that this never happens.  But it needs to happen A LOT.  In cases like Islamic (or Christian) extremist acts, for example, you see thousands of people--clerics, politicians, etc. come out in condemnation.  So unless you're a right-wing lunatic, you know that such behavior is not sanctioned at a general level.  But we don't see this with the gun debate.

      People on the right side of the gun-rights side need to be loud, organized, and abandon groups that have moved to the fringe (like the NRA) as Bush did.

    •  Not enough, as the diarist says - you'd expect (10+ / 0-)

      those truly responsible gun owners to actually be leading on this, instead of letting the zealots do the talking for them.

      •  Oh sure. Anyone that supports the 2nd Amendment (5+ / 0-)

        should totally take the advise of someone that is a member of a group called "Repeal or Amend the 2nd Amendment"

        Its just so unreasonable of them not to, amirite?

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:59:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Depends on the Advice Not the Association. nt (8+ / 0-)

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

          by Gooserock on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 12:34:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That advise would work out well for someone (0+ / 0-)

            who supports repealing or amending the second amendment.

            What a weird coincidence, amirite?

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 12:54:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  seems like amending the 2nd A which is (9+ / 0-)

              woefully ambiguous would actually help matters.

              Don't worry--gun right folks would have input as well.  Surprised you're not for it, yourself. You could take out the 'miliitia' bit.

              •  So you "Respect the 2nd Amnt" & you think that (0+ / 0-)

                "[Repealing the 2nd A] would help matters"?

                Huh.
                Sure is shocking that people don't trust gun controllers, amirite?

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:02:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  if you can't rectify those two sentiments, you (11+ / 0-)

                  have a real block.

                  You are also lying through your teeth.  I said amend, not repeal.

                  Discussion is over.  You are acting like a wannabe second grade playground bully, and for some reason I'm actually trying to engage this bullshit.

                  Finished.

                  •  FTR: I have always fully supported the Second (9+ / 0-)

                    Amendment and an individual's right to own firearms.  That is in no way inconsistent with sensible regulations being proposed: like full criminal background checks (on every sale/transfer), limits on clips/magazines, licensing and registration (clearly registering all existing firearms is just about impossible, but we can start registering all new ones or ones that change hands).

                    I feel it is important to point this out because so many NRA apologists accuse us of not supporting the Constitution and trying to say their rights are not important.  Everybody's rights are equally important, but when the (real or perceived) Second Amendment rights result in having at least one American shot every 5 minutes we have a pandemic that must be addressed, and nothing in the Second Amendment precludes those regulations outlined above.

                    None of the regulations proposed violates anyone's rights or any part of the Constitution.  I guess the conversation always derails in the direction of "trying to take away my rights" as a diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the facts and the solutions.

                    •  the fact that we have such extremists even (8+ / 0-)

                      here is more than a bit unsettling, too...

                      Excellent comment, D.o.C.!

                      •  Oh there are extremists here. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        notrouble

                        But they aren't who you think they are.

                        (Quick hint: There are few things more 'extreme' than repealing an Amendment in the Bill of Rights)

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:32:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  There are few false RKBA memes that have (8+ / 0-)

                        been promoted here at daily kos. I try to push back when I have time, because I strongly support the 2A RKBA for self defense and other lawful purposes (e.g. hunting, target shooting sports), and I support licensing and registration, and restrictions on public carry related to risk of public injury.

                        To be able to use a gun for self defense requires significant training.

                        IMO, placing a deadly weapon in the hands of someone who has no training is a way to set people up to fail in our society. The result is that they create hazards for themselves and others, and then they use poor judgment and shoot someone, or their kid gets shot, or they kill themselves with their gun. It's the survivors who have to cope with consequences of gun violence for the rest of their lives.

                        Minimal competency in safe RKBA for self defense requires training in firearms mechanics, straight shooting, target identification/judgment under stress, the effects of impairment on response time, he effects of impairment accuracy and judgment, how to clear a jammed gun, safe storage, and lawful use of force. And it also requires hours and hours at the range practicing draw/aim/fire in standing, kneeling, and laying positions, with both stationary and moving targets.

                        There needs to be competency tests, for how well the shooter chooses and shoots the bad guy, and misses grandma.

                        IMO, many people have a little range time under their belt and think they are competent to defend themselves with a gun. They have no idea how quickly accuracy and judgment degrade when you are under fire, or when people are running and screaming.

                        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                        by LilithGardener on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:37:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  My BIL (that took me shooting since I was (7+ / 0-)

                          7-8 years old) once was at a restaurant with my sister when a holdup occurred.  He always carried on an ankle holster (permitted) and he was very well trained.  To me, nothing shows how well trained he was than how he reacted: he, my sister and an elderly woman were right by the bathroom door - he pushed all three of them into the bathroom and locked the door until the police arrived (of course staying away from the door and with his revolver ready, just in case).  That is the kind of judgment that someone with a few hours of range time and little training in situations would not make many times, getting themselves or others killed.

                        •  No, it really doesn't require... (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FrankRose

                          "significant training".

                          The historical record is quite clear on that.

                           http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

                           http://gunssavelives.net/

                          Some training?  Yes.  But there's a lot of middle ground between "some" and "significant".  And yes, more is better when it comes to training, for almost anything.

                          Your hate-mail will be graded.

                          by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:44:14 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  How many hours of training does the military (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            give, just to get to square one on the two most basic goals, and for a single rifle?

                            1. Shoot the enemy.
                            2. Don't shoot your fellow soldiers.

                            You're in the Air Force, IIRC. How much time does the air force give for classroom, range time, cleaning the gun each day it's been fired?

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:23:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Most Military training has little to do with.... (0+ / 0-)

                            Civilian self-defense.  There is some overlap, but not much.

                            The USAF, sadly, doesn't do squat for weapons training for the average G.I. Airman.  One day total in basic, nearly half of that taken up by transport to/from the range.

                            Fortunately, I came into the miltiary already knowing basic shooting skills.  I've spent a fair amount of my own money on additional off-duty training.  I've had less than two weeks total military firearms training in 22+ years.  Probably less than 1000 rounds total.

                            Not exactly skill-setting, there.

                            And that's not atypical for anyone not actually in an infantry-related MOS/AFSC, regardless of service.  

                            Your hate-mail will be graded.

                            by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:29:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And before you go to the example of police.... (0+ / 0-)

                            training is a problem there too.

                            http://www.rand.org/...

                            Your hate-mail will be graded.

                            by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:30:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  "accuse us of not supporting the Constitution" (0+ / 0-)

                      Tell us more of these unfair & unfounded accusations, right after you tell us about your membership in "Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment"

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:24:38 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (4+ / 0-)

                      h/t Bob Johnson

                    •  FTR: (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose, gerrilea, oldpunk, PavePusher

                      I have always fully supported a woman's right to an abortion. That is in no way inconsistent with sensible regulations requiring doctors have full admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, abortion clinics built to full hospital code and restricting any abortion past 6 weeks to cases solely where the mother's life is at risk.

                      I feel it is important to point this out because so many Planned Parenthood apologists accuse people like me of not supporting a woman's right to choose. Everybody's rights are equally important, but when the (real or perceived) abortion rights result in having two American babies murdered each minute, we have a pandemic that must be addressed, and nothing in Roe V. Wade precludes those regulations outlined above.

                      None of the regulations proposed violates anyone's rights or any part of the Constitution.  I guess the conversation always derails in the direction of "trying to take away my rights" as a diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the facts and the solutions.

                      /biting sarcasm

                      •  False equivalency, as usual, but keep trying. nt (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coquiero, a2nite, Glen The Plumber
                        •  There is something to the analogy (6+ / 0-)

                          I've seen at least one comment here advocating using TRAP laws as a model for gun regulation.

                          Some gun owners are well aware that could happen, and the fear of it drives their opposition to even the most reasonable-sounding regulatory changes. They don't believe it would stay reasonable. The publications they read regularly talk about systems being abused to restrict guns beyond what the law calls for.

                          Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

                          by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 07:41:50 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Key part is that abortion laws try to take away (6+ / 0-)

                            women's rights. Firearms regulations as we propose here take away nobody's rights.  In addition, abortion laws discriminate against women, especially poor women, firearms regulations as we propose here do not discriminate against anyone as they would apply to all citizens/residents equally.

                            As far as the gun owners you refer to in the second part of your comment, that sounds like classical paranoia - fueled by the publications of the NRA and all their marketing organizations.

                          •  Let's try that out (9+ / 0-)

                            A riddle: Laws regarding a right that...

                            1) restrict who can do something
                            2) restrict where they can do it
                            3) restrict when they can do it
                            4) restrict the type of what can be done
                            5) add costs to the process of doing it
                            6) add time to the process of doing it

                            Which am I referring to? Abortion regulations promoted by red state legislatures or firearm regulations promoted by you? After all, you say abortion regulations are trying to take away women's rights and poor people's rights while gun regulations are taking away nobody's rights.

                            So clearly there should be no intersection between the two for items 1 through 6.

                            I await your usual content-free response.

                          •  Your comments are so witty, so intelligent that (3+ / 0-)

                            it wouldn't do them justice to reply in a mere comment way down-thread. Would you allow me to post your comments from this thread into a diary comparing women's rights with gun rights? We could have a full diary dedicated to your brilliant comments.

                            If you're not OK with me posting your comments (of course with their corresponding links), then perhaps you can do a diary expanding on how any firearm regulation is equal to oppressive abortion restrictions.  I would like to see that.

                          •  Missing the point, as usual (10+ / 0-)

                            I'm not comparing gun rights and abortion rights. I'm comparing right-wing authoritarian knee-jerk ideologues with nonsensical arguments to left-wing authoritarian knee-jerk ideologues with nonsensical arguments.

                            I am merely showing how the arguments liberals find appallingly bad when conservatives use them to support abortion restrictions, somehow magically transform to perfectly sensible arguments when liberals use them for gun control purposes.

                            As demonstrated by taking your comment and just changing the subject matter.

                            But if you wish to write a diary describing how the rabid gun control and rabid pro-life groups are equally hypocritical and irrational, differing only in the item they whinge about, how both their tactics look like a course syllabus for bad rhetoric and propaganda techniques, and how a bad argument is a bad argument no matter who is using it, then please Kosmail me when you post it so I can rec it.

                            In fact, if you give me two weeks to get back from vacation (leaving tomorrow), I'll even help you write it.

                          •  You did not answer the question: will you allow me (3+ / 0-)

                            to quote and link your comments?

                          •  Didn't answer because it was irrelevant (6+ / 0-)

                            Since I was not comparing gun rights and women's rights, my comments would be out of context and distorted or meaningless in "a diary comparing women's rights with gun rights".

                            But, you knew that was the only way they could be used in such a diary when you asked...

                          •  You don't need permission. (5+ / 0-)

                            From the bottom of the page:

                            Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified
                            People do not own their comments.

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

                            by happy camper on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:23:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are a genius! Although I knew that already, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            still posting the comment he asked me to respond to and giving it the mocking responses (in addition to the serious ones) it deserves without his express consent would be a callout diary - bannable offense, but you already knew that.

                          •  That was troll bait (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DefendOurConstitution

                            An attempt to bait you into doing exactly that in a comment, so that you could be given an HR black eye.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:11:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you want to give mocking responses, you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happy camper

                            can do so in this comment section.

                            Of course, that would mean that Shamash's comment would remain in context.
                            Which is something that you--for good reason--need to avoid.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:31:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Do you ever get (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, coquiero

                            the feeling that these two are really middle schoolers?

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

                            by happy camper on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:00:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for your reply LilithGardener. nt (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, coquiero
                          •  The analogy fails when the new regulations (4+ / 0-)

                            don't have a direct or substantial nexus to the legitimate role of government to ensure public safety. On the spectrum of medical risk of harm, abortion is extremely safe.

                            Regulations that cause clinic closings cause significant harms to thousands of women who go there for other healthcare needs. Many other ambulatory surgical procedures are performed in offices and facilities and weren't subject to the new rules.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:50:23 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Good point (5+ / 0-)

                            So, if I were making an argument from a basis of the "legitimate role of government to ensure public safety":

                            Bloomberg's "Big Gulp ban": good or bad?

                            After all, obesity is implicated in several times as many deaths each year as firearms, so it would put you in a moral bind to hold a less restrictive view for something that was a greater public safety risk.

                            To be clear, I am being very specific with this example. Since the NIH has called obesity a "public safety" matter (not just "public health", but also "public safety"), it is arguable that in the government's eyes your weight is not merely a private matter and thus falls into your definition of the legitimate role of government.

                          •  Post Heller litigation provides some guidance (2+ / 0-)

                            You can go analogy shopping if you want to. I prefer to try and understand the legal basis for actual decisions that have been made post Heller. I'm not a constitutional scholar and I've read through a few cases and decisions to educate myself about the legal reasoning of Heller, Moore, and all the post Heller decisions.

                            If you want to write a diary about any of the decisions, I'll come and discuss the merits and demerits of the various arguments.

                            http://smartgunlaws.org/...

                            The Law Center for the Prevention of Gun Violence

                            Third Circuit Upholds New Jersey Concealed Carry Law
                            Posted on Friday, August 2nd, 2013

                            Yesterday, the Third Circuit announced a major decision that will help promote public safety in New Jersey.  In Drake v. Filko, the court upheld a law that requires people who would like to have a concealed weapon permit to demonstrate a “justifiable need” to carry a handgun.  This requirement gives law enforcement the discretion to grant permits to those who legitimately need a concealed weapon, while allowing law enforcement to reject permit requests from people known to pose significant safety risks to the community (such as domestic abusers who have not yet been convicted of crimes).

                            In upholding this requirement, the court joined the First, Second, and Fourth Circuits which have upheld similar laws.

                            The court began by noting that the issue of whether the new individual Second Amendment right recognized in the controversial landmark Supreme Court case Heller v. District of Columbia extends outside of the home is unsettled.  However, the court observed that “[f]irearms have always been more heavily regulated in the public sphere” and that historical analysis does not lead “inevitably to the conclusion that the Second Amendment confers upon individuals a right to carry handguns in public.” Nevertheless, the court proceeded with its analysis on the assumption that the right does have some application outside the home.

                            Post-Heller Litigation Summary
                            Updated August 2, 2013

                            The Law Center’s Post-Heller Litigation Summary surveys the landscape of Second Amendment challenges to federal, state and local gun laws asserted in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court’s controversial landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:40:04 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Clearly likes buzzwords (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          gerrilea, FrankRose, oldpunk, PavePusher

                          "False equivalency", says the man who claims to be a liberal, yet belongs to a group advocating repeal of part of the Bill of Rights, a group for shutting down the main advocates for the view opposing his, and who supports legislation promoted by someone who said on national TV that they would confiscate every gun in America if they could (Feinstein). Your full support for gun rights just overwhelms me with its sincerity...

                          I think the equivalence is spot on.

                      •  if a gun were part of your body your (7+ / 0-)

                        equivalency would make a bit more sense.

                        Oh, but silly me---for some people it IS.

                        •  Why? (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas, gerrilea, FrankRose, oldpunk

                          Why does "part of your body" matter when it comes to rights? Are our enumerated rights less important than a woman's right to choose? Or more important?

                          Or are they all fundamental rights that people would restrict or take away from us (or you) while piously and hypocritically claiming to act in your or society's best interests?

                          I'd wager good money that every member of the RKBA group here on Kos supports same-sex marriage, a woman's right to choose, wants strong 1st and 4th Amendment protections, thinks Cuccinelli is a moron and probably is pro-legalization. That is, we support everyone's right to consensual conduct and self-determination without profiling people or assuming they are guilty of something and in need of prior restraint.

                          If a Kos diary had some braindead, content-free idiot spewing conservative talking points against your right to choose, I'd be here defending your rights, even though that right is one I will never need myself. And if this ever happens and I do not see it, let me know. I'll be there.

                          So, is a willingness to support a right you will never use a difference between you and me, or not?

                          •  few responses (4+ / 0-)

                            1. The bill of rights--and indeed the whole constitution, is quite clearly subject to restriction and regulation for the good of society.  You'll note that the core purpose of the 2nd is to ensure the 'security of a free state'.  If the 2nd amendment is abused to the extent that that security is compromised (e.g. 10,000 deaths a year), then reasonable regulation is fully warranted.

                            see also sexual harassment, incitement to violence, etc. wrt the 1st

                            2. Even pro-choice isn't completely pro-choice--R v W protects choice up to the point of 'viability'.

                            3. This whole idea of ''Constitution!!!  That means I can do whatever the hell I want and society be damned!!!  is a very right-wing/libertarian view of the constitution and American identity.

                          •  You're right (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, oldpunk, gerrilea, PavePusher

                            Yes, there are clear limits to our personal freedoms. You don't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater and all that. But speak to me of "reasonable regulation".

                            For instance, does the threat of terrorists warrant the current scope of NSA surveillance? Does the several-fold higher death count each year from obesity as compared to guns warrant Bloomberg's "high-capacity soda" ban? Does the "threat" of illegal immigrants or crime warrant Arizona's "papers please" law or NYC's "stop & frisk" law? Does the "need for a woman's safety" warrant the regulations put on abortion clinics in Texas?

                            I would hope that as a liberal you think that none of these are a good idea, despite someone in a position of power thinking (or claiming) they were "reasonable regulation". The common thread in all of them is that people who have committed no wrong nor have any indication they will do something wrong (probable cause) are being "reasonably regulated".

                            Will a young black man in NYC commit a crime today? Probably. Does that make it reasonable to stop & frisk thousands of them in a particular part of the city in hopes of deterring or catching that criminal?

                            Now, look at the percentage of gun owners who will commit a crime with a firearm this year. Does that make it reasonable to treat the non-criminal percentage in the same way?

                            I do not think it is a right-wing view to say that everyone, regardless of gender, race, orientation or creed should be treated as equals, including an equal presumption of innocence in their consensual activities.

                          •  the fact that you see such things as a type of (4+ / 0-)

                            punishment rather than healthy measures to ensure safety is the issue.

                            Many gun-rights advocates didn't see such measures as punishments years ago--simply common sense.  It's this new NRA and the new messaging strategy that even gun-owners on the left have embraced that have shifted things far to the right.

                          •  Matter of perspective (6+ / 0-)

                            Have gun control laws suddenly become more lax and there is a causal link to a jump in the firearms homicide rate? No, there is not. Firearm homicides have been falling for a long time, both as a per capita rate and in absolute numbers, despite the number of guns in circulation going up and the laws staying nearly constant.

                            Are "assault rifles" used in so many homicides that something must be done about them, now? No, in terms of firearm homicides, an assault rifle is the least likely type of gun someone is going to be killed with. You are several times more likely to be kicked to death than murdered with an assault rifle. And that includes when you add in mass shootings.

                            Are "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" a new threat that current laws need to deal with? No, weapons with characteristics banned under things like the new law in Connecticut have been available since 1928, and for several decades could be bought through the mail, with cash, without ID or background check. And the homicide rate per capita was lower for much of that period, until the sharp rise in the 1970's.

                            None of the above is propaganda or right-wing talking points, it is the history of guns and gun laws and FBI crime statistics that anyone can view online. So it is hard from a purely objective standpoint to see the current hair-on-fire attitude of gun control advocates as anything but punitive. The attitude is certainly not based on the proportional harm caused by the specific things people are trying to ban.

                            Proportional is "why don't we start arresting people with felony convictions who go into a gun store and fail a background check?", which is something that a) we aren't doing right now and b) most gun owners support. Proportional is not "let's treat every gun owner in New York state as someone who is one 8 round magazine away from going on a shooting spree." (by the recent NY SAFE Act, an 8-round magazine is "high-capacity")

                            It's not a matter of "how I see it", it's a matter of "how it is". Am I as a gun owner to be subject to a legal standard proportional to the risk and public safety hazard applied to other people?

                            Or am I somehow going to be a second-class citizen who is not responsible enough to make my own decisions and needs the state to make them for me? If that sounds familiar, and you do not like it, do not apply it to other people...

                            If someone said that new building codes applied to abortion clincs were not "punishments", but merely "healthy measures to ensure safety", how would you feel if they said you were the one with "issues" because you disagreed with them?

                            Part of being a society is compromise, putting up with things you do not like or want in the hopes that others will treat you with equal tolerance. If you feel that gun owners should be open to compromise on the issue, I imagine you would be pleasantly surprised to find that they are quite open to it.

                          •  You say libertarian; I say mean, nasty & selfish (3+ / 0-)

                            Which is very peculiar to America. Who cares about public health & safety as long as I can murder, death, kill? The individual is more important than the community to some people.

                            nosotros no somos estúpidos

                            by a2nite on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:52:33 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A point many have seemed to miss... (0+ / 0-)
                            The individual is more important than the community to some people.
                            THIS is the whole point We The People demanded the Bill Of Rights be added to the newly adopted constitution.

                            Why do you hate freedom so much?  

                            Freedom is unpredictable.  

                            I do not exist for the betterment of the State or society or "community"... nor does any American.

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

                            by gerrilea on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:41:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  maybe We the People want sexual harassment (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, TheFern

                            back in the workplace.  The First permits it, right?  And We the People demanded it.

                            (pssst---once you use the 'why do you hate freedom' line, you ARE Hannity)

                          •  Great, but you'll have more people like me (0+ / 0-)

                            fighting against your sexism and hostile working conditions, good luck getting employees to work in your businesses if you do get your way.

                            ROFL, you found me out, I'm Hannity....wait is HE a transgendered woman???

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

                            by gerrilea on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:03:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL, that's funny (2+ / 0-)

                            nosotros no somos estúpidos

                            by a2nite on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 12:29:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There are plenty of constitutional restrictions (4+ / 0-)

                            on right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

                            One key measure of constitutionality involves the right of the state to balance the expression of an individual right with the right and duty of the state to secure public safety for all residents.

                            I've learned to rely on post Heller judicial opinion to guide my thinking about what constitutional RKBA includes.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:53:51 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The state has no rights. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            The state has powers delegated to it by the Citizens, who can chose to limit or revoke them.

                            Your hate-mail will be graded.

                            by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:05:01 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure you can (0+ / 0-)

                            see the need for a diary that clarifies constitutional law with respect to guns, public safety, and public health. Please do share your expertise in a diary, with those of use who seek to be informed. Will you?

                            As you know it's a vast terrain.

                            By public safety I'm thinking of laws that limit the flow of small arms into the criminal market, e.g. corrupt FFLs.

                            By public health I'm thinking of laws that limit exposure to aerosol lead and lead dust.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:36:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Criminals do not have favorate FFLs (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, FrankRose

                            Here is a slate article summarizing 10 key points of a Federal Study:  http://www.slate.com/...

                            Airborne lead from the shooting sports is not, unlike what used to be in gasoline (Tetraethyllead) isn't as nasty.  Nor has it been deposited in great quantities into poor urban neighborhoods (http://www.motherjones.com/...).  

                            I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                            by DavidMS on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:44:00 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Just like the NSA would 'respect' the 4th A (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea, oldpunk

                    by  Amending the 4th A......
                    Why don't you explain to us how that is rectifiable?

                    I just don't see it.
                    I'm afraid I must have a real block.

                     

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:21:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! again! (5+ / 0-)
              •  It's not really ambiguous. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, FrankRose

                I don't think that word means what you think it means....

                Your hate-mail will be graded.

                by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:26:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                  •  Another variation of denial (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bevenro

                    If the 2A is so clear, why are their hundreds of gun laws being litigated since Heller?

                    Apparently gun law isn't so clear, or there are a zillion gun owners groups who just wanted to make some lawyers filthy rich.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:47:00 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If the 4A is so clear why are there hundreds of (0+ / 0-)

                      laws being litigated.

                      Apparently reasonable search and seizure isn't so clear.

                      Would you support "Repealing or Amending the Fourth Amendment"?

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:06:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  If only (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bevenro, coquiero

                      someone would write a diary about the 4A and enlighten all us who are hopelessly naive about the constitutionality of guns, then we'd all be on the same page, or something.

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:34:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Classic pure ad hominem (10+ / 0-)

          Either it's good advice or it isn't.

          It's good advice. If gun rights advocates let Ted Nugent be their public face, they will lose the support of moderates or even sane people.

          Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

          by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 12:41:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  What's reasonable? Cases heading up to SCOTUS (7+ / 0-)

          Cases heading up to SCOTUS are upholding the legitimate right of states to define licensing, registration, prohibited persons, and prohibited places of carry.

          The argument rests on the the legitimate duty of state government to balance the individual expression of RKBA to ensure public safety and reduce crime.

          The vast majority of laws are being up held, because they have a direct or substantial relationship to the state's legitimate duty to secure public safety and order for all their residents.

          The laws that are being successfully challenged involved outright bans, or permanent loss of rights, because they were arbitrary, or because they had no direct or substantial nexus with reducing violence.

          Heller - DC handgun ban, was too broad, and too arbitrary (no one, no kind of hand gun).
          Moore - Chicago, concealed carry ban was too broad (no one, no kind of handgun)

          Contrast to NY's strict handgun permit, and super strict concealed carry permit have been upheld. The later has already made up to SCOTUS and they declined to review it. The corresponding law in NJ was upheld at the Appeals Court level last week.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:01:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Problem is, gun owners come in all stripes (9+ / 0-)

    And the responsible ones- the TRULY responsible ones, who don't let their mentally ill kids play with their guns or make them privy to the combination on the gun safe- aren't aligned with the other type.

    This is kind of a silly sentiment. It's like me telling all humans who have a vagina to talk some sense into the women who want to deny us choice. I ain't gonna persuade Sarah Palin to accept abortion as a normal and safe practice just because we both have vaginas. And my uncles can't persuade people to quit being so fucking paranoid about our black prez just because they own guns, too.

    It's like when you go on a message board about your favorite hobby. People can and will fight about politics even if they share a love of vintage candy bars.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:29:24 AM PDT

    •  The gun-rights fringe is controlling the gun (7+ / 0-)

      discourse.  Gun control advocates can do nothing--it makes it worse, to be honest.  there are a few posters in the RKBA crowd who have loudly and actively posted against this sort of thing--but we're a left wing site anyway--and to be honest even those posters got serious pushback from the hardcore RKBA crowd.

      My point isn't to implicate all gun - owners but to show that movement has to come internally FROM gun owners.  In other words, the NRA has to splinter and responsible gun-lobbies gain traction.

      It has to be the gun-owners that do this.  Who else possibly can?

      •  Gun mannufacturers (7+ / 0-)

        IIRC, one gun manufacturer did take a stand for safer guns, and for requiring permits for concealed carry.

        The industry organized a boycott and Colt suffered.

        Then you have all these guys who boycott a US manufacturer over support for safety regulations, who go buy foreign made guns from countries where gun carry is strictly regulated; including licensing and registration, limits on how many guns you can own, etc.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 12:51:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The most under-reported story of the year (7+ / 0-)

        is the growing body of case law upholding constitutional restrictions on the RKBA.

        There are a few armchair constitutional scholars here at daily kos that have been promoting a number of legal theories without citing any court opinions or actual legal theories to back them up. E.g. licensing fes are a poll tax (they're not - Courts have held that licensing fees should be judged by SCOTUS fee jurisprudence, and that they are more like a parade permit fee).

        Hundreds of laws have been challenged post-Heller and the vast majority are being upheld. Here's the latest significant decision.

        Federal Appeals Court Upholds New Jersey Concealed Carry Law

        For Immediate Release: August 1, 2013

        (NEW YORK, NY) In yet another court victory for sensible gun laws, a federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld New Jersey’s restrictions on the carrying of concealed firearms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Drake v. Filko rejected the arguments of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a weapon, and agreed with arguments by the Brady Center that the law requiring that permit applicants demonstrate a “justifiable need to carry a handgun” is Constitutional.

        The Third Circuit with this decision joined the First, Second and Fourth Circuits in rejecting corporate gun lobby arguments that the Second Amendment prevents states from restricting the carrying of loaded firearms in public. These Courts have refused to expand the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Heller that recognized an individual, non-militia-based right to a firearm in the home for self-defense.

        “The Third Circuit’s decision is yet another affirmation that common sense gun laws are perfectly compatible with the Second Amendment,” said Jonathan Lowy, Director of the Legal Action Project at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The Constitution does not require all Americans to live in the corporate gun lobby’s guns-everywhere world, and as the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin showed, the last thing we need is to weaken restrictions on carrying loaded guns in public spaces. Strong gun violence prevention laws like New Jersey’s allow law enforcement to do their jobs effectively, and help save lives.”

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 02:15:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I thought the most under reported story had (6+ / 0-)

          To do with decreasing gun violence yet we have  lots of people who are now owned by the increasingly profitized criminal injustice system.

          These people are the new, no, old unpaid labor force, namely slavery is back and worse than ever.

          This is the argument some use about the massive mass murders using weapons of mass destruction by young men of European descent. Like those murders don't count & guns are not the problem.

          I mostly agree with you, LG.

          nosotros no somos estúpidos

          by a2nite on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 03:02:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One wonders how you will feel... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          when that case is used to extend such controls to other Constitutional Rights.  

          What will you say when you have to get the government to approve your "need" to speak out in public, or demand a court warrant be present before a government search, or vote, or... well.

          Your hate-mail will be graded.

          by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:11:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Changing the subject, again. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bevenro

            That's a clear sign that someone is out of bullets, er, I mean is out of hollow points, er, I mean is down to shallow, oh, excuse me,

            I mean it's a sure sign that someone has no substantive arguments and is reduced to tired talking points.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope, not changing. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              Merely continuing in the obvious direction.  

              I'll note you didn't answer the question.

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:21:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  'Pave' ain't all you're pushing.... nt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener
                •  We are in the throes of a constitutional (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  bevenro, coquiero

                  crisis, and IMO, the gun crisis we are facing is the militarization of the police, and the proliferation of private security firms.

                  It's a problem when a private security firm is wearing masks and military fatigues in the woods of Wisconsin. It's a problem when militarized police show up at the wrong house and start shooting.

                  It's a problem when any Johnny-got-a-gun criminal can so easily be mistaken for police that impersonating a police officer is now absurdly easy. See Norway.

                  We saw a hint of the problem in Newtown, when the teachers were very afraid to open up the door for the police, because they couldn't tell if it was the shooter, or if it really was police.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:47:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's just one constitutional crisis; there are (2+ / 0-)

                    Many.

                    Each amendment is under assault except the first & second which has been expanded because they help the evil monied takeover of us. Between the first & second...they have to do with corporations using money & making money, & using these rights as tool for making money & less so with rights for human beings. The other rights don't make money for evil rich people, so they don't care.

                    I respectfully disagree with gun right being a human right.

                    Guns may be tools for hunting and self defense, but they are also used as tools of mass murder, as tools for criminals. For those of us who do not believe in guns, there has to be some place safe for us in public. There is no such thing as a good guy with a gun in some kind of shoot out without some really bad stuff happening. I don't see it. I see an increasing infestation of guns, Which makes the evil NRA & their evil masters happy, ONLY?

                    The second & the entire constitution was always something that was used to oppress non- white people (native Americans, slaves & their descendants), and was used by the evil traitorous Confederates who wanted to be free to own people forever in the South. I read & hear the same language used today as in the 1800s.

                    Thankfully the evil men who wrote the constitution gave the descendants of former slaves (& others) an avenue to assert our rights as citizens.

                    Majority rule, minority rights should work, IMO. Shouldn't be majority rights & minorities get moldy crumbs & told to be happy & STFU.

                    nosotros no somos estúpidos

                    by a2nite on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:04:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I find Constitutional Amendments to be very (0+ / 0-)

              pertinent to the subject of......ya know......Constitutional Amendments.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:08:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Kitchen sinking the Bill of Rights (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, TheFern, bevenro

              When you've already lost so badly, in a diary about the behavior of a small subset of gun owners, that you are reduced to throwing in the whole Bill of Rights.  

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:38:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed; I don't see much pushback from (2+ / 0-)

        Responsible gun owners. The NRA (promoting gun sales only) & most of the "enthusiasts" (the gun is more important than people) rule the discussion.

        There was a lot of outcry after SandyHook & no action, NRA & gun "enthusiasts" win; we lose.

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 07:04:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree (3+ / 0-)

          Many gun safety law advocates include gun owners among their members.

          Team 26 had gun owners riding for common sense gun law. Mayors against illegal guns isn't against all guns. They are especially for laws that reduce the guns crossing state lines. They are now at 1000 mayors, which represent a lot of people, some of whom own guns.

          For more on that see http://www. trace the guns.org

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:05:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, persuading them is out of the question (4+ / 0-)

      Improving the public discourse is worthwhile though, as is helping the nuts feel isolated and like they should just stay in their bunkers and not engage the world.

      Anyone considering a dog for personal safety should treat that decision as seriously as they would buying a gun.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:40:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, this is the point (3+ / 0-)
      I ain't gonna persuade Sarah Palin to accept abortion as a normal and safe practice just because we both have vaginas.
      You don't have to take an individual public stand, because you can rely on many thousands of  other women and men to take a pro-choice stand for you.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 12:42:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I didn't used to be a fanatical anti-gun zealot... (11+ / 0-)

    It took years of debating with the other side to get me to that point.  

    :)

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

    by detroitmechworks on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:32:32 AM PDT

  •  Right after you get gun controllers in check. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldSoldier99, KVoimakas, gerrilea

    Namely those that propose or introduce gun bans and/or outright confiscation

    The difference? The ones that did support a gun ban or confiscation include a Senator & the President....not some anonymous commenters.

    "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."--Dianne Feinstein

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 11:38:48 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for saying what had to be said, in (11+ / 0-)

    what universe is it OK to go taunt the victims of a mass shooting just to poke them in the eye and brag about the NRA having defeated even the most minimal firearms regulation?

  •  So far 2 guns have discharged in Starbucks. (9+ / 0-)

    Both in dropped purses.

    I wonder how liable Starbucks is going to be.

  •  Don't think I will get tired of saying groups (7+ / 0-)

    with guns are unconstitutional militias not cute flash mobs.

  •  "rights" (9+ / 0-)

    common sense, and thorough training are three different things entirely, and there is no substitute for common sense.

    I cringe when I see pix of gun owners displaying their guns with their finger inside the trigger guard. You do not do that. Ever.

    I saw a pic of a guy with a side arm and holding an infant. Most of these John Wayne wanna bees never give a thought to how they could defend their gun from being taken form them. This guy with the infant was a prime example: He's got his hands full, so some criminal could come up from behind him, whap him in the head, and grab the gun out of the holster.

    "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

    by azureblue on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:20:40 PM PDT

  •  Here's another article (5+ / 0-)

    from the Washington Times, a magazine with a pro-expansion of RKBA position.

    1567 comments on their article about the national appreciation day.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/...

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 01:23:38 PM PDT

    •  People really should follow your WT link and (3+ / 0-)

      be sure to also click the link attached to the story to enlarge the photo of the fellow carrying his gun on his hip, SBUX coffee in hand, with his baby on his opposite shoulder.

      That might well become a 'poster boy' photo for what is discussed in this diary and this comment posted further along in this thread.

      Thank you LilithGardener for the link, and for all the great work, ideas and data you consistently share.

      •  You're welcome (4+ / 0-)

        I also think anyone who imagines they are going to use a gun for self defense will minding small children needs to have a special training session for them, with kids crying, fighting, running around...

        Test their accuracy and judgment when something in the background goes boom and one of their kids starts wailing at the top of their lungs.

        It all comes down to common sense - if you think there is a criminal trying to break into your home the best thing is to gather your kiddies into an upstairs room or closet and keep them soothed and quiet. Call the police, and let the robber take whatever they want.

        Most robbers don't want to hurt or kill anyone.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:01:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  In the end it is all about fear and how the NRA (6+ / 0-)

    capitalizes on any fear to sell more product.

    As someone wiser than me said once: The opposite of "fear" is spelled G-U-N! (WARNING: do not read with any drink - especially hot drinks - and that warning goes double for the comments)

  •  Tipped & rec'ed (4+ / 0-)

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Sun Aug 11, 2013 at 03:06:55 PM PDT

  •  I think most of the RKBA members (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KVoimakas, gerrilea, PavePusher

    simply ignore diaries by the known haters. I have a guess which diary you are talking about, I read through the titles. Why comment just to hear how I'm stupid and backwards and unworthy to be considered a democrat?

    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 Aug 11, 2013 at 09:09:18 PM PDT

    •  no--you misunderstood. Click on my link in the (7+ / 0-)

      diary.  

      I'm referring to lunatics on the comments page of a CBS affiliate pertaining to a story on Newtown.    I wasn't referring to anyone here.

    •  Exactly, thank you. You can't argue with (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, oldpunk, DavidMS, PavePusher

      true believers, no matter what their position is on any given topic.

      I've tried to avoid these diaries because it's the same old tired arguments, same old false accusations, same old relativistic morality AND the conversation goes nowhere.

      The people voted and said no to new gun regulations and instead of being responsible adults and suggesting or pushing for programs or policies that can save lives, it's only about the guns, nothing more.

      While the empty arguments keep getting rehashed, people are still dying.  Ones that could be helped through fully funded mental health services, ending the racist drug war, ending unfunded resource wars, etc, etc, etc.

      They don't want to discuss real issues or solutions, despite being defeated when the votes were tallied up.

      It's not about "saving the children", it's not about saving anyone.

      So why bother???  The "special interests" of the Democratic party have taken over while ignoring the silent majority of us.

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

      by gerrilea on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 09:17:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not sure what you mean by "known haters" (4+ / 0-)

      My comments have been attacked numerous times by some kossacks but I don't consider any of them haters.

      Haters
      Gun grabbers
      Gun controllers
      Antis
      ...

      There is a long list of disparaging names that no one seems willing to actually define.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:27:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Gun grabbers: those who would take or ban (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, oldpunk, gerrilea, PavePusher

        certain types of currently legal firearms.

        See: DiFi, those who support an AWB, those who supported the NY SAFE ACT.

        Antis: those who aren't as pro-RKBA as the person using the term.

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

        by KVoimakas on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 10:52:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gun Nut (5+ / 0-)

          Person so committed to the imagined prerogatives of gun manufacturers that they oppose any sensible conversation on the public safety issues surrounding easy access to incredibly lethal firepower.

          See: Newtown, CT; Columbine High; Aurora, Colorado; Geneva County, Alabama; Seal Beach, CA; etc., etc., etc.

          See: it works both ways.

          •  Good thing I don't fall under that. (10+ / 0-)

            I'm committed to supporting the civil right to keep and bear arms.

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

            by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:09:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That probably is a good thing--agreed. nt (5+ / 0-)
            •  That's an abstract stance (3+ / 0-)

              The bereaved families deserve a more concrete plan.

              •  We Must Do Something ^TM (8+ / 0-)

                Right?

                I agree. There's a lot we can do to cut back on violent crime of all shapes and sorts.

                Gun control doesn't even register on the top 3 best ways to deal with it.

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

                by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:15:23 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Who are you to determine (5+ / 0-)

                  what's "best?" Why are you invoking taking action from an ironic posture? Surely doing nothing will only lead to more of the same. That's "winning the war" as far as your concerned?

                  •  The point I was trying to make: (7+ / 0-)

                    The call to do something doesn't necessarily mean do something productive, or do something worthwhile, or do something that actually makes a difference.

                    No.

                    As long as we can say we tried, hey, we're good. Why bother fixing the issues underlying society when we can just treat a symptom (poorly) and call it good? The true fixes for violent crime (and other crime as well) aren't going to be things we can just do RIGHT NOW and see everything fixed RIGHT NOW.

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

                    by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:02:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  We already know 10 laws that are already (3+ / 0-)

                    on the books have a measurable impact on the guns flowing into criminal hands.

                    Laws Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, appear to have the most dramatic and measurable effects. Handgun permit laws have already been upheld in 4 US Appeals Courts, and the very strict NY law has already made it up to SCOTUS. In April the supremes declined to review it.

                    If you have any counter evidence that Law No. 5, 6, 7, 9 are ineffective, let's see it.

                    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                    by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:42:20 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The low gun crime rate (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener, PavePusher, FrankRose

                      in Vermont, compared to neighboring New York, seem to indicate those laws are not the answer. It is nice to try and blame exports, but if those laws are the answer then why wouldn't the states with few to none also have consistently high crime rates? It also hides state to state stats by combining states they way they do in that graphic. When Louisiana is in a gun stat they tend to make all states lumped with them look bad. Click on individual states and see how differently they compare.

                      This is the list of 10 being linked too. I cannot support #5, #6, or #9. I live in a west coast state that doesn't require licenses to own a handgun, rifle, or shotgun, and has a lower than average gun crime rate. Despite having few of those items we also have a lower than national average "gun crime export" rate.

                      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 Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 07:46:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  There is no reason to expect any national (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, bevenro

                        gun laws will be passed any time soon. Even with overwhelming public support for background checks, I think it's unlikely to have another go round.

                        Yes, whenever I try to understand any national averages about guns, I like to look at state or even county maps. The county maps show how even within a state there are large fluctuations.

                        My efforts to understand Heller and post-Heller litigation lead me to believe that outright bans on most common handguns will never be passed, or if they are that they would be upheld.

                        IMO, it seemed that an old/bad idea needed one more at bat before political will could be persuaded to consider anything new. I also suspect that outright bans on other types of guns are problematic for all kinds of reasons that have already been discussed ad nauseum.

                        So where does that leave us - as I've remarked and cited in other comments, there are a large number of regulations making there way up to SCOTUS. Courts are upholding the vast majority, and explicitly stating that states should be given wide latitude in how they balance expression of the inidividual RKBA with the duty of the state to reduce crime and secure public safety.

                        All of that leads me to believe that states will continue to set policy that best suits their needs.

                        Disclaimer: I grew up with guns, and know there is a wide diversity of relative utility/relative risk across the country, and even within single states. When we moved to NYC, we consciously chose to live here unarmed, but can imagine settling out west in a later chapter of our lives, and would probably become gun owners then.

                        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                        by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:29:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  Great suggestions. Thank you. nt (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber
                  •  The point is clear - ONE GOD - The gun! One cult! (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

                    Will do anything to satisfy the priests of the NRA with the religion koolaid that they take.

              •  We can do something - laws that curb (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bevenro, mrblifil, Glen The Plumber

                gun trafficking:

                States with common sense gun laws 1) reduce the flow of guns into the criminal market and 2) have to absorb the flow of guns from states with loose gun policy. Please check out href="http://www.tracetheguns.org/... target="_blank">Trace the Guns to see whether your state has passed any of the these 10 laws.

                Trace the Guns

                Ten Laws that Curb Gun Trafficking


                1. Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't

                9 states have passed this law, and they export 9.5 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 15.6 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                2. Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information

                27 states have passed this law, and they export 9.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                3. Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check

                25 states have passed this law, and they export 12.0 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.3 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                4. Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows

                16 states have passed this law, and they export 7.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.8 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                5. Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales

                13 states have passed this law, and they export 6.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                6. Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits

                24 states have passed this law, and they export 9.6 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                7. Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns

                14 states have passed this law, and they export 7.1 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.7 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                8. Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement

                7 states have passed this law, and they export 6.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 16.1 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                9. Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws

                8 states have passed this law, and they export 4.4 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


                10. Allows Inspections of Gun Dealers

                22 states have passed this law, and they export 11.5 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 17.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.

                [Facts from trace the guns interactive map, reformatted to a fact sheet format]

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:45:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  States with libertarian gun laws impose (5+ / 0-)

                medical and policing costs on states that have passed common sense laws that reduce the flow of guns into the criminal market.

                In states like NY, we pay higher taxes to deal with that burden. When will libertarian states start to take responsibility for policies that enable the flow of guns into the criminal gun market?

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:53:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I see nothing wrong with civil libertarians. (8+ / 0-)

                  I'm a big fan of the ACLU, for one example (even though they can't count to 10 without skipping 2).

                  I'm also a big fan of that higher tax burden you're talking about. Get some better social safety nets. Get some government jobs going (building or repairing our infrastructure for one). Get some better education going (more teachers, smaller class size, etc.)

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

                  by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:56:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Kitchen sinking the Bill of Rights (4+ / 0-)

                  How to tell when you've lost an argument?

                  When you're reduced to throwing in the whole Bill of Rights, name dropping the ACLU, and calling for higher taxes!

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:13:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  For losing an argument, looks like we're still (8+ / 0-)

                    winning the war.

                    *hat tip*

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

                    by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:21:07 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  just like our war industry is winning the war. (5+ / 0-)

                      something to brag to the grandkids about!!

                      •  Just like LGBT equality is winning the war. (7+ / 0-)

                        It's taking a lot longer, but hey, I'm happy to see their recent advances towards equality. It's taking longer than I'd like, but they're winning the war.

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

                        by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 01:03:51 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ok, I'll bite. What constitutes 'victory' in your (3+ / 0-)

                          war?  A gun in every pot?  A gun in every school?  A country armed to the teeth (just in case Obama gets a bit out of hand with the ACA--this is, of course, why the Tea Party wants all these guns)?

                          Unfettered profits for the gun industry (and, consequently, lobby?)

                          Is that victory?

                          You'll accuse me of putting words in your mouth.  So take it as a question:

                          What constitutes winning this 'war'?

                          •  Democrats as a party supporting RKBA to the extent (9+ / 0-)

                            that I do.

                            I'm not against UBCs. I don't think they'll help as much as some think, but I won't stand against 'em.

                            I buy my firearms second hand for multiple reasons. For the most part, the only $$ that goes to off the shelf items is $$ for ammo, some accessories (holsters, for example), and NFA items.

                            If I was going to have my druthers, I'd LOVE to see a civil rights course taught in school. This would include teaching how you can exercise your right to not incriminate yourself, how to vote, etc, AND there would be a firearm safety section as well.

                            I'd love to see the standing army repealed. No more US Army. Everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) between 18 and 45 would be a part of a citizen militia. Monthly training for everyone. No more imperialistic wars. Have you read Drift by Maddow? I recommend it. This would fix the problems she points out (though we'd have to get rid of contractors).

                            Personally, I'd love to see anyone who can safely handle a firearm, carry said firearm (violent criminals aside). I think violent crime would drop like a rock. I'd also think that militia service (see above) would give people that training to handle firearms, among other things (exercise, how to take/give orders, how to communicate, work as a team towards a common goal, etc).

                            So, as a bare minimum, what I said above (about the Democratic party supporting RKBA) constitutes winning the war. Them realizing that gun control hurts them more than it helps would be icing on the cake.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:13:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  few points-- (3+ / 0-)

                            1. Well, ok, maybe some common ground on UBCs--that's something.  Maybe it would drastically help, maybe it would do nothing.  But it isn't a major right infringement, so if it could help keep weapons out of the hands of people who have no business near weapons, I'm hopeful.

                            2. But that leads to the second point--the vehemence of the stance against UBCs, and the extent to which the Democrats have been completely cowed by the likes of Wayne LaPierre and the gun lobby, doesn't look like a victory for the second amendment--it looks like a victory for far-right lunatics buying out the whole of our political sphere so that the gun industry makes more money.

                            KV--when kids get killed, it's a boon for the industry.  Not all NRA members--but I guarantee some of them gloat over sick events like Newtown and Aurora.  Because I think that some of them are legitimate sickos.  

                            Is that the victory you want?

                            3. I can't really comment on the army--although I agree that our current incarnation of a standing army needs heavy modfication....but it's not my area of expertise.

                            4. If America were the sociological analogy of, say, a tavern in Wyoming, then maybe sidearms in the hands of responsible individuals would be ok.  But this is a country of 300 million, founded on blood, violence and greed.  It is a culture, in many ways, and for all the good things about it--of death, and insensitivity to death.

                            The U.S. is a country increasingly disconnected from the IMPORT of violence.  Gun murder is simply action at a distance--like a video game.  Gun homicides at close range might be a bit more akin to knife crime--but one look at the famous scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark shows the distinction (which is often wilfully lost on RKBA advocates)

                            Knife to a Swordfight

                            That's why there are 10,000 gun deaths a year--AND WE DON'T CARE.  We are not a society that has demonstrated a hint of responsibility, and we are not a society that deserves the second amendment.  We may have deserved it when it was written, but we've gone and said 'the hell with society, we can do whatever we want'.  Since the second amendment (like all the other amendments) isn't equipped to deal with rapid technological advances--even Heller only dealt with handguns and the concept of individual right--it can be spun however we damn well please.

                            And the way we damn well please is to do everything in our power to undermine the 'security of our free state.'

                          •  asdf (5+ / 0-)
                            KV--when kids get killed, it's a boon for the industry.  Not all NRA members--but I guarantee some of them gloat over sick events like Newtown and Aurora.  Because I think that some of them are legitimate sickos.  

                            Is that the victory you want?

                            Sickos will be sickos, whether I win or not.
                            If America were the sociological analogy of, say, a tavern in Wyoming, then maybe sidearms in the hands of responsible individuals would be ok.
                            Firearms in the hands of responsible individuals are ok now. We have what, 100 million gun owners or people with guns in their homes? (Albeit, that's extrapolated a bit.)

                            10k a year in firearm related homicides is a very small %. Is that % too big? Sure. But I wouldn't concentrate on gun control to make it stronger.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:56:29 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's a boon for gun manufacturers (3+ / 0-)

                            Every mass murder leads to an immediate spike in sales of the murder weapon and an overall increase in sales.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:31:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Why's that??? (5+ / 0-)

                            Is it because us Democrats then push to ban/restrict said ever harder?

                            Yepperie...

                            Then those pushing for the bans/restrictions should be held accountable when more and more firearms get into the wrong hands, correct?  The law of intended consequences, clearly.

                            Since you've pointed out the obvious that more guns are purchased after a tragic event, then why wouldn't we try a difference approach?

                            You know my wishes already:

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

                            So, on my list of things we could do now, why are these options not on the table again?

                            Is it because it's not about saving children or anyone, just getting the guns?

                            Or is there some other plausible reason no one wants to even attempt to do the right thing?

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

                            by gerrilea on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:42:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Plenty of states are doing the right things (2+ / 0-)

                            See any of my comments above re 10 state laws that work to reduce the flow of guns from legal hands across state lines into criminal markets.

                            See any of my comments re constitutional restrictions on firearms that have been challenged and so far been upheld by 4 separate Appeals Courts.

                            Or skip the facts, and skip constitutional law based on actual legal arguments mad and relied upon in judicial opinion.

                            Menace as usual is not going to last forever.

                            We are moving out of confusion and toward clarity in the post-Heller world of gun regulation as a collaboration between police and public health.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:59:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? Public health has nothing to do with (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            OMwordTHRUdaFOG, PavePusher, IndieGuy

                            this.

                            And what is the ultimate goal then? The disarmament of every American?  From where I'm sitting that's clear to me.

                            So, with your position, can we then restrict the 1st as well, for "public health reasons"?

                            Surely.

                            As for the false claims that gun violence has gone down in NYS, I know first-hand that the police lie about their crime stats to get Federal Funding.

                            http://gothamist.com/...

                            http://www.businessinsider.com/...

                            And it's been going on for decades:

                            http://www.vdare.com/...

                            I don't believe your numbers sadly, they come from our lying government.

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

                            by gerrilea on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 07:25:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your concern is noted (2+ / 0-)

                            Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:32:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you link to a white supremacists website..?? (3+ / 0-)

                            and anti-semite too...wow...disgusting.

                            We are not broke, we are being robbed...but we can fight back...#KosKatalogue

                            by Glen The Plumber on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:12:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As the diarist wisely said up-thread: once they (3+ / 0-)

                            fall into logic like that the have become Hannity.  How true!

                          •  Thanks for the background...apologies... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose, KVoimakas, IndieGuy

                            the google search I did for "police lying about crime stats" that was one of the first 5 links.

                            I've known for years the police lie and continue to do so to get Federal funds.

                            The Village Voice, et al have reported it for years and years.

                            I'm make sure I check the sites out better.

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

                            by gerrilea on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:39:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  'they come from our lying government'. (4+ / 0-)

                            Ah.  So THAT'S where this all comes from.

                            Fair enough.  Why aren't you a gun owner?  You should be stocking up.....

                          •  Because this is what they do to innocent gun (0+ / 0-)

                            owners.

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

                            http://stopthedrugwar.org/...

                            http://www.innocentdown.org/

                            Besides, I'm against violence, I do all I can to avoid physical confrontations.

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

                            by gerrilea on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:50:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, so I've voted nothing but Democratic since (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            IndieGuy, gerrilea

                            I was able to vote. That includes our POTUS twice.

                            Yet saying "our lying government" is more a statement of fact than some kind of right wing insult (which is I think how you took it).

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

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:17:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  hm. VDare, on Jews... I mean guns.... (4+ / 0-)
                            Jewish activity collectively, throughout history, is best understood as an elaborate and highly successful group competitive strategy directed against neighboring peoples and host societies.
                            oh wait....that wasn't the gun reference!  Let me look again...

                            'host societies'?  well fuck me, we're parasites!  Nice one, gerrilea.  Try again on your linked sites....

                          •  there was another user... (3+ / 0-)

                            recently banned...also liked to link RW bizarro websites...notice the lone person he followed..??

                            We are not broke, we are being robbed...but we can fight back...#KosKatalogue

                            by Glen The Plumber on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:58:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yep, he was banned, don't exactly know why (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happy camper, IndieGuy

                            but I defend the newbies because I was one once upon a time.  I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

                            But what does his banning have to do with me again?  Guilty by association?  I have no control over other people's actions.

                            But thanks for informing me, I've never noticed those whom are "following" me here, should I block anyone, everyone you don't approve of???

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

                            by gerrilea on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:54:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They have tried to conflate gun (property) rights (3+ / 0-)

                            with actual Civil Rights (capital C and Capital R) of Blacks, women and gays; I guess now they are comparing their oppression to the Jews?

                          •  YOU wrote a diary that quoted the dictionary (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, IndieGuy, gerrilea

                            that established that gun rights are civil rights:
                            Civil Rights: pl n. "The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship..."

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 05:59:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Out of context quotes are always great aren't they (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber
                            The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
                          •  Apparently, you don't know what the word (0+ / 0-)

                            'especially' means. (Quick hint: it doesn't contradict the first part of the sentence)

                            Hence, there is no missing context.

                            The RKBA (and Freedom of Speech and reasonable search and seizure, etc.) are 'rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship' & are therefor 'Civil Rights'.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 05:42:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  As I said upthread, apologies for that link (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            bevenro, IndieGuy

                            the rest stand as proof of my point.

                            No excuses for my failure here but an explanation. It was late, I've been remodeling my kitchen and the posters keep claiming, "the numbers, the numbers the numbers"...well the numbers lie coming from New York State.

                            Again, apologies.

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

                            by gerrilea on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 04:44:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Which numbers? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DefendOurConstitution

                            I rely on CDC data for fatal gun injuries. They collect what's recorded as the cause of death, and they list which codes are included in each category. They break out firearms fatalities by assault, self-harm, accidental, and undetermined.

                            The FBI Uniform crime reports only include murder and non-negligent manslaughter when they report homicides with a firearm, which they break out by type of gun.  

                            I believe the gun trace data comes from the ATF.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:26:16 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And in the CDC data you can compare (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            DefendOurConstitution

                            fatal self harm by all methods, or look at state-by-state mortality; self-harm by gun, or drugs/meds, or alcohol.

                            It's the CDC Report of Vital Statistics.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:45:59 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ooh! I see the king has sent for reinforcements!nt (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber
                          •  Rethinking Gun Control - a public health approach (3+ / 0-)

                            Rethinking Gun Control By William Saletan
                            Posted Monday, June 24, 2013

                            Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.
                            The article is a digest of the key findings of the The National Research Council's comprehensive review of gun violence, which was requested by President Obama in January this year.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 07:43:22 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for the links, I'll have to read. nt (3+ / 0-)
                          •  The most immediate goa is to reduce (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, a2nite

                            the flow of guns from legal purchasers into crime markets across state lines. We already know that 10 state laws work together to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

                            The national averages for crime reduction blurs the cost/benefits of loose gun policy. States with tight gun laws still have to absorb the medical, legal, policing, costs and community disruption that is supported by crime guns that flow in from other states.

                            NY is a classic example. NY has half the national average of gun fatalities (NY = 5/100,000 and National Ave. is 10/100,000) and 66% of crime guns originate from other states. Originate means that they were initial sold legally to a buyer in any state other than New York.

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

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

                            If crime guns couldn't cross state lines, and states with loose gun policy had to absorb the whole cost of crimes committed with all the guns they sell there might be a greater willingness to hold gun dealers and gun owners accountable for the deadly weapons they buy and sell.

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:02:20 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We don't know anything of the sort here. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose
                            We already know that 10 state laws work together to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
                            I do know however that you are espousing one of the exact goals of the Small Arms Treaty that I reviewed months ago.
                            The most immediate goa is to reduce the flow of guns from legal purchasers into crime markets....

                            As for this:

                            The national averages for crime reduction blurs the cost/benefits of loose gun policy. States with tight gun laws still have to absorb the medical, legal, policing, costs and community disruption that is supported by crime guns that flow in from other states.
                            1st, are you saying that since gun crimes have gone down over 40% we can't know the "cost/benefits" when gun policy is relaxed?

                            2nd, How do States with strict gun laws suffer again if we can't know, as per your first line?

                            I simply detest propaganda.

                            We have over 40 yrs of evidence showing that crimes go down in States with lax gun regulations vs States that do not.  We also know that if you are to commit a crime in one of those lax States, you just might get killed for it, sadly.  We also know that the "crime stats" from the 2nd largest State, NY, are lies.

                            The spin I'm surprised you've presented here echoes the Red Stater's beliefs that our taxes shouldn't be used to help people ie this specifically:

                            States with tight gun laws still have to absorb the medical, legal, policing,
                            Do you have any proof of this??? Or is this just a guess, like you've done before?  

                            Since you've taken this position, then it's okay for those Red Stater's to bitch and moan about "our taxes being used to kill babies""...correct?

                            Or are you so caught up in the Red State vs Blue State false division and propaganda that you don't even realize it?

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

                            by gerrilea on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:04:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm with you on no more imperialistic wars. (3+ / 0-)

                            Your ideas about the military suggest that you have zero military experience. Am I right? That doesn't make your ideas bad, just naive. Are you thinking something along the lines of Israel or Switzerland?

                            Anyone who has had military experience in the US knows that even among the minority of people who want to be there, many have trouble with the ordinary, every day drudgery and discipline of training, and studying, and modifying one's behavior to accomplish a common goal.

                            Then even after selecting those who can suppress their individual whims to participate in a disciplined daily life of common purpose, there are still many who go off the rails, just about any time there is some access to alcohol.

                            There are many who simply don't have the attention span, the self discipline, or the consideration for their fellow citizens to give them a gun and expect them to use it for lawful self defense, rather than to intimidate their wives, girlfriends, rivals, and even their neighbors who have different political views.

                            Our gun laws already show us a full range of misbehavior enabled by "guns as usual."

                            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 03:57:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, I'm not thinking Israel or Switzerland. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, PavePusher, IndieGuy

                            I'm thinking what it was before WWI with some severe modifications to take into account the Air Force, Marines, and Navy (which I'd leave basically untouched).

                            Anyone who has had military experience in the US knows that even among the minority of people who want to be there, many have trouble with the ordinary, every day drudgery and discipline of training, and studying, and modifying one's behavior to accomplish a common goal.
                            And that's part of the problem of our society in general. We don't work to accomplish a common goal. Mandatory service would work to instill that. Start 'em young.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:58:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I got it, I got it: Australia. They always gripe (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, a2nite

                            that we cannot try anything that they swear will not work - well Australia sure worked so that must be what they like!

                          •  Supporting the Australian model is supporting (4+ / 0-)

                            confiscation.

                            Glad to see you actually be honest about your intents.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:01:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm Supporting the WA UBC Initiative (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, bevenro

                            Washington Initiative 594
                            I think it is a fair model that uses the existing background check system that applies to out of state purchases. It doesn't try to create yet another system, or add new burdens to the process any more than current dealer purchases. It doesn't set the cost, the existing market sets the cost. I recently "purchased a gun on the internet." It was sent to the local dealer of my choice who charged me $25 for the background check. Applying this requirement to in-state private party purchases seems like a reasonable attempt to keep felons from buying guns. I'm not confident it will work, but I think it is worth a try.

                            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 Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:02:57 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Wow! that is really sick! Someone saying that (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        LilithGardener, bevenro

                        more guns with fewer regulations is equal to gay rights!  I guess that completes the trifecta:

                        1. First it was that they are as oppressed as Blacks and MLK at Selma.

                        2.  Next it's that any gun regulation is equal to taking away women's reproductive choices.

                        and now it's more guns = giving gay people rights.

                        Wow! Just wow!

                        If anyone wants links to the first two, KOSmail me - the third one is right here.

                        •  Expansion of civil rights is expansion of civil (6+ / 0-)

                          rights.

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

                          by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:44:10 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Here is my flan recipe, this time a coconut (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LilithGardener, a2nite

                          version:

                          Flan de Coco (Coconut Flan)

                          Ingredients:
                          •    Approximately 1½ cups sugar (for caramel)
                          •    5-6 eggs (if they are pretty large we use 5 and if  they are smallish we use 6)
                          •    1 can cream of coconut (Coco López or Coco Goya) – not coconut milk
                          •    1 can evaporated milk
                          •    1 can sweetened condensed milk
                          •    1 teaspoon vanilla extract

                          Instructions:
                          1.    To make the caramel, melt the sugar in a round metal baking dish/pan (we use a 9” round cake pan); pour sugar into pan and spread so it is even, then heat on low until all the sugar melts and takes on a light golden color.  (The sugar will first start melting clear and then will start bubbling and turning brown). Swirl and tilt the pan so that the melted sugar covers all the sides and the bottom of the pan (try to go as high as possible on the sides within reason).  The timing of this is tricky!  Remove any excess sugar that has not melted. Set pan aside to cool (you will hear crackling noise from hardening caramel). Note: this step can be done a day ahead and the pan stored covered at room temperature.
                          2.    Pre-heat oven to 400F.
                          3.    In a separate large bowl beat the eggs until fluffy. Add in the coconut cream (sometimes this separates in the can, so mash/mix the liquid and solids with a fork in the can and then in the bowl to mix as well as possible), the evaporated milk, the condensed milk, and the vanilla. Do not use a blender or overbeat the eggs/batter as this results in a harder, less creamy flan.
                          4.    Pour the mixture onto the cooled caramel in the cake pan and cook in a water bath with the water coming up about as high as the mixture inside the cake pan for about 30 minutes at 400F.  Lower to 350F for another 30-35 minutes.  If when the temperature is lowered it seems that the top is getting too dark/burned, cover the flan loosely with tin foil – you should also add some more water to the bain marie if the water level is below the flan level.  The flan is ready when a knife inserted in the center comes out clean.
                          5.    Take flan out of oven and let cool for 45 minutes to an hour (we cool it in the water bath by carefully draining some of the hot water and putting ice cubes in the remaining water to chill the outside of the cake pan).  Drain water and dry the cake pan exterior.  When fully cooled, cover with tin foil and refrigerate for at least six hours; best to chill it overnight.
                          6.    Take the cake pan out of refrigerator, let sit at room temperature for about 30 minutes so the pan warms up (this helps release the flan from the pan), and run a flat butter knife carefully along the edges (scraping the pan but making sure not to cut into the flan) to make sure that the sides are not sticking; some of the caramel will probably ooze up through the sides.  Rotate the pan from side to side in order to make sure the flan is loose.  Put serving platter (larger than pan and with sides that flare up so that caramel does not run off) upside down on center of pan and flip both upside down shaking gently until flan lands on platter.  Spoon any caramel left on the pan onto the flan.  

                          ______________

                          Now that is civil rights!  (or at least yummy and a heck of a lot more than an anarchists wet dream of more guns with less regulation being equal to Civil Rights as in what Blacks, women and homosexuals have endured and are still enduring; just like the sicko that starts at minute 47 of this PBS Special. Nnobody wants to impose any unequal rights on ANYONE, just sensible firearms regulations that apply to all - talk about a persecution complex!)

                        •  Kitchen sinking the Bill of Rights (4+ / 0-)

                          How to tell when a libertarian has lost the argument?

                          It becomes about all civil liberties, and universal human rights, rather than constitutional rights.

                          There is no civil right to create a menace with a gun.
                          There is no universal human right to create a menace with a gun.
                          There is no 2A constitutional right to create a menace with a gun.

                          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                          by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 07:17:58 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, and for the record, go check some of my (5+ / 0-)

                    diaries on Huey Long and the link in my sig.

                    Share Our Wealth has some pretty damn high taxes and I've been spouting that program for a long time.

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

                    by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:21:58 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  So 'gun nut' describes motives & not action or (5+ / 0-)

            opinion?

            Unless you plan on establishing the reliability of your mind-reading skillz, that is a word of extraordinarily limited scope.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:34:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  There are many of us who support the 2A civil (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bevenro, Glen The Plumber

            right to keep and bear arms. And we support the well regulated part that holds gun owners accountable for exercising their individual right without creating a menace for others.

            Even under Heller there are many constitutional regulations that the libertarian gun folks reject, such as requiring gun owners to report their lost/stolen firearms to the police.

            Amazing how much resistance there is to that common sense measure.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:03:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  As an aside, yes I agree that there are regulation (6+ / 0-)

              -s that can be put on this civil right, like there are on any of the others.

              But using the part of the amendment that says "well regulated militia" to support that...eh, I don't agree.

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

              by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:11:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I know--it's genius how often gun-rights (5+ / 0-)

              advocates cite 'Heller' without knowing what's in Heller.

              A lot of them are far to the right of Scalia without even  knowing it.

              •  Name dropping the Supreme Court (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                a2nite

                You know you lost an argument when you're reduced to quoting your favorite decision, from memory, and not only do you get it wrong, your hubris prompts you to not bother with a link, and in your confusion you impulsively open up a can of whoop ass on the wrong person.

                It is rather disappointing that some members of the RKBA group who present themselves as very knowledgeable about guns can't be bothered with simple facts.

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

                Heller expanded the RKBA to an individual right for the purpose of self defense and other lawful purposes. Menacing, brandishing, and many other firearms crimes need not be explicitly mentioned in the actual majority opinion. They are still covered by the ruling.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:28:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  What is a menace? A crime in most jurisdictions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bevenro

              I'm not a constitutional scholar. My lay person's understanding of Heller is that it interprets the 2A as articulating an individual RKBA for the purpose of self defense and other lawful purposes. Since menacing is a crime in almost all jurisdictions there is no 2A right to create a menace. Period. With or without a gun.

              What we don't yet know for sure is when an event like the appreciation day at Starbucks crosses the line from a political protest to disturbing the peace. Political protests almost always disturb the peace of someone and we have a long history of vocal petition for redress.

              When does lawful open carry of a firearm by an individual expressing their RKBA cross over into displaying a deadly weapon or conducting oneself in such a way that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death?

              Please note we are not just talking about guns here. A baseball team dropping by Starbucks might be carrying bags of baseball bats and no one would worry.

              But a facebook group of angry protesters announcing in advance that they were going to meet at Starbucks, bringing baseball bats, "to teach those people in Newtown a lesson," would cause reasonable people to worry.

              Disclaimer: I don't have a facebook account and don't know what any of the event planners announced or encouraged.

              Starbucks was sufficiently worried that they closed the store to avoid any possibility of a problem.

              http://definitions.uslegal.com/...

              Menacing is a crime governed by state laws, which vary by state, but typically involves displaying a weapon or a course of conduct that intentionally places another person in reasonable fear of physical injury or death. The following is an example of a state law that deals with menacing:
              S 120.13 Menacing in the first degree.

              A person is guilty of menacing in the first degree when he or she commits the crime of menacing in the second degree and has been previously convicted of the crime of menacing in the second degree within the preceding ten years.

              Menacing in the first degree is a class E felony.
              S 120.14 Menacing in the second degree.

              A person is guilty of menacing in the second degree when:
                  1.    He or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or
                  2.    He or she repeatedly follows a person or engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death; or

                  3.    He or she commits the crime of menacing in the third degree in violation of that part of a duly served order of protection, or such order which the defendant has actual knowledge of because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, pursuant to article eight of the family court act, section 530.12 of the criminal procedure law, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, which directed the respondent or defendant to stay away from the person or persons on whose behalf the order was issued.

              Menacing in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.
              S 120.15 Menacing in the third degree.

              A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.

              Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              Menacing (in some states known as brandishing) is a violent crime in most state jurisdictions of the United States. Although the wording and degrees of offense vary slightly from state to state, the criminal act of menacing generally consists of displaying a weapon to a person with the intention of threatening them with bodily harm from said weapon.

              It is distinct from other similar weapons-related crimes of violence such as "aggravated assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon" in that the charge of menacing requires neither an actual deadly weapon be displayed (any object wielded threateningly can be used to menace in many states), nor any actual physical contact. The display also need not be accompanied by a verbal threat; if the display of the weapon would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm from the perpetrator, the threat is considered to be implicit.

              Degrees of offense range from a misdemeanor for first time offenders, to low to mid level felonies for offenders with a prior menacing charge. There are not usually any other relevant aggravating circumstances in determining the degree of offense, as any actual physical contact between the perpetrator and the victim would garner a stronger charge of battery or assault instead of (rather than in addition to) the menacing charge.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 10:36:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  and for the record while I do think that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                LilithGardener

                those folks do have the RIGHT to assemble at a Starbucks in Newtown with lawfully obtained weapons, to do so is

                1. sick
                2. demented

                and 3. Starbucks absolutely did the right thing by saying 'Fuck No'. (which they, of course, also have the right to do  :)

                •  No right to menace - Heller & Moore w links (0+ / 0-)

                  In his excellent diary Adam B answers our fundamental question, What gun control does the Second Amendment Allow?

                  Heller v. DC
                  A gun is a potential danger to more people if carried in public than just kept in the home. But the other side of this coin is that knowing that many law-abiding citizens are walking the streets armed may make criminals timid. Given that in Chicago, at least, most murders occur outside the home, the net effect on crime rates in general and murder rates in particular of allowing the carriage of guns in public is uncertain both as a matter of theory and empirically
                  [Adam B notes] "But even Judge Posner [in Moore v. Madigan] recognizes that different restrictions require different constitutional tests:"
                  A blanket prohibition on carrying gun in public prevents a person from defending himself anywhere except inside his home; and so substantial a curtailment of the right of armed self-defense requires a greater showing of justification than merely that the public might benefit on balance from such a curtailment, though there is no proof it would. In contrast, when a state bans guns merely in particular places, such as public schools, a person can preserve  an undiminished right of self-defense by not entering those places; since that’s a lesser burden, the state doesn’t need to prove so strong a need. Similarly, the state can prevail with less evidence when guns are forbidden to a class of persons who present a higher than average risk of misusing a gun. And empirical evidence of a public safety concern can be dispensed with altogether when the ban is limited to obviously dangerous persons such as felons and the mentally ill. Illinois has lots of options for protecting its people from being shot without having to eliminate all possibility of armed self-defense in public...

                  Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller, some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.

                  Moore v. Madigan

                  For context, consider a larger block of the Moore decision, starting on p16.

                  Apart from the usual prohibitions of gun ownership by children, felons, illegal aliens, lunatics, and in sensitive places such as public schools, the propriety of which was not questioned in Heller (“nothing in this opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” 554 U.S. at 626), some states sensibly require that an applicant for a handgun permit establish his competence in handling firearms. A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others. See Massad Ayoob, “The Subtleties of Safe Firearms Handling,” Backwoods Home Magazine, Jan./Feb.2007, p. 30; Debra L. Karch, Linda L. Dahlberg & Nimesh Patel, “Surveillance for Violent Deaths—National Violent Death Reporting System, 16 States, 2007,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, p. 11, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904.pdf (visited Oct. 29, 2012). States also permit private businesses and other private institutions (such as churches) to ban guns from their premises. If enough private institutions decided to do that, the right to carry a gun in public would have much less value and might rarely be exercised—in which event the invalidation of the Illinois law might have little effect, which opponents of gun rights would welcome.

                  Recently the Second Circuit upheld a New York state law that requires an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a license. Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, supra. This is the inverse of laws that forbid dangerous persons to have handguns; New York places the burden on the applicant to show that he needs a handgun to ward off dangerous persons. As the court explained, 2012 WL 5907502, at *13, New York “decided not to ban handgun possession, but to limit it to those individuals who have an actual reason (‘proper cause’) to carry the weapon. In this vein, licensing is oriented to the Second Amendment's protections․ [I]nstead of forbidding anyone from carrying a handgun in public, New York took a more moderate approach to fulfilling its important objective and reasonably concluded that only individuals having a bona fide reason to possess handguns should be allowed to introduce them into the public sphere.”

                  The New York gun law upheld in Kachalsky, although one of the nation's most restrictive such laws (under the law's “proper cause” standard, an applicant for a gun permit must demonstrate a need for self-defense greater than that of the general public, such as being the target of personal threats, id. at *3, *8), is less restrictive than Illinois's law. Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit's analysis (apart from disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with, with some of the historical analysis in the opinion—we regard the historical issues as settled by Heller ) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction. For example, the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the [Supreme] Court emphasized that the state's efforts to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.” 2012 WL 5907502, at *9. Well of course-the interest in having sex inside one's home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one's home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home. In any event the court in Kachalsky used the distinction between self-protection inside and outside the home mainly to suggest that a standard less demanding than “strict scrutiny” should govern the constitutionality of laws limiting the carrying of guns outside the home; our analysis is not based on degrees of scrutiny, but on Illinois's failure to justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:04:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so in that case, that reasoning could potentially (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener

                    have applied to some of the open-carry Tea Party rallies...

                    •  (not general rallies, but in proximity to (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      notable Democratic speakers, etc.)

                    •  I don't know (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bevenro

                      I think Cops are very deferential to men with guns, if they are white & middle class, because the police don't want a 2A lawsuit.

                      Where is the line between lawful open carry and and displaying a weapon in a menacing manner?

                      Consider a baseball bat, or a knife. Anyone can openly carry a baseball bat in public on their way to a sports game. But that guy in Florida, who got out of his SUV and was threatening some teens with a stick. The teen who shot him dead was found to have used justifiable force in self defense even though he himself was carrying an illegal gun.

                      I expect that a group of men dressed in street clothes and each one carrying a bat, could legally be stopped by police and prevented from going on the subway, day or night, unless they could convince the cops that they were a sports team, going to or returning from a game.

                      And even then, I expect that a cop could require them to carry the bats in a bat bag, or tape them together such that they could not easily be used to threaten life or property.

                      I can't remember where I read that even where it's legal to openly carry a loaded rifle in public it would be illegal to pace back and forth in the street in front of a courthouse or school. IIRC, the legal reasoning was that lawful RKBA is for the purpose of self defense or other lawful purposes, and pacing back and forth in front of a school has not purpose (other than to intimidate).

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:53:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  "Gun Controllers" those that push for or support (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea

        gun control.
        A term that is both self-evident & benign.

        You have no reasonable complaint.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 11:47:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  First one thing then the opposite (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, Glen The Plumber

          of what you posted earlier.

          I agree that gun control is a self evident and benign phrase.

          Earlier you claimed you shouldn't be asked to take any stand against gun rights extremists until someone gets/keeps the gun controllers "in check".

          If gun controllers are benign, why do you think they are a problem that anyone needs to keep in check?

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:20:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, when it's time for flan it's time for flan .. (4+ / 0-)

        Vanilla Flan Recipe

        Ingredients:
        4-5 eggs
        1 can evaporated milk
        1 can sweetened condensed milk
        1 teaspoon vanilla extract
        ½ cup sugar
        ~1 1/2 cup sugar (for caramel)

        Instructions:
        1.    Pre-heat oven to 400F.
        2.    Melt sugar on an aluminum baking dish/pan (I use an 8” round cake pan); pour sugar in pan in about a 4” mound, heat on low (2-3 on electric stove) until all the sugar melts and takes on a light golden color (sugar will first start melting clear and then will start bubbling and turning brown). Move the pan so that the melted sugar covers all the sides and the bottom of the pan (try to go as high as possible on the sides so that when the mixture is poured in the caramel is equal to or higher than the mixture).  Remove any excess sugar that has not melted. Set aside to cool (will hear crackling noise from hardening caramel).
        3.    In a separate bowl beat the eggs, the ½ cup sugar with the eggs until it is dissolved, the evaporated milk, the condensed milk, and finally the vanilla.
        4.    Pour the mixture onto the cooled caramel in the aluminum pan and cook in a double boiler (pan with water in the oven that has water about as high as the mixture inside the aluminum pan) for about 25 minutes at 400F then lower to 350F for another 25 minutes (if when the temperature is lowered it seems that the top is getting too dark/burned, then cover the flan loosely with aluminum foil).  Flan is ready when a knife is introduced in the center and it comes out “clean.”
        5.     Take flan out of oven (careful with the boiling water!) and let cool for an hour.  Run a flat knife carefully along the edges to make sure that the sides are not sticking (some of the caramel will probably ooze up through the sides).  Cover with tin foil and refrigerate for 4-24 hours.
        6.    Shake pan lightly from side to side in order to make sure flan is loose.  Put platter upside down on center pan and flip both upside down until flan lands on platter.  Spoon any caramel left on the pan onto the flan.

        Enjoy!

  •  "Children or Guns?" (6+ / 0-)

    LeeTilson, a reader at the Newtown Patch, left a very thoughtful comment in relation to Friday's SBUX event in response to the perverse suggestion from some whacky gun fanatics that Newton should just, "Get over it..."

    Rather than a repost here, please read the full comment: "Children or Guns?" and following thread at an earlier, related diary.

    Some of those viewing this diary might appreciate reading that full comment and responses, as they seem to reflect the same or similar thinking as that which I perceive as being behind this diary, and many of the comments here.

    I share this as a long-time licensed gun owner and RASA member fighting to further enact, support and enforce sensible gun safety laws and regulations, consistent with our Constitution, like the common-sense provisions contained in the NY SAFE Act and similar measures in Maryland and elsewhere.

    In any case, thank you bevenro for stepping up on this crucial topic. I agree with you, thank you, and salute you.

  •  Ah, now I get it.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea, FrankRose
    I address 'RKBA' people because--it is YOUR responsibility to speak out against the nutjobs, the sick fucks, and the Wayne La Pierres who have completely hijacked the second amendment...
    This is a call-out diary, attempting to hold us accountable for people we have nothing to do with.

    Got it.

    Anything else on your mind?

    Oh, and if you want us to actually do what your whim dictates, you are going to have to:

    a.  Delegate us the power and authority to actually do anything effective in the name of Democrats/Progressives (be careful what you wish for...)

    and,

    b.  Stop living up to the other sides' rhetoric by calling for bans, fees, requiring government permission for a Constitutional Right, etc.

    Yeah, I'll hold my breath.....

    Your hate-mail will be graded.

    by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:20:01 PM PDT

    •  hey..it's a CALL OUT diary!! Well how 'bout that. (3+ / 0-)

      tough world out there, eh?  You must be as oppressed as...say....Christians.

    •  Please proceed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheFern, Glen The Plumber

      Rhetoric such as this is creating new gun safety advocates as we type.

      That's right. People who didn't care one wit about gun law until recently read a comment like what you just posted and, except for those who already feel persecuted and agree with you, they now fear extremist gun owners just a little bit more.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:31:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  disheartening how the Right has managed to sell (3+ / 0-)

        some of this nonsense to people on the left...

        I mean---these guys are democrats!  What is possessing these guys to spew out fringe rightist talking points basically written by LaPierre and his ilk?

        The fact that some people on this site would have denounced the NRA of the 1980s as being A Bunch Of Gun Control Freaks is obscene...

        •  I don't know (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bevenro, TheFern, Glen The Plumber

          There seems be an unwillingness to admit that the honor systems that had kind of worked for decades are no longer working.

          I still prefer to think of most Kossacks as sincere, but it's been educational to ponder the unsubstantiated claims that some try to pass off as gospel.

          If anything, a number of them are now actively (although inadvertently) supporting regulations by demonstrating which ideas have no legal or even ethical basis.

          I grew up with guns and none of the gun owners I know feel the least bit threatened, because they know the RKBA is not going away.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:59:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "... the RKBA is not going away." (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, KVoimakas

            Like in NYC, where it is apparently "Constitutional" to have to pay several hundreds of dollars in fees and obtain government approval before avialing oneself of this Right.

            Yeah...

            Your hate-mail will be graded.

            by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:06:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Just which "right" are you refering to? The right (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite, DefendOurConstitution

              to be in NYC and do what you want?

              That's an odd one.

              And if you think that you're being put upon, feel free to try to take your argument to the SCOTUS. That's one of the few rights that we all always have.

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

              by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 09:11:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Kwong v Bloomberg (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber

            NYC handgun permit fee, for possession of a handgun in one's residence. This is not for concealed carry.

            The law was found to be constitutional and in accord with SCOTUS Fee Jurisprudence. The decision also pointed out that nothing prevents other counties in NY state from seeking permission from state government to charge higher fees. The main criteria (as I understood it) are

            1) the permit fee must be used to defray the cost of administering and enforcing the regulated activity
            2) the regulation of the individual right must have a direct or substantial nexus to reducing crime and ensuring public safety.
            3) the collected fees can not exceed the actual cost.

            Kwong v. Bloomberg
            http://ia600608.us.archive.org/...

            Kwong v. Bloomberg Appeal
            http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/...

            Nassau county imposes a fee of $200/5 years, while NYC's fee is $340/3 years. The Nassau fee was not challenged.
            This may become an instance of be careful what you wish for, if the 83% of NY residents who don't own guns get tired of absorbing the cost of screening those who do. There is nothing I see that would prevent all the other counties from getting approval to raise their currently absurdly low fees of $3-10 (for 3 years) to $30 - $60 for 2 years.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 04:34:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So, a fee for voting.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              so as to cover the administrative costs of said voting, would be just peachy?  Yeah, $100/year should about cover it.  

              We are in agreement, I think?

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:00:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your unsubstantiated claims (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coquiero, bevenro, Glen The Plumber

                your unsubstantiated claims about the constitutionality of gun laws is not persuasive.

                Would you write a diary about the decision and explain your  alternative legal theory that refutes SCOTUS Fee Jurisprudence?  

                Then everyone can visit and discuss the ideas with you.

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 05:31:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  You do realize that on the other side of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        coin, idiotic legislation like the NY SAFE ACT or DiFi's proposed AWB is driving more and more people to right wing organizations like the NRA, right?

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

        by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:14:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, I forgot c...... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gerrilea

    Your hate-mail will be graded.

    by PavePusher on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 01:23:08 PM PDT

    •  The cost of gun violence - who pays? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bevenro, Glen The Plumber, TheFern

      This is something we need to pay attention to. With tight budgets for the foreseeable future, it's only a matter of time until states with tight constitutional gun regulations, such as NY and NJ, get tired of absorbing the cost of loose gun policy in their neighboring states, (PA and VA).

      New Yorkers and New York businesses pay very high taxes, in part because we absorb the medical and policing costs of loose gun laws, and lax enforcement in other states.

      http://leviforassembly.levispires.com/...

      From the Tax Foundation

      Map of stat and local tax burdenhttp://taxfoundation.org/...

      10 laws that work together to reduce gun trafficking across state lines are:

      1. Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't
      2. Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information
      3. Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check
      4. Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows
      5. Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales
      6. Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits
      7. Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns
      8. Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement
      9. Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws
      10. Allows Inspections of Gun Dealers

      Trace the Guns

      66% of crime guns recovered in New York originate from other states. Only 17% of NY adults live in a household with guns, (half the national average). The total gun fatality rate in NY is about 5/100,000, (half the national average) - CDC Vital Statistics Report.

      NY is one state that has passed all of these. Please check out your own state on the link above to see which laws you can advocate for in your state.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Mon Aug 12, 2013 at 02:46:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Huh. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose

        1. Already on the books on the federal level, if memory serves.
        2. See 1. (These aren't prosecuted, last I checked.)
        3. UBC enforcement?
        4. Wouldn't this be covered by 3?
        5. Hell no. Wouldn't the background check be enough?
        6. Fuck no. Shall issue is the way to go. Why would we want to give LEOs any discretion when it comes to issuing permits? What's to keep them from being like those assholes in Hawaii and just never issue any? Since when do we on the left trust the police or authority figures as a whole?
        7. This is already covered by federal law for SOME violent misdemeanors. What other ones would you like to cover?
        8. As soon as you notice it, sure.
        9. No. State preemption of any idiotic local ordinances. You think firearm law is bad NOW with 50 different states and DC? Imagine it then. No thanks.
        10. No problem of this as long as it isn't used at an abusive level. Daily checks, etc.

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

        by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:20:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  don't have time for the whole ball of wax, but (5+ / 0-)

          wrt Question 9, there are lots of local/municipal ordinances that regulate free speech/assembly rights.  How is 2A different?

          •  It isn't. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            The laws should be at least state wide, if not federal.

            My right to keep and bear arms should be the same no matter where I am.

            My right to freedom from religion should be the same no matter where I am.

            My right to a jury trial should be the same no matter where I am.

            My right to not incriminate my self should be the same no matter where I am.

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

            by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 02:18:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What an absolutely infantile statement. "Should be (4+ / 0-)

              children talk that way.
              Go to prison and learn the real world, because you're just entirely out of line,.

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

              by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 08:55:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, see, I'd rather not emulate your convict past. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                I'm good. Thanks.

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

                by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:27:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't worry. You could never figure out how to (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DefendOurConstitution, a2nite

                  move weed tonnage even down the highways and byways of the U.S. let alone by boats and planes across a guarded border.

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

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 09:13:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Georg Jung, is that you? (0+ / 0-)

                    Oh, wait, I think that was cocaine.

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

                    by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:16:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I read once you bragging about figuring out to (3+ / 0-)

                      move a personal firearm legally by passenger plane from Michigan to Virginia.

                      Some accomplishment, that! Probably be telling it to your grandkids, I suspect.

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

                      by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 11:22:16 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ....Did you read the diary? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose

                        I explained how to bring a firearm with you when you travel by plane. Bragging? Really? Please. You're stretching.

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

                        by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:14:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Written for idiots, then? Because as a subject (3+ / 0-)

                          it's neither complicated nor important.

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

                          by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:26:13 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Educational. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            Some people didn't know you could do that. Now, more do.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 01:32:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay, written for idiots. Thanks. n/t (0+ / 0-)

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

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 10:00:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Heh. You can be as insulting as you like and (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kasoru

                            you still aren't going to get a rise out of me man. Thought you'd know that by now.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 06:09:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Mr. Walking Insulter" calls me an insulter. (0+ / 0-)

                            That's rich as hell. I'm going to give you the first "Style Points" you've ever earned from me. Let's see, I'm going to go with .0001 point. I hope you don't feel that I'm being overly generous.

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

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:10:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yeah, perhaps you'd like to link those comments? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            43north, oldpunk

                            Dude, you've been the one trying to get a rise out of me with calling me the wrong name, even in PMs. Belligerent and obtuse doesn't work to get me riled up.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 07:01:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But, hey, here's an idea. Why don't you call in (0+ / 0-)

                            all of those folks you called in to attack me the other three times.

                            Oh, right, the rules have all changed, you're afraid.

                            Or, novel thought, why not start with the well deserved apologies.

                            Just can't muster the class for that?

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

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Aug 15, 2013 at 08:15:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Attack you? Here's a list of YOUR HR-ed comments (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tom Seaview, oldpunk

                            of the past year.

                            Where you called someone a motherfucker and your comment went hidden. Looks like the community thought it should be a hidden comment or else you would've had more than 1 uprate.

                            Motherfucker. And by that I don't mean to imply (1+ / 13-)
                            Recommended by:
                            teabaggerssuckbalz
                            Hidden by:
                            Tom Seaview, KVoimakas, Otteray Scribe, meagert, wishbone, 43north, not4morewars, DavidMS, wretchedhive, ban nock, Neuroptimalian, Texas Lefty, gerrilea
                            that you've ever fucked your mother. Obviously I don't have any clue about that (or your father either, for that matter).

                            Just that, in the modern vernacular, you happen to intentionally act like a "motherfucker".

                            And please feel free to bring your little playmates back into the discussion (if you can find some way to legitimately insert them).

                            Thank 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 May 26, 2013 at 09:24:42 PM CDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            Oh no, wait a second one! Only 1 HR.
                            P.S. - What are you trying to bait me into, (0+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            andalusi
                            anyway?

                            Idiot.

                            Oh yeah, "goon", in the theatre context means idiot anyway, so that explains that!

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

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Fri May 24, 2013 at 10:59:34 PM CDT

                            [ Parent ]

                            You're great with the personal insults.

                            Here's an HR-ed TJ but you'll notice you deleted said diary and the HR-ing person isn't RKBA. Interesting diary name; must've been a doozy.

                            "MODERN INSURANCE" AND MY 20% "ADDITIONAL TAX" FROM PRES. OBAMA

                            Tip Jar (2+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bisbonian, debedb
                            Hidden by:
                            Eyesbright
                            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Feb 23, 2013 at 02:06:46 PM CST

                            I'm looking back through all of this year. Here's another hidden comment of yours. You call me the insulter? You'll notice twigg HR-ed you, and he's no pro-RKBAer.
                            Create false equivlancies? That's definitely an (0+ / 7-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Hidden by:
                            kovie, mahakali overdrive, twigg, kefauver, ParaHammer, lazybum, FrankRose
                            NRA talking point. Congratulations, moron!

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

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:12:49 PM CST

                            [ Parent ]

                            Here's a non-hidden (single HR) comment of yours.
                            I clearly remeber this NRA talking point.n/t (9+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mrblifil, JMcDonald, tommymet, ssgbryan, surelyujest, poco, DefendOurConstitution, Kevskos, Scioto
                            Hidden by:
                            annecros
                            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 11:03:41 PM CST

                            [ Parent ]

                            Looks like only one person thought that was HR-able.

                            So, again, tell me how I'm the master insulter.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 07:15:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's what I and you both knew. You do record (0+ / 0-)

                            keep, you do coordinate.

                            Your defenses are shrinking. You are closer to leaving here, all to the benefit of DKOS. Thank you very much.

                            (Anything else you want to confess while you're at it?)

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

                            by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Aug 16, 2013 at 08:57:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  roflmao. (0+ / 0-)

                            What in my comment is a confession?

                            I'm not going anywhere dude.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:32:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, and I found those comments by clicking on (0+ / 0-)

                            your name and going to your comments, then scrolling through them.

                            The site keeps records. I don't have to.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:49:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Apparently, neither did you. (0+ / 0-)

                    You have a strange method of bragging.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:31:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Oppression! Can't you see that any attempt at (5+ / 0-)

            holding gun owners accountable is complete tyranny!!!!!!!

            /snark - Or something like that.  It is good that you have flushed out the circular arguments, but that won't change any more than you can change any other religious fanatic. It is about faith, about beliefs and reason will not be allowed to interfere with that.  Then they get upset that I call them fanatics & a cult, but no matter what they always return to the articles of faith.  I have to give them this, they are dedicated to the idols of their religion like the most radical Christian fundamentalist and they will not rest in their quest to satisfy their gods.

            We do have to thank them for turning any reasonable person (that just wants effective and sensible firearms regulation and is in no way an enemy of the 2A or of gun owners) into a person that sees their madness and becomes an advocate for sensible national and effective firearms regulations.  Welcome to the club!

        •  Reducing criminal's access to guns, right? (5+ / 0-)
          1. Already on the books on the federal level, if memory serves.
          Apparently federal law is not sufficient. This law at the state level correlates with a 40% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. 9 states have passed this law, and they export 9.5 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 15.6 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          2. See 1. (These aren't prosecuted, last I checked.)
          Again, reliance on federal law is acceptance of the "menace as usual." This law at the state level correlates with a 50% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. 27 states have passed this law, and they export 9.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          3. UBC enforcement?
          We don't have a national UBC law. We only have some states that require a background check for all gun sales and transfers. And those state laws correlate with a 50% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. 25 states have passed this law, and they export 12.0 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.3 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          4. Wouldn't this be covered by 3?
          Not currently, since many states allow private sales without background checks, and many states allow private sellers at guns shows to sell and transfer guns without background checks. States that have closed this "gun show loophole" correlate with a 60% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. 16 states have passed this law, and they export 7.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.8 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          5. Hell no. Wouldn't the background check be enough?
          Apparently not, since states with this law correlate with an almost 70% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. And you know handguns are used in the majority of gun crimes. 13 states have passed this law, and they export 6.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          6. Fuck no. Shall issue is the way to go. Why would we want to give LEOs any discretion when it comes to issuing permits? What's to keep them from being like those assholes in Hawaii and just never issue any? Since when do we on the left trust the police or authority figures as a whole?
          I can empathize with not wanting all LEOs to have this discretion, (Kessler in PA, and that loony Sheriff down in Arizona). But that's a problem of police oversight. NYPD is finally getting some long over due oversight. Clearly this law has an impact over states that grant public carry permits to people with little or no training. This law correlates with a 55% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. 24 states have passed this law, and they export 9.6 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          7. This is already covered by federal law for SOME violent misdemeanors. What other ones would you like to cover?
          Again, apparently federal law, and uneven enforcement of federal law is not enough, since so many intimate partners get shot by their ex-partners every year. This law correlates with a ~60% reduction in crime guns crossing state lines. 14 states have passed this law, and they export 7.1 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.7 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          8. As soon as you notice it, sure.
          I'm glas we can at least agree on this one. It's so apparent that relying on the honor system of supposedly responsible gun owners is not sufficient. This law correlates with a 60% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. 7 states have passed this law, and they export 6.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 16.1 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          9. No. State preemption of any idiotic local ordinances. You think firearm law is bad NOW with 50 different states and DC? Imagine it then. No thanks.
          What is your opposition to this common sense recognition that the relative risk/utility of gun ownership and public carry varies quite a lot across the nation? Courts are upholding hundreds of state and local laws and granting governments wide latitude in balancing expression of the individual RKBA with their responsibility to reduce crime and ensure public safety for all their residents. This law appears to have the biggest impact; it correlates with 75% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. 8 states have passed this law, and they export 4.4 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          10. No problem of this as long as it isn't used at an abusive level. Daily checks, etc.
          Do you have any cases or studies showing that inspections have been abused by law enforcement? This law correlates with a 30% drop in crime guns crossing state lines. 22 states have passed this law, and they export 11.5 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 17.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.
          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:20:22 AM PDT

          As with voting, it would be easier if there could be national policy and uniform laws. But since Heller, it has been up to the states to go forward with regulations to curb the flow of guns from legal hands into the criminal markets. Eventually some will percolate up to SCOTUS and we will get the clarity from SCOTUS about which regulations are permissible and on what legal grounds.

          Our shared goal is to preserve the 2A individual RKBA and to reduce crime, isn't?

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 04:42:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Reduce crime without adding additional (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            gun control legislation.

            Also, my openly stated goal is to get the Democrats to stop pushing gun control as a fix and costing us independents. I put together a video that was VERY dry and put it up at NN11. One of the statistics from in there dealt with the gun swing vote. If Democrats went pro-gun to the extent I'd like to see, it was some ridiculous % that would swing to the Democrats. I want to say it was 20% of that vote group.

            Which would've meant President Gore or Kerry in each Presidential election.

            Which would've meant Ann Richards would've been re-elected governor of Texas and W HOPEFULLY wouldn't have gotten in there either, saving us Perry (just a guess).

            A couple things on the federal items: if it's covered by federal law, then we need to enforce it. Use raised taxes to do it. I have no problem with that.

            Hell, maybe my 11 month BATFE wait would take less time, as a bonus side effect.

            As to the LEO thing: 24 states do NOT have may issue concealed carry. Are we talking about two different things?

            Here's one final point: I'm not going to agree or help with most gun control legislation.

            This guy over at techdirt said it best, in relationship to the NSA bullshit:

            ...I would suggest the more extreme position we should all be taking is simply that we're willing to accept fear, injury, and even death at the hands of enemies in exchange for the return of our freedom. While I happen to think the threat of international terrorism is real but overblown, I would be willing to accept that same trade were it not overblown. I'm willing to state for the record that it is not only my life I'm willing to trade for freedom from intrusive government, but on principal I would have to accept the loss of safety to my family's lives, my friend's lives, and all of yours as well. "Give me liberty of give me death", as Patrick Henry famously said, but it apparently needs to be repeated. This isn't some silly call to armed revolution, of course, only a willingness, nay, an eagerness to prefer dangerous liberty over safety in the arms of government intrusion.

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

            by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 05:09:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Your last paragraph belies a racial aspect (4+ / 0-)

              of your opposition to any new legislation.

              People in the poor neighborhoods in cities have already lost their children, their spouse, their grandfather to gun violence. Their lives have been on the line all along. All in the name of more selling more guns from people who have the luxury of making the choices described above.

              Your author at techdirt, is making a decision about personal security for the first time, at a level that inner city residents have faced all their lives, with no plausible choice of leaving.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:14:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, my author at techdirt was talking about (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                the NSA.

                It applies here as well.

                You know the common thing I see when it comes to victims of violent crime?

                People in the poor neighborhoods in cities have already lost their children, their spouse, their grandfather to gun violence.
                Yes, so we build better safety nets, get more jobs out there, and do other things to cut violent crime.

                All without giving up any freedom. Sounds great to me.

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

                by KVoimakas on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:46:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Me thinks thow doth protest too much (5+ / 0-)

                  In this climate raising taxes is DOA.

                  Meanwhile the gun sales soar even though crime is dropping. People report they want to carry guns for self defense, even though crime is much lower than a decade ago, and is dropping across the board.

                  None of the 10 laws limit you from buying whichever gun you want. None of those laws prevent you from carrying your gun for self defense whenever you want. All of them have a proven effect of reducing the flow of crime guns across state lines, from legal purchase, into criminal markets.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 07:10:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've already put forth my opinion on those ten (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea

                    laws.

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

                    by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:28:54 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I have always voted a straight D ticket (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    (minus Nader in 2000).

                    However, I will not support anyone that decides to infringe on the liberties of the innocent for the crimes of a murderer.
                    Unless a Dem comes out strongly against the AWB I will be sitting out the next election.

                    Unless you are planning on figuring out a way to vote twice, or convincing a GOPer to stay at home because of gun control (lol: No). I'm afraid that you are shit out of luck.

                    You better prioritize: Which is more important to you? Dems or your ideas of gun control?
                    You're not getting both.

                    While you are pondering that question, I would appreciate it if you stopped doing your damnedest to make the Democratic party a regional party.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:46:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Once again - if federal law and federal (4+ / 0-)

              enforcement were sufficient there would already be lower gun crime than we have.

              if it's covered by federal law, then we need to enforce it. Use raised taxes to do it.
              You may not think there is a problem, but there is ample evidence that the 10 state laws work together to reduce crime guns flowing from legal hands into criminal hands.

              I've cited my sources above. I don't think law enforcement discretion is the same as what you call "may issue." But then you don't link to any objective definition of "may issue" or to any list showing when each state became a "may issue" state.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 06:49:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Shall issue versus may issue. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                Shall issue means you have to meet the criteria put forth and if you do, the local board or LEO agency has to find a reason to deny your permit.

                May issue means you meet the criteria put forth and the local board or LEO agency can still deny your permit for whatever reason their heart desires.

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

                by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:30:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  "you have to meet the criteria put forth " (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  a2nite

                  Yes, this is the key.

                  Still no link provided.

                  Is it really that hard to find your favorite link to a list of "shall issue" states?

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:01:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't have a favorite link. (0+ / 0-)

                    Let me google it.

                    Here's one on the Harvard site. PDF

                    It's a bit old.

                    “Shall issue” laws require that
                    require that states issue permits to qualified applicants; “may issue” laws allow permit far more latitude to
                    the authorities to reject permit applications.
                    “Shall issue” states
                    require that the issuing authority (such as a police chief or other public safety official) in a jurisdiction
                    (typically a municipality or county) “shall issue” gun permits to qualified applicants. In other words, the
                    authorities do not have discretion to decide whether or not an applicant has good reason for needing a
                    permit, and will normally be required to issue a permit unless there is some disqualifying factor (e.g., the
                    applicant is a convicted felon). In contrast, “may issue” states allow the issuing authority to require
                    applicants to state a reason for needing to carry a concealed weapon (e.g., having a dangerous
                    profession, having been stalked in the past), and to issue a gun permit at its discretion. “May issue,”
                    then, is a far more restrictive gun control regime that allows the issuing authority some—and in many
                    cases, considerable—latitude to deny an application.

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

                    by KVoimakas on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 07:08:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Great ideas. Thank you for posting. nt (4+ / 0-)
          •  Wow, where did you get this? It is really great (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            nosotros no somos estúpidos

            by a2nite on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 02:53:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Seems reasonable to me. (4+ / 0-)

        If gun-owners would pick up their share and do their part in ensuring that firearms are acquired and used legally and safely, there probably wouldn't be much of a discussion of what to do about the gun violence in our cities and around the nation.  Since they won't be bothered to do so, I think your list is perfectly acceptable place to start.  I would add mandatory liability insurance for each firearm owned as well, but I'm willing give less burdensome regulations a try first.  Doing nothing about it hasn't worked, though.  Waiting for gun enthusiasts to offer a solution only seems to bring us to "solve poverty, mental illness, as well as income and social inequality first before we even bring guns into the conversation.  Otherwise it is no, hell no, and fuck no".  Maybe non gun-owners start acting (and voting) in their best self-interest?

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

        by TheFern on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:52:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  10 gun laws that work together (4+ / 0-)

        to reduce the flow of guns from legal owners into the criminal market.

        We all want to reduce gun crime, don't we?

        We all see that Congress is gridlocked, and good ideas get diluted and watered down, or traded for weak laws.

        Reposting my comment from above:

        he positive impact of these laws is already very measurable, even though only a very small minority of states have enacted them. Those states absorb extra medical and policing costs, as well as the disruption of communities when illegal guns cross state lines from states with loose gun policy.

        Trace the Guns


        1. Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't

        9 states have passed this law, and they export 9.5 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 15.6 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        2. Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information

        27 states have passed this law, and they export 9.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        3. Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check

        25 states have passed this law, and they export 12.0 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.3 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        4. Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows

        16 states have passed this law, and they export 7.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.8 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        5. Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales

        13 states have passed this law, and they export 6.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        6. Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits

        24 states have passed this law, and they export 9.6 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 19.9 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        7. Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns

        14 states have passed this law, and they export 7.1 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.7 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        8. Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement

        7 states have passed this law, and they export 6.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 16.1 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        9. Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws

        8 states have passed this law, and they export 4.4 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 18.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.


        10. Allows Inspections of Gun Dealers

        22 states have passed this law, and they export 11.5 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants, while the other states export 17.2 crime guns per 100,000 inhabitants.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Tue Aug 13, 2013 at 11:59:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yup that's a good point LG nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 06:50:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is a big problem nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener

        nosotros no somos estúpidos

        by a2nite on Wed Aug 14, 2013 at 08:37:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site