Skip to main content

The New York Times has just published an interesting story about Dick Metcalf, who was banished from all things pro-gun for writing an editorial that suggested that we should handle gun issues with reason.  At least he must have known that he was likely to create a firestorm with such comments, so maybe it’s OK with him that it turned out that way. 

But the case of Jerry Tsai who was editor and the principle writer for a new very slick gun lifestyle magazine titled Recoil, is in many ways more interesting.  Tsai wrote several very long detailed articles praising and glorifying extreme weaponry in issue #4 that came out before Newtown in August 2012.  Buried in a nine page article celebrating a German submachine gun designed to make assault rifles look like baby toys and sold only to law enforcement he said:

Like we mentioned before, the MP7A1 is unavailable to civilians and for good reason. We all know that’s technology no civvies should ever get to lay their hands on. This is a purpose-built weapon with no sporting applications to speak of. It is made to put down scumbags, and that’s it.

Tsai must have been shocked at the explosive reaction.  His apology had no effect, the magazine almost folded.  For an example of the reaction see the ACR Forum thread calling him a f***ing idiot.  If you don’t know how second amendment zealots think you won’t know what the worst part of the quote is.  It’s that if you think that it matters whether a weapon has sporting applications then you’ve already sold out the second amendment.  They think “not be infringed” means no rules at all; I think that “well regulated militia” means that the guns stay in the militia armory unless the militia commander orders them to come out.  


It’s hard to find Issue #4 of Recoil.  It’s down from Recoil’s website.  It has an interesting article also by Jerry Tsai on the Kel-Tec KSG tactical shotgun.  It has double magazine tubes for twice the amount of ammunition and the barrel runs all the way back into the stock allowing it to only be 26.1 inches long and still not be a federally regulated “sawed off” shotgun.  It’s the shotgun version of the extra aggressive assault pistol.  The shotgun that George Zimmerman recently got back from the police is a Kel-Tec KSG.  Jerry begins the article: “It’s not a far stretch to say that Kel-Tec’s newest offering came straight off the set of one of the Alien movies or even the upcoming remake of RoboCop.”

So the community of hard core gun defenders will brook no compromise.  It’s not possible to work out a reasonable policy with them.  In the long run that means they will have no input to the solution that evolves; but the long run may be very long. 

Originally posted to guninsuranceblog on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 03:52 PM PST.

Also republished by notRKBA, 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

  •  The long run may be a long time. (10+ / 0-)

    I sure hope we manage to get measures that help promptly.  I'm 70 now so I worry mostly about what kind of world we have for my grandchildren.

    Mandatory Gun Insurance would provide for victims, encourage safety and not be an excessive burden on gun owners. How to do it at Gun Insurance Blog. I also make posts at Huffington as Tom Harvey.

    by guninsuranceblog on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 03:55:01 PM PST

    •  That concerns me--too. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joy of Fishes

      5 beautiful grandchildren---and all these public shootings.

      Schools--movie theaters---restaurants---malls---no where is safe from all this.

      It is terrifying.

      "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

      by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:51:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  note every place you mentioned (0+ / 0-)

        is a no gun zone.
         I would like you to note minnesota had a state capital meeting about gun control where guns were permitted, many of the "Unhappy" people carried guns, yet they had ZERO incidents, zero threats of violence, were being very rational.

        Minnesota is unique because of a bountiful wildlife game and rural farming communities where your firearm is your safety net in both acquiring food and because police are not available in the middle of a crisis, where thieves want to steal your lively hood, or food in relatively scarce.

        I understand your fear but I suspect that fear is increased by the lack of knowledge about firearms and the people who use them.

        by what you mentioned your fear is a knee jerk reaction to a tragedy. Where you want to blame the person who pulled the trigger because that is the easiest thing to do.

        It takes a lot to dig deeper into why a person was motivated to pull the trigger. in most cases there is a network of failures that lead up to the shooting that isn't even the shooters doing.

        Like the failing of our leaders to provide critically needed mental health services to those who can't afford it.  And if the person had gotten that help when they usually asked for it, the shooting may never have occurred, because you would of put the shooters life on a path that had a light at the end of the tunnel.

        Or Not intervening in cases of severe school bullying by getting both the bully and their targets into treatment to overcome the damage that lead one to bully and the damage the bullying caused. Columbine shooting comes to mind.  
        Even pharmaceuticals were partially responsible in regards to anti-depressants and youths.

        Reason the whole firearm delema exists is because it is NOT all black and white. And many of the knee jerk reaction legislation, doesn't actually stop gun violence nor will it ever. It will only succeed in making law abiding people into criminals. The reason no legislation was enacted after sandy was that rational  people realized that the laws would do nothing in terms of actually curbing mass killings. registries, gun insurance, even more background checks than currently enacted, no gun zones, etc have done nothing to curb the violence. because none of these address the underlying problems.

        The firearms themselves has nothing to do with the problem.  Its how we treat each other that has everything to do with it.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/...
        if you read this wiki you will note the Columbine shooters were trying to sow discord on the level of Oklahoma bombing. note there was no firearms in that bombing.  point is the choice of tools doesn't matter is sowing discord its how we interact with each other that will either reduce or increase these violent acts.

  •  What? The "gun life-style"? Well, that's a bad (13+ / 0-)

    development.  My Dear One, when we were married was totally pro-gun ownership.  To him they were not weapons, but "arms" i.e., tools.

    We lived in a wilderness area and our arms were a .22 Colt Woodsman (an automatic pistol) which he carried when hunting, fishing, or running a trap line; a shotgun (bird shot for quail, doves, etc. and buckshot for deer), and a rifle (I have forgotten the specifics) for big game, such as deer at a distance.

    He was a writer and I was his proof-reader.  He objected when I mistakenly referred to the hunting guns as "weapons."  

    I should add that he was an ardent conservationist, and very worried about the human population explosion and depletion of wild spaces.  I think he wouldn't like the world as it is now.

    The right of the women of this State to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches shall not be violated by the State legislature.

    by Mayfly on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:10:05 PM PST

  •  Interesting phrasing (9+ / 0-)
    So the community of hard core gun defenders will brook no compromise.
    So if they were, what would you give them? Compromise means both sides give the other something they want.
    •  Moot point, apparently (18+ / 0-)

      No interest in compromise, no matter what's offered

      “We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”
      For my part, I'd start negotiating with a willingness to reconsider the requirement for gun owners to be members of the National Guard.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:25:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  problem with this is (0+ / 0-)

        national guard is federal not militia.
        Militia is "state defense" it allows the state to protect itself from the federal government tyranny and corporate tyranny interests.

        by requiring them to be national guard you violate state sovereignty.

    •  did you read the linked article? (14+ / 0-)

      seems pretty clear that the author is referring to the complete silencing and, for all intents and purposes, 'disappearing' of people who might dare to add a bit of nuance to the orthodoxy of people like Wayne La Pierre.

      This really has little to do with any healthy debate between gun regulation/gun rights groups.

    •  No It Doesn't. (11+ / 0-)

      It can also mean both sides don't get everything new they want.

      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 Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:31:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it usually means that both sides get (9+ / 0-)

        SOMETHING they want. Otherwise it's called capitulation.

        •  Progressives want nothing of 2A that you want, and (8+ / 0-)

          time and time again you give nothing.

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

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 06:41:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Liberals support liberal policies. (9+ / 0-)

            You may want to review what 'liberal gun laws' mean.

            I am no more willing to 'give' you the rights covered by the second than I am willing to 'give' you the rights covered by any other Constitutional right or liberty.

            You're going to have to convince the electorate that you know exactly what liberties they should lose & hope that they enthusiastically support 'giving' their liberties to oldpotsmuggler.

            Good luck with that.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 07:09:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The discussion was "compromise". n/t (4+ / 0-)

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

              by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 07:31:03 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You gave away the right to privacy by voting (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lyvwyr101

              for Kerry and Obama - so, you get to pick what rights are OK to infringe on, and only you?

              •  and yet tens of thousands die a year.... (3+ / 0-)

                because the government can't limit the second amendment rights of citizens.  NSA worries me less than NRA.  Your results many vary.

                You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                by murrayewv on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 04:55:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  yet even more people die by reckless drivers (0+ / 0-)

                  or murdered by knives and forks,
                   or killed by contaminated medication, contaminated drinking water, food, killed by toxic chemicals, greed etc.

                  need to put in perspective  with other forms of malicious harm. To understand the context of the issue.

                  once it is in total perspective you might be surprised to find murder by firearms near the bottom of list.

                  reason I did not list accidental death by firearms is because it is related to lack of respect and training to handle said firearms but then that is the case for any dangerous tool of any kind.

                  One of the things that bothered me, when the Anti gun groups like the brady campaign, lumped "accidental death by firearms" with "murder by firearms" to purposely inflate the artificial impressions that murder and violence by firearms was going through the roof, when it fact is was reducing in total numbers below previous levels. The ATF and FBI numbers were showing murder by firearms dropping.

                  See accidental death by firearm is "Mostly" preventable with a training course that requires 100% to pass or training by others who went through it.    Most of the recent accidental deaths, were result of the people having the firearms with no prior training. In training you know: to always point the business end away from anything you don't intend to shoot or kill. Always treat the firearms as loaded with safety off, even if you know it to be unloaded. Don't look down the business end of the barrel to see if it is blocked or loaded. keep your firearms away from hot sources like fire. Keep your finger off the trigger at all times until your ready to actually fire. Don't throw your firearms, like they so often do in action movies.

                  FYI I am not a member of the NRA

                  I have no idea where your getting your "tens of thousands" dying by firearms being used by law abiding citizens.   Due to the 2nd amendment rights.  I am flat out calling you on that false information.

                  Only way tens of thousands is even possible is they included every form of death by firearms. Including suicides by firearms and accidental death by firearms

                  3 different issues related to firearms being lumped under gun violence by those who wish firearms to be gone irrationally.  2 of them is not even violence related and suicides counting for the highest portions of gun deaths.  Then suicide is another animal all together and should never be lumped with violent crimes unless said suicide is from mass murder or crime of passion resulting in the shooter committing suicide after the crime. people who commit suicide by gun will just find another means, if you take guns away so no point adding it to gun violence deaths.

                  here is the only information I could find to "tens of thousands dying by firearms" http://beforeitsnews.com/...

                  also for peace
                  http://wiki.answers.com/...

                  here is one I am starting to wonder, how many mass shootings were stopped before they became mass shootings because of law abiding gun owners.
                  http://www.naturalnews.com/...

          •  actually (0+ / 0-)

            I am progressive.

            I am for the right to bare arms for LAW abiding citizens.

            I am against criminalizing people for just having mental illness that is not abdicated by a court judge. These people have not proven to be violent.  

            There is No proof that those with mental illness is any more likely than non to commit violent crimes. With exceptions of certain organic brain disorders like schizophrenia where violent tendencies is above the norm.

            I am against registries, because anyone who wanted to do harm, could get access to said registries for the purpose of stealing the firearms or disarming the militia/ law abiding citizens.

            well regulated malitia at the time of the 2nd writing consisted of farmers, trappers etc meaning everyday citizens who knew how to properly fire a firearm. and the semi automatic firearms of that era was actually a repeater rifle, "semi automatic, or lever/pump action rifles" think modern equivalents = "AR-15", 12 ga, Glock" etc.  1 shot per pull of trigger.

            I am for a firearm safety course "once" without a localized registry that you obtain a certificate as proof of responsibility around firearms. (I took one regardless of being born before it became mandatory (born 74) in MN http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/... The final test you had to have 100% to pass or no certificate, when I took it.)   This is flagged on the back of your drivers license that your safety certified without being registered whether you posses a forearm or not.   This is enough of a registry without making the person a target of criminals or those who wish to enforce tyranny on the populations.

            Following is the biggest reason for law abiding Citizens should have the right to posses firearms, There are just to many bad people out there who wish you harm.

            There are times when you actually need them or you will be killed or severely injured with nothing to defend yourself and your family. I  found myself in such a situation where a man tried to force his way into my home with no escape exit for me. There was a 50-50 chance I could have been killed or severely injured then. These are not odds That I care for.  So I solved that problem by acquiring a  12 ga for hunting purposes and with  beanbag rounds as secondary use for home defense since I have zero exits to my home other than the front entrance with no way to circle around to get out that entrance..  I am completely trapped in my apartment on a level that jumping out the window would most-likely kill me.

            please be careful with the blanket statements.  I am for one definitely not your typical progressive.

        •  Isn't the diary making the point that these (7+ / 0-)

          types of 2A defenders (not supporters) are not willing to compromise, ie, won't sit down to the table to even discuss compromises? So, as Catte Nappe says "moot point"

          •  No. KV for one did offer a compromise. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gerrilea, theatre goon

            On the other hand, I see no reason to do so.

            I prefer letting simply pointing out what your viewpoint does at the polls & then watching it fade into irrelevancy.

            Your viewpoint is an embarrassment to liberalism, politically impotent & detrimental to the Democratic party.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 11:28:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, it IS the viewpoint of the Democratic... (3+ / 0-)

              fucking Party...

              Never, ever forget that... we won't...

              In all these months, you folks have moved exactly NO ONE to your "point of view"...

              Who the fuck are you to denigrate ANYONE's viewpoint?

              Go lecture someone else...

              Baby, where I come from...

              by ThatSinger on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 11:40:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not anymore. Not after your debacle in Colorado. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                Get used to irrelevancy, son.
                You're going to be there for a looooong time.

                But hey, maybe you will finally succeed in convincing the electorate to let "ThatSinger" decide what liberties they need to surrender for your piece of mind.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 11:50:17 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  And the point we keep making is that we (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                will demand our Democratic Party start representing our viewpoints as well.

                Maybe you missed the part about "the big tent" theories?

                Tone down the rhetoric, push policies that will actually improve the lives of all Americans and do so by following the damn constitution.

                We've done it before, why not now???

                In all these months, what policy initiatives have you pushed for and gotten passed?  Say like ending poverty that kills 133,000 Americans each and every year?  Or living wage jobs, how many have been created??? Bitching about the crimes of Corporate America that pay slave wages doesn't cut it.  Getting minimum wage raised to $26 dollars an hour would!

                You see, we have so many real opportunities before the next elections to get real results.  Why are we wasting time on a dead issue again??? OH, that's right, "THE CHILDREN!"  That is, only the rich suburbanite children must be protected, screw the millions of minorities in our urban cities that are dying every day from our racist drug war and having their families generationally destroyed with our "zero tolerance" policies.

                What about them?

                What about the institutionalized racism in our "Justice" system?  Has that been addressed?

                Don't look there, we must ban assault rifles and magazine sizes!!!!  How the hell is that going to stop the murders in our cities again?  You know where the majority of gun crimes occur??? How is that going to stop kids from dealing drugs when there are no jobs for them to do?  What real choices have we given our children today?  Go to college, be burdened with $100,000 dollars in debt, don't get a job and then be forced to live with Mom & Dad until...someday.... Or hell, just bypass the college thingy and deal drugs, make millions, kill a few competitors, have a grand old time!

                Ugh...disgusting!

                /rant

                -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 Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 12:19:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Demand?" (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101, Glen The Plumber

                  Like you've been "demanding" legitimacy in this forum for months and have not budged anyone an inch?

                  Good luck with that…

                  Baby, where I come from...

                  by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 12:31:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh, so...you've done nothing to actually (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kasoru, FrankRose

                    support the Democratic platform except on this one dead issue...

                    Got it..thanks.

                    -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 Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:26:24 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Where did I say that? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber

                      Thanks…

                      You seem to be hallucinating that you're "doing something for the Democratic Party" here with your RKBA meanderings...

                      And the issue isn't dead, people are… Thousands of them… Year in and year out… Year after year after year… What are you doing about that, besides sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "Lala Lala I can't hear you"?

                      Baby, where I come from...

                      by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 10:04:59 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The facts are, your position has already lost us (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FrankRose

                        seats, not mine.

                        I'll keep lecturing and DEMANDING the zealots in our party stop destroying it and our chances of doing real good for all Americans.  

                        -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 Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 01:25:18 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  My position (re) won us the WH and a majority in (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Namazga V, Glen The Plumber

                          the Senate...

                          You calling someone else a "zealot" is the very definition of irony... or is it coincidence? I can never tell any more...

                          Thanks again, Alanis Morissette....

                          Baby, where I come from...

                          by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 02:03:16 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Gun Control didn't win either the WH or the Senate (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, theatre goon, blackhand

                            It has managed to recall 3 Senators in Democratic districts in a state that had never had so much as a single successful recall petition in its 137 year history....even with a vast spending advantage.

                            Your viewpoint created unprecedented & humiliating election losses.

                            Own it.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:08:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That's one state... my viewpoint gave us... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            Elizabeth Warren in the US Senate...

                            Cory Booker in the US Senate...

                            Ed Markey in the US House...

                            And that's just in the last couple of years...

                            If you're using "viewpoints" on guns as a metric, your "viewpoint" created a humiliating election loss for Mitt Romney and the GOP at large in the last General Election... like it gave John McCain a humiliating loss in the one before that...

                            Own it...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 08:16:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  None of those folks ran on gun control. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, blackhand

                            Colorado's 3 historically unprecedented & humiliating loses was about gun control.
                            It lead to the party being trounced because of your distrust of your fellow citizens.

                            "Mitt Romney...John McCain"
                            Gun control wasn't a factor in those elections.
                            But now, thanks to you, it is.
                            And because of that you have managed to lose Democratic Senators in Democratic districts in elections during non-election years....while having a 6 to 1 spending advantage.

                            Gun Control is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party, incompatible with liberalism & politically devastating.

                            You are going to have to decide: What do you dislike more?
                            1) The liberties of innocent Americans
                            or
                            2) The Democratic party?
                            Because your attacks on the 1st, leads directly to damage to the 2nd.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 11:39:35 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Because the NRA didn't spend millions? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            In the last election trying to convince Americans that Obama was going to "take their gunzz away?"

                            Those recall elections you cite were specifically about guns… Who here has suggested that Democrats run specifically on guns?

                            Troll harder, Frank…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:47:50 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice cherry picking… (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            So the elections that were lost by candidates that share your position had nothing to do with guns, but the ones that Democrats have lost were all about guns and nothing else…

                            Got it…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 05:51:36 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The recalls were specifically about gun control... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            it said so on the recall petition.

                            Those other candidates didn't run on gun control.

                            The reason for this discrepancy is simple:
                            Gun control doesn't win elections....but it sure as hell can lose them.

                            "Got it"
                            Not yet. But don't worry; you will Nov 5.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:51:33 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So gun control will specifically be on the ballot (0+ / 0-)

                            Nov. 5th? Do you happen to have a link to that or is it something the voices inside your head are telling you? Or is it a prophecy from Eddie Garcia?

                            Troll better, Frank...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:55:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Gun Control won't be specifically on the ballot (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            but it is now an election issue.
                            An issue that will lose voters. Although some Dems will be able to win in spite of it, none will win a general because of it.
                            Conversely we already know beyond any doubt that some Dems will lose because of it.

                            A rational person can take the evidence of the electoral consequences of the last race that featured the AWB in 1994, the polls showing that gun control has far less support today than it did in '94 & the 3 unprecedented elections in Colorado in order to make a reasonable prediction of the electoral consequences of proposing the banning of legal objects in this coming November.

                            If that is too much of a stretch for you, don't worry.
                            I trust the party will manage to figure it out.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:48:46 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I trust the party will manage to figure you guys (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Namazga V

                            out...

                            Most of us here have...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:37:04 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They already have. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            That's exactly the reason why you will likely never see another gun ban proposal on the national stage ever again.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:08:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, that's why we'll never see the Democratic.. (0+ / 0-)

                            Party adopt your "viewpoint"... ever...

                            Your "demands" are comical... keep pretending anyone gives a fuck what you think...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:04:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You must have missed the 20 years after the last (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            electoral debacle your viewpoint was responsible for.
                            No matter; your going to get to see it again for at least the next 20.

                            "keep pretending anybody gives a fuck what you think"
                            And you keep pretending that nobody gives a fuck about the consequences of what you think.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:13:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've already listed the electoral victories… (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Namazga V, Glen The Plumber

                            Gained recently by those who share my "viewpoint"…

                            Why don't you enumerate the electoral victories gained recently by those who share your "viewpoint"?

                            For that matter, why don't you list the people who have adopted your "viewpoint" here at Daily Kos as a result of your and your cohorts' tantrums?

                            I'll wait…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:41:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You mean the ones that didn't feature gun control? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            Great argument.
                            Really.
                            "how many here at DKos"
                            More importantly, what part of the electorate have you convinced?
                            Because there are 20%-30% of Democrats in Colorado you convinced to vote against Democrats.
                            Good job with that, BTW.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 03:14:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  A broken clock is right twice a day... (0+ / 0-)

                            you folks have been preaching impending electoral doom and gloom for Democrats unless they immediately adopt the Republican RKBA Doctrine of the Holy Gun since y'all hijacked the Democratic Party logo, affixed it onto your own and started "demanding" stature here...

                            Colorado is all you've got... the Dems have run the table on practically every other special election held since the last general which also qualified as a pretty severe electoral ass kicking... in fact, were it not for gerrymandering, we very well may have taken back the House... go figure... by all means, let's placate a bunch of gunophiles and alienate the vast majority of the party that disagrees with them... great strategery...

                            Again, get back to me the next time an election is held solely on the issue of guns...

                            How embarrassing for you... a gun troll on DailyKos... what a thing to aspire to...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 04:33:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not a member. (0+ / 0-)

                            "last general"
                            Again, an election that didn't feature gun control.
                            You really seem to be having a hard time grasping this timeline.
                            Let me help: Prior to the AWB; ELECTION WINS!!!
                            After AWB proposal: Humiliating & unprecedented losses.

                            "Colorado is all you got"
                            No. Colorado is all you got. That's the point.

                            "How embarrassing for you"
                            Almost as embarrassing as the time three Democratic Senators in Democratic Districts (that had voted for Obama by 19 points just last year), lost elections during non-election years.....all while the Dems had a 6-1 spending advantage.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:24:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Explain Cory Booker... (0+ / 0-)

                            gun troll...

                            http://www.ontheissues.org/...

                            It would be sad if it wasn't so fucking funny...

                            Keep flogging Colorado though if it makes you feel better about yourself...

                            To paraphrase Woody Allen, it's been nice chatting with you, Dwayne Frank... now, I've gotta go, I'm due back on the planet Earth....

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 11:59:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cory Booker's website; (0+ / 0-)

                            On his Visions page he mentions fourteen 'visions'....gun control didn't even make the cut....and that is on the coast, the place gun control (along with soda control) is least toxic.

                            All we are doing here is making predictions on the consequences of your viewpoint.
                            What do you have to be worried about?
                            You've been doing so smashingly thus far.

                            See you in Nov, son.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 04:16:59 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Did you read his "viewpoint" on guns? (0+ / 0-)

                            It closely matches mine....

                            I'll take more Cory Booker's every Nov,
                            Gun Troll...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:26:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And the Cory Booker's won't run on gun control. (0+ / 0-)

                            Doesn't even make the cut on their top 14 Issues on their own website, even in one of the least gun rights friendly states in the USA.

                            It would seem that the Cory Booker's understand the political uselessness of gun control.......Even if you do not.

                            But there is something in his list of issues that does pertain to Constitutional Rights & Libeties I wholeheartedly agree with.......Even if you do not:

                            "guarding our nation’s progress on civil rights and civil liberties requires persistent vigilance.  I will always fight to protect and advance the rights of all Americans"

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:05:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who here has advocated "running ON gun control"? (0+ / 0-)

                            With every post you undermine the notion that you have the temperament and mental capacity to be trusted with firearms...

                            Troll saner, Gun Troll...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:42:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The entire premise of this conversation has (0+ / 0-)

                            been about the political consequences of gun control.
                            Even the politicians you specifically
                            pointed out don't seem particularly interested in advertising their political viewpoint on gun control.

                            When you are finished with your keyboard psychologist temper-tantrum perhaps you should review the discussion we have been having.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:59:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is not a discussion... you keep swatting at (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            imaginary "Gun Control Strawmen" and I keep laughing...

                            But let me see if I've got this straight... when Democrats lose elections, it's because of "gun control", but when Democrats win elections it's because "gun control" wasn't an issue, even thought they have the same viewpoint on "gun control" as the Democrats who lost because of "gun control" and Democrats are doomed to lose future elections because of "gun control" unless they adopt the Republican RKBA viewpoint on "gun control" even in races that aren't about... wait for it.. "gun control"...  does that pretty much cover it?

                            Troll on, Gun troll...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 12:26:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. When Democrats lose elections because of (0+ / 0-)

                            gun control its because....ya know....they lost because of gun control. Such as the Colorado recalls, which specifically stated that they were being recalled because of gun control & in 1994 when Bill Clinton credited gun control to the loss of twenty House seats.

                            As for Dems winning because of gun control; you let me (and Cory Booker) know when that happened.
                            Because neither of us are too impressed with the political consequences of gun control.

                            Hence, 'net election loser'
                            Hence, gun control not even being mentioned on the 14 issues stated on Cory Booker's website.
                            Hence, the most unprecedented & humiliating losses in election history.
                            Hence, gun control being ignored by the Party for the 20 years after the 1994 debacle.
                            Hence, the extraordinarily unlikely chance that you will ever see another gun ban proposed on the national stage for the rest of your life.

                            But don't worry.
                            November is coming up; I'm certain that you will be able to convince the Party that gun control is such a political winner that gun control should be able to crack into a candidate's own website & then 2014 can be a glorious win.

                            .....or you can take into consideration the actual track record of the political consequences of gun control & make a rational assessment & prediction based upon said assessment.

                            In either case, 2014-like Colorado is all yours.
                            What do you have to worry about?
                            You've been doing so swimmingly thus far.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:12:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Again, you mendacious gun troll... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            When have I advocated about ANYONE running strictly on "gun control"?

                            This mirrors my "viewpoint" on guns, straight from the Democratic Party's official platform STATED unequivocally and unambiguously at the Democratic Convention of 2012:

                            Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

                            We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

                            http://www.ontheissues.org/...

                            As you're probably aware, President Obama cruised to victory in 2012... now, you may not like background checks, eliminating the gun show loophole and reinstating the assault weapons ban, but it's pretty hard to argue that the voting public wasn't aware of the president's (and the party's) position on guns (your bullshit "that election wasn't about gun control" blather aside)...

                            Anything else, Gun Troll?

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:29:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And he didn't act on gun control until 2013.... (0+ / 0-)

                            immediately after doing so, there were promptly 3 unprecedented & humiliating election losses.....during a non-election year;
                            Which is why the party didn't propose a gun ban (and ignored gun controllers) for the 20 years after 1994, why even Cory Booker doesn't even mention gun control on his listed issues on his website & why you likely won't see another gun ban proposed on the national stage for the rest of your life.

                            "Anything else?"
                            Yes. November 4th.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 02:27:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So Obama acting on gun control in 2013 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            sounded the death knell for the Democratic Party?

                            That's kinda funny...

                            Obama endorsed Cory Booker in 2013

                            Cory Booker was elected in 2013

                            One would think the "Obama Gun Taint" would have spelled doom for Cory Booker regardless of whether or not he "ran on gun control"...

                            I know you'll be puling for a huge Republican wave on Nov. 4... you seem downright giddy at the prospect... because that's how y'all roll... because NOTHING means more to y'all than guns... not lives, not the Democratic Party, not your own credibility...

                            Game over, Gun Troll...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 03:42:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Death knell"?-No (0+ / 0-)

                            "Lost seats"-Yes.
                            In fact, "lost seats in Democratic districts in elections during non-election years with 20-30% of Democrats voting against Democrats in districts that voted for Obama by 19 points.

                            "Obama endorsed Booker"
                            And Booker doesn't think highly enough of gun control to list it on his list of 14 issues on his website. Cory Booker & I seem to share the same assessment of the political effectiveness of gun control.
                            You disagree.

                            Don't you worry, son
                            You get to own 2014.
                            I'm looking forward to congratulating you on the results of your handiwork on November 5.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 04:32:53 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And when the Democratic Party's Official platform (0+ / 0-)

                            remains essentially just as it was in November 2012, what then, Gun Troll? Will you still claim "the election wasn't about guns" if we gain or retain seats and go "AHA!!! I told you so" if we lose seats? Because again, you mendacious troll, nobody... NOBODY here has suggested the Dems run a campaign that's strictly "about gun control"... please stop constructing that strawman... it doesn't exist...

                            Thanks for illustrating my point so illustriously though:

                            I'm looking forward to congratulating you on the results of your handiwork on November 5.
                            You're so heavily invested in the Dems losing seats unless they adopt the radical Republican RKBA position, you'd prefer to "lose seats" out of pique... you're actually downright giddy at the prospects...

                            Because at the end of the day (and at daybreak for that matter) you care more about guns than anything... how embarrassing for you...

                            Now stop trolling this dead thread and leave me the fuck alone, Gun Troll...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 09:41:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not giddy. (0+ / 0-)

                            I'm angry that political illiterates are getting the party trounced in unprecedented & humiliating loses.

                            Just say "Gun Troll" three more times & go to bed, son.
                            You had may as well, your viewpoint on this issue was put to rest a long time ago.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:09:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My "viewpoint" is the "viewpoint" of my party... (0+ / 0-)

                            my president, my Senators and my congressman... yours is the "viewpoint" of the GOP and the Tea Party, Gun Troll...

                            Think about that as you "polish your gun"...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:24:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The 15 Democratic Senators that voted against the (0+ / 0-)

                            AWB & the party's prudent inaction on the subject for the twenty years after the last AWB says otherwise.

                            I expect the party's political priorities of the next twenty years to concur.

                            The AWB is a political dinosaur.
                            Enjoy your tar-pit.....you're going to be there for awhile.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 10:36:09 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Enjoy your Republican "viewpoint" Gun Troll... (0+ / 0-)

                            Talk about fucking dinosaurs…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 11:10:01 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Enjoy the actual meaning of "liberal gun policy" (0+ / 0-)
                            "Talk about fucking dinosaurs"
                            I have been.

                            Enjoy your tar-pit.
                            Maybe you will be able to try again in another 20 years.....but I wouldn't count on it if I were you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 11:23:46 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, "liberal gun policy" does not mean... (0+ / 0-)

                            all guns, as many as you want, anytime... that's the ultra conservative gun policy... look it up... if you took your "viewpoint" to Red State, the Tea Party or even Stormfront you'd be welcomed with open arms, as opposed to the shit bath you're treated to here at DailyKos... think about that...

                            You keep trying to pound your square peg into our liberal round hole to the extent that you're even trying to hijack the word "liberal" now... the Democratic Party's logo wasn't enough for your? So pathetic... .

                            Sorry, Gun Troll... you'll never be accepted here, no matter how shrill your "demands"...

                            Enjoy the last troll word...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 12:49:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh? So if a nation is said to be "liberal on gun (0+ / 0-)

                            ownership" what does that mean?
                            (Quick hint: The exact same thing that it means if one said "Liberal on gay rights" "Liberal towards rights", or "Liberal on [any other word you would care to use]"
                            The language-like election results-doesn't change because of your fucking feelings.

                            "Stormfront"
                            Now you are diminished to simply shrieking  "ZOMG NAZIS11!!'?
                            How marvelous.

                            "pound a square peg round hole"
                            I don't have to. Primarily because your viewpoint got Democrats pounded at the ballet box.

                            "you'll never be accepted here"
                            At DKos? Being simultaneously in the minority viewpoint and being correct isn't conducive to popularity.
                            I'm perfectly comfortable with that.
                            In the Democratic Party?  Your time would be better spent getting used to the idea of utter irrelevancy instead of trying to make impotent threats of acceptance.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 01:03:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Ballet" box? (0+ / 0-)

                            Goes with your frantic, semantic dance...

                            Thanks for the laugh...

                            Game over, Gun Troll...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 01:07:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Indeed it is. (0+ / 0-)

                            It ended months ago in Colorado.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 01:37:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Shove this up your "Colorado", Gun Troll... (0+ / 0-)

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 05:42:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You mean the executive orders he quietly announced (0+ / 0-)

                            on a Friday to minimize media attention?

                            It would seem President Obama now shares the same viewpoint on the political consequences of gun control as I do.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 06:08:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If he shared your "viewpoint"… (0+ / 0-)

                            He'd be describing the walls of his colon…

                            If he were truly cowed by your "viewpoint", he wouldn't have announced it at all… Hell, he wouldn't even have made the executive order at all…

                            #GunTrollFail...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Wed Jan 08, 2014 at 07:49:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here's my "viewpoint".. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            From the DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S platform, stated unequivocally and unambiguously at the 2012 DNC... perhaps you're familiar with the results of that election?

                            2012 Democratic Party Platform: on Gun Control

                            Right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation

                            We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole--so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.
                            Source: 2012 Democratic Party Platform Sep 4, 2012

                            Carry on, Gun Troll...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:45:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Was getting an "error message" on my previous post (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sharon Wraight

                            hence the repost...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:46:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  sorry to jump in here (0+ / 0-)

                            One of the factors I think both of you miss is why gun control hasn't been successful as far as getting any legislation through recently in wake of "colorado" and "sandy".

                            simple fact: Most People associate the right to bare arms with freedom. Most view  take the right to bare arms away is on par as your taking their freedom away.

                            Since possessing fire arms is personal choice that gives you power to choose your own fate. especially in situations where someone else wants to take your freedom away by committing harm on you by trying to hurt or kill you.

                            freedom to live, anyone?

                          •  And prior to this nonsense the NRA looked foolish (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            trying to claim that the president would try to ban guns.
                            Now they look prophetic.

                            I didn't think the President would propose a gun ban; I convinced a few to vote for Obama based upon that;
                            I was wrong.
                            The NRA was right.....all thanks to your viewpoint.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 07:19:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How many guns has Obama banned? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            Now not only does the NRA look foolish, you do too…

                            Troll smarter, Frank…

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:43:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Apparently you don't know what the 'B' in 'AWB' (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            stands for.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:53:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Apparently you don't know that Obama isn't (0+ / 0-)

                            running...

                            Troll saner, Frank...

                            Baby, where I come from...

                            by ThatSinger on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 09:57:00 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This has nothing to do with your last comment... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            nor does it have anything to do with.....anything.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:35:22 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  zealots. (4+ / 0-)

                          Listen to yourself.

                          For fuck's sake--zealots..

                          Yes, we have some zealots.  They are few and far between.  Advocating for common-sense gun-regulation is not 'zealotry'

                          •  Pushing to ban legal objects from innocent people (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, theatre goon

                            isn't common-sense.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:05:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Pushing an agenda that has already lost us (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon, blackhand

                            seats does not get us "more" Democrats, does it?

                            And when these facts are on the table, this issue is pushed even further???

                            zeal·ot·ry
                            zelətrē/
                            noun
                            noun: zealotry

                                1.
                                fanatical and uncompromising pursuit of religious, political, or other ideals; fanaticism.

                            Many here whom keep pushing this agenda tell us "wait until after the 2016 elections.  What are we going to do in the mean time?  Fight over this and ignore the real opportunities we have to do good for millions???

                            There ARE more important issues that we should be focusing on.  Perpetual poverty, living wage jobs, racism in our "justice" system, systemic institutionalized corruption, the fake war on drugs, the NSA, the NDAA, the shredding of the constitution, etc, etc, etc, etc.

                            And since the majority of Americans "support" for gun control is now a minority position, why are you still pushing this???

                            In my own County, Erie County, (Buffalo, New York area) gun control lost us seats and control.  

                            This isn't about what you perceive as "reasonable" any longer.  This one issue isn't getting us "more or better" Democrats.

                            The very fact that when our party pushed and passed the AWB in the '90's, we lost control, setting the stage for the continuation of Reaganism that has destroyed this nation and will do so for generations.

                            Thanks but no thanks, I'm still suffering from those policies personally.

                            Maybe you should start listening and move on.

                            -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 Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 09:23:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  On this forum? By you? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theatre goon

                    As heartbreaking as not being seen as 'legitimate' by "ThatSinger" on Daily Kos is, you may want to look up from your computer screen & see what your viewpoint did to 3 Democratic Senators from Democratic districts in elections during non-election years.

                    There is a reason why the Party didn't follow the nonsense you espouse for 20 years after your last debacle.

                    You were wrong.
                    You lost.
                    Deal with it.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:04:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  forgive them about their (0+ / 0-)

                  knee jerk irrational reaction to crimes against children where the death is sudden instead of gradual over time.

                  Think you forget people basic instinct about sudden threats vs gradual threats and how they react to such.

                  Example of sudden threats to children "Sandy"

                  Example of gradual threats: children breathing coal fired fumes causing cancer and cardiac issues over time leading to their premature deaths.

                  which do you think people react the most quickly and irrationally about?

                  The sudden threat, Thus take in stride when dealing with people in a frame of sudden irrational fear of over protectiveness when dealing with sudden mass killings especially children which most of us have instinct level protectiveness.

                  And dealing with no reactions to the gradual poisoning of children that results in mass murder on scale of the holocaust or worse all because it was not a sudden threat of life.

                  point is need a lot of tolerance and avoid exploding on them, when their in a state of irrationality in regards of protectiveness towards children. If you give them a sense that they are succeeding in protecting their children then they will come out of the irrational state of mind, where then you can deal with them on a rational level.

                  which is one of the reasons I stayed out of any "sandy" conversations till recently.

                  with the exception of the knee jerk reactions to sandy that wanted to criminalize anyone who never committed any crimes just because they have a mental illness.

            •  A majority of Colorado voters disagree with you (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TheFern, Namazga V, LilithGardener

              and instead think the recallers are extreme and should not have abused the recall process - by an overwhelming majority, Colorado voters don't like what the NRA, the Koch Bros., the recallers and you (by supporting their efforts) did:

              Voters statewide oppose 49 - 38 percent the recall of State Sen. Evie Hudak for supporting stricter new gun control laws. Voters oppose 57 - 36 percent recall efforts for legislators with whom they don't agree, saying they should wait for the regular reelection.
              http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

              In the same poll - a majority of Colorado voters support the legislation the Dems passed in 2013.

              This poll shows the Dems have not suffered much from gun safety legislation and in fact, after the most recent campus murder in Centennial, the recallers look even more extreme and out of touch with Colorado voters.

              When the Dems go to the voters in 2014 with a BC policy that will have stopped about 250 dangerous people from acquiring guns via private sales, including felons and domestic abusers, and can point to the ongoing crisis in Colorado of campus murderers such as at Arapahoe High and Trinidad High (both in Dec 2013) where a plot to murder scores of students was foiled:

              Police in southern Colorado say they thwarted a school shooting plot by two teenagers, one of whom idolized mass shooters, just a week after a student opened fire in the halls of a suburban Denver high school.
              http://www.denverpost.com/...

              ... they are going to have a clear contrast - vote for good, decent public servants who are trying to make their communities and families safer, or vote for a collection of insane, greedy, extremists who have no concept of how to govern the state of Colorado.

              That's called leadership - seeing a real problem that needs solutions and passing policy that goes directly at the problem, regardless if it's extremely unpopular with an increasingly shrinking minority on gun extremists.

              "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

              by We Shall Overcome on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 03:28:38 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you know something? I bet this is why they're (3+ / 0-)

                getting so damn upset:

                "increasingly shrinking minority of gun extremists'

                You're right.  There are more guns than ever before, but the culture is on the decline.  Steady decline.

                Here

                See I'm ok with guns per se--even a gun culture.  But the gun obsessed culture--that i"m not ok with.  And that's going away.  

                No wonder the RKBA'ers feel they're up against the wall, eh?

                •  I'm for whatever works - if we can regulate guns (3+ / 0-)

                  well enough to cut down the gun violence and restrict it to smaller and smaller parts of society while allowing people to own, hunt, etc., and then allow those areas that might continue to experience that kind of violence decide themselves (the voters and the elected officials without interference from the gun lobby) how best to deal with it, be that a handgun ban, tougher background checks, tougher penalties, tougher licensing and registration, I'm for that.

                  "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                  by We Shall Overcome on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 03:50:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  if I could see the RKBA crowd live by this mantra: (3+ / 0-)

                    'with great power comes great responsibility'

                    I would be happy.  But they don't.  

                    While they may be responsible gun-owners as individuals--and I'm sure they are--their assistance in creating a brigade of gun-owners who are NOT responsible--and who are downright dangerous--is itself highly irresponsible.  That's what need to change.

                  •  Handgun licensing and registration (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber, Namazga V

                    and time/manner/place/who restrictions. Licensing and proficiency testing for public carry, YES!.

                    But not an outright ban on handguns for self defense, in general. Until we get clear guidance from Heller that is presumptively unconstitutional, and a waste of political capital.

                    The term "Handgun ban" is now like a shrill whistle and is about as effective as a "gun libertarian" proudly claiming that label. IMO, it diminishes the number and types of people willing to engage and listen.

                    YMMV

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 06:42:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If "you" want willingness to engage and listen (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      LilithGardener

                      Then the message from both sides needs to change because neither side is doing much of either right now.  Nor are they willing to.

                      I put "you" in quotes above, because I was referencing the proverbial "you" as in generic person, not you specifically LG.

                      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                      by blackhand on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:45:03 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Perhaps your frame is in error? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blackhand

                        And yes, English is my native tongue and I understand the plural you. It's not personal. But thank you for making that point clear to other readers.

                        "Nor are they willing to."
                        Is that what you consider a willingness to engage? If your statement is true then you have a different problem than the one I addressed in my comment.

                        IMO an assumption that leads a reader to see all comments as political messaging, (in us vs. them terms), is a beam in the eye of the reader who sees that.

                        When I look in the mirror, I start with an assumption that political views and goals are all over the map, and will remain all over the map as diverse viewpoints join or depart the conversation. My own opinions are not written in stone.

                        This perspective is essential for me to have the freedom to express what I think at any given moment in real time, in good faith. (gasp! I might be wrong! fortunately, that's not usually fatal in the US) It includes the inherent opportunity that any one of "my" expressions may prompt someone with better knowledge of law and policy to educate or persuade me to adjust my own opinion. There is tremendous personal freedom in this approach. I am not attached to being right; neither do I feel compelled to prove that any opponent is wrong. It is the freedom to engage ideas, nudge one way or another and explore wherever those nudges find a receptive reader.

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:20:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Not sure I am following you ... (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LilithGardener, KVoimakas

                          My intent was rather simplistic.  That this discussion, like those of a similar nature, has devolved into two sides that perpetually dance and revolve around each other while feinting attacks and saying that compromise is not possible.

                          More generally, I see this being between those who would like to do away with the 2nd-A and those who believe that it has already been infringed and that this needs to be addressed.  Neither side wants compromise, just capitulation.  In this regard, the sides behave much like the two major political parties in the US.

                          Your reply shows a lot of wisdom in how you approach and analyze political views.  It is different than the simplistic view I describe above.

                          "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                          by blackhand on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 12:47:23 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  PS I'm looking seriously at what might be (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blackhand

                        standing in the way of the National right-to-carry Act.

                        E.g. What would uniform standards for training/proficiency testing look like? How hard would it be to implement if it could piggyback on the DMV, with a single letter designation, or a 2 letter code. (The way my driver's license indicates that I'm also licensed to ride a motorcycle, but not a taxi).

                        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                        by LilithGardener on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 10:24:50 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  This is a very good question (0+ / 0-)

                          Perhaps an answer lies in understanding how states establish reciprocity today.  Reciprocity seems to be in a state of flux and changes seem to be tied to training and background check standards.  For example, I recall reading some state(s) no longer recognizing VA because VA allowed an online test - or something to that effect.

                          In any case, I don't think that it will be possible to get 100% buy in from all states, but then with most things national, it isn't required.  What I mean is that states like NY, CA, IL, and MD would be unlikely to ever accept national reciprocity.  Instead it will have to be forced upon them and even then I think it will be challenged in subversive ways, such as harassment.

                          Normally, I favor keeping the Feds out of things.   I may be Liberal, but I am also a believer in the idea that less govt is a good thing.  This includes the purchasing of guns.  I don't like having the Fed govt involved in the point of sale.  It is an infringement upon their powers in my view.  However, the Fed is also the only one with the scope to handle interstate criminal records most effectively.   Also, what the Fed is allowed to do is regulate interstate commerce and by extension I take that to mean the flow of people.   Perhaps this is covered by another doctrine or BOR item?  Still, guns, lawfully owned should be transportable across state lines just like any other personal property and people should be able to use them in other states.  As a point of clarification here, I am thinking of citizen, not felon, in terms of intent and action.  In other words, committing crimes and murder, even with a gun, are NOT auspices of the 2A.

                          Here is a thought.  Can things get dicey is if a state has "registration" as part of a requirement for carrying in public.  How does a visitor intersect with this aspect?

                          "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                          by blackhand on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:03:19 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  We would do well to consider (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Namazga V

                            We would do well to consider the automobile period before the national highway system was built.

                            FWIW, The notion that "shall issue" will be forced on all states makes it hard to take someone's other ideas serious. IMHO that's a fantasy that doesn't recognize the diverse needs of the nation, or the constitutional issues at all. YMMV

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:52:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  reply to the quoted statement below (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener
                            FWIW, The notion that "shall issue" will be forced on all states makes it hard to take someone's other ideas serious. IMHO that's a fantasy that doesn't recognize the diverse needs of the nation, or the constitutional issues at all. YMMV
                            I am surprised at how you are making this a personal issue.   At least that is how I interpret it.  To me it reads, "because you're not willing to accept that certain states may not get their way with regards to a national policy and be able to dictate it, I refuse to take you seriously" or "because you clearly don't agree with my position, I refuse to take you seriously".  If I am misinterpreting your statement, I sincerely apologize.

                            Assuming that I am reading your comment correctly, I would counter by stating that I think that states like NY, IL, HI, MD, CT, and CA have already committed a violation so the matter of forcing them to change their ways would be correcting a wrong.  This is the dark side of the National Carry Genie.  Both the most and least restrictive states would very likely be unhappy with it.

                            While national reciprocity wouldn't impact me directly, I do support the position of expanding rights and limiting govt intervention and regulation.  I subscribe to the "liberal" view of gun laws as the RKBA crowd would describe it and  I hold the same "liberal" view on other issues, such as abortion, and marriage.  I think that outside of certain regions, gun control is an election loser and it is a proverbial millstone around the neck of the Democratic party.

                            If a national decision is made by Congress, while all states' representatives will have input and a vote, to which they may certainly vote NAY, the "strict" and "may issue" states are a minority.

                            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                            by blackhand on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 06:24:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Blackhand, Please reread my comment. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blackhand

                            I made an effort to reply to the content, with neutral content. It wasn't enough.

                            In this statement do you refer to licensing/registration/concealed carry laws? Would you please cite the sources you rely upon to make this claim.

                            states like NY, IL, HI, MD, CT, and CA have already committed a violation

                            IMHO, a claim based on broad legal theory that has not  yet passed constitutional muster, i.e. been upheld in any court is a fantasy. My using that word wasn't personal.

                            It's a criticism of the common demand that any discussion of future gun rights accept without question an unsupported statement, as if it's fact, about Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

                            If the shoe doesn't fit you, then you're not Cinderella.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 09:50:58 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thank you for the reply. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener

                            I appreciate your taking the time to clarify.  As I said above, I apologize if I misread your statements, which I did.  I read them initially, gave it some time and re-read them and still came to the same conclusion while still realizing the possibility for error.  In response, I tried to express how I read them and hoped that I was doing so clearly.

                            What is the saying, something about 90% of communication being non verbal?  And written word being very difficult in this regard?  It is no wonder at times that online forums can be such harsh places.

                            Onward ...

                            do you refer to licensing/registration/concealed carry laws
                            I am referring to all of them, in part in general.  I, and this is just my personal view and a lot of it is just my perception, tend to think of concepts like 'may issue' and failure to engage in reasonable reciprocity as being ... hard to think of a really appropriate word ... but overall negative and possibly even legally wrong, in that they go against personal choice and liberty.  My interest is isn't specific to firearms law, but I do see them as a proxy for other attitudes and thoughts.  For example, it befuddles me that one can be pro personal choice and responsibility in many regards but then be opposed to being able to make the same choice regarding whether or not to own and carry firearms.  I view it as a personal choice that is reflective of ones views of personal responsibility.  I also think it is fascinating that the differences should be so regional.   This is an issue that I admittedly, don't understand.  I also think that it is very complex.

                            I think part of what makes it so complex is that at it's core, I think KV is correct - that weapon rights, doesn't fall on the political left-right axis but on the libertarian - statist axis.  Should the use of force, including the extreme use of force be a power that resides with the people or only with the state?  In this regard, I can understand why the issue can be easily confused.  Many on the left see the state as a force that can be used to ensure equality and liberty.  

                            As far as a reference, handgunlaw.us would likely be the best choice.  Looking at the front page, it shows a distinct difference between most of the NE and CA from the rest of the nation.  

                            broad legal theory that has not  yet passed constitutional muster
                            This is another aspect of the whole issue, and one that makes it so difficult.  As I mentioned above, there are clearly regional differences on this issue.  From the discussions, it is clear that there are also differences within regions, including urban / rural.  What is then asked, by both sides, is a unifying common principle, wanting the courts to "side" with their view and trying to read into historical precedent to show how the courts must certainly come down on their respective side.  

                            I am starting to question whether such a unified situation is possible.  The closest model that I think we have is the drivers license where a state sets the standards for issuing a license and all other states honor that license.  It becomes incumbent upon a person traveling in another state to act in accordance with the laws of the state they are in.  

                            Another big problem I see with gun laws, especially a unified position, is the idea of attempting to regulate crime and terrorism through gun control.  This really gets us into the area you mentioned yesterday about political views being all over the map.  Personally, I think it is an illusive concept that brings us to the old argument about trading security for liberty and getting neither.

                            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                            by blackhand on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:51:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  There's a lot in there that I need time to digest. (0+ / 0-)

                            Thx.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:00:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe you could help me out (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blackhand

                            I'm sure you've noticed a reflexive defensiveness and personalization that comes up a lot at Daily Kos. It makes dialogue so tedious it tempts me to walk away without bothering to reply. So why do I bother? I value your contributions to the dialogue at Daily Kos. I often find your comments thoughtful and carefully consider them, and rec them even when I disagree, because I appreciate good faith efforts.

                            Maybe you could help me out. I presume from your declarative statements that you've been studying gun law and policy for a long time. If you read my diaries you'll see that I'm very new at this. The outline of my current understanding can be found in these 5 diaries.

                            The Meaning of the Second Amendment
                            What is Reciprocity? Introduction to Concealed Carry Law
                            Woollard v. Gallagher
                            Restrictive Gun Laws in DC
                            A Liberal Buys a Gun in DC

                            I'm trying to understand how our gun laws came to be what they are and how hundreds of gun laws are being reconciled on the scaffold laid out in Heller & McDonald. I'm willing to share what I learn and what I think I understand, and I like to be challenged and corrected when I'm wrong.

                            When you put your claims together in a diary, with the sources that support them, please send me a Kosmail alert.

                            Please feel free to bring your understanding of constitutional theory and your critiques these diaries, and any other diary, to FLAP open threads on Sundays and Wednesdays. Be sure to link to the comment/diary you are critiquing so that readers can follow along as you shred my ideas.

                            Deal?

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 10:02:24 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  replies below (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener
                            Maybe you could help me out
                            I will certainly try.
                            I'm sure you've noticed a reflexive defensiveness and personalization that comes up a lot at Daily Kos
                            Not just here.  I think that this is a feature of forums in general.  Limited communication, coupled with perceived anonymity make for a difficult environment in a social structure that is a recent innovation.
                            I value your contributions to the dialogue at Daily Kos. I often find your comments thoughtful and carefully consider them, and rec them even when I disagree, because I appreciate good faith efforts.
                            Thank you.  I feel the same.
                            I presume from your declarative statements that you've been studying gun law and policy for a long time. If you read my diaries you'll see that I'm very new at this. The outline of my current understanding can be found in these 5 diaries.
                            Not too long.  In all honesty, it really caught my attention with the CO recalls.  I admit to having been curious about what it takes to get a gun, ad for a long time believing that one could simply walk into a store and by one.  My parents own a shotgun that I've shot growing up, we were introduced to shooting in middle school, and I known people who could be called "gun nuts", but that is about it.  

                            I will read the diaries you link to, put some thoughts together and send you a kosmail.  That is a deal.  Not sure that I have a lot of reference sources.  As I said in the reply above, a lot of it is personal feelings towards liberty in general and that this is one are where I think the Democratic party gets it wrong, which I am not sure isn't just an attempt to be opposite that other party.

                            "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                            by blackhand on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 11:59:56 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The ethical and moral arguments (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blackhand

                            are important to flesh out too, and I have a lot of passion on those matters that I hold back. Not because I don't care, but because I want to have a strong foundation in current law/policy and the current logic and legal reasoning about what is constitutional. Not that I assume those are correct. I  pay attention to learning about the current unintended consequences of bad law. It's just where I need to start before I can effectively advocate for change, in either direction.

                            In many respects FLAP is a group effort try to "define the problem" in the most basic terms, the practical realities of current law in real time, as it is changing. We are a study group. Our open threads are like Office Hours. Once we have "legal reality" in hand, then we can more effectively engage with others to demand change...

                            ... as John Lewis said in his 2012 DNC speech... "voting is the most powerful non violent means we have to form a more perfect union."  IMO we need better narratives, better reasoning, better results to justify why people should vote for Dems.

                            Do feel free to Kosmail. I will probably request that you post them in comments, and in comment size bites, because a) we are more efficient when we share our collective understanding, and b) diary length comments really should be written as diaries. If you have a question about something I wrote, I'm sure others did too.

                            Please feel free to erect a protective disclaimer along the lines, "Lilith invited me to post this critique." =) to pre-empt some of the misunderstandings that so easily occur. I also have a soft spot for clever wordsmithing, and enjoy humor, snark, mockery and so on when it's done with the intent to engage and extend the conversation, to include others who are at a different level of study/understanding.

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Tue Jan 07, 2014 at 01:29:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is what I see - re National Reciprocity (0+ / 0-)

                            It's a pretty long diary and at the end I break down what I see as standing in the way of a National Concealed Carry licensing scheme.

                            What is Reciprocity: Introduction to Concealed Carry Weapons Law

                            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                            by LilithGardener on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 01:54:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  states variation in laws especially if its (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          LilithGardener

                          in the state constitutions.

                          Also the reason for national level gun policies is hard is that the feds can not infringe on state sovereignty where control is protected under regarding the second amendment.

                          The control is for the most part at the state level not federal level.  Only real time it federal is when it involves ATF and ban on assault weapons like m-16

                          And many states have different views on firearms.

                          Like here in MN where firearms have long history of necessity, because of plentiful wildlife game for food source and rural farming communities where self protection is mandatory due to lack of police or sheriffs.

                          Vs

                          say New York where several of the largest cities reside and a higher density of population per mile, with little in the way of hunting opportunities.

                          So a universal policy would work fine in MN where guns are tolerated because they are necessary, but not New York where people do not need to collect their own food and are densely packed..

                    •  if you possess a hand gun you don't want regestry (0+ / 0-)

                      registries make it easy for criminals to target the owners in order to steal said handguns.

                      ATF statistics states handguns is the highest stolen firearm category.

                      The fewer people know you posses a hand gun the less likely it is to be stolen and used in a violent crime or against you.

                      Look to other countries that had registries / gun control and what happened when the government confiscated said guns. http://www.examiner.com/...

                      I would more likely believe this book than factcheck.org

                      book was peer reviewed in the academic circles..... unless it was funded by rightwing.....  but then there some interesting development related to documentation from NAZI from that era which is reason I am more inclined to believe the book over factcheck.org

                •  Support for gun control has DECLINED for (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  the past 20 years, while support for gun control has increased during the same time.

                  The culture of insisting on taking liberties from innocent people has been declining: that is why your viewpoint is a political Dinosaur, rejected so strongly that 3 Democratic Senators were recalled in 3 Democratic districts.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:14:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ba-dum-chh! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Glen The Plumber

                    ... survey says, wrong:

                    Voters statewide oppose 49 - 38 percent the recall of State Sen. Evie Hudak for supporting stricter new gun control laws. Voters oppose 57 - 36 percent recall efforts for legislators with whom they don't agree, saying they should wait for the regular reelection.
                    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

                    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

                    by We Shall Overcome on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 09:04:29 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I linked the survey that proves that support for (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon

                      gun control has diminished while support for gun rights have grown for the past 20 years.

                      But why would you pay attention to that? After all, you are unable to accept the reality of 3 unprecedented & humiliating elections in Colorado.

                      Let me know when quinnipiac gets Hudak elected.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 11:26:47 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  re: "the culture is on the decline" (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas

                  Try again.  Taking one of the Liberal areas of NC as an example, see this recent news release from Durham.

                  The number of Durham residents applying for permits to carry a concealed gun jumped 36 percent in 2013 over the previous year, according to the Durham County Sheriff’s Office.
                  n 2013, the office got 1,460 applications for concealed-carry permits, up from 1,072 in 2012
                  That is ~1500 additional people each year potentially carrying guns in public in this one county alone.  The number of people with permits is accelerating.  Doesn't sound like a culture on the decline to me.

                  Do you think that these people, who live in one of the blue areas of the state are going to support strict gun control?  I don't.

                  "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

                  by blackhand on Mon Jan 06, 2014 at 08:41:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  nice try--but no. (0+ / 0-)

                    of course you saw a spike in 2013--particularly in the types of areas you mentioned (e.g. North Carolina as opposed to somewhere like, say, Cambridge Mass) because of the post Newtown response and NRA's campaign to terrorize everyone by saying 'Obamaz gonna kick down yer doorz and take all yer gunz'

                    Trends are not straight lines--they bounce and jump.  The overall trends is down, down, markedly down.

                    Here

                    While, at the same time, gun sales more generally are up--as you rightly state--and as has been mentioned in some RKBA diaries.

                    So the message is this:  gun culture is, in fact, on the decline in the US (maybe urbanization is playing a role here--as gun rationale shifts from hunting/collection/gun culture to one of household protection, which is a weaker argument in cities).  At the same time, gun culture WITHIN where it already exists is strengthening.  We see similar trends with religion, for example.

                    So yes, gun control platforms may cost some districts here and there in places like NC and Colorado.  I believe it can help in districts in other places.  And as the culture continues to decline (despite, as I said, the Number of guns being at its highest point), I don't think it will be much of an issue at all for Democrats to run on that platform.

                    Moreover--sometimes you have to run on platforms that not all of your consitutents agree with.  Affordable Health Care, for example.

                •  What constitutes gun obsessed culture in your view (0+ / 0-)

                  historical gun collector?

                  a rural farmer who carries a pistol in his truck when transporting cattle? to beat off cattle thieves?

                  A home owner possessing a firearm in a rough neighborhood who had several break ins in their home where their children live?

                  a person who carries concealed with a permit because they had several death threats?

                  A woman possessing firearm conceal because she lives in an area that has a high crime level against women?

                  Or the fictional characters in action movies who go around shooting up the city with total disregards to other civilians in the area?

                  In away this is a trick question.  It depends whether your looking at the list in an irrational or rational state on either side of the fence.

              •  WSO, sent you a Kosmail =) nt (0+ / 0-)

                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 06:37:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Gosh....if only there were an election (or 3) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon

                so as to ascertain how accurate that poll is when deciding the results of actual elections.

                If only we could have had an election (or 3) held in Democratic districts, and while the Dems that voted for gun control had a 6-1 spending advantage......
                That would really tell us something, wouldn't it?

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 11:44:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  What have they ever been willing to give up? (0+ / 0-)

            At what point have they been willing to even consider a compromise of any sort?

            "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

            by lyvwyr101 on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:57:51 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Oy! (19+ / 0-)
      So if they were, what would you give them? Compromise means both sides give the other something they want.
      Considering the fact that the gun fetishists reaction to Newtown was to loosen restrictions, intimidate a small group of women by standing outside their meeting brandishing their assault weapons and throw a temper tantrum when anyone mentions even the weakest of regulations I think we all know what your idea of "compromise" is.

      Most of the people taking a hard line against us are firmly convinced that they are the last defenders of civilization... The last stronghold of mother, God, home and apple pie and they're full of shit! David Crosby, Journey Thru the Past.

      by Mike S on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:54:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  After recent mass shootings, gun restrictions were (10+ / 0-)

      loosened.

      So your argument is that, in order to breed compromise, they should have been loosened even further then?  Good Lord.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 06:56:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This reads like extortion (6+ / 0-)

      You seriously made that comment. Unbelievable.

      •  How is that extortion? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, gerrilea, theatre goon

        He asked what would be on the table in a mutual negotiation.

        •  If you and KV had actually read the links (6+ / 0-)

          You would realize that what you are willing to compromise on is stopping to make death threats in exchange for "stuff" you want.

          There's no compromise on death threats. IMO, all those people who sent Metcalf death threats should be charged and stand before a jury.

          •  You are mistaken. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, gerrilea, VClib, theatre goon

            If you read up-chain you'll see that this entire discussion spawned from a comment about gun rights activists adopting a "no-compromise" position. KV remarked that the alternative typically demanded by gun control activists amounted to simple capitulation.

            From whence came the discussion of what both sides would bring to the table in the event of a one-on-one compromise concerning gun rights.

            No one here is in any way defending death threats, and they have nothing to do with this exchange.

            •  im not mistaken (4+ / 0-)

              If you read Catte Nappe's comment, you will see how she clearly quoted the article regarding no compromise/no capitulation and Namazga V's comment where he also points out how hard core gun proponents want no compromise, rather they were issuing death threats, which the linked article also makes clear from a gun proponent himself.

              So, what exactly is to be negotiated?

            •  you are incorrect--and to be honest I am completel (5+ / 0-)

              y stunned that not a single one of your RKBA brethren (although I haven't scrolled down to the end yet) seems to have paid a lick of attention to the article.

              Again:  There are some 2nd amendment absolutists who are (were) regular writers for leading firearms publications.  These are absolutists who, until recently, were highly respected by gun owners, gun rights activists, the NRA, etc.

              The diary cites two examples (with articles) in which they raise some questions about neo-NRA orthodoxy--by which I am talking about the extreme positions advocated by people like Wayne La Pierre.  In response, they have lost their jobs, been effectively banished from the gun-owner 'community', and have received death threats.  They are persona non grata for expressing some questioning views.

              The 'compromise' discussed in the diary and in this thread pertains to the totalitarian-state like extremism exercised by powers like the NRA and the gun manufacturer lobby.  Any dissension is silenced--and those who vocalize it 'disappeared' from the community.

              It is extremist, dangerous, and completely un-American.

              And not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU has addressed it.

              This is why we do not, in any sense, take your 'negotiations' in good faith--at all.

              •  How can a not-state actor be totalitarian? (0+ / 0-)

                The NRA does not bomb people's homes, shoot them in the street or drag people off to secret prisons without trail.  

                When Good Journalists go bad they get banished to Faux "News," if they adhere to interesting racial theories they end up writing for World Nut Daily and banished to the rubber chicken circuit.  By your standards does that mean that if someone develops the disease called homophobia on DKOS should we not ban them for violating community norms?  

                I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                by DavidMS on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:36:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  let me see---- (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101, Glen The Plumber

                  Promotion of homophobia on DKos vs. a noted gun enthusiast raising a question about regulation.

                  Of course I would expect this from you--since you accused someone supporting higher training fees of supporting Jim Crow laws.

                  That's kind of (really f*ing) twisted, you know that?

                  And the totalitarian bit was an analogy--I don't mean that the NRA is a country, for crying out loud.  Although here--it might as well be.

    •  You keep your weapons that the compromise allows (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, lyvwyr101

      How's that?

      Now, what are you willing to give? Stats?

      Baby, where I come from...

      by ThatSinger on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 08:57:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What if we decided guns were no longer necessary (7+ / 0-)

    for a free state?

    Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

    by 88kathy on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 04:29:49 PM PST

  •  So what's that again ... (8+ / 0-)

    ... about a well-armed population being necessary to protect us from tyranny? About how the Second Amendment is Second because it guarantees the First (a historical myth, by the way)?

    If those who profess to defend us from tyranny become as tyrants themselves, then I submit that the Second Amendment has been wasted on them.

  •  No gun should only be sold to law enforcement (7+ / 0-)

    It's not the job of the police to "put down scumbags" and execute people in the street. Aren't we trying to get rid of the death penalty, not streamline it?

    If a gun is too dangerous for civilians, it's too dangerous for the police.

  •  The militia firearms (organized militia; National (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    theatre goon, ER Doc, gerrilea

    Guard) firearms do stay in the armories until they're deployed. I don't think you'll get argument on that.

  •  A well regulated militia (8+ / 0-)

    being necessary to the security of a free state,

    The constitution says it is necessary to regulate arms

     the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    You may bear arms ...... but it is
    necessary
    to regulate them.

    •  Nope (7+ / 0-)

      Well regulated, in regards to the milita, means trained and organized.  Kind of like the maintenance of a military structure with scheduled training excercises.

      •  This is like parsing the bible... (8+ / 0-)

        and concluding that it doesn't say what it actually says, it says what I want it to say because somebody didn't translate it right.

        I reject this argument.  

        One good thing about music, when it hits you feel no pain -Bob Marley

        by Darwinian Detritus on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 06:00:40 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How can you regulate the militia without (6+ / 0-)

        regulating the tool they use?

      •  So the rules that the military has ... (5+ / 0-)

        ... regarding the carrying of weapons on duty, their maintenance, the training standards necessary before people are allowed to carry them and the penalties for violating those regulations would be perfectly in line with the Second Amendment were they to be applied to the civilian non-sporting gun-owning community?

        •  No, because they are civilians. (7+ / 0-)

          You can regulate the militia when you call them up.

          •  Where does it say that in the Constitution (4+ / 0-)
            You can regulate the militia when you call them up.
          •  wait wait wait (5+ / 0-)

            Hasn't it also always been the RKBA argument that "militia" implicitly means the entire population? Otherwise you could completely ban firearm ownership by anyone not part of any organized militia, which is not a reading the NRA would sign off on.

            And really ... "regulate the militia when you call them up"? OK ... it's April 18, 1775, you live in Lexington and Paul Revere, Clarence Dawes or whoever has just come into town after curfew to warn you that the British Army is coming for all the guns in the morning, so you'd best have every able-bodied man of sound mind there on the Green at sunup with his flintlock, the better to tell His Majesty's Horse's Asses to go fuck themselves and the donkeys they rode in on. Do you want to be "regulating" them for the first time ever in their lives over the wee hours, teaching them the manual at arms and whatever by a raging fire while everyone tries to keep from nodding off? Or would you have rather been secure in the knowledge that they all already knew how to load and fire their muskets and maybe even knew some basic drill because they had all already been part of the militia by virtue of being an able bodied townsman who bore no religious scruples toward the bearing of arms?

            Yeah, that's what I thought, too. That's why "militia" would not have meant a specific subgroup within the population and why it made more sense to the Framers not to make the distinction. That's why James Mason, in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, something Madison was keenly aware of (after all, he'd helped Mason draft it) when he drafted the Bill of Rights, took care to write a wordier but less ambiguous version of the future Second Amendment as Section 13 (emphasis mine):

            That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state ...
            You have time to "regulate" (as you seem to use it) the militia only in a conscription scenario, which is sort of contrary to the idea of having a militia. It is therefore logical and natural to assume that the Framers would have understood and accepted the idea of the keeping and bearing of arms by civilians being subject to rules and regulations as part of basic military discipline.
            •  The ammendment is in 2 parts (4+ / 0-)

              Part 1 deals with the militia, which all males from aged 18 to 45 are ELIGIBLE (see Milita act of 1792 and amended in 1903). Today, these aged groups are still considered "reserve militia"

              Part 2 deals with all citizens, APART from the militia.  We have a right to keep (posses) and bear (carry) arms (plural).

              Because some or most of these people would be expected to serve in the militia, for 3 reasons only, 1. Execute the laws of the union (in the case of tyranny) 2. Suppress insurrections and 3. Repel invasions.  It is for this reason ALONE, that civilians MUST be allowed to own military grade weapons.  

              And now you know.

              •  No it's not (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                xanthippe2, lyvwyr101

                The sentence is in two parts, yes. That does not bifurcate the amendment itself. When the drafters of constitutional amendments want the amendments to have two parts, they actually go to the trouble of numbering them "1", "2" etc., as for example in the 14th. So you can't pretend that there's anything more than a comma between those two clauses (for Pete's sake, the part before the comma is a dependent clause ... the whole sentence has to be read together.

                Citizens cannot be "apart from the militia" if the militia is made up of citizens. Indeed 10 USC 311 merely divides the eligible male citizenry into the "organized" and "unorganized" militia, clearly suggesting a continuum.

                 The amendment can only be read as a policy choice to promote military readiness among what was, at that time, expected to be the primary means of national defense. Note that the Constitution requires that Congress reauthorize the Army every two years ... a provision meant to discourage the large standing armies which the Founders quite rightly associated with the tyrannical powers of the Crown in recent British history. Madison really had this utopian idea that (essentially) national defense was something that could be crowdsourced; the War of 1812, in particular the burning of Washington that 50,000 local militia within a day's march did little to prevent, disabused him of that notion—when Congress reconvened after the Battle of New Orleans, his first order of business was to build up the Army, and basically we haven't looked back.

                A lot of your argument seems to be drawn from a reading of the Dick Act which is somewhat dubious:

                Nothing in the Dick Act or any other item of U.S. legislation states that all members of the unorganized militia have an "absolute personal right to keep and bear arms of any type." The term "unorganized militia" simply refers to a subset of private individuals (i.e., men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not part of the National Guard or the Naval Militia). Those persons are subject to the same legislative limitations on firearm ownership and possession as any other private individuals: the existence and enforcement of modern laws limiting the ownership of certain types of firearms is prima facie evidence that those laws have not been "invalidated" by a piece of legislation enacted back in 1903. (And even if such a claim were true, then the unfettered right to keep and bear arms would not apply to men over the age of 45 or to any women, as neither of those groups falls within the legal definition of "unorganized militia.")
                While I am seriously challenging your legal and historical rationale, I actually agree with you, purely from a policy standpoint, that civilians should have the right to own military-grade weapons as it eases training within the military if some recruits at least are already familiar with the types of weapons they will be trained to use. My only caveat would be that, as a civilian, you would be required to meet military standards for use of said weapons—i.e., if you want to own an assault rifle, and haven't already been trained to during military service, you should be required to pass at least a civilian equivalent of the Marines' Fundamental Combat Marksmanship standards and, if you want to have no limits whatsoever on what you can add to it (such as magazine size), Advanced Combat Rifle Marksmanship, the same as any Marine infantryperson.
                •  I'm not military or LE (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, theatre goon

                  But I can guarantee you that my proficiency with firearms exceeds every LE I've ever met at the range.  I'm pretty sure that ALL of the military marksmen are more talented than I am, though.  But just going by the numbers, I'm easily in the top 1% for civilian proficiency.  

                  As I've stated before, here on Kos, I've been through the permitting process in 2 states.  20 years ago in NYC and most recently, in the state of Minnesota.  I've been thoroughly vetted.  My last speeding ticket was 13 years ago.  Before that, the late 80's.  that's my "criminal" history.

                  I'll give you my "compromise".  A federal MUST (shall) issue permit, excepted by every state, in exchange for a national background check that exempts felons and those with poor mental health history.  That's it.  Anything beyond that is a bridge too far, IMO. (I won't discuss registration, mag limits, etc)

                  •  Minnesota you say? (0+ / 0-)

                    I would trust you in my home with your firearm. Even though I don't know you.

                  •  in regards to poor mental health (0+ / 0-)

                    Required that the mental defect be "adjudicated by a court judge" and NO other.  allowing a civilian like a doctor can destroy a innocent person, they personally hate or if that doctor was anti-gun to begin with.......
                    but also need an appeal process for this in case your unlucky and get an anti-gun judge, or lawyer, etc.

                •  Hey, offer those "services" at the government's (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, FrankRose

                  expense and make it voluntary...I'd be all for it.

                  We can't have it both ways: Either we have an all volunteer militia or "You must do this, this and that BEFORE I'll grant you permission to exercise your privileges, CITIZEN!"

                  Don't tie any preexisting right to arbitrary proficiency standards.

                  If we go there, then I want you to have a PHD in English if you wish to write in our "free" press.  I want your BA in Public Speaking BEFORE you speak freely and then I want you to have a Law Degree before petitioning for redress.  When it comes to your religion, I want a psych evaluation showing us "you're of sound mind"...but seriously if you believe in some mythical figure in the sky...can you actually pass the test???  Probably not.

                  What part of freedom don't you agree with here?

                  -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 Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 11:57:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  No, that isn't our argument. (4+ / 0-)

              What is our argument is that the USC divides the militia into two groups: Active (National Guard) and Inactive (All men 18 and up who own arms.)

              This means that arms for the former should not be restricted to the latter.

              It is also our argument that "regulated" means organized and provisioned. This is accomplished by the USC, which designates who is the militia, and by the specifying that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be enfringed" to ensure that said persons can equip themselves.

              •  I was confused as I read your response (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea, Neo Control, FrankRose

                I was confused for a minute because I thought you were responding to me.  Then I saw that our answers were essentially the same.

                What I find amazing is that people try to interpret the 2A without any context.  In that regard, they misapply words and phrases that wouldn't even need to be asked if they had ever bothered reading the framers notes, etc.  Madison kept copious records, lol.  But it doesn't suit their goals.  So they hold on to words like "militia" (there's no such thing- we have an army today) and "well regulated" (meaning that "see, there's always been restrictions about who gets these rights and how guns are "controlled")

                Of course, the most important phrase, "shall not be infringed", is without equivocation, AND FINAL". ANY court ordered restrictions since the day the constitution was signed has been unconstitutional. PERIOD.

                And for those that wish to wonder why there will never be capitulation from those the support the constitution, its because we don't trust you.  And never will.  Look no further than inside this thread where some of you are so filled with rage, that you admit you'd like to see the 2A abolished and just like DiFi, guns confiscated. We won't let it happen.  And we especially won't let it happen, incrementally.

                •  well at least you acknowledge that you're much (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  lyvwyr101

                  further to the right on this than Antonin Scalia.

                  'any restriction is unconstitutional'.

                  So then, sexual harassment laws, and the 'fire in a crowded theater' business are unconstitutional as well.

                  Well, I'm so glad you're committed to what is really the crux of the second amendment--that it exists for the security of a free state.  If we listen to you this place will look like 'Hunger Games'.

                  Big tent indeed...

              •  See above for most of this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lyvwyr101

                Well, that's sure what I heard from every NRA rep and pro-gun person for the last thirty years every time the word "militia" came up.

            •  Wow...a couple things first off. (6+ / 0-)
              so you'd best have every able-bodied man of sound mind there on the Green
              That is not anywhere in the constitution or historical documents that one needed "to be of sound mind" to serve in the militia.

              If you stretched the "every able-bodied male" part, then that might mean "of sound mind" as well but there never was any specific framing you make today.  But then again  in 1776 it was only "every able-bodied white males" as well.  

              This also ignores the fact that during the Revolution, we had no legal binding agreement between each individual State or national treaty called a constitution.

              The next thing, our current constitution was not the supreme law of the land until 1789, ratified by all States in 1791.  Our central government operated under the Articles of Confederation for the first 11 yrs of our national history.

              The fact that when the citizens were called up under the Articles of Confederation, it was assumed they would already own arms to bring to any fight and ONLY if they agreed to.  The central government could not force anyone, anywhere to serve in the militia if they didn't want to. The States could request the support of their citizens but it didn't mean they were obligated to serve, at any time.  We still have an "all volunteer" militia, to this day.

              The authoritarians amongst our leaders, better known as Federalists, understood these facts and tried to mandate a standing army, despite the intent of the newly ratified constitution and they subsequently passed the Militia Act of 1792, which Washington begrudgingly signed, believing it was unlawful for them to do so.  An odd bit of legislative history tells us that this law is still in effect, it was never officially rescinded.  

              The Dick Act of 1903 establishes, for the first time two classes of "militia" and then obligates the central government to help fund the training of said "organized" militia, providing when necessary, arms to men whom did not bring their own.

              Before the Dick Act, States provided, if they so desired, monies and training time to their citizens.  New York had the largest citizen militia and their own Navy.  Even then it was most maintained with private monies of citizens freely and willingly organizing at their discretion.  "Hey Bob, can you get George, Mike and all the guys together on the first of March for a get together to train?  Say we meet up at the old town square?"

              At those "meetings" the members names would be taken down and in New York, that list was sent up to the State Capital.  How many men had arms and were trained.

              What your theory ignores, the "regulation" only came if the people showed up, of their own will.  And that "regulation" LIMITS our government to militia service.  They could not "regulate" the arms of anyone anywhere else.

              Your theory also ignores the fact that Mason did not live in a vacuum, there were other States that had in their own State Constitutions that guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms, like New Hampshire.

              Your theory also ignores the actual history of the Bill of Rights and their adoption into our current constitution and it's ratification.

              Your theory also ignores actual judicial history.

              Of special note would be  United States v. Cruikshank (1875), decided after the conclusion of the Civil War.

              6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
              This case was reiterated in Heller.

              The facts are, when you "assume"...you know the old saying, right???

              Finally, the individual right to keep and bear arms preexists the creation of our government.  Why would the Founders, create a government that turns said into a privilege???

              They wouldn't.

              The very fact that we have independent States and a central government was because the British attempted to disarm the people.  

              Here, maybe this history class will help you understand.

              American Revolution for kids

              After all, this is what we teach our children in public schools today.

              -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 Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 10:05:10 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gerrilea

                Exactly what I posted above.  But don't worry, the confiscators will either ignore it or tell us its just "word salad"

                Maybe we should make a bingo card with answers like, that's just your interpretation or they're using word salad, etc.  could be a fun way to show how disingenuous the gun grabbers and "confiscation nuts" are.

              •  So much effort for so little purpose (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lyvwyr101, LilithGardener

                My invocation of Lexington was merely to make the point that this was the militia setup as the founders understood it, with which you seem to agree—it was much better for the militia to be a continuous thing, with some level of training and discipline expected of every citizen gun owner, than a pickup thing as this "citizens/militia" distinction you're trying to insist on suggests it was. You "regulate" or train the militia at some point before the British come.

                I am only making this argument because I believe, as Dick Metcalf does, that the fundamentally military purpose of allowing widespread gun ownership requires some commitment to responsibility and military-level discipline on the part of every American gun owner regardless of the type of gun owned—a commitment which, as every week's GunFAIL documented this past year, needs to be reinforced by the gun community, the state, whoever, more strongly than it has been, especially given the increase in concealed-carry permits available. There is no way in which "the security of a free people," which includes my security, is enhanced by people who forget that there is no such thing as an unloaded gun.

                It is an individual right, of that there can be no doubt. But it is an individual right that carries a collective obligation. He or she that takes up the gun is making the well-being of society his or her personal responsibility. It is the highest form of citizenship.

                •  Hah...you're still missing the point. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas, Angryallen, FrankRose
                  It is an individual right, of that there can be no doubt. But it is an individual right that carries a collective obligation.
                  The "regulation" only can be done when that "collective obligation" is requested, ie during training, an invasion or war.  We all can't show up to the site of an invasion and appoint ourselves Generals, now can we???  That was a very real problem during the War of 1812, competing State interests.  The militia's of New Hampshire refused to go and only limited "regiments" of Vermont, New York and New Jersey went.  The Governors still believed it was their privy whether or not to commit their citizens to wars they didn't create AND only if the citizens actually agreed!

                  I still recall reading the Revolutionary War was only fought by 3% of the people, go figure!

                  Besides, the government can't "regulate" those arms at any other time(s) or for anyone else except members of the militia.

                  See, still no problems yet...it's when you claim they were tying that preexisting right ONLY to militia service, is when we get into your "assumptions" that are not accurate, historically or otherwise.

                  The Constitution limits the authority of our government, NOT the people and in this case, the individual person.

                  This still doesn't negate the powers of each individual State to do as they please, up until the 14th Amendment, that is.

                  The 2nd A has been soundly "incorporated" to limit State authority as well.  They cannot ban arms.

                  -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 Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 11:44:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If they meant it to be seen .... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

                    .... a pre-existing right, they wouldn't have included that language about the militia.

                    If the RKBA community wants it to be seen as a pre-existing right independent of any military policy, then they should start a effort to amend the Constitution to remove that clause.

                    As long as they do not, especially since they have the political power to do so, it is reasonable to assume that there is a consensus among the RKBA community in favor of the constraints imposed or potentially imposed by the militia language.

                    •  Heller's interpretation of the 2A (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber

                      even Scalia setting aside a requirement for membership in a militia.... allows for training and plenty of constitutional  who/time/manner/place/type of gun restrictions on  ownership and use.

                      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                      by LilithGardener on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 11:54:23 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  All rights in the Constitution are pre-existing. (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, theatre goon, Kasoru, FrankRose

                      The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It makes restrictions on the federal government against certain pre-existing rights, though it doesn't include the list to be exhaustive.

                    •  Really? Naw...that's not what I was taught (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      in history class.

                      RKBA: The States' Ratification Documents

                      The majority of individual States, when conditionally ratifying our current treaty, did so with the proviso that certain individual protections be amended into that treaty, we know them as the Bill of Rights.  Each State wrote up and included them with their Ratification Documents.

                      Congress didn't act for over a year on this very important issue and the States of New York, Virginia, New Hampshire, etc passed resolutions to amend the constitution themselves.  Congress realized they had only one choice, do it first or lose control of the newly created government.

                      We got the 12 Bill of Rights, as a quick fix, presented and passed into a committee to discuss them and bring them up for a vote.

                      It is at this moment what the Federalists and Anti-Federalists believed, thought, wrote or wanted becomes moot.  WE THE PEOPLE decided what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were to be, from that point on.

                      Of special note during the First Debates In Congress, a few gentlemen spoke up on these 12 Amendments.

                      Mr. Sherman:

                      The amendments reported are a declaration of rights; the people are secure in them, whether we declare them or not;"

                      Mr. Gerry:

                          "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

                      This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

                      We have the 2nd A as it is currently written because of the points these men made!  NOT because of what the original authors thought, said or believed.

                      HUGE difference.

                      If, what you claimed above, were even remotely true, I'd be the first to tell you you're correct.  If they were trying to equate the right to keep and bear arms to only militia members, then why the debate on "those religiously scrupulous" and it's subsequent removal???

                      Because they were not granting our central government authority to decide whom could keep and bear arms.  They were granting our government LIMITED power to "regulate" the arms of militia members, that's all!

                      -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 Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 02:10:06 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  Regulation = training? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lyvwyr101

        "Sorry, I can't go to the mall this weekend, I have training to attend."

        "Sorry, I can't go to the mall this weekend, I have regulation to attend."

        Which of those sentences is readable, and which of them is word salad?

        "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

        by auron renouille on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 07:13:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's your "word salad"... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, DavidMS, Kasoru, FrankRose

          http://www.constitution.org/...

          The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
          There are examples at the link for you.

          -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 Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 12:42:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  And yet this is the only right that has widespread (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xanthippe2, reflectionsv37, lyvwyr101

      demands of absolutism.  I like the 1st Amendment, but I also like common sense restrictions - .  I really like the 4th Amendment, but I recognize that life is hard and sometimes the cops have to knock down the door and sort out the details later.  And the 1st Amendment doesn't even have limitations built into it, when it comes to free speech and press - we just apply common sense to it!

      The 2nd Amendment does have limitations written in the text of the amendment - and the gun fetishists reject them.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 07:09:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We already have gun regulation (5+ / 0-)

    We've had strict federal restrictions on ownership of fully automatic weapons as well as silencers, sawed-off shotguns and "Destructive Devices" since the 1930s.

    You can still own one, but it has to be registered and taxed.

    It's been fairly effective too. Nobody's shot up a bank with a Thompson or a B.A.R since anyone can remember.

    So if the government can say I have to jump through a number of legal hoops to own a shotgun with a barrel less than 18" long, I don't see why this thing is beyond the pale.

    If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

    by Major Kong on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 07:40:44 PM PST

    •  Please read Miller (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, gerrilea, theatre goon, KVoimakas

      It was a lousy decision but provides a good roadmap.  

      https://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Gun rights advocates claim this case as a victory because they interpret it to state that ownership of weapons for efficiency or preservation of a well-regulated militia unit of the present day is specifically protected. Furthermore, they frequently point out that short-barreled shotguns have been commonly used in warfare, and the statement made by the judges indicates that they were not made aware of this.  Because the defense did not appear, there was arguably no way for the judges to know otherwise. Two of the justices involved in the decision had prior military experience, Justice Black as a Captain in the field artillery during WWI and Justice Frankfurter as a Major in the Army legal service; however, there is no way to know if they were personally aware of the use of shotguns by American troops. During WWI, between 30,000 and 40,000 short-barreled pump-action shotguns were purchased by the US Ordnance Department and saw service in the trenches and for guarding German prisoners.
      And McDonald v. Chicago

      https://en.wikipedia.org/...

      The key take away is that subject to place time and manner restrictions on any right.  However these restrictions are also limited because the Constitution has been found to protect private ownership firearms useful for defense of self and home or of the sort useful for militia duty.

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 08:26:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No-one shoots up banks because it's ineffective. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Daniel Case, lyvwyr101

      The controls on cash within banks has made it such that bank robberies only new people low three digits, with the exception of an inside job.

      "The first drawback of anger is that it destroys your inner peace; the second is that it distorts your view of reality. If you come to understand that anger is really unhelpful, you can begin to distance yourself from anger." - The Dalai Lama

      by auron renouille on Sat Jan 04, 2014 at 08:51:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is what was said after Newtown... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FrankRose, gerrilea, theatre goon
    So the community of hard core gun defenders will brook no compromise.  It’s not possible to work out a reasonable policy with them.  In the long run that means they will have no input to the solution that evolves; but the long run may be very long.
    To the contrary, we have had quite a bit of input.

    To the rest of the diary: In a publication designed to promote and celebrate firearms, it's not surprising that gun control talking points stir up discontent.

  •  Talking about guns sure does bring out the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lyvwyr101, earlybird

    unreasonableness in people! Every time I see a bumper sticker that says You will take my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers I can't help but wonder what kind of person would trade his life for a gun. And the answer is simple one who does not care about life which means to me that he also does not care about the life of my children or grand children. That is the person who should not own a gun. There is a differences between reasonable gun owner and the unreasonable one. A big differences one cares about the life of others and one does not and that is where the problem is. I for one have no time left for the nuts period.  Now bash away nuts I could careless what you think since you don't

    Dogs and Philosophers do the greatest good and get the fewest rewards (Diogenes)

    by Out There on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 04:49:46 AM PST

  •  I note, by the way, that some RKBA folks have (6+ / 0-)

    finally deigned to address the content of the article itself, and the effective excommunication of the journalists in question.

    Among the comments, particularly from one poster are purported equivalencies, suggesting that a writer questioning orthodoxy on regulation is somehow equivalent to an analogous writer, on our side supporting, Jim Crow, and Uganda's kill-the-gays-or-at-least-lock-them-up-for-life laws.

    So, apparently, gun control advocates are exactly the same as, say 3/5 'compromisers' or the Westboro Baptist Church.

    I think we can see why this discussion isn't going anywhere.

    •  excommunication of the journalists (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Namazga V

      That is appropriate language. It highlights the extreme offensiveness of the reasons the writers/editors were fired and ostracized.

      They were excommunicated from a quasi-religious cult of the gun.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 11:56:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site