Pro gun arguments

[nadinbrzezinski]

And especially pro carry everywhere, they are not partisan...they're a form of religion. We were talking to a very liberal friend who had his very right wing clients tell him how they'd take this guy done " if only had a chance."

Well, after five minutes I had to chuckle. They are the exact same arguments we've read here, the exact same arguments. There is no distinction whatsoever.

This is the success of the NRA. Their success also lies in scaring people that "they gonna take your guns away...you just wait, Obama will in his second term." oh never mind...that if anything Obama has further liberalized gun laws.

Of course one of their most effective argument, it's emotional not factual, is that no laws woud ever stop those who are intent of breaking them. So I gotta ask...how many other laws shoud we get rid off since they are regularly disobeyed? The obvious ones are traffic laws... But the logic can easily be used for regulations as well...it is insidious.

It is...also a form of collective insanity.

[rustydog]

1. Excellent post. It is sad for people to be so brainwashed via media, gaming, culture change...

to believe that you will remain clm, pull your licensed, well-oiled weapon to save hundreds of people in a darkened theater. Gunman comes in aside door, door closes, room is darkened againand he opens fire on the crowd. you in the balcony pullyour firearm and shoot to "take him down!"
another in the back ground level draws his weapon and shoots too. across the theater, another well-armed civilian decides he-she will save the day and returns fire to the bad-guy in the balcony. Police arrive, who do they shoot first?

Unlesssyou've been in a shooting situation, unless you've been shot at or shot. You do not know what the hell you "would do". it is loud, it is dark there is screaming, shooting, pushing, hitting kicking, you know, mass panic...Tough talk is just that tough talk by IGNORANT people.

The time for intelligent discussion on this issue is now. the time for catch phrases, name calling and knee jerk statements is long past.

Good post nadinbrsesinski!

[msongs]

2. the national racist association will not like this OP lol nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. A backlash will come

I don't know after how many mass shootings... But it will.

For the momemt the price we all pay is low level fear in public spaces.

Due to nooz gathering I've gone back to old habits, which are good for this too.

But the fact I gotta consider routes of egress, and potential cover, is the price we all get to pay. Yup, even when just shopping for milk...

[laundry_queen]

152. re: low level fear

I'm a Canadian. In the 90's - before 9/11 and passport requirements - I used to visit the US at least once a year (shopping, skiing, vacations) and no matter who I travelled with, we all said the same thing - once we crossed the border back into Canada, it was like a big sigh of relief - like you didn't even know you were holding your breath. It wasn't just because we were glad to be back in our home country - in the back of all our minds was the whole gun thing. We were exceedingly polite to people on the freeway, in the store, etc. Now maybe not all Canadians think this way, but the ones I travelled with did (that comprised of high school students, teachers, friends, family). There must be some kind of undercurrent of fear within a society where people can conceal weapons, imo.

[nadinbrzezinski]

156. there is

I got those old habits from being an EMS worker and being in way too many shoot outs, but now, gone truly back to old habits.

I remember one particular event outside a movie theater, The Last Temptation of Christ was showing. The cops surroounded a yahoo, not related to the movie, for a hot stop. Training took over, moment shot gun and 9mm cleared leather\squad car, I was pulling both a friend and sister down and into cover... cops were puzzled that at least ONE civilan knew what to do in that line of 300+ movie patrons.

[aikoaiko]

4. Is it really so wrong to want to defend yourself with a gun when someone is shooting at you?

Or to imagine stopping the carnage if you were there with a concealed firearm?

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. For the sake of this argument I am going to assume

You are good enough? What are the two factors you need to consider before you pull the trigger?

[aikoaiko]

14. The two most important factors are, in my mind,...

...is there is a real and current grave threat of injury or death and can one stop the threatening person without injuring others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Partially right

Follow through you got it

Second one you missed is clear shot.

Now we had a similar talk with a couple cops and two ex-seals...do you agree they are trained and qualified?

Due to the chaotic environment and how fast this went down....90 seconds, they all agreed a gun in this case was a last resort. You coud still stop him, if you had a chance for a high tackle from the back. That's what folks who are trained said. Two reasons, what he wore, but chiefly follow through and clear shot issues.

[aikoaiko]

23. Well I said "without injuring others"

A "clear shot" and "no one behind the target person" is implied with that line.

Like a lot of initial reports, the details some times change over time. But even if he was wearing effective body armor, not every part of his body was covered and sometimes shot to the armored chest can knock the wind of someone or on to the ground where he might have been subdued.

Had someone suggested an elderly lady could stop a massacre by grabbing a long extended magazine as the killer reloaded, most people would have thought that was "magical thinking". But it happened.

I never discount the ability of someone motivated to save their own life or the lives of their loved ones when faced with a violent person.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. How do you deal

With the very well I formed opinion of two former SEAL operators? Let's ignored the cops for the momemt, for whom a gun, a fire arm, is the absolute last choice in this scenario?

[aikoaiko]

60. No, getting shot in the face is the absolute last choice.

You need to remember that police and military have different rules of engagement because of different responsibilities compared to non-leo civilians. I respect their choices in that situation and their 20/20 hindsight given more knowledge than the actual victims had (about the body armor).

Check out the impact of this single shot to someone with pistol rated body armor. Beware: idiots in video

&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fresults%3Fsearch_query%3Dbullet%2Bproof%2Bvest%26oq%3Dbullet%2Bproof%2Bvest%26gs_l%3Dyoutube-reduced.3..0l4.122330.125960.0.126041.17.12.0.5.5.0.66.486.12.12.0...0.0...1ac.WIFBdsU3f8w&has_verified=1

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Transported a few with very nasty bruises

One officer told me, as we removed the shirt and the armor and cut the t-shirt, that he did not feel the mule kicking him...adrenalin and all that.

He was hooked, like all others, to cardiac monitor, and staid overnight in the cardiac care unit.

And LEO is allowed to make a mistake...you hit somebody, you are liable, in civilian court mind you.

[aikoaiko]

67. Agreed. Self-defense is a great responsibility not to be taken lightly.

Mistakes will be judged in court.

[Union Scribe]

42. What? What cops, what SEALS?

Who said that and where?

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Friends of ours

We live in a military town. We were just shooting the breeze over well, yes...coffee.

[zappaman]

92. Were they involved in all the shootouts with you?

How many shootouts were you involved with and when/where were they?

[dionysus]

96. damn you... owe me a new monitor...

this aughta be good...

[zappaman]

99. something like this I'll bet..

[Reasonable_Argument]

5. Um

Because many of the people here would like a collective push to ban most if not all weapons? Let's say we gave you everything you wanted and the guy walked in with 4 single action revolvers, a lever action rifle, and a double barrel shotgun and mows down 20-30 people are you seriously going to tell me you wouldn't be sprinting to your keyboards to demand more restrictions?

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. We can't even agree to...100% background checks are reasonable

And for the record, we own two weapons.

But pal, you sound like your counterparts...no, you are not a righty, not at all...it's a religion.

So next in the agenda is traffic laws?

[Reasonable_Argument]

10. Nope

Driving is not a constitutionally protected right. You cede my point then right? No amount of restrictions will ever be enough until people don't have access to firearms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Did I say that? No

You did. You want zero restrictions... In your fantasy land of the wild west, which for the record was highly regulated.

Gun bunnies...sheesh!

[Reasonable_Argument]

13. I didn't say that

I have no problem with background checks and I'd like to see mental health records linked to the NCIS system when buying a weapon. It may help prevent future tragedies.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. But even that, people on your side scream over incrementalism

Gee, we agree. We need that, and 100% background checks... Most gun owners agree with that.

[Reasonable_Argument]

18. If

FFLs are required to provide the checks for free and the state MUST facilitate an instant check booth at all gun shows at no cost and upon request I'd be all for it. Neither requiring a 4473 form (the yellow form you fill out when you buy a new weapon). It's not incrementalism because you're not banning anything, just making sure the only people who buy weapons are legally allowed to possess them. The system I outlined would have my full support

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. It's easy, wireless access to databases

It can be done, but even this...a very loud minority, which is well funded, will fight it.

You know the problem. Can't tell you how many more of these it will take for the backlash, but it will go much farther than this.

I can guarantee it...

[Reasonable_Argument]

22. Actually that, beyond the loss of life, is one of the reasons I agree to the system I outlined

I agree with the anti-gun people that eventually people will get tired of tragedies that are preventable with nothing more than a background check. Then there will be an overreaction and a restriction of our rights which will be yet another tragedy. I can walk into any gun store in the country and buy a firearm, I have no problem doing a free two second check at a gun show.

[Reasonable_Argument]

26. Did...

Did we just find common ground in the gun control debate?

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. You are the first to see this small step as reasonable

Been saying this for a few mass shootings btw.

[Scootaloo]

27. In one ear, out the other

We went over this before, you and I.

Tell Nadin how you think the 2nd amendment exists so you can take arms against the government.

[Reasonable_Argument]

29. I've not attempted to hide my interpretation of the 2nd amendment

I can in fact provide links to why I feel that way if you like.

[samsingh]

31. the second amendment says 'a regulated militia' so 'yes' regulations are reasonable

[Reasonable_Argument]

35. Never argued that

We come to an impasse regarding what the intention of the 2nd Amendment is and why it was included in the constitution. That difference in understanding leads to our differing opinions on restrictions. You believe it is about hunting and self defense. I believe it is because the founders wanted a check to power against the government should it ever become tyrannical and since we are armed the extension of that is using firearms for self-defense which is a natural right.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security".

I understand not liking it, but it's pretty black and white friend

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. What you bolder is in the declaration

Not in the Constitution.

In fact, the government reserves a right to raise an army to supress internal revolts, which they soon did with Shay's rebellion.

[Reasonable_Argument]

44. I'm obviously aware of that

It goes to their intent and Shay's rebellion is no different than the "Freemen" or anything else. If a small fringe group rises up and tries to usurp democracy they'll be put down but should the government become repressive we'll have the means to resist in what would basically be a 2nd Civil War.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Which will be put down even more effectively

Than shays. Oh I know unconventional warfare...for which guns are actually not your main tools. And given modern realities I will lay odds on the government being able to outlast the terrorists. (Using the terms likely to be used by that tyrannical government). You got better odds if somehow we actually got invaded, again red dawn fantasy though...some nukes would fly well before an enemy force lay feet on American soil.

[Reasonable_Argument]

53. You're changing the topic

You're talking about how effective it would be, not if that's the intent of the amendment or not? Are you of the opinion we need fewer restrictions to realize the amendment's intent? That would be an interesting discussion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. I am not

I like to live in reality

We already live under a pretty tyrannical gov...we have had the 1st restricted, the 4th shredded and the fifth well on it's way.

So at this point, given current realities, and recent experience in other countries...with populations even better armed...I will wish you good luck. To me it's sheer fantasy.

[Reasonable_Argument]

56. Sorry you feel that way

It's long odds but hardly impossible (hopefully we could split the military) and while I don't agree with the infringements on our other rights either we're a long way from living under a tyrannical government.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Well on it's way

Here what I expect though, and this is changing the subject.

The US is a declining world power. I expect the US to break up, and I expect many of the successor states not to continue with the 2nd, while others will. You can even almost predict the geography of this.

I also one of them to be likely a theocracy.

[samsingh]

98. interesting points but again my interpretation is different

if gun are not as much about hunting and self defense, but keeping the government in check, they will fail miserably. Any guns in the public will be no match for the military and special services. Period. I'm not sure if it is a valid example, but at the fall of the Soviet Union, Yeltin was barricaded in the government buildings with armed followers. The special forces basically said they could take them out in 10 minutes but were respecting the new order that was being formed.

Proliferation of guns (or any destructive merchandise) that allows maniacs to kill large groups of people is infringing on the Right of the people to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Tyranical democratic governments should be voted out based on ideas and what they are doing. That would be the best way to keep good government. Right now, as long as the long lobby is satisfied, and the GOP calls themselves Prolife (while being against health care, in favor of starting wars, enriching the top 1% (I'm in the group BTW), restricting women's rights, and being very pro death penalty, the GOP wins a lot of elections and gets a pass on a lot of crap (untendered contracts to Haliburton while cheney owns a lot of stocks, options in that company).

[Missycim]

33. Driving isn't a right...

So your point is invalid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Thank you for the

Predictable talking point.

[Missycim]

61. Truth is truth...

sorry if you think its a talking point. I am against ID's for voting but since some want to make you have a ID's and a Lic to buy guns, why not have those for voting? That analogy is more closer to reality then the driving one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. As long as the I'd is federal and free, easily obtainable

Alas, that is not the goal of ID laws? Is it?

And thanks for proving point, you cannot accept a simple 100% background check.

By the way, answer the question, has gun ownership been limited over the course of US history? Be honest now.

[Missycim]

72. Of course it has...

BUT and I can NEVER NEVER EVER get a straight answer out of anyone for gun control is WHAT LIMITS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?


Wow didn't I say I was for very vigorous background checks? I did say that so again you are either lying or dont know what you are talking about?

I dont know what the "goal" of Voter ID is but if you want some kind of Lic for gun owners I'd say lets get one for voters?

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. I have, stated it on this thread

100% background checks...if you cannot pass one, I understand your opposition.

[Missycim]

79. Are you ok?

I said I agree with you...or are you just doing this to pick a fight?


I started here at DU cause of a truck driving thread that was close to my heart, I really dont care much about anything else but I like a good thread

[Missycim]

83. Now you are going to say

well since you are for background checks how about registration? A lot on the pro gun control side will never be happy till most guns/rifles are banned

[MicaelS]

136. Holmes bought his guns legally...

Thus he did pass the NICS background checks.

So what is your answer now?

It's pretty obvious to a layman that Holmes, Loughner and Cho are or were all mentally ill. Maybe not as a professional would find in DSM, but it layman's terms, all of them were / are "crazy".

Since you're a medical professional, are your willing to make it much easier to involuntarily commit someone to a mental hospital? Keep them there as long as necessary? Modify HIPAA as necessary?

I have zero problem with 100% backgrounds checks. But the law will have be changed to permit individual access to NICS. And as Reasonable Argument stated:

If FFLs are required to provide the checks for free and the state MUST facilitate an instant check booth at all gun shows at no cost and upon request I'd be all for it.

Not just at gun shows, make it a toll free number.

I would force the states to make sure all their mental health data is input into NICS. But that would mean Congress would have to fully fund that data input, and not rely on the states' budgets.

As a layman, I would love to see Universal Single Payer National Health Care with comprehensive Medical, Dental and Mental Health Care. And that means we end up building hundreds of thousands of mental hospital beds instead of prisons cells. And it might mean hospitalizing some mentally ill people permanently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

140. Yes, yes he did

and in that sense Holmes is not in the majority that use, rather misuse their weapons, per national statistics.

If anything it should put a stake into the theory that only criminals will use their weapons, but it will not.

A 100% background check would actually HELP save lives, but if you do not believe that, well then, why bother with ANY of it?

(Yes, there are stats out there that speak to this, but what can I say?)

A small percentage of gun owners take these talking points as a form of religion. Most gun owners, me included, would love to see this 100% implementation done. Polling has been done, even among NRA members...

So we are held hostage, no pun, by a small, somewhat organized, and VERY LOUD group.

[MicaelS]

141. But I do believe in a 100% Background Checks.

I stated that.

And I really want your answers as a professional on my questions about involuntary commitment.

Because when these spree killing happen, there is always someone coming out afterwards.. family members, and other acquaintances stating "Well we knew something was wrong, but we couldn't do anything."

[nadinbrzezinski]

142. two ways you can do the involuntary

a seventy two hour hold, 51-50 or local police code... applies only when a person is an obvious threat to himself or others.

Statements like "I want to kill myself," "I will take so and so out..." Those are usually enough for PD EMS to haul somebody to the psych ward, locally county mental health, for a 72 hour INVOLUNTARY hold... acting deranged like naked in the middle of the street while screaming at two in the afternoon, will also earn you that treatment.

INVOLUNTARY holds that are NOT done on an emergency basis can be done as well... require a court to declare the person as non competent and can take a while, as in years at times. It usually involves a lot of testimony before a court, because that declaration which is never taken lightly. They tend to involve people with KNOWN issues, such as Alzheimers, and bipolar disorders.

[MicaelS]

144. I see both answers as big problems..

72 hours isn't long enough, and waiting years is far too long to wait. Both processes will have to be radically changed, IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. Well if the 72 hour hold was followed with

a referral and forced attendance in mental health care it would help. But the problem is that referrals are rarely done, if ever.

We had a recent example, kid who was found in the streets naked, screaming at OB. Why I used that as an example. Well, parents promptly told us that their darling kid all that was wrong was severe dehydration.

Now in the desert, sure it's possible, in the middle of the city?

But the state cannot order continued care.

As to the other, well, they are slow with partial good reason. I can use that to abuse it, and get access to all your life savings by having you declared incompetent... and all that follows. Why courts are careful, it is an usual means of elder abuse as well.

[NewMoonTherian]

46. I've been into raising the speed limit since before I was into gun rights.

That's not an effective argument for everyone.

[chowder66]

21. That would be cool...ban ALL weapons

knives, ropes, guns, etc. But that is not what the OP is suggesting. The OP is merely pointing out the talking points. In this case I will say this and probably get lambasted but..... both sides do it in this case.

We both kind of go for the jugular.

I would love it if we banned all guns but wishful thinking does not make for reality.

Since that is all it is, wishful thinking, I support better regulation and constant education for everyone. Those for and against gun control.
I also support dropping the name calling on both sides, it doesn't do anything for anyone. If 2A supporters would also consider toning it down from language like "gun grabbers" which is utter bullshit and Obama is gonna take my guns (btw- I rarely ever hear pro gun people say "take my gun" it's almost always "guns" which I think gives people slight cause for alarm and it sounds a bit overboard/indulgent to have "guns". But that may just be semantics, they may be important semantics though).

It could be someone has two guns or one hundered guns. I think that is what freaks people out a bit on the pro control side. Pro control people should consider toning it down on the accusations of all gun owners being responsible for a mass crime involving guns which is utter bullshit and stop using gun worshiper or whatever.

So if everyone would actually start toning it down and try to actually listen and discuss, maybe we can find common ground, get a better understanding of each side and actually come up with good policy. There will always be those who think in extremes and when this issue is discussed around horrific events, emotion really trumps much of the debate. It would be great to revisit this in a more calm setting when emotions are not as high. But for now...it's on a lot of peoples minds.

[Lint Head]

30. Better regulation and constant education for everyone will never happen as long as the NRA exists.

[chowder66]

41. There are reports that NRA members are

for some regulations overwhelmingly

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/24/577091/nra-members-agree-regulating-guns-makes-sense/

So maybe the registered members need to push the controlling members of the NRA to lay off the fear-mongering and propaganda???

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. They need an internal, base driven, revolt

And take over.

[Lint Head]

48. Maybe a totally new organization with reasonable bylaws that competes with the NRA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. That is also possible.

But something will have to give.

[chowder66]

84. This would probably be the way to go

since many or some of the NRA managing members seem to be about the profit vs providing membership that stabilizes and promotes smart gun ownership and services.

I doubt they could move to a more educational and smart service format because they could see a drop in revenue and/or membership. They could however see a steady increase or at least a decent retention rate if they went this way.

They prefer and rely on the surges of revenue they get each time they throw the redmeat out. Plus they would damage many of their business relationships with manufacturers and the like that reap huge profits during these mass purchases.

It seems there is a market for the slow and steady/smart services approach however. I wouldn't be surprised that this could eventually make the NRA an outdated organization down the road.

[bongbong]

108. Ironic

Another piece of irony from the gun-relgionists.

They are stocking their guns to "fight a gubmint takeover!", but ... they can't even fight their own NRA leadership!

[nadinbrzezinski]

109. Well truth be told

most gun owners are NOT NRA members either.

[bongbong]

111. Yes

My point was that even just the NRA membership thinks the positions taken by their leadership are too extreme. I recall this from the deluge of gun posts over the last few days, where I think a poll was quoted saying "80%" of the NRA membership thinks this way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. You are correct, one done by Frank Luntz

ironically... and his backed a slew of other polls done in the recent past.

[bongbong]

115. Tanks

Tanks for the info, and thanks to you it looks like my early-Altzheimer's isn't too far advanced.

BTW, here is the thread about the NRA Talking Point Takeover of DU this last weekend: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021008097

Your own thread (this one!) is getting those ancient, hoary NRA Talking Points repeated ad-nauseum. Like #6 for "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Gun-religionists find solace in those old, comfortable Big Lies.

[hughee99]

143. That's going to make CLUE a boring game...

It was Professor Plum in the Study with the sharp criticism that cuts like a knife.

[chowder66]

166. Not really, you can just use little cars instead. nt

[MNBrewer]

6. People with guns kill people.

[zappaman]

8. Technically, bullets kills people. n/t

[MNBrewer]

24. Technically, the damage caused by the bullets having been fired into the victim kills people.

Double snark.

[yawnmaster]

59. Generally, it's the lack of blood to the brain, as a result of said damage, that kills.

actually, it is the cell death caused from the lack of oxygen carried in the blood that causes death.

[EX500rider]

125. Everybody in the end dies from the same cause...heart failure n/t

[MNBrewer]

167. Although, I suppose if one is decapitated, it hardly matters how long the heart keeps beating.

[badtoworse]

11. Ever hear of incrementalism?

RKBA defenders know that "reasonable gun control" is code for whatever increment of civil rights we can take away TODAY. They also know that many (most?) in the gun control crowd will not be satisfied until firearms have been effectively banned.

Register all firearms? A necessary first step to confiscating all firearms, so why agree to it?

A limit on the amount of ammunition you could possess? Suppose it started at 1,000 rounds - how long before the gun control crowd was screaming about reducing it to 50 rounds?

Knowing that no amount of gun control will ever satisfy a substantial number of gun control people, why would a pro-gun person agree to concede anything? Next year, "reasonable gun control" will just mean greater and greater restrictions.

From a personal perspective, I've heard enough from the likes of McCarthey, Bloomberg, the Bradys, Schumer, et al not to trust them one bit when it comes to this issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Ever hears of the real Tucson AZ, or the other towns

In the wild west that we're highly regulated? No, what you guys want is zero restrictions...yup, you can own it if you can afford it, and anybody can pack everywhere. Yup, just like your counterparts in the right. Thank you for proving the point.

You are afraid that a president who has expanded gun rights will take them away too?

Just asking. So by your logic, we need no traffic laws, in fact, we need no laws.

[zappaman]

17. I have no idea what you are saying.

But most gun owners do not want ZERO regulations.
You are making this up.

In fact, it is the opposite...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021019980

[Missycim]

38. again driving isn't a right

So the analogy fails.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. So you are telling me the old west had absolutely zero gun regulations?

That is news to me and many other historians. Here is a term you'd better get familiar with....precedent.

You are also going to tell me that historically we have not restricted access to fire arms? Again, that goes against primary sources.

[Missycim]

58. I am not saying that at all

I am just tired of people comparing driving with a RIGHT. So when you do your analogy FAILS. I am not against regulations at all, but where do you want to draw the line?

I am for very vigorous background checks but other then that there isnt a lot you can do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. So since there is very little we can do

Lets get rid of all regulations, this is why that talking point is insidious.

[Missycim]

74. So you are

for a complete gun ban then? if not WHAT is acceptable to you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. Stated it already, 100% background checks

You would know this. Suffice it to say...a few folks don't like that either.

[Missycim]

78. well i am my own person thanks

and I agree 100% checks, but thats about it....

[soccer1]

116. Yes, there is a lot that can be done to regulate firearms, without infringing on the 2nd.

States can regulate and even ban firearms.....of course, those laws might be challenged in the courts. However, the SC has really only said that the 2nd gives citizens the right to own a hand gun for self protection in the home. This ruling seems to give the federal courts a lot of leeway in upholding laws that are challenged within the states. I'm not a legal expert, but from everything I've read on the SC decision on DC vs Heller, that's the impression I come away with.

[badtoworse]

69. There are gun control laws I support. I oppose "feel good" laws that accomplish nothing.

Mentally disturbed or developmentally disabled people should not have access to firearms, nor should minors except under adult supervision. Felons, illegal aliens and (legitiamtely?) suspected terrorists should not be able to legally get a gun. I favor background checks for all purchases of handguns including private sales. (That would mean making the NICS available for private sales) I would favor mandatory training (provided at cost) and demonstration of competency prior to being allowed to own a handgun. I favor laws that hold you responsible for preventing children from accessing your guns. I support the restrictions on private ownership of fully automatic weapons and other items regulated by the NFA. I support harsh sentences for crimes committed with a firearm.

What I don't support: Laws that make a private citizen prove a need before the state will grant a CCW or handgun purchase permit. The onus should be on the state to demonstrate to a judge why your civil rights should be restricted. I don't support legislation limiting gun owners to decades old technology (e.g. revolvers as opposed to a modern pistol or bolt/lever action rifles as opposed to semiautomatics). I don't support limiting magazine capacity because this would accomplish little or nothing (except maybe cost Democrats seats in Congress as it did in 1994). As a practical matter, a standard magazine is just as deadly in the hands of a competetent shooter and a lot more reliable. I don't support limiting the number of guns or the amount of ammo you can own because this too would accomplish virtually nothing except piss off legitimate gun owners with the same results as the AWB. I don't support exorbinant taxes on guns or ammo, and I don't support annual fees to maintain a permit - these are just backdoor ways of restricting the exercise of 2nd Amendment rights.

I haven't seen or heard anything from the gun control crowd (especially here) that convinces me that there is a level of gun control that is reasonable (in their mind) short of complete confiscation. The fact that confiscation might be difficult to accomplish now, as a political matter, doesn't change the fact that that is their ultimate goal. Obviously, I'm not willing to go there, so what should be the basis of a dialogue? Would you compromise on an issue knowing the other side is going to be back for more next year? There are improvements to gun laws I could support, but they would involve improving NICS and screening for mental illness, not making it more difficult or more expensive for legitimate gunowners to obtain guns or ammo.

In the end, this is a trust issue as much as anything and the Bloombergs, Schumers and Lautenbergs in this country are as much to blame as the NRA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Been posting for a few mass shootings now

That we need 100% background checks for the reasons you stated...

Reasonable people agree to that...and even that is frequently shot down as unreasonable.

So at this point I must conclude that if we cannot agree to that (for the record, polling data supports this is actually popular) when the backlash comes, will be amusing to watch.

[badtoworse]

89. I thought I posted that supported background checks on all handgun purchases.

Rifles are involved in a very small percentage of crimes that I don't believe it's needed for them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. All fire arms, no exceptions.

It does not matter that they are used in just a few crimes.

One is one too many.

[badtoworse]

94. Would you trade a federal CCW License to get that?

It would be a "shall issue" license and valid throughout the country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. I was once offered a federal one

due to a few of the customers I transported. I can imagine the shock, when I actually told the FBI no thank you.

Perhaps it is the job I did for ten years, but no, no thank you.

Now that does not mean I will deny you your rights to own LEGALLY a fire arm, and unless you cannot pass a background check, I really do not get the reluctance.

[zappaman]

101. You didn't have a CCW when you were in those shootouts?

What kind of guns did you use?
Must have been scary being in "a few shootouts". Does one ever get used to it?

[badtoworse]

102. I just don't see the need and I've already passed a background check to legally purchase handguns

It does irk me that my NJ permits are not recognized in New York, so I cannot bring my guns there even though I spend substantial time in the Adirondacks and would like to use them there for legitimate sporting purposes. To my knowledge, there is no legal mechanism that would allow me to do that. That does not seem reasonable - no other civil right disappears when you cross a state line. A federal permit would make it a moot point.

You have to pay the cost of a background check and I don't like paying for things that aren't needed. Rifles and shotguns are used in such a small percentage of violent crimes that I don't believe it's reasonable to impose the inconvenience and expense on the public. I don't feel so strongly about it though that I wouldn't negotiate over it to get a concession that would have value, like a federal CCW permit.

[loli phabay]

104. transported, where you a freelance marshal or bounty hunter

cant think of many other civilians who would need a federal ccw who transport. oh i no there are some contractors who work for the BOP and ICE

[badtoworse]

105. How about people who travel or have residences in multiple states, as I do.

In any case, need is not the issue. Civil rights don't stop at the state line.

[loli phabay]

106. i got no problem with them, was just wondering why the FBI would actively offer one, seems kinda off

[MNBrewer]

25. I'm ok with that.

[DanTex]

36. A very poor argument.

What you are saying is equivalent to opposing universal healthcare because it's the first step towards Stalinism. And, not coincidentally, the same right-wing idiots are the ones pushing both of those arguments.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. The gun rights are pushed by people on all sides

This is bipartisan.

[DanTex]

52. Not really.

Yes, there are some progressives pushing the NRA line, but it is mostly a right-wing phenomenon. It's not a coincidence that the people speaking at NRA conventions are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Grover Norquist, and so on.

[nadinbrzezinski]

66. Have you been reading DU

Go visit the gungeon, no serious.

They are more vocal, but it is pretty much a loud, small, bipartisan group. Emphasis on loud and small.

But they got pols on all sides running scared.

[DanTex]

80. I know all about the gungeon.

I agree that that there are some fanatically pro-gun progressives. But, mind you, there are also pro-life progressives, and progressives who think that global warming is a hoax, and progressives who believe in "traditional marraige", and so on. That doesn't change the fact that the people pushing these agendas are mostly right-wingers.

And BTW, it is an open secret that some (not all) of the more vocal gungeon posters are either not actually Democrats or else conservative/libertarian "Blue Dog" type Dems.

Like I said, there are some Democrats who strongly support gun rights, but these tend to be people like Howard Dean, who, despite being pro-gun, supported the assault weapons ban. But people like Howard Dean don't talk about "second amendment solutions" or "slippery slope to confiscation" or conspiracy theories about Fast and Furious, or any of the other loony stuff that you hear from the NRA crowd.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Or right here on the ol DU

They are really a very small, but loud crowd.

And yes, the NRA s not your father's NRA...hell the membership needs to expel likes of one Wayne LaPierre, and the rest of the crowd.

Neither s the GOP.

But read this thread, the thing most gun owners agree with, from polling data, is somehow gun grabbing.

Even the least intrusive is controversial.

And the talking point of laws are not the solution, is insidious and will transfer to other things.

[The Magistrate]

50. Always Nice, Sir, To Hear a Man State Flat Out He Is a Paranoiac

Of course, in a well-ordered polity, persons of disturbed mind are not consulted in the formulation of policy, particularly policy involving the power of death and life....

[badtoworse]

81. That's a sword that cuts two ways

There is an awful lot of paranoia on the gun control side as well.

I would not equate paranoia with distrust and I've seen little that from the gun control that would inspire me to trust them.

[DanTex]

88. Wrong.

The most vocal and visible gun control advocates tend to be:
1) People who have suffered or witnessed a personal tragedy (e.g. Brady, Colin Goddard)
2) Mayors of big cities, trying to reduce gun violence (e.g. Bloomberg)
3) Social scientists and doctors who have done research about the harmful effects of guns on public safety (Hemenway, Wintemute)

There is no paranoia here. You might argue that the people in the first group, those who have witnessed the effects of gun violence first-hand, are driven by emotion, but this is no different than, say, someone devoting their life to medical cause after losing a loved one to a particular disease.

On the other hand, fear and paranoia are the principal drivers of pro-gun extremism. From Wayne LaPierre's "massive Obama conspiracy", to the Fast and Furious stuff, to the "slippery slope" idea that if we require background checks for private sales, next thing you know there will be door-to-door gun confiscation, on down to your average gun nut who lives his live in "condition yellow", ready to blow the head off of the bad guy hiding around every corner.

[badtoworse]

93. Do you read what gets posted here by gun control advocates?

Seems pretty paranoid to me.

I've been following this issue for a long time and I've heard what many in the gun control crowd have said. What they are trying to accomplish does not seem reasonable to me. I choose to fight that agenda - that is not paranoia, it's my prerogative. I also choose to fight as effectively as I can. Why shouldn't I? Isn't that what the gun control crowd is doing?

[DanTex]

95. LOL. So you can't actually come up with a single example of gun control paranoia.

Just that you've seen some posts on an internet forum that "seem pretty paranoid".

The "incrementalism" argument is the very embodiment of paranoia and extremism. Gun registration would save lives, and would have very little effect on law abiding gun owners. The only reason to oppose it is extremism and paranoia: the fantasy where somehow if guns are registered, next thing you know the government is going to come knocking on doors to take guns away. It is your prerogative to be paranoid, but you are definitely paranoid.

[badtoworse]

97. I'm using a smartphone on the bus coming home from work

If I have some time, I'll look into it after dinner.

[badtoworse]

103. Here are some cases that come to mind

What was Richard Daley's response following McDonald? Did he and the City Council pass laws that respected the spirit of the SCOTUS decision and provided Chicago citizens with reasonable access to a means of self defense? The answer is no. The city's response was to ban gunshops so there would be no place to buy a handgun. They also required extensive training, but banned ranges within the city so there would be no place to actually get training within the city limits. Those laws and other aspects of Illinois law (such as a complete ban on CCW) are still being fought in the courts. Gun violence in Chicago is among the worst in the nation, yet the city remains intent on depriving its citizens the ability to defend themselves that is guaranteed as a civil right. To me, that indicates a lack of trust in their own law abiding citizens and smacks of paranoia. IIRC, Washington D.C.'s response wasn't much better.

How about the concerted efforts in the late 90's and early 2000's by various cities to sue gun manufacturers under every imaginable legal theory? Gun manufacturers were producing a legal product and complying with all legal requirements regarding their sale, but were forced to spend millions to defend lawsuits aimed at third party, criminal misuse of their product. I'm not aware of any other legal product that had to deal with that. Auto manufacturers were never sued when drunk drivers killed people on the highways. The purpose of the lawsuits was to either bankrupt the gun manufacturers or drive their legal costs to the point where they could not afford to sell their products at a reasonable price. IOW, to drive them out of business. What's the problem here - the gun control crowd too paranoid to trust the issue to the legislatures? Gun control folks scream about the the NRA's influence in Congress, but we should just accept abuse of the courts by the gun control side.

How about the legislative response to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act? The purpose of that law was to protect lawful manufacturers from being bankrupted by frivolous lawsuits. Seems reasonable to me, but it was vehemently opposed by the gun control crowd and numerous legislators voted against it. They would apparently been quite happy to see the domestic firearms either driven out of business or rendered incapable of selling firearms to the public. Were they paranoid about the response from the gun control side? How should an RKBA supporter view their votes on that law?

How about Diane Feinstein's comments following passage of the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994? Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here". She's not paranoid about law abiding citizens owning modern firearms? I shouldn't be paranoid when a powerful senator makes a statement like that?

How about the Attorney General, Eric Holder's amicus brief in the Heller case? He argued that the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual right. OK, this isn't really paranoia on his part, but I shouldn't be concerned when the Attorney General goes on record with that position?

I could keep looking, but it's getting late. When I look at stuff like, my gut tells me that the people in question cannot be trusted on the issue. If that's paranoia to you, so be it. To me, it's just prudence.

[bongbong]

110. Huh?

> OK, this isn't really paranoia on his part, but I shouldn't be concerned when the Attorney General goes on record with that position?

Why should you be concerned? That is what previous SCOTUS decisions concerning the 2nd Amendment concluded, until the repig-appointed & Koch-sucker ultra-conservatives on the present court overturned decades of precedent and mis-ruled on Heller.

[badtoworse]

114. Citations? What cases are you referring to?

[bongbong]

117. Miller, for one

In Miller, the SCOTUS said this in their decision:

Unless a weapon "has some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument"

Decided in 1939.

2012-1939 = decades of precedent.

Any questions?

The bonus is that I found this on a gun-religionist website!

[badtoworse]

122. You should have read more about Miller

That case dealt with a sawed off shotgun and whether that particular weapon was protected under the 2nd Amendment. The court ruled that it was not protected because it was not of the type that a militia member would be normally be expected to carry. That is still true under the Heller and McDonald decisions, so Miller was not overturned.

[bongbong]

131. Yep, I did

The text I posted, part of Miller, stands by itself. It is an affirmation of the "group right" of the 2nd Amendment. Once again, straight from the decision:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

Now, substitute "handgun", or "assault rifle", or any of the different types of Precious that gun-relgionists droll over for "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length". It doesn't matter, the sentence would read the same. The key is that the SCOTUS said that a weapon must have "some reasonable relationship" to a well-regulated militia for the 2nd Amendment to affect it.

Thanks for playing.

[badtoworse]

139. If the SCOTUS had intended Miller to apply to firearms in general, they would have said so.

You can make whatever assumption you want about what the court really meant, but the plain language is specific to only one type of weapon. The fact is that Miller was not about firearms in general, so I would say that it was silent as to the question of whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

If it makes you feel better believing that Heller reversed Miller, then by all means, continue with the fantasy.

[bongbong]

148. No they wouldn't

> If the SCOTUS had intended Miller to apply to firearms in general, they would have said so.

Well, you proved you don't read many SCOTUS decisions. So we know that.

[badtoworse]

151. If you have a better citation, then post it. What you've posted so far doesn't cut it.

[bongbong]

153. Oh yeah?

> If you have a better citation, then post it. What you've posted so far doesn't cut it.

You've already made one mega-obvious mistaken generalization about SCOTUS rulings. Based upon that post, I wouldn't expect you to understand their thought process.

[DanTex]

121. Those aren't examples of paranoia.

Those are examples of people who are in favor of gun control. But it's not paranoid to want to get guns off the street. It's common sense. 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year, a rate far higher than any other wealthy nation. Even if you disagree and think that gun rights are so important that it's worth this level of death toll, it doesn't mean that people who don't think "guns=freedom" are paranoid.

Paranoid is a person who can't leave the house without a loaded gun, who thinks that any moment now the government is going to show up at the door to confiscate guns. Who thinks that Obama is part of some "massive conspiracy" to take away guns. Who thinks that Fast and Furious was just a propaganda scheme to build up a case for gun control. Etc.

Also, it's absurd to support that bill that protected gun manufacturers from liability lawsuits. This is one of the most right-wing bills that the NRA has ever pushed through congress. "Tort reform" is basically a guise under which conservatives fight to give corporations more power, by making it more difficult to sue them. The fact that it is the gun industry specifically getting legal immunity makes it all the more insidious.

[badtoworse]

123. Sure looks like paranoia to me, but that shouldn't be a surprise.

Our views on the issue are diametrically opposite.

[DanTex]

124. It doesn't look like you know what "paranoia" means.

Hint: it's not just some word to describe people you don't like.

[badtoworse]

132. This has gotten boring

If you think I'm paranoid for not trusting gun control advocates that's fine and I don't really care.

I'm comfortable in my own skin and I'll keep fighting for what I believe in. I'm sure you'll do the same.

[harun]

28. This isn't about guns, it is about violence.

[samsingh]

32. violence enabled by access to a lot of guns

[savalez]

70. Drunk driving is not about drinking or cars.

It's the combination of both. I doubt that guy would've went into the theater and tried to punch everybody to death. His arsenal definitely had an affect on him.

[NCTraveler]

62. "So I gotta ask...how many other laws shoud we get rid off since they are regularly disobeyed?"

The list is long.

"The obvious ones are traffic laws"

Where is traffic in the constitution? I am sure you are aware this is a false analogy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. I am sure you are aware you just engaged in a talking point

So tell me, have gun rights never, cross your heart, been regulated in the United States? If you cannot connect the "shit legally there is nothing we can do about this," with the push to deregulate all, I really can't help it.

[NCTraveler]

71. I have no clue who you are responding to.

I am pretty sure is was meant for someone else. If it was meant for me, it is word salad at best.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Word salad indeed

Perhaps you really do not want to look up how much gun ownership historically has been restricted, since before there was a United States, to be exact.

Have a good day.

[NCTraveler]

82. I just don't see what this has to do with my post.

"Perhaps you really do not want to look up how much gun ownership historically has been restricted, since before there was a United States, to be exact."

It was a poor analogy. That is what I was pointing out.

I was also pointing out that there are many laws that are ignored that almost all of du would like to get rid of.

If your premise is wrong, the rest probably isn't much better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Good bye

[NCTraveler]

87. Have a blessed day.

[pintobean]

90. "collective insanity"

Nice, nadin. I guess that goes back to the Founding Fathers.

[bongbong]

107. Yes

Your post is spot-on. I even created a thread that mentioned the parrot-like nature of the gun-relgionists repeating NRA Talking Points .. which got replies feigning ignorance of the Talking Point Parroting from the Usual Suspects.

Pretty funny how they march in lockstep, but in reality it's extremely sad since Americans die every day so they can keep their Precious.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Isaac Asimov

Or, as someone pointed out, it is the first refuge of the incompetent.

[Reasonable_Argument]

118. Totally agree

Would should have just asked the British out for tea and talked things over

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. It probably would have worked.

Seeing as the colonists had more freedom than the Brits in Britain and paid less taxes.

[Reasonable_Argument]

126. So

You think we could have talked our way to independence? That's very very naive. I mean, if that's the case then all the British colonies should have probably just said, "hey guys, this whole occupation thing sucks would you mind leaving" a few decades sooner.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

150. So, who knows?

There are innumerable "what if's" in history.

Canada and Australia talked their way to independence. And, a host of other former colonies.

[bongbong]

120. Talking Point #12

Congrats on your ability to echo the NRA.

[Reasonable_Argument]

127. I know you think there's a grand conspiracy where we're all fed talking points

Which is exactly how the right feels about you, but in reality many of us just use this nice brain we've evolved to work it out for ourselves. Congratulations though, you've become exactly what you despise.

[bongbong]

134. LOL

> I know you think there's a grand conspiracy where we're all fed talking points

Show me where I said there's a "grand conspiracy". PROVE IT, in the words of gun-relgionists everywhere.

Groupthink doesn't need direction, it happens via much more subtle means. This has been studied for decades. Bernays was one of the theorists that perfected it, and that was decades ago. His methods are still being used by right-wing nutjobs, repigs, teabaggers, and the NRA 24x7.

> just use this nice brain we've evolved to work it out for ourselves.

Funny, the prevailing Common Wisdom is that any gun control measure is doomed to fail. By that metric, gun-relgionists are the ones going "bah bah bah" and eating grass, while in contrast the dreaded "gun grabbers!" are the ones who are thinking for themselves.

Sorry you're in the state you're in.

[Reasonable_Argument]

137. Nice theory

But before all these posts started popping up I hadn't thought about gun rights in a very long time. Much less actively discussed them. Do you think I spend all day listening to pro gun arguments? Also I never said "any gun control measure is doomed to fail" the 2nd amendment is like any other. If left undefended it will be removed. Do go on though, I find it amusing.

[bongbong]

147. More laughs, as always

> But before all these posts started popping up I hadn't thought about gun rights in a very long time.

It also appears you joined DU right after guns became the topic du jour. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.



> Also I never said "any gun control measure is doomed to fail" the 2nd amendment is like any other.

And I never claimed you did. Show me where I claimed you said that. PROVE IT in the words of gun relgionists.

Your strawman is amusing. Do you have more to post?

[Reasonable_Argument]

149. You're tilting at windmills friend nt

[bongbong]

155. Obvious

> You're tilting at windmills friend nt

Yeah, just like you "never thought much about gun rights" until you got on DU a day after the tragedy and started furiously typing dozens of posts a day about how wonderful guns were.

How transparent, and how obvious you gun-religionists are.

[Reasonable_Argument]

158. I was always a pro 2nd amendment guy

But honestly I hadn't thought about them in quite a while until I saw them attacked here and elsewhere in the wake of the tragedy. Personally I thought the issue was settled.

[bongbong]

159. Yawn

You still here trying to explain away your sudden appearance on DU?

Funny stuff! Do you do the Comedy Cellar standup nights?

[Hoyt]

128. The "cowboy hero" mentality of gun culture is one of main reasons I'm against carrying in public.

[Reasonable_Argument]

129. You have a very biased view of people who carry a weapon without any basis in fact nt

[fascisthunter]

130. Probably from the sampling of those arguing on DU against any regulations

can't blame that poster.

[Hoyt]

133. Well, I've known plenty of pro-gun types that should never be allowed near a gun. And

Who can forget the recent incident where some carrrying "hero" thought he'd save a clerk being robbed? The shaky cowboy shot her in the head instead of the robber who fled. Truthfully, I think he was just trying to save his own rear and really didn't care a bit about the innocent clerk.

[Reasonable_Argument]

135. If we want to play the examples game

I can start posting links where guns have saved lives. A gun is just a tool, it can be used for whatever purpose the mind behind that tool wishes.

[X_Digger]

138. Says the ex-robber?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

I'm sorry, you lost any last shred of respect I had for you when you admitted to being a thug. Though it does shed some light on why you're so quick to judge anyone who shoots a robber.

[Taverner]

146. My argument against gun control is that it doesn't work

Of course, neither does CCW

Most guns collect dust, and end up shooting pieces of paper much more than people or animals

Most CCW holders packing heat never get a chance to use their guns

At the same time, if you ban guns they would just go underground, and we'd never know how many guns are out there

I am all for a government database telling law enforcement if a home they are about to enter an armed house or not

This is not taking away guns - this is simply information everyone should have access to

Keep in mind none of this would have stopped the Aurora shooting

Nothing could have, and I think that's why so many of us are on edge

We can't do squat about psychopaths who want to kill

And that makes us feel very vulnerable

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. If we cannot get over the 100% background check

database? Forget about it. And yes, it falls in reasonable measures too.

Channeling the NRA.

Database, that way they can take the guns away. You'll have government agents kicking the doors in the dead of night to take your guns away.

As to Holmes, more will come, since we are not dealing with the reasons why those are occurring... guns are part of it, and access to them. It is debatable how much of a principal role they play. The competency hearing will tell us far more.

As to on edge, well when Columbine happened I was shocked, this... just confirmed we are sick as a society, unwilling to do anything about it, and on a personal level I need to ALWAYS do a tactical assestment of EVERYWHERE I go...

I am damn glad I do not have children, especially children growing up in such a sick society.

[Taverner]

157. I don't mind background checks

Hell, I think we should have a national, publicly searchable database of who owns guns

To me, that is not gun control

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. Yeah, but have you been reading DU

or listening to the NRA? A simple one not accessible they are screaming... a searchable one... YOU NUTS?

It will take a few more of these shootings and the reaction will be what they fear.

[Taverner]

161. The NRA is insane and more like a cult than a PAC

And they brainwash their followers

Goebbels would be proud!

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. there ya go

but not even the Base at the NRA believes this crap they spout. Polls, even one by Luntz, tells us that the leadership (and a few of our friends here), are as far from what they want as could be.

(They need an internal revolt and to throw out the likes of LaPierre)

[Turbineguy]

163. What about buying a gun

because you are afraid of the NRA?

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. As long as we accept a 100% background check

by all means.

Make sure you learn how to use it.

Make sure you keep it safe.

you know the drill.

Most gun owners are actually NOT nutty, and accept common sense measures, and that INCLUDES over half of the members of the NRA. Now the leadership... let's not go there. They make run of the mill gun nuts sound rational... yes Wayne LaPierre I am talking about you.

[Turbineguy]

165. Check

check, check,

and check.