General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo the 2nd amendment extremists - you have the blood of children on your hands
Fucking enough - to defend unlimited gun rights today reveals you as the bottom dwellers that you are. You are part of the problem. You are the enablers.
Your absolutism kills. Your patron the NRA is an accomplice to these shootings.
Your unyielding opposition sounds like a cheer as the bodies are being dragged out of the school. They are merely sacrifices to your second amendment god. Collateral damage so you can stroke and coo at your precious gun.
Mods - there are many angry people today with just cause. I humbly suggest that you declare a moratorium on gun rights extremists today and ban those who only join DU to antagonize us during this period of heightened emotion.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)and somebody will have the courage to take some serious action on this issue.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)with a moral conscience. Or at least this is my hope.
And the gun nuts feel it, too. Their defense has reached a fever pitch because they know this may very well be the tipping point.
And they have no one to blame but themselves since they oppose any kind of reasonable gun regulations. I hope they reap the whirlwind.
dsc
(52,161 posts)I was wrong.
Hayabusa
(2,135 posts)is much worse.
PM Martin
(2,660 posts)If they could, the NRA and their paranoid white supremacist redneck trash mebers would allow missiles in the hands of the civilian populace.
sanatanadharma
(3,703 posts)...need to quit the organization with a clear statement that they DO accept the words of the 2nd amendment, "well regulated".
Politicub
(12,165 posts)support extremism.
If they give a dime to the NRA, they don't get a pass just because they click on the safety or put their gun in a safe. They're just as culpable as the extremists.
byeya
(2,842 posts)the Filthy Five on the Supreme Court who refuse to acknowledge the "well regulated militia" phrase which is the heart of the 2nd Amendment.
The arms makers and importers should not escape condemnation either.
hack89
(39,171 posts)about 4 million out of 56 million.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)It's the lobby of the gun industry, and it promotes and finances pro-gun regulations.
hack89
(39,171 posts)with that kind of membership, money and political clout?
That is what it will take to counter the NRA.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)Response to SummerSnow (Reply #169)
hack89 This message was self-deleted by its author.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and only when it is called up.
Response to PavePusher (Reply #104)
Post removed
cbayer
(146,218 posts)
There is responsibility for this.
It lies with gun extremists.
Change must happen.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)The zero count posters that I have seen all express distress and outrage at the gun problem or sickness of the nation.
Maybe it's sock puppet hand wringing, who can say.
But when recognizable gunners re-emerge they usually start by chiding anti's for savoring the shock value of the story as serving our authoritarian agenda.
godai
(2,902 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)Posting that someone was stabbed at a school in china and making the nonsensical claim that it's the same, using straw men and idiot examples to change the subject, acting like you're "curious" and can't understand what the fuss is about, saying guns don't kill people.
Things like that. Does that help you better understand poor confused Marengo?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)If all law-abiding gun owners are expected to bear personal and moral resposibility for the illegal use of a weapon by an insane person, then the standard may most certainly apply to anyone possessing a knife.
I would be most interested to know your edged weapon control position.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)The gun messiah hath come to enlighten us.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)A knife pretty much limits the death toll to 1 or 2.
A gun makes the death toll potentially dozens or more.
Not even close to being equal situations. You can outrun a knife-wielding lunatic... you can't outrun a gun-wielding one.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Shit, 22 yesterday in China. 22 people in a school.
And that's been happening for years. Usually 6-10 people, usually in a school. It's china's equivalent of US school shootings. (They don't have ready access to firearms)
I agree, at least with the premise, a firearm is more efficient. But to say 'you never read about', is missing some very recent, very disturbing headlines.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Do you have a link?
On edit: 22 were INJURED, including one teacher.
Try again
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)8 dead. http://news.sky.com/story/778981/eight-killed-in-china-stabbing-rampage
28 wounded. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/world/asia/30china.html?_r=0
8 dead, five injured http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-08/02/c_131756787.htm (Previous link to 8 dead was a year and a half old)
1 dead, five injured http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-04/27/c_131556735.htm
7 injured http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2012-01/20/c_131371126.htm
There's lots more. Another that started out as a guy running his car up on the sidewalk into a crowd, and then jumped out and started stabbing people... It's bad. It's hard to catalog them all, there are so many and the search terms start running over each other.
Now, there are other countries with similar gun control laws to China, like the UK. Here's 7 dead there, BUT, this is highly unusual for them. Suggesting a cultural difference that the US and China could possibly learn from.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-08/15/c_131048781.htm
I totally agree that guns are more likely to produce a lethal wound, and can more easily injure more people at once. There is a reason we advanced, as a species, militarily, from edged and puncturing weapons, to firearms. I am simply cautioning that for one, these incidents are not unique to people with guns, nor are they unique to the united states.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)You can kill a lot of people very rapidly with a rifle or semi pistol.
NOT with a knife.
You know it; I know it.
I am a gun owner, but not a delicate flower.
I'd probably jump a fool with a knife, as little as I am, to protect others. There's probably no way I'd be able jump a guy with an assault rifle. I'd just be one more dead.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)IN CHINA. I say In China specifically because yes, in the US firearms are far more readily available. No argument there. And firearms expose, even with a relatively unskilled user, more people in the general vicinity of the attack, to injury. It is easier to use a gun. A gun is a force multiplier. Anyone who says different isn't being honest.
But the comment I addressed was "A knife pretty much limits the death toll to 1 or 2." by a different poster.
It doesn't. It DOES appear to limit the death toll somewhat, but not as much as that poster is assuming.
Otherwise, you and I agree. Guns are a force multiplier, and are a greater risk.
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)Goody for you.
I'm too sickened by it all to care how you amuse yourself...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That was completely uncalled for.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Five isn't a lot?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/2229445/Five-police-officers-killed-in-knife-attack-in-China.html
I know many people can be killed quickly with a semi-auto firearm, and I'm not suggesting otherwise.
However, edged tools can also be effective enough to kill multiple persons in a relatively short period of time. So, why no discussion of the culpability of ALL knife owners?
I've always been curious about this.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)it;s pretty simple, actually.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is is obvious with you.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)As the definition of porn is highly subjective, therefore so is the definition of "extremist"
As I do not know your mind and what you "see", how about explaining it?
Why is it so difficult to answer a simple question?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)As has been proven, edged weapons are used with some frequency to harm multiple numbers of people in a single attack.
The point is what collective moral responsibility do knife owners have to limit the harm created by a similar tool in the hands of the deranged or criminally inclined.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)"can outrun a guy with a knife"?
How many cites would you like proving the opposite?
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Cite that!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I never made such an absurb claim.
You, however...
paleotn
(17,912 posts)....contribute their hard earned money to an organization who's chief goal is to increase gun manufacturer revenues, consequences be damned, then yes, they do bear personal responsibility. Extremists are the ones who use ridiculous fallacies such as the tired, old "edged weapons" analogy. A knife can be used as a tool, never meant for defense or offense. Last I checked, it was tough to cut materials efficiently with a Glock 9mm.
As for the organized, gun extremists, back in my old home state of TN, recently the NRA strongly backed the following legislation...
Guns in bars....even against a proprietors wishes.
"Guns in the trunk"....That's right, employees can now take their guns to work with them, as long as said weapons are left in the car. How could that ever go wrong?
...but it gets worse. Guns in other formerly "gun free" zones such state and local schools and parks. Which makes even less sense, given current events.
In the recent election, the NRA helped "primary" Republican TN legislators who didn't go along in lock step with these absolutely nutty ideas.
As a responsible gun owner, I don't need a 20 round clip. If you think you do, you probably need to work on your accuracy instead. I don't need 1,000 rounds of ammo at any one time. I don't "carry and conceal" because one Saturday of training and a permit from the local Sheriff's dept. DOES NOT qualify me to make split second, life or death decisions. That takes months and years of training and retraining for law enforcement and military personnel. I don't need to buy 5 or 6 handguns at one time. All of those things and more are blasphemous to NRA zealots and as I've said before, I'm sick and damn tired of them given people like myself a bad name. Hopefully the time has come to gut that despicable organization once and for all!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)They are nothing more than a SUPERPAC for Serial Killers
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Good we agree on something!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)You have assumed much, knowing nothing of me.
"You can outrun a guy with a knife"
Are you certain of this? Do you know my medical history?
neverforget
(9,436 posts)for the guy with the knife to kill you, he has to get up close and personal whereas a guy with a gun can shoot you from a distance. Sorry I had to explain that to you.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)That I am capable of running any distance at all. I am partially disabled my friend.
Now, care to explain why the vicitms of this crime were not so easily able to outrun a teenager with a knife as you apparantly claim EVERYONE can?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-19091840
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)For this and other reasons (openly bi-sexual as a teenager in a time and place such a thing was unacceptable) I tend to be very sensitive on the topic of empowerment. For me, the right to possess a firearm is a significant expression, if I use the word properly, of my own personal empowerment. I have reasons to do so, and I believe they are perfectly justified given my personal experience. I am not insane, nor do I appreciate the suggestion that I "have blood on my hands" for simple act of owning a firearm for protection.
I notice you didn't say such a thing, so none of this is directed towards you. I simply took offensive at your statement.
Jonny
(25 posts)An extremist is somebody, who in the face of a disaster like this, is confused about what makes somebody a gun extremist.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Like all gun nuts do.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)is "Denying reality. Like all gun nuts do."
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"What makes one an "extremist""
Any type of implication, regardless of how straightforward or how disingenuous, that the violent deaths of close to 30 school children in one day, in one location, by one person are an unavoidable price we pay for the 2nd Amendment.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)And do please cite where I stated such a thing is "unavoidable"
Response to Marengo (Reply #9)
Post removed
Jonny
(25 posts)I second this statement.
If this doesn't make you think there is some problem with guns, you are a gun extremist.
And not a very nice person!!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)How anyone can come out in defense of guns on a day like this is just beyond me. It's sickening.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Asking the OP to clarify a broad and subjective term such as "extremist" is defending guns?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)The abolitionism you see is imaginary.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)If you think covering for murdered children is some kind of illusion, then I can't help you.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)A mirror is an object that allows the user to view himself or herself. Thus, you could use one to view the asshole that is spewing NRA talking points at this exceptionally inappropriate time.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I would be most interested to know, not being aware of such myself.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Marengo
(3,477 posts)as long as it is provided by the admins. If/when they remove it as an option, I will choose another.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Dishonest rhetoric won't change gun policy here in the US.
I don't own guns, I don't even like guns, but I think we should be honest when we discuss issues that are important to us.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Take a moment.
You are lashing out at people who don't deserve what you are slinging.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I'm all ears. I'd probably support it.
But it has to actually make them difficult to acquire. Not "difficult to acquire legally". "Difficult to acquire".
Politicub
(12,165 posts)You are part of the problem. There are no perfect laws, and you will find fault with whatever anyone suggests. Everyone sees through the bullshit today.
If you give a damn, why don't you educate yourself and suggest some. We'll be waiting.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I made my point very clearly and didn't attack you or anyone else.
I think laws outlawing guns would be as unsuccessful at actually getting rid of them as laws outlawing alcohol were and laws outlawing drugs are. You don't have to agree with that. But I didn't attack you at all. And if you're actually interested in engaging me here, you can tell me what kind of law you have in mind that makes guns actually difficult to acquire.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Laws that slow down the gun madness. Even if the laws make a small dent, it's worth it.
I honestly don't know what there is to engage about in relation to laws on this thread. There are others better suited to policy discussions.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)... but only if I thought the law would actually reduce gun violence. And I haven't yet seen one that I think would.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Propose you're going to find fault with.
And maybe you won't, but I'm sick of the circular discussions on this issue and am a little burned on it.
But I'll float a trial balloon - tax the fuck out of ammo. Make it hard to acquire and place strict limits on distribution and how much people can buy at once. Create an ammo waiting period.
Won't solve everything, but it will make a positive difference over time.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And, yes, I'm sick of the violence and excuses made for it too, and what passes for discussion and debate about this, even on DU which is one of the best places I know of to talk to people.
I like the ammo tax. In fact I like excises in general, as a revenue matter, but that's another kettle. I like the ammo limit. I was in the Marines for 7 years and we had to account for every. single. round. we were ever handed. Have a limit on private purchase (per quarter, say) and if you want to go shoot at the range, they'll be happy to sell you the rounds to shoot there (with some sort of way of making sure people aren't sneaking the rounds off).
There you go. You have something you and I can get behind.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)and it gets me wound up.
They're just little children.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I'm curious as well
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)All very reasonable. Wouldn't stop all shootings. Not even close, but it will create a dent and will be progress.
Response to Politicub (Reply #184)
Eleanors38 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to Politicub (Reply #184)
Eleanors38 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)1. Rifles account for -3% of all homicides, and AWs are just one example of rifle within that group. There are several auto-loading rifles which have been in use before the Pentagon let a conteact for "assault rifles" (full auto). These rifles don't look like your "assault weapons. I have one. 106 yrs old. It would "look" like an air gun to you.
I don't much care about mag capacity, and neither do mass murderers: they punks just carry several "standard" mags, meaningless.
A tax, so clearly announced as prohibitive and punitive, will be shit-canned by the courts as unconstitutional -- think Texas poll tax.
What are you driving at? Is it school shootings? I've proposed a DIRECT approach to this with a grant for schools which want to hire armed & trained personnel/LEO (2+/school), if schools want to. I want to. Do you?
trained personnel/LEO
Politicub
(12,165 posts)I disagree that your proposal that amounts to getting more guns out there. The answer to gun violence is not more guns. That has not worked.
The only path forward is banning assault weapon sales and closing all loopholes with gun shows and the like. This is just a starting point.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Politicub
(12,165 posts)
General prohibition would be accomplished by a law that calls for.... Prohibition.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)nt
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Maybe it would. I don't know. But people get cocaine and heroin pretty damn easily, and they would with guns, too. There are 200 million guns in the US already and I don't know of a way to put the genie back in the bottle. Maybe cutting off the genie's lamp would help? Hell, get the party behind it and I'll follow. I just don't think it would.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)A law that would make guns "Difficult to acquire".
The truth is that scarcity would make guns difficult to acquire.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)how well did that work with drugs?
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)but even a skilled handyman would have a difficult time making a working firearm.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)make the drugs in the bathrooms. Why is that?
Blaukraut
(5,693 posts)You want to buy a gun? Ok, but let's at least make sure you're emotionally and mentally sound enough to own one.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)...thorough (see VA Tech). Maybe we'll move towards doing the same thing for long guns.
AlexSatan
(535 posts)just means the person hasn't been tagged as being a problem. There are a lot of folks with issues that have not been tagged in the system.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Would slow things down. Not perfect, but perfection is impossible to achieve.
On edit: and with GPS
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)And no, I'm not talking about Fast & Furious, I'm talking about Bush Co.'s 'Wide Receiver' initiative.
Who would update the batteries?
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)If anyone got within so many yards of a school, the GPS and tracking device could be programmed to automatically call the police to alert them that someone is too damn close to a school with a gun. If that was the case, the police could stop these kinds of things before they happen, possibly. I like that idea. Even cell phones have GPS and all sorts of other hardware and software for tracking. Why not install something similar on guns? That is actually a workable idea that could be a big help.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)tracking is removed/tampered with/batteries dead.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)All you can talk about is how something won't work. How it isn't perfect.
But you know what? This and many other proposals will make a dent. Nothing will stop all shootings. It may not have stopped this one even.
But it would stop some of them.
You must be a miserable person whose family is miserable because of your insistence on perfection. Nothing is good enough for you.
Perfection doesn't exist. If that's your standard, it will never be met.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Gun Control advocate here. 
I had the same thought on requiring guns to be manufactured with GPS tracking. Meant the above as a reply to AtheistCrusader who was dogging you about how that wouldn't work because the batteries would die. I am all for "dents", incremental steps, stop-gaps or anything else that will slow down the gun violence and find AtheistCrusader's and Marengo's arguments transparent and disingenuous.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Outlaw gun sales at pawn shops.
Mandate registration of all firearms, both long guns and hand guns, with a 1-year voluntary registration period first followed by a manufacturer-to-dealer-to-purchaser records search that carries a $1000 fine.
All gun purchasers must pass a firearms training and safety course for each type of weapon purchased. All firearms purchasers must have childproof storage for the weapon purchased prior to taking the gun home.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)A pawn shop owner, a dealer at a gun show, and your local WalMart all have the same regulations about sales.
Outlawing private sales may be something. All guns stay with their current owner and have to be surrendered to law enforcement at the time of the owner's death?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)violations of FFRs happen in addition to extreme cheapness and poor quality of weapon easily obtainable in those settings.
In addition, gunshows are not permanent by design so they don't lend themselves to the type of training courses I have in mind. Real training courses.
I have seen a few pawn shops that were good on guns. Most did not cater to gun owners so didn't carry any kind of safe or even lockbox for gun purchasers. Certainly had no info on training courses.
I always, always advise people to find a real firearms store. No, I'm not an owner myself. Just used to carry for work. Long ago.
On edit: At death, they could be surrendered to LE for destruction or, if willed, could be transferred to an FFL holder until a background check can be done on the prospective heir/s and then transferred to that heir once the appropriate course and check have been passed. If the heir/s chooses not to take possession then LE can destroy the weapon.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)all the ones used for crimes and the problem is solved. I know, consti-effing-tution. Oh yeah they have healthcare in the UK too.
Response to Politicub (Original post)
Post removed
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)
PoliticalBiker
(328 posts)... legally. And a bow too.
I DO NOT nor will I EVER support the NRA.
However -
I do have a problem with how gun laws are administered in this country.
Banning this type of gun or that type of gun, restricting magizine size or similar kinds of laws skirt the issue and effect the wrong group. Gun laws and fees and the like generally impact LEGAL gun owners making it more expensive and restrictive for those that wish to own guns legally. The group we need to create laws for are the ones that don't get guns through legal means or have nefarious reasons for getting them. Access to guns is the biggest problem we have. It's easy to get one and thanks to the NRA, getting easier and easier as time goes on.
Reasonable laws and regulations need to be universally implemented in all states. Registration, background checks and purchase limits are reasonable conditions that do little to impact legal ownership outside of a few time impositions. What they do is to provide an avenue to catch those that may not have the legal right to own a gun or are too unstable to own a gun from getting access to one. Laws like that don't eliminate the possiblity that those that shouldn't have a gun from getting one, but it is one mechanism toward that goal.
Another would be that before a gun can be sold, it has be ballistics tested to make sure the numbers match and the ballistics are on record. This would not impact the buyer, but it would put the onus on the seller to make sure the gun is legal and hasn't been used in a crime prior to being sold.
The ability to obtain an untraceable gun is wide open in this country if you are bent on obtaining one and thanks in large part to the NRA and if they had their way would be freely accessible everywhere. The NRA has a platform to do a world of good when it comes to useful and responsible regulation when it comes to gun ownership, but they do not use it. Instead, they advocate repealing and interferring with any and all gun legislation in all states everywhere. They are on the side of allowing guns in school zones and hospitals and shopping malls and arcades. Is it any wonder we have higher incidents of gun violence than any other industrialized nation?
Guns are a constitutionally protected right. With that right comes responsiblity for proper use.
tapermaker
(244 posts)I am sure that some nra nut will recommend new laws that allow children of kindergarden age be allowed to have consealed carry permits issued .Just add it to the school supply list . problem solved .
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The NRA has never advocated concealed carry permits for children.
Ever.
This is a serious, watershed moment in U.S. History. We need serious, deliberate discussion, not ridiculous red herrings.
tapermaker
(244 posts)your right, the NRA hasnt advocated concealed carry permits for schoolchildren .they only advocate through themselves and alec laws to allow permits to adults to be allowed to carry a gun into schools ,daycare centers .example the new laws just pssed in the midwest.A gun nut relative at a family function said when i asked him about the colorado theatre shooting " if everyone had a gun in the theatre then things would have worked out much better " If you cant understand the use of sarcasm to deal with this grief when its obviuos nothing will change, then you and i will just have to agree to disagree.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Condemning the NRA for things that it does not support is not productive.
PoliticalBiker
(328 posts)... if the NRA could get political points out of it, damn straight they would.
The NRA is a large part of the problem with getting a handle on our gun problem in this country.
Until they start advocating for smart regulations FOR gun control, I put nothing past them and don't trust their intentions
Response to Politicub (Original post)
Post removed
loyalkydem
(1,678 posts)
Raffi Ella
(4,465 posts)The gun nut NRA spokespeople at DU need to sit the fuck down. You're not fooling anyone with your bullshit talking points- and How dare you spew them here today. How fucking dare you.
It is WAY past time to shut the open door policy on the gun nut NRA assholes who post with such abandon here. I'm sick to fucking death of them.
Regardless if they pretend to be Democrats and skirt the line, if they are spewing NRA talking points they don't fucking belong here. Period.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)about how great guns are, other than the sarcastic ones accusing gun owners of having blood on their hands or somehow being responsible for this tragedy. So I don't think the "assholes" are instigating anything, you are.
FUCK YOU GUN OWNERS!! seems to be fine, but even the slightest bit of reaction by the people being told to fuck off turns into a fuckin hate-fueled shit storm. Telling people they don't belong here because they have a different opinion than you is kind of the opposite of why this site exists.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)This is a liberal site. People are expected to be liberals here. For example, if you come out in favor of Mitt Romney, you aren't welcome. It's not an "anything-goes" site.
EvilAL
(1,437 posts)liberal, expected to vote democratic and all that, but topics are different. There are liberals who like some of the things you don't like, maybe they aren't liberal enough for you, but those people should not be told they should shut up about it. Seems like it's ok to call people that own guns all kinds of names on here, but not ok to defend it. I get the whole NRA bad thing, it probably is, but lumpng everyone together and starting fuckin fights is the wrong way about it.
I realize in a tragedy like this emotions run rampant, but people that had absolutely nothing to do with it are getting reamed for saying anything that might seem like they like guns or the NRA. It's not OK to do this and I have seen tons of people violating the personal attack rules.. It doesn't fucking help.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)positions on labor, trade, taxes, and the military all day every day.
There are plenty that wouldn't even be in accepted circles of the TeaPubliKlan party even 15 years ago on civil liberties.
Hell, the party is chock full of neocons, neoliberals, authoritarians of all stripes.
Gun control may be a Democratic plank but it isn't a liberal position, it is an authoritarian one that in virtually all cases seeks not to eliminate a right (which is conservative as it is, regressive as a matter of a fact) but to limit it to the few the few, in fact to those most abusive in the power structure that exist to protect it, not citizens. I don't get the liberal bit at all, no matter how popular with self identifying liberals.
Like I said, I see it as an authoritarian versus libertarian issue. Authoritarian is at odds with liberalism.
Either way let's not pretend that there aren't some rightest folk all around on some issues from bottom to tippy top. How is the right to keep and bear arms by individuals somehow the most rightwing position of all times?
Authoritarian governments historically demand an unarmed populace. The right is enumerated for thousands of years of history.
adieu
(1,009 posts)I don't own any guns, and rarely have I used one (I did some shooting on a Saturday about 8 years ago).
But the US is so infused with guns that it's hard to determine how to deal with it. It's so unlike any other country in the world that we can't quite model a plan after others. True, Canada has a lot of guns as well, so we can model a plan after theirs.
The problem is not in the laws. The problem is within the nature of the US citizen who thinks the solution to some problems is a squeeze of the trigger. How can one legislate a new national philosophy? Frankly, I see the US as the prime example of a country that really shouldn't have guns available to anyone. Switzerland has guns. Israel has guns. As I said, Canada has guns. So do a number of other countries. (And there are many countries that don't allow personal possession of arms, as well.) It's just that here in the US, irresponsible behavior by gun users, from trigger happy cops or wanna-be cops (looking at you, Mr. Zimmerman), quiet loner types, on-the-edge spouses, to all sorts of other gun lovers.
Yet, even with so many gun nuts, there are even more responsible gun owners, probably a 10-to-1 ratio of responsible to irresponsible. That's not reassuring given that we probably have about 20,000,000 or more gun owners. With a 10:1 ratio, that's 2 million nut cases carrying guns thinking they're John Wayne or Rambo, or there's a potential mugger/rapist at every corner. Even with a 100:1 or a 1000:1 ratio, you're looking at 200,000 or 20,000 nut-cases with a weapon.
How many mass gun deaths is acceptable? That's the question the US citizenry has to ask itself. If we're willing to accept 1 or fewer such shootings a month, then we can craft laws to attain that goal. If we're willing to accept no more than 1 per quarter, then we can craft laws to attain that goal. Then, over time, we can see if we can meet those goals. To say no shootings from now on is an impossible goal to reach. Even in such a pacific country as Norway, such shootings do occur, but much more rarely.
We also need to randomly choose some states to be test states and choose some other states as control states. In test states, we implement specific gun laws to see what would happen. Whether crimes go up or down, whether shootings such as this go up or down, and compare them to control states. Some of the test states might have to implement rather draconian (for the gun-lovers, personally, I don't really mind) laws such as confiscation of all arms, to be held at a local armory. Weapons can only be checked out upon request (for hunting or target practice or sport). The test could take 5 to 10 years to complete. Such a test should validate or invalidate a lot of the rhetoric that goes on about how gun control should or should not be conducted.
Of course, I'm sure various factions would love to game the test: cheat, rig the findings, cause mayhem in gun-controlled states (by bringing in guns, giving them to people to shoot about, etc.). That would have to be controlled as well.
I wonder if the United States will ever wean itself of guns.
Response to Politicub (Original post)
Post removed
Politicub
(12,165 posts)do with that.
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)Berserker
(3,419 posts)that will not go over here well.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Don't conflate "truth" with mere opinion for convenience sake-- it advertizes you as dogmatic, that will not go over too well here either.... 
apocalypsehow
(12,751 posts)their precious guns, and they don't give a flying fuck how many people have to die, how many kids have to be murdered, in order to have the "right" to own assault rifles and strut into Wal Mart with a high-capacity magazine pistol perched in their pants.
As I said before: At this point I am so heart-sick of what the gun lobby and it's shills and supporters have again wrought today in this country that it feels a bit revolting and disgusting to even have to share a discussion board conversation with them.
But here they are RIGHT NOW, still out and about on the DU forums peddling the NRA line. Absolutely disgusting.
Edit: revise & extended remarks.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)We need to do something now!
NeedleCast
(8,827 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)If you hate the 2nd amendment...propose to repeal it. We have the right to do that.
But as long as that amendment is in that document, we have to follow it. America is a nation of laws. And the Constitution is the highest law of the land.
It is what it is.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Just because I admit that the 2nd amendment exists doesn't make me an extremist.
thucythucy
(8,050 posts)or some other right wing 2nd Amendment fundamentalist.
It wasn't until the 1970s, when Nixon wrested control of the Court, that the 2nd Amendment fundamentalist position became THE constitutional interpretation.
Until then the Court had ruled that federal and state governments had the power to limit the "right" the bear arms. In 1939 the Court unanimously agreed that the right to bear arms "is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state."
It wasn't until the 1970s that the right wing GOP and the ultra right wing NRA hooked up to concoct this absurdist fundamentalist view of the 2nd Amendment.
One or two changes in the Court, and your whole "constitutional" argument goes out the window.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)An extremist is somebody, who in the face of a disaster like this, is confused about what makes somebody a gun extremist.
---
Credit goes to Jonny up thread for his response to this question earlier.
NeedleCast
(8,827 posts)Do you have a serious one?
Is a 2nd amendment extremist any who owns a gun?
Anyone who owns a hundgun?
Anyone who owns a hunting rifle?
Someone who doesn't own a gun but supports the lawful, regulated ownership of a gun?
All of the above?
Moostache
(9,895 posts)I cannot stand guns rights arguments on a good day.
Today is as bad a day as you could EVER imagine to talk to me about the value of a gun.
Children.
5 and 6 years old.
Killed...no EXECUTED.
Now hearing it was 20 children.
20 families destroyed.
20 young lives ended before they began.
6 additional victims and the piece of excrement responsible for this massacre.
Days like this make it easier to understand the concept of hell.
I don't want to hear about any sacred "rights" today.
I barely want to breath in and out.
If you love your guns, today is not the day to tell anyone about it...but feel free to anally or orally probe yourself with your guns and please be sure to keep the safety OFF while you do so...
mythology
(9,527 posts)I don't like guns, I've never owned one, never fired one, and I can't think of any situation that would make me get one.
But this is really poor logic that you can't talk about guns today. Every day people are killed with guns. Can we not talk about it ever then?
I remember a day a few years ago where around 3000 people were killed because a handful of morons decided to fly planes into buildings. One of the myriad of responses was for the NYPD and other law enforcement agencies to begin spying on utterly innocent Muslims. Some blithering idiots even killed Muslims or those thought to be Muslims because they were all suspect (and because they were too stupid to realize that Muslims and Sihks aren't the same).
The U.S. rounded up over 100,000 people of Japanese descent after Pearl Harbor without any evidence that they were spying for Japan, but there was little to no involvement of those interned working for Japan. But because 2,000 Americans were killed, we justified imprisoning tens of thousands of innocent people.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)If only we could somehow translate that into reality - that their hands would literally drip blood whenever something like this happens. Might drag a few of them into reality.
TimKeller
(41 posts)Gun control and this tragedy are interlated. It needs to be discussed and I'm outraged by their
"outrage"
I just posted yesterday about the NRA's lobbying power on the US and the negative impacts it has. I also asked how many more tragedies it would take. I wish it wasn't so soon that I would be given another example, especially of this magnitude.
Check out my articles on the CT tragedy and the NRA Lobbying Power called The Killing Routine
http://unapologeticallyliberal.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/the-killing-routine-nras-effect-on-the-us/
http://unapologeticallyliberal.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/the-killing-routine-nras-effect-on-the-us/
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Welcome to DU!
Response to Politicub (Original post)
Post removed
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Then you're part of the problem.
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)
Ter
(4,281 posts)How do you ban handguns without repealing the 2nd Amendment?
Bucky
(54,005 posts)(Scale of 1 to 100)
AlexSatan
(535 posts)To the males - you have blood on your hands
To the sons of teachers ( and teachers who birthed them) - You have blood on your hands.
To the <whatever race or ethnic group this person was> - You have blood on your hands.
OR
We could blame the people who actually commit these horrific crimes.
aandegoons
(473 posts)Next time you pull the trigger stop and think.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)"Lizard brain" reactions aren't limited to the right wing, as much as many "progressives" might suggest otherwise.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)this country is forever awash in firearms because you can't leave well enough alone. for 20 years you guys have been trying to ban firearms. Every time something like this happens, you start in, and every time the only thing that happens is you incite Americans to buy more guns out of fear. For 20 years your rhetoric has fueled the NRA and the firearms industry and now, here we are, living in a country that is super saturated with firearms and psychopaths. Good job buddy. 
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)kind of nut jobs who are paranoid of any kind of regulation and support the NRA.
The nation is now disgusted with the NRA. Good job, assholes!
trouble.smith
(374 posts)It's worked so well for you for the past 20 years.
eppur_se_muova
(36,262 posts)
fadedrose
(10,044 posts)and the 2nd amendment had no idea that they gave the right to own guns to gunowners the right to kill babies in school and use THEIR words to justify this madness....they are turning in their graves...
alarimer
(16,245 posts)Actually, I've always held this position.
kevinbgoode1
(153 posts)and I get so tired of hearing people tell me that if an innocent person dies so some gun owner has the right to possess the means to kill another (whenever they "feel" threatened, whatever the f*** that means).
It is past time to start holding up the victims as martyrs who, without choice, gave their lives so that anyone can exercise their second amendment rights.
The other thing I'm so tired of hearing is how the criminals can always get their hands on guns, and all the paranoid citizens out there (who, apparently, aren't criminals) need to have guns too in order to "protect" themselves just in case some day one of the people they claim are criminals comes along and makes them feel "threatened." That only "law-abiding" citizens will legally own firearms and will always use them responsibly. Well fine. I just never get anyone to answer me when I respond: "Isn't everyone a lawabiding citizen until they decide NOT to be?"
Now wasn't it just a few days ago when some dumbf*ck gun owner "forgot" to remove a bullet from his cartridge and "accidentally" killed his own son? Was his son's life worth those alleged 2nd Amendment rights, and if so, then why the hell aren't we holding these victims or martyrs for "freedom" as heroes for those rights? Cuz it might sound a little sick? Well, dead is dead. . .and every victim essentially was told that his/her right to life didn't matter as much as the right to be unnecessarily killed, whether intentionally or through gross negligence.
Response to Politicub (Original post)
Post removed
trouble.smith
(374 posts)
Budgies Revenge
(216 posts)to start the dialog off by calling the other side bottom dwellers with the blood of children on their hands. Glad we could have this "discussion".
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I think people are too used to some journalists who try to be fair when one side is completely bonkers.
If the Republican Party started advocating ritual sacrifice, I think some journalists would still try to be 'fair' and present that side as having as much merit as the non-ritual sacrifice Democrats.
2nd amendment folks think that owning a portable instrument that shoots lethal metal pellets is more important of a right than protecting the life and liberty of the rest of the people.
That argument is bonkers and does not deserve to be afforded the same status as the folks wanting to protect the life and liberty of the rest of the people.
There is a reason most of the rest of the first world's Democracies restricts guns much more than we do.
Budgies Revenge
(216 posts)I believe there is absolutely a need to have a discussion about this. You have people on one extreme calling for outright banning of guns, and on the other that everybody should be carrying them everywhere--and then most people who are somewhere in the middle. If we as a country are going to be talking about policy and changes to the law, then we've got to be willing to discuss it rationally. All the OP did was make that discussion harder to have.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The sane side just needs to keep pressing until enough of the rest of the folks see the light.
There is no point to discussing something with people whose viewpoint is crazy.
Budgies Revenge
(216 posts)a guess as to what you consider to be the sane perspective, but since you feel no need for discussion at all, I'll take my leave of this thread.
Kei7777
(10 posts)The person you are responding to is right. Some of you are embarrassing yourselves.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)genocide, for instance, I think we can all agree that there is no reason to discuss that for the sake of 'democracy'.
Again, we are dealing with a false equivalency. Froomkin lays that out well here--> http://steveleser.blogspot.com/2012/12/froomkin-campaign-coverage-in-2012.html
Politicub
(12,165 posts)Don't have anything more to say to you.
If you wish to propose solutions, then you are welcome here.
But we're done coddling the extremists.
SummerSnow
(12,608 posts)I still remember the NRA making excuses when some idiot went into that Amish school in Pennsylvania and shot and killed 5 girls in 2006.He even sexually assaulted a few of them.Oh and he had like 4 different guns with him.Coward committed suicide.The NRA have no soul.
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)is an accessory to the murder of 20 innocent babies, as far as I'm concerned.
And may the NRA and other gun lust organizations, ROT IN HELL!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)needs to be viewed as a threat to society, as far as guns are concerned.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)No doubt about it!
Politicub
(12,165 posts)
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)I am against total gun bans , but to all of those idiots who are against COMMON SENSE legislature to curb the proliferation of guns in this country, FUCK YOU!
Politicub
(12,165 posts)The average gun owner won't be impacted at all by measures like an assault weapons, semi automatics and high capacity magazine bans.
No one needs that stuff.
