Should America work towards becoming a gun-free Country?

[PowerToThePeople]

Should we be passing legislation to remove items that serve no purpose but causation of death from our great Nation?

97 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	YES
	26 (27%)
	NO
	71 (73%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bigwillq]

1. No (nt)

[LittleBlue]

2. Let's start with alcohol

Causes more deaths and suffering than guns.

Mortality

Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 15,990
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 25,692

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

When you factor in the number families ruined, the number of children abused, man-hours lost, etc etc alcohol is much worse than guns.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

23. Responsible use of molecules are fine...

I could care less about the guy or girl who has the occasional drink or smoke if they don't get out driving or doing anything dangerous - and that's the vast majority of people.

Punish people for actually hurting other people. You don't need to start jumping back 15 steps of indirect causes or you'll never stop trying to control people's behaviors or thoughts.

[Lurker Deluxe]

72. .

I could care less about the guy or girl who occasionally goes hunting or target shooting if they don't go around carrying or doing anything dangerous - and that's the vast majority of people.

Punish people for actually hurting other people. You don't need to start jumping back 15 steps of indirect causes or you'll never stop trying to control people's behaviors or thoughts.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

255. You want to ban target shooting also?

Heil Hitler there little dictator!

[sarisataka]

258. Nazi references are uncalled for

you may wish to delete

[shraby]

45. We tried that..didn't work.

[CVN-68]

53. ^^^This^^^.

And trying to ban or eradicate guns would have the same outcome.

[Pholus]

3. Hmmm, how about "Safe, legal....and rare" first? :) n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

5. Is that not "working towards.." ? eom

[Pholus]

7. That presumes the goal is the complete eradication of guns.

Doesn't sound like something worth doing. On the other hand, seeing yokels carry their AR-15's around malls is simply too much.

Why do people push for a dichotomy when it is clear that things are more complicated than that?

[PowerToThePeople]

12. That is the point to this poll.

I personally would like to see a goal of "complete eradication." The poll is to get a somewhat unscientific look at how many other people think the same.

[Pholus]

16. Ok. I think it's counterproductive.

I want something common-sense and effective and see no workable options when the choices are limited to:

1) No guns ever, no way no how.
2) Everything you can think to pack up to and including nukes and by the way carrying should be a manditory law.

But I get your point. So carry on!

[Ghost in the Machine]

159. "I personally would like to see a goal of "complete eradication." Then you should go immediately

to your local polling place and unregister as a Democrat, then join a 3rd party or form your own Party.

The Democratic Party Platform SUPPORTS the 2nd Amendment, as do a majority of Democrats as your own poll here shows. I'm guessing it didn't turn out quite like you expected it to, did it? Don't worry though, it's happened to just about all of us at one time or another.

I live in the South, and have to put up with a lot of South bashing on here. Quite honestly though, it's "Dems" like YOU who keep people voting against their own best interests. It's hard for people like ME to talk sense into people who, for generations, have had it drilled into their brains that "Demoncrats wanna take away my guns!" I can show them where the Party Platform SUPPORTS the 2nd Amendment & then they see a post like yours. YOU are not part of the solution, you're part of the PROBLEM.

Many, MANY rural, poor Southerners depend on hunting as a means to help put food on their tables and feed their families. To them, YOU are threatening their way of survival and their very existence.

Here's a little advice to the "gun grabbers" (I suppose I'm allowed to call them that, since they have their little monickers such as "gun nuts" & "gun humpers&quot : The next time you want to blame "ignorant Southerners" for why we can't elect Democrats in the "red states" or in the South, take a good long look in the mirror first, then notice when you have that ONE finger pointing at us, you have THREE fingers pointing back at yourself.

Let that sink in for a little while....

Peace,

Ghost

[pipoman]

265. A tiny minority of authoritarians would be the answer. .

LOL "somewhat unscientific"...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Yes, but it will never happen.

The NRA has too much power to allow such a thing.

[former9thward]

6. Always love a push poll on DU.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. How is it a push poll?

It is a simple yes or no question.

[former9thward]

15. "items that serve no purpose but causation of death from our great Nation"

The very definition of a push poll. If you vote 'No' then you are for something that serves "no purpose but causation of death from our great Nation."

[PowerToThePeople]

24. what other purpose does a gun serve besides death?

You will not be able to come up with any purposes that require an item that fits the current definition of a gun.

[CVN-68]

31. How about target shooting?

Competitive shooting?

[PowerToThePeople]

32. I can target shoot with a rubber bb low power air rifle. eom

[CVN-68]

33. Good for you.

But there are plenty of us who like to shoot real rifles or handguns competitively or just blow off steam by shooting at targets.

[baldguy]

179. But you are not *required* to have firearms to shoot at targets.

The only real purpose is to kill.

[JJChambers]

229. Really?

So what BB gun is accurate enough to take precision target shooting out to 1000m?

/sigh, radicals

[baldguy]

238. As if every target has to be 1000 meters away. How arbitrary.

Might as well say every target has to be 10000 kilometers away, so you just absolutely need to have an ICBM with at least a 30 kiloton warhead to shoot at it.

Why don't you gun nuts start with just shooting marbles at paper targets in you living room. And if we can go a few years without you yahoos killing any innocent bystanders, then we'll talk.

[Straw Man]

288. Yahoos.

Why don't you gun nuts start with just shooting marbles at paper targets in you living room. And if we can go a few years without you yahoos killing any innocent bystanders, then we'll talk.

Have I missed something? I don't recall any recent stories of target shooters killing innocent bystanders.

[baldguy]

307. I'm talking about gun owners, but you knew that.

Since we've already established that target shooting doesn't necessitate having guns.

[Straw Man]

316. No, you were talking about target shooting.

I'm talking about gun owners, but you knew that.

Why don't you gun nuts start with just shooting marbles at paper targets in you living room. And if we can go a few years without you yahoos killing any innocent bystanders, then we'll talk.

Perhaps you forgot.

[baldguy]

328. The RW merry-go-round you're trying to start usually has a longer refresh cycle

And your rehashing of bullshit doesn't make to smell any better.

[Straw Man]

329. Do you have anything substantive to offer in rebuttal?

Or do you merely want to indulge your penchant for crude name-calling?

I suspect the latter.

[UglyGreed]

312. Here's one

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/25/florida-man-shot-and-killed-by-stray-bullet-from-neighbors-backyard-gun-range/

[Straw Man]

317. One?

Clearly it's time for a national discussion of this epidemic.

[HoustonDave]

333. Was not a shooting range

That was a clown shooting in his back yard without even a proper backstop - he needs to go up for negligent homicide. A properly set up gun range has backstops... I am guessing you have never seen one.

[UglyGreed]

353. The post I replied to

stated target practice which was what the person was doing when he shot his neighbor. Oh and by the way I have hunted for many years and gone to the range and on private land shot skeet and targets.

[Erose999]

59. Or a bow and arrow, or darts for fucks sakes. But we have sandy hook because Adam Lanza's mom just

had to have her fucking AR-15's and other weapons to poke holes in a sheet of paper.

[oneshooter]

223. How many of those can reach 600+ yards?

[Bazinga]

38. Are there no times where death is necessary?

i.e. hunting to procure food.

Or at least the potential for lethality, as in self-defense?

Sure guns can cause death, they are weapons. But sometimes, isn't that what is required?

[spin]

91. Good point but it appears that even a push poll on guns posted on a very liberal ...

and progressive forum such as DU doesn't show strong support for banning all firearms and confiscating them.

That should be a lesson for those who wish to accomplish this goal by incrementally banning firearms.

[Lizzie Poppet]

136. Apparently there's a Push Poll Corollary...

...to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

[Eleanors38]

245. Maybe because most DUers have guns?

[spin]

246. It could be pointed out that if only ultra conservatives owned firearms ...

sometime in the future people who have a more liberal philosophy might regret that fact.

[Lost_Count]

13. Not to mention one that isn't going in the direction it was pushed...

As of this moment at least...

[PowerToThePeople]

39. I did not expect a landslide.

We will see how it goes. Still, even the numbers I see now (38%/63%) make me feel pretty good about a future without firearms in this Country.

[Lost_Count]

52. Why is that?

[whatthehey]

78. a 1/3 of respondents on a definitionally left leaning website using emotionally laden push polling

is hardly any indication that the country at large is even close to being willing to go gun free.

Restrictions? Quite likely. Few indeed would argue with universal background checks, stronger mental health screening and restrictions on child access. Might be able to reach sensible middle ground on magazine capacities, such as not exceeding the oem design perhaps. Tests for CCW could easily be standardized and made rigorous in return for reciprocity. But elimination? In a nation with thousands of gunsmiths and free IP such as blueprints that make a gun easily produced in a basic machine shop? Absurd, even if the majority were willing to try, when you can't even get parity, here, with this "poll"?

[Common Sense Party]

140. It shouldn't. One a very progressive message board, you can't even get a plurality

to say we should get rid of all guns.

How do you think you're going to fare out in the real world, with real people who have actually seen and used guns?

[PowerToThePeople]

141. hmm

How do you think you're going to fare out in the real world, with real people who have actually seen and used guns?

I would like to think that EVERYONE posting here and clicking yes/no is a "real" person. Personally, I have used guns often in my past. Hunted, target shooting, skeet shooting, etc. But, I have not touched a gun for over 10 years now. Maybe there needs to be one concerning usage history. I think quite a few supporters of the yes answer have had exposure to firearms in the past.

[Common Sense Party]

142. I'd say a few have. But by "real" people I'm referring to putting a ballot initiative

in front of a real voter who will decide, or having political candidates who boldly state, "Vote for me and I'll try to take away everyone's right to own guns." How do you think those real voters across the whole of the country will respond?

I hope you realize they will respond differently then people on a progressive board whose vote on an internet poll portends no real changes to their lives.

[Blue_Tires]

8. no...

we just need a cultural shift that kills once and for all the mindset that guns are:

1. toys
2. testosterone boosters
3. instant courage
4. argument settlers

And the penalties for negligence/general jackassery need to be a lot more severe than they are now...

I know it gets old, but I can attest the majority of gun owners are sane, intelligent people...They've just let the loons and nutbars roam unchecked for too long...And because the NRA are sociopathic assholes who only care about generating gun/ammo sales, the crazies have been embraced and protected instead of ostracized...

[geckosfeet]

25. The NRA sponsors a LOT of training across the country. Badly needed safety training that is hard

to come by in some areas. Not to say that they do not promote some questionable politics, but they do provide very useful and necessary services. The holy grail of instructor certification is NRA certification.

[Blue_Tires]

35. Well, something isn't getting through...

I don't know if that means all new owners should be subject to mandatory training, or what...

And it's not just the general safety and "hitting-what-you-aim-at" training, the psychology and thought processes in a gun owner's mind need revision...If I could point to ONE universal underlying problem with guns that gives root to everything else, it that too many well-meaning people are too quick to introduce guns into situations unnecessarily (whether out of irrational rage, fear, etc.) so minor conflicts have a much higher chance of ending up in tragedy...

[geckosfeet]

48. Yes. I know. Training is generally a state level mandate. Some states require

training before you can get a license or buy a gun. Some do not. However the training is available.

Part of the issue is that you have to pay for these classes. Some folks claim that they can't afford it. My view is that if you can afford a gun and ammunition you can afford $100 for a gun safety class once or twice a year.

To you point of violence escalation. I agree that escalating a minor situation to the point of introducing a firearm is a problem. I do believe that for every case of out of control escalation there are hundreds perhaps thousands of conflicts that do not end up as armed conflicts. The stand your ground laws that are becoming popular (Florida for instance) do nothing but encourage people who are marginally in control to abandon all reason in a conflict.

[CVN-68]

10. What about those that hunt?

Own farms/ranches? How about the right to self protection?
And should only police and the military have guns?

[Throd]

11. No. I want to keep my firearms.

[damnedifIknow]

14. Throw them all in the ocean

Bombs also.

[CVN-68]

17. No thanks.

I'll keep my guns just where they are, in my safe.

The bombs? Why pollute the oceans even more?

[ZombieHorde]

228. Oh great, just what we need,

sharks with guns. We'll have killer squid using eight guns at once, and though I admit that sounds awesome, it would not be good for beach enthusiasts.

[The_Commonist]

18. Gun-free? No.

I'm about as anti-gun as they get, and I don't think "working towards becoming a gun-free country" as a particularly reasonable, useful or possible goal.

I don't have a problem with hunters and collectors having guns, or with people who really do live in places or have occupations where they need guns having them.

I think a more reasonable and possible goal would be to reduce the number of guns from 300 million to 100 million.

[marions ghost]

19. Gun violence

at the level we are seeing it is a symptom of a sick society.

I'm for strict regulation.

Gun-free could never happen unless radical changes occur in this primitive society.

[NightWatcher]

20. Yay, a gun control thread that falls outside of the "Big News" parameters

There's a whole forum to debate this.

To the Gungeon!

[PowerToThePeople]

27. There have been several shooting threads recently in GD.

This is just a follow-up poll.

[Eleanors38]

247. Correction: Gun banners hold censorship power in GD.

This is obvious to anyone, no matter their views on gun prohibition, OK?

If GD is to be impartial, you would drop the meaningless TOS "exception" which seems to have been encoded to mean something else.

Oh, and "no" on the push poll.

[MicaelS]

21. Absolutely not.

I'm not a pacifist, and never will be. Pacifists who are willing to sacrifice their own lives, and the lives of their loved ones for their belief system is their business. But I don't have to respect someone like that. And I don't. And I will not let someone else's pacifism used as an excuse to disarm me. I will oppose it at every opportunity.

[MO_Moderate]

22. No

Most Americans understand and respect the 2nd Amendment to much to allow such a thing. The few who don't blame the NRA.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

26. I don't necessarily think that we need to get rid of guns entirely

but IMHO we need to have more restrictions on where guns can be carried and require training and licensure before ownership because it seems that for every responsible well-trained law-abiding citizen with a gun, there are multiple people out there who don't know how to use them or handle them appropriately or know how to keep them out of the hands of children- to say nothing of being able to use good judgment about when and where a gun is appropriate (and when it should and shouldn't be used).

[PowerToThePeople]

28. A little understatement

there are multiple people out there who don't know how to use them or handle them appropriately or keep them out of the hands of children

If by "multiple", you mean tens or hundreds of thousands (maybe millions), I think you may have a somewhat accurate statement.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

30. Maybe it was

I didn't want to say anything without having some stats to back it up but I do believe that there are too many people out there whom I wouldn't trust with a gun for a second but freedom!

[sarisataka]

29. America should work

towards becoming a violence-free country.
The chances of being gun free and violence free are zero, but violence free would have a greater benefit.

[randr]

34. We should enact laws making it mandatory that guns be buried

with their owners cold dead hands around them.

[Hoyt]

36. What, no more Zimmermans, Lanzas, Militia boys, intimidators, public toters , bigots with gunz, etc.

Good lord, you trying to make this country progressive or something. What would we do without these folks?


?7

[rdharma]

42. I think that everybody should go to a gun show...... at least once.

Just to observe the folks in attendance. Very scary.

[Paladin]

61. +100. (nt)

[Crunchy Frog]

120. I'd have to get deflead afterwards

and I'd be worried about the chemical exposure. And what if someone decided to follow me home?

[rdharma]

37. Firearms ownership should be more closely regulated.

Like in Switzerland.

[dilby]

40. If they serve no purpose but causation of death...

then why do we let Cops carry them?

[PowerToThePeople]

47. Good question. The UK seems to do just fine. eom.

[Lost_Count]

54. Except of course for the fact that they do have access to firearms...

[Straw Man]

289. Just fine.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jul/25/july7.uksecurity5

[Deep13]

65. Sorry, but most people don't equate human and animal death.

Hunters, pest-controllers, and omnivores are not the same as those who kill people. Also, I've shot tens of thousands of rounds, all of them at target ranges. So they actually do have a purposes besides killing.

[Lasher]

41. Gun prohibition is opposed by 2/3 of Americans.

Poll results consistently confirm that.

[marions ghost]

43. And the other third

is held hostage because of lack of regulation and the barest minimum of gun control.

[Lasher]

51. I don't think my rights should end where your irrational fear begins.

Nobody's holding you hostage. That's hyperbole.

[PowerToThePeople]

55. You are guaranteed that (s)he will not be shooting you. ((S)he does not have a gun)

(S)he does not have any guarantee that you will not be shooting him/her.

[Lasher]

70. Oh come on, what are the chances of that?

I don't think that's a very good argument. But OK, I personally guarantee I won't ever shoot her.

[Lost_Count]

145. Reminds me of a Carlin bit...

About being beaten to death by a man with a monstrous dildo and wearing a bugs bunny suit. You want assurances against that as well?

You want guarantees in life? Go to the men's wear house because beyond that they are few and far between.

Ha... Guarantee... You guys crack me up.

[PowerToThePeople]

147. Statistics

Number of people slain by dildo wielding bunnies in the history of the world? ZERO

Number of people slain so far this year by guns? 1937

According to the Gun Violence Archive, 3,185 people have been injured by gun violence in America and 1,937 have been killed since Jan. 1, 2014.

http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/weekend-gun-report-march-7-9-2014/

I'll take my chances with the dildo wielding bunny...

[Lost_Count]

149. Yes... statistics...

In a nation of 300 million people...

I'd say those are some pretty good odds.

[Loudly]

205. "Odds" do not a 2A justification make.

Nor is there one capable of BEING made.

[Lost_Count]

210. Not entirely sure what that means... but...

1) The amazing thing about being an amendment to the Bill of Rights is that it needs no justification.

2) Anyone who says "I cannot be convinced of X no matter the proof or justification" is by definition, closed minded.

3) Sounds like you want a big bubble of 100% security and safety at all times. 99.99999% just doesn't seem to cut it. The problem is that you want everyone else to adjust their choices and behaviors so you can feel super duper mega secure... at all times...

How incredibly dull....

[marions ghost]

57. Many share my "irrational fears"...

I know lots of people who (because of guns) don't like to go to:

Malls, esp before Xmas
Movie theatres
Schools (I have relatives teaching in them and they think about this often).
Wal-mart
Sports events
Train stations and airports
------

--it's more who worry about this than you think. Look at the stats for anxiety and depression. Talk to psychologists.

All I'm asking is for real gun control. And until that happens, this is a primitive, irrational society. Only the irrational would NOT be afraid of what is occurring in this country. We are all hostages to this insanity.

My truth --but I certainly don't expect gun lovers who are against reasonable gun control to ever get it.

Have a nice day in Your World.

[Lasher]

63. No, there is not more to worry about than I think.

If all guns were to disappear today, would you and lots of others still be afraid to go to those places? I ask this because you are much more likely to die from an accident than you are from murder in any form. Disproportionate fear is irrational.

[marions ghost]

73. People don't live by statistics

--we've all had the experience of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Risk, by the numbers in the abstract sense, is not the point.

When we subconsciously absorb the incidence of gun violence near and far--via the local papers, internet, and TV --about things like school shootings and drive-by shootings and gun accidents and wanton killings that go on every day in this country, it takes a toll on our perception of our health and safety that you can't erase from memory banks and nervous systems. This situation makes people feel vulnerable, unsupported and un-cared for in the most basic sense. It makes us all slightly crazy and paranoid. It makes us all brutal. Humans are tuned in to threat. We are on alert when we go out in public now. We think about it, try to repress, but we are aware. We know what it feels like to live in far off places where this happens all the time. Because it is happening here.

It is also hurting us economically and politically, but I don't have time for a longer essay on it.

I've lived in Australia. Don't knock it til you try it. It changes everything to know that you are protected and that other innocent people are protected from idiots with guns. You look at other people differently, you are far less suspicious. Gun control makes SUCH a difference in quality of life for everyone. But Australia has a government that invests in the health of its people. We do the exact opposite.

Oh yeah, and I should add fear of going to hospitals and court rooms in that list of Where Not to Go (without worry & caution). Have you ever been in a hospital lockdown? I have. More than once.

This is a tragedy of national proportions. Symptomatic of a divisive society.

[Lasher]

90. No, I have never been in a hospital lockdown.

I want you to think about when you argue that we should outlaw private ownership of guns. I assume you don't own any guns, so there would be no immediate consequence for you personally. But I have heirlooms that have been in my family for four generations. Either I surrender my grandfather's squirrel gun (for example) for destruction or I go to prison. This isn't just about me or you, there's lots of stories just like mine all across the nation.

Look, I think you are a nice person but I don't think we'll get anywhere with this discussion. I want to leave you with this thought and then you can have the last word if you want it.

[marions ghost]

151. Talk about irrational fears...

I can't imagine anybody coming to get your grandfather's squirrel gun, and going to prison for owning a legal gun is not even a realistic possibility. Maybe you've bought into the NRA rhetoric? Re-lax about that.

I did NOT say anywhere that we should outlaw private ownership of guns in this country. I would like for them to be limited to sport shooting like in Australia, but the numbers are too huge here and people are too obsessed with arming themselves. They never understand that it just increases the likelihood that the gun will be used against them or a member of their own family.

Guns these days are mainly symbolic--they represent the idea of safety and security and control, rather than actually providing it. There's also the element of male bonding like you describe around guns. (But no, I don't equate squirrel guns with hyper-macho AR-15 luv). So put the antique in the locked case and remember grandad. Maybe one day people won't feel we need them around the house anymore. The country would have to change a lot for us to get to that point. Not in our lifetimes, I'm sure.

Meanwhile we need far better gun laws and regulations so that the country can progress out of these dark times. For example I would favor the parents of any kid who gets his hands on a gun and injures/kills, either accidentally or on purpose, to be prosecuted just as if the adult had done the crime. Then you would see adults being a lot more responsible. That sort of common sense approach is not unreasonable.

We've all had TOO MANY gun suicides, accidents, murders and mayhem in our neighborhoods. A lot of it didn't need to happen. It is taking a toll on our society's ability to function. We are learning not to trust anyone and to fear public situations, workplaces and schools. This is sick. This is like living in a war zone.

Right now we just need to stop the needless carnage & we're not talking about squirrels.

Thanks for the friendly discussion. Refreshing.

[NutmegYankee]

164. Interesting.

I'm often told on DU that gun owners are afraid of the world. It appears that was just projection.

[marions ghost]

166. I find most people

in this country fearful and defensive.

We just have different ways of dealing with uncertainty. Gun owners think "a gun will make me safe" --but it doesn't really provide safety, actually the opposite in many cases. It's an illusion.

People who don't like living in a country where people, many of them children, are needlessly shot and killed all the time -- are afraid for good reason.

This unregulated gun violence insanity hurts us all, including responsible gun owners.

[NutmegYankee]

170. I think a gun will propel lead bullets really fast.

And I like to make holes in Olympic style targets with them for fun, or take down some of the vastly overpopulated deer population. I still have some venison steaks left over from fall, though I've eaten most of it. I find it odd you don't acknowledge those uses. The fear thing IS irrational. I am NEVER worried that I may get shot while out in public or at home. And the odds clearly show it is extremely unlikely to happen.

[marions ghost]

206. Whatever

you choose to play the odds. That hasn't worked well for a LOT of people, including the victims of gun violence. Seems gun owners would have more compassion for the victims of the daily carnage.

So it's all about target shooting and deer in your world. Mkay. In my world reasonable gun control that leaves people doing target shooting and deer killing could remain as a pastime. I'm talking about the insane belief that guns will keep you safe. Haven't you encountered that obsession/delusion? As a society, it is killing us.

[NutmegYankee]

213. Do you really think you'll be shot on any given day?

2/3rds of all gun deaths are suicides in the USA. They killed themselves on purpose. You could make the argument that our suicide rate (per 100,000) is high because of guns, but Australia And the UK are only a little lower and France is higher than us. Obviously guns are not the suicide problem in those countries. In reality, Suicide is driven by our economic and social system that just crushes people until they see no other option.

The non-suicide rate of gun deaths are 1/3 of the automobile crash deaths, meaning I'm 3 times more likely to die just driving to work each day. Of those gun deaths, most occur in high density urban areas with significant socioeconomic problems, often related to gangs and drugs. Honestly, I think ending the war on drugs, dramatically increasing the minimum wage, implementing jobs programs in urban areas, and expanding our economic aid programs (like heavily subsidized national child care) would greatly reduce those deaths.

But instead, our "gun control activists" ignore that and focus on gun owners out in suburbs or in rural areas. All because the goal is simple - Make gun ownership so onerous and expensive that only the wealthy and the elite can own guns and hunt or do target shooting. You stated "In my world reasonable gun control that leaves people doing target shooting and deer killing could remain as a pastime". And it would for the wealthy because the unwashed masses can't be trusted with such things as guns.

[marions ghost]

214. Once again statistics...

I'm "focused on" the guns in schools, malls, hospitals, parks, sports arenas, Disneyland---you name it. Any public places. I'm focused on the accidents, suicides, and murders that occur in inner cities, suburbs and rural. Not to mention the just plain stupid shit. In every neighborhood in this country. Everyone knows someone who has been directly affected by it. No point in making any big distinctions as far as location. The gun thing is an important rightwing tool of division-- playing into people's fears and alliances (wow this'll scare those Obama lovin Libruls)...drowning out any voices begging for reasonable regulation.

The gun has become a fetish object, a symbol of personal power (because we really don't have much power in a corporatocracy). So if I get one of these...I'll be In Control. What a big lie.

It's a sickness that goes beyond statistics, when you can buy this--advertized as an "anti-gun nut's worst nightmare":

[NutmegYankee]

217. Yeah, how dare I use facts.

Sorry, your fear is irrational. You state everyone knows someone affected by it. I'm sure everyone knows someone affected by auto accidents, cancer and heart disease as well. In in far greater numbers too!

If you actually wanted to reduce gun violence, you would focus on topics like ending the war on drugs, dramatically increasing the minimum wage, implementing jobs programs in urban areas, and expanding our economic aid programs (like heavily subsidized national child care). You do not focus on those because ending gun violence is not your goal. Your goal is control of people, not guns.

And yes, the right wing uses gun control to divide. It's actually an oddity, as right wing ideology usually couldn't give a damn about equal rights from the Bill of Rights. I'm a Liberal. Liberals believe in equal rights for all and in fighting to ensure everyone has the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. And we work to introduce new human rights, like health care and marriage equality. Liberals believe in upholding the Bill of Rights.

The gun control movement on the other hand is more like the prohibition movement. The Prohibition movement sincerely thought they were making the country a better place by banning alcohol, and considered themselves progressive. The result was a disaster. One of the consequences was a virtual cultural genocide of German American heritage.

Millions of Democrats own firearms and do so peacefully. Why do you go after us? Does the image of me hunting for deer upset you just like two men kissing and holding hands upsets the religious right?

[marions ghost]

236. This group is for realistic gun control

https://momsdemandaction.org/

You don't read what I said--it's not about deer or target shooting, but I know, that's the party line...

It's about dead people, many of them kids.

Guns provide a false sense of security & control--that's why people want them and are blind to the consequences.

Go ahead and have the last word. I know you think it's too bad about dead people.

you gun zealots don't have to worry--you know that there's no such thing as gun prohibition in Murka--but the rest of us have to suffer with it.

[NutmegYankee]

237. I read it, I just don't believe you

Gun owning Democrats don't trust you, because your movement just gushes out contempt for us. Do you really think people are going to work with and trust people who demonstrate hatred and outright contempt day after day for people just exercising a Constitutional Civil Right? Do you really think disparaging us, like making inappropriate jokes that our hobbies are related to the size of genitalia, or saying we only own guns because we are afraid is going to bring us on board? All you do is give me more reasons to not trust your intentions. I'd be completely on board with Universal background checks for a fee of $5, easily completed at any government building or retailer. But your movement wants to make it expensive and difficult, Why? And the answer is obvious. You don't want to stop guns getting into the streets - you want to beat down and punish the rabble.

You see it over and over again. Why is a registration price $10 in upstate NY, but over $300 in NYC? I would love to work with reasonable people to end the plague of gun violence. Sadly, I have met very few of those people.

[marions ghost]

240. oh for petes whatever

will somebody please call the Whhaaaammbulance...

"beat down and punish the rabble"--LOL. I consider myself part of the rabble.

[NutmegYankee]

241. Not sure where you thought I was whining.

I was just laying out the truth. Gun owners will not work with a movement that treats them like shit. And if you consider yourself part of the rabble, stop serving your masters.

[marions ghost]

248. Selected this for you

and sincerely, thanks for the chat. I have no masters to worry about.

[The Straight Story]

257. It is not more a fetish than wanting to keep abortions legal is

People get a little upset when others try to remove their rights.

I don't own a gun - the whole debate is about freedom and not letting people peddle fear and proposing solutions to that fear like "Let's make owning a gun illegal except for the government"

Over ninety nine percent of gun owners won't harm anyone with them, allow their kids to find and use them, etc. So the problem isn't that most people aren't responsible, the problem is the same (as I have noted) that we see with fox news and welfare recipients. Pick the bad apples and only talk about/show them, drum up fear of everyone else in that group (bias), have someone with power fix the problem for you and make you feel better.

[marions ghost]

261. Imagine a country

where we're not subjected to the daily carnage reports, where nobody fears public places and where masses of people don't feel they have to arm themselves. Try to imagine that. As I've said over & over if you only have guns for actual hunting or sport, then I'm not talking to you. I am talking to people who feel that the world is so dangerous they need to carry lethal weapons for self-defense. Think about it. This is a tragic devolution.

If anyone could fix this problem, it would not only make me feel better it would change the country. There are many things short of banning that would help so much. But it's kind of like getting over the addiction to cars and providing good public transport. Or serious protection from tainted food. Or moving immediately to sustainable energy. We are not allowed to have those things in these dark and troubled times. We are not allowed to have even reasonable gun controls. Americans are so cautious, suspicious, untrusting, basically paranoid. The rate of gun ownership is a symptom of a sick society, a national failure. It hurts us all individually and collectively in too many ways to list.

The fact of this insane rush to guns for self protection is what is so damaging. It's not only the grim statistics, the daily carnage, it's the selling of a commodity to a gullible fearful public that does in no way make people safer, under false pretenses. But it makes some elements of society a shitload of money. It's the big lie of it that bothers me. Most people cannot defend themselves with a gun. It only makes them feel safer. Oh sure we do lots of things out of compulsion, for dubious psychological reasons, but buying guns should not be one of them.

We desperately need reasonable & fair gun control but because of extremists we will not have it. It's part of the whole degeneration of America as a whole. And future historians will see it that way. America became a backward state in the 21st century, unable to solve its own problems. Sinking into Idiocracy.

[The Straight Story]

263. I don't really agree with your view

" But it's kind of like getting over the addiction to cars and providing good public transport."

Public transportation in some big city areas is great and a good goal. Not going to work in Montana, Alaska, and many other states except in small pockets. Which is an admirable goal but it does not apply to a great many in this country.

" I am talking to people who feel that the world is so dangerous they need to carry lethal weapons for self-defense."

I ain't getting younger and my health isn't getting better. In the hood I live in I wouldn't stand much of a chance during a robbery or with thugs on the streets here. People fighting right in front of my home with ball bats, machetes, and on occasion guns flashing. Cops are slow to get here. I don't own a gun now but eventually I wouldn't mind having one around here. I have memorized the number to the police dispatcher here (not 911). The violence around here is fueled by drugs (pill heads, pot, crack). Fact of the matter is the world can be a dangerous place and being able to defend oneself when not in great health isn't something I think people should be made to feel bad about.

"It's not only the grim statistics, the daily carnage, it's the selling of a commodity to a gullible fearful public that does in no way make people safer, under false pretenses. "

The fact that you know someone owns a gun can be a deterrent. That won't show up in stats. I know most the people here our small hood (about 86 homes) and the druggies here know it as well. Don't work much for those who come here from elsewhere. One neighbor down in the court had someone breaking in and he got his gun and scared them off. Elderly man who lives alone. He called the cops and they took a report and nothing more was done. I have called the cops who caught people breaking into abandoned homes here and they have done nothing, no report, no arrests, no follow ups.


"Americans are so cautious, suspicious, untrusting, basically paranoid. "

Yes we are - and this is fueled by people in both parties. See something, say something campaigns. Can't carry bottled water on planes. And a news media that generally shows one side of an issue when it comes to guns. You have over 45 million stories a day of people who own guns who don't do anything at all bad with them but we shown the few and told to fear the many.

Growing up our biggest fear was stranger danger and the Soviets. Everyone not your relative or neighbor was a potential kidnapper. There would be a nuclear war any day unless the us government had more money for military and pulled odd policy stunts.

Self defense is a natural concern and the ability to level the playing field is a good idea. Some may take that to an extreme and carry a gun everywhere (and personally I could see that in this area where people are selling drugs at the gas station and there have been shootings and the like there) but overall most I know generally keep a gun at home. My dad never carries his - but he did take it out last year to the front of the house during a big dust up with the druggies who were parked in front of our house and shouting at the neighbors. We also had a mini riot here with about twenty people swinging bats, one (maybe more) had a gun they tossed when the cops finally showed up, and this was two doors down from us. A gang of people in the street beating each other up over stupid shit.

My brother and two of my nieces have been robbed at gun point, my nephew was at the gas station when a dealer shot at someone. My one niece has been robbed twice, once at work and once outside a store where she was pistol whipped and her car stolen (she got it back).

You want a little less crime? Don't worry about the guns so much as the drugs/addictions/mental issues that go unchecked. The day after that little riot the guy whose house the lady kicked in the door was down here talking to me. A deputy pulled up and talked to him and I about it all (the cops all know him....) and the guy asked why he didn't just shoot her when she kicked in the door. He couldn't own a gun as he is felon but he did go buy a black powder pistol after that (which he can own).

The cops ain't coming to save you - they are coming to clean up the mess and take a report that will be buried under a mountain of other ones.

Guns are tools just like anything else. You want crime to drop get to the root of the problem. I have watched this area go from a safe and decent place growing up to a drug infested and crime ridden hell hole - and it wasn't guns that did it.

[marions ghost]

264. You've described it well...

the hell hole this nation has become. My SO once saw an insane man who never should have owned a gun shoot four people dead in the street with a high-powered rifle, from his office window. He had just come in from the same street. He's never really gotten over it. But owning a gun would not help.

Yes, absolutely--societal & mental health issues need to be addressed at the same time as the more effective regulation of guns.

Good luck. (That's the only thing stopping any of us from being shot). It's a public health issue. And now we are told more young American men will die of gun violence than accidents.

Shameful, for a number of reasons.

[Lost_Count]

335. Luck? Hmm...

That and statistical probablity I suppose...

[marions ghost]

336. Talk to people

instead of just arguing statistics.

Most people no matter what your neighborhood, have been exposed to gun violence in some form.

This is what sticks in people's minds and helps to sell more guns.

[Lost_Count]

339. I chuckle...

... Because I live near an Army base and most of the guys I know have caused gun violence, just not in this country.

Secondly because you want to abandon facts and math in favor of anecdotal stories.

[marions ghost]

342. Re Facts

So if this country is so safe and all, why are people arming themselves to an unprecedented degree? And filling the coffers of gun manufacturers?

If the risk is going down, why is the perceived risk going up?

People don't follow statistics. They see and react to what is going on around them. This in fact, is fact.

[JJChambers]

231. My life was saved by a person with a gun (nt)

[sarisataka]

173. A fear isn't deemed rational

Just because many people have it. My wife is terrified of clowns. It is the third most common fear after claustrophobia and fear of the dark; yet she will be the first to admit it is not a rational fear.

A fear of a statistically rare occurrence, even if it is something that causes harm, to the extent that it alters a person's daily routine is irrational.

I can agree there is room for improvement in our laws re: guns but I have never left my house expecting to be shot.

[marions ghost]

207. You must live in a nice world

Where I am there is every reason to fear gun violence any where you go. Also just the fear of it is damaging. I have relatives who teach in public schools. In addition to low pay and stressful working conditions, they worry about guns in schools. Always at the back of their minds, all the time. Statistics don't mean shit to people living with the very real possibility.

This ain't right. And gun lovers know it. But still they object to the most reasonable laws and regulation. So selfish. I think it's a power thing, of feeling better and more "in control" than people who don't use guns. Gun owners don't respect people who rightly worry about the damage that the every day death toll takes in this devolving primitive country. They scoff at those calling for reasonable controls. It's "us vs them" mentality. This division is very negative to our mutual future.

Sure, no gun control is just one of many symptoms of a dysfunctional society. If you like it fine. But I don't think you could imagine the ways in which this country would be different if we could really stop the needless killing and injury. Talk to doctors and staff in ERs--they'll tell you all about it. The constant stream of gun victims.

[sarisataka]

211. I live in the real world

Their is violence in many places.

My wife worked as a behavioral specialist in a public school for several years. She left because district policies prevented her from any actions that might actually help kids with behavioral issues; it was always treat the symptom, ignore the cause. She did not fear being shot among this high risk population.
At the end of last year I moved from a block that saw the SWAT team do no-knock warrants 2-3 times each year. I watched police tackle, disarm and arrest a wanted felon on my front yard. I did not fear being shot
I know statistics reflect the real world and even living in a high risk area, the likelihood of being a victim of gun violence is low. Even in high risk places.

I am all for reasonable laws and regulations. What I scoff at are those who promote restriction that is not different than prohibition as being reasonable. I scoff at those who say no one wants to ban all guns yet believes privately owned guns should be locked under government control to be 'checked out' for approved use. I scoff at those who say gun owners who are in favor of better background checks expanded to all sales, laws which will enforce responsibility and accountability to gun owners whose guns are used in crime, enhanced penalties for crimes involving the use of guns... are gun owners who oppose all regulations.

Way back in the day, early 90's, I worked as security supervisor at a county hospital in a metro area. I spent much time in the ER. There were a lot of injuries from violence. Gun shots were a small amount, knives and blunt objects accounted for many more injuries/deaths. Most gun shots resulted from retaliation to other injuries as violence moved in an escalating spiral.

Yes, gun shots can be rather horrible wounds, but many things can cause death. I want to reduce the overall violence. Gun injuries should follow.

[oneshooter]

225. " All I'm asking is for real gun control" Please feelfree to describe that for us. n/t

[marions ghost]

235. This group will tell you

and whoever you speak for:

https://momsdemandaction.org/

[friendly_iconoclast]

338. That group is as phony as the Kochs' Americans For Prosperity

Owned by an authoritarian billionaire and operated by the former head of PR
for Monsanto. At the moment, they're outnumbered circa 20:1 by the NRA-
which is even more pathetic when one realizes that NRA membership costs
at least $25 a year, while one can 'join' MDA by clicking "Like" on one of their
Facebook pages...

No thanks.

[marions ghost]

341. Not sure why

you'd be against Moms Demand Action just because it's been recently endorsed by Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

My guess is you'd be against anything that's effective when it comes to gun control. In some people's view there should be no opposition to whatever they want.

[friendly_iconoclast]

346. You're 0 for 2 for accuracy -they weren't "endorsed" by MAIG, they were taken over by them

https://momsdemandaction.org/in-the-news/mayors-illegal-guns-moms-demand-action-join-forces-unite-national-movement-protect-communities-save-lives/

December 19, 2013 By Moms Demand Action

Merger Brings Together Americans From Every Background to Fight For Common-Sense Reforms to Keep Guns Out of Dangerous Hands

Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America today announced their merger into a nationwide movement of Americans working together to end gun violence.

Note the date- this happened just before MDA would have had to file a Form 990 with the IRS documenting what their income is and where it came from. Now, we needn't wonder- it comes from Bloomberg's pocket.

My guess is you'd be against anything that's effective when it comes to gun control.

And you would be wrong- I support universal background checks and have said so on multiple
occasions:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172126715

Hell must be freezing over- there really *is* common ground at DU on guns:
I find myself in agreement with BainsBane about a proposed law. Yes, you read that correctly...

DUers should support King-Thompson (a restart of Manchin-Toomey), AKA H.R. 1565:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12623636

Support King-Thompson on background checks


Check it out for yourselves:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1565/text

I still think the "family exemptions" on background checks might be problematic, but there are other
parts I like very much indeed:

1) Puts teeth into the requirement for states to enter disqualifying information into the NICS
database, and

2) Puts a kibosh on New York's habit of busting travelers that have secured, unloaded guns in
their baggage.

Seeing as Dianne Feinstein's assault weapons ban is nowhere to be seen this time around,
this might actually get passed and do some good!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172132295

Are you going to support universal background checks IF they come without registration?
I ask this after reading krispos42's excellent OP the other day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172132038

A proposal for universal background checks and reducing arms trafficking

I certainly will, and no doubt others will as well. I suspect, as others allude to in that thread,
that many will not as they prefer an 'all or nothing' approach...

Your posts reek of Colonism:

"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. He’d been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."
- Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[Arugula Latte]

80. There was a fatal shooting right outside my son's school the other day.

He was in the area, on the playing field.

Another friend was at the Oregon mall shooting a couple Christmases ago.

Irrational? No.

Gun violence is everywhere in this sicko, gun-humping country. It's not like that in other "civilized" countries.

[NickB79]

87. Gun violence has fallen by nearly 50% in 25 years, though

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/05/07/181998015/rate-of-u-s-gun-violence-has-fallen-since-1993-study-says

"Firearm-related homicides dropped from 18,253 homicides in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011," according to a report by the federal , "and nonfatal firearm crimes dropped from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011.

There were seven gun homicides per 100,000 people in 1993, the says, which dropped to 3.6 gun deaths in 2010. The study relied in part on data from the .

So, still far above many other civilized countries, but pretty impressive given how little we've actually done to address gun violence directly in this country.

Something other than gun control laws appears to have caused this steep decline, and I think it would pay off substantially if we figured out exactly what it was so that it could be fostered further.

[flying rabbit]

230. On point

" I think it would pay off substantially if we figured out exactly what it was so that it could be fostered further."

[NickB79]

239. To be clear, we could still use some new gun laws

Universal background checks are a no-brainer.

Massive increases in funding for the ATF are in order. Then they could start tracking down and arresting the 2 million people who have have been denied gun purchases by the current background check system in the past decade (and who are most likely committing a felony just trying to beat the system check).

But at the same time, we need to focus on things that effect gun violence outside of gun laws. Personally, I think that once states start following Colorado in allowing the sale of recreational marijuana, we're going to see an even greater drop in violent crime as a large part of the "drug war" comes to a close.

[Eleanors38]

251. Agreed. Very important. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

49. Yes, the 70 y/o man with a cane thread got my mind on it this a.m. eom

[Hoyt]

76. So you are for carrying, accumulating guns because you are afraid of the police?

[CVN-68]

81. I'm far more afraid of cops than the general public.

[Hoyt]

84. I'm far more concerned about bigoted, yahoos carrying gunz in society.

You know, the right/white wing TParty types that make up the vast majority of gun fanciers.

[CVN-68]

88. I personally know several liberal dems who have CCW's

they're not bigoted, right/white wing TParty types.
And I would bet that most that do have a CCW aren't as you discribe either.

[Hoyt]

100. Go to a gun show, gun store, gun promotional march, etc. Tell me what you see.

Most recent white wing gun promotional march, polluting the Austin, Texas South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival:

[CVN-68]

103. I've been to plenty of gun shows.

Very diverse crowds at the ones I've been to.

I see a picture, so what? You think that proves that most gun owners are bigoted right/white TParty types?

[Hoyt]

106. Diverse crowd? LMAO. Post a couple of photos of those diverse crowds. Still LMAO.

[CVN-68]

108. Are you kidding me?

I go to gun shows to check out the merchandise, not to take pictures.
And, I don't have to prove anything to you.
Done.

[Hoyt]

119. You can't prove it to me. Plenty of images on the "internets." Post a few of those.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQajW3oCLwvFLufBU145b5f_uHlXinT9mytcpEi6UaIo5KFwOmn7w

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2iYK0V0wApkmQmzyYHiHxjjz1PnBwYYV8zSpAHzwWZqRWhSg6VA



By the way, why don't they allow loaded gunz in people's pants in gun shows, gun stores, NRA headquarters, etc.



Here's another, showing lack of diversity in those who hang out at gun shows to purchase gunz without background checks (something the gun fanciers tell us doesn't happen).

[hack89]

107. You are wasting your time with Hoyt

even though I am half convinced he has his tongue firmly planted in his cheek and it is an act. No one can be that over the top, especially on a serious issue.

[CVN-68]

109. Thanks for the information.

I guess my best bet is to just ignore what he has to say as far as guns are the subject.

[Paladin]

112. Welcome to you, a member of the latest pro-gun cadre here at DU.

Quite a few of you in this latest batch, aren't there? Enjoy your stay.

[CVN-68]

116. Thank you for the welcome.

Enjoying it so far.
Being pro 2A is a bad thing?

[AnalystInParadise]

148. To some people here yes it is a very bad thing.

I am the devil incarnate to some around these parts. I am a military veteran, current Defense Contractor, proud gun owning, proud and very religious, proud homeschooling dad, mixed race Hispanic male, that also happens to be very liberal on social and economic issues and has a lifetime history of straight line voting for Democrats in every election since I was 18. Some people around here want me to drop dead showing how "tolerant" they really are, I have the Private messages to prove it. Don't let them get you down.

[CVN-68]

162. Meh.

After 35 years of Naval service, all those years at sea, not all 35, but a majority, I've got a pretty tough skin.
Thank you for the advice though.

[Union Scribe]

200. He's on the wrong side of other issues as well.

Anti-union, pro "free" trade globalism. A real liberal, that one.

[TheKentuckian]

208. Got to be "liberal" on something, might as be the same thing as DiFi.

Gives cover for when he says he'd rather cut Social Security than eliminate the cap. He'll also claim that those saved dollars will magically be redistributed to those in need rather than to corporate and wealthy coffers as is the current condition based on some future act that would be precluded by proper funding of the safety nets now.

Say your "Hail Obama" and foam at the mouth about redneck gun owners (forget us minority owners, we are a figment. Forget those that are not reds, they are undercover) and that means you can run as far to the corporate right right as you like short of full blown Teabaggerism.

[baldguy]

181. Right. I'm sure they listen to both kinds of music, too.

[baldguy]

195. .

[Straw Man]

290. And yet ...

Most recent white wing gun promotional march, polluting the Austin, Texas South by Southwest (SXSW) Festival ...

... the only murders that occurred at SXSW can be attributed to alcohol and motor vehicles.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/austin-man-fights-life-wife-killed-driver-charged-sxsw-crash-killed-article-1.1722416

[Hoyt]

292. Murders are not the only adverse effect of gunz. The white wing gun hatred has a toll too.

But to gun fanciers, it's just the price we are forced to pay to preserve gun culture's access to their babies (as the yahoo in the 2008 primaries called them. Loved Biden's response, BTW).

[Kingofalldems]

188. Really?

[villager]

46. Of course we should work on become truly free. And civilized.

n/t

[shenmue]

56. I wish we could

But it'll probably never fly. There is too much devotion to the Second Amendment. I wish we could make things like Japan or Canada, but there are just too many differences. So the best I can hope for is more background checks, things like that.

[shenmue]

68. True

Some good points there.

[Hoyt]

77. "A gun" is not so bad. A bunch of gunz or carrying one in your pants while at Chuck E Cheese is bad.

[Hoyt]

139. Mostly agree. However, I don't think poverty is what prompts folks to carry and accumulate gunz.

Poverty had little if anything to do with Zimmerman, Dunn, Lanza, etc., or the right wing gun nut who is attracted to the dang things to intimidate.

But, I do agree with what you said as far as the people who turn to crime for economic reasons.

[Deep13]

58. I think the Army still needs its guns.

Maybe you meant civilians only. Even then, I don't think it necessary. Canadian or Australian type restrictions would be good enough.

[PowerToThePeople]

60. You are correct.

The poll was about non-military weaponry. I did not specify that.

In fact, I am not against ANY form of ownership. Maybe a system where your weapons are in the care of the National Guard and you can check them out for limited periods for target shooting, etc.

[pipoman]

266. The irony of this post and your handle is stupefying. .

[PowerToThePeople]

269. stupefying is equating guns and power.

An armed soldier relies on his weapons for his strength. Take away from him his weapons--his gun or his sword, and he generally becomes helpless. But a person who has truly realized the principle of nonviolence has the God-given strength for his weapon and the world has not known anything that can match it.

A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.

Nonviolence of the strong is any day stronger than that of the bravest soldier fully armed or a whole host.

[pipoman]

272. "Power to the People" advocates ceding enumerated

Civil liberties to the government. ..irony is someone using a handle with no clue the meaning or history.

[PowerToThePeople]

273. ...

The handle is mine, the meaning to me is what I make of it. I see no irony in regards to my position and my handle. I do not believe that this "enumerated civil liberty" is one that should have manifested itself into the form which appears today. In my opinion what we have today is not what the writers of the Constitution would have meant within the text of the 2nd amendment.

[pipoman]

278. Well you are at odds with virtually every constitutional

Scholar, judge, decision, and interpretation I have ever heard or read if you believe there is anything resembling intent of the amendment in :

Maybe a system where your weapons are in the care of the National Guard and you can check them out for limited periods for target shooting, etc.

I personally would like to see a goal of "complete eradication."


"Should we be passing legislation to remove items that serve no purpose but causation of death from our great Nation?"

[Lost_Count]

282. It doesn't fit because he doesn't want it to...

... and for most of the 90% Bill of Rights crowd that is good enough.

[ZombieHorde]

262. Cars kill way more people than firearms,

so soldiers should just drive around the battlefield, preferably drunk, and kill everyone that way.

This is a joke.

[rollin74]

62. over 300 million privately owned guns in the United States

America is NEVER going to be even remotely close to "gun-free"

how would passing legislation get rid of all the guns that are already out there?


never going to happen

[PowerToThePeople]

66. On January 1, 1863 there were 3.1 - 4 million privately owned people in the United States.

We succeeded in becoming slave free.

[CVN-68]

74. We have?

Wouldn't you agree that Corp. are the new slave owners?

And your analogy is dead wrong.

[Titus]

160. yes you are right

But we had to use guns to do it.

[Hoyt]

79. Let's just leave things as they are for another decade, and there will be 400 million to deal with.

Sooner or later, we are going to wise up and bite the bullet like Australia in 1996. Why keep making it tougher.

[CVN-68]

82. We are?

So far, there's no trend towards that or even a hint of a trend.

[Hoyt]

83. Kind of like cigarettes, folks will get tired of yahoos polluting society with gunz.

[CVN-68]

85. Highly doubtful.

Cigs kill far more per year than guns do.

[Hoyt]

86. Can't just concentrate on the "murder" rate. Gunz facilitate a lot of intimidation and embolden

bigoted yahoos.

[CVN-68]

89. Bull.

[Hoyt]

97. Fact, face it.

[CVN-68]

101. Bull X2.

[SQUEE]

308. And guns intimidate felons and armed robbers too.

Can't have criminals in fear can we? Disarmament would embolden the kind of person that preys on others, we cant all have black belts in bean can and bicycle tire combat...
I shoot with a diverse and eclectic crowd, most are straight ticket Democrats, UNION members and supporters of living wage, Universal healthcare and marrige availibility as well as reproductive freedoms, otherwise I'd not spend my time with them... Most own weapons for protection, though many shoot for sport. You're "experience" indicates otherwise? Maybe you should quit going to NRA sponsored gun shows and evnts.

[Hoyt]

309. I'll check out your favorite gun shows, give me names.

Bet they are no different. Criminals who think you are armed, just shoot you before you know what has happened. Doesn't protect you, just makes the gun fancier feel better about themselves.

[SQUEE]

311. I don't attend "gun shows".

I have plenty of beef jerky, and don't collect beanie babies, nor Support the NRA. I have attended SHOT, and proffesional trade shows that feature many types of weapons, but the local type shows, well they are not my cup of Tea.

I guarantee that very few people on the planet look at me and think "armed". But, having done PPD and site security I have been armed to a level that would make many a banner faint, all while not showing it.
I, NOW, choose not to carry, it is actually exhausting having to be alert at all times, which I regard as the price one pays for the right and responsibility of carry in public. But I also know that in the area I live in CCW offers herd immunity, because no one knows who is or isnt armed.
the uncertainty itself is a deterent.

[Hoyt]

313. So you haven't been to any gun shows to offer an opinion of the level of diversity. OK thanks.

Herd impunity, it's likely just the opposite. When criminals think most are armed, they just shoot first. So you and your herd buddies, might well be responsible for some innocent people being shot for their wallets, etc.

You guys like to think your gunz prevent crime or bad outcomes. Well, it's often just the opposite.

[SQUEE]

315. OH how funny, how terribly rich.

YOUR buddies, you know people that have commited felonies, such as ARMED ROBBERY, arent responsible instead it is the people that feel a need to protect themselves from such that are the reason... OMG, really, again I can't stop laughing at the incredible amount of denial and deflection... good thing you cant tolerate a weapon near you...
Oh Hoyt, if only we had met in our former professions.

[Hoyt]

320. Gun toters seem to believe they can spot a criminal in time to react. They can't.

Criminals will have drop on the victim long before a gun toter can get their gun out, unless toter pulls it first based upon some profile of a criminal. At best, criminals will just take one's gun from toters and let them go. At worse, they'll either shoot you and then take it, or take it and shoot you with it. Guns don't really protect you, just make you feel better about yourself.

What would our "former professions" have to do with anything?

[SQUEE]

321. Why are you trying to preach safety to me?

I dont carry in public, I state that regularly and emphaticly, I find it to be mentally exhausting.
I find it quite telling how much you admire the skillsets and abilities of the criminals out there. Singing the praises of felons whilst bashing the law abiding...

Your statement "At best, criminals will just take one's gun from toters and let them go", again another side splitter, will it then be disassembled Jet Li style and thrown in a pool?
That kind of Alpha style posturing would get one in trouble if one ran up against the wrong sheep.

[Hoyt]

322. Chances of running across "the wrong sheep" are so small, it is irrational to worry about it. Now

Now the boys who feel they have to strap a gun or two on before walking down the street are a different story. They are certifiably -- CCW -- irrational and a menace to society, directly and indirectly.

[SQUEE]

324. So you take your life in your hands. And continue to project your bigotry and hate.

And wonder why so few weep at the death of those intent on harming others.

I'll hold to Clausewitz over M.K. Gandhi when it comes time to rationalize violence of action.
You have "admited" to acts of theft and threatened violence, and revel in them. fortunately for my funny bone and my agenda, you did not run afoul of a true predator... Keep up your good works, and i will keep my firearms.
Good Day Hoyt, I do so love how you prove so many points for me.

[Hoyt]

325. Yep, I am definitely bigoted against those who think gunz improve society.

[friendly_iconoclast]

330. Of course you are; they were an occupational hazard to you at one time:

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.

[Hoyt]

331. Once again stalker, read it in context.

[friendly_iconoclast]

337. Some recovering alcoholics think that *everyone* who drinks has a problem...

[Hoyt]

340. If you drink while carrying or playing with a gun, you do have a problem.

You need to give them up. Suck it up and do what is right for society, not to mention your family.

[SQUEE]

343. I don't drink either..

So .. yay I get to keep my guns..
I am doing what is right for society, being prepared to stop violent thieves. And protecting myself and my loved ones from predators.
Suck it up, Violent criminals with murderous intent will just have to do whats right for themselves and thier families. The onus is on the criminal not to put me in a situation to which I will resort to deadly force. I dont "pack" nor "play" with guns, so its easy for me I am only armed in places where there is no need to hesitate, and it is clear as can be I am right to fire.
long ago i decided to not carry in public, and only use deadly force within my own home.

[Hoyt]

348. Considering how low the liklihood is, that sounds a bit irrational.

Seriously, crud like "murderous intent" ain't rational. As I've said before, a gun in the home is not my concern. A bunch of gunz is very different, as are irrational fears of those with "murderous intent."

[SQUEE]

349. I have been told, people have been known to lock others in, all the while threatening

them with a firearm and not all are merely cowardly posturing and not having a telepathic gene in body...I'll err on the side of my life and safety.

I have a plethora of fireams, and not a single one of these gunz you are always on about, again to use your own lil turn of phrase, suck it up.. it concerns you not the least, unless you are in my home uninvited it should be of no concern... MYOB is pretty much the tennant of my life.
Having been in combat, and seen the darker side of humanity...
I prefer to maintain my deterent, sorry this gives you pause in your dealings with people.

[Hoyt]

351. Sorry, that sounds irrational and we are not in a war zone.

[SQUEE]

352. ...

[friendly_iconoclast]

347. I don't drink, but I also don't prattle on about the evils of alcohol

Like most others, I find preachy, self-righteous Prohibitionists annoying...

[Titus]

158. It is working well in Connecticut

If only they could figure out who are the several hundred thousand who refused to comply with the new law and register their guns.

[One_Life_To_Give]

64. That would require every square inch to have exactly zero possible use

Last I checked there are parts of this country where emergency services offers same week service. Subsistence hunting is still practiced in some locations. Such a regulation is as absurd in those area's as having open carry in Manhattan.

Seldom is the case when either extreme is not equally wrong.

[Orsino]

69. The sentence above the poll does not follow from the subject line.

They might even be at odds.

Legislation that has nothing to do with guns could ultimately create a nation of people few of whom feel a need to swagger about with guns, so that guns are more rarely on hand when disputes tuen nasty.

I'm all for banning or severely restricting the most horrifically efficient firearms, but the ideal number of legal guns in private hands (some sweet spot at which gun deaths are minimized) isn't necessarily zero. How about we start with *fewer*, and see how that works out?

[KamaAina]

71. NO

It should, however, work towards becoming a gun-CONTROLLED country.

[Demo_Chris]

75. Nope. nt

[VScott]

92. "from our great Nation".

One of the reasons this Nation is so "great" (unlike less unfortunate nations), is that we have the 2nd amendment. It's never going to be repealed or go away.

[PowerToThePeople]

94. Welcome to DU

[otohara]

171. The World Is Horrified

let's not change a thing besides who cares what they think?

USA USA USA - Politicians always talk about our moral compass compared to the rest of the world.
I laugh - moral compass my ass. All this gun violence make us look stupid and barbaric.

[ecstatic]

93. Yes. It will be ugly for a while, but it's worth it

Anyone can see that the path we're on is not sustainable. Time to change course.

[PowerToThePeople]

95. I agree

Momentum is going towards big changes to the status quo in very many areas, this one included.

[CVN-68]

104. Momentum is going towards big changes to the status quo in very many areas, this one included.

Show us the momentum going towards big changes in the status quo.

[PowerToThePeople]

105. I do not care to answer but, [strike]the majority[/strike] many

in this thread in support of status quo are low post count, recent start date posters. Take from that what you will.

[CVN-68]

111. What does low post count have to do with my question?

I see plenty here with high post counts that disagree with your thread, what do you make of that?

[hack89]

98. The path we are on has seen a huge decrease in violence in America

so you better hope it is sustainable.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

[Hoyt]

122. How low would violence be if we didn't have a bunch of armed folks running around?

[hack89]

123. "It is not falling fast enough" is not the snappiest battle cry, is it?

but it goes a long way to explaining why radical gun controllers like you are on a 20 year losing streak.

[Hoyt]

124. No, any losing streak is due to yahoos in NRA and other gun lobbying groups.

You guys -- either directly or indirectly -- accept their grip on our government as long as your access to more gunz is protected. Folks like NRA leadership -- Grover Norquist, Ollie North, John Bolton, Ted Nugent, and a bunch more just as bad -- control much of Congress with respect to gunz and other right wing policies.

Too keep you guys happy with your gunz, we have to put up with their right wing policies.

[hack89]

125. You keep believing that. nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

126. I'll play... How low would it be?

And please, don't tell me what you think, tell me what you know.

So exactly how low would it be?

[Hoyt]

131. Pretty low. Why can you tell me what you think, and I can't do the same.

Just because you fancy and carry guns, doesn't mean you know any more about gunz than those who aren't steeped in the dang things.

[cherokeeprogressive]

153. I don't carry guns.

And the Department of Justice says that in 2012, "firearm violence" made up 6.6% of all criminal victimization, according to its Criminal Victimization report released in October, 2013.

Read it for yourself...

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv12.pdf

Where have you ever read that I "carry" guns?

[woo me with science]

96. I think we should focus on creating a country

where everyone's needs are met and that does not have a culture of avarice and cruelty.

I suspect violence would decrease significantly in a humane society.

[PowerToThePeople]

99. Ridding ourselves of tools of inhumanity

will help in this process. (imo)

[Lurks Often]

118. Then we'll go back to using knives and clubs and bows

As a species we LIKE to kill each other, we've been doing it for thousands of years.

And for some who goes by Power to the People, you sure want to make the vast majority of Americans subject to the whims of the young, fast and strong.

[Lizzie Poppet]

137. And small folk like me would be extra screwed.

Personally, I like mechanical advantage. When physical conflict between people was in large part a matter of brute force, women were chattel in the vast majority of human societies. This is not a coincidence.

[fascisthunter]

102. True

[Gidney N Cloyd]

110. Can we start with a gun-free DU? nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

209. DU haz gunz?

I think only Grovelbot goes around fully armed. Well, maybe MIRT too.

The rest of us make do with words.

[joeglow3]

113. Wow. That is not a loaded question.

Reminds of the example the had in college when a poll claimed that close to 100% supported no legal regulation of smoking. The question: do you support Gestapo style police tactics to limit smoking.

[Skip Intro]

114. Nope. n/t

[PeteSelman]

115. Should we? Yes. Will we? Not a chance in the world.

Forget it. Never going to happen. In fact, it's as near to impossible as anything else you can imagine.

That horse left the barn so long ago its dead a thousand miles out to sea.

[Crunchy Frog]

117. I voted yes, but I wouldn't actually go so far as to completely eliminate them.

I would regulate them and limit them to a degree that "gun culture" types would regard it as the practical equivalent of total elimination.

I wish you would have put that in as an option.

[Xyzse]

121. I'd rather go "Safe, Legal, Insured and Responsible".

I don't have a problem with gun ownership as long as it is responsible.

The issue I tend to have are:

Idiots that go around open carry and brandishing as if something like that does not scare people.
I don't care who someone is, a person with a gun is scary.
The assumption is, that any one carrying a gun openly anywhere other than a shooting range, their house and a gun store is generally unhinged.

Problem is, I don't know if you're responsible or not, all I know is, that you are a threat. Why else would you carry one other than to threaten people with violence or actually act upon it?

There is no reason to be carrying something like that, other than trying to look tough, cool or what have you. Carrying a weapon basically means it is for use or showing off. I have no patience nor sympathy for the latter.

Another issue is, if I were defending myself against an armed individual. If I end up killing them with my hands, I have a higher chance to go in jail than if I were to have shot them.

Idiots that don't properly store or maintain their guns.

Some people don't store their guns in locked cases, where it is easily accessible by children.
Some people shoot themselves while "cleaning". More likely than not, they are showing off.

The reason I ask for insurance, is because you never know. I don't have a problem with concealed carry as much, other than knowing that I can't trust any one carrying one. They are automatically flagged as a threat, and I generally leave the area without a word.
Yes, they could be the nicest person in the world, but I wouldn't know that without getting to know them first.

Too many psychos out there. It is best to be as far away from them as possible to avoid problems. Only makes it worse if they are packing. Stating that, I maintain the idea of, "don't start anything and avoidance". Guns tend to bolster false confidence and makes people confrontational. That to me is idiotic. They are still welcome to the guns, but there needs to be insurance to promote some sort of responsibility, so that they actually think about consequences.

[Calista241]

163. Insurance

What is the point of gun insurance? About the only possible use for that is an accidental discharge and you either kill someone or damage some property. How many times does that happen each year?

Any intentional use that necessitated a payout would most likely be considered a crime, and thus not coverable by insurance.

[Xyzse]

334. Insurance:

You pretty much mentioned one of the major uses of it.

What is the point of car insurance other than accidents? How many times does that happen each year to the regular individual?

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

http://nyagv.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Accidental-Shootings-NYAGV.pdf
2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.ii More than a third of the victims were under 25 years of age.
2010 alone, unintentional firearm shootings caused the deaths of 606 people.

So, it does happen. I mean seriously, I'm not asking for a ban, I just think anything that improves maturity and responsibility in gun ownership and usage to me is a plus.

[Bluenorthwest]

128. Your own OP proves it is impossible, GD was declared a gun-free zone

and yet here you are brandishing for impact. See what I mean?

[Eleanors38]

254. Interesting. Anti-gun views are now protected in GD...

In essence, Only anti-gun OPs are allowed in the gun debate, and the same denigrating and smear language we have heard for years is mainly protected as well. It is corruption-by-intent of the TOS, and goes to show how "gun control" is Not a movement, but an elitist prohibition outlook whose main operative tool is gaining command of regulatory and rule-making bureaucracies in order to control debate. DU is no exception.

Frankly, there are many DUers -- including myself -- who are disappointed in how one "side" has turned GD into their Castle Bansalot protected group writ large. All in the name of some high-strung morality they call "compassion."

2 gun groups are enough.

[Skip Intro]

129. PowerToThePeople, are you surprised by the response to your poll? n/t

[PowerToThePeople]

132. I am pleased with the results

A fairly good percent in support of the idea.

[Skip Intro]

134. I am too. I thought a vast majority here would be for it.

Something for both sides to be pleased with here I guess, then.

We do have to keep in mind, of course, that this is just DU, and is hardly representative of Democrats, let alone the American people.

[Dwayne Hicks]

130. No

I support the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. I am a gun owner myself, a rifle and a handgun. I'm all for tighter background checks and mandatory training classes. Instead of passing silly bans (Like my state of NJ is trying to do) why not ramp up gang task forces and go after all the street dealers instead? This is one of the very few issues I do not agree with Democrats on. As another poster pointed out 2/3 of the country supports gun ownership, and for Democrats to constantly talk about bans and repealing the 2nd only serves to drive the fear machine into hyperspace. "Gun control" is a losing platform for Democrats, or really any party.

[Warpy]

133. I vote no only because I live in wild country

People outside the city need their guns, this is bear and cougar country. Some poor folks rely on hunting for their protein, also using a gun to dispatch the once a year pig in a celebration called a matanza.

I'd like to see the country be handgun free. People still need those long guns for hunting and, if they live outside cities and towns, protection from predators.

http://www.thesantafesite.com/articles-database/Matanza---A-New-Mexico-Celebration.html

[mwrguy]

138. YES

Absolutely yes.

[Common Sense Party]

143. How would you like to see us "work towards" achieving this lofty goal?

What steps do you think America should take?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

146. That's a waste of resources that should go elsewhere

[WatermelonRat]

150. Regulation, registration, and licenses, absolutely.

An outright ban? No way.

[Duckhunter935]

152. Nope

always like gun threads in GD.

[etherealtruth]

154. I would love to see it ....

... but would settle for stringent laws governing the ownership of firearms and ammunition

[0rganism]

155. Jeez how about going for "sanely regulated" first?

Look at the backlash simple background check laws get and consider how hard it would be to push for a fully de-gunned society. Maybe someday it'll be worth speculating about.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

156. I think we have this about right in the UK.

It's legal to own shotguns, but they're tightly restricted; most other types of firearm are not.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

234. Yeah, sure their tightly restricted.

I saw the local crow/fox/bunny killer walking on the bridle path behind my parents house with his shotgun, taking pot shots at 'vermin'....did I mention the bridle path runs along side a school playing field?

Here in the US that would never be tolerated!

[hollowdweller]

157. I vote no

But we have to dial back some of the liberalization of gun laws and expand the background checks.

Also we should ban advertising of them just like we did cigarettes.

For sure the stand your ground laws need to change.

[Douglas Carpenter]

161. Ideally - I suppose - but given the culture you might as well hope for a prayer-free Country

In fact I suspect that if was a matter of choice many God fearing Americans would give up prayer before they would give up their guns

[Lost_Count]

175. Only because guns can actually affect change...

Good or bad...

Prayer? Not so much...

[Vashta Nerada]

165. Absolutely.

People can hunt with other weapons, such as bows.

The Paleoindians managed to get by using atlatls for thousands of years. The hunters of today can use a compound bow.

[Vashta Nerada]

177. Good for you.

[baldguy]

187. The use of bows & arrows and atlatls & spears requires a not insubstantial amount of skill.

Much easier to spray & pray with a 100-round mag attached to an automatic rifle. So what if they kill a few cows, a few other hunters & a few innocent bystanders along the way?

( for the sarcasm-impaired, i.e. conservatives)

[MrScorpio]

167. If it were up to me, we'd go back to a flintlock/musket only country...

Just as the Founding Fathers intended.

[MrScorpio]

172. Hey, no one's talking about banning guns...

Just get back into the original intention of well-regulating them.

None of that other stuff you mentioned was intended to be well-regulated. I see you missed the point here, Swabbie!

[Jenoch]

174. Keep beating that dead horse.

[NutmegYankee]

176. Well regulated

[Union Scribe]

199. "no one's talking about banning guns"

Uhhh...that's kinda the whole topic of this thread.

[MrScorpio]

201. Meaning in my subthread

Those other guys, well.. Have at 'em.

[geomon666]

178. Yes

We would all be better off without them.

[geomon666]

185. Learn how to actually hunt.

Take self defense courses.

[geomon666]

189. Good for you.

Wonder how you'd fare without the gun.

[Kingofalldems]

190. Do you hunt for your food?

[Eleanors38]

350. I do! I do! And I keep a gun handy for self-defense.

[BlueCaliDem]

184. No. Not gun-free although I would never purchase a firearm myself.

I feel that it's a responsible person's right to purchase and own firearms - as long as it doesn't go OUT OF WHACK, like getting a bazooka or canon . . . or an AK 47 with a 100 round capacity. Those weapons of mass destruction are not necessary to hunt deer or to protect one's homestead.

However, I'd like to make note of the simple fact that the Courts have corrupted the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to a "free for all - no matter what", forgetting the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment:

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Our gun laws are far too lax and are nowhere near "well-regulated".

That said, I wouldn't want to outlaw guns altogether. I like the thought that should I ever make my home in the mountains, far from police protection, that in addition to a few powerful guard dogs (Bouvier des Flandres would be my choice - they make excellent guard dogs) I'd like to have a few shotguns and/or rifles for back up.

[pipoman]

267. Of course those charged with

interpretation of the constitution are also charged with understanding the intent, and the definitions and contexts of words at the time they were written.

[BlueCaliDem]

285. Which just goes to show

Republican-appointed justices are no less corrupt than their fellow Republicans still infesting our government, and another salient reason NEVER to vote Republican again. Unless, of course, being a serf with no rights, no wages, and no life is the ideal life.

[pipoman]

286. Even liberal judges know that the definition of "well regulated"

Had a different contextual meaning than the current, common, 21st century interpretation. This is why such claims are simply not present, in even the dissenting opinions, on the second amendment SCOTUS cases.

[BlueCaliDem]

296. Yes, even liberal judges know the ACCEPTED definition of "well regulated militia"

which they and their colleagues were handsomely paid for by the NRA and other corporate interests in their pursuit of profit. But even you know it's got NADA to do with the original intent of the 2nd Amendment which was what my original post was about. And if you don't, there are ample sites that can explain it to you.

But even Con judges know what that original intent is, and it never was meant to afford each and every American unlimited access to AK 47s with 100 round magazine to hunt deer.

Don't worry. No one is going to try and take your guns away, so chill. However, every American with more than half a working brain is for stricter gun laws in order to keep as many psychos from getting their hands on those weapons of mass destruction and to, at least, limit the amount of children being gunned down behind their school desks. Don't you agree?

[pipoman]

299. Surely you have some evidence that SCOTUS

has taken bribes?

No, the meaning at the time can be researched...those who claim it to mean something akin to the modern definition are either wishful thinkers acting in ignorance, or are agenda driven liars.

Only, again, the ignorant or liars don't understand that that the 2nd is/was never about hunting.

Apparently not all are for stricter gun control. ..how long has it been since the feds have passed stricter gun control? Even states have passed far more liberalizations than increases over the past 20 years or so... Oh wait, I'm sure that the NRA bought all politicians in addition to the SCOTUS with the industry's (the industry that all combined US manufacturers revenues wouldn't qualify for the Fortune 500) cash. No, the 20k plus federal laws and restrictions pretty much restrict as much as possible without violating the actual intent of the amendment.

Those wishing for additional laws and regulations will have to go to the states, which they seem too lazy to do.

[beevul]

287. Thats a convenient fiction...

"However, I'd like to make note of the simple fact that the Courts have corrupted the original intent of the 2nd Amendment to a "free for all - no matter what", forgetting the "well-regulated" part of the 2nd Amendment..."

Thats a convenient fiction.


“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

[BlueCaliDem]

297. The only convenient fiction here

is that what's perpetrated by that judge one hundred and fifty years after the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified and became the law of the land, and those who are so incredibly desperate that they'd believe anything, even that justice's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, just so that they can hug their all-holy weapons of mass destruction a little tighter no matter how many tens of thousands of innocent Americans and American children are gunned down in cold blood by psychopaths who can get their hands on said weapons of mass destruction easier than a black person can vote in most States in this country.

The 2nd Amendment has been corrupted by the NRA, Con justices and judges, and politics although it appears that I need to remind a few gun-fanatics on this site that, at minimum, NOWHERE in the 2nd Amendment does it prohibit Congress from passing gun control laws.

Does the Second Amendment prevent Congress from passing gun-control laws? The question, which is suddenly pressing, in light of the reaction to the school massacre in Newtown, is rooted in politics as much as law.

For more than a hundred years, the answer was clear, even if the words of the amendment itself were not. The text of the amendment is divided into two clauses and is, as a whole, ungrammatical: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The courts had found that the first part, the “militia clause,” trumped the second part, the “bear arms” clause. In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/12/jeffrey-toobin-second-amendment.html

Who is the author of this article? Read Jeffrey Toobin's bio here.

I'd believe Toobin LONG before I'd take anything an anonymous poster on this site tries to tell me with cherry-picked "opinions" of some bought and paid for Justice any day.

[beevul]

319. Uh huh.

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943

"The only convenient fiction here is that what's perpetrated by that judge one hundred and fifty years after the U.S. Constitution was written and ratified and became the law of the land, and those who are so incredibly desperate that they'd believe anything, even that justice's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, just so that they can hug their all-holy weapons of mass destruction a little tighter no matter how many tens of thousands of innocent Americans and American children are gunned down in cold blood by psychopaths who can get their hands on said weapons of mass destruction easier than a black person can vote in most States in this country."

So much sound and fury signifying...nothing.

No refutation of what I, or the esteemed justice said...not even a smidgen. Oh, sure, the writer of the "piece" you cite says that something is so...but that doesn't make it so.

"I'd believe Toobin LONG before I'd take anything an anonymous poster on this site tries to tell me with cherry-picked "opinions" of some bought and paid for Justice any day."

Oh yeah. Clearly the nra got to him clear back in 1943...

Oh, so its "cherry-picked opinions of some bought and paid for Justice" that you have an issue with...except you haven't shown that there are any of those hereabouts.You've only asserted that there are, with no evidence to support it.

How about taking the words of the framers themselves, saying essentially the EXACT same thing as the Judge did in his quote:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://www.billofrights.org/

Is that authoritative enough for you?

I'd believe the framers LONG before I'd take anything an anonymous poster with an axe to grind on this site tries to tell me with cherry-picked "opinions" of some journalist with an axe to grind, any day.

[baldguy]

192. I see the gun nuts here aren't trying to justify their fetish as protection againt the govt

at least, not yet...

[hack89]

198. I never understood that particular belief

It certainly defies reality. The are plenty of other reasons to own guns.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

194. guns are to Democrats as abortion is to Republicans

Lightning rod, red meat to rally the base and pit the 98% against each other.

[Vogon_Glory]

202. No We Should Not

No we should not. As much as I despise the gun lobby and detest the pols pandering to the gun lobby, I think there is a place for firearms in this country.

I do think some types of pistols as well as automatic rifles ought to be severely restricted, at least in cities. I see no need for most people to have automatics or most revolvers, let alone military-style assault weapons.

People in rural areas deserve more latitude. Unlike the British Isles, the American wilds are a dangerous place, and some people do need something to fend off bears, cougars, poisonous snakes, gators, and wild dogs.

I also believe in giving leeway to people with heirloom or black powder weapons. Seriously, how many rampaging shooters use muskets or cap-and-ball revolvers in mass shootings?

[PowerToThePeople]

203. I could probably be on board with this line of thinking. eom

[Vogon_Glory]

204. I Think About The UK's Firearms Prohibition And ask Why

I think about the UK's current firearms prohibitions and ask "WHY so extreme?"

Yes, nuts and emotionally unstable people can kill people with guns. But why restrictions so severe that hunting rifles of all types are banned and people can't use muskets or muzzle-loading flintlock pistols?

[jwirr]

212. Are there any gun free countries?

[marions ghost]

215. Australia

guns are strictly regulated and generally limited to sport shooting and hunting. Police have minimal weaponry. No need for AR 15's. You don't have to worry about being mugged at gunpoint or gunned down by random shooters in a public place. You don't have to read the murder statistics every day, or ignore the accidental or wanton killings of innocent people.

To Americans, Australians even seem spoiled, they have such a relatively stress-free life. Social safety net, paid vacations, taxation of the rich, & people don't carry guns. You never have to worry about your kids going to school or to the Mall.

It's amazing the less stress there. You can feel it getting off the plane.

[jwirr]

218. Thank you for the info. I could go for that idea. However, we have a long way to go to get this

country to even think about it.

[marions ghost]

219. We have a long way to go

but we need to get some reasonable controls in place so we can at least slow down the senseless killing and make people think about what they're doing when they buy a gun. For example, we need to prosecute parents when children get their hands on a gun and kill themselves or somebody else. There is lots we can do short of banning guns. Which is not the way to go in this country where guns are a very important Precious Object. Cold dead hands & all that BS.

[Straw Man]

291. Dream on.

You don't have to worry about being mugged at gunpoint or gunned down by random shooters in a public place. You don't have to read the murder statistics every day, or ignore the accidental or wanton killings of innocent people.

Nice mythology, but sadly not accurate.

There were 72 drive-by shootings in Sydney in the first half of this year — one every 2½ days — most of which took place in Bankstown, the City of Liverpool further west and in Sydney’s inner-west. Drive-bys were virtually unheard of in Sydney until the mid-1990s, when the sons and grandsons of hardworking Lebanese migrants emerged as serious players in a world of organized crime, hitherto dominated by Vietnamese and Calabrian gangs.

“In the past there was a code among crime gangs in Sydney that bodies in the street were bad for business,” says Michael Duffy, the author of Drive By, a new novel about a Lebanese crime family and the efforts of a bigoted, dispirited police force to lock them up. “But with drive-by shootings, the nature of criminality in Sydney has changed. That’s what’s so disturbing.”

--http://world.time.com/2013/10/11/in-sydney-disaffected-lebanese-kids-caught-in-spiraling-gang-violence/

Eight members of rival Australian motorbike gangs have been charged in Melbourne over a spate of shootings.

The charges followed raids across the city on Tuesday night during which guns, explosives and cash were seized, local media reported.

Nearly 200 police officers were involved in the raids.

They came after a Hells Angels clubhouse was sprayed with bullets allegedly fired by members of the rival Comanchero biker group.

Both groups will face separate court hearings following a number of drive-by shootings, The Australian newspaper reported.

Police say that the attack on the clubhouse was in retaliation for an earlier Hells Angels attack on two businesses owned by a Comanchero member.

High-powered military weapons including AK-47s and M-1 carbines were used in both shootings, police say.

--http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24361835

Incidents of sexual violence against women, specifically involving perpetrators who are not partners, is more than double the global average in Australia and New Zealand, a study finds.

A study released today in the Lancet medical journal says 16.4 per cent of women 15 years old or older in Australia and New Zealand have been the victim of sexual assault by someone who wasn’t their partner (i.e. other family members, friends, strangers). This compares to the global average of 7.2 per cent.

--http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/12/australia-struggles-high-rate-sexual-assault-against-women-study

I'm glad to hear that you had a nice time in Australia, but please remember that "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."

[marions ghost]

310. I know what its like to live there

for many years. Yes drug-related gang crimes are everywhere. Sydney and Melbourne have always had a bad neighborhood or two. But still--the people of Australia are not clamoring for guns for self-defense. Here in America we can only dream--you are correct on that--because this country is owned by the NRA and gun manufacturers. But we have to keep protesting because it makes us feel like are doing something, to imagine that one day somehow we will live in a better country. Otherwise you just become suicidal yourself. Which of course would suit right wingers and gun nuts just fine.

Your post is skewed. Here's info for you--a good Washington Post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/

----------------------------

John Howard, who served as prime minister of Australia from 1996 to 2007, is no one's idea of a lefty. He was one of George W. Bush's closest allies, enthusiastically backing the Iraq intervention, and took a hard line domestically against increased immigration and union organizing (pdf).

But one of Howard's other lasting legacies is Australia's gun control regime, first passed in 1996 in response to a massacre in Tasmania that left 35 dead. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. It also instituted a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons.

On Wednesday, Howard took to the Melbourne daily the Age to call on the United States, in light of the Aurora, Colo., massacre, to follow in Australia's footsteps. "There are many American traits which we Australians could well emulate to our great benefit," he concluded. "But when it comes to guns, we have been right to take a radically different path."

So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness. The paper also estimated that buying back 3,500 guns per 100,000 people results in a 35 to 50 percent decline in the homicide rate, but because of the low number of homicides in Australia normally, this finding isn't statistically significant.

What is significant is the decline the laws caused in the firearm suicide rate, which Leigh and Neill estimate at a 74 percent reduction for a buyback of that size. This is even higher than the overall decline in the suicide rate, because the gun buybacks' speed varied from state to state. In states with quick buybacks, the fall in the suicide rate far exceeded the fall in states with slower buybacks.Tasmania did a quicker buyback, and saw a large decline in suicides, while the Australian Capital Territory did a slower buyback, and a slower decline. The study fits with a pattern of research in the United States that finds a strong correlation between gun possession and suicide rates, as University of Chicago public health Professor Harold Pollack details here.

---more at link

[Straw Man]

314. Info?

Gun buybacks leading to a decline in gun suicides is a tautology. "Strong circumstantial evidence" means correlation rather than causation, in other words, strong confirmation bias.

So "Australians are not clamoring for guns for self-defense"? Perhaps those of your social circle were not, but that calls to mind Pauline Kael's shock at Nixon's election because no one she knew voted for him. In any case, guns owned for self-defense are not now and never have been the cause of the gun violence that we all deplore.

Gun control will lead us to a "better country"? Gun control has never had an impact on criminal violence and it never will. At best it's a misguided distraction from the real social ills of our country.

[TransitJohn]

216. We have to take care of the e-cigs first; you eat an elephant one bite at a time.

n/t

[Initech]

221. A mom breast fed her kid while smoking e-cigarettes and husband open carried at Olive Garden!

[sarisataka]

222. Neglectful

Who was watching the pit bull?

[B Calm]

220. Never happen!

Too many guns out there now and there is no way in hell the people would hand them in to be destroyed.

These anti gun wedge issues do nothing but help the Republican party.

[PowerToThePeople]

224. Sorry you feel that way

I think it can happen. Maybe not near term, but as a long range goal. I also do not think it "do(es) nothing but help the Republican party." What I do think helps the Republican party is when we dismiss issues that should be important to us because they 'might do nothing but be a wedge that helps the Republican party.'

[tridim]

226. Should be the goal of humanity, not just our country. nt

[Paladin]

227. A poll like this is a brightly-wrapped gift to the pro-gun movement.

I can promise you that our resident Gun Enthusiasts are reveling in it, and that they are sharing it with other pro-gun venues. My guess is that the results of this poll are going to be tabbed and used for years to come---against proponents of effective gun control measures. Personally I don't give much of a shit, because I gave up on establishing any meaningful dialog on firearms restrictions some time ago. But for anyone still trying to reach a compromise of some sort, this poll, and that catchy "no purpose but causation of death" comment, can and most certainly will be produced and used against Democrats. The fact that a majority of respondents weighed in against the notion of a gun-free country won't count for much---not to a paranoia-fueled movement fronted by the likes of Wayne LaPierre and Larry Platt. Genuinely unfortunate.

[uncommonlink]

232. Spot on!

[marions ghost]

242. Doubt it

shhhhh, the pro-gun movement might find out they have opposition.

"no purpose but causation of death" -- that's a big red flag statement? Gun owners would seem to be aware of that fact. Duh.

Here's something funny--this video had an ad plastered right across the Buddha's body that says: "Join the NRA and get a free NRA duffle bag!" I am not kidding...

[PowerToThePeople]

244. What is the purpose of the tool, if not "causation of death?"

There is no other purpose that a gun is needed for.

[Lost_Count]

253. 2 things...

1) some situations do indeed call for lethal force so their "sole purpose" can be a benefit.

2) In addition to propelling bullets guns also provide a credible threat of force which has resolved many situations without a shot fired. So they have a purpose beyond causing death as well.

Knowledge abounds...

[PowerToThePeople]

274. Ok, death and terrorism

terrorism
[ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

[Go Vols]

233. No

[PlanetaryOrbit]

243. The question is worded in a slanted way.

"Should we be passing legislation to remove items that serve no purpose but causation of death from our great Nation?"

If you take a course in political research, you'll know that slanted wording can skew the poll results.

[marions ghost]

250. Eh?--this is DU

not an official poll. You can slant all over the place if you want.

Maybe the wording was intended to get posts and views (& was successful at that)>

[reddread]

249. Gun free cops n/t

[fadedrose]

252. My son and others I know enjoy hunting

They take the deer and have it dressed and packaged. Nothing is wasted.

He and others like him get such a thrill when hunting season starts, and sometimes they don't get anything, but the thrill of the outdoors and climbing into tree seats is still there.

I feel sorry for the deer, but even sorrier for the chickens and other animals who have never known the feel of grass under their feet, or water from a spring, or shade under the trees, and they suffer a worse fate than the deer.

Some people who live alone need the security of having a gun and hopefully never will have to use it.

I don't own a gun, never have and never will.

[Separation]

256. No thank you

I already have to deal with 30-40 Facebook feeds about how Obama is gonna steal and confiscate our guns. I go about and try to engage in conversation and let them know that Obama is not in fact hiding in their closets like an Underwear Knome ready to steal their guns as soon as they nod off.

[madinmaryland]

259. Abso-fucking-tively! We need to have way fewer gun-fetishers in the country.

[undeterred]

260. Yes send all the gun nuts to pacifist camp until they

disarm each other and sing kumbya!

[Jenoch]

268. I have so far refrained from participating in this thread.

I will chime in now and say that the reason I am opppsed to attempting to make the U.S. a "gun-free counyry" is because the political capital expended and the political power lost is not worth it. Democrats would lose both houses of congress and the White House for at least a generation.

(This post is referencing azserious attempt at repealing the 2nd Amendment. Anything less would be ineffectual at reducing gun ownership in the U.S.)

[PowerToThePeople]

270. We would not jump right to "gun-free"

It certainly would be a process of many steps, that is the reason "work towards" the goal in the poll question. I understand there would need to be an infinite amount of political capital for an all out ban currently. Even then, it would be an unstoppable force against an immovable object dilemma.

Thanks for chiming in.

[Jenoch]

271. If the 'work towards' included an attempt

to change the second amendment through the congress and various legislatures, then the loss of political power to Democrats would be too great.

[Yo_Mama]

275. I answered "no", because it is not even remotely possible, nor is it advisable.

I also don't want to see the Dem party plant a fist in its own face at this time by pursuing such a ridiculous agenda.

The political fallout is evident in the OP phrasing. All those who use guns to hunt or deal with varmints or large predators take one look at a sentence like that and immediately "know" that you are their enemy. Then add to that those who have guns in their homes as a last defense, and we've just written off 20% of the electorate out of sheer ignorance.

We have a violence problem in this country, and I would strongly support working toward eliminating THAT.

There is strong national support for reasonable gun control measures. Maybe target that?

Approaching the topic with this combination of blissful, self-righteous ignorance combined with abysmal political blindness is akin to using a nail gun to trim your own toenails - a truly destructive strategy.

[RKP5637]

276. Who trusts whom, would the watchers disarm too? Hence, I said no. We are not advanced

enough at this time.

[aikoaiko]

277. This poll results show why the anti-gunners are failing and will fail.

And there is evidence that the expectations are that no significant gun restrictionist legislation will happen -especially at the federal level.

Gun prices are at very low prices.
Same for magazines with 10+ capacity.
Except for 22lr Ammo is coming back.

[Paladin]

279. See what I mean, PowerToThePeople? (nt)

[aikoaiko]

280. "[Paladin] gave up on establishing any meaningful dialog on firearms restrictions some time ago."

I see what you mean.

[Paladin]

281. It still has its entertaining aspects. Like that 2008 DU poll.....

....which turned up in the predecessor to the Gun Control/RKBA group. You know the one I'm talking about, aikoaiko: the one where 45% of the respondents pronounced themselves ready to vote Republican on the basis of gun rights (with another 3% stating they were going to stay at home on election day, just to piss off the Democrats). Personally, I always thought those percentages were on the....conservative side.

[Hoyt]

293. I missed that little jewel. Shows what's most important to them. Very sad.

[hack89]

294. Do you have a link.? Nt

[Paladin]

295. Find it yourself. It'll mean more to you, that way. (nt)

[hack89]

300. Pulled it out of your ass, didn't you?

funny that you can remember the exact results but you have no idea where to find the link. LOL.

[Paladin]

301. No, I just don't do leg work for pro-gun extremists.

And before you accuse me of being a liar again, perhaps you ought to check in with some of the gray beards in the DU Gun Enthusiast crowd, people who were around when that poll appeared in 2008. The poll sat in the DU2 version of Gun Control/RKBA for weeks; I made numerous references to it in firearms-related threads in the big forums during that time. And trust me, you aren't the first gun obsessive to ask for a link to the poll. My response has been the same, and there have never been any follow-up accusations of dishonesty. Find the poll yourself, hack89. I have a suggestion for what you can do with it after you've found it.

[hack89]

303. I am one of those gray beards - I have been here since 2005

I don't trust your memory.

[Paladin]

304. The feeling's mutual.

I stand by my prior statements.

[hack89]

305. So be it. See you around. nt

[Hoyt]

323. You know it exists, just like this one where you guys called me a liar.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4399128

Heck, there is even a thread in the Gungeon started just a month or so before Trayvon Martin was murdered, where the gun culture members discussed what to tell -- and not tell -- police if you shoot someone by mistake so as not to get in trouble later when your attorney helps you craft your official story. The gungeon archives are filled with such crud.

[hack89]

327. It took you longer to type that then it would to provide a link

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 03:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I would never characterize you as a liar. While many of your fellow grabbers will bend the truth now and then, because all you do is dish out fact less broad brushed smears, you have no need to lie.

[2banon]

283. confusing two issues..

100% gun eradication ? (I don't support that)

causation of death?

cigarettes?
alcohol?
race car driving?
motorcycles?
knives?
Dupont's weed killers?
Sugar?
Sky diving?
etc.

[Calista241]

284. Work towards..

This thread is indicative and why gun enthusiasts will strongly resist any new gun regulations. People may say "background checks" or "100 round magazine limitations", but does anyone really think the gun control movement will be satisfied if these regulations are made law?

Gun enthusiasts view any new regulations as only a first step, which will be followed by another step in the future, and will eventually result in an effective ban on firearms.

Better to focus on policy that has an actual chance at working and keeping the White House and congress in our hands.

[Demo_Chris]

298. Hillarious. nt

[liberal N proud]

302. Just ridding the country of hand guns would be good.

That is where most of the violence comes from.

[eridani]

306. Right after we work towards having everyone flap their arms to fly

IOW, this isn't anywhere near possible.

[ScreamingMeemie]

318. Should this poll have more than yes/no options?

Yes

[Threedifferentones]

326. Aren't you worried we will be conquered by some other people after our military gives up its arms?

Oh, you didn't mean to include the military and police (as if they are totally different lol) as part of our "country?"

So, your suggestion is that we take these two institutions, which are understandably trashed regularly on DU for being full of authoritarian assholes, and set things up so that only they have weapons. Call me paranoid, but no thanks.

[SkatmanRoth]

332. NO

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

344. AMONG THE MANY JUST USES FOR A GUN ARE...

...in the hands of a good citizen, to protect, defend and preserve the lives of him(her)self and the lives of other good citizens.

This is the prime use of a firearm by law enforcement.

[ileus]

345. That's the good thing about firearms they're designed to save lives.

Only when misused do they cause death.

[stone space]

354. Yes. (nt)