I can't talk about my hatred of guns and the NRA on Facebook

[Flying Squirrel]

And I can't talk about it on DU in general discussion either, unless there is "big news." Whatever that means anymore. Last Tuesday kpete posted about a Tom Tomorrow toon that had been locked, and I predicted with absolute certainty that it wouldn't be long before there would be a fresh atrocity and guns would once again be big news.

Here's a link to the locked OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024972106

I can't talk about guns on Facebook because of my childish brother who is a gun nut. We battled before and I finally decided it wasn't worth alienating him for something I can't change with Facebook posts anyway. I wonder how many other people are in the same position as I am.

I don't give a shit about the mental illness angle or the misogyny angle, I'm sorry. They don't matter. It's the guns, stupid. It's the ability to kill effortlessly from a distance, then go out in a blaze of glory instead of paying for your crime in prison.

And I'm sick and tired of the gag order on DU. Guns are an issue that we should be able to discuss in GD at all times until the NRA and our craven politicians are finally forced to do the right thing. Tell me why I'm wrong and the issue should be confined to the topic forums, while people can post stuff about their pets in GD all day long.

[malaise]

1. +1,000

IBTL

[yuiyoshida]

10. IBTL

It is kind of sad.

[SheilaT]

2. I've been advocating taking away guns

for a while now here on DU. And I'm invariably shouted down by the gun apologists who think that it's just okey dokey that we have all these gun deaths, because, what can you do? As if our level of death and destruction from guns is somehow normal.

They totally discount that Australia essentially banned guns after a mass shooting, saying that couldn't possibly happen here, and by the way our gun deaths have diminished. Like only 33,000 a year instead of 34,000 thousand is a big improvement.

I've had posts deleted because I don't hesitate to say what I think. Such as I just wish the only ones who were killed by guns were the gun apologists themselves.

[MrModerate]

9. You're right. I live in Australia and gun crime . . .

Is hardly worth mentioning. Except that they do mention it when it happens because it's newsworthy. People do flip out here, and they do kill one another, but seldom with guns.

And Australia didn't actually ban guns, per se, so much as regulate them closely. You have to have a documented need to own a firearm, and "I'm scared" isn't considered a good enough reason.

And all this without a trace of tyranny from the government. Go figure.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. So true...

Though I think it's a bit more than just a documented need to own a firearm. I think ownership's restricted to farmers, those who need them for their jobs, and anyone else who wants one of the types of guns that are allowed here have to be a member of a gun club, have a gun safe and a few other things like that.

Were you living here in the era leading up to Port Arthur and the swift introduction of gun control laws after it where there was a spate of massacres? After the gun control laws came in, those sort of things aren't happening anymore...

[CrispyQ]

111. This provided a sad laugh:

You have to have a documented need to own a firearm, and "I'm scared" isn't considered a good enough reason.

[DeSwiss]

3. K&R

[center]






[/center]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. Except the OP isn't being censored.

[DeSwiss]

38. Not so far. :-| n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. He hasn't been abducted by 3-eyed marauders from the planet Zorgon, either.

But let us remain vigilant.

[DeSwiss]

42. Yes, let's.

- With those Zorgonese, you can never be too careful.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. It was locked because it was outside the discussion permissions of GD.

That's not censorship.

And the only reason the OP isn't discussing matters on FB is because he CHOSE to not discuss the matter any further. It was his choice.

[DeSwiss]

48. You can use any name you like for it.

- I don't judge. It's not my place since it does not concern me directly. But if you look up the definition of censorship, I believe you'll find my position is correct.

[center][/center]

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations. Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

~George Orwell

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. I did, and you aren't.

The proper definitions are "off-topic" and "timid."

[DeSwiss]

52. Hehehe, yeah right.

''The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational!'' ~Robert Anton Wilson

Take care!

[Eleanors38]

86. Orwell was very pro-gun. nt

[DeSwiss]

88. He was indeed.

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” ~George Orwell

And yet even with the rifle still there on the wall (in America that's an AR-15 thank you very much), democracy hasn't stayed there too, or has it? You tell me. Today's world looks more like the one he wrote about, wouldn't you say?

The ''rifle'' Orwell spoke of as necessary belies the reason for it's necessity. And that is because of the inherent defect of the system because it was created by even more defective humans. All governments are creations of monetary systems no matter what the flavor that it's called. And only a handful in those governments (and the rich elites who command them), make decisions concerning the money that is created from thin-air -- which is the new form that chains and bondage take.

Another thing Orwell said was: ''The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.''

So the same rifle he lauded, he also realized was our doom. that the rifle on the labourer's wall is a far cry from Drones from on high, not to mention nukes.

- Looking back to Orwell is helpful if we heed all the warnings. But if all we do is look back then we can't see where we're going. Looking back is only good for checking to make sure you're not covering the same ground twice.

We are.

The reality is that institutional establishments, institutions of codified thought, and institutions of societal influence and power, meaning philosophies, dogmas on one hand and corporations and governments on the other, each have a high propensity to engage in denial, dishonesty, and corruption to maintain self-preservation and self-perpetuation. The result is a continuous culture lag where social progress by way of incorporating new socially-helpful scientific advancements is constantly inhibited. It is like walking through a brick wall as the established power orthodoxies continue to perpetuate themselves for their own interests and comforts.

The profit mechanism creates established orders which constitute the survival and wealth for a few groups of people. The fact is that no matter how socially beneficial new advents may be, they will be viewed in hostility if they threaten an established financially-driven institution. Meaning social progress can be a threat to the establishment. So to put this into a sentence: "Abundance, sustainability and efficiency are the enemies of profit."

Progressive advancement in science and technology which can solve problems of inefficiency and scarcity once and for all, are in effect making the prior establishment's servicing of those issues obsolete. Therefore in a monetary system corporations aren't just in competition with each other, they're in competition with progress itself. That is why social-change is so difficult within a monetary system. In other words, the established monetary system refuses to allow free-flowing change.

We have to understand that government as we know it today, is not in place for the well being of the public, but rather for the perpetuation of their establishment and their power. Just like every other institution within a monetary system. Government is a monetary invention for the sake of economic and social control and its methods are based upon self-preservation, first and foremost. All a government can really do is to create laws to compensate for an inherent lack of integrity within the social order.

In society today the public is essentially kept distracted and uninformed. This is the way that governments maintain control. If you review history, power is maintained through ignorance. ~Peter Joseph

[Exposethefrauds]

4. Guns is just one of many topics that are verboten here, one cannot upset the delicate

sensibilities of certain protected groups on DU.

I would say petition the owners but I doubt they are interested in supporting change via petition from the masses.

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. Wow... a Tom Tomorrow toon censored?

I didn't know that and I even nominated that toon

America is gun crazy and it needs to be addressed.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

16. Yeah

And I messaged the person who had locked one of the Tom Tomorrow toons. They repeatedly said it was off-topic and I'm like no it's not, it's current news and fits what General Discussion is about.

Sad that it takes yet another mass shooting to talk about the prevalence of guns in society in GD.

[stone space]

30. The toon was posted 5 days before a massacre. If it still wasn't time to have the discussion, ...

...then I'd really like to know when they do think the appropriate time for such a discussion would be.

Sad that it takes yet another mass shooting to talk about the prevalence of guns in society in GD.

Oh yeah...silly me...the appropriate time is AFTER the massacre, not BEFORE.

[CrispyQ]

115. We can pull this one out over & over again.

It's insane.

[valerief]

130. +1

[Duckhunter935]

44. not censored

posted in the wrong forum. I am sure it will be allowed in one of the two gun groups, so it really was not censored was it?

[FunkyLeprechaun]

62. It was posted in the right forum

Don't be silly.

[valerief]

131. Right forum, wrong rule. nt

[blueridge3210]

140. How is it the wrong rule?

TOS for GD is pretty clear regarding gun discussions not related to big/late breaking news. As has been noted elsewhere; there are two "gun discussion" groups; one of which is extremely focused on increased gun control regulations and would likely welcome any additional pro-control input.

[greiner3]

149. Posts in these side discussion groups go there to die, until they are really needed and then a week;

Later, back to the same old shit.

[handmade34]

6. ...

deaths from War since the inception of the United States: 1,171,177

deaths from GUNS just since 1968: 1,384,171

NRA members: (maybe) upwards of 4.5 mil
USA population: 319 mil
somewhat over 1% belong to the NRA

it is big money that kills… the money to lobby, the money to spread misinformation and propaganda, the money to buy politicians, the money that exploits, the money…

"The NRA and affiliated National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action together spent at least $800,000 lobbying the federal government during the first quarter — more than any year covering the same period, according to federal records.

Such aggressive advocacy preceded a major legislative victory Wednesday for gun advocates, as the U.S. Senate defeated a proposal to expand background checks on gun buyers…"

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. Seems pretty misleading. Brady campaign is not the only ant-gun campaign.

For starters, don't forget to lump in everyone's favorite GOP billionaire, Bloomberg.

[greiner3]

150. Most Republican types don't really want him saying he's GOP but they'll take his money.

[hack89]

53. Do you have a chart with Bloomberg ' s spending?

Thanks in advance.

[Duckhunter935]

57. so in 2012 the NRA spent less than 3 million

Bloomberg to spend $50 million to challenge NRA on gun safety

Michael Bloomberg is investing a chunk of his personal fortune to minimize the influence of the National Rifle Association.

The former New York City mayor pledged $50 million to his new group Everytown for Gun Safety, an umbrella organization for his two other gun control groups: Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. It aims to make the political climate more supportive of gun control

.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/us/bloomberg-gun-safety-initiative/

Bloomberg himself will spend more then 10 times that, where is that in your little chart? I guess you just happened to leave that part out by mistake right?

[BrotherIvan]

92. It's so funny you put up some facts

And the standard-bearers for the NRA on this board all asked the same question. TeeHee.

But none of them addressed the really shocking stat

deaths from War since the inception of the United States: 1,171,177

deaths from GUNS just since 1968: 1,384,171

ANY person who does not look at those numbers and weep should hand in their humanity card. If your first thought at seeing another gun massacre is fear that someone might take your guns, then you have nothing to offer this world.

[blkmusclmachine]

7. Guns don't kill people.

But bullets do.

Never
Really
Accountable

[JVS]

8. Try discussionist.

[Trust Buster]

11. We can only assume that among the powers that be on DU, the majority must be Pro-gun.

What else would explain preventing one of the most pre-eminent political issues of our time from being debated ?

[Eleanors38]

85. HA! Pro-gun "Powers that be?" Ask em. Go ahead.

The GD exception has been in place for years, in all likelihood because the average DUer was sick of the Tora! Tora! Tora! atmosphere gun discussions created. Censorship my ass. Powers that be conspiracy my ass. It's a lot more prosaic than that.

EVERYONE wants their specific outlook front & center in GD. But clearly, a lot of people are tired of the crap.

You have BANSALOT. Protected. Chock fulla censorship of pro-2A views.

You have GC & RKBA. Open. Smear-at-will.

You have GD, where the TOS re guns is promiscuously ignored.

Now you want MORE? Well, here is my suggestion (I've made it before): Get the TOS dropped. I'll support you! All matters guns in GD. No problema.

If you can't start a movement in the "real world," and you can't get your way in TWO GROUPS and ONE FORUM (with its special dispensation for controllers) on a web site, don't go about conjuring conspiracy theories and whining about censorship.

:

[wyldwolf]

12. I "lost" two lifelong "friends" on Facebook over a gun post

It bothered me for a couple of day until I realized 'fuck 'em! If my posts change even ONE mind they COULD save ONE life and it's worth losing two redneck 'friends.'

[xchrom]

13. indeed. it's the guns. nt

[bearssoapbox]

14. That's right!

Everything is worse and more harmful than guns.



That's why so many homicides are committed with unintentional injuries.

And unintentional falls.

Ever seen someone shot and killed with a medical error? It's horrible...horrible.

Gotta ban baseball bats too. Think that includes nerf bats? I saw a guy hit a baseball with one once.

SHOES!!! People throw them and hit with them. I think a guy was killed with a stiletto in TX and a women was convicted.

That's right. Ban everything that is more dangerous than guns.

I don't want to see guns banned. I own a few. Have for 40+ years. But how about some common sense.

3-2-1

[The Time is Now]

24. Not a frequent poster

Been a lurker since '04, but every once in awhile get exercised. I am astonished how much control we as a nation have let the gun lobby take on this issue.

Mark Twain popularized the phrase "lies, damned lies, and statistics." It's easy to torture numbers to get them to say whatever you want them to say. So, in the "Gun Control Stats" chart (which does not, by the way identify year, but I believe it is 2009) "Firearm Homicides" are compared with "Unintentional Falls," however, the chart does not contain any information about accidental gun deaths. You can find some information here, although it's from 2010. By the way, the NRA has successfully lobbied to prevent statistics from being collected on a lot of this information. ("The scientists writing the letter to Biden wrote that, effectively, the NRA has successfully hamstrung a credible gun control conversation. When the only statistics available are imperfect, it becomes that much easier to disregard them.&quot

In any event, smartgunlaws link leads with this: "In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour." If we take the Australian solution - and I fully support this - all of them are preventable.

I am not optimistic. If a site that dares to identify itself not only as Democratic, but as a democratic underground and that site shuts down discussion of this issue as not sufficiently "general," the conversation is, shall we say, hampered.

[bearssoapbox]

35. Thanks for the links.

"3 deaths an hour"

That's appalling.

31,076 deaths.

If another country was responsible for that many deaths in the U.S. we would declare war on them.

[former9thward]

71. No one is stopping the gathering of statistics on guns.

Yes, Congress has prevented certain tax money to be used for that purpose. But nothing is stopping anybody else from collecting all the statistics they want. When Bloomberg spends $50 million on anti-gun messaging, are you saying he doesn't have a dime to collect statistics?

[greiner3]

151. So Bloomburg is the 'go to guy' on gun control for some trolls at DU;

Because he's considered safely GOP.

Now friend, I'm not implying YOU specifically are a troll as that might get this post banned.

Just sayin'.

[former9thward]

154. Yes, you are saying I am a troll.

Despite your cuteness of "I'm not saying YOU". But don't worry I never have alerted on anyone ever. Name calling is for those who have lost the argument.

[intaglio]

26. Interesting graph and completely misleading - of course

The graph attempts to compare apples with oranges by only considering homicides and not all gun deaths.

Actual total of gun deaths (not just homicides) was over [font size="5"]32,000[/font] in 2011. Source Gun Policy.org

Note that these figures have to be gathered by non-Governmental sources as the CDC has been refused funding to study gun deaths by a deliberate act of lobbying by - the NRA

[bearssoapbox]

37. Yes it is misleading.

That's why I posted it.

Along with and snarky remarks.

That gun death total is unbelievable.

The apple and oranges comparison is right on.

Thanks for the link.

[Duckhunter935]

43. Thats OK

you want to include suicide deaths that harm no other person than the one that decides to take his or her own life and add that to murders. You are also including the use of firearms by the police in justifiable shootings. Numbers can be spun to make a point.

And as far as I know the DOJ and FBI are government agencies and track all of this information already.

[intaglio]

112. But most of the other figures include non-homicides

Last edited Mon May 26, 2014, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)

So you have to include non-homicides in the gun death.

The FBI and DOJ track only homicides. The only federal group would have had the contacts and resources to track all gun deaths was the CDC except that deliberate lobbying by the NRA did not allow any funds of the CDC to go to that activity.

++++++++++++++++++

Edit to add link to this NRA has stalled Obama's Surgeon General pick since February

[valerief]

132. Suicides harm many people, not just the suicider. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. If you look at the graphic and add the homicide and non-homicide gun deaths it shows 28,000

collectively. Depending on the year that's not an extreme variation.

[intaglio]

114. The graph does not include non-homicide gun deaths

The bottom 2 bars are for gun homicides and non-gun homicides.

[bearssoapbox]

39. Yes

I used that graph, along with comments, to show how misleading the comparisons in the graph are.

I should have done better but the cats knocked a metal lamp onto my wife's head and put a gash in it. Had to clean and fix her up. Thankfully no bulbs broke.

Sorry if I wasn't more clear.

[Pakid]

15. Trying to talk sense to a real gun nut is a lost cause

you can however sometimes talk sense to a gun owner who is not a nut. When someone says that guns don't kill people they are wrong, guns kill people all by themselves all the time just read the news and see how many guns seem to go off all by themselves. America has a gun problem and it needs to be fixed. The only way I see to fix it is for the responsible gun owners ( and there are responsible gun owners out there) to stand up to the NRA and all of the true gun nuts and put both back under the rock they crawled out from!

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Yeah, you can. You decided not to...

I can't talk about Israel/Palestine here in GD. I'd like to, though I'm guessing you may not give a shit about that either. But there's a gag order on that too. It sucks.

But we can talk about whatever we want to over at Discussionist. Have you tried that? Because I don't think Skinner's going to change his mind about the SOP restrictions in GD...

[Enthusiast]

18. I'm for enacting reasonable gun laws.

But, in rural America it is a losing issue for Democrats. I live here, I know. I own firearms. I have been a hunter for many years until around a decade ago when my health limited my ability to hunt.

Rural folks think we are crazy for wanting to take their guns away. While we see them as the crazy ones, they have a equal and opposite attitude toward bleeding heart types.

My suggestion for the Democratic Party is to completely back away from the "gun control" issue.

That's just my take. You are welcome to disagree.

[BrotherIvan]

94. Honest question

What percentage of rural gun types vote Democratic and how many would vote Republican based upon that single issue?

I think that sometimes there's the right thing and the popular thing. As we have seen recently with marriage equality, it didn't look possible ten years ago, and now it's unstoppable and supported by a large majority. Same thing was said about single payer, but I know that with education, that would be hugely popular. Both of those are inevitable winners, just as civil rights was, because they are RIGHT. Protecting people from harm, injury and senseless death is just the basic a civil society must do. The fact that the US can't shows how corrupt and diseased our system has become.

[Enthusiast]

121. Winning issues are only winning issues in certain restricted geographical areas.

In rural areas, where people do a lot of hunting, they are very susceptible to the NRA type propaganda. I can't tell you about percentages. I was simply sharing my perspective.

[Jenoch]

126. Northern Minnesota especially NE Minnesota is heavilly Democratic.

The gun issue is important in that area. A dimwitted Republican was elected to the U.S. Senate (Rod Grams) because the Democratic candidate expressed support for gun control. This was 20 years ago, but not a lot has changed on that issue since then.

[BrotherIvan]

148. So these "responsible gun owners"

So hated the idea of gun control, i.e. "responsible" legislation, that they instead voted for a candidate that is against women, children, the poor, minorities, immigrants, &c. Because they loved their guns above all things?

I don't think anyone is talking about single shot hunting rifles being controlled as they don't seem to be as big an issue.

[Jenoch]

153. Huh"

"...I don't think anyone is talking about single shot hunting rifles being controlled as they don't seem to be as big an issue."

I don't either. Why did you bring up "single shot hunting rifles"?

"instead voted for a candidate that is against women, children, the poor, minorities, immigrants, &c. Because they loved their guns above all things?"

I do not recall any of that being part of the campaign.

[aikoaiko]

20. Did you know there are two DU groups dedicated to guns?

One where you are surrounded by gun haters such as yourself

And another where both sides can discuss the issue.

Also consider taking your complaints to ATA.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

64. This is a big news issue

And not everyone goes to the gun groups.

It's definitely something that needs to be discussed in GD at this moment.

[aikoaiko]

67. The tom tomorrow carton posted before the UCSB shooting.

There wasn't any big news issues. The content of the TT cartoon was guns and it was locked. There is no Tom Tomorrow exception to the SOP. But there are some who think personalities come before principles and they should get a free pass. I don't.

And as you can plainly see the hosts are not locking gun related posts on the UCSB shooting or general law issues since that incident occurred.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

68. There was a big news issue that prompted the cartoon

It was Chipotle banning guns. It even made the BBC website.

[aikoaiko]

72. There was no mention of Chipotle or other restaurants in the toon.

It looked like a general comment (actually an anti-gunner's wet dream of gun nuts shooting each other, you know, because they are so opposed to gun violence) about general open carry. If anything I thought it was about Georgia's so called "guns everywhere" law.

But if you think that's about Chipotle, then fine. I didn't see it that way and apparently most of the host didn't either.

[Duckhunter935]

81. were did it mention

Chipotle? How do you make that connection?

[IronGate]

142. A little correction,

Chipolte's did not ban firearms, they requested that patrons don't open carry in their establishments, but they didn't outright ban them.

[blueridge3210]

21. You are aware that there are two gun discussion forums

available for use? One is generally pro RKBA and the other much less so. The person who owns and maintains this discussion board has chosen to require discussion of this issue to be generally restricted to those areas. It's no more a ban than a municipality restricting a parade or demonstration to a geographic area is a ban.

[demmiblue]

22. .

[katmondoo]

23. Facebook sucks

The only subject you can post on Facebook is to say how wonderful this person is or how wonderful your child is. Aches and pains are OK too but never ever post anything negative about guns, Ronald Reagan, Tea Party Republican assholes or any really serious problem in this country. Everything has to be banal. I seldom post here or on Facebook anymore.

[stone space]

25. When Tom Tomorrow toons are outlawed, only outlaws will have Tom Tomorrow toons. (nt)

[klook]

31. The only way to stop a bad guy with a Tom Tomorrow cartoon

is Mary Worth!



- from The Stranger

[GoneFishin]

27. There are several topics that are volatile and verboten like this. The shrill defense regarding

these topics results because one side IS wrong, and could not survive an unbiased open airing of the facts of the matters.

So instead anecdotes are cherry picked to justify their positions, but statistics and studies are off-limits.

[rdking647]

28. until the 2nd amendment is changed guns will remain legal

thats just the way it is. you can complain about it all you want but the SC ha already ruled that the 2nd amendment protects gun owners.
they have just as much right to guns as you do to freedom of religion or speech

[valerief]

135. Where does this militia part of the 2nd amendment come into play with gungeoneers?

They're blind to that part of the amendment.

As for free speech, speech is money and only corporate persons have a right to it. SCOTUS said so.

[Inkfreak]

29. I fail to see..

"Guns are an issue that we should be able to discuss in GD at all times until the NRA and our craven politicians are finally forced to do the right thing."

..how this will work. Threads usually devolve into name calling and snarky posts. Real game changing conversations.

[Duckhunter935]

33. anti-gun posts are on GD all the time

Pro-gun not so much as we tend to abide by the SOP. There are two groups dedicated to gun issues. One allows discussion and the other generally does not and blocks any decent. You might be a good fit there. No censorship here as the host are just following the stated SOP like any of the other forums here. Talk about guns in the wrong forum and it will be locked, not just GD.

Guns are legal and millions have them and use and store them in a safe and responsible manor. I would think you also would be for banning alcohol as it has no purpose and kills and maims just as many. But most here are curiously silent with the outrage over that.

[sendero]

36. Is the fact.

... that this guy killed half his victims with a knife lost on you?

[Duckhunter935]

41. of course the forget that

just look at every post, knives are never mentioned. Why? I think we all know.

[Slip_n_Slide]

54. Doesn't fit the narrative...

[Eleanors38]

87. Correction: The Narrative™.

[Hoyt]

84. Yeah, but he also had his gun to subdue them as he slit their throats. But why post the facts?

[mstinamotorcity2]

49. You get support

from me on this one. They have their 2nd Amendment rights. I will use my 1st Amendment right to say Stop the Violence. and get your Gun nuts in check. And stop being jackasses making Weapon Manufacturers RICH, while you kill each other.

[greatlaurel]

50. Who knew all these people could be so easily influenced to buy guns just by a maketing campaign?

People have been brainwashed that guns are harmless and are to be used and abused like any other consumer product while in some sort of weird twist of logic convinced their manhood depends on owning deadly weapons. It has been a rousing success as a marketing strategy, but the cost to our society is enormous. It is another example of privatizing profits while putting all the costs on to the public. The people buying guns and ammo are just as brainwashed as the silly society women who have to buy the latest fashions.

My dad and brother got a box or two of shells for Christmas and that lasted them until the next Christmas with some left over. We ate groundhog, raccoon, squirrel, rabbit, pheasant, grouse and venison regularly. Hunting was done only during season and any extras were put into the freezer for lean times. There was no reason to target shoot with the .22, because they hunted for food regularly. Hunting was taken seriously. The gun marketers have changed gun owners attitudes toward guns.

My dad had a friend who liked to target shoot with a high powered rifle. He would come to our farm to target shoot about once a year. The neighbors would complain about the noise from the target shooting. That type of shooting was considered shifty and scandalous. It is amazing how effective the gun marketers have been in changing people's behavior and attitudes towards guns. It is all about marketing to make a profit.

[Duckhunter935]

59. you know sensible gun regulations

like allowing suppressors to be legal and not being treated like a machine gun in its restrictions would help. They do not silence the rifle but cut down on some of the noise. It is required in some European countries as a health measure for hearing.

[greatlaurel]

103. The last thing we rural folks need is for the gun culture to get suppressors.

For our own safety, we need to hear the gunshots, so we can stay as far away as physically possible. You make my point perfectly, your solution is buy more guns and accessories and make the gun manufacturers more money! The rampant consumerism of the the gun culture is so very sad. You have to keep buying more to get that high from your guns. The effective marketing should be studied to figure out why people are so susceptible to the gun propaganda.

This article at Raw Story is very similar to my own rural experiences. Gun Culture is a sad and pathetic consumerist culture.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/25/i-was-the-nra/

[Duckhunter935]

113. you do know that suppressors

are still fairly loud right? You also know they do not quiet a supersonic rifle bullet that much. You can very much still hear the gun fire.
They just help protect the shooters hearing.

[rrneck]

55. It's really easy to sign up for hosting.

You just have to click a link. There's a waiting list for GD hosting, but if you feel that strongly about it you should not mind the wait.

I just finished a stint at hosting, and it's not as easy as you might think it is.

[Duckhunter935]

60. thank you

for being a host.

[rrneck]

66. You're welcome.

It's pretty interesting. I rather enjoyed it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

56. Have you considered not being so timid? No one silenced you on FB except you.

If you can't take written retorts then that's your problem.

As a pro-RKBA advocate I'm subject to an unending torrent of names and repulsive accusations from the murderous to the sexually perverse but I refuse to buckle or be silenced. Perhaps it is part of the whole, "I'm willing to defend myself and my family even in the face of the worst imaginable circumstance" mentality.

[Duckhunter935]

61. It is amazing what us firearms owners are called on

DU. I try and be polite but the name calling from the other side, wow.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

63. And if you respond in kind as a demonstration of their incivility you get posts hidden.

Thin-skinned and authoritarian make for bad governance.

[Duckhunter935]

145. that's why I stay very polite

I think it just pisses them off more.

[pipi_k]

58. Who said you couldn't?

Talk about your hatred of guns on Facebook, I mean...

If you don't feel like arguing with your brother over the whole thing, then set up your account to keep certain people from seeing your status updates/wall posts.

You can keep certain people from seeing certain posts, then when you have something "safe" to share, go back and change the setting back.

Or, alternatively, start a Facebook page, make it private, and send invites to people you know share your concerns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. It's kind of ironic that the pro-RKBA side is offering advice on how to continue his side.

Meanwhile, how many here would literally have the NRA declared a terrorist organization in order to silence speech they disapprove of?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

69. It's not speech that people want to silence, at least not at the root

It's the killing that's aided and abetted by the crazy subhuman fucks that comprise the National Rifle Association.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. I'm pro-RKBA for reasons of personal self-defense but you make a very good argument for

keeping the 2A against abuse of government.

No sane person would disarm themselves in the face of political faction that speaks like you do.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

74. Are you having fun?

It takes a really special kind of person to show up on DU every time there's another gun slaughter in order to speak out on the goodness of guns. Your fear is fucking this country up something awful. I wish you and yours would learn to deal with your fears in a more productive and less harmful way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

75. "Your fear is fucking this country up something awful."

We're not the ones calling people sub-human fucks. We're not the ones ignoring the fact that homicide rates are declining because the facts don't fit the narrative. We're not the ones calling people terrorists, presumably with the gun-wielding response that entails.

If this country is too messed-up for you perhaps you would find Mexico more to your liking. They have the gun control regimen you favor, so obviously it's an gun violence-free paradise.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

77. Love it or leave it? You fucking wish.

Fuck the NRA. Fuck child killers. Fuck gun worshipers. Fuck any piece of shit who comes up with excuses to defend the slaughter of innocents.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

79. It was not a "love it or leave it" statement.

It was pointing out the fact that Mexico has the gun control regimen you favor. Since Mexico has the laws you favor Mexico obviously has the absence of gun crime you presume would follow if a similar regimen were enacted here in the US. Yet, Mexico is not such a place. In fact, it is worse.

Yet, in your raving emotionalism that missed the obvious point all you could do was summon a vile rant. As a demonstration that I do NOT support universal gun ownership I would like to state publically that I believe it is a good thing you don't own a gun. Yours is exactly the sort of mentality that should be disarmed and kept so.

[Duckhunter935]

82. they do get angry, do they not

[Eleanors38]

89. Thanks for making Unicorn's point. Perfect.

It's the anger, hatred, and yes, Fear expressed by controller-banners in DU which got the flimsy TOS in GD. Your complaint is this in a nutshell: You want carte blanche power to say anything you want about gun-owners, anytime, anywhere. And if I may speculate, you would like the power to assign pro-2A views to a sealed-off group.

Got that right?

I'll say it again: Go to the Administrators and get GD's TOS dropped. ALL matters gunz, all the time. Fair enough? I'll back you.

[Eleanors38]

105. Do you want "us" in our own group, never to venture out?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

106. See above.

[Eleanors38]

107. Yours for censorship!

[savalez]

99. [phone]

[pipi_k]

73. Not sure

what point you're trying to make from what I posted.

Or maybe this was meant for someone else?

[Lint Head]

76. It's the availability. Out of sight. Out of mind.

[Iggo]

78. Rec'd for "It's the guns, stupid."

[SunSeeker]

147. +1

[hunter]

80. I'll be straight. Gun love is a dangerous mental illness.

If you don't need a gun for practical purposes, and NO I do not consider bloody "self defense" fantasies a practical purpose, but you desire to own them, you should probably go get yourself checked out by a mental health professional.

I think gun licenses should be difficult to obtain, and involve some hard core military style basic training, living with people from all walks of life in a program designed to highly stress those who are racist, misogynist, homophobic, suffer anger issues, etc.

Don't pass, no gun. Get caught with a gun, automatic felony.

[hack89]

90. When you wonder why the gun control movement is a smoking wreck in America

Come back and read your post. Like it or not, you will not pass any of the laws you want with out the political support of gun owners. Would you support a movement that considers you mentally ill for simply disagreeing with them? If you really think my way or the highway is actually going to work then more power to you. I think you will be sorely disappointed.

[hunter]

98. I do what I can to control guns in my own community.

I live, and I've lived places, been in situations, that would make most self proclaimed "responsible" gun owners crap their pants.

Not once have I been in a situation where guns would have improved outcomes, guns always fucked things up more, even in the hands of "good guys."

I'm the child of a Wild West matriarchal family, women who did not allow irresponsible people, family or not, to have guns.

I think eventually polite progressive society will exclude the gun lovers just as we have excluded the racist anti- "miscegenationists," and are now excluding the anti- gay marriage fossils.

I was very active opposing California's Proposition 8 and look where we are now.

Gun love is on the way out.

[hack89]

100. Most gun owners are responsible

basic math tells you that. Insulting them and then asking for their complete capitulation is going to fail, plain and simple. Like it has failed for 20 years now.

[hunter]

102. I'd have thought you'd enjoy the camaraderie of your fellow gun owners...

... practicing with guns, in a remote outdoor setting for your license.

Perhaps you are worried you wouldn't pass examination?

Or maybe even shoot an obnoxious fellow like myself if you were assigned to share a room with him?

[hack89]

104. I have been doing exactly that every weekend for years

With my entire family as well as a close knit group of friends. We are competive target shooters.

Why would I want to shoot someone? I don't own guns for self defense - I live in a very safe town. I shoot purely for recreation and competition.

[hunter]

109. Then you are not going have any problem being part of a well-regulated militia.

Right?

But I'm proposing a program that none of these mass shooters, angry criminals, George Zimmermans, or even ordinary clueless careless fools are going to successfully complete.

[hack89]

116. Yes, but a proposal grounded in American political and cultural reality

Would be more useful, don't you think? Do you have any ideas that have a chance of becoming law in the next few years?

The right to bear arms is an individual right. Both the president and our party platform both say that.

[hunter]

117. Dicrimination against gay people, not allowing them to marry, for example...

... is "grounded in American political and cultural reality" too.

[hack89]

118. And along came Windsor which changed everything.

Heller did the same for the 2A.

There is no indication that the US public would support your ideas. And unlike Gay marriage you will not get any help from the courts.

[hunter]

122. I'm ahead of my time, right?

What help were the courts with civil rights, first with blacks, then with homosexuals, until greater society recognized there was a problem and exclaimed "ENOUGH!"

The same might be said for society's tolerance for drunk driving too. There is no tolerance for it now. In the old days the cops might escort you safely home and give you a warning. (Well, if you were not black...)

[hack89]

123. Yes - and like civil rights, abortion and gay marriage

The Supreme Court has issued the blockbuster decision on the 2A that will guide the lower courts for decades to come.

[Eleanors38]

91. No wonder the profession of psychology suffers a bad rep.

[valerief]

136. +1

[kairos12]

83. Why was this thread locked? I don't get it.

[Eleanors38]

96. The TOS, I guess. Sometimes it's enforced.

[Eleanors38]

95. A little less "hate" in your OP title might help your cause.

The controller-banner outlook has a lot of elbow room in DU. Even the GD TOS is at best a sometimes thing. That's 3 groups/forum you have, but I guess there's always room for Jello.

Censorship. Conspiracy. Sorry, it's far less glamorous: It's the now well-known "campaign" of hatred for, and stigmatization of gun-owners that has much of DU gagging when another hate-guns thread is opened. You have no intention of backing off from your approach, I get that. But as you can see, you'll get pushback, and over the years it seems to have grown.

All prohibition movements have similar dynamics.

[locks]

97. Thanks for the post

When I have wanted to write about expanding sensible gun laws such as we passed in Colorado I give up because some DUers have already jumped to their superior knowledge about types of guns, ammo, how they protect everyone by having guns, how many lives are saved by guns (just as wars do), and other stupid talking points of the NRA and warmongers. They never ever address the issue of the cycle of violence and the 350 million guns in the US which are killing 8500 of our citizens every year, most of whom could never be stereotyped as bad guys. The last thing they want to discuss is what we teach our children by showing them that killing with guns solves problems.

[randys1]

101. Yep, the guns are 98% of the problem, and we are now just being murdered, daily by NRA

and the corps that make the NRA do what they do and the politicians (all murderers) who help them

We need to change the picture in the dictionary for immature and have it be a grown fucking man holding an AR 17 or whatever the fuck those idiotic guns are called.

[IkeRepublican]

108. Discussing real matters on Facebook is...

Pointless.

There will many who will, but usually it's to get a bunch of agreements by others over no-brainer bullshit as if it's some ground breaking achievement. Known as "like-whoring".

[CrispyQ]

110. +1

My sister & her friends took up skeet shooting a few years ago & they have all adopted a rabid pro-gun attitude. I have two other female friends who are pro-gun, but not rabidly so. My sister made some incredibly insensitive FB posts after Sandy Hook. Unbelievably so. I was so pissed.

That this young man, with his history of issues, was able to legally obtain multiple guns is shocking. It is out of control. Seriously, I don't know how we ever put this genie back in the bottle because there are so many damned guns out there. Not that we shouldn't try, but when I think of the sheer numbers it's boggling.

[Voice for Peace]

119. Pro-gun liberals and responsible gun owning conservatives need to get together and active

They are the only ones who can have an impact. the victims,
the families of the victims, are just collateral damage to
the evil gunlovers. The decent gunlovers need to fight back.
Create or find REAL solutions.

[albino65]

120. The SOP for GD restricts discussion of guns unless it is "big news"

Unfortunately, we have become so inured to gun violence that it takes a bigger body count to qualify as "big news" Bullshit charts and statistics just hide the facts that guns are a real problem, and the NRA is a group of evil, narcissistic, immoral bastards. They are raising another generation who will be as bad or worse. I rather agree, though with the baseball bat thing. I have often advocated that people in favor of gun control should carry baseball bats with them. Then when any of the gun nuts show up in public with their guns exposed, we all would start tapping the ground with the bats. I think we could have a virtual crescendo that might actually get the attention of people.

Why can't the gun dudes compensate for their small penises with big duallie pickup trucks like they used to.

By the way, assault weapons are meant to kill people. The competitive shooting argument is bullshit.

[Lizzie Poppet]

124. Most gun threads in GD survive, "big news" or not.

It's a bit of a crapshoot...but for the most part, the mods let them slide (even when alerted on). No reason why you shouldn't post what you like, really.

[lupine25]

125. Crazy....

Yeah I know this post will probably get me banned, but isn't DU becoming more and more of a playground for fascists? I mean someone define GENERAL discussion. General means general topics.... why can't we talk about guns in that thread???? How is that not a "G.E.N.E.R.A.L." topic? OK, maybe not fascists, but definitely it's become a playground for tightly-wound people who have nothing better to do but troll internet forums by being the thought police. Get a life, people, and go "lock" yourself!

[ballyhoo]

127. It's not so much like that on Discussionist, which is

the board owner here's new board. I haven't seen many topics off-limit here discussed, and Republicans are allowed to post there. There has been some really enlightening discussions.

http://www.discussionist.com/

[HockeyMom]

128. Like the Brady Campaign, Million Moms and Dads.

etc.,, on FB. You can freely discuss how you feel there. I also sometimes post to my page some of their pieces. If others among my "friends" don't like my views, they are free to just ignore what I post. If not, you are perfectly free to UNFRIEND them and I have and not just with the guns issue either.

When trolls like these pages and come on to start trouble, they are very quickly kicked off by the mods.

[Taitertots]

129. "Can't"? You can but chose not to. It is disingenuous to claim you are prohibited from doing

things that you merely choose not to do.

[Flying Squirrel]

133. You are the one who is being disingenuous.

I never said I was prohibited from talking about guns on fb, I said I could not do so because I was unwilling to accept the consequences of essentially losing my only brother. Either way, I "can't". The conversation is being squelched. On DU it's being squelched most of the time due to the TOS. This particular OP has not been locked for 'whining about DU', probably because once again guns are "big news", but next week it probably would. I choose not to discuss guns in GD most of the time because I value my membership on this board. Why I'm bothering to explain this with someone as disingenuous as yourself, I don't really know.. But most people here get what I'm saying, which would explain the recs. I personally expected to come back here today to a locked OP, but the fact that it wasn't locked changes nothing about the general rule. It's merely an exception, caused by the fact of yet another atrocity. I wonder if those who continue to argue for the other side would change their tune if a loved one died in a gun massacre. I wonder if they have the ability to feel empathy. I wonder a lot of things about our country these days.

[Taitertots]

137. You can but chose not to. "Could not" and "Can't" implies prohibition

Facebook offers a wide variety of functions that prevent people from viewing your content. You can use those but chose not to. You could ignore your brother's complaints but chose not to. There is no prohibition so your post is disingenuous.

Regarding DU TOS: There is an topic forum for firearms discussion. Don't complain when posts that clearly violate the TOS are locked for violating the TOS.

[blueridge3210]

138. With regards to Facebook

You are self-censoring in order to avoid creating a family schism over an issue where no one is likely to change their minds. This is called Life and everyone deals with this issue in one way or another. Regarding discussing guns on DU; you are not being censored; the subject is directed to one of two "gun discussion groups" dedicated to the issue. This is based on the preference of the people who operate and maintain the site. You are no more being censored than a group that desires to conduct a parade or rally and are directed to a specific geographic area are being censored.

[greatlaurel]

143. Well said.

Thank you for starting this thread and thank you for that very thoughtful post, as well. The conversation about guns is being squelched. Every article or post on gun violence is bombarded with the most ridiculous gun propaganda at every website and publication. They must pay a lot of money to keep the propaganda machine at full blast at all times.

At some point, this propaganda machine will stumble and fail.

[villager]

134. And if you talk about it here at the "Underground," the NRA thought-bots dutifully swarm the thread

...as rightwingers do elsewhere 'round the Web.

[maindawg]

139. It is a very touchy issue

My best friend is a gun enthusiast. I get into trouble on FB when one of my 'friends' posts some garbage and I just have to say something,why? because its not ok to use the slaughter of children to renew your enthusiasm for weapons and the unfettered access to them and then declare that to the world, baby especially not to me. Its not ok. Why is that so hard to understand?
I mean, if your friends child was a victim, would you pay him on the back and say, 'its not the guns fault man,,,'
It is the guns fault. The gun exists to kill. When it kills, we act surprised. And when the gun isnt busy killing, you never hear of it. You dont hear people who are enthusiastic about guns extolling the great accomplishments or endeavorsof guns being brought to the fore.
Because a gun is a tool. Like a hammer, you use the hammer to hammer nails. I saw etc. The gun is for killing.
But they make alot of money selling guns. And the guns always sell. Times are good, people are buying guns.Times are bad, people buy guns. Its a crazy business.
The NRA does not represent the sportsman of America. The NRA represents the corporations who sell guns. Why cant people see that ? Why?
I believe that we keep our government in check when we pay attention to it. By means of a free press.
Anyway,thats why every one hates me.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

141. I don't agree about banning guns (if that's what you advocate) but I respect and gladly entertain

your opinion. I really think the People need guns because I don't trust the government at all or private bureaucracies that may eventually want to usurp government powers. With the increasing power of the Koch Brothers to buy candidates, I could envision a democracy in name only in America. The people need the ability to revolt and exterminate tyrants by the force of arms. But I do think gun ownership should be made far more difficult and people with backgrounds of violent criminality or mental instability should have to go to great lengths to prove they can be responsible gun owners. Unlike you, apparently, I also think mental illness is a big factor. The UC Santa Barbara assassin used a knife and a car to kill and main besides a gun. But I would never flame you for having your opinion about guns or want your views sequestered to a little-traveled section of DU because this gun issue has become one of the most important political and cultural debates in America. Of course posts such as yours should be allowed on DU in GD and I think DU members should give your type of post the respect and thoughtful consideration it deserves. I recommend your post.

[AverageJoe90]

144. Can't blame you, TBH.

Misogyny, and perhaps even the mental illness, did play a role, no doubt.....but yes, you do have a point: It would have been FAR harder for Rodger to massacre people with a knife than a gun. We NEED to keep fighting for more reasonable gun control. We have to.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

146. "...while people can post stuff about their pets in GD all day long."

For some, guns ARE their pets.

[bravenak]

152. I am just about ready to go around snatching peoples guns out of their cold dead hands.

The heart attacks that people will have from hearing the announcement on Fox news will kill about 20 percent of the worst one on the first day. Then we can go from house to house with biohazard bags and get the rest. I find that guns are a hazard to my health. Lets throw them in a volcano and go back to sword fighting.

[pablo_marmol]

155. Time for bed.