Fuck it! I'm sick of pro gun arguments and advocates.

[Lint Head]

Gun rights advocates have had their say and their way. I know there are those who do ask, Well what would you specifically do? Here is one specific. Current gun laws have been shot full of holes by the gun manufacturer's lobby called the NRA that they should be a classification of Swiss cheese. There should be penalties for a seller who does not perform a background check. Cars are registered and so should guns be registered so that private sales would have to include a trip to the county clerk to gain a new title to the gun. Teeth. Sharp teeth in gun laws are needed. We are not protecting ourselves from our own government by owning weapons. The 2nd Amendment was written so everyone would have a musket available to protect them from a "foreign" invasion during the 1700s. This is 2015.

Some say only criminals will have guns if we pass new gun laws. I say it is criminal what is accepted as gun laws in our country. Too bad you cannot ask the dead what they think.

[Cleita]

1. All those who claim second amendment rights seem to forget the

part that says a "well regulated militia." Regulations seem to imply laws, permits and other licenses to owning and carrying a firearm.

[hack89]

2. The 2A allows the strict regulation of guns.

the only explicit right one has is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. AWB, UBCs, registration and licenses are all perfectly legal.

The obstacles to more gun control are not legal but rather cultural and political- there too many Americans opposed to stricter gun control.

[Cleita]

6. I know a lot of gun owners. I live rurally. My husband owned guns. My SIL is a

collecter. I don't know anybody who is a responsible hunter or sports shooter who doesn't think we don't need stricter laws. It's the NRA and the gun manufacturers that they represent who don't want good laws to keep guns out of the wrong hands. They need to go.

[Recursion]

19. OK, what laws would you like stricter?

I'd love to see all transfers go through a licensed dealer, myself. I'd also love to see registration.

[Cleita]

20. I would like gun owners to get licenses like driver's licenses. I would

like them to pass tests in their competence to use a gun and that they prove they handle their guns safely and lock them away safely when not in use. I want their guns to be registered and insured. I don't see any reason for an individual to own an assault weapon. This is common sense stuff. why can't we achieve it?

[branford]

49. Are you willing to concede national concealed carry reciprocity

in exchange for national gun safety and training standards, similar to how a drivers license from one state is good in any other?

In fact, what are you willing to compromise to improve gun safety (and just willing to accept a little less gun control than you want is not compromise, it's demanding a conditional surrender).

Do you have evidence that registration will actually lower crime or accidents? Canada's registration was such a waste of money that they repealed much of the legislation.

Insurance is both useless and a non-starter. I've written extensively on DU about the problems with firearm insurance, but in brief, (i) you cannot insure against intentional criminal conduct, (ii) firearm insurance is already cheap and readily available, and since firearm accidents are covered by virtually all homeowners and renters policies, most firearm owners are already covered, and (iii) it would be unconstitutional to interfere with the insurance market simply to make gun ownership more burdensome and expensive as it would be a veritable, an quite illegal, "poll tax."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7133846

Lastly, no one has to demonstrate why they need anything in a free country, particularly when the class of product is explicitly protected in the Constitution. If you don't want an "assault weapon," no one is suggesting you must buy one. However, those you wish to regulate or ban a product are the ones who bear the burden of demonstrating the need for such regulation. Since ALL long arms, not just "assault weapons," represent a tiny fraction of gun crime, no less among the tens of millions of owners who safely use such firearms, isn't your demand for another AWB really just a solution looking for a problem?

Despite your claims, it not "common sense stuff," and you can't achieve it because a great many other Americans have vastly different ideas and perspectives concerning firearms than you and many here on DU.

I nevertheless believe some "reasonable" comprise is possible, but it will require many gun control advocates to believably give up on any notions of an American legal framework about firearms ever becoming anything like Britain, Australia, the UK, Japan, etc.

[Duckhunter935]

53. there is no comprimise

it is their way only

[Proud Liberal Dem]

150. I would think that possessing what is clearly an "instrument of death"

is sufficient cause for requiring people to have to be properly trained, licensed, screened, etc. before possessing them. Thankfully, we don't live in a post-apocalyptic society where we are all at a severe level of threat of death unless armed, though you wouldn't know it from how the NRA describes the country. With the easy availability of guns and the increasing amounts of places people are being allowed to carry them (openly or otherwise), it seems more necessary than ever that people know how to actually carry/use them responsibly and safely. There are far too many examples/situations where people are clearly not being safe and responsible with them.

[branford]

153. Your thinking would be incorrect,

and such hyperbole and lack of understanding of firearms doesn't help the gun control argument.

Again, if you wish to ban or restrict something, it is you who must demonstrate the actual need with evidence that the stated proposal does what's intended without restricting the rights of tens of millions of people who are no statistical threat. A purported self-apparent hatred of firearms of any sort is not a substitute for either hard data or constitutional jurisprudence.

Nevertheless, reasonable safety and training requirements for carrying firearms is indeed something that many gun rights proponents, including myself, could potentially support. I would suggest gun control advocates focus on these ideas without linking them to non-starters and red lines like 'assault weapon" bans and magazine limits. If your side continually insists that the only solutions involve effectively taking guns away primarily from people who pose no risk, and making the perfect the enemy of the good when it comes to actual gun safety, as has become more than evident, you will continue to obtain no national legislation, all while gun rights become more popular and you continue to lose in the courts.

[kcr]

155. As if you'd accept any evidence

Take a seat at the table with the anti-vaccers and the climate deniers. Because there's plenty of evidence already established to show the need, and if you haven't been convinced, there's no convincing you.

[branford]

156. Fell free to demonstrate the need for an assault weapons ban with actual research?

I would welcome the discussion.

According to the FBI, ALL long-arms, not just "assault weapons," represent a staggeringly small percentage (and total number) of all firearm crime and accidents. AWB's are a solution looking for a problem.

Moreover, the research of the Department of Justice and Obama's National Institute of Justice found that the 1994 AWB, and AWB's generally, to have no measurable effect on crime or anything else.

Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf


Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies

https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt

[Recursion]

112. Illinois does the license and I think it's a great idea

I understand your desire to prevent the ownership of "assault weapons", but you may be disappointed to find out what that actually means.

[Adrahil]

126. Here's what i would support....

All guns registered. Yeah, i know this one is a bugaboo to the some of the anti-government types, but i own a lot of guns, and i don't mind the Feds knowing I have them. They already know I have a few NFA items, which are the "scary" things.

All transfers registered. I don't necessarily support going through a licensed dealer. Some charge ridiculous amounts for commercial transfers right now, and many are people I would rather not give money directly too. Create an online system that alows the transfers to be handled over the internet, and any fees go directly to maintaining the system.

Require licensing of all gun owners. This is another one that will piss people off, but I'd favor a licensing program requiring safety training by a competent instructor.

Hold owners liable for guns used by others that were not properly secured. Your kid uses your gun to kill another kid? Jail for YOU.

Conviction for a violent offense means having your license suspended, or revoked. Not just felonies either. Misdemeanor offenses too.

I'm sure there are more things I would support.

[Hoyt]

3. Can't wait for the gunners telling us how "well regulated militia" doesn't mean what it says.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Those very words are missing from the plaque hailing 2A at NRA HQ....setting their lies in stone.

[sharp_stick]

11. No Shit

I got into it with a loser who tried to say that regulated in the sense of the second amendment actually meant stocked. As in The Militia should be well stocked.

[Hoyt]

13. I know it cracks me up. I've seen a few gunners here post "militia" means all men under 47 years of

age. OK, let's start by having all the old gunners turn theirs in.

The mental masturbation they go through on this one is nuts. We even have the grammar gunners posting here who explain the comma makes it an independent clause or some such BS.

Like Fred points out, the NRA just leaves it out. If it weren't so tragic, it would be funny.

[CTyankee]

39. Yeah, like "well regulated" meant like a clock...uh huh...

this is why I have trashed the gungeon and put its purveyors on Ignore...

[TeddyR]

45. You don't have to convince the folks on DU

You have to convince the Supreme Court, which said your position is wrong, along with the history of the Second Amendment, which also says your position is wrong. Of course, you can amend or repeal the Second Amendment, assuming you can get the votes and states to do so. You'll need to convince 13 of the following states (assuming every other state not listed will go along) to change the Constitution so that it doesn't protect the right to keep and bear arms: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia or Wyoming.

[Hoyt]

51. 5 right wing Republicans said that. Stevens Dissent is a better view,

when Court is realigned. Even Scalia approved of restrictions, and limited his position to having a gun in the HOME.

[GGJohn]

54. It doesn't fucking matter what Stevens said,

the majority of the court said in Heller v DC, that owning a firearm is an individual right NOT, again, NOT connected to militia service.
Whether you like it or not, the 2A is an individual right and the militia has fuck all to do with it.

[Hoyt]

85. It does matter. The right wing Justices will he replaced unless the Gun Protection types help

elect a right winger.

[GGJohn]

87. Any way you try to deny it Hoyt, it's the law of the land,

and I highly doubt a future court will overturn it, justices are loathe to reverse settled law, as witnessed by Roe v Wade, which so far, the justices have largely left alone.

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. It's called etymology Hoyt. Are you really that obtuse? Thick as oatmeal maybe? Militia c. 1777...

"In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

You can't just make shit up, even if you click your heels three times and repeat "There's no place like home... there's no place like home... there's no place like home."

So answer me this question: What did the word "militia" mean to those who put it in the Constitution?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=militia

[Hoyt]

82. My guess is most of the gun fanciers here are no longer amenable for military duty, so turn em in.

[GGJohn]

88. Nope, not gonna do it. eom.

[Hoyt]

91. Not surprised, you aren't a law-abiding or responsible gun owner if

you would violate law and hide your 4 gun safes full of gunz and ammo.

[GGJohn]

95. Gee, what a surprise, another Hoytism. eom.

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. Sweet Jesus. Look up the word amenable and its etymology.

I'm beginning to think you ARE as thick as oatmeal.

[Hoyt]

100. That' your quote. Other gunners use the definition of "militia" that includes the age max 44-47

denpending on source. Maybe you'd do better not to engage in such mental maturation to protect your precious gunz.

[GGJohn]

105. And another Hoytism.

You just can't help yourself can you.

[Hoyt]

107. Glad you could pull your head out of your gun safes long enough to respond.

[GGJohn]

108. Aaannnndddd another Hoytism.

You really should quit while you're behind.

One should keep their mouths shut and let people think they're a fool rather than open it and prove them right.

[cherokeeprogressive]

109. I gave you the fucking etymology of the word, circa the time the word was used. WITH a cite.

I don't give a flying fuck what anyone else uses as their definition.

[Hoyt]

119. Such anger and guns don't mix. You should turn yours in, or at least lock them up for a few days.

[cherokeeprogressive]

120. Mine are always locked up. And they're unloaded. I'm not angry... I don't get angry at stupidity.

I do get angry at willful ignorance though.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

46. Now THAT'S funny! And sad at the same time.

[Recursion]

5. Remove the 2nd Amendment and we're in the exact same legal and political position we're in now

I'm all for re-thinking it, but the only effect the 2nd Amendment has had on jurisprudence is outlawing outright complete bans a la DC or Chicago. The things we are trying to pass (universal background checks, magazine size limits, gun feature bans) were specifically called out even by Scalia as permissible under the 2nd Amendment.

[Cleita]

7. Other countries have regulated their gun owners successfully.

The only reason we can't do it is because of the NRA and various KKK like organizations who want to overthrow our government and frankly they should be outlawed as domestic terrorists. There is no reason law abiding and tax paying citizens should be subjected to their terrorism any longer.

[Recursion]

8. And other countries have failed to. Look at Brazil or Russia

We always compare ourselves to France or the UK but in terms of our population Brazil and Russia seem a lot more apt. And they have extremely high levels of gun violence, like we do.

[Cleita]

9. I'm suggesting we look at the successful ones not the failed ones. eom

[Recursion]

12. Brazil's gun laws are comparable to France's. Russia's are even more strict.

I'm arguing that these countries' experiences suggest we can't just copy European laws and get European results, because that's what happened with them.

[Hoyt]

14. Try Australian laws then.

[Recursion]

16. Brazil's are still stricter than Australia's

Australia has relatively lax gun laws as OECD countries go (though more strict than the US).

Australia's just a much less violent country to begin with; 1.1 murders per 100K compared to our 4.7.

They had a lower murder rate than ours before they tightened their gun laws after Port Arthur, and maintained a lower murder rate than ours after. Oddly enough, both the US and Australian murder rates dropped equally in the intervening years, by roughly 50%.

[Hoyt]

18. Excuses.

[Cleita]

15. So we should just give up and do nothing then?

How many children must be killed or would it have to be personal with you to do something?

[Recursion]

17. I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand

It seems pretty simple but people just don't seem to grasp it:

I personally don't believe that gun prohibitions will do much to actually reduce the prevalence of guns.

Can we at least stop attacking a position I don't have? I don't "like" guns. I don't think they're "awesome". If I could wave a magic wand and make them all disappear I would.

However.

It is my opinion that prohibition of easily concealed and manufactured things is going to be largely ineffective, particularly in a large and decentralized country like the US.

Now, I also have no idea why you think I favor "doing nothing". We've seen a dramatic (unprecedented, in fact) drop in gun violence in this country over the past 20 years, and so what I'd really like to do is figure out why that happened and see if there's anything else we can do along those lines.

[-none]

37. How does all the mass shooting lately support the supposed drop in gun violence?

I'm thinking the drop is more of a result of an accounting device than anything.

[GGJohn]

59. Take it up with the FBI, who compiles the stats.

The homicide rate in this country has been halved in the last 20 years, the stats don't lie.

[Recursion]

113. Cops can hide a lot of crimes, but not a body

It's one thing to be skeptical of lower recorded rape or burglary rates (that could easily be manipulation) but you can't manufacture a 50% decrease in homicides.

[GGJohn]

114. Bingo.

You've hit the nail on the head.

[Recursion]

115. When a black or Latino kid shot four classmates in 1993 the news didn't report it

When a suburban white guy shoots people he doesn't know in 2015, the news reports it.

There's only been an increase even in "mass shootings" if you use the caveat "... the shooting did not involve drugs or gang violence".

[CTyankee]

40. I know, Recursion, it goes like this: "you were never safer."

Right?

I'd like a dollar for every time I've heard that one from you know who's...

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. It happens to be true, your feelings on the matter notwithstanding:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1

[Mojorabbit]

94. Thank you. nt

[pablo_marmol]

47. I'd like a dollar from the **many** you-know-who's who deny easily verifiable facts.

Waiting for your rebuttal of post #43.

Tick, tock....tick, tock....tick, tock....tick, tock....tick, tock....tick, tock....

[Recursion]

116. And, in fact, you've never been safer. A kid in school today is safer than you or I were

A cop today is safer than a cop in 1955. A lower absolute number of cops were killed in 2014 than in 1954.

A doughboy on his way to enlist in 1917 was more likely to be murdered than an American today.

[CTyankee]

117. Upon reflection, I don't think my first response was helpful. Let me elaborate.

Last edited Sat Oct 3, 2015, 08:35 AM - Edit history (1)

It's simply not enough to say that we are safer now. People are safer now for a variety of reasons, including lots of common sense practices, some in improved technologies, advances in medicine, etc.

Just as "thoughts and prayers" are not enough. Until and unless we do what we KNOW will alleviate this problem of gun violence in our society, saying "you are safer now " without more, does about that same amount of good as mouthing about "thoughts and prayers."

I call this the "no can do" attitude. Giving up before we even try. That Aussie comedian pretty much highlighted the issue and we all laugh because it is so tragically true and on point.

My parents used to talk glowingly about that slogan "Can Do" from World War 2. It's not easy, but I think what we can do is a helluva lot easier than a bunch of Seabees clearing airstrips on islands in the South Pacific while fending off attacks by Japanese soldiers...and it's up to us.

[branford]

55. You might be interested to read the recent post by Eugene Volokh

from the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/02/guns-and-alcohol/

[Lint Head]

31. We have Scalia. We just need to get them all on our side.

[Maedhros]

62. In the language of the day "well regulated" meant "in good working order" or "well trained."

2A proponents use that semantic point to counter the need for gun control laws.

My personal take is that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right to "keep and bear" any and all arms - for example weapons such as swords are prohibited from being carried.

I would be happy if we restricted concealed carry permits to professionals with a demonstrated need. Average citizens do not need to have concealed firearms on their person.

[Cleita]

75. Well trained to me still implies rules to be followed.

In other words you still had to prove that you were going to use your muskat according to the orders your regiment commander gave you, not willy nilly as you felt like doing.

[TeddyR]

133. I've made this point before

But it is important to understand the meaning of the Second Amendment. A "well regulated militia" is not a militia subject to certain restrictions but a "well trained" militia. So no, the Second Amendment does not "imply laws, permits and other licenses." Found this old DU post that explains as much: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x158517

[Recursion]

4. The manufacturers' lobby is the NSSF

Located, oddly enough, in Newtown, CT.

[CTyankee]

41. that proves...uh, something...

[Thunderbeast]

21. Gun Rights Folks Seem to Love the Free Market...Let It Work!

I have a proposal for those who still believe that unlimited access to any kind of firearm is more important than the safety of our children. Let's let gun owners bear the true costs of their choices.

Just as drivers share the risks associated with car ownership by having mandatory insurance, gun owners should be required to show that they can bear the financial burden imposed on families and society when their weapon is used in a crime, suicide, or results in death, injury, or property damage as a result of an accident.

Each weapon should be insured (or post a bond) to cover the costs of civil and criminal risk.

A gun owner would be liable for any activity involving the weapon until it is destroyed or ownership is transferred to a qualified registered legal adult owner. Stolen and lost guns REMAIN the liability of the last legal owner.

Proof of liability insurance would be required in order to use the weapon at a range. Ammunition purchases would also require linkage to a licensed, insured, legal weapon. Law enforcement would have the right to inspect any weapon used in outdoor settings. Proof of insurance would also be required at that time. Uninsured guns would be confiscated and destroyed.

Gun owners believe that their entitlement is non-negotiable. Let's let actuaries and risk assessment professionals gauge the true costs of gun ownership to victims and society, and fairly assess those costs to the owners. Premiums would be based on risk factors such as owner experience, security measures, and lethality of the weapon. Based on what just happened in Roseburg, with 16 known casualties, it would be reasonable to expect financial accountability and insurance on the order of at least $100 Million for an assault rifle. Again, let professionals assess the risk, and determine appropriate premiums.

The most recent school shooting in Oregon (before Roseburg) was last year at Reynolds High School. A judge this week ordered the return of the murder weapon to the dead shooter's brother who owned the gun. No liability was assessed to him, though his weapon was used to murder a 14 year old child as well as the suicide of his own brother.

Dollars will not make up for the trauma and pain suffered. Gun owners MUST, however, take financial responsibility for the cost of their dangerous fetish. You have the right to fill your garage with AR-15s, but only if you can bear the real cost (via insurance or bond), and not transfer those costs to victims and society.

Let the market decide!

[branford]

52. Let me re-post an earlier comment I made about the absurdity, illegality and ineffectiveness

Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

of mandatory firearm insurance. For reference, note that I'm an attorney and a large portion of my practice involves insurance coverage and underwriting issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7133846

Mandatory insurance is a feel-good measure and a solution looking for a problem.

It also demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about insurance and the effects of such a law.

First, you cannot insure against your own intentional criminal acts. Insurance also wouldn't cover the effects of violence unconnected to the owner's firearms. Personal liability insurance is not a some general crime victim recovery fund funded by gun owners (which would have its own myriad of constitutional problems). For instance, even if the recent shooter of the reporters in Virginia has liability insurance, the victims' families would not collect a dime from the policy.

Second, since the incidence of firearm negligence among lawful gun owners is minuscule, despite the occasional graphic news story (recall that the USA has about 100+ million legal gun owners and over 300+ million firearms), the cost for such policies would be (and are) negligible. If the government attempted to artificially raise the costs of such insurance above what actuarial standards required, it would become a tax or penalty on gun ownership, and no longer "insurance."

Third, most homeowners and renters policies already cover accidents involving firearms.

Fourth, if the intent and design of the policy is to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right by simply making it more burdensome or expensive, it would almost certainly be unconstitutional in the same manner the courts struck-down poll taxes and literacy tests for voting.

Fifth, the vast majority of crime involving guns does not involve legal firearm owners or guns, and therefore this policy would have little to no effect on crime rates as such firearms would still not be insured even if mandatory. "Mass shootings" are also an extremely small percentage of gun crime.

Sixth, firearm accident insurance and policy riders are already very cheap and readily available, and the NRA is one of its largest proponents. If specific firearm insurance became mandatory, it would be a huge financial windfall for the NRA not only as a provider and vendor (similar to how AARP is a vendor for health and life insurance), but also as an endorser as they are the largest firearms safety organization in the country.

Seventh, there is no data to suggest that the country actually has a problem with uncompensated losses resulting from accidents involving legal firearms. What problem does the mandatory insurance proposal actually address?

Eighth, the lack of liability insurance does not prevent accident victims from suing someone for their negligence or criminal acts.

[Nevernose]

124. Fuck insurance liability

We should attach CRIMINAL liability, at least in regards to family members and residents of the house. It wouldn't infringe on anyone's rights -- you could keep your weapon wherever and however you wanted to -- but you'd be held criminally liable for whatever other household members do with your gun.

This happened today. As far as I'm concerned, whoever owned that shotgun is just as guilty of murder as the 11 year old who pulled the trigger. Every time a toddler finds a gun and discharges it, the adult who owns that gun needs to face the consequences for their irresponsibility. We'd see the murder, suicide, and accidental deaths due to firearms plummet after a few high profile convictions.

[valerief]

22. If you had to go to a "gun DMV" for a license (like you do for a car), the world would see how

many guns are owned by so few people. Most Americans do not own guns nor want to.

[Cleita]

24. Which really begs the question why so few are able to keep the rest of

us who want safer public spaces from achieving that goal?

[valerief]

25. Cuz they buy Congress. They probably also facilitate the illegal drug trade, which benefits

the taxpayer-funded anti-drug trade (law enforcement and prisons). It's a win-win for everyone but the 99%.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

151. Politicians in some states

want to keep expanding the number and types of places people can bring their guns to, even places that make no rational sense.

[Lint Head]

32. I believe that could be true. But we may find out differently.

[GGJohn]

60. A driver's license is a privilege,

owning a firearm is a right.
See the difference?

[libodem]

23. Good idea

Last edited Fri Oct 2, 2015, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

A registration and a yearly fee to keep them documented. Maybe yearly classes that cost plenty to sttend and your guns go by by if you don't go.

Ought to have an inspection in the home and a safety certification.

[Lint Head]

30. I'm not that smart but that just makes total sense to me.

[libodem]

34. .

[GGJohn]

61. Inspection in the home?

So, let's just violate the 4A because of guns?
What other rights do you want to violate?
You really think the courts would let the govt get away with that shit?
Registration? A no go with me, the govt has no right to know what firearms own, and I thank my lucky stars that I live in a state that trusts it's citizens with firearms.

[TheKentuckian]

129. Do we allow similar requirements for voting or expression?

You fail to comprehend what an enumerated right is.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

152. Neither of which actually kills people

Guns are designed to do nothing other than injure/kill other people and living things.

[TheKentuckian]

160. and?

[leveymg]

26. Close down the Gungeon. Lock the doors. No more NRA talking points on DU.

It's the least DU can do is to stop providing them with a forum from which they defend free access to mass murder weapons that kill crowds of innocent school children.

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. "Ask The Administrators" awaits your request:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

Unless and until the management chooses to shut it down, you are free only to block that group
while accepting that it is there.

FWIW, I despise the NRA as it currently exists, that being the de facto
armed wing of the Republican Party.

[leveymg]

42. Done. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598806

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598806

[GGJohn]

64. I guess some "progressives" can't take an opposing viewpoint. eom.

[leveymg]

72. I guess some progressives can take only so many mass murders.

ENOUGH NRA SHILLS ON DU. GO AWAY.

[GGJohn]

76. I guess you are comparing DU gun owners with...........

well, never mind, what I want to say will get me hidden.
Have a great evening.

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. Skinner put the kibosh on your attempt at censorship, and told you to do what I told you to do:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598806#post1

Star Member Skinner (60,721 posts)
1. I totally understand your frustration.

Unfortunately, banning a specific viewpoint that is held by some Democrats and progressives opens a host of enforcement problems that I think many DUers don't really appreciate.

My advice is that you trash the Gun Control & RKBA group. Doing so makes most of the crap disappear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=myaccount&sub=trash&trashforum=1172

You do not run DU, nor do you get to vet who posts what here

[leveymg]

122. "I totally understand your frustration."

"Unfortunately, banning a specific viewpoint that is held by some Democrats and progressives opens a host of enforcement problems that I think many DUers don't really appreciate."

Listen to the underlying message behind those words.

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. He sympathizes, but doesn't want a purge? A wise choice, given that...

...ca. 20-25% of Democrats are gun owners. You would do well to follow his example.

[TeddyR]

48. Setting aside the inaccuracy of your comment

That the "Gungeon" promotes NRA talking points, you really want to make DU a place that only comports with your point of view? So DU should ban pro-life (our current vice-President) or pro-choice Democrats? What about those who support Bernie Sanders (or Hillary)? Maybe DU should ban anyone who supports Blue Dog Democrats? And hell, the official platform of the Democratic party is that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Do you disagree with that portion of the platform, and if so do you want to ban all Democrats (apparently the majority of Dems) that support the platform?

[branford]

58. I would remind people that Bernie has a very pro-gun rights record,

which is entirely unsurprising considering he comes from Vermont, a state with some of the most liberal gun laws.

I would also like to quote the Democratic Platform concerning firearms for general reference,

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

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[leveymg]

67. The platform changed. Go advocate free mass murder weapons elsewhere.

The rest of us are finally ready to set aside the inaccuracy of the argument made by the gun nuts at DU. We indulged you for a long time. But enough. Go post your brand of 2A absolutism somewhere else.

[hack89]

74. Really? Got a link? nt

[GGJohn]

78. branford is advocating mass murder?

That's a fucking lie and you well know it.

You've really gone off the deep end, you should see someone about that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

106. No, it hasn't:

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[branford]

111. Excuse me?

My quote of the Democratic Platform concerning firearms is straight from Democrats.org and is cited and linked.

Given your patently fallacious and near defamatory contention that anyone here supports some brand of 2A absolutism and they advocate for mass murder or (and your obvious ignorance about the Democratic Platform), maybe it's time for you to overcome the cognitive dissonance and begin to accept that a great many Democrats own firearms and support gun rights, without such Democrats are party would likely be relegated to permanent minority status federally and in a majority of states, thereby imperiling the entirety of our progressive agenda, and that the debate about firearms is not nearly as binary as you suggest, with views encompassing a wide variety of perspectives.

[KamaAina]

158. Biden is anti-choice?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden#Abortion.2C_stem_cell_research.2C_cloning

Biden believes that the decision handed down in Roe v. Wade should remain intact. He is quoted as saying, "The best policy for our country on the question of abortion is a policy of Government neutrality. Put another way: I do not believe that the government should be involved in making judgments on whether a woman can, or should have an abortion, or – if she chooses to do so – in paying for that abortion." In September 2008, Biden was barred, by Joseph Francis Martino, the bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania, from receiving Holy Communion in the diocese because of his support for abortion rights....

He has joined with Democrats in voting against parental notification and a ban on abortions on military bases. Biden's record on abortion includes receiving a 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America in four of the last five years, although he received a 36% as recently as 2003. Biden pledged that he would appoint Supreme Court justices that share his beliefs. He has also stated his opposition to the Mexico City Policy, and voted in favor of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act in 1994. Biden supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and voted to expand development and voted against a 1998 ban on human cloning.

[GGJohn]

63. Skinner has already addressed that,

and deep sixed that "suggestion".

[hack89]

69. While you are waiting for Skinner's reply, here is a preview of coming attractions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12598508

[branford]

103. I believe you might need to have a word with the Democratic Party,

as our official Democratic Platform defends an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Whether you like it or not, a great many loyal Democrats are gun owners and/or gun rights supporters (particularly many union members in competitive purple states), although with attitudes like your and some of the comments I've seen today, I wonder if they'll remain loyal much longer.

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

https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

[polmaven]

27. But don't you agree

That the 2nd amendment authorized that everyone could have a musket in their homes?

[chuckingrocks]

28. Totally Agree

Hi Lint Head and others,

I'm totally sick of this crap too... I'm new to DU, but I have a blog, chuckingrocks.com, and I just wrote about this. Here's and excerpt:
If someone wants to kill a lot of people, a gun is almost always their best choice.

Yes, there are many other ways to kill people: a hammer, a knife, a car, a bomb, etc. But almost anyone can go out and buy a gun and bullets and start shooting people–in many states, on the same day. A bomb would have to be built—using parts that are highly monitored by various federal agencies; using a car would take certain, specific conditions; and a hammer? A knife? Seriously? Comparing a high caliber, semi-automatic rifle to a hammer, or a even a knife for that matter, in terms of deadliness, is pretty damned absurd. Last time I checked we don’t send our soldiers into battle with knives and hammers.

So after the tragedy yesterday in Roseburg, I don’t want to hear: if we’re going to restrict guns, why not knives, hammers, etc? That’s a dumb thing to say. We’re don’t have people killing or injuring twenty people at a time with hammers or knives. They’re doing it with guns.

And I don’t want to hear the old saying that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Wrong. When people kill people—especially in this country—it’s usually with a gun. Yesterday, people were killed with guns. In fact, unless we concoct some sort of contrived hypothetical situation, what happened yesterday could not have happened without guns.

Finally, I don’t want to hear, as Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said at the last debate, that passing more gun laws won’t matter, because criminals won’t follow those laws anyway. That is the most idiotic thing anyone ever thought up. Of course criminals will break laws—that’s how we know they’re criminals. We have laws so we can penalize criminals for doing bad things. We have laws to prevent criminals from committing crimes. We have laws that make it more difficult to commit a crime. We have police officers and a court system to enforce the law. Laws are the basis for a civilized society. That someone running for President doesn’t understand this is horrifying, and anyone who repeats Rubio’s line is an imbecile.

Full story http://chuckingrocks.com/guns2015/

Cheers,

Chuckingrocks

[Lint Head]

29. +100!

[llmart]

70. Great post.

Welcome to DU.

[Straw Man]

125. Other ways.

Yes, there are many other ways to kill people: a hammer, a knife, a car, a bomb, etc. But almost anyone can go out and buy a gun and bullets and start shooting people–in many states, on the same day. A bomb would have to be built—using parts that are highly monitored by various federal agencies; using a car would take certain, specific conditions; and a hammer? A knife? Seriously? Comparing a high caliber, semi-automatic rifle to a hammer, or a even a knife for that matter, in terms of deadliness, is pretty damned absurd. Last time I checked we don’t send our soldiers into battle with knives and hammers.

How about a book of matches and a couple of gallons of gasoline? 87 dead for less than the cost of a movie ticket:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/dozens-die-fire-illegal-bonx-social-club-1990-article-1.2152091

You might want to start asking why so many Americans want to kill large numbers of random strangers. If we could solve that riddle, we wouldn't have to waste time trying in vain to ghoul-proof our society by taking the figurative pointy scissors away from everybody.

By the way, the preponderance of gun deaths take place the old-fashioned way, one or two at a time, the same way knife and hammer deaths do. Mass shootings are a very small slice of the statistical pie. And the "high caliber semi-automatic rifle" that people seem convinced is the source of all our woes accounts for fewer killings per year than do hands, fists, and feet, per the FBI's stats. But it does make a convenient bugaboo.

Finally, I don’t want to hear, as Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said at the last debate, that passing more gun laws won’t matter, because criminals won’t follow those laws anyway. That is the most idiotic thing anyone ever thought up. Of course criminals will break laws—that’s how we know they’re criminals. We have laws so we can penalize criminals for doing bad things.

I'm more than willing to indict Marco Rubio for idiocy, but your stated example is not part of that indictment. Gun control laws are clearly an attempt to make gun ownership more onerous for the law-abiding segments of society so as to social-engineer us toward the elusive goal of a gun-free society. I offer as evidence a few facts.

First, case-law has established that a convicted felon (in other words, a person legally barred from possessing a firearm) cannot be charged with failing to register a weapon in such jurisdictions where registration is the law; the requirement to register would violate his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. A person with no criminal record, however, could and would be charged for that same offense. Say what?

Second, gun charges are generally the first thing to be plea-bargained away for criminals facing multiple counts. I would say that this sends the wrong message. Wouldn't you?

Third, giving false statements on the Form 4473 when purchasing a firearm (like checking the "No" box when you actually are subject to a restraining order for domestic violence) is a felony and is easily verfiable by information in the federal database. Yet this is never prosecuted by the ATF, who apparently think it sufficient that the gun sale was denied. The felonious buyer rolls the dice and lies on the form, hoping that there's a glitch in the database. If there is, he gets his gun. If not, that's OK; he didn't get his gun, but he can walk away and try again tomorrow. Why have the penalty if it will never be invoked?

Are you starting to see a pattern here? Pass more laws, and the law-abiding will for the most part comply with them voluntarily: no large gain in public safety, since these aren't generally the people who cause problems in the first place. Criminals will, of course, ignore the laws, knowing that the consequences are few or none in the context of the overall pattern of their criminal behavior. Again, no net gain in public safety.

But maybe, just maybe, some law-abiding gun owners will get tired of jumping through the hoops and will stop buying guns. Or people with a vague interest will be deterred by the numerous obstacles. And then maybe after a few decades, or generations, or centuries, America will be a gun-free paradise -- except for the weapons that will still be in the hands of the cops, the criminal, and the paid protectors of the rich and powerful. Won't that be grand?

Cheers.

[Jack Rabbit]

35. K/R

[ibegurpard]

36. you have said nothing I couldn't get on board with

And I'm a handgun owner. Stop all the "get rid of guns" rhetoric and find common ground with people. It will be hard enough to fight the NRA on just those. Bans and lawsuits against manufacturers are non starters.

[Skittles]

38. anyone who says "gun grabbers" is displaying their paranoia

they're COWARDS

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. You seem to have missed the many, many posts recommending banning guns here at DU:

https://www.google.com/search?q=ban+guns&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com#q=ban+guns++site:democraticunderground.com

[kentauros]

50. Yeah, I'm about to put one on ignore.

It's rather difficult to have a conversation when the other one is shouting at you, and only going for the most extreme and outrageous twisting of your points...

[Duckhunter935]

56. can you post a link?

I am truly curious to see it

[kentauros]

83. Yes, I can post a link.

http://www.sheldrake.org/audios/dialogues-with-bishop-marc-andrus-at-grace-cathedral

[Duckhunter935]

86. I did not think it happened

It was a nice story though.

[kentauros]

90. Oh, it happened.

I'm done with that thread, though. Said my say. Don't need to say anything else.

Have a look for the thread on regulating ammunition, if you must have "proof." Again, I'm done with that thread, so no more from me on the topic

[Duckhunter935]

98. lol, twisting of points?

they just told you things you did not want to hear that your plan is not workable and not constitutional. If you do not want anyone to debate you on the merits of your idea, you need to post here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

This group is very good at censoring the speech of others. Beware it is not very busy and even the hosts tend to abandon it.

[Generic Other]

57. If everyone puts them ALL on ignore at least DU will reek less

Enablers and accomplices. So selfish. Always claiming they would sacrifice their lives for the good of the country, but not their precious precious guns. Sick to death of them too. Like the president said, if we want change we must fight for it.

[GGJohn]

68. And here I thought that as progressives, we welcome opposing viewpoints.

Silly me.

[Duckhunter935]

99. Like here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262

[GGJohn]

104. Yep, you nailed it.

[Logical]

127. GG, something tells me you have never voted progressive in your life. Nt

[GGJohn]

132. You're quite free to believe what you like,

meanwhile, I continue to vote Democrat here in the red state of AZ.

[Logical]

149. I so wish i could see the deleted post! lol! Nt

[GGJohn]

159. It wasn't anything nasty or insulting,

I just didn't think it appropriate for the occasion.
I've been trying to be more mellower, getting 3 time outs in 2 months tends to give one a different perspective on attitude.
Cheers.

[Generic Other]

92. Let them talk to themselves

They can compare penis size and gun size all the livelong day. Another one bites the dust.

[Duckhunter935]

101. wow, a penis joke

that must make you feel all good now.

[Orrex]

131. Funny how gun advocates find dick jokes more offensive than gun murders.

Certainly they complain more loudly about penis humor than about years of unchecked carnage inflicted by poorly regulated firearms.

[Duckhunter935]

135. No actually not

Us firearms owners just like yo point out how insulting and childish some are. I am all for regulations and laws that will actually work and not bullshit feel good legislation or things that do not ever have chance to pass.

[Orrex]

137. Actually, yes.

I've been down this road many, many times.

Gun advocates love to complain about the phallic imagery long associated with firearms almost as much as they love their phallic firearms, and they particularly love it when they can complain about dick jokes rather than addressing the hard, throbbing fact that guns cause tens of thousands of deaths annually.

They think that, if they can scold people for commenting on the gun advocates' love of rigid, oiled barrels, then people will forget how preposterously deadly guns are repeatedly shown to be.

They also love to dismiss outright any reasonable suggstion about regulation as "bullshit feel good legislation, while they offer absolutely no alternatives other than a little muttering about licensing and some vague nonsense about increasing mental health care.

Sensible laws have no chance to pass because the Congressional majority is enslaved to the NRA, and it has been for decades. Interesting that you align yourself so passionately with them. What are we to make of this?

[Duckhunter935]

139. Seems like you have some kind of

Sexual issues. Feel good legislation like banning bayonet lugs and barrel shrouds. That is bullshit and you know it would do nothing. How about opening NICS up for all private sales, I am for that. How about mandated safety training, I am for that. How about licensing, I am for that. And mental health, yes I am for that as 2/3 of deaths are suicides and these spree murderers almost always have some kind of mental health issues. So to put it up front, I am for things that will make an impact and possibly get passed. All you have is insults and sexual innuendo. Which is more likely to cut down on firearms related deaths.

[Orrex]

143. Yeah, gun-advocates always say that.

Because they have nothing else to offer.

When pressed, they reluctantly propose middling, toothless legislation that might have some minimal impact on some small fraction of certain gun sales somewhere in the indeterminate future.

But propose anything that might actually reduce gun violence, and they wrap themselves in the 2nd amendment as if it were handed down from on high, immaculate and inviolable, by the God of Guns himself. Every single suggestion that isn't endorsed by Wayne Lapierre himself is dismissed as "bullshit feel good legislation," and gun-advocates make all sorts of noise about (ultimately irrelevent) technical minutiae that, in their NRA-infused worldview, invalidates any serious attempt to curtail gun violence.

[Duckhunter935]

144. I do not think Wayne

Would approve of anything I would like and it would definitely have an effect. So what are your big ideas that you would propose?

[Orrex]

145. Thanks, but as I noted, I've gone down this road many times

And I don't care to repeat myself when I know in advance that you'll dimissively harumph anything I might offer.

The pattern is always like this:

Me: a dozen or so sensible suggestions to tighten gun regulations and enact acyual penalties for violations involving guns

Gun-advocate: those will never work because reasons.

[Duckhunter935]

147. Ok

I understand, I have posted my suggestions dozens of times just to be summarily dismissed or be told they are NRA talking points.

Btw I am for very heavy penalties for using a weapon in a crime or especially leaving one unsecured and a child is killed or wounded. No excuse for that negligence.

[Orrex]

148. Well, there's a point of agreement, at least

Btw I am for very heavy penalties for using a weapon in a crime or especially leaving one unsecured and a child is killed or wounded. No excuse for that negligence.

I'm strongly in favor of very heavy penalties for crimes involving gun negligence.

I'm also in favor of penalties for gun owners whose guns are stolen and subsequently used in crimes. Owners should be required to report the theft within a very short time, and if the gun is used in a crime before the theft is reported, then the owner is considered to have supplied the gun. This hinges on the assumption that a responsible gun owner can reasonbly be expected to be aware of the status of his firearms at all times. This suggestion is always rejected as being too onerous or for failing some imagined Constitutional challenge, but it seems fairly obvious to me.


Beyond that, these discussions seem to prove only that there are some points on which two camps can never find agreement.

[villager]

66. We don't allow racists to post on this site -- why do we allow gun nuts?

They have the whole rest of the rightwing internet in which to do their digital shitting.

[GGJohn]

71. You're equaling gun owners here on DU with racists?

That's a vile fucking comparison, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[villager]

73. Nah, you should be ashamed.

Once you the get the blood mopped up.

[GGJohn]

77. Pray tell, what blood?

Can't wait to hear this.

[villager]

79. Nothing to hear -- you offer odious apologias for odious gun manufacturers

...and could care not a whit about the amassing pile of victims, as long as you can cling to your fetish objects, and the center of your adoration.

You have nothing worthwhile to offer on the subject.

Bye-bye!

[GGJohn]

80. Another lie from you mouth.

Post one link where I've apologized for the firearms manufacturers.

[onehandle]

84. Heh...

On Fri Oct 2, 2015, 08:57 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Nothing to hear -- you offer odious apologias for odious gun manufacturers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7224869

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This is a little over the top, especially after the Oregon tragedy. It's purely a personal attack against a poster with no actual content, and that's -after- stating that gun owners are racists. This sort of trash makes the gun control movement so ridiculously ineffective; extremists who refuse to discuss anything without resorting to name-calling and personal digs.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Oct 2, 2015, 09:10 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter mischaracterizes the poster's earlier words regarding who may post on DU. This makes the complaint about this particular post seem more agenda-driven than sincere. Vote to leave it
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see the personal attack. I see disagreement. not hide worthy imho
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is personal sniping, and it's childish, but I don't think it's hide worthy.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[GGJohn]

89. Just for the record, I didn't alert on that post.

I prefer for posts to stand so all may see.

[Generic Other]

93. Skinner made that other site for them

Disgustingest isn't it called?

[GGJohn]

102. OOOOOH, that is sooooooo clever.

Just in case this is needed.

[onehandle]

81. Rec #50. nt

[hunter]

97. Me too.

I know guns well and I don't like.

[smirkymonkey]

110. Hear, hear!

[Jappleseed]

118. Still don't understand why Skinner is allowing the NRA to post their crap on this site.

Lot's of other hate groups get tossed out immediately. Skinner by allowing this is doing his little bit to help the next 'gun tragedy' to happen. Tacit approval is still approval.

[SwankyXomb]

134. it's a simple equation

More posts = more clicks = more ads = more $$$$$$.

[Duckhunter935]

140. As he has said many times

Democrats own firearms and they should be heard. It is also in the democratic platform that owning a firearm is an individual right. He has also tried to limit gun related posts to just a few groups that you can trash. A good compromise. It seems to be one side that does not abide by his guidance and the GD SOP and post gun posts in GD.

[Jappleseed]

154. Yet there are democrats who are racist and

Their voices are not heard here. Same with other subsets of democrats who's views are not supprted. Why the special NRA love fest by the admins.

[Duckhunter935]

157. There is a difference

And if you can not figure that out, I feel very sorry for you.

[Orrex]

128. I put a bunch on Ignore yesterday

I'm amazed at the sharp decrease in NRA-compatible idiocy I've had to wade through since then.

[Lint Head]

136. +100

You can't convince then of anything or change their minds. It's an exercise in futility and just plain frustrating.

[GGJohn]

138. The same exact thing can be said of your side of the issue. eom.

[Duckhunter935]

141. Yep

But I have nobody on ignore as I enjoy the discussion.

[GGJohn]

142. As do I.

I've never understood putting someone on ignore just because you don't like their opinion on a topic.
It's akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and saying LALALALALA, I can't hear you.

[Ghost in the Machine]

146. Well unregister as a Democrat then, because the Democratic Party Platform *clearly supports*

the 2nd Amendment....

There are millions of Democratic gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, too...

Peace,

Ghost