Ho-Hum. More Nefarious Bullshit from the Haters of the Second Amendment.

[NYC_SKP]

If rewriting history and calling the 2A a slave enforcement clause doesn't work (and it doesn't work), maybe they can tie current gun ownership to racism.

It's disturbing. The Bill of Rights, each one of the Ten Amendments, is vital. We shouldn't give an inch.

Biased Attitudes in US Whites May Influence Policy Decisions

Given the importance of guns and gun-control to US public health, and the urgent need for appropriate policy to reduce gun-related harms, it is vital to examine the psychological and sociocultural reasons for the paradoxical attitudes of many US citizens and politicians to gun-control. US whites have twice the rate of gun ownership of blacks, oppose gun control to much greater extent than blacks, but are considerably more likely to kill themselves with those guns, than be killed by others or blacks. While the literature suggests that racism in whites shapes fear of black violence and support for policies that disadvantage blacks, no research has examined whether racism is related to gun ownership and attitudes to gun-control in US whites. This study investigated whether racism is related to gun ownership and opposition to gun control in US whites. We hypothesized that, after accounting for known confounders (i.e., age, gender, education, income, location, conservatism, political identification, anti-government sentiment), anti-black racism would be associated with having a gun in the home, and opposition to gun controls.

- - -

There remains considerable resistance in the US to even cursory gun controls, and the reasons for owning a gun and opposing gun reform (i.e., self-protection, safety, fear of crime) , , are not supported by the evidence on gun-related harms. Clearly, other motives and attitudes must be driving such paradoxical views on guns. Future research needs to examine other less obvious, yet influential, sociocultural and psychological influences on gun ownership and control, as this evidence is sparse. Evidence on the psychological and sociocultural drivers of gun ownership and resistance to strong controls will in turn help inform educational campaigns (e.g., social marketing) that may aid public acceptance of appropriate policies in the interest of the US public’s health, and/or allow policy makers to implement good public health policy. The reinstatement of funding for research on gun control in the US should assist in these research endeavours.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0077552#s4

And I don't have to tell you that the other angle is to label gun ownership a public health problem. How many other amendments in the BOR could be tied to a public health problem? I could make the argument that we must give up our rights to privacy to make sure we aren't drinking or smoking too much.

Don't give in. Don't let them get away with this.

Just for kicks, a funny line from the study:

There is some experimental research showing that participants who have recently held a firearm produce enhanced salivary testosterone levels and display increased aggression toward others [46]. Causality aside, greater control of firearms is the most logical direction for public health policy.

[Loudly]

1. Drinking and smoking are typically voluntary.

Gunshot wounds usually aren't.

[sked14]

8. When 2 idiots shoot at each other,

it usually is voluntary.

[Loudly]

38. The USA is a country which tolerates guns and ammo in the hands of the public.

That pretty much makes us ALL idiots.

[sked14]

41. Speak for yourself.

If you want to call yourself an idiot, please proceed, but don't pretend to speak for others.

[Loudly]

44. So we're BRILLIANT for tolerating guns and ammo?

We're BRILLIANT for enabling convenient infliction of death and injury at the whim of shooters?

Do I speak for you now?

[sked14]

46. You've never spoken for me.

[Straw Man]

87. Shares United ...

... wants the world to wear handcuffs. Some abuse their freedom, so let's shackle everyone.

It's the logic of the asylum.

[NYC_SKP]

10. Drinking and Smoking cause great harm to others in the community.

And legislation has already been passed involving those choices and behaviors.

The question is whether basic constitutionally recognized rights become less important behind, in this case, bullshit made up correlations.

[Loudly]

42. I welcome such correlations.

Guns and ammo should be stigmatized.

[sked14]

43. Apparently the general public doesn't agree with your minority view.

[NYC_SKP]

45. Well, since facts aren't on your side, I guess it will have to be lies and misinformation.

Hearing your willingness to use stigmatization to effect change only makes me more willing and proud to defend the RKBA.

Your approach is really working against your cause, so please proceed.

[Eleanors38]

81. I used some Estate field loads that ought to be stigmatized...

barely ruffled dove feathers. Thinking about getting Rios again,.if the price is not too dear.

Hey, folks! Wendy Davis came out for open-carry in Texas, party "leadership" be damned. That should tone down some of the NRA gas-passing.

[geckosfeet]

48. First and second hand smoke cause more deaths annualy than firearms.

How is second hand smoke voluntary?

[Loudly]

55. How? Because you can absent yourself from places where smoke is.

If someone shoots you, the choice is the shooter's.

[geckosfeet]

60. Just stay away from shooters - see - simple.

[Ed Suspicious]

76. Not so simple with concealed carry and where responsible gun owners (good guys with guns) can become

murderers in the time it takes to pull a hairpin trigger.

[Adrahil]

78. Likewise, hard to just avoid drunk drivers NT

[geckosfeet]

80. And not so simple to avoid second hand smoke.

But i find your fear of concealed weapons irrational. A fear driven by media hype.

How many firearms did you see today? (Stores and law enforcement excluded.) In the last week? Month? Year?

Unless you own one, know a gun owner, or regularly go to a range my bet is none.

On edit: On the other hand I saw about twenty smokers today. Walked right by thier stinking fumes on my way into work. No choice of entry. So you see, not so simple.

[thucythucy]

77. "Just stay away from shooters"

Really? That's advice to people who are victims of gun violence?

If only those Sandy Hook kids had been as smart as you.

[SecularMotion]

2. You didn't have to start a new thread Skippy

It's already been posted here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172136683

[hack89]

4. In Castle Bansalot? The echo chamber where dissent is not allowed? Right

let us in so we can discuss it there or shut the hell up.

[NYC_SKP]

11. "Skippy", That's cute of you! Actually, there's no discussion going on with that OP.

It's more of a round of high fives, no discussion allowed.

[SecularMotion]

16. I thought everyone called you Skippy.

If either you or hack bothered to follow the link, you would find a post and discussion in this group.

[Common Sense Party]

17. So you are welcoming us to your club? We can come over there and have a dialogue?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. Heretics and unbelievers like us will still get an Amish-like shunning

Mustn't pollute the church, and all that...

[NYC_SKP]

18. "you are truly doing god's work here on DU!", "You are amazing!", "Thanks much for the kind words,"

Dear SecularMotion.

I indeed saw the OP and the replies or, discussion, if you wish to call it that.

It's impossible for me to post a reply there, so I'll have to do it here.

To all who would think otherwise, we almost all agree that guns need to be kept from bad people, and most would support that the Second Amendment matters.

However, it is NOT a litmus test of progressives or liberals or Democrats that we must all abhor guns generally.

If you really felt this way:

As a liberal, I feel that we need to work toward a society that settles differences by finding common ground, not standing your ground with a gun. I'm not naive enough to think that we can eliminate all guns, but we can reduce the need for guns through better law enforcement along with strong regulations on who is allowed to own and carry a gun in public.

Then you would acknowledge that we have far more in common that to justify some of the comments made in that thread you started.

Some would ban us from DU.

[SecularMotion]

19. I would agree that there are some gun zealots who should be banned from DU.

See, it's not hard to find common ground!

[sked14]

20. Why should they be banned from DU?

Because they have a different opinion of the 2A than you?
It was always my belief that progressives invited rigorous debate on all topics no matter how much we disagreed.
Am I wrong? Or is it now, I disagree with someone's position on..............., so they should be banned?

[SecularMotion]

21. I think gun zealots should be added to this list

Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[sked14]

22. If they're pushing the Nugent/LaPierre line of bullshit,

then yes, but who here is pushing that?

[SecularMotion]

23. If you can't recognize the gun zealots in here

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 06:55 AM - Edit history (1)

there's nothing more I can add to help you.



I thought you were done with gun threads?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=136718

[sked14]

26. I already told you that when I see bullshit,

I tend to answer it.
Your definition of gun zealots and my definition are far different.
One more time, who here is pushing the Nugent/LaPierre bullshit line of gun rights?

That almost god like fawning of your thread over in the other group is, to me, highly disturbing.

[blueridge3210]

47. Like pornography

You can't define it, but you know it when you see it?

[clffrdjk]

52. Here let me help you

Any time an anti gun person starts to lose an argument the pro gun person automatically becomes (NRA/Wayne sum......) No proof required.

Also used as a form of insult aimed at no one in particular.

Actual (NRA/Wayne scum....) while known to exist are rarely if ever positively identified.

[blueridge3210]

57. Thanks for explaining

It all makes senses now. lol

[Eleanors38]

83. They flit about like Caspar the Ghost, in pursuit of Mrs. Muir.

[hack89]

24. Zealot = someone that disagrees with me on guns. nt

[SecularMotion]

25. Wrong again

zeal·ot
ˈzelət/
noun
noun: zealot; plural noun: zealots

1.a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.

synonyms: fanatic, enthusiast, extremist, radical, young Turk, diehard, true believer, activist, militant

[sked14]

27. So, who here is doing that?

[hack89]

28. A good description of the inhabitants of Bansalot.

the way everyone presses on despite getting their asses handed to them on a regular basis. The anger, the spite, the insults, the constant urge to ban people and things you don't like. The need for a safe haven to keep bad ideas out.

Yep - lots of zealots at DU. Just no where you think they are.

[SecularMotion]

29. I agree with the need for a safe haven to keep bad ideas out.

Wow, we're finding a lot of common ground today!

This is good!

[sked14]

30. So that would make you on par with the RW zealots, wouldn't it?

[hack89]

31. So why don't you stay there?

surely there are plenty of posters and lots of lively conversation from like minded posters ... oh wait.

[blueridge3210]

40. Would that be

because your "good" ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny or the light of day?

[Deep13]

3. We're not rewriting history.

The common narrative is factually wrong and always has been. The plain language of the 2nd Am. is evidence of that. It's about state security. How do we know? It says so. Plus existing documentation from the 18th c. shows that the corn was that the states would have no army for all the things armies do, including suppressing slave revolts and Indians, when the national army was disbanded after the Revolution. You all are the ones relying on a constructed memory of the past.

[wercal]

5. So its the only part of the Billof Rights that doesn't protect personal rights?

...but is really about state security.

Doesn't it seem a little bit odd that one out of ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, and the second one at that, would really something other than personal rights.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

[upaloopa]

7. Why do you leave off the first part?

You can't even start your quote with a capital letter because it isn't the whole script!

[wercal]

12. I wasn't 'leaving out' anything...

...just emphasizing the part that specifically reserves a right for the 'people'.

Note the Bill of Rights does not 'grant' these rights, as much as it states these rights exist, and the power of the government cannot take them away.

And I ask again, for anyone who would answer....isn't it a little bit odd that, according to some, the Bill of Rights is polluted with a right granted to the state, instead of the people?

Especially when reading the clause that I quoted?

[Eleanors38]

84. The rights occur to the people, not the state, is why.

The "militia clause" is the government stating its limited interest in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; to wit, so that it can call out the militia as provided for in Article 1.

Rights are those of individuals, not states.

[Deep13]

9. The 10th is also about states.

And people is a collective noun which, in the context of the time, did not include everyone. These are not modern statutes that read as step by step instructions. They are partly aspirational. And they only applied to the Federal government.

[wercal]

14. You are illustrating the deep danger of attacking one amendment of the BOR

In doing so, you have to convolute words and concoct meanings....which could be used to attack any other amendment. Re-read your statement, and apply it to the 1st amendment:

Founding Fathers: "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"

Your response: "And people is a collective noun which, in the context of the time, did not include everyone"

If you want to distort one amendment, what stops all of them from getting distorted.

[Deep13]

15. an assembly is a collective noun.

You're wrong. And anyway, you are arguing the consequence. You say my reading undermines the 1st am. Well, maybe the Founders intended it that way. They certainly did not envision Federal restrictions on state regulation of libel, incendiary language, blaspheme or whatever.

[wercal]

34. No I'm right...and you are proving my point.

'Collective noun'....seriously. What does that have to do with your original dismissal of the term 'people'.

It is impossible to skew the meaning in one amendment, without destroying them all.

Conceding that libel laws are w constitutional violation (theoretically, I don't really agree witbh that), then you have used the oldest argument on the schoolyard playground: two wrongs make a right. Most philosophical or legal arguments stray away from that tactic....buts its what you have to resort to, when shaping the bor to meet one's world view.

Rather than using such arguments, why not appeal the amendment?

[blueridge3210]

49. Can one person

Peacefully assemble for the purpose of petitioning the government for a redress of grievances?

[beevul]

88. You're reading it wrong, and the preamble proves it.

The preamble says:

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

http://billofrights.org/

Amendment 2, like the other 9, was intended by the framers to shackle the federal government, by means of explicitly forbidding it from numerous specific exercises of power. Words authored and penned by the framers themselves say so in the first paragraph of the preamble to the Bill of Rights which I quoted above.

Nothing "constructed" about any of it. Its all fact and all true.

Collective rights theory is so...90s.

[upaloopa]

6. The constitution protects all of us.

The SCOTUS said there are limits to what you think is your rights.
You can bully people for just so long. There will come a time when reason and logic will return to this issue.
I use to be supportive of gun rights. Gunners have turned me against them. I hate our gun culture and gun violence in this country. So do the majority.
If you post is to get to people like me you win.

[NYC_SKP]

13. The fact is that except for the extremists on both sides, people want the same thing.

I count myself among that majority of Americans, including the President, who honor the Second Amendment.

There's no need to conduct study after study that come to empty conclusions with innuendo about racism, that's utter bullshit and it's divisive.

Common sense is all we need, we need background checks, we need training and we need to take guns away from the stupid and violent people.

Some would repeal the Second, some really really think that all guns can be outlawed and that it will be OK!

[hack89]

50. So if America has turned against the "gun culture"

why do we see state after state liberalizing gun laws? It is almost as if there are a shit ton of Americans that see guns differently than you do. Castle Bansalot, urban hipsters and suburban soccer moms are not the majority.

There is no bullying. You just don't like disagreement on a issue you think is important. Get over yourself.

[upaloopa]

51. You see right wing states because the gun

culture is funded by the NRA and ALEC lobbyists.
They don't represent people they represent the gun manufacturers. I'd be ashamed of being on a Democratic website supporting right wing corporations and ideals.

[hack89]

53. You need to accept that there are many pro-gun Dems

The NRA and ALEC are convenient boogymen but until you are willing to talk to gun owners without gratuitous and condescending insults you will continue to fail. The simple fact is you will never get what you want without the help of gun owners like myself. I am ready anytime you decide to have a real conversation.

[upaloopa]

54. You don't have conversations. You have talking points

and "facts" from gunner sites.
Talking about this to gunners is a waste of time because all gunners are interested in is intransigence and obfuscation.
You need to accept that most people don't want this growing gun culture.

[hack89]

56. When the gun control movement reclaims all the ground they have lost since 1994

is when I will accept that people are changing their attitudes on guns. So far it is not looking too good for you.

In the mean time, take solace that gun violence is continuing to decline and you have never been safer.

[upaloopa]

58. If your strength is the NRA and ALEC which it is

it doesn't look good for you. We are grass roots people working together. We don't owe our allegiance and future to the wims of a right wing lobby and a corporation.

[hack89]

59. No - our strength is millions of gun owners that vote

but believe what ever it takes to make it through the next several decades of disappointment . "Just you wait" has been the siren song of gun controllers for as long as I can remember. I am still waiting.

[upaloopa]

63. We will see

Right now you have the support of the right wing. They won't remain in power for ever.

[hack89]

65. What will ultimately undermine the drive for stronger laws

Is steadily declining violent crime rates. It will be harder and harder to whip up anti-gun hysteria when people feel safe.

That being said, I certainly think we will see UBCs within ten years - there is widespread support for those.

[upaloopa]

68. You keep pushing that canard as we hear every day of another

school shooting or mall shooting or some gun nut murdering some kid and claiming he was standing his ground.

[hack89]

70. Are you denying decades of DOJ / FBI data?

I think you are. What a surprise - who needs hard stats when you have emotional anecdotes.

Simple challenge - show me a source that proves the DOJ and FBI are wrong. Time to put up.

[upaloopa]

71. That again!

I said we hear of a new shooting everyday
That makes your data irrelevant.

[Lizzie Poppet]

73. It's the other way around, in terms of making policy decisions.

Individual incidents, writ large in the news media, are vastly less relevant that the entire body of data when it comes to influencing and informing policy decisions. Unless one prefers policy to be decided on the basis of emotion and hysteria. Personally, I don't.

[hack89]

74. So fewer actual shootings every year

are not a reason to celebrate? Ok

[Lizzie Poppet]

72. Anecdotes < full datasets

We may be hearing more about shootings, but that's a media matter. The actual hard data indicates that violent crime, including shootings, has been declining for some time.

[friendly_iconoclast]

79. Hard data harshes the mellow of those trying to gin up a moral panic

[gejohnston]

61. What grassroots?

Every gun control group is the very definition of astro turf. Bloomberg hired a former Monsanto PR flack and marketing guru to head MDA. The reason the two merged is because MDA would have to file an IRS 990 this year, which would make astro turf proof obvious and public record.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. You owe your allegience and future to a Wall Street billionaire

And we'll believe that you are 'grass roots' when the membership of
MAIG/Moms Demand Action outnumbers that of the NRA 35:1
instead of the reverse...

[spin]

82. Facts are facts. It doesn't really matter if they come from a conservative site or a liberal ...

and progressive site.

If you visit only pro-gun rights conservative sites you will pick up some facts and a lot of BS. If you visit only liberal sites which support strong control you will also learn some facts but will also see a lot of BS. The problem is learning to separate the facts from the BS.

Obviously a pro-gun rights site will largely ignore facts which do not support its views just as the more liberal pro-gun control sites will ignore facts which hamper their argument.

One fact both sides rarely mention is that violent crime and firearm crime in our nation is returning to levels last seen in the late 1960s. Both like to promote the myth that our society is EXTREMELY violent and growing even more violent.

The pro-gun sites push this propaganda in order to increase membership and firearm sales and the gun control advocates do the same to encourage the passage of stronger gun legislation in our nation.

There are good arguments on both sides of the gun control issue. I feel we might be able to make some headway in passing better gun legislation if both sides were willing to show a little respect for the other and were willing to compromise. Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen anytime in the near future.

[Eleanors38]

85. "supporting RW corporations and ideals" is a common criticism of the Democratic Party...

in GD, most everyday, over many issues. SEE: Warren v. Hillary ad nauseum.

And who are you to label the RKBA as "right wing" when so many Democrats and quite a few liberals own guns? The Democratic Party Platform didn't even MENTION "gun control" before 1968.

[bowens43]

32. those who believe that the 2nd has anything to do with individual rights are delusional.

unless you are a member of a well regulated militia you have NO right to own any weapon.

[sked14]

33. Sorry, but those much more intellectual than you disagree.

Last edited Fri Feb 7, 2014, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

[NYC_SKP]

35. We are pretty well regulated, thank you for agreeing that we have these rights.

So even if you don't agree with the Scotus and the President that RKBA is an individual right, we have your permission to have our guns.

As we are regulated, and all.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/



Wendy Davis Backs Open Carry Law

[sarisataka]

36. Short list of delusional people

President Obama
SCOTUS
DNC
the overwhelming majority of US citizens...

[hack89]

37. So anyone that supports the Democratic Party platform should not have guns?

interesting perspective.

[hack89]

39. "I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms." Barack Obama 2008

as you were saying,

[Lizzie Poppet]

62. No, they actually understand both the law and elementary linguistics.

Unlike "collective right" ninnies...

[wercal]

64. I keep asking - nobody can answer

Why, in your opinion, do you think that every amendment in the Bill of Rights sets forth rights reserved for individuals...with the one notable exception that you cite?

Really, is it that 'delusional' to presume that the 2nd amendment sets forth an individual right...just like every other amendment in the Bill of Rights? Wouldn't it be strange to make the 2nd amendment the outlier?

Please, somebody answer this. 'splain to me why constitutional scholars have been wrong all along, in thinking that the Bill of Rights was specifically written to protect individual freedoms against government.

[spin]

86. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights. It sets limits on our government for what it can ...

take away from us.

What is the Bill of Rights' purpose? What function does it serve? What rights does it protect? The Bill of Rights was created to safeguard various rights that the early Americans wanted to be sure the government could not intrude upon. They believed these rights were "unalienable" and granted by God. Human governments had no right to interfere with them. Understanding the Bill of Rights' purpose will help you better understand the founding period of America and have more understanding about why this is such a great nation.(...emphasis added)
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/bill-of-rights-purpose.html

2nd Amendment -
Protection from the Government

When the Revolutionary War ended and the Americans were making their new Constitution, they were very aware of the need for self-defense. They still needed protection from Indians and they wanted to be able to defend themselves from any external enemies that might arise. They were also very aware that the new government they were creating could turn corrupt and they wanted to defend themselves from it if necessary.

After all, Thomas Jefferson had written in the Declaration of Independence that if a government failed to protect its citizens and instead became the enemy, the citizens had the right to overthrow it! So one reason the citizens wanted to be armed was not just for defense against external enemies. They wanted protection from their own government!

Noah Webster
Noah Webster believed that having an armed public would prevent the government from becoming corrupted because the people would have more power than the government itself. He wrote:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/2nd-amendment.html

The entire article on the Second Amendment is a worthwhile read.

[Lurks Often]

66. So you think President Obama is delusional?

He has stated that the 2nd Amedment is an individual right.