"Nobody wants to take your guns..."

[beevul]

"Nobody wants to take your guns..."

How many times have we heard that. Shortly after hearing it, many of us are quick to point out that there are a number of posters here on DU who want to do just that, only to be met with the reply (or some craftily crafted variation of it) that "nobody on the national stage wants to take your guns". We're inundated with "gunsense" and "everytown", and told they are just after "reasonable" gun regulation.

That line of bullshit ends, now:





Thats the "gunsense" that they want to see enacted in "everytown".

From the horses mouth.

[DetlefK]

1. What exactly pisses people off the most about "taking away our guns"?

Is it about the violation of a tradition?

Is it about the violation of personal sovereignity?

Is it about being forced to give up personal property?

[virginia mountainman]

3. All of the above..

...And then some...

[Starboard Tack]

5. Good questions

Maybe it's about "how are we gonna defend ourselves from the nasty gubmint and the bad guys?"

Fact is, when it happens, and unfortunately, it will eventually happen, they'll say "Ah well, that wasn't too painful after all."
I wish it wouldn't happen, but the madness afoot right now is definitely leading in that direction. Kids fuck up too many times and all the kids lose their privileges (oops! rights, I mean).

[beevul]

7. Yeah, the people are actually kids, and rights are actually privileges.

Yeah, the people are actually kids, and rights are actually privileges.

Of course, the logical thing to do, is take away the "privileges" of those that abuse them, and leave those that don't alone.

Do you punish all your children for the actions of just one of them on a regular basis?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Well...I feel much better being treated like a child. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

15. Of course that is the logical thing to do

Then, when you get to the point that the kids become indistinguishable, what do you do?

[beevul]

54. Learn to become a better parent.

(kick)

[Straw Man]

10. WWFS?

What would Freud say? (Your slip is showing.)

I wish it wouldn't happen, but the madness afoot right now is definitely leading in that direction. Kids fuck up too many times and all the kids lose their privileges (oops! rights, I mean).

Yes -- if only gangbangers and the homicidally insane would police themselves better, we wouldn't have to give up these "privileges."

[Starboard Tack]

16. I seriously doubt that gangbangers et al would be treated as an exception

Freud would probably say "It's time you guys got a life and stopped being afraid of the dark."

[Straw Man]

19. Missed the point again.

I seriously doubt that gangbangers et al would be treated as an exception

Of course they wouldn't -- they aren't now. They would continue to ignore the laws and continue to be punished for it. My point is that they're one of the sources of the problem that you seem to attribute to "indiscriminate carry" by the law-abiding.

Freud would probably say "It's time you guys got a life and stopped being afraid of the dark."

Ah, the "fear" canard. Right up there with the "penis" canard in the anti-rights Hit Parade.

[blueridge3210]

21. Appears to be business as ususal.

A revolving door of: "Compulsive Toter", as if people who carry in public are not making a choice but acting under mental defect; then "Penis Extender/Gun Humper" to imply a degree of sexual deviancy related to carrying a weapon; follow up with "scared of the dark" to imply that those who carry in public are "scared of everything". Lather, Rinse, Repeat. When questioned, start off with "I'm not opposed to guns, but.............." then start into the usual litany of how no one should carry in public, cops should not be armed, stand your ground/castle doctrine laws are designed to excuse murder, etc.

[Starboard Tack]

26. I think it is you who misses the point. And the canard canard again. LOL!

If there were no guns available, then how would the gangbangers acquire them? Where do you think they get them now? Do you seriously think that the "law abiding" carry because of gangbangers? I don't think that's who they are afraid of.

Ah, but you don't think they are afraid, right? They don't carry out of fear, right? Then, pray tell, why the fuck do they carry?
If I were afraid, then I would probably carry, or hide in my house.

What other possible motive can there be for carrying a loaded firearm around beside fear? Unless, of course, you are out hunting.
Guns are designed for 2 things, hunting (attacking) and defending from attacks. If there is no fear of an attack, then there is no need to carry. This is why armies stand down during times of peace. Maybe you think the US is in a civil war. Maybe you are right.

And you brought up the "penis", not me. Makes one wonder though.

[Straw Man]

29. So much wrong that I don't know where to begin.

If there were no guns available, then how would the gangbangers acquire them?

So that's your solution? No guns at all? There goes your pretense to being moderate on the issue.

Where do you think they get them now?

They steal them or acquire them from traffickers, who either steal them or buy them illegally through straw purchasers.

Do you seriously think that the "law abiding" carry because of gangbangers?

Yes. And meth-head tweakers and other assorted street criminals.

I don't think that's who they are afraid of.

Enlighten us. Who, then, do you think they are afraid of?

Ah, but you don't think they are afraid, right? They don't carry out of fear, right? Then, pray tell, why the fuck do they carry?

We've been through this before. You have a fire extinguisher on your boat because you're "afraid" of fire, right?

If there is no fear of an attack, then there is no need to carry. This is why armies stand down during times of peace.

Do armies disarm in times of peace? No? I didn't think so.

Maybe you think the US is in a civil war. Maybe you are right.

I don't think so. Do you? If you do, you are wrong.

And you brought up the "penis", not me. Makes one wonder though.

Only as a comparison for the popularity of the "fear" meme. But you were awfully quick to take the bait, weren't you?

[Starboard Tack]

32. Damn right I'm afraid of fire.

I'm also afraid of being stranded at sea. That's why I carry lots of flares and a flare gun. That's why I wear a seatbelt in the car.
Fear is a very real thing. I've had fires and car accidents. I know these devices work. I've seen others use flares and know they work. They are all designed to protect and save lives, not to take lives. Do you get the difference?

Standing armies do not patrol the streets, armed to the teeth, during peace time. Except, unfortunately, in Mexico, where there is a drug war going on, thanks to Uncle Sam.

I don't have a solution. Do you? Do you think carrying more guns is a solution? Really?

Who do I think you are afraid of? Other people, especially brown and black people http://voxday.blogspot.it/2012/12/why-us-gun-deaths-are-high.html

I do not think the US is in a civil war. Yet!
I think the US is on the brink of a civil war. Most people are only a couple of paychecks away from homelessness. The economy is extremely fragile. There is a gun for every man, woman and child in America. More and more people buy guns daily. Fear is the hottest commodity. Whether it happens this year, or in 5 years, or 10 years, I don't know. But the shit will eventually hit the fan.
You live in a country where people have forgotten what real food tastes like and forgotten even more about how to survive without supermarkets that are supplied by factory farms.

The "preppers" are building bunkers and arming up, thinking they can protect themselves from the zombie hordes.
Meanwhile, the band plays on.

And you think the problem is meth head tweakers and assorted criminals. Right!

[Straw Man]

33. Staggering misconceptions.

The "preppers" are building bunkers and arming up, thinking they can protect themselves from the zombie hordes.
Meanwhile, the band plays on.

Again, one scarcely knows where to begin. You think preppers are representative of American gun owners as a whole? Do you get your information from reality TV?

They are all designed to protect and save lives, not to take lives. Do you get the difference?

Do you think a gun has never saved a life? Rubbish, plain and simple.

Who do I think you are afraid of? Other people, especially brown and black people http://voxday.blogspot.it/2012/12/why-us-gun-deaths-are-high.html

You cite some bullshit racist screed and attribute its sentiments to me? Clearly you don't know me, and my opinion of you sinks lower with each aspersion that you cast.

Most people are only a couple of paychecks away from homelessness. The economy is extremely fragile. ... Whether it happens this year, or in 5 years, or 10 years, I don't know. But the shit will eventually hit the fan.

You catch a rare glimpse of reality when you acknowledge that the real problems facing America are economic. Your dystopian vision may have some merit, but it has little to do with why people choose to arm themselves for self-defense.

And you think the problem is meth head tweakers and assorted criminals. Right!

Not the root of the problem, but the manifestation that I am most likely to encounter in my daily life, which is probably not as sheltered as yours.

[Starboard Tack]

35. That's funny. You think I live a sheltered life.

Do I think preppers are representative of American gun owners? No, and never said I did.

Do I think a gun has never saved a life? No, I think guns, on rare occasions do save lives. Often by also taking lives.

I wasn't referring to you personally when asking who are "you" afraid of. I'm asking those who carry. If you carry, then you are included in the question. Fact is, that people carry because they are afraid of other people, mostly minorities. If you don't recognize that, then you need to get out more.

I have lived among meth heads, junkies and all kinds of assorted criminals. In several major cities, including NYC (7 years in Alphabet City in the '80's) and 23 years in LA. At times it was scary, but the last thing I wanted or needed was a gun. Best defense against possible attack is don't present yourself as a target. Stay away from the muggers, because taking a gun to a mugging is a recipe for disaster. You're already scared, or you wouldn't be carrying, and the animals can smell your fear. So, you'd better be ready to kill or they'll have that pistol off you in a heartbeat. How do you think they get them in the first place? Gun shows? Tweakers don't go to gun shows. They steal their guns from idiots who don't keep them safely locked up.

Most who routinely carry a gun live very sheltered lives. Lives driven by fear of their fellow citizens. Those who don't live in fear are either stupid or very well trained and have no compunction about taking lives. We have a few regulars here who fall into the latter category, and a few more who think they do. If you do, then I wish you well. Otherwise, I suggest you think very carefully before carrying.

I'm not concerned about your opinion of me. I'm trying to give you good advice. Either take it or leave it. It's all the same to me.

[Straw Man]

36. You certainly give that impression.

Do I think preppers are representative of American gun owners? No, and never said I did.

Then why did you bring them up? More vague allusions and plausible deniability?

Do I think a gun has never saved a life? No, I think guns, on rare occasions do save lives. Often by also taking lives.

Would you take a life to save your own or that of a loved one?

I wasn't referring to you personally when asking who are "you" afraid of.

Ah, so "you" doesn't means "you"? Or is that only when you're called on your offensive bullshit?

Best defense against possible attack is don't present yourself as a target.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. The question is what you do when your precautions have failed and you find yourself in that life-or-death situation.

You're already scared, or you wouldn't be carrying, and the animals can smell your fear.

What a bunch of fantasy-driven crap. "The animals can smell your fear." I think you've watched too many cheesy action movies or read too many cheap novels.

So, you'd better be ready to kill or they'll have that pistol off you in a heartbeat.

It is not necessary to kill to defend oneself with a firearm. Sometimes it isn't even necessary to fire.

I'm trying to give you good advice. Either take it or leave it.

Nothing you have said on this forum indicates to me that your advice has any merit. I will leave it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. "If there were no guns available, then how would the gangbangers acquire them?"

If there were no drugs available, then how would the gangbangers acquire them?

[Starboard Tack]

44. They couldn't if none were available.

Unless, of course, they make their own. In which case they won't need to steal your money to pay for them. Let me ask you, have you ever been attacked or aggressed in any way by a gangbanger or meth head?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. Have you ever been murdered before?

No? Well then why are we keeping all these cops around to investigate murders?

[Starboard Tack]

63. You answer my question with a question.

You introduced gangbangers and meth heads into the conversation. I see no reason to do that unlees you see them as a danger to you personally. This would imply that you have either been threatened or that you fit a specific demographic, targeted by gun wielding meth heads.

What you are doing "keeping all these cops around to investigate murders" is beyond me, though I doubt there are many cops involved in such work, but that is another discussion.

Your posts indicate that you, or your husband, carry a gun because you need to defend yourself from being murdered by gang members and/or meth heads. It makes me wonder what kind of place you inhabit and what kind of lifestyle you lead. When I lived in your wonderful country, I spent many years living in drug infested neighborhoods, in NYC, LA, New Orleans and other places. And raised kids in those places. It never occurred to me, for even one moment, that being armed might improve my chances of survival. On the contrary.

But you don't have to justify your behavior to me or anyone here. Only yourself. It is your life and you have every right to live it as you choose.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. "unlees you see them as a danger to you personally"

Well, that's just silly.

Even if they aren't a danger to me personally (they aren't) they can be dangers to others (they are). I'm anti-war but my house has never been bombed so I'm not sure why you press this particular fallacy.

You have been making the argument that if someone doesn't have an immediate threat they need not keep arms. But that is silly and I demonstrated that by poking fun with my statement of you never having been murdered yet you maintain police.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Why do you misrepresent what I said?

You have been making the argument that if someone doesn't have an immediate threat they need not keep arms.

I do not recall ever saying anything like that. I fully support ownership of firearms. I am totally opposed to the routine carry of firearms by anyone.

[hack89]

57. Cartels smuggle tons of illegal drugs into America with relative impunity.

explain to me why they wouldn't smuggle guns.

[Starboard Tack]

60. Like taking coal to Newcastle.

What would be the point of it?
"relative impunity" is an interesting term. I would imagine the life expectancy of your average cartel member is not very high. They slaughter each other daily with guns smuggled into Mexico with impunity.
Getting caught coming into the US helps fill those federal prisons, or corporate slave camps as some call them.

[blueridge3210]

61. The point is

there is no way to make guns disappear. Make them illegal to own and the same people who are flooding the market with drugs will bring in weapons as well; or they will be manufactured on site as crude firearms are not really that difficult to produce.

[hack89]

62. I though gun control laws were going to starve gangs of their weapons

Hence the need to smuggle in replacements. Are you saying there is no way to accomplish this?

No one said criminals are smart. That still doesn't stop them from successfully smuggling in tons of illegal drugs decade after decade.

[Starboard Tack]

65. What laws are you talking about?

Most folk seem to want laws regarding background checks and silly guns, nothing to do with banning or taking them away.
Personally, I think the logical step is to make public carry illegal, except in very special circumstances, and punishable by heavy minimums.

Regarding drugs, I think cocaine anf heroin are the main drugs crossing the border, because they are not produced in the US. Meth is a totally American drug, now exported worldwide. Quality marijuana is grown throughout the US and is now exported to Mexico.

Borders were created for smugglers. It's about business. Cheaper or legal on one side - expensive and illegal on the other. Easy to solve that problem. Make it legal and cheap on both sides. No more guns or crime associated with it.
It is in the interest of gun manufacturers to keep drugs illegal. They profit from the war on drugs as they profit on all wars. They relish a world full of fear and misery, where they can reap the profits.

The NRA supports that, as do those who reinforce the myth and pretend that the Second Amendment is about freedom and civil rights. It is about peddling fear to a gullible public and making assholes rich.

[hack89]

68. We are talking about criminal gang members

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 08:46 AM - Edit history (1)

none of what you just wrote applies to them. Most of them cannot legally carry now yet they do. Considering drug dealing (and murder) have heavy penalties now, just how will another gun law make a difference? Why do you think they will obey such a law? They certainly didn't when concealed carry was illegal in most large cities.

[Starboard Tack]

74. Why are we talking about them?

What do they have to do with anything, besides the fact that they also often carry guns and kill each other?
Was the guy in Virginia whot shot the TV crew a gang member?
Was the movie theater shooter a gang member?
Was the school shooter in Connecticut a gang member?
Were the Colombine shooters gang members?
Was the S. Carolina church shooter a gang member?
Was Zimmerman a gang member?
Are the cops who shoot blacks daily gang members?

Maybe the last one falls into the gang category.

Who cares if they were legal killings or not? They were all killers, some convicted, some cheered. All because America is OK with notion of carrying guns to solve problems. That's a really fucked up way to live, imo.

[hack89]

75. "If there were no guns available, then how would the gangbangers acquire them?"

Because you brought up the subject in a remarkably silly way and I couldn't resist.

[Spadedemo]

30. Educate the Public

I believe their is an example of sanity and insanity everywhere, if we look. There is a right way to do things and a wrong way. The countries who have these same rights have universal healthcare, free education and a informative gun culture and a low crime rate. I'm talking about Germany and the Nordic countries that take care of their citizens and don't enslave them to a miserable existence. The question we have is to apply these ideas to nearly 400 million diverse set of Americans as a new country. The same neighborhoods that have pawn shops with guns, but no NRA around. They have drugs, but no positive role models. They have cops, but no one who cares. Orphans forced to stay tough on the streets and to trust no one. We are so busy arresting people, supplying our 25% of the world's prison population, that we don't realize, we aren't helping any one in this FREE society. A 3rd of the U.S. budget is for Defense, including spies, reconnaissance, planes, drones, armed forces, ships and all our geniuses. My best description of America is an inventive, WARRIOR nation. Are we going to Romanize ourselves or Spartanize ourselves? Let's teach our future role models to be modern day Spartans w/ a sense of pride, honor and intelligence to do the right thing. We are the only country who can do that.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Well said and welcome to the dusty side of DU

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. I'd say it's mostly about feeling lied to

Someone has pointed out: "...we can't even get sensible gun control let alone getting rid of guns...".

IMHO, much of "sensible gun-control" is being rejected BECAUSE lies about "we don't want confiscation" seem to abound. The only currency that means anything in the political world is credibility.

My 2 cents.

[samsingh]

2. it's really going to happen isn't it? we can't even get sensible gun control let alone getting rid

of guns. these are gun lobby talking points to sell more guns.

[ZombieHorde]

4. Is Shannon Watts authorized to speak for Bloomberg? nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. re: "Is Shannon Watts authorized to speak for Bloomberg?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moms_Demand_Action

Her group merged with MAIG. Both groups received Bloomberg funding and I would infer that, if he didn't agree with her, he would take some action.

[VScott]

11. And that's why I vehemently oppose even more gun control legislation

and support repealing current laws, as well as creating an environment more favorable
towards gun owners and the 2nd amendment.

Gun owners can play Shannons and Bloombergs game too... lets see who wins.

[rock]

12. Wouldn't heavier gun-control go a long way towards

preventing that from happening. That is heavy gun-control would decrease gun-deaths and take away an argument for the banning of guns What do you think?

[beevul]

13. It might neutralize "some" arguments, but it would not change their goal.

It might neutralize "some" arguments, but it would not change their goal.

Note, that while gun homicides go down, their rhetoric has ramped up, and their legislative goals have not changed since the late 80s.

Besides, what you suggest is just giving them what they want, getting them closer to their goal...in the hopes it would shut them up.


Would you suggest doing the same thing with the abortion issue?

[rock]

14. The hurdle of the 2nd amendment

makes banning guns near impossible. I think those who fear such an event can calm down a bit. Sorry to hear this isn't as bright an idea as I thought. I don't like 32k deaths per year because we can't get control of the situation. Thanks for the take.

[beevul]

22. That doesn't seem to bother them.

"I don't like 32k deaths per year because we can't get control of the situation."


Nobody "likes" the 32k deaths per year.

But it isn't 32k deaths a year "because we can't get control of the situation". Roughly 20k of those are suicides. Preventing suicides - if one is honest about caring about them - requires a solution tailored for the root causes of suicides, not for "gun suicides".

The other 12k are homicides, which require a solution - again if one is honest - tailored to the root causes of those homicides.

Notice that in both cases I said "root causes" rather than "attack the instrument". The usual suspects, are interested in attacking the instrument almost exclusively, which basically bars them from residence in the "honest" camp, and self locates them into the gun grabber camp.

It is what it is.

"The hurdle of the 2nd amendment makes banning guns near impossible"

That doesn't seem to bother them. They continue to do everything they can to burden those who wish to exercise this particular right, to the point that it becomes so difficult to exercise that it may as well be banned. See the demanding moms protesting the opening of a gun store in Chicago, where all sales are background checked, for example.

[rock]

23. I do appreciate your comments and analyses

I normally don't find a lot a even handed discussion about the subject. Thanks.

[Glaug-Eldare]

17. No, because the measures that are actually advanced

Last edited Tue Aug 12, 2014, 06:08 PM - Edit history (1)

by these groups are the least effective ones possible. They're basically the equivalent of pro-life groups that demand abstinence-only sex education (if any), oppose affordable access to contraception, oppose affordable prenatal care, and can't understand why the states that obey them the most have the worst problem with unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

Then again, I may be being a bit too generous -- if the "crisis pregnancy centers" are any indication, these folks WANT more unwanted pregnancies, so long as they can force mothers to carry them to term. Their goal is more babies, by hook or by crook, whether they live in luxury or squalor. I wonder if it's a race war thing.

[benEzra]

55. The guns that they are fighting hardest to ban are involved in less than 300 murders/yr.

"Wouldn't heavier gun-control go a long way towards preventing that from happening. That is heavy gun-control would decrease gun-deaths and take away an argument for the banning of guns What do you think?"

I'd like to point out that the guns they are fighting hardest to ban are involved in less than 300 murders a year nationwide, out of 12,000+, despite being some of the most popular guns in U.S. homes.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

Or look at the vitriol they direct at holders of concealed carry licenses, who have a lower rate of homicide than even the police, and far lower than the population at large. So, no, low rates of violence wouldn't stop them from pushing more bans, I think. It has become an idealogical crusade, not a pragmatic one.

I'd also point out Australia, where their always-low homicide rate has never stopped the prohibitionists from calling for more bans. They've already banned pump shotguns (!) and their laws would put a lot of British gun owners in jail, yet the Australian gun-control lobby is now talking about banning 1860's-style lever actions and straight-pull bolt-actions. It never ends.

[Matrosov]

18. They should take them

Gun control doesn't work. The choices therefore are between everybody being armed and nobody but the police being armed.

Expecting for everybody to be armed to stop gun violence is as stupid as telling a cancer patient he should smoke more in the hopes of his cancer getting cancer of its own.

Therefore, nobody should be armed.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Saying "Gun control doesn't work."....

...and then proposing a total ban (also known as GUN-CONTROL) is self-contradictory.

welcome BTW.

[pablo_marmol]

38. This behavior is actually fairly common, D/I/S.

Polling has indicated that citizens frequently support "gun control" legislation that they don't believe will accomplish anything.

Gotta punish those mouth-breathing gun owners, don't ya know. And then they scream when you point out that they're practicing the same ugly culture war that the freepers do.

[krispos42]

24. "There are too many guns in America" is what I hear said a lot

On, for example, a "Best of the Left" podcast, which is a compilation from a broad range of liberal voices on a particular topic. So lots of liberals think that there are too many guns in America...


...and the solution to reduce this number?





Well, since the natural market demand is that between a quarter and a third of the American population own guns, and this demand is not forecast to drop anytime in the future, then OBVIOUSLY government needs to take action, strong action, to artificially lower this demand.

Change the culture, in other words. Limit the types of guns sold. Limit quantities sold. Ban some types outright; existing ones are grandfathered in but cannot be sold or otherwise transferred to anybody but the government. Impose heavy obstacles on gun ownership; take the right's war on choice or voting and run with it. Waiting periods for purchases. Medical evaluations. Background and identification checks. Excessive fees and taxes. Understaffed offices in a few scattered locations far from public transport. Administrative delays stretching into months. Intrusive storage requirements, long penalties for minor infractions, limiting concealed-carry permits to a select few. The destruction of public, outdoor, government-run shooting ranges. Limiting private ranges in size and location.

Essentially, there's not many options to choose from, permitting takes forever, purchasing takes forever, there are high monetary costs above and beyond the cost of the gun and ammunition, and there are damn few places to even use them.




But, of course, nobody is trying to take your rights away! We just want to be sure that the people voting, I mean buying guns, are properly documented.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Hey, look. Nobody wants ALL guns taken away from EVERYONE.

They just want them taken away from most people, and people with whom they disagree.

[Eleanors38]

49. Looks like Putin.

[Spadedemo]

31. decrease the demand? No decrease the stupidity.

There's a good book called "On Killing" by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, who in detail describes how our culture, at the sake of our own sanity, desensitizes young people to violence without instilling a sense of ethics. Through each war we are in, combatants have become more and more willing to shoot to kill. With power comes great responsibility, most men understand this principle and act accordingly. You don't correct bad spelling by making someone wait for the pencil or taking way the paper or lead to the pencil. Teach people the right way to responsibly carry and shoot weapons. If we allow OPEN CARRY LAWS, put some clearing barrels in front of the doors and have them holster. I'd like to see some SAFELY CARRY LAWS. We teach people how to be effective citizens for SPEECH, ASSEMBLY, RELIGION and for the PRESS. We can teach people to become effective citizens for the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

[HALO141]

34. It's odd

that for every other social issue the answer seems to be education instead of regulation. Evidently that's just not true for guns. Or so it would seem. If Nancy Lanza had been taught to appreciate the value of safe storage we probably wouldn't have lost those 26 people to begin with. Instead of personal responsibility and respect for life our institutions seem to me to be much more interested in instilling submission to authority. My belief, strengthened by observation, is that this is counter productive.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. "Through each war we are in, combatants have become more and more willing to shoot to kill."

I think you're a little hazy on the nature of war.

[pablo_marmol]

27. I know at least one major pundit who favors banning guns.

http://crooksandliars.com/heather/rachel-maddow-late-night-jimmy-fallon

2:51 -- conversation turns to guns

3:20 -- Rachel gags when asked if she's "anti-gun"

4:29 -- Rachel compares guns to carnival amusements - and states that we "shouldn't be able to bring them home".

[mwrguy]

28. Don't worry, this guy will protect your precious

Not his fellow citizens, just his gun.

That poor gun must be scared to death. Good thing he's there to protect it.

[pablo_marmol]

37. Hard to believe that this is a legitimate ad for our President.

But what the hell......it gave you a flimsy excuse to exercise some snark, so it aint all bad!

[mwrguy]

39. google is your friend

[pablo_marmol]

40. LOL! So it's from a mailer to union members.

And how excruciatingly stupid! As if gun owning Democrats can be led to believe that the POTUS supports the RKBA because Mr. Burly says so!

[Eleanors38]

50. "The James gang was coming to town at first sun...

"The town said: 'Irving, we need your gun.'
And sure enough at the break of dawn,
Irving's gun was there, but Irving was gone."

The Ballad of Irving.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

70. Big help Irving

Well, finally Irving got three slugs in the belly.
It was right outside the Frontier Deli.
He was sittin' there twirlin' his gun around,
And butterfingers Irving gunned himself down!

Safety first!

[Eleanors38]

76. That song was/is a rip. nt

[pablo_marmol]

41. And a liberal criminologist destroys the "Nobody wants to take your guns" meme

more soundly that anyone:

https://saf.org/journal/13/AbsolutistPoliticsinaModeratePackage.pdf

[oneshooter]

47. Try this one.

Michigander_Life (491 posts)
16. What happens when the local police are outgunned?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

They have to raid a local gun shop to stop from being slaughtered.

I think all guns should be banned except for muzzleloading muskets.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5401719

[Duckhunter935]

48. and the movable type printing press

[bravenak]

51. Is it crazy that I'm less scared of citizens with guns than cops with guns?

Forgive me world for saying this, but I'm starting to understand why people feel like they need guns. To protect themselves from police.

Nobody I know has shot a kid over jaywalking and most gun-owners don't have unarmed people randomly grabbing their weapons, then chase them down the street, and shoot them six plus times.

[4b5f940728b232b034e4]

52. But the cops have training

and the yahoos don't.

[bravenak]

53. Training to unload the entire clip into a jaywalker.

Even Zimmerman stopped after one shot. I cannot believe that the cops are making me defend Zpig.
I have only had one person point a gun directly in my face. It was a cop. I live in Alaska. Guns are as prevalent as weed. None of the open carry people on their marches have ever pointed a gun at me. And i yelled Boooooo as I drove by.

[pablo_marmol]

56. "But the cops have training"

Nothing like flaunting your lack of knowledge! Most of the "yahoos" spend more time on the range than cops --- and it takes very little proficiency to pass a law enforcement shooting qualification.

Wild swing and a miss.

[DonP]

58. FWIW, Chicago Cops only have to "qualify" once a year

Their standards for qualifying aren't even as high as the qualification for concealed carry.

And a lot of them are able to skip it altogether.

[jimmy the one]

59. beevul bumped this rot?

beevul: That line of bullshit ends, now: {beevul then thinks he cites Shannon Watts} 'Bloomberg & I want guns gone. Period.'

You yourself bumped this thread, beevul? you surely are a glutton for punishment. Your deception was exposed couple months back & you repost this malicious rot?

What appears to've happened, is that gun control advocate Shannon Watts was reposting unfriendly tweets written about 'her', which she had rec'd from angry gun enthusiasts. So some gun nut appears to've made the remark that 'Bloomberg & I want guns gone. Period.', and Shannon was simply reposting it in a blog of sorts:

dec 27, 2014: .. that innocuous {Shannon watts} tweet became a platform to attack the Gun Sense advocate {Shannon Watts} by NRA supporters. The hashtag #ImBlockedByShannonWatts started trending on Twitter.​.. So Ms. Watts is retweeting some vulgar responses to her one tweet. http://www.alan.com/2014/12/27/nra-supporters-launch-vicious-misogynistic-twitter-attack-on-gun-reform-leader/#

.. beevul provided NO proof, NO link, that gun control advocate Shannon Watts herself tweeted that 'MikeBloomberg and I want guns gone. Period.' And what did the con artist say to providing a link? he cons with 'its out there', followed by his load of blitherdumb, fabricating another lie in beevul's long list thereof:

beevul on Shannon watts link: Its out there. If I remember right, this is one she deleted almost immediately, like so many other 'tell' tweets shes made.. See, she does that when the mask slips and someone points it out to her..
Start post 34: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172167494#post40

I suspect what happened, is that Shannon watts tweeted she was blocked by nra, using her personal tweet name, which was then replied to by angry & sick gunnuts, which were then copied & backpasted by Shannon, to expose the threats & insults made by those angry tweeting gunnuts:

When Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, was blocked by the NRA on Twitter yesterday, she tweeted it. It shall come as a surprise to no one ever that that was met with a slew of vicious misogynistic remarks by NRA supporters.
The mother of 5 frightens them that much. She’s a beautiful and intelligent woman, so naturally, she’s a threat.
Naturally, that innocuous {Shannon watts} tweet became a platform to attack the Gun Sense advocate by NRA supporters. The hashtag #ImBlockedByShannonWatts started trending on Twitter.​ The alleged human responsible for creating that hashtag is none other than Julie Golob, world shooting champion and author of the book “Shooting While Pregnant.” ​No, really.
So Ms. Watts is retweeting some vulgar responses to her one tweet.
http://www.alan.com/2014/12/27/nra-supporters-launch-vicious-misogynistic-twitter-attack-on-gun-reform-leader/#

[beevul]

64. Blah blah blah.

I suspect what happened...

No proof to support your conclusions. Case closed.


And, as if the tweet isn't damning enough on its own, we have this:

"Our message is that, you know first of all, were not anti-gun, we support the second amendment..."

Yet their actions say differently:

"Moms Demand Action Deeply Disappointed in Federal Judge’s Decision Overturning Chicago’s Citywide Ban on Gun Dealerships"

http://momsdemandaction.org/in-the-news/moms-demand-action-deeply-disappointed-federal-judges-decision-overturning-chicagos-citywide-ban-gun-dealerships/

Does that sound like the actions of a group that claims not to be anti-gun?

And then theres this:

Almost a year ago, in the aftermath of the shootings in Newtown, Conn., a number of entertainment industry activists decried a vote that prevented the Senate from moving forward background check legislation. Some vowed to withhold support from Democrats who voted “No,” including Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), both of whom are in the midst of tough reelection races...


...In a letter sent to Cindy Horn on Wednesday afternoon, the groups urged her to cancel the fundraiser, or, in the alternative, that they instead raise funds for Senate candidates in tough races who voted for the background checks, including Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

The groups, including Women Against Gun Violence, the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Prevention Coalition and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, wrote to Horn that “when Senators from far-flung places come to California to fuel their campaigns, we hope that you will remind them that you’re not their personal ATM. You have a right to ask why they deserve their support...

...The groups asked in their letter, ”Is ‘Democrat’ merely a box on a ballot, to be checked at any cost?”

http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/gun-control-groups-urge-cancellation-of-hollywood-fundraiser-for-mark-begich-and-mark-pryor-1201141065/

I get it Jimmy. Anti-gun groups are your sacred cow. well, that's just too bad.

The rest of us are having a barbecue.

[Starboard Tack]

71. Your reality filters appear to be clogged.

Most "controllers", as you like to call them, do support 2A, though perhaps not the current interpretation by the gun happy RW SCOTUS.

Being opposed to gun shops in the inner city is NOT the same as wanting to take your guns away. Just as not wanting adult video stores, strip clubs and brothels in downtown Mayberry, is not a cry to outlaw sex, prostitution and pornography.

If gun enthusiasts were as good at cleaning their brain filters as well as they are at cleaning their guns, then their perception of reality would improve tremendously.

[beevul]

77. No. Just no. Its your filter thats broken.

Most "controllers", as you like to call them, do support 2A, though perhaps not the current interpretation by the gun happy RW SCOTUS.

Being opposed to gun shops in the inner city is NOT the same as wanting to take your guns away. Just as not wanting adult video stores, strip clubs and brothels in downtown Mayberry, is not a cry to outlaw sex, prostitution and pornography.

Hands off my goalposts, kthx.

First of all, I didn't use the term 'controller' in the post you are replying to. Check your own damn reality filter.

Second, Shannon watts said this in the above video:

"Our message is that, you know first of all, were not anti-gun, we support the second amendment. My grandparents...Ah my grandfathers in fact, were world war 2 veterans um who were very avid hunters, so we are in no way anti-gun..."

Opposing a gun shop opening in a place where ALL backgrounds are checked, is anti-gun and theres no way to spin it otherwise. If they were HONEST about not being anti-gun, they'd have said "This is great. we applaud this shop locating in a venue where background checks are 100 percent, rather than somewhere else that they aren't."

But they didn't do that.

You lot are so cute, when you try to pretend that taking away someones opportunities to aquire a gun - taking the gun before anyone even has a chance to get one - is meaningfully different from taking a gun someone already has.

But you're even more cute when you deny the reality that's right in front of you staring you in the face.

[jimmy the one]

78. What dem would attend beevul's BBQ?

Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 12:47 PM - Edit history (1)

beeevul: Does that sound like the actions of a group that claims not to be anti-gun?
And then theres this:
"Almost a year ago, in the aftermath of the shootings in Newtown, Conn., a number of entertainment industry activists decried a vote that prevented the Senate from moving forward background check legislation. Some vowed to withhold support from Democrats who voted “No,” including Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).. The groups, including .... the Violence Prevention Coalition and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America,..

Beevul is not arguing the political aspect, he clearly labels this an 'anti gun' tactic; Beevul considers it 'anti-gun' for Shannon Watts as spokeswoman for 'Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense', to {support - edit} background checks. It leads to believe beevul is against background checks for all gun buyers.
Does beevul think about 95% of democrat gun owners are also 'ANTI GUN'? Does he think about 75% of ALL gun owners are ANTI GUN?
The solid MAJORITY of gun owners support bg checks; how can beevul claim it is ANTI GUN to support background checks? is beevul in the nra's back pocket along with rightwing republican legislators?

Quinnipiac: ... requiring background checks for all gun buyers?"
Support Oppose Unsure % % %
6/24-30/2014 92 7 1 Republicans 86 11 3 ... Independents 92 7 1
Democrats 98 2 1 http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

CBS: Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor Oppose Unsure/
7/29 - 8/2/20115 -- 88 10 1 .. Republicans -- 81 17 1 .. Independents - 89 9 2
Democrats 93 6 1

beevul: The rest of us are having a barbecue.

Who exactly do you consider 'the rest of us', beevul? As allegedly a democrat yourself, you fall into the 2% of dems who oppose bg checks, as per Quinnipiac, & 6% per cbs. You are in a very small minority in your opinion, & your barbecue might attract wayne lapierre-head & ted nugent types.

beevul, another thread, distressed at the passage of bg check legislation in oregon: Why does Bloomberg have to spend nearly ten times as much in lobbying money as the pro-gun lobby {to support background check legislation in Oregon}, if this is what the voters wanted in the first place?

[beevul]

79. Ahh, the tactic of misrepresentation.

Beevul is not arguing the political aspect, he clearly labels this an 'anti gun' tactic;

Yes, he in fact is. Since I am he, I think I can speak for him better than you can. My intention was to emphasize how they went against Democrats. That incidentally, led to a Democrat loss against a tea party candidate. The amount of time and effort you spend trying to defend them and their lies demonstrates you support that. Don't be shy, tell us all how great it is, and how much you support their actions in getting a Democrat ousted in favor of a tea party candidate. Heap some praise on them, James, you know you want to.

Thanks for misrepresenting my words in a way easy for me to illustrate though.


James, beevul claims that if MDA is "not in any way anti-gun" (per watts own words), "supports the second amendment" (again per watts own words) and is all for background checks, that they would APPLAUD a gun store opening in a place where backgrounds are checked 100 percent. beevul claims that since they opposed that store opening, their actions illustrate that those words by watts are a LIE, and those statements on the position of MDA, a SHAM.

Shall we engage in a preponderance of evidence?


Also, I've made my position on BC abundantly clear elsewhere James:

They are unenforceable without registration. Where personally owned private property is concerned, I do not support the infrastructure - registration - necessary to make it enforceable, and I'm not one bit unwilling embarrassed, or ashamed to admit it.

Who exactly do you consider 'the rest of us', beevul?

Everyone that sees through your misrepresentations. In other words, everyone but you, the misrepresenter.

beevul, another thread, distressed at the passage of bg check legislation in oregon: Why does Bloomberg have to spend nearly ten times as much in lobbying money as the pro-gun lobby {to support background check legislation in Oregon}, if this is what the voters wanted in the first place?

Asserting that I'm distressed without evidence. How...consistent of you.

Its a fair and valid question. Want to take a stab at answering it?

Yeah, I thought not.

[jimmy the one]

80. overarching the underlying

I wrote: Beevul is not arguing the political aspect, he clearly labels this an 'anti gun' tactic;

beevul: Yes, he in fact is. Since I am he, I think I can speak for him better than you can. My intention was to emphasize how they went against Democrats.

No. You did not mention that at all, you wrote: Does that sound like the actions of a group that claims not to be anti-gun?
You considered it 'anti-gun' for Shannon to withhold support for the two 'pro gun' dems because the two voted against background checks. That was & has been your underlying point.

But it doesn't matter, since you agreed with my overarching point that you are against background checks because they are unenforceable, when you wrote this:
They {background checks} are unenforceable without registration. Where personally owned private property is concerned, I do not support the infrastructure - registration - necessary to make it enforceable,

That YOU think background checks are unenforceable is beside the point; the point is that you oppose background checks as currently being conducted, when applying to all gun sales.
Thus you go against the majority democrat gun owner position.

beevul: Asserting that I'm distressed without evidence. Its a fair and valid question. Want to take a stab at answering it?

You answer it yourself. You concur you are against background checks. Bloomberg financially supported bg checks in Oregon. You were distressed why Bloomberg spent so much supporting background checks, "IF THIS IS WHAT THE VOTERS WANTED IN THE FIRST PLACE".

beevul, another thread, distressed at the passage of bg check legislation in oregon: Why does Bloomberg have to spend nearly ten times as much in lobbying money as the pro-gun lobby {to support background check legislation in Oregon}, if this is what the voters wanted in the first place?

[beevul]

81. Typical. When confronted on misrepresentation, you double down and do it again.

Last edited Sat Aug 29, 2015, 01:33 AM - Edit history (2)

No. You did not mention that at all, you wrote: Does that sound like the actions of a group that claims not to be anti-gun?

For anyone interested, its post 64 in this very thread. Lets have a look shall we, at what I was referring to when I said that.

"Moms Demand Action Deeply Disappointed in Federal Judge’s Decision Overturning Chicago’s Citywide Ban on Gun Dealerships"


Does that sound like the actions of a group that claims not to be anti-gun?

And then I write:

And then theres this:

Almost a year ago, in the aftermath of the shootings in Newtown, Conn., a number of entertainment industry activists decried a vote that prevented the Senate from moving forward background check legislation. Some vowed to withhold support from Democrats who voted “No,” including Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), both of whom are in the midst of tough reelection races...


...In a letter sent to Cindy Horn on Wednesday afternoon, the groups urged her to cancel the fundraiser, or, in the alternative, that they instead raise funds for Senate candidates in tough races who voted for the background checks, including Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.).

The groups, including Women Against Gun Violence, the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Violence Prevention Coalition and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, wrote to Horn that “when Senators from far-flung places come to California to fuel their campaigns, we hope that you will remind them that you’re not their personal ATM. You have a right to ask why they deserve their support...

...The groups asked in their letter, ”Is ‘Democrat’ merely a box on a ballot, to be checked at any cost?”


http://variety.com/2014/biz/news/gun-control-groups-urge-cancellation-of-hollywood-fundraiser-for-mark-begich-and-mark-pryor-1201141065/

So really, the only questions at this point, are whether you have a reading comprehension failure, or if you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said, and whether you'll admit to which of the two is actually the truth. One surely is, and theres just no escaping that for you, I'm afraid.

I guess if you double down again, you'll make it clear for everyone.

But it doesn't matter, since you agreed with my overarching point that you are against background checks because they are unenforceable, when you wrote this:
They {background checks} are unenforceable without registration. Where personally owned private property is concerned, I do not support the infrastructure - registration - necessary to make it enforceable,

That YOU think background checks are unenforceable is beside the point; the point is that you oppose background checks as currently being conducted, when applying to all gun sales.
Thus you go against the majority democrat gun owner position.

Bzzzt. Wrong again. At least you're consistent.

I'm against gun registration. Period. Whether its used for background checks or not. Go ahead, make all the universal background check laws you like. I don't oppose that.

When it comes to registration, on the other hand, my stance is Fuck Off.

[jimmy the one]

86. does he or doesn't he, support bg checks

beevul's link: "Moms Demand Action Deeply Disappointed in Federal Judge’s Decision Overturning Chicago’s Citywide Ban on Gun Dealerships"

beevul: Does that sound like the actions of a group that claims not to be anti-gun?

It sounds like the opinion of millions of American gun owners, like maybe 25% - 50%of them or more, largely democrat gun owners. Are you calling 20 - 40 million gun owners 'anti-gun' too? You cite nra dogma, that 'anti-gun' means opposing almost anything the nra supports.
There are many reasons why a citywide ban of gun dealerships would reduce incidence of gun crime, including theft from the gun shops, straw sales inner city, youth could be more influenced by a 'gun store, wow'.

beevul: Opposing a gun shop opening in a place where ALL backgrounds are checked, is anti-gun and theres no way to spin it otherwise.

No spin, it's 'anti crime' to support the gunshop-ban in Chicago. Even the black sheriff of DC supported the DC handgun ban circa late 1970's - 90's by contending that young black males were predominantly getting handguns & using them in violent crimes, & the handgun ban allowed cops an instant way of disarming them rather than letting them take their handguns & scoot back home to await trial & get lost in the red tape, or get the gun lost.

beevul: Bzzzt. Wrong again. I'm against gun registration. Period. Whether its used for background checks or not. Go ahead, make all the universal background check laws you like. I don't oppose that. When it comes to registration, on the other hand, my stance is Fuck Off.

You contradict yourself twice. Once, from 3 years ago, tho you might've changed your position. Second, from 3 days ago 8/2015:

beevul 3 years ago, 6/2012: I support: Background checks at retail for purchase of firearms. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=42549

beevul, 3 days ago, post 79 this thread: I've made my position on BC {background checks} abundantly clear elsewhere: They are unenforceable without registration. Where personally owned private property is concerned, I do not support the infrastructure - registration - necessary to make it enforceable, and I'm not one bit unwilling embarrassed, or ashamed to admit it.

How does this work in beevul-land? background checks at retail ARE enforceable so that you supported them 3 years ago? does that mean gun registration was OK by you 3 years ago?
While I will tentatively agree you now do not OPPOSE background checks, you do not SUPPORT either universal background checks, or bg checks in the current format, THAT is somewhat clear in your above postings despite your contradictions.

beevul: Also, I've made my position on BC abundantly clear elsewhere James: They are unenforceable without registration. Where personally owned private property is concerned, I do not support the infrastructure - registration - necessary to make it enforceable, and I'm not one bit unwilling embarrassed, or ashamed to admit it.

[beevul]

88. Does he or doesn't he admit to misrepresenting what I've said?

First things first, james.

Which was it, a deliberate misrepresentation on your part, or substandard reading skills that inadvertently led to a misrepresentation of what I actually said?

Or are you above admitting it when you're wrong?

It sounds like the opinion of millions of American gun owners, like maybe 25% - 50%of them or more, largely democrat gun owners. Are you calling 20 - 40 million gun owners 'anti-gun' too? You cite nra dogma, that 'anti-gun' means opposing almost anything the nra supports.

There are many reasons why a citywide ban of gun dealerships would reduce incidence of gun crime, including theft from the gun shops, straw sales inner city, youth could be more influenced by a 'gun store, wow'.

Nice try, but no cigar. You just pulled those numbers from a dark orifice, and are trying to muddy the waters. You then bring the nra into it, by claiming that I'm citing nra dogma, in an attempt to further muddy the waters, and try to offer up a rabbit hole which you presume I'm going to go down and chase your rabbit.

No sale.

One can not make the claim that 'we are in no way anti-gun', and then complain when a court decision allows gun stores to be opened in a place where every single one of their suggested laws are in effect. 100 percent background checks, AW ban, etc. If MDA can't accept a gun store in a place where all their desired legislation exists, then there IS NO PLACE where they will.

How does this work in beevul-land? background checks at retail ARE enforceable so that you supported them 3 years ago? does that mean gun registration was OK by you 3 years ago?
While I will tentatively agree you now do not OPPOSE background checks, you do not SUPPORT either universal background checks, or bg checks in the current format, THAT is somewhat clear in your above postings despite your contradictions.

The only contradictions are between your ears.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Most who are aware of the facts about the current status of gun law, know that we ALREADY have background checks at retail. Most who are aware of how background checks work at retail, know that registration has nothing to do with them.

Most who have a solid grasp on the background check issue, know that 'registration' would be required ONLY for background checks on person to person sales.

I'll make this plain. I DO support background checks at retail. My feelings on background checks on person to person sales is meh whatever, go right ahead. Even though I know its just going to lead to another fight, at some point, when the rest of you figure out what I and the DOJ and a whole lot of others figured out a long time ago: you need registration to make it work. And I know that fight is going to happen, because I do not support gun registration of any kind for any reason outside the NFA, and I never will.

[virginia mountainman]

85. You know Beevul..

When you BBQ those sacred cows, you get LOTS OF MEAT!! Thanks for the BBQ!

[jimmy the one]

66. glaring _discrepancy

I just noticed something more.
In the 'want guns gone' tweet in beevul's OP, allegedly by Shannon watts, Shannon's tweet address seems to be:
Shannon@_shannonwatts
post 15 http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172174824

In my link where she reposted malicious tweets to herself, her tweet address is:

Shannon@shannonwatts
http://www.alan.com/2014/12/27/nra-supporters-launch-vicious-misogynistic-twitter-attack-on-gun-reform-leader/#

Explain this glaring discrepancy, beevul.

[beevul]

67. You explain it.

You are the one asserting there is one.

I suspect she deleted it, and has more than 1 account. Standard behavior for anti-gun loons.

See post 64

[sarisataka]

73. Quoted with permission

You can repeal the 2A and prohibit firearms in the same amendment.

The matter would not be left up to the states. Besides, you need to view this on a mid-21st Century timeline instead of viewing it in the present. Repealing the 2A is a very long term goal, not a short term one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7114994
Permission granted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7115037

[pablo_marmol]

82. Just now, from a Facebook discussion........

"If guns were unavailable, no one could use them. For me, everything MUST start with that. Otherwise, it can only spiral upwards… more and more guns, more and more use. It just logic…"

Regular members of this group can probably deduce that I didn't let that statement go unchallenged. The beliefs reflected in this post are hardly rare, and demonstrate that......

A) Yes -- there ARE in fact plenty of people who would like to see guns "unavailable" and....

B) There are plenty of faux-progressives that embrace the verdict of empirical evidence when it supports their case, and revert to teachings from The School of Unicorns Dancing on Rainbows when it doesn't.

[DonP]

83. I always find it funny

That the same people that can figure out that deporting 12 million people is ridiculous and impossible, don't have any problem imagining the forced confiscation of guns from 125+ million homes.

[branford]

84. The ignorance is similar when it comes to the Constitution.

The Second Amendment is stupid, dangerous and needs to be changed or just ignored. Why are we still listening to stupid old white guys?

What do you mean we should change the Fourteenth Amendment and prevent "anchor babies!" That's just nuts and mean. The Constitution is sacrosanct! Did you fall asleep is social studies?

[pablo_marmol]

87. This chap would like to take your guns:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629173#post1