What a novel idea!

[Starboard Tack]

http://www.upworthy.com/they-packed-more-pissed-off-celebrities-than-i-could-count-into-a-1-minute-video-for-everyone-to-see?g=8

[ileus]

1. There is a plan....fight to keep the 2A.

Now is not the time to be regressive on human rights.

[Starboard Tack]

4. If you want to do your Poe routine, please start your own thread.

I'm trying to be serious here for a change. You are not Steven Colbert and are no longer amusing. So please, do us all a favor and either get serious or sit this one out. Thanks.

[ileus]

62. This is very serious....never volunteer to give up a right because it feels good.

It's the whole point of having a discussion. If you don't want other viewpoints expressed then it's in the wrong 2A forum.

[Starboard Tack]

68. I have nothing to discuss with you.

I don't consider you to be serious. I think you are a Poe, but a humorless one. You have created an absurd persona, in an attempt to play with people's heads, and I'm not buying it. Everything about you screams "Poe!" except your complete lack of humor, unless it's too subtle for anyone to get.

The last thing I need is a bowel obstruction. Bye bye!

[blueridge3210]

69. That's a lot of words

for someone who has "nothing to discuss". YMMV

[Starboard Tack]

70. Yeah! Well I just wanted to make things clear.

Nothing to discuss doesn't mean I don't have something to say. I have zero interest in what he has to say. I don't come here to waste time with Poes. It was amusing for a while, but eventually it gets tiring. If I thought for one second that he was real, I'd discuss.

[ileus]

71. POE... power over ethernet ?

[Duckhunter935]

2. so whats your plan

Whats the plan they are pushing for?

Just remember this plan must be 100 percent and cover all of these possibilities spoken about in that ad.

Lets here some proposals for these plans

Any comments from you about a plan

[Starboard Tack]

3. I think a good start might be civil dialog between gun owners and those who want gun control

Mostly, I see a lot of shit slinging.
I would advocate for very stringent laws on public carry of any kind of firearm.
The biggest problem you have is guns on the street. Anyone caught with a gun in public should face a stiff penalty and mandatory jail term, unless he can prove an absolute need.

Only LE with the highest level of training in use of firearms and public relations should be selected to carry firearms, and then only in specific circumstances.

SYG laws should be rethought.

OK. Your turn

[RadicalGeek]

5. A Bit Hard To Negotiate

With folks that very often seems like an American version of ISIS (I frequently use the term "redneck taliban" to describe many NRA members).

As for my ideas:

http://harrisburgunderfire.blogspot.com/2013/12/my-sense-of-gunsense.html

[Starboard Tack]

6. Sounds like you have common sense approach.

Definitely a more liberal attitude than I have regarding carry permits. I think the B needs to be removed from RKBA, at least in terms of "personal protection". I think permits should be allowed in special circumstances, where a person can demonstrate the need, either because of known threats or occupational hazard. These permits should be highly restricted IMO, in terms of where, what, when and how the weapons are to be carried. Some, such as LE and professional security guards should only be allowed to carry openly.
CC permits need periodically to be reviewed in terms of skill level and psych evaluation.

[RadicalGeek]

28. Renewal of CC Would Be a Good Idea

But I think a lot of my ideas are shaped by growing up in an area where a lot of friends hunted.
Even one of the priests at my church would hunt.

[beevul]

151. Oops.

Guess you're going to have to come up with another meme, unless you believe that the nra and pro-gun folks at large believe in guns for themselves and nobody else, kind of like Bloomberg and Watts with their bodyguards and the other 1 percenter types and their minions:

No public gathering other than those organised by ISIS will be allowed at any stage. No guns will be allowed outside of its ranks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10895007/Repent-or-die-al-Qaeda-forces-announce-rules-for-Iraqi-territory-they-now-control.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172153315#post11

[RadicalGeek]

152. It's Not That

It's that the NRA seems to believ in "Guns For All"; who cares about criminal history, etc.

As long as the gun maufacturers that bankroll the NRA have customers. . .

http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney2.pdf

[gejohnston]

153. and you believe everything

VPC makes up? Funny that you mention them.
Why would you believe someone with a license to sell guns?
http://fflgundealers.net/sugarmann-joshua-alan.html
That is VPC's address.
Don't believe it? Ask a local gun dealer to look up this FFL number.
1-54-000-01-8C-00725

This is my favorite quote of his
"One tenet of the National Rifle Association's faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don't buy guns in gun stores. That's why they're criminals. But it isn't criminals who are killing most of the 20,000 to 22,000 people who die from handguns each year. We are."
-Josh Sugarmann, "The NRA is Right: But We Still Need to Ban Handguns," The Washington Monthly, June 1987.

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

[Lurks Often]

8. Yawn, the usual from you.

So what are you willing to concede to the gun owners?

Because your proposals will be laughed at by better then 95% of the gun owners out there.

You aren't interested a dialog, you're interested in getting laws passed that you think will lead to a less violent society without addressing the real problems that cause the violence in the first place, economic and social pressures.

[Duckhunter935]

12. They are willing to never

concede a thing. as always they just want to take and take.

[Starboard Tack]

13. Nice deflection. Sorry if we're keeping you up.

I'm making suggestions that may make the US a better place to live. Legalizing drugs is one step. Criminalizing gun carry is another. Disarming cops is another. Public education is another. Caring about the environment is another.

This is the gungeon. We talk about 2A issues and gun control here. Read the SOP.
If you think guns on the street has nothing to do with the violence being perpetrated in the US, then you sir are in denial.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, feel free. Otherwise, have a nice day.

[Lurks Often]

16. Now who's deflecting

I asked a simple question, what are you going to concede to the gun owners to get our cooperation?

What you posted was a list of demands that you feel gun owners should be forced to comply with, without ever giving us a realistic approach of making things happen.

It's been tried before and every time you try again, you lose seats in Congress, you lose states in the Presidential elections and you give Republicans more to use against the Democratic Party come election time.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Who are you referring to when you say "You"?

I am not deflecting at all. I started a conversation and you come back with "Yawn." You call that civil?
I gave you some of my ideas. Why don't you address each one and see where I am prepared to compromise.

Look at it as bargaining. We come from positions far apart. I'm prepared to budge, and have budged considerably since first coming here.

I already give you the following. RKA. That's a helluva lot. But I believe that is just. I would be prepared to discuss what arms people should be allowed to keep and how they should be kept and used.

[Duckhunter935]

24. "I already give you the following. RKA. That's a helluva lot."

very generous give us part of something that we already have, just take part of what we now have away. That is really giving something up from your side?

[Starboard Tack]

30. First of all, I don't have a "side"

You have the "B" right now because you have a right wing SCOTUS. Hopefully, that will change soon. Point is, we are having a discussion here about how to reduce the horrendous loss of life that occurs daily in the US. So, let's start from a position of compromise, because what you already have is obviously not working too well, or we wouldn't be here discussing it.

My position is to find a solution that accomplishes what we all want, which is to save as many lives as possible, without trampling on any basic rights or freedoms. You are not displaying any willingness to negotiate. If you think digging in is the best solution, then I wish you luck, but personally, I think it is a foolish position to take.

You are not up against me, or even people like me. You are up against folk who want to ban all kinds of things that I have no interest in banning. I'm trying to work out a solution without anyone losing their guns, barring those who deserve to lose them.
If you see me as the enemy, then you have some real problems down the road.

[Duckhunter935]

33. OK, so you have no side

You just think those of us that believe in the RKBA just give up on things that we have now and the ones on the other side of the issue(not you I guess) never have to give up a thing in this bargain. Same thing has been happening for the last century. Guess what some of us are getting tired of giving and giving and never ever get anything back in return as part of the "bargain".

I do not see you as the enemy and the backlash has started and it is not the RKBA side that is losing the court cases.

[beevul]

43. Good grief. So many falsehoods in what you posted.

"You have the "B" right now because you have a right wing SCOTUS."

Nonsense. The intent meaning and purpose of amendment 2 is crystal clear. Has been crystal clear. Since day 1. Essentially, only people with a chip on their shoulder where guns are concerned have ever said anything to the contrary.

"Point is, we are having a discussion here about how to reduce the horrendous loss of life that occurs daily in the US."

And yet you and others like you, skip right over the root causes of that horrendous loss of life, and jump right on the bandwagon of "what are you willing to give up". That calls your intentions into question IMO.

Wait, that's not true, you say? How about some evidence:

"My position is to find a solution that accomplishes what we all want, which is to save as many lives as possible, without trampling on any basic rights or freedoms. You are not displaying any willingness to negotiate."

That's you doing exactly what I said you and others like you do. No discussion at all of the root causes, and an immediate jump to "You are not displaying any willingness to negotiate".

[Starboard Tack]

46. Of course, only those with a "chip" on their shoulder.

I think I flicked the last chip off my shoulder about 50 years ago, but you can believe what you want.
Me and "others like me". Really? I hadn't noticed. Who would we be exactly? The ones who don't want to ban guns or see them banned, yet also want to see the death toll go down. Yeah, shame on us. We must be full of shit.

You obviously don't read my posts, or you would see how much my position has changed over the years. I started out here as someone who wanted to see every handgun on the planet melted down, along with every semi-auto and full auto. Basically leaving only shotguns and bolt action rifles.
Now I propose no bans at all and I support may issue carry permits, if issued and tested on a national level. I totally support gun ownership and home defense.

My position has shifted dramatically. Where has yours moved?

[beevul]

49. Yeah.

"Me and "others like me". Really? I hadn't noticed. Who would we be exactly? The ones who don't want to ban guns or see them banned, yet also want to see the death toll go down. Yeah, shame on us. We must be full of shit."

When you jump right past the root causes to "what are you willing to give up", while saying you want the death toll to go down out of the other side of your mouth, yeah, it kind of indicates to anyone with two or more working brain cells to rub together, that yeah, you quite likely are full of shit.

"Where has yours moved?"

Mine is, where it has always been since I became politically aware - in line with the bill of rights, and in contradiction to authoritarian/utilitarian types who want me and others like me to give up something we believe strongly in, just to quiet the fires of their biases.

[beevul]

25. No. Just no.

"I already give you the following. RKA. That's a helluva lot."

We already have RKA without you giving it.

We already have concealed carry.

"Look at it as bargaining."

Bargaining can only begin, when you are honest about what we already have, and offer up something in return for giving up anything we already have.

[Duckhunter935]

26. odd way of bargaining

only one side gives

[beevul]

27. Thats how the "pro-control" folks have been doing business since...

Thats how the "pro-control" folks have been doing business since the beginning.

No more.

[clffrdjk]

34. Yep

They seem to lack a basic understanding of what a compromise actually is. They don't have the voter base to keep playing the well we could just ban them game.
I also find it hilarious that they call each other reasonable after deciding that the other side is entirely incapable of negotiation.

[Starboard Tack]

32. That's how bargaining works

You give up the one thing that makes the least sense and will save the most lives.
If law abiding citizens can give up indiscriminate carry and support strong penalties for those who bring guns onto the street, then neither the cops nor the robbers will have an excuse for carrying. It starts with the people.

What's your idea? What are you prepared to give up?

[Duckhunter935]

35. we have already given over the last century of laws

the question is more like what is the Pro-control side willing to give on. 50 state CCW Reciprocity? larger magazine capacity size? Open carry of hand guns for licensed and trained individuals? Reopen the NFA registry? Allow the use of a safety device known as a sound suppressor?

I am sure there are more I can think of

[Kalidurga]

76. I think your best idea is 50 state Reciprocity

I don't know what NFA is. I like sound suppressors since I have an aversion to loud noises. I don't think a larger magazine is necessary, but I am willing to entertain being schooled on that. I don't like open carry it leaves to much to interpretation for example a police officer might just have to be a mind reader to know if someone is a threat or not and guess who is going to be seen as more of a threat. I hope you keep contributing to this thread we need more discussion of the issues not less.

[gejohnston]

77. NFA=National Firearms Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/national-firearms-act

[Duckhunter935]

78. National Firearms Act

the 1986 amendment closed and new additions to full auto weapons being manufactured. This caused all of the existing ones to skyrocket in price. First understand this would not affect the ability to or requirements to own one. You would still have to go through, local, state and federal background checks, pay the fees and have unannounced ATF inspections of the weapon.

Magazine size should be limited to what fits in the magazine well of a handgun and 20 rounds for a rifle as that was the original design magazine size for the AR-15 style of rifle. Most other rifles are less.

I do not like open carry and concealed is the best but it becomes an issue in very hot climates like Arizona. FYI, I do not carry but do have the permit if I ever choose to do so.

I hope you keep contributing to this thread we need more discussion of the issues not less.

I agree completely, it is very nice to have a civil discussion. Thank you.

[steelsmith]

154. AZ is now constitutioal carry

Thanks to the fine group Arizona citizens defence league. We no longer are at the mercy of the local authority as to who gets CCW permits. If you own it legally you can carry it openly or concealed.

It's nice to live in a state that understands self defence is a right set forth in the constitution that applies to all it's citizens, be they black brown white or light green with red highlights.

The local businesses are almost all on board with it, and I have seen very few "no firearms permitted" signs.

As you stated in your post, the heat here makes it almost impossible for concealed carry during the summer, and it is not at all unusual to see people safely carrying firearms in in everyday situations.

The anti-gun types just seem to never understand that the problem is not the law abiding citizen, it is the criminal element that they need to concern themselves with. I believe their mindset comes from a lack of understanding of firearms in general, and a seemingly deep seated fear of their fellow citizens.

[beevul]

39. You are just so full of it.

"You give up the one thing that makes the least sense and will save the most lives."

In return for?

"If law abiding citizens can give up indiscriminate carry..."

First, it isn't "indiscriminate".


Second, lawful carry is far from anything that can be accurately defined as "save the most lives."

That's how I know you're full of it.

Outlawing lawful carry whether its open carry or concealed, wont so much as even make a ripple in "saving the most lives". Yet its the first thing you went after.

You aren't interested in anything but feeding your own biases, and you just made that crystal clear to all who do not sit in the obstructed view seats.


"What are you prepared to give up?"

Lots has already been given up by the pro-gun side, with nothing given in return. I think we should balance the books with some equitable returns before we have any discussions about what we have to give up, to keep what we already have.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Except I didn't say outlaw anything.

I said give it up as a "right". Big difference. Is driving a car a right? No. It is a privilege which is earned. Why should carrying a gun be any different?

[beevul]

44. Address what I wrote first.

You said "You give up the one thing that makes the least sense and will save the most lives."

Kindly explain how giving up lawful carry will save the most lives.

"No. It is a privilege which is earned."

You come to the table, asking people to change a right into a privilege, with nothing to offer in return other than platitudes and rhetoric, and act surprised and indignant that nobody wants to negotiate with you.

Wow. Just wow.

You're going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that, to compete with "digging in".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, and let this sink in real good:

We (pro-gun folks) don't need you (pro-control folks) to get what we desire legislatively.

You need us, to get anything you want legislatively on the gun issue.

In light of that, telling us we can keep what we have if we simply give some of it up (til next session when you come back for more), while ignoring the root causes and jumping right to "what are you willing to give up", is completely and utterly laughable.

[Starboard Tack]

47. You can think I'm "pro-control" if that makes you feel better, but you are wrong.

I have zero interest in controlling you or your guns. I am suggesting you behave more reasonably if you want to come out of this unscathed. The gun safety/control movement will inevitably keep growing until sensible people make sensible decisions.
If you have no interest in having a constructive conversation, that's fine. Enjoy and be well.
I have a good book to read.

[beevul]

51. You just can't address it can you.

"If you have no interest in having a constructive conversation, that's fine."

Don't presume to lecture me or anyone else about "constructive conversation", when you can't address what I wrote, or defend your own position.

Here, heres a chance for that constructive conversation" you want:

You said "You give up the one thing that makes the least sense and will save the most lives."

Kindly explain how giving up lawful carry will save the most lives.

If you can manage to answer that, we can move on to the next thing.

if you can't, its elegant proof that a "constructive conversation" is something you never really intended, in the first place.

"I am suggesting you behave more reasonably if you want to come out of this unscathed."

I'm unwilling to let the "hate guns" crowd define what is or is not reasonable.

"The gun safety/control movement will inevitably keep growing until sensible people make sensible decisions."

Translation: Capitulate. Or else.

[Starboard Tack]

55. I did not say you should give up lawful carry

You read into what I say to suit your agenda. I have no agenda beyond the desire to have a conversation.

I suggested that the "B" be removed from 2A. That does not mean giving up lawful carry. It means no longer seeing it as a "right".
How you interpret this as some kind of demand that you "capitulate" amazes me.

Responsible, trained individuals should have the right to carry, as long as that "right" exists. If it becomes a privilege, then it will be available to those who qualify.
Right now, those who extol their "right" to carry the most loudly are the wingnuts of the far right. If you want to protect their "right" to be total assholes, then so be it. Personally, I think the notion that carrying contemporary loaded guns around is a "constitutional right", makes a mockery of the very Constitution and BoR you claim to defend.

[clffrdjk]

57. Bullshit

Anyone caught with a gun in public should face a stiff penalty and mandatory jail term, unless he can prove an absolute need. Only LE with the highest level of training in use of firearms and public relations should be selected to carry firearms, and then only in specific circumstances.

[Duckhunter935]

59. Those goalposts get heavy

own words and now "that is not what I said"

I am sure they will be moved again shortly

[beevul]

60. Lets get down to brass tacks.

You said "You give up the one thing that makes the least sense and will save the most lives."

What is "the one thing that makes the least sense and will save the most lives" that you are referring to, and how and why will it save the most lives?

You *appear* to be implying that the right to carry is that "one thing".

If you were, kindly explain how and why it will save the most lives, and if you weren't, what were you referring to?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

125. Rights cannot be given up. They exist in in the absence of written law. nt

[Starboard Tack]

126. Depends what rights we're talking about.

The right of self defense is a basic human right. The right to carry a gun is a Constitutional right in the US. It is already a restricted right. Problem is, it was given at a time when guns were very different animals to what they are today and given for reasons that do not exist today. That's why we have a SCOTUS to interpret and apply definitions in light of changing times and customs.
Lots of so-called rights are awarded, restricted and taken away all the time. That's why many of us fight for civil rights, gay rights, a woman's right to choose.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. Absolutely wrong.

That's why we have a SCOTUS to interpret and apply definitions in light of changing times and customs.

We do not have government by the whim of a judiciary. We did not trade 1 king for 9.

What's more, grabbers and their quislings will be the first to howl when the USSC doesn't grant them their wishes.

Lots of so-called rights are awarded, restricted and taken away all the time.

Just because a right is restricted doesn't make it less of a right. Just because a thing which is not a right is granted in the context of a right does not make it a right. Relying on the errors of others does not make your argument superior.

There is no time, place or circumstance wherein the weak and disfavored are obligated to submit to the strong or the elite. Yet, that is exactly the world the grabbers and their quislings are working to create. Every abuse in this world, whether it is a lone criminal on the street or a despotic regime in some distant capital, is based on one side holding a monopoly on force.

[Starboard Tack]

129. I'm sorry

but I don't have any interest in talking to someone who uses language like "grabbers and quislings". A tad too Libertarian/Teabagger for my taste.

You have a nice day!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

130. But you're OK when people defending their inherent rights are compared to ISIS and the Taliban.

Or "gun humper" or "ammosexual" or "terrorist" or "child-killer."

You cannot deny there are grabbers because they openly post their intentions to see the 2A repealed and guns taken away from the people. When the grabbers use all manner of insulting language you appear quite accommodating; some might even say -- collaborative. Yours is a very selective morality, which is why nobody buys into your façade of being a well-intentioned, mediating centrist.

[Starboard Tack]

131. I steer away from extremists of all kinds.

I'm sure you're all lovely people in real life, but I don't want to have conversations with folk who have extreme views on anything, unless they are prepared to question those views and re-evaluate. Part of reality testing is about updating those old tapes that play in one's head.
Reasonable people are not rigid in their thoughts, they stay flexible and they always do their best to walk in other people's shoes before passing judgement.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

132. "I steer away from extremists of all kinds."

uh huh --

RadicalGeek (194 posts)

5. A Bit Hard To Negotiate

With folks that very often seems like an American version of ISIS (I frequently use the term "redneck taliban" to describe many NRA members).

Starboard Tack (10,158 posts)

6. Sounds like you have common sense approach.

But then there's this nonsense --

Reasonable people are not rigid in their thoughts,

This is a nonsensical, say-nothing appeal to -- something. It has no basis in anything. Where is it written that the definition of reasonable is flexibility? How would being flexible in the defense of rights be reasonable? Capitulation displays a certain flexibility but that doesn't make it reasonable, moral or desirable.

What would be reasonable would be the fact that 60% to 70% of all homicides -- gun-related or not -- are committed by people with a prior felony criminal record.

What is reasonable is treating the mental illness that drives people to suicide.

Reasonable means there is an logical connection between two premises, not a self-serving pronouncement without basis in fact or logic.

[Starboard Tack]

134. I was referring to his link with my "common sense approach" remark

I was not responding to the "ISIS" or "Redneck Taliban" comments. Though, I can sympathize with those who see a parallel between the NRA, as it is today, and the Taliban. Two extremist organizations trying to impose their will on an entire population. Both fearmongerers. Both embrace the tools of violence to achieve their goals.

Did I ever suggest giving up any rights? No. What I do suggest is redefining what you perceive to be rights. If you think walking down Main Street America with a loaded gun is some kind of right, then we have nothing to discuss.
If you think defending yourself, your family and your home is a natural right, then we are on the same page. How we do that and what tools we reasonably use to exercise that right is what is on the table here. That is where we need to be flexible.

What would be reasonable would be the fact that 60% to 70% of all homicides -- gun-related or not -- are committed by people with a prior felony criminal record.

I don't know what you find reasonable about that. You also live in a society that has an incarceration rate several times as high as any other industrialized country. Institutionalized slavery is alive and well in America. Your prison system is being privatized more and more. The NRA and white privilege helps ensure you keep those penitentiaries well stocked.
Yes, treat mental illness, by all means. At the same time, quit offering the mentally ill a quick fix, like an easy to access firearm to end it all with and maybe take a few others along for the ride. You are advocating mental health from what POV? Nothing self serving, I'm sure.

No, my friend, what is reasonable is sitting down and thinking, first, do we have a problem, second, recognizing the problem and third, what can I do to help. Blaming others is not helping. If you have nothing to offer, then you don't care. You've passed it off as someone else's problem. When I see one thing, one step, one idea coming from you that says you recognize that you own part of this problem and are prepared to help fix it, then we can have a conversation.

We all own this problem! Deal with that reality first. Then come up with some ideas how YOU can help, not others.

[gejohnston]

136. seriously?

I was not responding to the "ISIS" or "Redneck Taliban" comments.

I would hope not, because he lost any credibility when he did.

Though, I can sympathize with those who see a parallel between the NRA, as it is today, and the Taliban. Two extremist organizations trying to impose their will on an entire population.

If anything, it is Bloomberg that is trying to his will on others. The NRA, SAF, and others are defending themselves. Using your logic, pro choice people is shoving abortion down everyone's throats.

Both fearmongerers. Both embrace the tools of violence to achieve their goals.

ISIS isn't fearmongering, they are simply oppressing.

Did I ever suggest giving up any rights? No. What I do suggest is redefining what you perceive to be rights.

contradictory. Redefining a right as a privilege is giving up a right.

I don't know what you find reasonable about that. You also live in a society that has an incarceration rate several times as high as any other industrialized country. Institutionalized slavery is alive and well in America. Your prison system is being privatized more and more. The NRA and white privilege helps ensure you keep those penitentiaries well stocked.

What does the NRA, or their opposition, have to do with it? Neither side had anything to do with creating the actual problems. Neither created the food deserts, social policies, put lead in gas, or anything else that is relevant.

Yes, treat mental illness, by all means. At the same time, quit offering the mentally ill a quick fix, like an easy to access firearm to end it all with and maybe take a few others along for the ride. You are advocating mental health from what POV? Nothing self serving, I'm sure.

mental illness is rarely the issue. Actually, I think your entire screed is self serving.

No, my friend, what is reasonable is sitting down and thinking, first, do we have a problem, second, recognizing the problem and third, what can I do to help. Blaming others is not helping. If you have nothing to offer, then you don't care. You've passed it off as someone else's problem. When I see one thing, one step, one idea coming from you that says you recognize that you own part of this problem and are prepared to help fix it, then we can have a conversation.

You are correct on one of three. Do we have a problem. You lose it after that. "What can we do", you have to look at the issue on a rational basis before you do the "what can we do". Your "solution" reminds me of Bob Ford's solution to a gang shootout at a basketball game. Two gangs members got in a shoot out and wounded several people. They did not have PALs, the pistols were not registered, and magazines were not pinned to limit them to ten rounds. One of the gang members was on probation for drugs and illegal gun possession. What was Ford's solution? Confiscate registered handguns from all licensed gun owners in Toronto. Yes, your "solutions" are on that level of absurd. He has the excuse of being a right wing crack head and drunk. You don't.

We all own this problem! Deal with that reality first. Then come up with some ideas how YOU can help, not others.

I already did that, but you haven't commented on them. I'm guess you are still stuck on CCW holders in Montana is the cause of Chicago.

[Starboard Tack]

137. Yep seriously! He didn't lose any credibility. His link was good.

His analogy was a little strong, but not that far off the mark. His credibility is way higher than anyone else participating in this thread so far. He actually came up with suggestions. That's big. I don't agree with all he said, but at least he's trying. Nobody else is doing anything beside standing their ground.
All you're interested in is dissecting everything I say and knocking it down. Accusing me of being "self serving". How the fuck do you get to that kind of conclusion? How is my being here at all self serving? Oh right, I love having conversations with people who like to insult me for trying to find solutions. It fills my masochistic fantasies.
I'm self serving? All you want to talk about is how everything relates to Wyoming and fucking Japan, with occasional forays to Australia and Canada and God knows where else that never has anything to do with the topic at hand. You remind me of this friend I had many years ago. She thought every problem known to mankind could be solved by using a mailing list. I guess any mailing list will do for some people.
It was fun for a while, but I'm done. Life is too short. It's time to be more self serving.
Y'all take care now!

[gejohnston]

140. not far from the mark?

It was as stupid as, and equivalent to, Ted Nugent or some fool in congress comparing the EPA or ATF to the Geheime Staatspolizei in the previous century. That does not promote anyone to the grown up table, but only proves that he belongs at the rickety card table with the other kids.

That's big. I don't agree with all he said, but at least he's trying. Nobody else is doing anything beside standing their ground. All you're interested in is dissecting everything I say and knocking it down.

He isn't trying to do shit but promote a culture war, not cure social ills. At least my suggestions actually address that.

I would describe Bloomberg as a self aggrandizing corporatist who is to guns (and soft drinks) what the greedy Kochs are to climate change.
Actually, Bloomberg and the Kochs have a lot in common.

[beevul]

143. You've been given suggestions, but you didn't like them, and/or ignored them. N/T

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. "I was not responding to the "ISIS" or "Redneck Taliban" comments."

How convenient; because you decided you would fixate solely on my grabbers and quislings comment to declare dialogue with me to be closed at the expense of the balance of my comments.

Again, you maintain a double-standard.

Did I ever suggest giving up any rights? No. What I do suggest is redefining what you perceive to be rights.

So, just like that you have declared yourself the sole arbiter of rights.

What you seem to refuse to accept is that your reality is not the sole reality. You don't get to decide what are rights and when people are allowed to exercise them. People know their personal circumstances better than you.

You may consider your suggestion declined.

If you think walking down Main Street America with a loaded gun is some kind of right, then we have nothing to discuss.

I have plenty to discuss. Someone choosing on their own terms to refuse to listen is more a matter of their imaginary moral superiority than any position of victory on their part.

That and the fact that since I do believe in the right to defense outside the home coupled with the fact you continued on for another two-and-a-half paragraphs ipso facto refutes your unilateral declaration. Just sayin'

I don't know what you find reasonable about that. You also live in a society that has an incarceration rate several times as high as any other industrialized country.

You claim that you want something done about gun violence (apparently you're OK with non-gun violence or something). Yet, when the fact emerges that homicides are more times than not committed by felons you complain that the criminal justice system is overbearing.

Make up your mind. Why do you pretend to respect RK(B)A but complain convicted criminals being convicted? If conviction for a crime is not sufficient to delineate who can or cannot own a gun I'm left to assume your position is -- as many grabbers would suggest -- that no one, regardless of personal conduct, is entitled to own a gun. This may come as a shock to you but the entire background check system relies upon criminal convictions. If you're against the criminal justice system then presumably you would be against universal background checks. Please feel free to clarify your point because you seem to be speaking from both sides of your mouth.

Your prison system is being privatized more and more. The NRA and white privilege helps ensure you keep those penitentiaries well stocked.

And yet the grabbers and their quislings seem to have no solution except to criminalize peaceable people. Your argument rings of hollow and hypocritical. Is this some bizzarro plan to lock-up all the peaceable people in prison for their own protection while the felons of the world are left to run riot?

At the same time, quit offering the mentally ill a quick fix, like an easy to access firearm to end it all with and maybe take a few others along for the ride.

And your solution is what, exactly? If a person is not a convicted felon or flagged by a mental health professional why should they be barred from exercising their inherent right to self-defense?

[beevul]

144. "The NRA and white privilege helps ensure you keep those penitentiaries well stocked."

The nra is jailing people now?

Who knew...

You may wish to avoid the subject of credibility for a while.

[beevul]

133. And many who aren't extremists.

"I steer away from extremists of all kinds."

And many who aren't extremists. You define and apply that term, quite selectively.

When you and most other "gun control activists" use the term "extremist", it is relative to your desires on the issue, rather than based on an objective measure.

"Reasonable people are not rigid in their thoughts, they stay flexible and they always do their best to walk in other people's shoes before passing judgement."

Do you think that should apply to feminism and the abortion issue as well?

Should feminists "do their best to walk" in mens shoes?

Should people who are pro-choice "do their best to walk" in the shoes of anti-abortion folks, and fundamentalists?

I reckon they'd be surprised to hear that they should.

"I'm sure you're all lovely people in real life, but I don't want to have conversations with folk who have extreme views on anything, unless they are prepared to question those views and re-evaluate."

What makes you think we don't? Re-evaluating and questioning our own views on this issue, doesn't automatically lead to a conclusion or position that you're going to agree with.

But you'll only believe we "Re-evaluate and question our own views" if it leads to a conclusion or position which you agree with. Right?

[Starboard Tack]

135. If you think I am a "gun control activist" then you have some serious problems ahead

I don't expect you to agree with me. I don't even agree with myself half the time. That is my point.
Of course everyone should be flexible and try to walk in the shoes of the other. How the heck else are we to have clue about an issue if we can't view it from the opposing side. It's called perspective.

I don't live in a B&W world or a two dimensional world. No matter how objectionable I find another's opinion or belief, I do my best to identify with it and see where they are coming from. That's the only way to resolve shit in this world without resorting to violence or alienation, which is the scenario we're discussing here. The NRA endorses violent resolution to conflict. Those who choose to carry reinforce that notion.

I didn't post here to put everyone on the defensive. I thought we might toss some ideas around. I guess I was mistaken.

[beevul]

138. I think you're someone who claims to want a discussion, then dodges inconvenient questions.

Heres your chance to prove me wrong:

You said "You give up the one thing that makes the least sense and will save the most lives."

What is "the one thing that makes the least sense and will save the most lives" that you are referring to, and how and why will it save the most lives?

You *appear* to be implying that the right to carry is that "one thing".

If you were, kindly explain how and why it will save the most lives, and if you weren't, what were you referring to?

[Starboard Tack]

139. You got it.

Give up seeing it as an undisputed "right". Then think what it would be like if nobody, including the cops and the "bad guys" carried. Hold that thought. Would that save lives? If the answer is "Yes", then let's all work together and figure out how to get to that point, or damn close to it. If your answer is "No", then I've wasted enough time here.

[gejohnston]

141. The bad guys are not going to stop carrying

but even if they are not, they know potential victims are not. So, all they have to pick out the old, nerdy, and short as victims.

Since all known criminology and history says "no", perhaps we should talk about plan B? If you have no interest in plan B, then you have to ask yourself if it really has anything to do with saving lives?

One more thing:

All you want to talk about is how everything relates to Wyoming and fucking Japan, with occasional forays to Australia and Canada and God knows where else that never has anything to do with the topic at hand.

It is called having a frame of reference. I suspect you are doing the same, but yours is a rose tinted look back to your cop days. It is also called using relevant comparisons.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/frame%20of%20reference

[beevul]

145. See, heres the problem. (edited)

Last edited Wed Sep 3, 2014, 10:14 PM - Edit history (2)

You have a huge disconnect with all this.

"Give up seeing it as an undisputed "right"."

Lets say, for sake of discussion, we do that.

For sake of discussion, the right to carry is no longer an undisputed (whatever that means) right.

" Then think what it would be like if nobody, including the cops and the "bad guys" carried. Hold that thought. Would that save lives? If the answer is "Yes", then let's all work together and figure out how to get to that point, or damn close to it. If your answer is "No", then I've wasted enough time here."

Since carrying a gun is no longer a right, criminals who were already carrying illegally which is against the law, and who commit armed robbery which is against the law, and who murder others which is against the law, and who commit drive by shootings which is against the law, are going to decide not to carry a gun because its against the law, particularly since the cops no longer carry?

You can not possibly believe that.

Why would criminals that ignore laws against murder rape and robbery obey laws that say they can not carry a gun?

On edit:

You almost slipped it by me. I knew something was bugging me about what you wrote but I couldn't quite put my finger on it until now. Lets have another look at part of what you wrote:

"If the answer is "Yes", then let's all work together and figure out how to get to that point, or damn close to it. If your answer is "No", then I've wasted enough time here."

(underlining mine)

You already have your mind made up, and if we find flaw with your suggestion or disagree, you've "wasted enough time here", and you're taking your ball and going home rather than subject your suggestion to rational scrutiny. Hardly what I'd expect from someone who mere hours ago was proselytizing:

"I don't want to have conversations with folk who have extreme views on anything, unless they are prepared to question those views and re-evaluate. Part of reality testing is about updating those old tapes that play in one's head."

(yeah, you said that)


If you meant what you said, and you really think "folk who have extreme views" should "question those views and re-evaluate", then you need to be aware of the following:

Proposing that a right that has existed since the founding of this nation, which a clear majority of Americans support as an individual right (amendment 2, and "B" is part of it), be reclassified into being a privilege, is proposing something extreme. Thinking that should be done, as you clearly do, is an extreme view.

You need to decide whether you will proceed by the standards you presume to set for us, or will not and be known as a hypocrite for it instead.

Your call.

[Lurks Often]

38. I'm not interested in compromising

and given that gun owners have the upper hand now and for the foreseeable future, I can see no reason why we would consider bargaining with you.

[Starboard Tack]

40. You have a nice day now!

I trust that other gun owners will realize that those who share your attitude are the problem and will be the reason you won't have the "upper hand", as you call it, for much longer.
It is not me you need to bargain with. I have no personal interest in the issue, apart from a humanitarian one.
If I were a gun owner, I would see you, and those who share your inflexible attitude, as the enemy of reasonable gun owners.

[Lurks Often]

41. Time will tell

but since the gun control extremists seem to have peaked in 1994 and have been losing the majority of the time in the past 20 years, I'm pretty confident of the future. And I am the average gun owner, I know hundreds of gun owners here in the Northeast and they all think the same way I do.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Oh, well you must be right. I wish you well.

[gejohnston]

61. I don't believe so

It is about control, security theater, and culture war. Doesn't have a fucking thing to do with public safety. As long as the economic and political elites are no longer the gatekeepers of information, I see those interested in facts and rational decision making will continue to go our way.
It is very foolish to believe that "if we just go back to the 1970s on concealed carry, everything will be fine, oh and scary looking rifles" that gang warfare will end, and over-hyped accidents (and acts of stupidity) won't be distorted beyond rational proportions will magically disappear. Just look at states like California. Each "reasonable" restriction is always a "good first step". If we become flexible, the Bloombergs of the world will continue to be inflexible.

If I were a gun owner, I would see you, and those who share your inflexible attitude, as the enemy of reasonable gun owners.

Are you saying that US and Canadian boarding schools, the cultural genocide of languages and religions, force sterilizations etc are the fault of the Ghost Dancers?
No, I'm not saying that we are the same as aboriginal North Americans, but simply applying your logic to a different circumstance.

[Straw Man]

64. Sorry, no deal.

I already give you the following. RKA.

You "give" nothing. You only take, and then call it a compromise because you're taking some but not all. Sorry, but that's stereotypically authoritarian.

You won't make even a small dent in the gun death toll in the US by ending concealed carry. And make no mistake: Your plan to make it a "privilege" rather than a right is certainly going to mean the end of concealed carry in the new US security state. In any case, those causing the bulk of the gun death toll don't carry -- or even own -- their firearms legally.

[Duckhunter935]

11. I like the line

"think a good start" I am curious what the end you want is

How about UBC for one
Enforce existing laws and strengthen penalties and jail time for violators
Encourage safe storage of weapons by rebates or tax breaks on gun safe or approved locking devises
An educational campaign on the dangers of weapons and what a child should do if they see a weapon.
Removal of weapons from people convicted of crimes or abuse that are now prohibited persons.
Fully fund law enforcement like ATF
Increase funding for mental health and ensure states include that data into the NICS database
Open NICS up for private sales.
Standardize training and other requirements across the states for concealed carry.
Stop the silly "war on drugs"
Work harder to cut down on gangs and gang related violence.

I am sure there are more I will think of but this is just off the top of my head at the moment.

[Starboard Tack]

36. All good. Amazing what we can talk about when there is a will.

UBC is good, but I seriously doubt its effectiveness.
Which laws do you think are not being enforced and what penalties are too lenient?
Safe storage is already encouraged. How about making it mandatory, with harsh consequences for those who fail to comply? Accountability is extremely low right now.
Are weapons not removed from violent felons? Of course they should be, but that is existing law.
How do you propose screening for mental health issues without treading on other rights?
Isn't the ATF fully funded already? If not, I'm sure they can borrow a few billion from the DEA and ICE, who are pissing away your tax dollars daily.
NICS for private sales is good.
Standardized training nationwide is good and essential, especially if you want to keep the "B".
War on drugs and gang violence are both good. Get rid of those and many gun owners will change their mind about carrying.

The only "end" I seek is to reduce violent death and injury. I have no objection to gun ownership, unless it can be shown to be the cause of the problem.
I am not presently a gun owner, nor am I living in the States, so apart from having family and friends there, I have no dog in this fight. But I enjoy shooting and if I were a gun owner living in the US, I would be fighting to retain my rights, by trying to keep other gun owners in line and not fucking things up for the rest. I wouldn't be wasting my time insulting MAIG and MOMS against guns and Bloomberg and Brady et al.. Your problem is not with the "grabbers" but with the wingnuts and the NRA.

[sarisataka]

29. Dialog is tried every once in a while

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172152230

But the slinging doesn't always come from the "redneck Taliban "
Since the standard seems to be accept every gun control proposal without question or debate, being lumped together as the "American version of ISIS" is practically guaranteed.

One could claim the use of such labels shows bigotry towards gun owners. If anyone has evidence if gun owners, "NRA types" or other, publicly executing people in broad daylight in a major city, or beheading people and blaming it on gun control efforts please post that.

I will reconsider that such labels are justified and that they are not a sign of bigotry, indicating the person using them wants to dictate rather than negotiate.

[gejohnston]

58. you are starting off with a false dichotomy

Everyone agrees with "gun control", the disagreement is to what degree. On the federal level, the US has had gun control since 1927 (or 1919 if you want to include the 11 percent tax). The state level since the founding (mostly in the South and the four slave states that stayed in the union.) There are some who want a complete prohibition and private firearms (there are DUers who posted supporting that view). The other extreme, which is smaller or probably doesn't exist, is that a nine year old should be able to use his or her parents' credit card to order a sub-machine gun from Amazon like it was 1933, test it out in the back yard (in Queens) before taking to school for show and tell.

For me, any regulation must be based on empirical evidence and reason. Emotion, baseless opinion, ideology etc have no place in forming public policy. Only facts, evidence, and reason should be used. I expect that from politicians and whoever supports any legislation.

I would advocate for very stringent laws on public carry of any kind of firearm.

We did that for the most part from the 1920s-1990s (Wyoming and Vermont were kind of outliers. Wyoming's 1880s law predated most states, and strictly limited CC of any weapon including, sword canes, dirks, daggers, knives, sling shots. Yes those were specifically listed. Vermont was the other outlier, and extreme opposite.) Since there is no empirical data that shows these restrictions, and liberalization of, had any effect either way. In fact, violent crime, including murder, dropped since liberalization. In fact, those who apply for the permits are not (99.9 percent of the time) the problem. While you may think it would made the US "a nicer place" it would have zero effect on violence.

The biggest problem you have is guns on the street. Anyone caught with a gun in public should face a stiff penalty and mandatory jail term, unless he can prove an absolute need.

I'm against mandatory minimums, except for first degree murder and pedophiles.

Only LE with the highest level of training in use of firearms and public relations should be selected to carry firearms, and then only in specific circumstances.

I do agree our big city cops do need better training (much of it is on the same level a 14 year old gets from the state Game Department for their first hunting licence.) but, what works in Norway, does not apply here. I do think we need a responsible and ethical media that doesn't jump on some band wagon and ignores the actual evidence (if any) and is amazed the truth and outcome of the case is not what they originally claimed.

SYG laws should be rethought.

Not all of them are laws. Some states would have to pass duty to retreat laws to cancel the common law SYG. Even before Florida, half of our states (and the federal level) have been SYG for years based on their jurisdiction's common law. (California, Illinois, Washington, and the federal level.) The same applies with Duty to Retreat (Wyoming doesn't have a self defense law outside of the recent castle doctrine. It is common law, which is duty to retreat.) Even though Wyoming is duty to retreat, there is a Delaware chunk in the middle of the state that is SYG (that is before you get to Yellowstone). Some, like Georgia, simply codified what was already common law. But I digress.
My question is: why do you think we need to "rethink it"? Is it based facts, evidence, or reason? The only problem I have with SYG is how the lazy and unethical media (along with various ideologues) misinforms the public about it. The only difference, and I do mean the ONLY difference is the retreat requirement (and only then if you can do so in complete safety.) Do you think it will save innocent lives? No, it will send innocent people with a lousy lawyer to prison. Can you name as single case that would was justifiable under SYG that wouldn't have under DTR? I can't, not even in Florida. I bet you can't either. In either theory, all of the same five conditions must be met in order to be justifiable.
http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/
BTW, if you really want to be well informed about US self defense laws, I highly recommend his book. He is one of, if not THE, leading expert on US self defense laws. When I look for information, I go to subject area experts (regardless of their their personal views on anything. They either know what they are talking about, or they don't.) not some 20 something blogger for HuffPo who might have a degree in creative writing, who got his or her information from a press release or Twitter feed.

Also, how about defense of others? would you go by the "reasonable person" standard or the "alter ego" standard?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. You claim you want a civil dialogue but then you immediately applaud a guy who calls others

ISIS / the American Taliban (as if either of those groups petition for the right of all others to be armed). Your words are just vapor.

[upaloopa]

9. My plan would be to get a SCOTUS that would

interpret the second amendment as it is written.
Ban every type of gun except for hunting and target shooting and historical collections. License everyone who owns a gun. The license would have to be renewed annually. Have universal back ground checks and universal gun registry. Make gun owner insurance mandatory. Buying bullets gets recorded and is registered.
No carrying of guns on your person. Guns in cars only when transporting them to hunting or other sport sight.
And more when I think of it.

[Lurks Often]

14. LMAO

SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd Amendment correctly, EIGHT of the nine justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment was an INDIVIDUAL right, a view supported by the President, the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment and 99% of the credible Constitutional scholars.

Your "plan" has no basis in reality.

[Starboard Tack]

15. I think you are definitely right on 2A needing an updated interpretation.

I would add accountability to the insurance requirement. I think a good proportion of gun owners would go for your proposals if it could be demonstrated to them that lives would be saved. There lies the problem.

[Duckhunter935]

18. No most gun owners would not

Please do not speak for all of us

[Starboard Tack]

20. I don't speak for all. I give my opinion, that's all.

[Duckhunter935]

21. OK, fair enough

[hack89]

22. The NRA would love your insurance idea

They would do like AARP and go into the insurance business. Not only would they make a fortune but by giving discounts to members their membership (and dues) would sky rocket.

[Jenoch]

31. I find it interesting that your plan

would not ban the AR-15.

[Duckhunter935]

37. or one of these

Barrett 50 caliber sniper rifle
it is used for very long range target shooting

[Straw Man]

66. Where to begin?

Ban every type of gun except for hunting and target shooting and historical collections.

I think you'll find that there are ARs and AR variants in all of those categories. Semi-automatic pistols too.

Make gun owner insurance mandatory.

OK -- but no insurance company in the world will pay a claim for damages that resulted from intentional criminal activity, and no criminal will ever insure his gun anyway. This will cover gun accidents, but that's not the gun-violence problem in the US, and it never was.

You may be hoping the cost of the insurance will make gun ownership prohibitively expensive. I can get $2 million worth of coverage through the NRA for $300 a year: not a problem for me, but perhaps it would discourage some of those pesky lower classes from owning guns ...

Buying bullets gets recorded and is registered.

New York passed that but has yet to implement it. So far, no one in state government or law enforcement has been able to explain exactly what it is supposed to accomplish. Perhaps you could shed some light on that.

No carrying of guns on your person.

So no self-defense outside the home then? And if you're claiming that it is possible for anyone to interpret the Second Amendment this way, perhaps you can suggest an alternate meaning of the verb "bear" that doesn't mean "carry."

[upaloopa]

72. I don't care about any of that gunner shit

Why do you think someone like me wants to read all that? Most people are not the least bit interested in it either.
I don't think gunners get that they have a fettish.

[blueridge3210]

73. Cannot debate the facts.

Got it. Thanks.

[Duckhunter935]

74. "we don't need no stinking facts"

ban them, confiscate them

guns bad, guns make people shoot people

[upaloopa]

90. I am not in a debate

And I am not here to help you post pro gun shit.
Hijack somebody else's post

[blueridge3210]

91. You're on a discussion board

Of course you're in a debate.

[upaloopa]

146. Look you do your thinking for yourself

I don't need you to think for me.

[blueridge3210]

147. Well, that was certainly clever. (nt)

[upaloopa]

148. You are a last word freak so reply to this and we can call it quits

[blueridge3210]

150. Okay. (nt)

[Straw Man]

79. Of course you don't.

I don't care about any of that gunner shit

Why do you think someone like me wants to read all that? Most people are not the least bit interested in it either.
I don't think gunners get that they have a fettish.

You just want to pontificate without discussion. You want to issue dictates, and you will brook no disagreement or opposition. You are a textbook example of an authoritarian.

With this attitude, do you still consider yourself a progressive?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

149. This is DEMOCRATIC underground. nt

[Eleanors38]

7. This is a re-run, here. What you will see is a response

by pro-2A groups. The only question is how many outlets, on-line or mass media, will run them. Bloomberg can dump tens of millions, but not a movement does it make. It is telling that a "plan is demanded," yet despite the money spent, and the collection of celebrities, none is forthcoming. Not a very trustworthy approach when faced with perhaps 90,000,000 gun-owners with a large activist base that votes, including with their wallets.

[upaloopa]

10. Screw them. It takes having more money spent than

the manufacturers spend. When that happens we can have a plan. Your just blowing smoke up everyone's ass because the way things are is because of manufacture money nothing more.

[Eleanors38]

17. Can't make sense of most of your post. To be clear:

Those supporting an individual RKBA represent over 72-74% of polled Americans.

Probably 90,000,000 Americans own arms.

The activist groups supporting RKBA are large and, well, highly activist. They vote. They contribute money to protect their rights.

I'm not much into econimic determinism, so one "side" having more money or not doesn't impress me unduly. But it strikes me from my years of political activism that what works is a well-articulated and practical Plan that resonates with the masses; the money follows.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Another novel idea

If you want something in the worst way..........that's usually how you'll get it.



- Now is the time to demand that the folks in the Statehouses and Congress educate themselves about the driving causes of violence.

- Now is the time to demand that politicians enlighten themselves ENOUGH so they can speak without being laughed at due to their ignorance. Information is power; ignorance breeds bondage and waste. Screw that some embarrass themselves, what about the embarrassment they cause their constituents?

- Many people feel that private arms are to blame for much of the violence. The US Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd, 9th and 10 Articles stand in the way of limiting rights to private arms.

- Now is the time to hold those elected accountable for understanding the new laws proposed and passed and those related laws which currently exist. Now is the time to lose the excuses about trusting advisers, making compromises and "just doing something".

- More than any other purpose or duty a government may have, the primary duty is to protect the individual.



In honor of Mr. Bloomberg:
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

Demand a plan? Sure, accept a plan unexamined for consequence, source and detail at the public peril.

For the last 225 years the US has been a leader among nations thanks to the wisdom in its founding documents. Those ideals, checks and balances, principles and rights have been in many ways adapted or copied by more than 90% of other nations. Discard, disparage or ignore any of that at possible cost to everyone.

When considering the existence of God centuries ago Blaise Pascal hypothetically asked, "Do you want to bet?" He then answered the question by saying that it is a necessary bet. The same is true of the RKBA; do you want to bet?

[NYC_SKP]

50. "Lift 'er up!!! Git er done!!!!" Having nothing to do with your reply or the OP....

But how can we not love this?

Not to threadjack a most important OP!!!11!!

#t=14

[Duckhunter935]

52. Good one

"Merica"

[NYC_SKP]

53. Satire this is not, I wanted subtitles.

Dude is serious, seems to have even used ear protection!

[Duckhunter935]

54. Safety first

Nice "do not try this at home warning" also

[Starboard Tack]

56. Brilliant!

Reminds me of my exBiL. Hilarious.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. lol

[Eleanors38]

82. High tech redneck. LOL!

[NYC_SKP]

48. "No More Lists"!!! K/R thank you so much for this!!!!

We have a plan, let's roll!

No more lists, that's a start!

[pablo_marmol]

65. Here's a novel, and more productive idea:

Before running your hypocritical mouths, demand something of YOURSELF.

Read a book by any number of liberal & highly credentialed criminologists who began their careers supporting gun restriction theory, only to reverse position as they discovered empirical evidence didn't support it.

[Starboard Tack]

67. Charming! I can tell you really want to find a solution.

If that's how you talk to those who demand nothing, good luck when you come up against those who do.

[Duckhunter935]

75. seems to me I see a lot of demands

posted around here

demand a new AWB
demand a limit on magazine size of some arbitrary number, maybe 7?
demand additional taxes on firearms and ammunition.
demand that the right of self defense ends at the doorstep and carry of a weapon be banned.
demand annual mental exams
demand firearms licenses that cost 1000 dollars and be renewed every year.
Demand ban on internet sales
demand no more gun shows

seems all of the demands seem to mainly come from one side.

[beevul]

80. Demand no new gun store...

"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/

They are Moms Demand action, right?

[Duckhunter935]

81. Yes, you are right

but they are not against the 2nd amendment

[Starboard Tack]

86. Some are suggestions, some perhaps demands.

I don't do demands.
Why don't you respond to each suggestion with a counter suggestion and see if people can meet halfway? That's what negotiating is all about.

[beevul]

94. "meet halfway"

Meeting "halfway" is bullshit.

When gun rights folks meet pro-lots-more-control folks halfway, one side (the pro-more-control side) doesn't get as much as they want, but they do get something, and the pro-rights side simply loses and gets nothing.

Oh, did I say the pro-rights side gets nothing? That's not entirely accurate. The pro-rights side does get the peace of mind knowing that the pro-lots-more-control side will be back next session to repeat the exercise, and they'll most likely asking for more next time, if history is any indicator (and it is).

As has been done session after session for decades, and the no-more-compromise attitudes of so many on the pro-rights side can be laid at the feet of that business model, as much as anything else, IMO.

Doing business that way, is over.

[Starboard Tack]

96. Seems to me it's been moving completely the opposite way to what you describe.

I wish you luck when that pendulum starts to swing, which it always, inevitably does.

[beevul]

99. Yes, it is, because of decades of "meeting halfway"...

Yes it is, because of decades of "meeting halfway". During that time, which those of us who value our rights where firearms are concerned, met the pro-more-control folks halfway, and got nothing. And like the sun rising in the morning, they came back next session for more.

The tactic now, I believe, is to push pro-rights stuff, and see how the other side likes "meeting halfway, and keep them busy trying to undo whats been done, rather than trying to get us to meet them halfway.

A bunch of accomplishments in terms of legislation and court victories are a far better defense against "the pendulum" than meeting them halfway on their issues and on their terms, and allowing them to diminish what we value even more, with us assisting and enabling.

[Starboard Tack]

103. I see, you want it both ways.

Now you say you've gone halfway, yet got everything, which makes no sense at all. How did you go halfway? By getting every state to make carrying a fucking gun legal? You call that halfway? Halfway to what? Anarchy? Social suicide? Mass insanity? Congratufuckinlations!

There is no "other side" that you keep talking about. Nobody is trying to take away your guns. Yet!

[shedevil69taz]

105. Most states simply went and adopted objective criteria and implemented the ONLY legal way for

determining who should be allowed to obtain concealed carry permits, and we call that the SHALL ISSUE system.

The may issue system was easily abused by those who had lots of money to contribute to the campaigns of local sheriffs who were usually the deciding authority, and they didn't have to issue one based on whatever criteria they thought was appropriate and could change them from one applicant to the next.

[Starboard Tack]

110. Thank you. You make an excellent point.

Now, obviously, the "shall issue" system is fraught with problems, because people who should not be getting permits are. So, what do we do to fix that without reverting to the corrupt "may issue" system.

I would suggest formulating a new "may issue" system, that is neither corrupt, nor inconsistent. That means having a Federal standard. That would mean a win-win situation, as reciprocity would be acceptable on a notional level. As it is, right now, there is no way states like NY and CA are going to allow CCW permit holders from AZ, FL and TX. A permit to carry is a lot more serious than a drivers license, which has pretty much standardized testing requirements nationwide. Not so with concealed carry permits.

I may not like the idea of the citizenry, or the cops, walking around armed, but I would feel a helluva lot more comfortable if I knew they were screened and tested and licensed according to a national standard, and anyone carrying without such a permit were subject to severe sanction.

[gejohnston]

111. wrong

right now, there is no way states like NY and CA are going to allow CCW permit holders from AZ, FL and TX. A permit to carry is a lot more serious than a drivers license, which has pretty much standardized testing requirements nationwide. Not so with concealed carry permits.

I don't know about Arizona, but Florida and Texas have training requirements. Texas' is quite stringent, probably much better than California's. The only only thing that makes California stringent is how much you have to bribe, I mean contribute to the sheriff's campaign.
New York has no standards. No training required or anything else by the state. It only requires the good graces of the licencing authority. Some counties might.

As for federalizing it, no. Violates the 10th Amendment and has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

[Starboard Tack]

114. All very interesting, but you miss my point completely.

Each state has different standards, regardless of training. Permits need to be issued, or approved to a Federal standard. The states can still issue, but for any reciprocity to work, it should be done by the same standards, and psych evaluations should be part of that, along with rigorous training and testing. Guns are serious things and carrying one around is a very serious practice. It should not be taken lightly.

[gejohnston]

116. no

Each state has different standards, regardless of training. Permits need to be issued, or approved to a Federal standard.

I'm opposed to federal standard. There is no federal standard for driving, it is simply what is agreed on by the states and territories years ago.

The states can still issue, but for any reciprocity to work, it should be done by the same standards,

Why, driving doesn't. It was done by agreements with the states, the feds had nothing to do with it. Any state or territory can pull out of that agreement if they feel like it.

psych evaluations should be part of that, along with rigorous training and testing. Guns are serious things and carrying one around is a very serious practice. It should not be taken lightly.

There are no psych evaluations for such things. Individual rights should not be based on a subjective test related to a pseudo science. That is all psychology really is. Since the only people you describe as "not fit to have one" happens to be based on political or cultural views you don't like and nothing else, I like the idea even less.

Since the average CCW holder is probably better trained the average cop, the cops should undergo this rigorous training. Most big city PDs are little more than basic marksman ship and safety that 14 year olds get from the Game department.

[Starboard Tack]

118. OK 'nuff said

You obviously have no interest in working on a solution. You're against everything I suggest with absolutely no good reason, besides that's not how it works. Just a string of negatives.

We'll talk about something else another time. It's late here and I'm off to bed.

[gejohnston]

119. How about suggestions that are actually related to the problem?

You are concentrating on an area that is not the problem. CCW holders are more responsible and law abiding than the cops. When I asked you to explain the rationale behind those suggestions, you ignored it. The list seemed to be the standard partisan shopping list based on ideology and nothing else.

That actual problem are gangs, which none of your suggestions will even touch. I don't believe in wasting time and political capitol on theater and partisan games. My suggestions are the same as before:
war on drugs, corporal punishment, disposable males in the matriarchy, corporate welfare that encourages sprawl, zoning ordinances that create food and job deserts instead of walkable communities in the city cores, political corruption.
Come up with suggestions that actually relates to the problem, not the once every other decade black swan event, but every day problems in places like Chicago, NOLA, Camden, Oakland.

[beevul]

106. You make no sense here at all.

"Now you say you've gone halfway, yet got everything, which makes no sense at all."

Where exactly did I do that?

Methinks you didn't understand what I wrote, or are pretending you don't in an attempt to attribute to my words, sentiments I do not intended to convey.

If the latter is the case, you may as well give up on that idea. I'm quite familiar with such tactics, and love shining a light on them for the entire world to see. If the former is the case, reread what I wrote, and get back to me.

[Starboard Tack]

108. Obviously, I am confused

Because I see no decades of anyone meeting halfway. I think that is in your mind. And I don't know what you mean when you use the words "we", "them" and "progressive", let alone terms like "pro rights stuff" and "the other side"

The tactic now, I believe, is to push pro-rights stuff, and see how the other side likes "meeting halfway

See, I don't do this our side /your side shit and if I did, I wouldn't know what to call either side or which of us was on which of these so-called sides.
Unless, of course, you're talking liberal Democrats as one side and RW whateverthefucks as the other.

Where I'm coming from, there is only one side and that is the liberal Democrat side. The side that wants sensible legislation to help reduce gun related deaths and violence, without stepping on basic rights. If you can't agree with that as a starting point for discussion, then there is no discussion to have.
Furthermore, if you are not prepared to budge, or give anything, but want to keep the status quo, or put more guns on the street, then we have nothing to discuss on this subject.

I'm not interested in headbanging, or fighting here. You want to swap ideas and talk, go right ahead.

[beevul]

120. Indeed. Allow me to rewrite that post so you can better understand it.

(oh, and I didn't use the word "progressive" in that post, so why you'd mention not knowing what I meant by it is anyones guess)

Below is a quote of me from the post in question:

"Yes it is, because of decades of "meeting halfway". During that time, which those of us who value our rights where firearms are concerned, met the pro-more-control folks halfway, and got nothing. And like the sun rising in the morning, they came back next session for more."

In 1934, the nfa was passed, with pro-rights people including the nra meeting halfway, and nothing was given in return. The anti-gun folks came back numerous times, and in 1968 they got the gun control act passed. Nothing was given in return. After coming back year after year, in 1986 the NFA registry was closed. Nothing in return. In 1994 the so called "assault weapon ban" was passed based on lies, misconceptions, disinformation and misinformation. Nothing in return. In 97 the domestic abuser ban was passed. Nothing in return.

Now, that's about all the infringement I support, except I oppose the closing of the NFA. Dumb, doesn't save lives, simply a culture war poke in the eye for people who are nfa enthusiasts, and a blatant effort to make sure that future enthusiasts (opposition) were few and far between, and that's something (eliminating future opposition) that's never going to be allowed to happen again.

I measure gun rights/infringement on an objective scale. Totally unrestricted gun rights on one end, and total prohibition on the other. With the closure of the nfa registry, my view is that were around the 50/50 area, right in the middle, leaning slightly toward the total prohibition end of the scale. Every time we pro-rights folks meet the opposition "half way", they get some or all of what they want, and the scale slides closer to the side with total prohibition. You have to know all the restrictions that are in place, and know what was allowed before them, or else you can't use or criticize that scale accurately. I don't measure the issue with a body count, the same was as I don't measure my first amendment rights by how many have been trampled when someone incites a riot or screams fire in a theater. Particularly so, since there are numerous other non-gun-control ways to lower and prevent gun violence. I view the issue through the rights lens, how much I feel a "basic right" has been infringed on.

"See, I don't do this our side /your side shit and if I did, I wouldn't know what to call either side or which of us was on which of these so-called sides."

Anti-gun vs pro-gun. Its quite simple. You might feel you're not on either side, and that's fine, though I don't see it that way.

"Where I'm coming from, there is only one side and that is the liberal Democrat side."

That's your position. My position is issue centric. I'm glad to see anyone fight for rights where people and guns are concerned, and I detest anyone that fights against gun rights. I don't care what so ever, what party someone is from when they do either of he above. Kinda the same as with the WOD or abortion. I don't care what party someone belongs to when they oppose the WOD or support abortion choice. Why should I? Doing the right thing is doing the right thing. If you want to put parties before issues, go ahead, but expecting anyone else to is unrealistic.

"The side that wants sensible legislation to help reduce gun related deaths and violence, without stepping on basic rights."

Basic rights. I suspect you and I define them differently, and I far more broadly than you.

"If you can't agree with that as a starting point for discussion, then there is no discussion to have."

Theres plenty of discussion to be had, but it can't be had unless we talk about where were at on that scale I mentioned above, and how we got to where we are on that scale. Otherwise its just a relativistic jerk off session.

"Furthermore, if you are not prepared to budge, or give anything, but want to keep the status quo, or put more guns on the street, then we have nothing to discuss on this subject."

In other words, if I'm not willing to give in on more restrictions, theres no discussion to be had. So much for meeting "half way". What you want, is for gun rights supporters to walk all the way to your position as a starting point, (or else theres nothing to discuss) then you want to talk about what gun related "solutions" might be appropriate.

Why didn't you just say it simple and easy?

My position, is this:

For decades, the pro-rights camp was playing defense, trying to stop this and that, while the anti-gun folks marched down the field and scored a number of times. Yeah, they didn't score a lot of the time, and its a good thing, because many of the things they pushed were nuts.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the anti-gun folks are playing defense, and they've been shackled with numerous court defeats which uphold gun rights, and between the two its slowed them down.

Good.

As long as they're defending, it will be much harder to pull that scale any farther toward total prohibition.

That still leaves plenty of room to tackle gun violence for those that are more interested in stopping gun violence than the means employed to stop it. Anyone who says otherwise, just wants to go after guns and ignore the other means of attacking it.

[steelsmith]

155. I am very surprised

I am amazed that such a sentiment would be voiced on a progressive discussion board. Self protection is a basic human right and is set forth in the constitution as a basic right. The bearing of arms is probably the most important part of the second amendment, it allows us to protect ourselves and loved ones when outside the home. Statistics show that you are relatively safe from violent crime in your home, and of course depending on where you live, more apt to encounter violence on the city street.

[pablo_marmol]

84. Those who demand nothing?!

Holy shorts -- this thread's most disingenuous statement!

And you're damn right I'd like to find a solution to the political damage our party sustains as a result of our dishonesty on the gun violence issue!

[Starboard Tack]

87. What am I demanding?

I'm not coming from any "side" on this. I'm looking for dialog. Just because I throw in a suggestion and an opinion, here and there, doesn't mean I'm demanding anything. Lighten up a little and try to have a civilized conversation. I am not the enemy.

Why don't you start by explaining the following comment.

And you're damn right I'd like to find a solution to the political damage our party sustains as a result of our dishonesty on the gun violence issue!

What damage? What dishonesty? I assume you mean the Democratic Party.

[pablo_marmol]

156. "What dishonesty?"

If you have to ask, we can't possibly have an honest conversation.

As just one of countless examples, the POTUS comparing fully automatic assault rifles to semi-auto "military style" rifles. You think no political damage accrues as a result of such brazen unapologetic lies such as this?! Going after the nation's most popular rifle based on the way it looks rather than the way it functions?!?! The only honest offerings from the Democratic Party involve universal background checks - and a national database of those mentally barred from owning firearms. And even UBCs are of very questionable value given the small percentage of criminals who purchase from legit sources.

I'm looking for dialog.

I've seen enough from you to know better. Sorry, but I'm too busy to deal with disingenuous folks.

[Starboard Tack]

157. Methinks you came to the wrong party, my friend.

I'm sure you'll find lots who agree with your attacks on President Obama and the DNC across the aisle where you obviously belong. You obviously don't get it.

[Jenoch]

83. Jeremy Renner is a hypocrite for appearing in this advertisement.

Does anyone remember his role in The Town?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Town_(2010_film)


Edit:

Although Jon Hamm's role in the same film was that of an FBI agent, he also made money from a film that used gun violence as the primary plot line.

[Starboard Tack]

85. Ah, yes, the old meme that movies cause people to shoot each other.

I think if we restricted our fantasies about killing others to movies and books, the streets might be more peaceful.

[gejohnston]

88. it isn't that movies cause anyone to do anything

look up product placement.

[Starboard Tack]

89. I'm very familiar with product placement having worked in that industry for several years.

What does it have to do with this discussion?

[gejohnston]

100. then you know the effect

movies have, sometimes unintentional. No, I'm not going Tipper Gore and Wayne LaPierre. When the watch companies wanted to market wrist watches to men (who thought real men used pocket watches) they got guys like Clark Gable to wear them in the movies.
Here is what it has to do with the discussion. Back when the King Bad Ass in the movies (including Broadway) switchblades and tire chains, did street gangs get a money order and order guns from Sears? No. Legally, they could. This was before the ban on unlicensed interstate transfer or filling out any IRS or ATF forms. In fact, the IRS didn't really want to be bothered with the 1934 and 1938 laws and did as little as possible. Now, movie King Bad Ass uses SMGs that never run out of ammo.
More specifically the gun industry and non criminal use:
Single action revolvers were dead. Colt stopped making the "Peacemaker", partly because of World War 2's military production and partly being antiquated. TV westerns created demand for them. First Ruger, who started with a .22 knock off of a Nambu Type 14 started making the Blackhawk and Bearcat single action revolvers. Colt started production. A division of Beretta started making them, and still does. Then there is the Smith and Wesson model 29 and the .44 magnum round. First produced in 1955 for deer hunters and metallic silhouette shooters. That is what the .44 Magnum was intended for, and rarely sold outside of that niche.
Then a certain Clint Eastwood movie series comes along and everybody seemed to want one. Most of which, went to the range once or twice before being traded in for something more "manageable".

[Starboard Tack]

102. Sounds like you're going Tipper to me.

Are you telling me everyone wanted a .44 Magnum, or fantasized about having one and being Dirty Harry, or are you saying people acquired .44 Magnums and started emulating Harry and blowing people away?

It's called "acting". I've played assholes, doesn't mean I am one.

[gejohnston]

104. No.

it was more like "that would be cool to take to the range". Has nothing to do with assholes. The movie could have been a "what if" where Jesus found one that went through a time portal.

Tippper's thing is the movies and video games make people violent, which is why games like Grand Theft Auto are illegal in Germany.

Remember, gun culture, like the Tao can only be understood when you accept things on their own terms. You have a long way to go on this one. Now meditate some more Grasshopper, Master Kan has spoken.

[Starboard Tack]

107. Good, because I never thought movies or games were the cause of violence

Apparently some of our RKBA friends do, or they wouldn't be calling actors hypocrites for doing what actors do for a living.

[gejohnston]

109. they portray characters that trivialize violence

make it seem like killing is easy, they all play sociopaths. Remember me telling you about my brother's partner, the town's only black cop who killed the white drug dealer. The county and Wyoming DCI cleared it as a good shoot, and it was. The fact that he had to still bothers him 40 years later.

It should be more realistic like, say, Canadian cop shows. Guns are almost never used to apprehend the suspect. If it does, the story should include the investigation, the mental trauma and possible PTSD. For that reason, the only cop show that doesn't suck is Flashpoint. If they are that serious about discourage "gun violence" they should insist that those things get written in the story, and make it part of their contract.
Werner Klemperer put in his contract that his character, Oberst Klink, had to always be a buffoon and an incompetent commander. If he could do it for a 1960s sitcom, they can do it for multi million dollar movie.

[Starboard Tack]

112. Yeah, well there's that little thing called the First Amendment.

When actors start trying to change the script, they'd better have some serious clout, or they'll be back to waiting tables or tending bar in short shrift.
It's about supply and demand. If it didn't sell, the producers would invest in it. You can sell candy to some folk and drugs to others, whatever the market will bear.
I watched a Woody Allen movie tonight. I like Woody Allen. Some of his movies are good, some not so good and a few are exceptionally good and a few quite mediocre, but they are all interesting on several levels. The one I saw tonight made 3.5 million dollars at the box office. He made several like that, with great actors who would work for free, or even pay, just to work with him. Those same actors would laugh at being offered less than 3.5 million dollars each to work in some Hollywood schlock.
I don't blame actors for taking jobs, unless they are promoting hatred or something truly despicable. Very often, actors don't even know what a movie is about until it gets released. Scenes can be very isolated and seem quite innocuous on their own.

[gejohnston]

113. who said anything about government control?

BoR limits only the State, not me.

[Starboard Tack]

115. Must've been the way you used the word "should"

Maybe you could visit the studios and let them know what you think.

[gejohnston]

117. the actors themselves should

they either believe in a principle or they don't. Either way, their opinion should count the same as mine.

[Jenoch]

121. It's not about actors using guns in films

that portray gun violence in their films. It's about actors that are critical of RKBA who are actors in films that use gun violence as a vehicle to get consumers to buy their films.

[Starboard Tack]

122. I guess by that standard, every actor must be evil in some way

Or should actors only take roles depicting perfect humans who don't smoke, kill, pollute, cheat, rob or do anything at all nasty?
Portraying assholes is a big part of what acting is about. So that others may make personal decisions based on what they see.

[Jenoch]

123. Are you attempting to be obtuse on puroose?

Actors can tke any role they wish to take. I can view them as hypocrites if the roles contradict what they later espouse in real life.

[Jenoch]

92. I did not write nor did I imply that Renner's movies would cause people to

shoot anyone with a gun. I think Renner is a hypocrite for profiting from gun violence in this film.

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. Many actors talk out of both sides of their mouths when it come to gun violence

Renner is far from unique- he's also the star of "The Bourne Legacy", which is even more cartoonishly violent.

Sly Stallone is the biggest hypocrite among actors, IMO:

[Starboard Tack]

95. I'm not familiar with the film or Renner

Was it a documentary? Does your opinion of Renner, in some way, detract from the message?

[Jenoch]

97. Renner was nominated for an Oscar for his role as a bank robber.

There is extensive automatic weapons featured in the film which is ridiculous.

Renner and Jon Hamm are both in the PSA and the film The Town. They are hypocrites.

Here is a better link.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Town_%282010_film%29

[Starboard Tack]

98. OK, now I remember. Great movie.

Why are they hypocrites for being in the PSA? Because they performed in a movie? If I remember correctly, Hammplayed a Fed and Renner gets killed. Did you think the movie glorified guns and violence? I just saw it as a well directed, well acted, good all round movie.

You are aware that acting isn't real life, aren't you? I surely hope so, because Anthony Hopkins is a really nice guy. Just sayin'

[friendly_iconoclast]

101. Try Renner's "Bourne Legacy" for glorification of guns and violence

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194173/

At least "Red" had the good grace to acknowledge it was absurd and unrealistic.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

128. Never take gun control talking points from people who --

1. Live in gated communities.

2. Have armed security details

3. Make a living glorifying consequence-free violence

4. Probably keep guns for themselves