YES, THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY

[Panich52]

Daily Beast

YES, THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY

-snip-

We do indeed know there are “ways” to stop gun violence in the United States, yet we adamantly refuse to name them. The perennial “national conversation” about guns is predictably stale because its contestants—those favoring a largely unfettered right to personal gun ownership and those opposing it—are talking past each other. Prevarication characterizes the debate, as each side adheres to a core principle that, for reasons of propriety and political calculation, it is unwilling to admit publicly.

For the gun-control side, the unspoken belief is that nothing short of all out confiscation will have an appreciable effect on decreasing gun deaths. Then again, it’s not that unspoken—gun-control advocates just prefer tergiversation to clarity. Democratic candidates, officeholders, and liberal websites frequently invoke the example of Australia, for example. After a 1996 shooting rampage killed 35 people, the Australian government outlawed an array of firearms and instituted a compulsory buyback program that effectively eliminated private gun ownership. Since then, gun violence has dropped precipitously.

Rarely in American gun-control advocates’ references to the Australian policy, however, do they acknowledge that the program amounted to confiscation. ...

-snip-

Holding up Australia as a model of sensible gun policy without mentioning how that government forced its citizens to turn over their weapons is like praising Chinese population-control efforts without mentioning the one-child policy.

These advocates of gun control note the efficacy of the confiscations they only hint at while sidestepping the fact that none of the restrictive measures they explicitly endorse—banning so-called assault weapons, limiting the size of magazines, or requiring background checks on the private transfer of firearms—would have prevented these mass shootings, committed as they were by individuals using legally obtained firearms that did not fall under the definition of “assault weapon.”

-snip-

To understand why, we must first recognize the incompatible nature of the values at stake. Those advocating for stricter gun laws believe that the harm produced by private gun possession outweighs whatever benefits it entails.

More
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/02/yes-they-want-to-take-your-guns-away.html?source=socialflow&via=twitter_page&account=thedailybeast&medium=twitter

[daleanime]

1. God, the insanity....

flame away, I've learned not to brother responding.

[Eleanors38]

4. You know, I don't fear confiscation because the controllers don't have the juice...

But the approach taken by controllers continues to be prohibitionist, as per my posting below. It's a terrible fix they have gotten themselves into as Everybody knows their Man Behind the Curtain is a banner. It stops communication, it wrecks credibility, it cements-in opposition to the Democratic Party.

There is just precious little moderation in the approach of gun controller/prohibitionists.

[LonePirate]

9. And where exactly is the moderation from the side of the gundamentalists?

Gun violence is destroying lives, families, neighborhoods and whole segments of society but the gundamentalists are unwilling to even discuss or research possible solutions, let alone agree to implementing one. Yet somehow only those seeking to reduce/end the violence are deemed as lacking moderation. There is a side in this debate who is lacking in moderation but it sure isn't the side you're blaming.

[beevul]

13. Where?

And where exactly is the moderation from the side of the gundamentalists?

Where exactly is the moderation? Its in the NFA of '34, the GCA of '68, the FOPA of '86, the brady law.

You lot like to pretend that the laws that exist, do not in fact exist, so you can paint us as extremists...While pretending dishonestly to be 'moderate' yourselves, when many if not most of you are nothing of the sort. It also enables the illusion that the 'unfettered' talking point has some basis in reality, when in fact, it does not.

Gun violence is destroying lives, families, neighborhoods and whole segments of society...

Whole segments of society? And you guys wonder why you have no credibility.

Yet somehow only those seeking to reduce/end the violence are deemed as lacking moderation. There is a side in this debate who is lacking in moderation but it sure isn't the side you're blaming.

Ok. Show us how much 'moderation' you have:

How much gun control is enough?

[Eleanors38]

17. Your comment #15 is representative of extreme prohibitionism...

Because of this Widely-shared prohibitionist sentiment, it is next to impossible for Any talk (let alone proposals) which might reach concensus.

You really don't want to face your bald contradiction: You speak of "discussion" and "possible solutions," yet you lay out your position in #15. This is EXACTLY the phenomenon explained in the OP!

[LonePirate]

20. So your support of something in the Constitution is not extreme but my support is?

That's quite the logical inconsistency you have going on there. Do you only support certain pieces of the Constitution and any piece you don't agree with is extremism? That's the gist of your statement.

[Eleanors38]

21. No. Your "gist" is prohibition.

[sarisataka]

23. An intermediate point

on a path to an absolutist position s not "moderation" it is incrementalism.

You have proven the OP's point.

[LonePirate]

25. You're essentially saying incrementalism is worse than thousands of needless deaths each year.

That's an interesting belief system you hold.

[sarisataka]

26. Our justice system would get many more convictions

and therefore criminals off the street if we did away with the 5th Amendment. I don't support that.

I have posted my ideas for GC many times. If noticed by any control proponent, it s always "a good start"

Do you actually believe if you achieve your dream of an unarmed civilian population we would see such a huge drop in deaths with no increase in other crimes? Or is it just about guns?

BTW I am also opposed to the incremental slicing away of the 4th Amendment for our "security".

[LonePirate]

30. We may disagree on the need to repeal the 2A but I do respect your overall Constitution support

Many gundamentalists claim they need guns to protect them from a tyrannical government yet they remain silent when the government takes a hatchet to other parts of the Constitution. They will theoretically revolt if the 2A is even glanced at but they couldn't care less about anything else in it.

I don't want the government confiscating guns until we repeal the 2A or add a new amendment instructing the government to do just that. Until that day comes, we will have to deal with more senseless gun violence and a lack of proposed solutions from the NRA crowd.

[Panich52]

45. Firearms aren't the root problem of the violence

Even if full confiscation were to occur (and shred founders' belief in self-defense), gun violence wouldn't stop - there are just too many out there. While I can agree to some control policies, none would stop the mass shootings. And more 'individual' gun violence is rooted in poverty and other social issues.

Human beings are hundreds or thousands of years away from expressing our aggressive nature's, but the way to help curbing them is to work for a more equal society, with more altruistic goals. Reduce strife and injustice, reduce crime.

[Eleanors38]

2. The current approach by controllers IS a prohibition model...

This is clear in that there is virtually no "control" measure they don't like.

This is clear that when one measure is proposed, the refrain is: "It's a good start," "Just a beginning," etc.

This is abundantly clear due to the deepening culture war and visual caricatures promoted by controllers.

This is clear when MSM continues its little-altered ban agitprop.

__________

When a politician wants "to take a look" at the Australian approach (whose effectiveness is in question), it signals the Prohibition model is still creaking about.

[tularetom]

11. When the politician who wants to take a look at the Australian model

Is somebody as phony as Clinton I don't think there's anything to worry about.

It's nothing more than calculated primary talk to fool the prohibition crowd and it will be forgotten if she gets the nomination and needs to "broaden" her appeal.

[LonePirate]

12. Whose approach is in question? Was this meant to be satirical or do you actually believe this?

Are the Australian press and government conspiring to hide reports of weekly mass murders involving guns? You pretty much need to believe something as outlandish as that if someone thinks the Australian approach has not been effective.

[beevul]

14. Do You endorse confiscation? N/T

[LonePirate]

15. I endorse confiscation once we embed it in the Constitution.

[beevul]

16. Is that supposed to be some sort of cover...

Is that supposed to be some sort of cover for the fact that you'd see a right many tens of millions hold as important, destroyed?

At least you admit you're an extremist, and therefore anyone even remotely pro-gun is an extremist in your view.

Exhibit A: Every pro-gun regular is closer to the party platform, than you are.

[LonePirate]

18. Tens of millions may feel that right is important but tens of millions also vote Republican.

Form your own conclusions but clearly tens of millions of people can be wrong about something.

[beevul]

22. And people are just supposed to agree with you...

...tens of millions of people can be wrong about something.

And people are just supposed to agree with you, that tens of millions of Americans are wrong about guns but you're right, in spite of the fact that by any reasonable measure, and particularly by any objective measure, you're an extremist on the issue.

I've seen this before:

[LonePirate]

27. If you want to talk objectively, then people obviously don't need guns - they simply want them.

I would not be opposed to opening treatment centers to help people break their addiction to guns, just like you break an addiction to heroin.

A constitutionally enshrined confiscation might not eradicate gun violence 100%; but it is certainly one possible solution that could help with the problem and I'm willing to give it a try. The gundamentalists are not eager to implement or suggest any solutions so one can only surmise they tacitly support the problem. Some might call that extremism.

[beevul]

29. Objectively.

If you want to talk objectively, then people obviously don't need guns - they simply want them.

Yes, and you don't NEED to ban guns, you simply want to.

I would not be opposed to opening treatment centers to help people break their addiction to guns, just like you break an addiction to heroin.

Yes, and I would not be opposed to opening treatment centers to help people break their addiction to control of others, just like you break an addiction to heroin.

A constitutionally enshrined confiscation might not eradicate gun violence 100%; but it is certainly one possible solution that could help with the problem and I'm willing to give it a try.

It would create far more gun violence than it would ever eradicate.

The gundamentalists are not eager to implement or suggest any solutions so one can only surmise they tacitly support the problem. Some might call that extremism.

Just because pro-gun folks don't support YOUR solutions, doesn't mean that they don't support any solutions. It means they don't support YOUR solution.

I've got both a suggestion, and a solution for you right here:

Focus on the .1 percent that misuse guns, and leave the 99.9x percent of us that do not, alone.

[LonePirate]

31. I suppose you have a Scarlet Letter system to identify that alleged .1%, right?

Once again, you play the "woe be the gun carriers" card while simultaneously refusing to suggest any solutions of your own. Nothing new here. Fortunately the country is slowly inching its way to my side of this debate.

[beevul]

32. By behavior.

Like any other crime.

Once again, you play the "woe be the gun carriers" card while simultaneously refusing to suggest any solutions of your own.

I gave you a solution. You rejected it.

I'll give you credit for 'slightly better than sophomoric' spin, though.

Fortunately the country is slowly inching its way to my side of this debate.

You just go ahead and keep telling yourself that sparky...

[LonePirate]

33. You said to focus on the .1% but you never said how to do it. How are we to identify them?

If this group is so small, how do we locate them or tell them apart from the other 99.9%? Exactly how do we do that without violating the 4A, or is that OK so long we don't touch the 2A? Again I state, the NRA's minions have no interest in offering solutions and thus they tacitly support the violence and deaths.

[beevul]

36. No, I didn't.

You said to focus on the .1% but you never said how to do it. How are we to identify them?

No, I didn't. You identify them when they cross the line, and are charged with a crime. You don't suggest some 'minority report' sort of pre-crime thing, do you?

Again I state, the NRA's minions have no interest in offering solutions and thus they tacitly support the violence and deaths.

And I state that you and those who think as you do, have no interest in offering or accepting acceptable realistic solutions and thus tacitly support the violence and deaths.

Please, let me know when you're done throwing dull barbs and wish to actually discuss something.

[LonePirate]

37. Waiting until they cross a line really wrecks the whole prevention effort

But preventing gun violence has never been something gundamentalists and gundies support.

My side at least offers a solution. The other side doesn't like that solution and they refuse to suggest any alternatives. The other side's approach sounds a whole lot like the tactics employed by the do nothing Tea Party crowd in Congress.

[beevul]

38. Waiting until they cross a line really wrecks the whole prevention effort

Waiting until they cross a line really wrecks the whole prevention effort

For those who are interested exclusively or even primarily in gun centric solutions, yes, it does.

That's kind of the point: To thwart extremists like you.

Then again, the 'prevention effort' (assuming it really cared about deaths rather just wanting to go after guns) would go after the 2/3 of gun violence deaths which are suicide, which nobody would oppose, first...

But preventing gun violence has never been something gundamentalists and gundies support.

That's not true. Again, its your gun centric solutions which are generally not tolerable.

Please speak up if you are interested in any solutions that are not gun centric.

My side at least offers a solution. The other side doesn't like that solution and they refuse to suggest any alternatives.

No. Your side does not. Your side may as well be offering up a magic lamp with a genie in it and the promise of three wishes, because that's equally as likely to happen as a solution as what you propose is.

That's how far away from reality your 'solution' is.

[LonePirate]

40. When multiple people are murdered regularly with a knife or billy club or other object

To the extent that happens now with guns, then we can address those cases as well. Yet that doesn't happen frequently, if at all in this country. When was the last time sometime murdered a dozen people in a few minutes with a switchblade on a college campus? When did a 4 year old toddler grab his father's Louisville Slugger and bludgeon his infant sister to death with it? Please direct me to these epidemics so we can address them. You can't do that because those epidemics do not exist in this country.

Gun violence is a daily occurrence in this country, if not an hourly occurrence for some cities. The solutions from my side are gun centric because guns are the one common element in the violence and problems we are trying to prevent. Your infatuation and obsession with those death tools have apparently blinded you to this fact. The only unrealistic solution here is the one you advocate which is to do nothing - and that is not a solution at all. By refusing to contribute to finding a solution, you become part of the problem. If you don't like the solutions from my side, be it repealing the 2A, mandatory registration, mandatory gun locks and imprinting, ammo taxes or whatever, then by all means, bring your own ideas to the table. Your side never does that which leads sensible people to believe you don't care about this massive problem and you don't want the violence to decrease or end, possibly because it reinforces your irrational gun obsessions. Our society as a whole benefits tremendously if we remove all guns and that benefit greatly outweighs your fragile pysche's want to own one (or dozens).

[beevul]

41. I knew it wouldn't take long.

The solutions from my side are gun centric because guns are the one common element in the violence and problems we are trying to prevent.

No. They're gun centric because your side doesn't like guns and lays the blame on the gun. Everyone here has seen it time and time and time again, and you guys really just aren't fooling anyone anymore.

Your infatuation and obsession with those death tools have apparently blinded you to this fact.

I knew it wouldn't take long for internet tele-psychology to make its entrance. I guess you failed to divine that I haven't touched a gun in months, and haven't bought a gun in over ten years. I guess you failed to divine that I don't carry a gun or have any desire or intent to. I guess you failed to divine that I don't own any so called 'assault weapons' or have any desire to.

Tele-psychology has left the building...

The only unrealistic solution here is the one you advocate which is to do nothing - and that is not a solution at all.

That sounds a lot like you're saying that its either your way or nothing, and that you're not happy with nothing.

Your side never does that which leads sensible people to believe you don't care about this massive problem and you don't want the violence to decrease or end, possibly because it reinforces your irrational gun obsessions.

Theres tele-psychology entering the building again. He was kicked out. Security? Security!

My side doesn't agree with your conclusion of the nature of the problem, so how on earth could we agree on a solution, eh?

Our society as a whole benefits tremendously if we remove all guns and that benefit greatly outweighs your fragile pysche's want to own one (or dozens).

No, our society would not benefit at all by removing all guns, and that would become very clear in a very short time.

[benEzra]

44. Knives and clubs are used to murder four times as many people

as all rifles and all shotguns *combined*, including "assault weapons".

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2014 (FBI)

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 11,961
Handguns............................ 5,562 (46.5%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,052 (17.2%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,610 (13.5%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,567 (13.1%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 660 (5.5%)
Shotguns.............................. 262 (2.2%)
Rifles................................ 248 (2.1%) [/font]

And the trend is *down*, not up. Down by roughly 50% since the 1990s, in fact, for all categories of gun violence, despite the fact that annual gun sales have doubled over that time period. It appears that the current approach (focusing on those who actually commit crimes, and leaving the lawful and sane alone) has coincided with dramatically less violence overall.

[DonP]

19. And what are you doing personally to make that happen?

Petitions, town hall meetings, letter to the editor?

As a person committed to changing the constitution there's a lot for you to do.

Or is that just too much heavy lifting to be bothered with?

[Lizzie Poppet]

28. Then you endorse civil disruption on a vast and bloody scale.

That is, of course, the precise reason any Constitutional changes that might permit confiscation are unlikely ever to happen and why any concerted attempt to carry out confiscation will never happen. The oligarchy will never permit it. Civil war is simply awful for business...

[jmg257]

34. Would you please take a guess at what percentage of gun owners would fight/kill

to try to keep possession of their guns.

Just really curious about this - how many people would be willing to kill/die/become criminals for that reason.


Would you be willing to kill/die to protect your ownership?

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Impossible to say, really.

The overwhelming majority that I've ever heard mention the matter say they would. But the majority of folks claim they'd step in to prevent a street crime, too...and people seldom do. My guess is that at first, no, most would not...but when news of people actually doing so (and dying) became widespread, that's when you'd really get an idea of how it would fall out. My W.A.G. is that those who ended up resisting would be a minority, but a very large one.

I'd also predict that an even larger percentage of the military (the only entity remotely capable of trying to enforce confiscation) would refuse to fire on American citizens to enforce such a law. Lest we forget, today's military has taken an alarmingly conservative turn and I have no doubt the majority are strongly in favor of civilian gun ownership.

[Lurks Often]

50. I think a majority of states would actively resist any such attempt

In this hypothetical situation where the Federal government decides to seize all guns, those in favor of such a seizure never seem to have answer on what will happen when the majority of states and the majority of law enforcement agencies refuse to comply and decide to actively prevent Federal law enforcement from trying to seize the guns. Hell that even presumes the majority of the rank & file Federal law enforcement would go along with seizing guns.

[jmg257]

53. Thanks (and Lizzy too). I didn't think of state reactions, etc. vs individuals.

Seems maybe eventually someone will try it - maybe at a state level, and see how it goes?

[Lurks Often]

58. Unlikely, states recognize it would never hold up to judicial scrutiny

And we're back to my previous post, what happens when the majority of law enforcement in a state refuse to enforce the law? Some county sheriff department's in NY, CO and WA have all publicly refused to enforce state laws passed by their respective state legislatures. Connecticut doesn't have county sheriffs, so it is harder to gauge whether the state and local police departments would actively enforce CT law, but what little I have heard suggests that the rank & file police feel the same as the NY, CO, WA sheriff departments.

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. There might be an answer to that in the drug wars.

The Feds occasionally elect to clamp down on medical marijuana sellers and growers. I suspect that with more states legalizing recreational weed (like my home state of Oregon), you'll see some Fed raids there, as well. But they're few and far between, as the Feds have limited manpower and get no cooperation from local authorities (who have no jurisdiction to enforce federal law when there is no corresponding state statute). They're token busts, basically.

It would likely prove to go the same way for gun confiscation: some token confiscations for PR purposes at most...at least in states where confiscation is opposed and no corresponding state law is enacted. If the Federal push is more aggressive, well...I suspect they'll have recruiting problems in short order.

[Lurks Often]

69. Perhaps, may even see some state actively prevent Federal law enforcement

from enforcing and federal gun control laws*


*For the purposes of the discussion, it is a hypothetical law that has not been passed yet, such as confiscation of all semi-auto rifles and pistols.

[Panich52]

48. Prohibitions never turn out well

Restricting natural rights was never an intended aim of the Constitution's authors. The one time it was tried, led to organized crime and a major increase in violent criminal activity.

Attempts at confiscation by any means will lead to civil war.

[Fred Sanders]

62. Gun lovers, like most lovers, will do anything to protect the beloved....that is clear enough.

Although why the gun is SO beloved amounts to a fetish involving an inamnate object is just plain creepy.

Time for some deep therapy, which begins with separating the lover from the object of unnatural desire causing the madness.

It is Gun Love Therapy 101 as taught the world by Australians.

[gejohnston]

63. actually by the Venzualians

Australia has more privately owned guns now than before, even legal ones.

[liberal N proud]

3. Does this sound like taking your beloved away from you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172179656

[beevul]

5. No, that sounds like a false, flawed, and misleading premise. N/t

[beevul]

6. In other news...

Water has been found to be wet.

[ileus]

7. Without reading the OP; Is/Was there ever any doubt?

[Fred Sanders]

8. .....snip....snip...sniping logic from the debate is of course all the gun lovers have to work with.

The successful Australian gun retrieval experience with zero "loss of Liberty" is a tough fact to try to hide with lies and deception.

[krispos42]

43. "gun retrieval experience"

Confiscation.

Say it.


"Con-fiss-kay-shun".




Say, how much liberty did you lose from the NSA surveillance program? Er, programs.

[jmg257]

54. I read in one description about Australia that a registration period

preceded the compulsory buy-back.

Is that true?

[virginia mountainman]

46. "Australian gun retrieval experience"

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have a feeling those 4 words will be making many repete appearances here on this fine forum.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. always happy to oblige

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=180477

[jmg257]

10. Makes sense - the only way to drastically reduce levels of gun-related crime/violence is to

somehow drastically reduce the number of guns.

Different forms of gun violence/crime COULD be targeted & possibly impacted slightly by more narrow means, but overall such measures would be limited in their affects.

In the mean time both sides will just keep pissing each other off without making any real impact.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Maybe some posters would help --

[Fred Sanders]

47. Reduce the number of guns is indeed the only solution now....control the guns by not having them!

What a concept! So good an idea the Australians tried it.....and it worked just as logic predicted....less guns, less gun violence...what a concept!

We ARE coming for your guns, gun lovers, at least the ones after the first Precious.

Logic is a cruel and demanding mistress.....worth it if you love her.

[jmg257]

55. Now THAT'S "Common-Sense" control!

Some might not think it so reasonable though!

[GGJohn]

61. I don't know where he gets this we,

according to him, he's a Canadian citizen.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. How do you propose to get the 20-25% of the population that own guns to acquiesce?

You lot make quite a business about how "inevitable" gun seizures are, but never do
quite mention how you propose to go about it...

[GGJohn]

60. Who is this we?

I thought you were a Canadian citizen?
So how can you be part of the we?

Anyway, it's irrelevant, there is no "We ARE coming for your guns, gun lovers"

[Elmergantry]

24. if you dont like abortion dont have one

If you dont like guns dont own one.

[ileus]

42. Isn't it obvious???

[DonCoquixote]

51. There will be only one thing to damped USA gin love

And that is having large numbers of minorities buy gun permits.

Now before you do a double take, ponder this: The Red states that are so busy trying to enforce Voter Id laws (and cut funding that would give access to said ids, like our friends in Alabama have) accept Gun permits. If said states were to have to stop accepting Gun Permits, than the NRA would get mad. So,l we would kill two birds with one stone:ensure people could vote, and piss the Good Ol Boys off. Not like the state could restrict the issue of gun permits to certain areas; every two bit one horse town will have access, and the cops and politicos will not dare shut them down

After all, let us not dent that a large reason why Gun ownership is sacred is because the idea of people with a certain skin complexion being armed well enough to scare people into obedience is sacred, from the guy who cannot get the sex he feels due him shooting a bunch of co eds, to some loyal employee shooting up their office, to a scared wanna be cop getting to "stand his ground" and pretend he did not enjoy shooting a black teenager. It is a glorified addiction, and the only way to kill addictions is not to ban them, but make them uncool and undesirable, and once many of these fine folk realize that they will have to get in line with a bunch of people they do not like, when they realize that these people do not like are just as well versed in Gun law, then they will realize owning a gun is not the way to enjoy the power their beloved "founding fathers" enjoyed.

Yes, I know, most juries will never let someone without the right skin complexion employ stand your ground. The Klan could be burning a cross on someone's lawn, and lo and behold the jury would convict the homeowner for firing a warning shot to scare them off, but once gun ownership and the rights this country gives gun owners is no longer a bastion of yes, privilege, it will stop being cool.

[DonP]

52. The Huey Newton Gun club would really like you as a guest speaker next month

Lets ignore that three of the more recent high profile shooting events were by minorities. (Umpqua college, the Virginia TV crew shooting, DC Navy Yard)

We'll also overlook the inherent racism and massive stereotyping you seem to enjoy in most of your assumptions.

The majority (72%) of concealed carry permits issued in the first 6 months of availability in Illinois were to minorities in Chicago. The only people concerned about it was the white police superintendent and the Cook County Sheriff, also white. Not other gun owners or the NRA. In fact some of us teach free and reduced price classes to make sure the poor in Chicago have a choice to carry too.

In fact of the 4 cases in 2 years where a concealed carrier used their gun lawfully, 3 were by minorities.

Why don't you take your "Bubba" and other stereotypes somewhere else where they'll applaud your massive fails.

[Fred Sanders]

56. Gun love is unquenchable...you have to take away the object of the love.....the gun.

They'll get over it....maybe take up archery.

[beevul]

59. Gun hate is unquenchable, you mean...you have to take away the object of the hatred.....the gun

They'll get over it....maybe take up needlepoint.

[benEzra]

64. Ummm, check your prejudices.

" There will be only one thing to damped USA gin (sic) love and that is having large numbers of minorities buy gun permits. "

At last, something we can agree on! Minorities and the working class should have the same right to possess and carry guns as Wall Street oligarchs and CEOs, and their bodyguards.

More of this!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-black-guns-nra-20130723-dto-htmlstory.html

FWIW, here's the Chicago homeowner who fought for the right of Chicago residents to be able to lawfully own handguns and obtain carry licenses even if they weren't rich or politically connected. He won , finally bringing the right within the reach of law-abiding working class minorities.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-04-06/news/ct-otis-mcdonald-obituary-met-20140406_1_gun-ban-illinois-state-rifle-association-gun-rights

And gun owners' groups backed him financially and cheered him on, and celebrated when he won the Second Amendment back for ALL peaceable residents of Chicago. Here is Mr. McDonald posing with a framed copy of his picture on the cover of the NRA magazine...which they captioned "Victory in Chicago".



FYI, it is wealthy white corporate oligarchs funding the fight against minorities owning guns, and the broader fight to limit armed self-defense to corporations and elites. Gun owners as a group are a whole lot more egalitarian than the "guns for CEOs, not workers"' types. It was also gun owner groups who fought for the mostly-black residents of New Orleans who had their guns stolen by rogue law enforcement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and they won there as well.

Gun control advocates, on the other hand, have long advocated for means testing to prevent the poor from owning guns, and have explicitly demanded tighter gun control on ethnic minorities (from NY's Sullivan Act, to Jim Crow purchase permits and discretionary licensure, to requiring exorbitant fees and other means testing to exercise the right). It was gun control advocates who demanded and defended warrantless searches of homes in majority-black housing to confiscate guns from peaceable black residents, and it was gun-owner groups who got that stopped.

[DonP]

65. RIP Otis McDonald - Good Man

A retired janitor and Army veteran who had enough of the gangs and threats to him and his wife and just wanted to be able to own a handgun in his own home (like all the connected, rich aldermen did), Otis now has a solid place in legal history.

He was also one of the nicest, easiest going guys I ever met. He was always surprised when people recognized him and wanted to shake his hand.

[Duckhunter935]

67. A very good man indeed

[flamin lib]

70. Fuck Australia. Implement the Hawaii system nationwide. nt