New Yorker magazine has an interesting article about history of 2nd amendment, NRA and gun control

the Second Amendment issue is the right to to "bear" arms

qualifies under the 2nd then?

From independence from England to "Go shoot someone. It's okay".Sponsored by the NRA.

...you figure out how to use labels other than "gun nuts" if you really desire civil discussion. Otherwise you just prove you have no interest in this topic. Thoughtfulness, you should try that...

Pick your own label.

...if you please

...pro-rights vs. pro-control.

...to assign labels unlike you Hoyt. Don't you have other things to worry about, say somebody strapping things on and going into public...

got those links yet?

At least he is in good company , besides it has to be less work then thinking. It saves that step of painful cognitive awareness where you realize you are certainly *not* the center of the universe.

Truly disgusting.

issues that have little to do with the Constitution or what the Founding Fathers meant. The 2nd does state "the people", not every person. Now we have people thinking that it is a civil right. Then all this gets even better when the same right-wing scholars push the 1st Amendment to equate money with speech. So, now, by the same logic, Foreign countries have a 1st Amendment Right to donate large sums of money into American politics. Have yet to hear our local neo-civil rights experts on the 2nd push for this extension of the 1st. It's only a matter of time.
Then the message becomes individual restrictions on the possession of handguns in public is a restriction on minorities, meaning urban Black folks. The same people that push this idea bemoan the fact that those same minorities elect urban mayors, that follow their constituents wishes to reduce the number of handguns on the streets of their own cities. They are all for civil rights, except when it comes to self governance of minorities. They are all for the right of self defense, just not self governance. Can't have it both ways. If you think Scalia and company are the true defenders of the 2nd, you just about have to agree with them on the 1st.
I'm more in favor of state and local restrictions. What works in Bum Fuck Texas, may not be appropriate or work in NY city or other large, high density urban areas.
I'm more willing to look at gun rights and the Second Amendment as varying shades of gray, not black and white. The zealots on both sides seem to have problems with the nuance of laws and rights.

The 2nd does state "the people", not every person. Now we have people thinking that it is a civil right.

Name one right that the people can exercise that individuals cannot also exercise.

Then all this gets even better when the same right-wing scholars push the 1st Amendment to equate money with speech. So, now, by the same logic, Foreign countries have a 1st Amendment Right to donate large sums of money into American politics. Have yet to hear our local neo-civil rights experts on the 2nd push for this extension of the 1st. It's only a matter of time.

Not sure what this has to do with the second amendment, but anyway, I am strongly against corporate personhood and it is one of the reasons I am active in the Occupy movement.

Corporate money should not equal speech. I have no problem with groups of people unionizing together and contributing and pooling their money as individuals to further a cause, but I have a big problem with corporations having this same right, because invariably they have massive treasuries that give them a far, far, far more powerful voice than the people could ever have.

If corporations want speech, then the people that belong to that corporation, and its shareholders, can all individually exercise their free speech.

What works in Bum Fuck Texas, may not be appropriate or work in NY city or other large, high density urban areas

I reject this notion as being hugely paternalistic. Basically what you are saying is that the people in urban areas just can't be trusted with firearms the way people in Bum Fuck Texas can. That is hugely insulting.

The crime rates that are common in big urban areas (with strict gun control, I might add) are not due to large populations of mythical savage, uncivilized minorities unable to responsibly own guns. It's because urban areas have extreme poverty, poor schools, few opportunities, and attract an active drug trade which seem to provide an opportunity out of poverty.

Moreover, the right of self-defense should not be up for a vote, any more than women's suffrage should be up for a vote.

"I reject this notion as being hugely paternalistic. Basically what you are saying is that the people in urban areas just can't be trusted with firearms the way people in Bum Fuck Texas can. That is hugely insulting."

That is the opposite of what I said. I think the radical gun rights folks that post on this forum feel pretty paternalistic in their complaints about urban mayors that were elected by the PEOPLE. Be it NY, Chicago or DC, I've never heard a good word about them and guess what, those folks elected them. They, as a group, tend to support more regulations on handguns because that is what the people that elected them support. If not, they would not have voted for them.

The right of self-defense is not the problem. It's the availability of handguns. Laws about the sale of unregistered handguns and possession by criminals can well be voted on by the elections of mayors that support what the majority feel would be safe. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that would prohibit the registration of and requirement of mandatory background checks on sales of handguns. In fact the wording, "well regulated", almost calls out for it.

Way to put words in my mouth


That is the opposite of what I said.

Here is what you said:

What works in Bum Fuck Texas, may not be appropriate or work in NY city or other large, high density urban areas

Now why would what works in Bum Fuck Texas not work in NY City or other high-density urban area? Why can't the people of NY City responsibly own firearms just like they do in Bum Fuck Texas?

The implication is that they can't, and I reject that. They can. The difference between Bum Fuck Texas and New York City is not the ability of the people living there, it is the huge gang and drug presence. Gun control isn't going to do anything to affect that any more than drug prohibition does.

I think the radical gun rights folks that post on this forum feel pretty paternalistic in their complaints about urban mayors that were elected by the PEOPLE. Be it NY, Chicago or DC, I've never heard a good word about them and guess what, those folks elected them. They, as a group, tend to support more regulations on handguns because that is what the people that elected them support. If not, they would not have voted for them.

Should the people of California be able to vote away the rights of gay people to get married, as they did with Proposition 8? It's what the voters wanted, right?

The right of self-defense is not the problem. It's the availability of handguns.

Actually, it's drugs that is the problem. I bet you 80% or more of the firearm-related crime in these urban areas is gang and/or drug related.

Laws about the sale of unregistered handguns and possession by criminals can well be voted on by the elections of mayors that support what the majority feel would be safe. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that would prohibit the registration of and requirement of mandatory background checks on sales of handguns. In fact the wording, "well regulated", almost calls out for it.

Except it is the militias that were supposed to be well-regulated, not the people.

But that is academic. MacDonald vs. Chicago incorporated the second to the states, which greatly limits how much the states are going to be able to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Seriously, Bum Fuck, Texas? Why not Bum Fuck, New York or California or Maryland?

on your side about Black people electing mayors escapes you? I don't see any civil rights marches in large cities protesting the lack of guns. When that happens you can start using your ALEC talking point about gun legislation being anti-minority.

In the cities you have your choice of anti-gun Republican or anti-gun Democrat. It would be interesting if someone who was moderately pro-gun or agnostic were to run.

" MacDonald vs. Chicago incorporated the second to the states, which greatly limits how much the states are going to be able to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms."
Same Justices that decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Also changed 200 years of court decisions on a settled matter on what is speech.

Back to the article, now how much did ALEC and the NRA spend on right wing think tanks to come up with all of those talking points?

These are my opinions. If someone else happened to be correct, I'm not surprised.

Citizens United was the logical extension of earlier corporate person-hood decisions. It upheld other shitty decisions. Or at least that is how Thom Hartmann explains it.

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

McDonald on the other hand, overturned what was left of Cruikshank (parts of it started being overturned since the 1930s). Cruikshank and Presser were both really "states rights" decisions that had nothing to do with a "well regulated militia"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

The Second Amendment has little to nothing to do with personal self defense. It is about "Standing Armies" and nothing else. Like him, I think the Switzerland model is the only way to conform to the Second Amendment. At least it would be a start.

So according to you and Thom Hartmann, the SCOTUS, POTUS, and most constitutional scholars are incorrect about the definition of the 2A?
I think I'll stick with the above opinions and not some TV personality or yours for that matter.

there would be way less need to carry for protection. Their laws make it much less likely a felon would have a hand gun, plus there are fewer gun crimes. I don't have a CCW because I love guns and just want to carry one. I hardly ever carry anyway as I feel safe enough in most of the time.
I'll bet you can find just as many constitutional scholars that agree with Thom or have opinions that reflect the first 200 years, where all agreed with the 2nd being a collective right.
I go places that don't allow concealed handguns all the time. The mall, post office, church and government buildings and don't feel naked because I'm not armed. My guess is that if there was zero danger of being attacked by an armed person, you'd still want to carry.

In the first century there were lots of places that required you to leave your gun or check it when you went into town. This was much closer to the writing of the Constitution and yet there does not seem to be any 2nd Amendment cases that challenged those rules.

Now if you want to challenge any of Hartman's quotes and writings of those that wrote the Constitution, I'm listening.

On the other hand I am more than willing to let states and local governments write their own laws on the purchase and possession of handguns. If Waco Texas wants a different law than Chicago, that is fine with me. I'd be more than willing to see an end of a standing army and we adopt the same system of Switzerland as they have a history of not getting involved in Iraq, Vietnam or Afghanistan. Switzerland is also a great example of a country with lots of guns and a very low gun crime rate.

he also misunderstands the "wild west myth" and rugged individualism. There were probably more concealed carriers (or toters) in the eastern cities and Europe at that time than in places like Wyoming and New Mexico. The reasons had more to do with middle and upper middle classes fearing the serfs of the industrial era. The west had stronger sense of community.
The Swiss model would save us a shit load of money that can be used for useful things like national healthcare, equal school funding, better social mobility, all of which would be more effective in making a safer society. Europe had much of that even before they had strict gun laws. They were also just as less violent as they are now.

behind the adoption of the 2nd Amendment.

a lot. That said, when did the SCOTUS ever support the collective rights theory? One that is independent of "states rights" (that the BoR is only as good as the state you live in.) You mentioned "states rights" that also applied to the first and 14th Amendments. True, that was not the case of Miller, which both sides claim as their victory. Miller, most likely, did not actually didn't do anything other than not overturning NFA.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

before that it was considered a collective right because it is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause. That should answer the questions posed by many here, why is the right to bear arms the only right that......"


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

Late 20th century commentary
In the latter half of the 20th century there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[105] The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”).
Three basic competing models were offered to interpret the Second Amendment:[106]

The first, known as the "states' rights" or "collective rights" model, was that the Second Amendment did not apply to individuals; rather, it recognized the right of a state to arm its militia.
The second, known as the "sophisticated collective rights model", held that the Second Amendment recognized some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by members of a functioning, organized state militia while actively participating in the organized militia’s activities.
The third, known as the "standard model", was that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.
Under both of the collective rights models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[107] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[108] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[109]
Under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example—one of many reasons for the amendment.[20] This interpretation was consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[110]
The question of a collective rights versus an individual right was progressively resolved with the 2001 Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson, in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. Chicago. All of those rulings upheld the individual rights model when interpreting the Second Amendment. In Heller, the Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.[111] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such constructions were widely used elsewhere.[112]

Just like "person hood of corporations" was never accepted until a law clerk inserted it in the very early 20th century, individual right of the 2nd has been adopted in the late 20th century.

McDonald was incorporation, two entirely different concepts. Before incorporation, the view was that the BoR only limited federal government, but not a state government. In other words, a state was free to establish a religion, ban free speech, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


The first handgun ban being overturned based on 2A was not Heller. Heller was the SCOTUS, but in 1845, the Georgia supreme court over turned its 1837 ban using the federal 2A.

Your point about corporate person hood is really moot because of the open corruption (as in handing out cash on the house floor) before the early 20th century.

"The Nunn opinion concluded by holding that the state legislature's ban on concealed carrying was valid because it did not interfere with a citizen's Second Amendment right; but insofar as the law "contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. . ." Since the indictment did not specify that Mr. Nunn's weapon was concealed, the charges were quashed."

Please go ahead.

but the banned weapons already owned were grandfathered (kind of like "prohibited" weapons in Canada, or "assault weapons" during the AWB) but could not be carried concealed, but had to be open carried.
It was a crime only if Mr. Nunn concealed a prohibited weapon.

is not a constitutional right according to the case you cited?

Even Scalia in his majority opinion in the Chicago case said that the right to buy and possess a firearm is for the home only and that other restrictions can be applied by the state.

if it was a legal weapon, then it could be concealed.
Scalia needs to look up "bear" (not the animal). In other words you are saying Illinois law is equally as constitutional as Vermont's (and everyone else in between)? Or are you saying that Vermont's lack of law is unconstitutional?
I think May issue states and Illinois should close the oligarch loophole.

It is merely an attempt to dismiss your opponents argument without discussion.

repeatedly on a liberal site, it's source becomes important to the members of that community.

Often that means that a person realizes that the point defeats them and they are trying to dodge it.

or the NRA, and it is not true.

BTW, why would ALEC give a shit? I am guessing none of them really researched the French Revolution.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/13/nra-weakened-gun-control-laws?newsfeed=true
The NRA, working alongside like-minded conservative groups such as Alec, the American Legislative Exchange Council, has developed sophisticated lobbying networks designed to push back gun controls both at the federal and state level.
Here are key areas where the gun lobby has either pushed laws that weaken controls or blocked laws intended to tighten loopholes:

then there are the ones mentioned in the article in the first post here.

In 1986, the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment achieved new legal authority with the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which repealed parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act by invoking “the rights of citizens . . . to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.” In an interview, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

ALEC's support of SYG laws have now ended up costing them sponsors and a closer look at that "non-profit" standing by the IRS. As many articles in the last few days have exposed ALEC's part, in conjunction with the NRA in promoting talking points.

and has number of problems. One of which it inaccurately describes the Tiahart Amendment. Did you miss this:

all they did was copy and paste a MAIG press release or two.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=31107
So what's next, a Judith Miller article about Iraqi atomic bombs?

to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.”

I'm going with Thom Hartman, he doesn't belong to either group and gives an accurate interpretation of 18th Century thought with his quotes of the founding Fathers.

by the Joyce Foundation and was a board member of HCI. In other words, Bogus was projecting. The name fits.
Actually, Thom was a member of the NRA until last year. Why? Have to ask him.

cited him and he is a contributor to DU. Impeccable source for DU.

he was an NRA member. I mentioned it a couple of times, but I forget his exact reasoning.
I agree with Thom about 80-90 percent of the time, but nobody and nothing is impeccable.

Your side lost. 2A is an individual right. Live with it.

case. I find fault with both.

You routinely make anti-gun posts so I can accurately say that your side lost in Heller and in McDonald. I have never taken a side in that other decision. It is something that I don't really have an interest in.

guilt by association thing going. Kind of like infamous dictators and vegetarians, or promiscuous alcoholics and great UK prime ministers.

A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004

Wrong, semiautomatic weapons were not banned. Only certain features.

In many states, to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer you need a permit, which requires you to complete firearms-safety training, not unlike driver’s education.

Only a handful of states have this requirement and even fewer of them require any kind of class to apply for the permit. Some of these state waive the permit if the person hold a CCW permit in that state.

...are largely impotent in that respect since they do little more than complain on the internet. Lots of talk, little walk.

I mean besides sitting in front of a keyboard and bitching and moaning about it.

so I am going to keep asking him. Do you have a problem with that?
If so, take it up with Hoyt and tell him to provide the links I've asked him for.

...only exists within the narrow confines of your skull Hoyt.

A lot of right wing carriers still think he is a poster boy.

..you have trouble forming a credible argument against anything in this group. You better leave the higher-order thinking, like psycho-analysis, to those far better qualified......

actually thinks.

...actually does think. Taking an extra level of precaution always requires more forethought than those that don't.

This is the only type of "toter" I have ever seen. I sure could carry a whole bunch of guns in this toter

http://www.toter.com/

Martin's death has given you a shiny new way of smearing other members here, and the way you use that kid's blood is fucking disgusting. People disagreeing with you online = Zimmerman to you? Really? Grow the fuck up.

"Zimmerman" is a term that everyone is famaliar with that expresses where we are with respect to guns in our society. Sorry you don't like it. Howsabout those that strap a gun on before venturing into public, and/or promote more guns in society, grow up.

... You're seeing things that aren't there.

What you responded to was:

"Assault weapon" is the term defined by the legislation itself, so the statement you call "wrong" was right by definition.

I'm sure somebody thought you were making sense, though.

not the manufacture, none of it was banned. Only features which supposedly made them "assault weapons" was banned. But then most of those legislators had no clue what they were trying to ban. And any weapon that was already in existance was grandfathered in so again, no ban.

You seem to be arguing something completely different from what the poster I replied to said.

But hey yeah, those stupid, stupid Democrats in Congress, eh? Shame on them for being so stupid. Why do people elect stupid Democrats??



I know somebody would like to pretend my question is something other than sarcastic, because I have seen that trick multiple times in this forum, so I'll just say: have a picnic.

vast majority of Republicans in the House, including the current Ohio Governor, and all but two GOP senators.


Shelby, Helms, Faircloth, Thurmond, Lott were/are racists.
Coats, Nickles, McConnell are stupid
Simpson is an asshole
All Republican, all voted for the "AWB"

the last time it was introduced, the sponsors were Republican, and I really doubt it was for public safety. If the Dems would have fallen for it, we would be one heart attack away from Sarah Palin with the "football". I find that a hell of a lot more dangerous than ARs at Wal Mart.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6257

Except for this, from the link re the bill:


Huh. Now where have I seen that before ...


Fixed formatting.

that was the list of Republican senators (all but two) that voted for the AWB. Some of them were some really despicable assholes on other issues. The short list below were what some of them were most known for.
The House Republicans also voted for it. It was not a party line split. There were the same number of "no" votes of each side. One was a progressive Dem.

A lot of Democrats voted for it. And some very loud negative comments were made about them in the post I replied to.

I've never said that all Republicans are despicable individuals, except of course for the really insurmountable problem that each individual Republican contributes to the Republican hive. There are some damned despicable Democrats. I just wouldn't go saying what was said about that mass of Democrats, myself.

all but two Republicans voted for it, including some of the most despicable racist assholes like Trent Lott, Jessie Helms, and Strom Thurmond. The worst of the worst Republicans voted for it.
All but two or three Democrats voted for it. One of the Dems was a good progressive.
Trent Lott publicly said "the country would be a better place if Thurmond would have been elected president." Thurmond's presidential campaign speeches included gems like this:

Helms was not better.

Al Simpson is not a racist or a homophobe, but hates Social Security and just kind of an asshole.

I seldom do get the point of or reason for your posts.

Try reading the post I initially replied to and following the thread of thought.

the Republicans that voted for it were among the worst of the worst. If you would have read the short list below, you would have figured it out. It seems that as long as some reactionary or racist takes a stand against "gun militants" they are some how less despicable in your book. That is the point I got from post 126.

I at no point said anything about the Republicans who supported the legislation; I assume they were reflecting their constituents' wishes at the time. I did not say I find them "less despicable" than I would otherwise, so please don't pretend I said or thought that. I didn't and don't.

My point was that coming here and saying nasty, stupid things about a large group of elected Democrats -- Democrats supported the legislation -- because of their support for a piece of legislation that is then misrepresented, to boot, isn't really the best way to approach posting at Democratic Underground.

site:www.democraticunderground.com "assault weapons ban"

https://www.google.ca/search?num=30&hl=en&safe=off&complete=0&site=webhp&source=hp&q=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+%22assault+weapons+ban%22&oq=site%3Awww.democraticunderground.com+%22assault+weapons+ban%22

I get 68,800 results. Have a party. You can liven it up by counting the tombstoned gun militant posters, and the, er, gun enthusiasts still with us, you find using the term.

The term in question, "assault weapon", was DEFINED in the legislation. It means exactly what it is stated to mean in the legislation. It would be foolish NOT to use the term when discussing the legislation.

The legislation instituted a BAN with exceptions. Most people don't find it reasonable to talk about, say, the "assault weapons ban with exceptions". Most bans have exceptions. Really.

I've never heard such silliness, even after all these years in this place.

...you still seem to reserve your best just for this group. The term in question is a non-technical term that was defined only by the technically challenged twits that wrote and/or supported that legislative abortion.

...is showing again. That statement in the article was wrong, the author of that article was wrong, and now you are wrong.



I'm sure you thought you had a point to make here. Snork.

should be pretty apparent.

Did ya check out gejohnston's lnk? Here ya go:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6257


Look at all familiar?

I can make it nice and big if you like.

Or just remind you of what you said, in case you've forgotten:


Maybe you should take your issue up with the Republican who apparently authored that bill.

Doesn't your head just hurt?

A ban with exceptions. Does that make you happy?

my lack of interest in your opinion ...

Yet here you are with your wall of words, again. Let me give you the help here you seem to so desperately need in figuring out the proper context of my original post.


Let's examine what the legislation ACTUALLY says in its title.

SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Emphasis mine the bolded part. Notice it doesn't say "ban". And you'll further notice, when you go read the bill for yourself, that the word "ban" doesn't show up anywhere in the section concerning "assault weapons". "Ban" is only mentioned concerning ammunition magazines with more than a 10rd magazine (except restriction would also have been a more accurate term). So if the author of that article had said "A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of pee-pee pants scary high-capacity ammunition feeding devices, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004" then that would have been more accurate. I would take up the issue with idiotic politicians on both sides that supported this worthless piece of legislation in the first place. I would but I really don't need to since they were beaten by their own lack of technical understanding when manufactures "violated the spirit of the law", whatever that was. Their whining considerably humorous because if they felt the "spirit" of the law was some sort of ban then they should have flat out stated that in the legislation. The anti-gunners apparently learned that lesson, albeit far too late, upon later attempts to revive that legislative turd and liberally used the word "ban" to make extra sure their desire was understood.


Nope, my head doesn't hurt. It gets a pretty decent dosage of endorphins because of the laughter your posts induce.

and have done since long, long before you were incarnated here at DU.

I have always found the squawking of the gun militant brigade here and elsewhere on this subject to be quite amusing. To hear them, you'd think that all those stupid, stupid politicians really were intending to ban bayonet lugs. They don't seem to realize how very stupid they themselves look when they try to portray a whole group of really very intelligent people as being dumb as a sack of toters. I mean taters.

I plan to continue to do so.

Meanwhile, I shall continue to be charmed by your own efforts in this regard:


as if gun control advocates were the bed-wetters in the crowd ...

...by demonstrating that you "actually know all about the ol'AWB" Anytime you're ready. Really.

They don't seem to realize how very stupid they themselves look when they try to portray a whole group of really very intelligent people as being dumb...

Really very intelligent people who don't know shit about what they legislate against, or for depending on your POV. Really very intelligent people would know what the hell they were talking about if they were really very intelligent. Sorry, they were really very dumb when it came to this particular subject and their repeat failures since the ol'AWB expired hasn't helped. Why you like these particular folks is beyond me. Well, not really...

as if gun control advocates were the bed-wetters in the crowd ...

They are. I hope that the cost rubber bed sheets is covered in their compensation. Few cases of Depends wouldn't hurt either.

FTFY

The 2A is never mentioned. The NRA is listed in the key words but also not mentioned in the article.


Back to your questions:
I started shooting at 15. By the time I got to college I was fairly good, competitively speaking. I made the Varsity and ROTC teams for four years. My only involvement with the NRA is having instructors involved with the NRA. I learned to various skills including reloading. I've reloaded a lot of .30-06. Maybe you could highlight what aspect of personal history you're looking for.

I have no idea what the Cincinnati thing is.

Story about a school shooting.

ETA: Apparently I'm not able to see the links to the other pages. Browser issue.

You said "The 2A is never mentioned. The NRA is listed in the key words but also not mentioned in the article. "

Both the 2nd and NRA are mentioned many times. Why would you flat out lie about reading it?

...this is more than one page and I wasn't able to read past the first page. (maybe a browser problem)
The first page does not mention the NRA or the 2A.

I cannot comment on what I can't see.

What I did see was an article written with a poor ratio of fact to emotion. Rather common for pro-control writing.

way through for insight. Some people, like you, don't want your set beliefs challenged I guess.

Sorry I'm not up to your standards. I used to be a Republican.

So what do you think keeps those Republicans as they are? Could it be the warm welcome they get when discussing opposing ideas from "some people" like you?

Well, have a nice night anyhow.

He already stated he thought he was having a browser problem and you skipped right over that and accused him. Why?

He said the article was biased and also said they didn't mention the NRA when he knew he didn't read the article because of browser problems. How can you have an opinion when you didn't even read 1/2 of the article?

discntnt_irny_srcsm (1,869 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

45. Apparently...

...this is more than one page and I wasn't able to read past the first page. (maybe a browser problem)
The first page does not mention the NRA or the 2A.

I cannot comment on what I can't see.

This tells me that he didn't know at the time that there was more to the article than just one page. This tells me he thought he read the entire article until later he saw that there was more and he apparently had a browser problem. He voiced his opinion on what he thought was the entire article.

You only have two hands, so owning more than one gun does nothing except for backup. Switzerland has the highest armed civilians. One person doesn't own a 100 guns. 100 people own a gun. The also have a lower crime rate than the US of A. Damn stupid shit statistics this New Yorker magazine has and more of it on the internet and now D.U.

Just like there are different bicycles for different purposes.

I'll own as many as I want and can afford. no-one else has any say in the matter as long as I don't break any laws pertaining to them.

doesn't mean that you will then live on the most heavily armed block in the world.

but darned if I know what it was....

the extreme right does.

Your complete and utter disregard to facts with the " I don't understand your point or you have no point ". Way to go.

Inability or unwillingness to explain your point or intent may be a winning strategy in some culture, somewhere, but not this one.

Good luck with that.

Example
City block
200 homes
1 house has a 1000 guns
All the rest have none
Vs
200 homes
Each has 5 guns

Which is the most heavily armed block?


Guns don't fire on their own.

I think what was throwing me off was this: "100 people own a gun."

You seemed to be indicating that 100 people shared ownership of a single firearm.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

1000 guns sitting in a pile with no one around kills no one.
One person with a 1000 guns only has two hands.
1000 people each with a gun is something to reckon with.

So one person on a block with 200 guns vs a block with 200 people each with a gun is more menacing.

The statistics that America is the most heavily armed is bogus to me. As I stated in Switzerland, most own a gun and are highly trained (military style) in its use. I would consider them more heavily armed.

Now for some other interesting info

2009 FBI murder statistics
Murders total – 13636
Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%) Unknown??? Are they phasers or something....LOL
Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)


52.94% were from known firearms
47.06% were from unknown and not from firearms

Only a idiot would think if guns were removed that the percentages of non firearm murders would not skyrocket.

Killing people will and has always been around and will continue to be until the mental condition is confronted.

With the misplaced focus on guns I don't see that happening very soon.

Murder, greed and more is what ails man.

War, corruption in government (starts at the local level) doesn't help either.

This:



...is commonly ignored by anyone who is ignorant of history, and startlingly frequently by some who aren't. Murder was not invented along with firearms, it has a long tradition since the first semi-opposable-thumb hand picked up a rock and a pointy stick.

if the one guy is a collector (if he has that many guns, probably is), he may not have any ammo for them. Ammo may no longer be manufactured for them. vs
where I grew up, those five were modern guns with ammo, the latter is more heavily armed.

On the other hand, if the one guy has heavy machine guns, select fire assault rifles, etc. that the ATF (and probably DEA) would have a more heavily armed block than the one I grew up where each of those five would be a couple of rifles, couple of pistols, and a shotgun.

However a person only has two hands.

I was in high school, and understood much of it. I learned more about the larger issues surrounding it since then.
Grew up with guns. Everyone in my family was at one time cop, hunter, rancher, some combination of them.

Government lobbyist types like Harlon Carter, on government pension from his work at the border wanted to keep it in DC?
Old guard wanted to just be a safety group and move to a clubhouse in Colorado? Is that your reading too? Seems like it was right at that time in 1977 when the NRA really got going on the rights thing. Is that your opinion? Jimmy Carter just elected, maybe they wanted to make sure he wouldn't make a second term...like Keene and Obama. What do you think? I wasn't paying any attention to the NRA in 1977.

what to do with the property in Raton, NM. The old guard wanted to use it for wilderness survival education, environmental awareness education (seriously), and other stuff in addition to shooting ranges.
Carter and crew didn't like the "hippy dippy" stuff and just wanted the shooting ranges.
Some like Carter who thought the Gun Control Act of 1968 was letting the camel's nose too far under the tent.

I doubt it had anything to do with Jimmy Carter. One of the (probably) unintended consequences it attacked one of the environmental movement's flanks.

... who point out that gun control laws often were intended to discriminate based on race.



I agree with her (and with many posters here) who point out that true liberals promote the expansion of civil rights. I've always felt overtones of pure fascism in the promotion of laws designed to restrict civil rights, and I wonder about the intentions of people who support those laws.

I made it as far as page 3 looking for the meat and potatoes before I gave up.

The article seems biased anti-gun, but seemed generally well-written and factual.

About the only eyebrow I really raised in the first three pages was when the author was talking about how schools are preparing for gunmen - except, of course, by the obvious way allowing people to have the means to defend themselves from gunmen.

Anyway my personal history with guns started when I was a child. Like my father and his father before him, firearms have been in my family for generations. They've been a means to put food on an otherwise scarce-at-times table. They have been tools to defend the home, though it has never been necessary as far as I know for anyone in our family.

I don't remember exactly when my father taught me how to shoot, but Santa brought me my first gun, a Ruger 10/22 rifle, when I was 8 or 9 years old, which I was allowed to use, under his supervision, for squirrel hunting and target shooting. Shortly after that he got me my first shotgun, which we used for hunting and shooting clay pigeons. And it wasn't long after that when he bought me my first deer rifle.

I didn't buy my first handgun until I was 26 or so. I had moved into the big city of Atlanta and decided I needed a firearm for self-defense. A shotgun is probably a better choice but my Remington 1100 has a looooong barrel and really isn't suitable for the close quarters of a home. It's a hunting arm, not particularly a self-defense arm. And I won't lie, I was itching to own my first pistol, too. It was a Ruger P90, a .45 ACP pistol derived from the 1911 design. I think it cost about $375.

Around this same time the assault weapons ban arrived. This was what really put the issue of gun control on my radar. I was just starting to buy my own firearms and now the government was trying to limit the kinds of firearms I might be able to buy! So I figured I better go and buy one of the "amputated" assault rifles that were still available under the AWB while they were still possible to get. I bought a Romanian SAR1, a civilian variant of the AK-47 that had been modified to comply with the AWB - the threads on the barrel had been turned down so that a muzzle flash hider could not be installed, and the bayonet lug had been ground off so you could not mount a bayonet. And a few of the components had been replaced with US-made parts to comply in that regard. But it was still functionally a semi-automatic AK-47 and it would accept high-capacity magazines so about $350 later I owned my first assault rifle.

As I started to realize what had been done to my assault rifle to make it a "post-ban legal" AK-47 variant, I began to realize how stupid and ineffective the ban was and I figured it would not be long before the people who made the law figured that out, too, and made even more draconian laws to control firearms. So I began to get involved with the NRA and became hyper-vigilant with the politics of firearm rights.

So you could say, very correctly, that the anti-gun maneuvers like the AWB are directly what stirred me to get involved in defending my firearm rights and belonging to the NRA.

In 2006 I switched from voting Republican to voting Democratic. My biggest turning point was the obvious lie of the wars in the Middle East, and the growing inability to believe that even though they supported the individual right to keep and bear arms that the Republicans really had any going concern for regular individuals.

I've been fortunate that, living in the South, nearly all of my Democratic candidates are also pro-second-amendment. I carefully review the NRA endorsements at election time, and I vote for every Democrat I can that has high marks. I've only had to vote against one Democrat who had an F rating. I voted for President Obama in spite of the NRA rhetoric because I was fairly confident he would not be able politically to move against firearms but also the alternative of guaranteed more war overseas was unacceptable.

Over the years I have belonged to a couple of private gun clubs that require NRA membership to participate. This wasn't a big deal for me as I already was.

So that is my personal history with guns and the NRA.

biased either way by reading less than half of the article.

Some people just don't like reading and I understand that.

I've heard it chalked up to our ADHD generation (though I predate that, and I was never on any of ADHD medication. But I've read that people are less and less willing to invest time in reading long internet articles - they expect the content to presented quickly.

I'll invest the time (I'm an avid reader, I'm in the middle of Game of Thrones right now), but it has to grab me. This author didn't grab me in the first 3 pages so I didn't feel compelled to read the following 5.

But the anti-gun bias was clear even in the first 3 pages. I mean just the melodramatic paragraph where she described going to a shooting range and the gunfire didn't sound like raindrops or thunder, just gunfire. What else would gunfire sound like?

One that I agree with btw: Bolding mine.

It's a statement that means nothing, because it has no context. How many of those were shot, say, in the line of duty as a soldier?

A candid discussion is impossible? Have you SEEN the gungeon?

Follows a gross oversimplification of positions on two sides of an issue....

Finishing up with naked fiat of the author.


Neither telling, nor compelling.

And I believe she means a candid discussion of this issue in public, among public officials and citizens. Not a free for all on an internet site.

How could they have been worse? VT is a prime example. Students were trapped inside, no training in escape and evasion, no place to hide or escape to, the cops stood around outside with their fingers up their asses listening to the gun shots inside. A student with a gun (or crossbow for that matter) probably would have mitigated the carnage, but it would not have made it worse.

That's the kind of response I was looking for. I hope you have time to finish the article. I'm interested in your reaction to the history of the NRA and the take over by the retired border patrolman in Cincinnati. The report says he actually murdered someone when a teenager!

DO you practice with the SAR1 regularly? Do you envision or fear attack or home invasion or do you think your interest in weapons is similar to someone who likes cars or collecting model trains or antiques? Many car lovers are concerned that somehow they are going to come and take away the old cars that pollute so badly, but that hasn't manifested itself as a voting block, at least yet.

Thanks again.

DO you practice with the SAR1 regularly?

Not so much anymore. When I bought the SAR1 I bought a case of 1000 rounds of ammo to go with it. It cost $89. I have burned through all but 200 rounds or so, which I am saving in case of emergency. I'd like to buy some more ammo for it but a case of ammo now costs $250 last time I checked.

The price of ammunition is why I started reloading. I currently only reload .45 ACP, but whereas 4 50-round boxes of .45 ACP could cost me $40 or more for an afternoon at the range I can now shoot the same amount for $6.

Do you envision or fear attack or home invasion or do you think your interest in weapons is similar to someone who likes cars or collecting model trains or antiques?

I've only been a victim of crime once. Last year someone went into our back yard here at home and tried to hot-wire my brand new garden tractor. But I've been fortunate most of my life to live in quiet middle class neighborhoods, and I live a relatively boring life of work and school and family. So I don't feel I am likely to encounter crime.

The biggest reason I own firearms is for shooting for fun. I shoot competitively.

But the second biggest reason I own them is for emergency preparedness for SHTF scenarios (shit hits the fan). After seeing the disaster of Katrina and what happened here when the tornadoes struck last year and put us without power for a week and gasoline was gone in a day, I am convinced that the fabric of society is very tenuous, and it would not take much, especially in urban areas, to case extreme, dog-eat-dog rioting and looting. I believe within my lifetime we are going to see a chemical, biological, or nuclear terror attack on a major US city, and when that happens chaos is going to ensue. People will try to flee the cities, especially if the terrorists are smart and say they have similar weapons in other, unnamed cities. People will not travel into the cities to deliver food and fuel, and as such they will run out in a day, maybe two.

Many people fantasize about "bugging out" in such scenarios, with a "bug out bag", but I have grave doubts of most people being able to do this. Firstly, you are going to be caught up in the mob that is going to strip you of whatever looks valuable. Thirdly most of these people aren't in good enough shape to carry anything any meaningful distance anyway. You are far better off, in my opinion, staying put with your supplies, which will be far greater than anything you can carry with you, and protect your home, or what is left of it, with your neighbors.

Many car lovers are concerned that somehow they are going to come and take away the old cars that pollute so badly, but that hasn't manifested itself as a voting block, at least yet.

I believe there are emissions exceptions for registered antique cars, which seems reasonable given how few are on the road.

-when I reached the line comparing a gun store to a porn shop, I realized this was simply an opinion piece with a definite bias
-further proven by only mentioning bad gun uses, neglecting where armed citizens stopped active shooters, as in Appalachian State and Pearl MS


-as far as how it paints the NRA, I noticed a definite change over time. At first the NRA supported gun control enthusiastically, then as more GC laws came around, they accepted them as being good if inconvenient, then more laws accepted with reservations until finally in the 80's when yet more GC laws came about the NRA started to resist until you have the situation today where the NRA is actively lobbying for increased gun rights. The NRA's change from a sporting group to a lobbying group is in reaction to more and more restrictions...

It gets back to the slippery slope- where is the end point of 'reasonable gun control'?

C'mon man, death by a thousand cuts. The end result is a total ban. Except of course for bad guys, who will ignore the ban and it's open-season on law abiding citizens.

Seems the NRA is now run by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. The Cincinnati revolt, when Harlon Carter took over, really set the group on a radical path. It seems that is when the DC lobbying group took over...moving the HQ back to DC and closing out the idea of moving the HQ to Colorado. A look at Carter's bio makes me wonder who's in charge. I feel there is a paranoid strain running through the gun lobby here on DU that compliments the NRA's program to oust Obama. Interesting to me is the appeal that DU would have for the expressed libertarian views by so many in the gun forum. Has someone polled the DU gun forum to see how many are NRA members?

Do advocates of nationwide concealed carry laws envision a country where everyone packs? I think if I were to believe everyone else had a gun and I felt threatened I would soon feel it necessary to buy my own weapon, the bigger the better. This is certainly not a future I look forward to. Is this the future you envision?

I keep my rifles in the basement and I suppose I occasionally go through a scenario in my mind about holding off attackers as they come for my food and fuel after the bomb etc. but the truth is, I don't see it ending well for anybody and I pretty much figure it isn't going to happen. Is my imagination lacking? Talk me through how it might all play out.

http://meetthenra.org/nra-member/David%20Keene

Seems the NRA is now run by the conservative wing of the Republican Party. The Cincinnati revolt, when Harlon Carter took over, really set the group on a radical path. It seems that is when the DC lobbying group took over...moving the HQ back to DC and closing out the idea of moving the HQ to Colorado. A look at Carter's bio makes me wonder who's in charge. I feel there is a paranoid strain running through the gun lobby here on DU that compliments the NRA's program to oust Obama. Interesting to me is the appeal that DU would have for the expressed libertarian views by so many in the gun forum. Has someone polled the DU gun forum to see how many are NRA members?

For my part, I'm a member of the NRA and I am annoyed, though not surprised, at the constant bashing of the President and the obvious right-wing leanings. I'm fortunate in that in most elections I have a plethora of Democratic candidates to chose from that have high marks from the NRA, and often they are the NRA-endorsed candidate.

I believe the NRA is absolutely single-issue focused, and they will endorse anyone that is pro-gun, from any party. The reason why they pander so hard to the right is the majority of firearm owners come from the right. While many of them would probably be on the right no matter what, a large contingent of them were driven to the right by the gun control efforts of the left.

It's why I would love to see the Democratic party drop gun control and embrace the right to keep and bear arms. Literally overnight you would have millions of people stop looking at Democrats as the "anti-gun guys" and Republicans as the "pro-gun guys" and they would have to consider other issues. Now you are never going to get the religious nuts or the homophobes to change their stripes, but you will get lots and lots of people who are anti-war and anti-corporations-are-people.

And overnight you could turn the NRA into a sponsor of the Democratic party.

Do advocates of nationwide concealed carry laws envision a country where everyone packs? I think if I were to believe everyone else had a gun and I felt threatened I would soon feel it necessary to buy my own weapon, the bigger the better. This is certainly not a future I look forward to. Is this the future you envision?

I don't know of anyone who thinks that everyone should carry a firearm. What most people who support concealed carry think is that everyone should have the right to carry a firearm if they choose and are legally able.

I keep my rifles in the basement and I suppose I occasionally go through a scenario in my mind about holding off attackers as they come for my food and fuel after the bomb etc. but the truth is, I don't see it ending well for anybody and I pretty much figure it isn't going to happen. Is my imagination lacking? Talk me through how it might all play out.

I already addressed this in another post. I think the most likely scenario that is going to happen during my lifetime is either a major natural disaster or, more likely, a chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist attack on a major urban center, with a threat (real or pretend) of other urban centers, that will result in the shut-down of fuel and food into these areas which will then result in riots.

Will you be able to work with your neighbors to defend your homes? Maybe, maybe not. I remember the Koreans doing a pretty good job during the LA riots year ago. The mob tends to be fickle and when bullets start flying the mob runs the other way looking for an easier target.

Ultimately it won't end well for anyone but assuming things don't disintegrate to the point where things can be corrected after a few months of martial law, if you have food and water to survive a few months and keep others from taking it from you, you will at least survive.

Even if the Democrats announce as a party their support for gun rights...actually Obama on many occasions has said he respects the 2nd amendment and he has yet to offer any legislation that would restrict any kind of guy posession....a quick look at the list of board members of the NRA show a group that promotes all the GOP policies: Anti Gay rights, Anti social security, Anti Medicare, Anti investment in infrastructure, Pro War, Anti Women's choice, Anti women's health care, Anti health care. etc. The board member list reads like a directory of Reagan/Goldwater supporters. Even Norquist is on the board! I think these guys know they need the gun rights special interest vote more than the gun rights special interest group needs them and they will make sure to be vocal about gun right issues to get that vote.

In the last election, every one of my Democratic candidates except one had high marks from the NRA, and three of them were the endorsed candidate.

actually Obama on many occasions has said he respects the 2nd amendment and he has yet to offer any legislation that would restrict any kind of guy posession

During his presidency, he has been very pro-gun-rights friendly.

However, his record prior to the presidency is anti-gun. Also he campaigned on re-instating the AWB (and it is still up on www.change.gov under urban policy).

Many people believe he is still anti-gun but has not moved on the issue as it is politically impossible to do.

endorsed Democrats during the last House election cycle:

Alabama: Bobby Bright
Arkansas: Mike Ross
Colorado: Betsy Markey and John Salazar
Illinois: Debbie Halverson
Maryland: Frank Kratovil
Minnesota: Tim Walz
New York: Scott Murphy and Bill Owens
Ohio: Zach Space
Pennsylvania: Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney
South Dakota: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
Texas: Chet Edwards
Virginia: Rich Boucher
Wisconsin: Steve Kagan

DINO, I think is the term.

Roby and the Republicans kept Bright on the defensive. He felt it necessary to become the first Democrat to announce he would not vote for a second time to elect California liberal Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House. The election of speaker is typically a unanimous vote of the party in power. Bright voted to elevate Pelosi to speaker in January 2009, and Roby charged that the vote was proof of Bright’s flawed judgment. In one campaign ad, Bright boasted of having voted with House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio 80% of the time. He also played up his endorsements from the National Rifle Association and the National Right to Life PAC. He sometimes campaigned in a “Fire Congress” T-shirt.

Must be quite a district.

But listen, I am really impressed that the NRA has backed Democrats. Maybe there is hope. Yes we can!


http://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/person/martha-roby-al/

Scratch a large majority of those Democratic darlings of the NRA, and you'll find something like this one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/09/02/379736/-Stephanie-Herseth-Sandlin-Profile

(I picked her at total random from that list.)

she is pro-choice, pro-working class, pro-environment, and a Dem. You think she sucks because she is a rural populist and pro-gun? You think a progressive to your liking would have a snowball's chance there? You have to work with what you have. I hope you don't become head of the NDP, that would be Harper's wet dream.

are +1 (each) except pro-gun which to some is -10000000000000000000000000000.

if one looks at issues (and their supporters and detractors), one can easily see that "pro-gun" is to democrats what "pro-choice" is to the republicans: incredible hot button topics whose support (or lack of support) can easily wipe the slate of all the good things they do and support.

getting elected in rural US or Canada is zero. That is one reason why the more progressive NDP does better in rural Canada than the Liberals do. So a marginal cultural issue is more important than the environment, social justice, economy. Even if I were anti-gun or even agnostic, I would not touch it for that reason. Brian Schweitzer working to get single payer to Montana, protecting the environment safe from big oil, making a stand against Citizens United, and all of the other good things he and other rural Dems are doing is negated because you don't like guns? Maybe because I'm just some gun toting hick from Wyoming, but that makes no sense to me.
If I were on Obama's campaign staff, "Mitt the preppy elitist" and "Mitt signed MA's AWB" would be playing in places like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, etc.

see guns for what they are: tools. They don't ascribe any anthropomorphic motives to them.

I went to college with a guy whose family owned a ranch and when I visited him and he took me out to show me their cattle (damn they were big), he never ventured from the jeep without a gun...I asked "why?" and he said that there are plenty of things out here that can take down full sized cattle and this (his lever action rifle) is the great equalizer.

Gosh, one would almost think you were saying someone else did.

Of course, that would amount to saying that said someone elses suffer from delusional mental illnesses, and we know you wouldn't want to be doing that.


Huh. What a bright fellow. Has anyone ever suggested that he ought not to do that? Not moi, I can tell you for a fact with loads of evidence for what I say.

What was your point? Lions and tigers and bears are dangerous. Yuppers.

You just don't have a clue.

The "progressive" rural western NDPers are the ones who gave us the useless Alexa McDonough as party leader in 1995 because they would not support a gay man for party leader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_McDonough#Federal_leadership
Damned "progressive" of them, that.

Jack Layton, from downtown Toronto, and the other MPs from there, and all the new Quebec MPs, are the left of the party. And if you think the left in Quebec (and most of Quebec) doesn't support stringent gun control wholeheartedly, you're woefully ignorant.

These rural populists, in both countries, are self-centred and/or panderers when it comes to firearms. And plain ignorant. Firearms are trafficked from their lax jurisdictions to urban areas with more stringent rules; what do they care, eh? And firearms homicides and other criminal uses of firearms within the family, for example, are no less common, and in some instances more common, in rural areas than in big cities. In Canada, the various Mounties who have been killed by firearm in the last few years weren't working in Vancouver's downtown east side, and it wasn't handguns they were killed with, btw.

Nobody is saying that firearms control, which IS NOT a "marginal cultural issue", for the love of fuck (except to the right wing and its panderers, who try to make it one), negates anything. Many people think that those who try to make it a cultural issue for their own benefit should grow some common decency and honesty and acknowledge the role their policies play in the harm suffered by other people. And maybe act like actual leaders, and educate their constituencies about the facts.

According to the ATF the plurality if not majority of crime guns in New York originate in New York. DCs originate in Maryland. I thought the registry was supposed to greatly curtail trafficking in Canada?
Sorry, don't buy the "rural populists are self centered asses" bit. They are not the cause of NYC's or Chicago's problems. They are not the gun sources, at least not according to the ATF. MAIG and Brady are full of shit.
I believe I said more progressive. As in relative.
Criminal use of firearms in rural areas maybe a Canadian problem, but not so much a US problem.

Yes ... and it does (not so much "curtail", since there has never been really significant trafficking, given the relatively tight restrictions on handgun possession). What did anything I said have to do with trafficking in Canada?


Canada does not have "lax jurisdictions"; firearms law is uniform nationally. So obviously, I was talking about the US. (And sure, trafficking out of the US, just in case anybody in the US wants to actually consider the less proximate neighbours too.)


Oh well then. To me, anybody who opposes licensing and registration, for instance, for whatever idiosyncratic reasons they might offer, is a self-centred ass.


And you were wrong.


Tell it to the dead people. Oh wait ...

South Dakota has a homicide rate about 50% higher than Canada's. Montana's is a little less than that; still notably higher. Alaska's is more than double. Perhaps all those people were smothered in their sleep.

Some rural states have higher homicide rates, some lower than Canada or even European countries.

Beating the record of the urban US isn't exactly the standard I'd use when determining whether there is a problem. And of course homicide isn't the only measure of harm. Suicide by firearm occurs at higher rates in rural states of the US, according to the studies I've seen.

Suicide rates 2009 by state:
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewpage&page_id=05114FBE-E445-7831-F0C1494E2FADB8EA

New York, New Jersey and Illinois, for example, have rates well below the average of 12/100,000. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska seem to top the list with rates more than double the NY, NJ and IL rates. But maybe all those people jumped off mountain peaks.

is because you don't bother to read very closely. It seems to be pretty fucking clear to everyone else on the planet.
Most Mexican crime guns did not come from US gun stores. I'm still looking for a RCMP or some other official study that shows Canada's crime guns are smuggled from the US exclusively. MAIG and similar groups are full of shit.
Mexico is not the cause of our drug problem.
South Dakota is not the cause of Chicago's gun problem.

Has anybody ever CLAIMED that Canada's crime guns are smuggled from the US exclusively??

NO.

But it's funny how you seem to be trying to make somebody believe that somebody has claimed that.

I have posted, over and over and over and over down the years, that the proportions of traceable crime guns in Toronto, for example, are roughly equal between guns trafficked in from the US and guns stolen within Canada. Numbers are small so variations may be noticeable year over year: if there have been a couple of big heists from "collectors" near Toronto, the stolen-in-Canada rate over the next little while might be higher, etc.

Why on earth would you be looking for a study that will never exist because the conclusion you want it to reach would exist only in bizarro land?



Oh, well, there we have it.

And the US federal govt statistics it analyzes just don't exist.

Right.

MAIG claims most of NYC's crime guns come from places like Virginia. ATF says, they come from New York.
MAIG claims most of DC's crime guns come from Virginia. ATF says the plurality comes from Maryland.

Oh well, there we have it.
the US federal govt statistics it claimed it analyzed must be more accurate than the actual ATF data.
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/trace-data/2010-trace-data.html

How many Canadian crime guns are smuggled from gun stores in the US?

This is not the first time pro-license/registration proponents have used rates which , naturally, are amplified when applied to low population examples, and compared those rates to places with LARGE populations where those large populations tend to dilute the "rates".

You can skip the "but this is how we compare small with large" blah blah blah, thats sure to follow.

"New York, New Jersey and Illinois, for example, have rates well below the average of 12/100,000. Wyoming, Montana and Alaska seem to top the list with rates more than double the NY, NJ and IL rates. But maybe all those people jumped off mountain peaks."

Now, maybe you can explain which of those places in the above example actually have the worst homicide with guns "problem". It wouldn't be the places with the lowest "rates" that your using there, would it?

This seems an aweful lot like the brady report cards.

I live close to a town with a population of 34. If there were just 1 gun homicide there annually(which there actually isn't), the rate would be something like 2941 per 100,000, and you could use it as an example of one of the places with the highest "gun homicide" rates anywhere in the world. " But maybe all those people jumped off mountain peaks."

All hypothetical 1 of them.

About 6-7 years ago there was a double homicide. The first crime related death in over 30 years. But for that year their rate was 187/100k

Apparently her opposition makes much of her pro-choice position, but she doesn't. She opposed the health care legislation, she didn't oppose funding for the war on Iraq, and the rest of what is in that article. Pro-working class? That's what subsidies to big agriculture are?


Who knows? Maybe not today. But that's electoral politics. You don't change human beings overnight.

But the mere fact that someone has a big D after their name doesn't make them progressive ... or even mean they are going to support Democratic Party policies, or a Democratic president's policies, if they get elected.

Thomas Mulcair, the new leader of the NDP, is from the right wing of the party. There is much I don't like about him. My membership lapsed a year or two ago when I dropped the credit card my monthly payments came from, and I didn't think to pay up in time, so I wasn't in on the electronic voting. Policy-wise, I would have supported Brian Topp, the middle of the party's choice with respectable left-wing credentials; given my druthers I would have supported Peggy Nash, but it was clear early on that she wasn't going to be in the top two. But had I voted, it probably would have been for Mulcair, because Topp doesn't have a seat in the House, and that would take weeks or months to happen and there's no guarantee he would get one, and because we had been leaderless in the House for way too long already and we risk losing momentum from the election if it goes on much longer. The party leader is not going to make the party over in his own image, and meanwhile he is in the House, fluently bilingual, and from Quebec, and has appointed a sterling deputy from the left wing of the party, and he is a very mouthy person, which suits me fine.

Electoral politics. You don't very often get what you want. But you don't have to pretend that what you've got is what it isn't.