Gun-Control Lobby Targets Obama, Demands Reform

[SecularMotion]

When a white software developer allegedly shot and killed an unarmed black teenager at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station last weekend (for the crime of playing his music too loudly), it was the latest death in a relentless stream of gun violence in recent months, from the Aurora theater massacre to the gang violence that has plagued Chicago.

The shooting instantly drew comparisons to Trayvon Martin’s murder last February and re-ignited debate about Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground self-defense law. But for the nation’s gun-control lobby, Jordan Russell Davis’s death last week was more than that: it was a sign of Barack Obama’s failure to enact a gun policy that saves lives.

During Obama’s second term, “48,000 Americans will be killed by guns,” says John Feinblatt, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s chief police adviser and chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, citing a statistic based on research from the Center for Disease Control. “The American people deserve to know how they will be kept safe, and that’s the job of the president as he enters his new term.”

Feinblatt and other gun-control leaders say that with the president’s reelection behind him and his second-term priorities beginning to take shape, this is a golden moment for their cause.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/29/gun-control-lobby-targets-obama-demands-reform.html

[ileus]

1. safeguard you and your family....don't wait

Because lives depend on it.

Progressive concerned citizens unite and refuse to be willing victims.

My wife and I have joined the ranks of progressive gun owners everywhere.

[Starboard Tack]

3. Progressive gun owners don't wear their guns in public.

Those who do are part of the problem.

[Eleanors38]

5. And what is the "problem?"

[Starboard Tack]

6. The problem is too many dead and injured people.

Maybe you hadn't noticed, but that is what we talk about here.

[Eleanors38]

8. Nope. I think it's a style thing with you.

[Starboard Tack]

9. No, it's really about confronting stupidity.

Nothing to do with style. Never been a follower of fashion.

[Pacafishmate]

46. Please explain how wearing a gun in public contributes to the problem of dead people.

[Starboard Tack]

48. You must be kidding, right?

Do you think all gun killings take place on private property?

[Clames]

10. Says you...

...and a fortunately dwindling minority.

[Starboard Tack]

13. You obviously need a history lesson.

Progressivism in this country has always been at the forefront on Gun Control and Prohibition. So make up your minds. You can call carrying guns around "progressive" all day long, but your role models are right-wing libertarian nutjobs.

[Clames]

14. My history is fine and doesn't need "fixing" from...

...a revisionist perspective. You can bury your head in the sand as deep as you like but it doesn't change the fact that liberals (today's) are embracing CCW in increasing numbers. Your small tent point of view holds no weight in this debate. It's old, tired, obvious, lame, and losing argument.

[LAGC]

15. And how did Prohibition work out for progressives back then?

Wait, nevermind...

[Starboard Tack]

40. Exactly my point. Thank you.

[MicaelS]

33. And Alcohol Prohibition was one of the worst mistakes

This country ever made. The old adage about the road to hell being paved with the best intentions certainly applied in this case. Progressives are not always correct. They, and the rest of the Alcohol Prohibitionists were wrong about Prohibition. If you doubt this read Daniel O'Krent's Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition.

[Starboard Tack]

39. I agree with you 100%

That's why I find it really odd when gun carriers call themselves progressives. Go figure.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. "Progressivism in this country has always been at the forefront on Gun Control and Prohibition."

Yeah, about that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x144160#144226

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/friendly_iconoclast/39

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=447729&mesg_id=448196

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=337407&mesg_id=337407

SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Mon Aug-30-10 05:22 PM
Original message
Rosa Parks was an armed. No surprise from this Cracker.


Tim Tyson, Visiting Professor at Duke Divinity School, did a little "myth-busting" on NPR's "On The Media" last year, saying this about the fabled civil rights leader Rosa Parks:

"There's a sense in which Mrs. Parks is very important to our post-civil rights racial narrative, because we really want a kind of sugar-coated civil rights movement that's about purity and interracial non-violence. And so we don't really want to meet the real Rosa Parks. We don't, for example, want to know that in the late 1960s, Rosa Parks became a black nationalist and a great admirer of Malcolm X. I met Rosa Parks at the funeral of Robert F. Williams, who had fought the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina with a machine gun in the late 1950s and then fled to Cuba, and had been a kind of international revolutionary icon of black power. Ms. Parks delivered the eulogy at his funeral. She talks in her autobiography and says that she never believed in non-violence and that she was incapable of that herself, and that she kept guns in her home to protect her family. But we want a little old lady with tired feet. You may have noticed we don't have a lot of pacifist white heroes. We prefer our black people meek and mild, I think."

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/08/27/02

_____________

Parks, like Fannie Lou Hamer , kept herself armed for immediate self-protection, and probably knew the limitations of violence within the civil rights movement, so "non-violence" was probably not a philosophical, but more a practical choice. I cannot help but notice that the Washington Post -- agitprop of record for gun-control -- continues to throw mythological pixie dust about in support of the myth of Ms. Parks.

Kindly take your revisionism elsewhere...

[Starboard Tack]

38. You sir, are the revisionist. Maybe I missed the word "progressive"

None of what you link to refers to PROGRESSIVISM

Here, let me help you.

Progressivism is a general political philosophy advocating or favoring more or less gradual social, political, and economic reform.[1] Modern Progressivism emerged as part of a more general response to the vast social changes brought by industrialization.

It is left of center in the political spectrum and is to be contrasted with conservatism on the right and the revolutionary left, the former generally resisting changes it advocates and the latter rejecting its gradualism.

In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed. The first of these was around the start of the 20th century.[9] This period notably included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 were less successful than the 1912 version. There are also two notable state progressive parties: the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. The latter is still in operation and currently has several high-ranking positions in state government.[citation needed]

Today, members of the Green Party of the United States are most likely to self-identify as liberal progressives. In the U.S. Congress, the Congressional Progressive Caucus is the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party, and it is often in opposition to the more centrist or conservative Democrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

The Progressive Party encompasses a social-democratic and populist platform. The party's main focus has historically been advocacy for a single-payer health care system, which has recently come to fruition through the implementation of Green Mountain Care, a single payer health care program being pushed by Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin, due to pressure from the Progressive Party. Other major policy platforms are renewable energy programs such as a high-speed rail system and a phase-out of nuclear energy, prison reforms to reduce the state's prison population and better protect convict's rights, proposes creation of programs to end homelessness in the state, ending the War on Drugs and repealing No Child Left Behind and ending the focus on standardized testing in the school system. The party also has an anti-war stance, advocating for Vermont's national guard to be restricted from engaging in war zones, an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and opposes all preemptive strikes. The party is very supportive of LGBT rights, and members of the party were involved in the legalization of gay marriage in the state.

Economically, the party also calls for converting the minimum wage to a living wage, having the economy focus on small and local businesses, empowerment of worker cooperatives and publicly-owned companies as democratic alternatives to multi-national corporations and to decentralize the economy, for the strengthening of state law to protect the right to unionize, for implementing a progressive income tax and repealing the Capital Gains Tax Exemption and residential education property tax and all trade to be subject to international standards on human rights. The party is also critical of privatization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermont_Progressive_Party

Just for fun why don't you Google "Progressive Era". Then come back and tell us all about it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. The Vermont Progressive Party makes no mention of gun control on their website.

This in a state with the laxest gun laws in the US (no permit is needed to carry a concealed
handgun, for example)

http://www.progressiveparty.org/issues/platform

http://www.progressiveparty.org/issues/criminal-justice


Looks like that "shibboleth of Progressivism" isn't really one at all.

[Starboard Tack]

50. Thanks. I was aware of that. That was my point.

Makes no mention of guns, period. As I have said before, carrying guns around is not a "progressive" issue. Some who carry seem to think it is and erroneously adopt that label. The lax gun laws in Vermont have zero to do with the progressive issues.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Then carrying guns around (legally) isn't a marker for *anything*, save...

...the desire/want/perceived need to do so.

For example, Eleanor Roosevelt could have had armed Secret Service protection 24/7 had she wanted it. Being the self-reliant type (and a long-time handgun shooter), she chose to go without. Did carrying a handgun make E.R. a progressive? Of course not-but it didn't make her a reactionary, either.

If it was suitable for her, the same choice to carry (or not) is suitable for any non-disqualified
person to make.

[Starboard Tack]

53. It is a choice for any individual as long as guns exist and should be so.

Nothing progressive, nor reactionary about it. That was my only point.

[Straw Man]

55. Choice.

Progressive gun owners don't wear their guns in public.

Those who do are part of the problem.

It is a choice for any individual as long as guns exist and should be so.

Nothing progressive, nor reactionary about it. That was my only point.

The first statement suggests that the wearing of guns in public is reactionary, or at best non-progressive. The second suggests that it is politically neutral. Which is it?

[Starboard Tack]

56. Depends on the situation. Sometimes it may be reactionary, but never is it progressive.

There are situations when wearing a gun makes some sense. Wearing one out of habit is just plain stupid and contributes to the problem of gun violence and handgun proliferation and the general degradation of society. It is NEVER progressive.

However, as long as guns exist for one person, then they should be equally available to all, along with the CHOICE to carry them. That's about EQUALITY and FAIRNESS. Has nothing to do with being either progressive or reactionary.

[Straw Man]

59. And here ...

However, as long as guns exist for one person, then they should be equally available to all, along with the CHOICE to carry them. That's about EQUALITY and FAIRNESS. Has nothing to do with being either progressive or reactionary.

... I thought that CHOICE, EQUALITY, and FAIRNESS were progressive values.

Silly me ...

[Starboard Tack]

60. Yeah, well you know what thought did, don't you?

Followed a garbage truck and thought it was a wedding.

Progressive, by definition means going forward toward something better. Equality and fairness are constants in regard to progressive values. Choice is a whole other thing. Don't confuse CHOICE with the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. The right is a progressive value, not the choice itself. There is nothing progressive about choosing to abort a fetus, but the right to make that choice is very progressive.

We are confronted with choices every day. Our right to make those choices is a basic human right. Many of those choices are good and many are bad. IMO the choice to carry without specific cause is a poor choice. But if one person has the right to make that choice then all should have the same right, otherwise the right belongs to an elite group.

[Straw Man]

61. Translation.

Don't confuse CHOICE with the RIGHT TO CHOOSE. The right is a progressive value, not the choice itself. There is nothing progressive about choosing to abort a fetus, but the right to make that choice is very progressive.

In other words, "Rights are all well and good as long as you don't actually want to exercise them."

[Starboard Tack]

62. You said, that not me. Mistranslation.

The choice is the choice. There is nothing political about the choice. It is made by the individual. The right of the individual to make a choice is fundamental, whatever the choice. It is my right to tell someone I think they are ugly, if I so choose. Nothing progressive about that. A woman may choose to have an abortion or to have the child. Neither choice is progressive, they are just choices.

[Straw Man]

63. Respecting choice is progressive.

Criticizing choices is not. Calling behavior stupid and irresponsible and then claiming that you respect the right to choose that behavior is hypocritical. It is passive/aggressive authoritarianism, in a nutshell.

Choice is always political.

[Starboard Tack]

64. Utter bullshit

Respecting an individual's right to choose is progressive, not respecting the choice itself.

[derby378]

65. How about respecting the Constitution that guarantees said right to choose?

Remember that our rights aren't granted, they're inherent.

[Starboard Tack]

66. Respecting the Constitution is fine.

I respect the Constitution, along with it's enumerated rights. What does that have to do with the use of the word "progressive"?
As you say, the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are "inherent". while updating the BoR would be progressive. Interpreting 2A as a right of individuals to whimsically carry guns around in public is regressive, not progressive.

pro·gres·sive

adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.
going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive

[derby378]

71. You just made my argument for me

Progressives believe in "progress" and "improvement." We advocate "enlightened" ideas. Nothing says progress and enlightenment like increasing respect for our rights, not decreasing them. That's why Prohibition was in no way progressive. It took rights away from law-abiding citizens and weakened America as a result.

Using the word "whimsically" in your post sounds a lot like a dog-whistle intended on turning the conversation towards a predetermined end. I respectfully decline.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Different argument.

I couldn't agree more with the following.
Progressives believe in "progress" and "improvement." We advocate "enlightened" ideas.

I also agree that Prohibition was in no way progressive.

None of this has anything to do with the point I made about carrying guns around. A practice that can never be described as "progressive".

The exercising of a right is not, in and of itself, a progressive act, as is demonstrated by RW fundies, Fox News, the KKK, the NRA and those who carry guns in public just because it is their right. It is also your right to talk gibberish, but there is nothing progressive about it.

[spin]

17. I question your authority to define what a progressive gun owner can wear in public. (n/t)

[Starboard Tack]

21. My authority? LOL

There is nothing progressive about carrying a gun. If you can show me where any progressive political party in this country has espoused such a thing, I'll be very interested.
http://patriotaction.net/group/iresistguncontrol/forum/topics/progressivism-guncontrol-go?xg_source=activity

Calling gun carry progressive is a common tactic of RW trolls who come here in an attempt to confuse and disrupt. Progressive is a very subjective term in politics, but most use the word as a substitute for liberal, or very liberal.

The "progressives" were strong supporters of prohibition.

Personally, I'll stick with liberal/socialist to describe my politics.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. The Deacons For Defense And Justice certainly felt it was progressive

And so did Robert F. Williams

And Fannie Lou Hamer

And Eugene Debs

And somebody all progressives should be familiar with:







So much for your stubborn revisionism...

[Starboard Tack]

36. My stubborn revisionism? LOL

I'm a revisionist because I point out the misuse of a word. Don't be so ridiculous.
Self-defense is something all humans have practiced since time immemorial. It is no more progressive than eating.
Calling it progressive is just plain ignorant.
Why are you showing Eleanor Roosevelt's pistol license? To justify why you carry? Or are you being persecuted by the KKK? Damn, you people crack me up.

[Starboard Tack]

67. A progressive gun owner can wear whatever he likes in public.

But the wearing of a gun is not progressive. You can call it "progressive" all day long, but it doesn't make it so.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/progressive

[gejohnston]

68. it's not regressive either

but one could describe offering the ability can be described as progressive, using the first definition in some places.

[Starboard Tack]

69. I think I have made my point quite clearly.

Walking around with a weapon, any kind of weapon, can be called many things, from "sensible" to "stupid", but never "progressive".

It is a complete misuse of the word. Period.

[gejohnston]

73. didn't say it was

walking around without one is neither progressive nor regressive either. When I leave the pistol in the safe when I go to the store, I am not making a political statement either way, I am simply doing what works for me in my situation (and obeying Florida law).

[Starboard Tack]

74. I'm with you on that.

I just don't like it when words like "progressive" and "liberal" are distorted. Being armed or unarmed has nothing to do with either word.

[spin]

75. Read the definition you sent me. ...

progressive
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.

Prior to 1987 Florida allowed the concealed carry of firearm but it was "may issue" only and was largely up to the authorities in each individual county. It was possible to get a license to carry if you were white and well connected in your county. If you were an average citizen or a member of a minority your chances of ever being allowed to carry a concealed weapon were negligible.

"Shall issue" concealed carry passed and local authorities could no longer discriminate against minorities. Any honest citizen willing to go through the process and pay a reasonable fee could get a concealed weapons permit that was honored state wide.

Therefore I will argue that "shall issue" concealed carry is very progressive. You, of course, will disagree.

[Starboard Tack]

77. Then, with respect, we agree to disagree.

IMO, the issuance of permits has nothing to do with race. Maybe it did in Florida, but if so, it was wrong. Permits should be issued on the basis of demonstrable need. Either way, it has nothing to do with progressive politics.
I find it somewhat disingenuous that several members who carry use the race card and the vulnerable female card to justify their extraordinary behavior. Yet I get the impression that most are white males. TMK, we have one regular female in the Gungeon and she has never mentioned that she carries, but strongly defends her right to own and defend her home. I can think of only one pro-carry member who has identified himself as African American. Maybe I'm wrong, but that is my impression.

[gejohnston]

78. TMK, there are three

regular African Americans, and one that comes by on occasion.

Until the last 40 years, Florida selectively enforced its 1893 ban on open carry. There is a kind of famous case, Watson v Stone in 1941, where the Florida Supreme Court overturned an open carry conviction because of race.

[Starboard Tack]

79. You may well be correct. So AA are proportiantely represented here.

The membership of DU is probably 60+% female and at least 10% African American. So that would be 3 out of about 30-40 regulars, plus 1 female, maybe 2. Female participation is hardly representative of the general population. So, even if the AA% is pretty much a wash, it leaves the females, whose perceived vulnerability is exploited by the dominant social group, "white males", to justify their own behavior.
Personally, I would be more supportive of females carrying, but it seems they are far less interested than the men, who are shameless in their claims of "protecting the missus and kids", as a reason for their carrying. Sorry, but you know and I know that most of these guys are carrying out of fear for themselves, for their own lives. Except maybe in Texas, and wherever else, where they carry to protect their shit. Which I can understand if you're carrying a sackful of diamonds. But taking a handgun pretty much everywhere on a daily basis, for no good reason beyond a general sense of fear from some completely unknown, totally random, imaginary assailant, that's some pretty crazy shit.

[spin]

80. Undoubtedly we will end up agreeing to disagree on this point too ...

but the history of gun control has a long history of racism.

The ruling class often has a distrust of minorities. Often those in power have a tendency to oppress the lower classes who work for them and have a justifiable fear of the eventual backlash. Strict gun control is sometimes a tactic used by the elite to preserve their control.

The operative word in gun control is all too often "control."

I am not saying that everyone who supports strict gun control is a racist at heart. Firearms are often hated by many people for good reason as the misuse of one of these weapons has caused a tragedy in their life. I find this it entirely understandable when such an experience can cause a person to support stronger laws up to and including the banning and confiscation of all firearms. (In fact the misuse of a handgun led to the death of one of my close family members. This loss will haunt me for the rest of my life.)

I have always opposed any form of discrimination. I was raised in northern Ohio in an old house that once had been a station on the Underground Railroad. In the 60s I was stationed in Mississippi and I I witnessed racism close up. It was very disturbing to me especially since I was ostracized by some fellow airmen as I formed friendships with minorities. Of course some of those individuals were from the South and probably disliked me as I am a Yankee. Their opinions failed to change my friendships.

Times have changed considerably in the last 50 years but racism is still an ugly fact in our nation and it is not limited to only the southern states.

Often those who favor strong gun control accuse members of the gun culture as being racists. Admittedly some are but most are far more open minded than portrayed by the stereotype.

I have introduced both Blacks and Hispanics to the shooting sports and most were impressed with how friendly the shooters at the range were. Several now have concealed carry permits and carry on a regular basis. In Florida prior to 1987 they would have had absolutely no chance of getting a carry permit but since I am white I would have been able to get one if I had brown nosed the local authorities.

At one time the KKK rode high in the saddle in Florida and terrified the Black community. While I don't attribute the decline of the power of the KKK solely to firearm ownership in the Black community, it was and is a definite factor. The KKK favored gun control that allowed them to own firearms but made it difficult for those who they oppressed.

In my opinion gun control advocates sometimes misuse the race card to support their position. I feel that race should have absolutely nothing to do with who has the right to own a firearm or to carry one. You feel that RKBA supporters use the race card to support their position and you might be suggesting that I did. I don't feel that supporting the right of ANY honest and qualified citizen to be allowed to own or carry a firearm if SOME in his state or city are allowed is at all unreasonable.

In my opinion it is fair to either allow every honest and qualified citizen to own or carry firearms or to not allow any to own or carry firearms. Race should never be a factor in the gun control debate on either side in a free nation that guarantees equal rights and freedoms for all.

[Starboard Tack]

83. Actually, I agree with most of that.

I support fairness and equality. Any government controls should apply uniformly, without prejudice. As you know, my argument is principally about behavior, as in self-control, rather than government control. I enjoy shooting guns as much as the next guy, but if they were all to disappear tomorrow, I wouldn't shed a tear.
The "B" in RKBA is the problem. You can call it a right, but it is always going to be a restricted right. So the word "right" is rather deceptive. It is also a "right" that is still exercised predominantly by a segment of the ruling class, those same white males.

I know that it is not the same in your family, but most females do not carry guns, yet they are the most vulnerable members of society.
And many men use that to bolster their support for carrying. The silence of women who support CC, here in the gungeon, is deafening.

[spin]

96. I have introduced a number of women to shooting ...

and most enjoyed the experience.

As you do, I support equal rights for all. Although I am not sure, I don't believe that as many females as males that I introduced to the shooting sports went on to get a carry permit.

I found that women were easier to train in the shooting sports than men as they were more willing to listen and had formed no misconceptions from watching far too many movies and violent TV shows.

I have read some newspaper articles that indicate that more women are obtaining the training necessary to obtain carry permits. For some reason women seem more hesitant than men to obtain a carry permit but are far more vulnerable.

In the future it is possible that a higher percentage of women will start legally carrying a firearm. I have never been able to understand women and what motivates them so I could be wrong.

[ileus]

24. Do progressive gun owners even own firearms?

[Starboard Tack]

25. There is nothing progressive or regressive about owning firearms.

It has been a common practice for eons. And is hardly a political issue in this country.
The average gun owner has 5 guns. There are supposedly 80 million gun owners. I would wager that less than 10 million own more than 2 and maybe 4 or 5 million own at least 10. Then there are a many thousand who own hundreds. Where do you fall?

[ileus]

27. I don't even have 100...there's only 30-80 currently

that I'd like to acquire...most all out of production.

I'm a sucker for classic (and inexpensive) shotguns.

I'm also really fond of 22 pistols.

That being said I only have two more on my list to buy soon, I've decided I need a Dual Sport bike more than to expand my collection of firearms. I've also been neglectful of my coin collection since gold and silver have skyrocketed...I'm thinking maybe adding a morgan to my collection per week. They're not cheap anymore but still affordable and there's plenty of holes in my collection.

[Clames]

32. Not looking for a '56 Winchester Model 50 are you? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Oh yeah? What else am I prohibited from doing, oh wise and all knowing one?

Never mind that Progressives aren't the only form of liberal and or democrat.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Who's prohibiting you from doing anything? Certainly not me.

Just because behavior may be inappropriate, does not mean it should necessarily be prohibited. There is a significant difference between prohibition and self-control. Something you may want to consider.

Did I ever say that Progressives are the only form of Liberal or Democrat? No.
What I do say is "There is nothing progressive about carrying a gun, owning a gun, not carrying a gun or not owning a gun."

BTW, I may be a little older and wiser than some, but I am far from all knowing. The day I don't learn something new will be the day after I stop living.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Who are you

to state:
"There is nothing progressive about carrying a gun"

[Starboard Tack]

88. Who am I? A DU member expressing an opinion.

If you disagree, then make the argument, as I have. Good luck with that. Nobody else has made a convincing argument that the act of carrying a loaded gun in public is progressive in any way.
I'm pointing out that those who claim such behavior as progressive are basically full of shit.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Really?

"Progressive gun owners don't wear their guns in public."

If I were expressing an OPINION, I might say something like this:

'I don't believe Progressive gun owners wear their guns in public.'
Or words to that effect.


Where I come from, progressives espouse maximal freedom, for all rights. Whether it be the right of assembly for unionization or protest, or the right to possess arms. (think back to our last Progressive Party president.)

[Starboard Tack]

90. That would be you. It has nothing to do with rights, but behavior.

The right to own and/or carry is neither progressive nor regressive. It is a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Your attempt to redefine it as being progressive is naive at best and dishonest at worst.

Regardless the right, there is nothing progressive about exercising any right. You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word.

[AtheistCrusader]

91. It is progressive when various state entities inhibit or infringe upon that right.

Such as may-issue or no-issue states.

[Starboard Tack]

93. That's debatable.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. Fair enough.

[TPaine7]

2. While the Constitution forbids disarming the people, Mr. Fineblatt does have a path to reducing gun

deaths:

During Obama’s second term, “48,000 Americans will be killed by guns,” says John Feinblatt, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s chief police adviser and chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, citing a statistic based on research from the Center for Disease Control....

Some of those projected deaths will no doubt be caused by NYC police. It is unconstitutional to disarm the people, but with Mr. Feinblatt's influence, perhaps he could persuade Bloomberg to disarm NYC police. That would be constitutional and it would mean no deaths due to police shooting folks.

[Starboard Tack]

7. I think disarming NYPD is going too far.

There are occasions when they should be armed, like in SWAT situations, but routine carrying by patrolmen should definitely stop. Nobody should carry a gun without a damn good reason. That's the only way to significantly lower the death and injury rate, along with the huge burden to taxpayers.

[TPaine7]

16. I wasn't actually saying that he SHOULD disarm police, SWAT or others.

My point is that, constitutionally speaking, he cannot disarm the people. He can, however, disarm the police--or influence the people who can.

Since he is hell-bent on decreasing gun deaths and he can't disarm the people, all that is left is disarming the police. I don't recommend it, but it is constitutional.

[Starboard Tack]

19. Then you make a good argument for constitutional change.

[hack89]

29. Sure, if you like tilting at windmills

with the public supporting the expansion of civil liberties over the past 3 decades, where do you get the idea that anyone is interested in changing the 2A?

[spin]

18. Yup. That's the solution to violent firearm crime. Disarm the cops. ...

Today your posts have been very entertaining. I needed a couple of good laughs today and you provided them. Thanks.

[Starboard Tack]

20. Always happy to entertain.

[ileus]

23. cops with guns kill people....that's mean and hateful.

[spin]

30. To top that off, it's HOMICIDE!!!

According to those who intensely dislike civilian ownership of firearms, all homicides are bad even justifiable homicides.

[ileus]

31. Any mechanical form of self defense is impolite.

Toss in loud noise and that makes for one uncouthed rude toter baser gunner mofo.

[Spryguy]

54. Actually...

that is a hell of an idea, and one I've personally advocated before. Far more instances of patrol officers murdering innocent people because of their skin color or they had a bad day than actually saving anyone. If we disarmed patrol officers, we'd have probably have a more polite and less human rights abusing police force.

[sir pball]

70. Actually, yeah.

Disarm most cops, pepper spray and batons are entirely adequate. Maybe Tasers IF the training can be done properly. Arm fewer EXTREMELY WELL TRAINED cops, preferably with something other than 12-pound-trigger Glocks (Honestly, MP5Ns spring to mind. Ideal CQB weapon for a civvie-heavy environment.). Cut defense spending and put more cops on the street so that an armed response is no more than a few minutes away.

[spin]

76. What you envision is similar to the the British police force. ...

For some British bobbies, a gun comes with job
updated 10/23/2009 12:24:43 PM ET

LONDON — Wielding submachine guns and pistols, British police are making rare armed patrols in crime-blighted London neighborhoods — a change in law enforcement tactics that may prompt calls for the wider use of weapons by the country's traditionally unarmed Bobbies.
London's police department said Friday that a new armed unit is carrying out regular sweeps of districts riven by gun battles between rival drug gangs.
Unlike typical police procedure, the team of about 20 officers actively seeks out criminals carrying or storing guns — rather than waiting to respond to emergency calls about incidents involving weapons.
Chief Inspector Neil Sharman said the unit began work in June to tackle pockets of rising gun crime, and will double in size from November amid concerns over the increasing use of weapons in Britain's capital.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33448132/ns/world_news-europe/t/some-british-bobbies-gun-comes-job/

The UK has strict gun laws and few firearms are in criminal hands. Still the Brits see a need to arm some cops to combat gun crime.

I find your idea interesting but I have a feeling that if I asked the police officers that I know, they would consider it laughable.

[sir pball]

81. I know and I was thinking that

Here would need a much higher ratio, probably 50-50. I'd be comfortable with it if there were enough "weapons" officers to ensure a quick armed response if needed; the upside being the requisite appropriate training and practice would keep friendly-fire incidents in check and very likely result in quicker endings to situations all around.

[spin]

82. Most of the police that I am friends with feel their weapon is a deterrent. ...

They would tell you that to arrive on a dangerous situation unarmed might lead to their being in a fight and could lead to serious injury to themselves or to the person who decided to attack them.

I know a number of police officers and I can't think of one who actually had to shoot another person. One female officer did use a TASER on a felon who decided to run. I know of another incident where an officer I don't personally know pepper sprayed a drunk who was waving a .357 magnum revolver around. (This may have been a poor idea but fortunately all ended with nobody seriously injured.)

I used to shoot with several retired officers from a fairly violent city. They felt that the danger of working as a police officer in this city had made it difficult to enlist good officers and that the quality of the newer officers had fallen significantly and described them as a bunch of gorillas. Of course old timers often feel the younger generation can't meet the standards of their generation but I feel it is hard to convince good people to risk their life for the low pay that a police officer often gets. Disarming many officers might make finding new officers even more difficult and might cause some of the force to decide to retire early or simply quit and move to a safer job.

Your idea is interesting but would be hard to implement in many cities in our nation.

[sir pball]

84. My officer friends feel the same..

..but I've outshot all of them except one. It was an easy bait, offer a friendly competition and supply the ammo and burgers afterwards...fish in a barrel

I suppose my point is making sure LE has real firearms skills, not the once-a-year ten-out-of-15 requirements. They more than any of us are likely to have to use their weapons; it's great power that demands great responsibility. I'm not a fan of overly-militarized ultra-tacticalized hard-armor-wearing APC-driving SWAT based law enforcement in general - but the Empire State Building mass shooting got me thinking that perhaps it wouldn't hurt to give all officers proper combat firearms training. As in a full week of Cooper-style training in the academy with monthly scored live-fire drills, "cost" be damned. And maybe even ditch the pistols in favor of semi-only PDWs, it's a hell of a lot easier to not spray-and-pray when you have a shoulder stock and aperture sight. Then again, I can see that being a real hit with the public.

[spin]

95. Unfortunately many cops have little interest in shooting. ...

since it is a yearly or bi-yearly requirement. Usually they don't spend much time practicing.

In reality most civilian shootings probably occur at a closer range than many police shootings. A predator who decides to attack a victim usually is at arms length while the prep the police have to deal with may be at a much longer distance.

I have enjoyed practicing shooting at several police pistol ranges which were open to the public. I rarely witnessed any police officers on the range despite the fact they got a significant discount. The few that did were excellent shooters who enjoyed the sport of target shooting and some were far better than I ever will be.

The reality is that is that usually a cop arrives after a crime, collects evidence and interviews witnesses. While they may at times infrequently have to use a weapon, many officers will go through their career without having to.

[sir pball]

97. I know, and as far as I'm concerned that's unacceptable

Precisely because of the situations in which they will often have to fire, I think police in the US absolutely must be REQUIRED to be absolutely comptent with their firearms. If they're so disinterested in shooting they don't want to become proficient at it as part of the job, they shouldn't join the force. Not asking them to enjoy it, or get into it recreationally, but I expect them to be damn good at it.

[ileus]

22. My daughter, son, and wife are damned good reasons.

Me...eh not so much except for my duty to provide and protect my family by with the best means possible. That includes my FT job, my contracts, and my dedication to a progressive 2A stance.

Safety first my friends.

[Starboard Tack]

26. So what are you saying? You accompany them everywhere, like a bodyguard?

I can only assume that they are high profile targets or have received some kinds of threats? If so, I can understand your concern. I would probably do the same, especially if the danger was pervasive and there were no other reasonable options. I have been in such situations with stalkers and peeping-toms scaring wife and daughter. We made sure a loaded 12 gauge was within easy reach. Even had my brother-in-law sit in a tree for a few nights with another shotgun.
Safety is an illusion, preparedness is what's important.

[ileus]

28. Naw man, the wife started carrying her own personal safety device, and happy watches over the kids

while at school.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Oh, so you don't carry, just your wife. makes more sense.

And your kids are protected by someone named "happy"? Is Happy armed at their school?

[ileus]

41. deputy happy...He's always armed when on duty.

All the guys at the sheriffs office fight over the easy school jobs. I'm not sure if all counties in VA do this or just ours...

I don't carry, I mostly tote my girl pistol. Sometimes I carry the 40, 45 or 9mm but my normal toter EDC is my Elsie Pea.

When at the hospital I carry my little Kimber Pepper Blaster.

Stay Safe my friend.

[Starboard Tack]

42. Little of that makes any sense to me.

Let's recap. I said

" Nobody should carry a gun without a damn good reason."

You responded

"My daughter, son, and wife are damned good reasons."

To which I responded

"So what are you saying? You accompany them everywhere, like a bodyguard?"

To which you responded

"Naw man, the wife started carrying her own personal safety device, and happy watches over the kids.."

To which I responded

"Oh, so you don't carry, just your wife. ...And your kids are protected by someone named "happy"

To which you responded

"deputy happy...He's always armed when on duty."
"I don't carry, I mostly tote my girl pistol. Sometimes I carry the 40, 45 or 9mm but my normal toter EDC is my Elsie Pea.
When at the hospital I carry my little Kimber Pepper Blaster. "

Are you being purposely obtuse or just dishonest? You start by claiming a damned good reason for you to carry is to protect your family. Then you say your wife protects herself and some deputy protects your kids. Then you say you don't carry, but you "tote" a girl pistol. Then you say you sometimes carry a whole slew of other weapons.

I'm sure we all have a clear picture now

[montanto]

57. no, you got it.

its all there.

[Starboard Tack]

58. So, you agree with me that he is contradictory?

Otherwise, maybe you can explain.
First he says he has a good reason to carry, his wife and kids. But then he says she carries her own gun and "deputy happy" looks after his kids. Was he being untruthful, or just confused?

Then he says "I don't carry, I mostly tote my girl pistol. Sometimes I carry the 40, 45 or 9mm but my normal toter EDC is my Elsie Pea.
When at the hospital I carry my little Kimber Pepper Blaster. "

WTF does that mean? He carries or he doesn't carry? Or is he just fucking with me?

[AtheistCrusader]

92. He may have forgotten a modifier like 'open' or 'concealed'?

[Eleanors38]

4. Yep. Even gun-controllers "target" Obama...

and their "lobby" is Bloomberg's sorta GOP, sorta independent money machine. Obama doesn't have to worry, they say, ignoring the 2yr. Congressional cycle. What does Bloomberg's outfit care...just some Dems in the fly-over states.

NOTE: Over the last 3 yrs, the number of self-identified Demos who have guns has increased by a third.

Target indeed.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Unfortunate choice of words.

[Clames]

12. Can only hope the irony isn't lost on the OP.

[hack89]

43. Once they acquire some political power then maybe they will get results

right now no one is listening - they don't have the votes. And votes are all politicians care about.

[Eleanors38]

44. The plight of gun-controllers is not solely the result of the NRA's power...

The NRA is strong, but the reason Democratic pols are increasingly steering away from gun-control is NOT the "we're gonna get you!" power of the NRA, it is because there is no real upside, no big constituency for Democratic politicians to benefit from. The Democratic Party should demand of gun-controllers: "Show me. What you got?" Hell, maybe the Party doesn't even have to ask the question.

[trouble.smith]

45. their influence is waning. they will leave this world having wasted their time and breath

on a hopeless cause.

[former-republican]

47. Get over it , guns are here to stay.

They are not going anywhere and gun control freaks are the minority .

[bluestateguy]

51. I don't see reforming stand your ground laws as a matter of gun control

The truth is that the killers of Trayvon Martin and this other case in Florida would not be protected under that law (although they will try).

We should, however, fix these laws so that some idiot's mere heebie jeebies about black people cannot even be used as a defense in court under stand your ground.