General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf your definition of tyranny
Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:20 AM - Edit history (1)
Means our children are safe from gun violence, then bring it on.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022140066
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Just leave me out of it.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)There would be no problem. But the fact that more preschool age children die from guns than do active duty police means your conception of freedom is anything but free: it is drenched in blood.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Dealing in extremist ideology can lead to tyranny. Who do you want the children to be safe from?
This is in response to the Shindler's List Facebook image being posted here on DU and elsewhere.
Sorry I wasn't clearer.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The RWingers are trying to use their brain(s).
If they were smart (haha) they would stop now.
Hence, get ready for more LCD.
What does that mean?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Lowest common denominator.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Did you actually mean to write that you would accept tyranny as long as they promised to keep your kids safe? You favor the Patriot Act, NDAA, MCA, the militarization of civic police forces, and so on?
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Not at all. See the link.
My point is the NRA notion of freedom is not freedom at all. We live under a tyranny of gun violence.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)makes the consequences worse just as they also make suicide much more likely to be successful, but labeling it tyrannical is just silly as well as counter-productive.
Even those of us that live in neighborhoods where shootings are a daily occurrence don't live in constant fear. That is something for people that live in safe places who let their imaginations run wild with the possibility. You don't like the NRA, I don't like them either, but please.
And BTW, a lot of us have been living with these conditions for decades and few of you ever take notice until the media decides to tell you about it.
(Edit) If you live in one of these neighborhoods you know that most of us have a lot more to fear from the gun-toting cops than our neighbors.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Despite living in the inner city. Sure, I hear gun fire out my window, but I get by fine. But I don't need to live in fear myself to be outraged at the level of gun violence in the nation. The most fearful people seem to be gun owners themselves. They have reason to be fearful, but not for the reason they think. They are 7x more likely to see that gun used on themselves or a family member than an assailant.
As I said, my point about tyranny was a direct reference to the Shindler's list post. Why you refuse to see that, I don't understand. The gun zealots evoked authoritarianism in defense of their machinery of death. I refuse to submit to their conception of freedom that means more children die from guns than police die on active duty. Their twisted idea of freedom comes with the highest murder rate in the industrialized world. There is nothing free about that.
The trope of tyranny is a long standing one in US history and Revolutionary War era Americans used it to describe British rule as a form of political slavery. Seventy years later it described what mid-nineteenth century Northerners called the tyranny of the Slave Power. Just like the gun lobby, The Slave Power restricted First Amendment rights through the Gag Rule and other legislation. Gun interests have imposed similar restrictions in Florida, where a doctor who asks a patient about guns can be jailed, and through the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits physicians from documenting any information on guns. Research on guns has been illegal for decades.
That too many people have died from gun violence for decades does not make it acceptable. The slaughter of the children at Sandyhook has brought about a sea change. We now have an opportunity to bring about some gun control, which can improve conditions in your own neighborhood.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's one argument, that controlling access to guns infringes on "our rights". I don't make that, myself.
There's another argument, that controlling access to guns will be a repeat of the attempts to control access to drugs, and will possibly even make things worse by driving guns onto the black market.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)Only it's legal without requirements for background checks. The purpose of opposition to checks on private gun sales is of course so that gun companies can continue to sell to criminals. I don't see much purchase in that argument, since that very situation already flourishes.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I certainly do. I think that's a much better avenue to take than deciding how a legal firearm should look.
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)To be banned. I'm not sure how it deals with new guns not yet manufactured. It bans all extended clips, magazines and drums over 10 bullets.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The specific bans are well past over reaching