When You Cannot Pass Even Reasonable Guns Laws In The Light Of Massacres You Are Beyond Hope.

[TheMastersNemesis]

Last edited Wed Sep 11, 2013, 11:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Our failure to address gun issues in the light of so much death and massacres proves we are truly a demented nation. When politicians are recalled for passing reasonable "gun safety laws". We are beyond hope. The gun nuts are the problem and not the solution. I am ok with my harshness and malevolence toward them. They are for the most part despicable selfish human beings. They should be cursed and not honored in any way. When you can be so crass and ignore the results of Sandy Hook and prescribe more senseless death rather than a solution.

Were it my child slain by such madness and I faced such vicious hateful opposition like that I saw in Colorado Springs I would not just turn the other cheek. I would rather strike them like a viper politically in an effort to end their political influence forever. I would take their voice like they seek to take and deny mine. So in the end any of these guns nuts who accidently shoot themselves get no sympathy from me.

Sandy Hook was so horrendous that no sane, reasonable, caring or even humane human being would be apposed to sensible legislation. We would be better off as a country if these gun nuts just disappeared some day because they offer no meaningful, or useful solution to the problem. They are the problem and always will be the problem.

They found some way to game the vote and game the system in a way that benefits only them. Had the ballots been mail in which was denied, the recall most likely would have had other results. I am sure a lot of dirty tricks and malevolent voter suppression happened that will never come out.

Does anyone think there is going to be any peace with these demented hateful souls. They won't be satisfied until they can carry their guns anywhere they want and intimidate anyone they want and eventually shoot anyone they don't like.

[Eleanors38]

1. Read this OP, everyone: Is this the way you want to go?

[rl6214]

5. A lot of baseless accusations there

Nothing to back them up, only proof that Bloomberg and giffords PAC spent a TON to defeat this recall and lost.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. It's nothing less than a screed against democracy itself.

[Blue_Tires]

22. And which way do YOU want to go?

[Eleanors38]

127. Without hate, intolerance, and authoritarianism.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. You mean the tone of that post, or what?

[Eleanors38]

124. The OP's outlook. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

130. That's what I figured, but I wasn't sure.

The OP represents a set of ideological blinders that ensure future defeat not just on this issue, but on OTHER progressive/left issues, as good politicians get picked off one by one on this issue.

There's a right way and a wrong way to go about these public policy issues, and unfortunately, these two picked the wrong way, and now we all suffer. Worst thing is, they meant well. All over a fundamental disagreement. I don't even ascribe animus or anything like that. Just a different viewpoint.

[etherealtruth]

142. YES, great OP!!!!

[kentuck]

2. I am totally depressed this morning...

I live in District 11 in Colorado Springs. They used the support of Mayor Bloomberg and his money very effectively as an issue to pass the recall. Aurora or Columbine or Sandy Hook seldom came up in the campaign. The local media and talk radio hyped up the Republicans to get out and vote. I would not read much more into it than that. Most disturbing was that the Democrat in Pueblo, a very Democratic town, was defeated even worse than Morse.

[NYC_SKP]

4. Wasn't Bloomberg's money used to oppose the recall?

As I understand it, opposition to the recall outspent supporters by 6:1 and still failed to stop the recalls.

I wouldn't call that effective.

[kentuck]

7. The truth cannot be told...

But outside money, 501c-4's and Koch Bros spent more than Bloomberg and the opposition.

They do not have to report it for up to 3 years, I have read.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Link, Please? N/T

[kentuck]

78. Just common knowledge

A lot of money came in that did not have to be reported. .

[wild bird]

81. If that's true, and there's no proof of it, from either side,

then why didn't the pro recall forces spend all that unknown money? They were outspent 6-1 and the majority of ads were for the anti recall side.

I think it's safe to say that money didn't make a difference this time around.
As a matter of fact, it may have had a negative influence for the anti recall forces in as much as Bloomberg is concerned.

[GreenStormCloud]

92. IOW, just your say-so.

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[kentuck]

135. Here is one link..

that might help a little?

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/Much_Colorado_gun_spending_off_radar/

<snip>
While local broadcast stations are required to keep paper files of advertisements bought by political groups, the stations in Colorado Springs and Pueblo, where the two senators targeted for recall are based, are not required to post this information online by the Federal Communications Commission, since they are not among the top 50 media markets in the country. So while reporters could rifle through those paper files to get some information about spending by such groups, it would require a lot of leg work to scan the documents and build a database.

Other nonprofit groups that have been active in the race but have not reported any spending are Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, and Free Colorado, both in favor of the recalls, and VoteVets.org, which opposes them.

[GreenStormCloud]

170. Doesn't the spending still have to be reported to DO's election board?

All you have there is that the station didn't have to put the info online. That doesn't mean that they didn't have to report it. You are grasping at straws.

[Pullo]

28. I tend to agree with this

Bloomberg's involvement in many of these states incites fierce grass roots resentment. He can vastly outspend his opposition, but his $$$ is more effective at fueling the ground game of the opposition than that of Team Bloomberg.

The NRA put out a statement after the recall that 'Bloomberg is poison.' In many areas of the country, I believe that is an accurate assessment. Recently here in Ohio, Bloomy tried to organize a protest of Republican Senator Rob Portman for his refusal to support gun control. When the protest went down, gun rights activists outnumbered gun control proponents by a margin of 10 to 1.

[otohara]

69. Bloomy?

is he the Soros for the deranged gun crowd?

Scary Mr. Bloomberg always trying to save lives.

[rrneck]

3. THOSE people are EVIL, EVIL, EVIL. nt

[sweetapogee]

6. it is safe to say

that at least a few dems voted for the recall. Do you include them in your list of "demented hateful souls"?

[Eleanors38]

13. Yeah, this is lost in the lamentation.

[ileus]

8. Always remember it's not about safety but CONTROL.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

9. Says you. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Says the OP. His animosity to democracy is plain for all to see.

[earthside]

40. And your animosity towards democracy?

We live in a representative democracy.

The two recalled legislators were fairly and legitimately elected ... their views on various issues were well known.

When the gun idolators saw the results of representative democracy exercised in the Colorado state legislature, they cherry-picked four districts and targeted those elected officials for recall.

In two of those districts they couldn't even get the required number of signatures (I live in one or those districts). In the southern part of Colorado they were more successful.

So, in Pueblo and Colorado Springs the gun idolators used legal means to essentially subvert the regular election process -- just because they didn't like the results of four or five votes votes on gun regulations in the state legislature -- not because Morse and Giron were corrupt or incompetent, but because they could not stand the rule of the majority.

That is animosity towards democracy.

But I'm not too chagrined. The magazine limit and the background check laws are popular among the majority of Colorado citizens. Gov. Hickenlooper, Sen. Udall and the Democratic majorities in the state assembly are safe for 2014.

Indeed, the recalls ultimately show the extremism and craziness of the Tea Party-Gun Idolator-Repuglican mob. The recalls will be a pyrrhic victory for the gun idolators, in my estimation. Democracy will triumph in Colorado, no matter how much the Reuglicans and gun radicals try to subvert it.

[oldhippie]

55. "The two recalled legislators were fairly and legitimately elected ..."

The two recalled legislators were fairly and legitimately elected ... their views on various issues were well known.

And then they were fairly and legitimately unelected after they voted in a matter opposite the majority of their voters.

[rl6214]

56. We do live in a representative democracy and

The two recalled were legally recalled by their constituents. There was no subversion. The only subversion was by outside interests (Bloomberg, Giffords pac and a huge donor from CA who American I don't know). The people of CO that I know, including my very liberal sister in law don't lie Hickenlooper and call him chickenlooper ir dickenlicker.

All is not rosy in CO.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. They were recalled for failing to represent their constituents.

How come you didn't argue against Walker's recall? You seemed pretty content with that.

[earthside]

71. Walker deceived.

He campaigned saying that he would not try and destroy public sector unions.

Then that is exactly what he did when he got into office.

Morse and Giron were always upfront about their position on issues and their political philosophy when they were running for office. In other words, reasonable folks knew when they voted for them in 2012 and 1210 what they were getting.

Let's be clear, recalls are legal in Colorado -- but that does not make every recall reasonable, rational, credible or in the best interests of representative government.

What kind of republic would we have if Democrats tried to recall Repuglicans every time they introduced and voted for some crazy anti-choice abortion legislation?

And that is why this 'success' for the gun idolators and the Repuglicans is going to blowback against them in 2014 -- they are reactionary and extreme and this episode proves it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

94. If their positions were as well-received as you claim they'd still be in office.

Despite Walker's duplicity he was retained.

[hack89]

64. So the Walker recall attempted was also misguided?

He was fairly and legitimately elected ... his views on various issues were well known.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

67. Google the username with "Walker recall"

He was quite happy with "animosity to Democracy" at that time.

[Major Nikon]

29. Seems a bit dichotomous

Look at it this way. If the gun homicide rate among whites equaled the gun homicide rate among blacks, what would it then be about? If this were the case, there wouldn't be a gun debate in this country.

[DanTex]

10. 30,000 lives lost, each and every year, all to appease some paranoid lunatics.

Gun nuttery is up there on the list of rotten things that we as a country have still not overcome.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. How much more carnage is wrought by alcohol?

In fact, I'll wager must of the gun violence you complain about is alcohol-fueled. Do you really need that drink?

[Major Nikon]

37. Who do you think drinks more, the US or Europe?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

54. In the US alcohol fuels more carnage than guns.

[Major Nikon]

59. Even if you could somehow prove this hypothesis, why do you think that is?

Do you really believe those people are so fundamentally different that they can drink far more alcohol and kill each other with far lower regularity despite massive differences in population density?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. If you want to ban things that cause violence then stick to your principles.

Why do you not care about people killed by drunk drivers or women battered by alcoholic spouses or the alcohol driven sexual assaults? Are these lives less important? Or is it really all just about control while you sacrifice the rest on the altar of faux outrage?

[Major Nikon]

72. Ignoratio elenchi

I realize the flawed idea that somehow one is precluded from simultaneously doing all these things is frequently tossed around in the gun proliferate community and seems to be a quite popular notion. However this does not make it any less of a logical failure.

I'm not going to argue on the basis of nonsense, other than to point it out as such.

For further reading...

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

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. You want an AWB for ~400 deaths while ignoring the slaughter of tens of thousands

do to drunk driving and the literally millions of people victimized by DV and sexual assault?

Please, remind us again what your noble crusade is all about.

[Major Nikon]

95. I don't think you understand

I'm not going to argue on the basis of fallacy. When one's horse breaks it's leg out of the gate, you don't continue to whip it.

Cheers!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. What is your motive for supporting gun control?

[Major Nikon]

103. Because it unquestionably works

We are back to post #59 after the brief detour on the road that leads to ignoratio elenchi.

Now fair being fair and all and acting in the spirit of good faith discussion, it's my turn to ask you a question.

What is your motive for supporting gun proliferation?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

105. 59 proves nothing.

Brutal and repressive governments probably have fewer gun related crimes. However, even countries (and US communities) with stricter gun control can have higher homicide rates as the RKBA forum has easily demonstrated time and again.

But you still haven't answered the question. "It works" is an opinion about efficacy that does nothing to answer "What works?" For all we know you could be a professional criminal who fears being shot while out working.

I happen to think professional criminals and other violent malcontents should be in fear, in which "It works" equally applies to advocating for preserving the right to self-defense.

[Major Nikon]

107. I answered the question, you just didn't like the answer

Furthermore you never so much as made an attempt to answer either one of my questions so I'm not really interested in perusing this discussion further and pointing out the other fallacies contained with the issues you think the RKBA echo chamber has settled. I tend to limit how far down the rabbit hole I'll go with gun proliferates.

Cheers!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

116. I answered that gun ownership works when objective is self-defense.

And "proliferates" is a verb, not a noun. Even in your wanna-be arrogant smarminess it would be misapplied because I'm not looking for proliferation, i.e. expansion. I'm seeking to curtail those who want to circumvent democratic principles to impose restrictions on inherent human rights.

Good luck with your control issues. Life will be much cheerier once you drop them.

[Katashi_itto]

120. "...impose restrictions on inherent human rights." hahahah

A true gun humper...


"...Tell us about these inherent human rights..."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

125. You have a picture of 2 people fighting with swords. Sword humper.

Self-defense is a human right. Unless you're saying a woman being sexually assault has an obligation to not resist.

[Katashi_itto]

144. Bwahaha..! Casting about much? Talk about trying to change subjects...!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

160. You idolize a war-worshipping, misogynist racist culture where people hack each with swords

But I'm sure you think it's all noble and such as you complain about gun violence. Perhaps it is you eager to change the subject away from racism, misogyny and imperialism.

[Major Nikon]

139. That wasn't what I asked

And yes, I'm pretty sure you are for gun expansion, but if you wish to condemn the NRA/ALEC's efforts towards that end it would certainly differentiate you from them. Both CCW and shoot-first laws are examples of gun proliferation. I seriously doubt you were ever against those things. "gun proliferates(sic)" is shorthand for those who wish for the proliferation of small arms and was never intended to be grammatically correct any more than "wanna-be(sic)". If you prefer I can use the word 'nut' instead, but that seems to be a more derisive than what I intended.

You also refused to answer why you think Europe has a far lower gun death rate despite having significantly higher alcohol consumption and significantly higher population density.

The rate of gun homicide in the US is far higher than any other well developed nation on earth. Regardless of what you think the US does NOT even remotely compare to other advanced nations in this regard and compares much better to the 3rd world. The US has a gun death rate of about 10 per 100,000 which puts us right between Argentina and Mexico. The gun death rate in Germany and France is less than 3 times lower which is consistent with most of the rest of Western Europe. If you want to limit it to gun homicide, the difference is even more dramatic. If you want to further delve into demographics and geography, the differences become even more dramatic. Calling the desire to correct that situation "control issues" reeks of silly juvenile name-calling nonsense that adds nothing of value to the conversation. If you want to go down that road I'd just as soon go to a bar and listen to drunken gibberish. At least that provides entertainment value and free peanuts.

Cheers!

[davidpdx]

165. Yes it is juvenile, hence the hidden post

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Sep 12, 2013, 11:52 AM, and the Jury voted 6-0 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: This is totally uncalled for an over the top rhetoric. If you support guns fine, argue your point. But calling someone pro-rapist because they support gun control is rude. My advice is think before you post.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Way OTT with "pro-rapist" slur. Wildly inappropriate.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: Totally over the top crazy personal attack, this is gun nuttery at its most pathetic.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Major Nikon]

169. Here's the funny part

I own a collection of guns and shot skeet and other target shooting on a regular basis for over 20 years often going through 500 rounds or more in a day. Unless that person was in the military throwing a lot of brass out of high fire rate weapons(and I did that too), I would venture to say I've reloaded and sent more rounds downrange than they have ever seen. I've also never been in favor of a ban (as this person ignorantly alleged). I guess when you're intellectually bankrupt you have to make it up as you go along.

At least now this person has a transparency page and other DUers can see how ugly they are before engaging, so perhaps there's a silver lining.

[CTyankee]

122. a while back I posted about Norway, a representative democracy with a population of gun

enthusiasts who are hunters and marksmen/women. They have had one mass shooting and we have them regularly. Their hunters and sport shooters have much greater gun regulation than we do. Yet they thrive and do well. They have a history of fighting against a repressive regime, during WW2. That memory has not been lost on them. Yet right after the war they passed some extremely strong gun safety laws that you would no doubt deem repressive.

So yes, gun safety laws DO work. And they work very well with a population that likes their guns and enjoys using them for hunting and for sports.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

129. If you think you can transplant their culture to Chicago and DC, God bless ya.

[CTyankee]

132. Exactly. It is the gun culture in the U.S., not gun safety laws, that put us in this situation.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

134. They've been "gun free zones" for decades. Even Chicago is dragging its feet in its

constitutional requirements. So I'm not sure how a presence of guns figures into rates of violence.

[CTyankee]

141. they don't amount to much without some strong federal enforcement of gun laws...

there has to be a national commitment to gun safety to do this. It appears that Norway, gun lovers that they are, have that commitment, and their gun violence has been reduced accordingly.

Here in CT, we were so shocked and embarrassed by Sandy Hook we passed strong gun safety regulations. But it won't help without having interstate gun traffic from states that have more lax gun safety laws. The majority of CT voters want strong gun control. We are hamstrung by lack of federal regulation.

I am not thankful for this turn of events.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

163. Weird 'cause I live in one of those lax gun law states and we don't want your laws.

If you can't manage your own affairs maybe you should be embarrassed. Sorry you feel you can't succeed without other people carrying you through life. Good luck, you'll need it (especially being disarmed and all).

[Katashi_itto]

145. "constitutional requirements"...what the hell is that?

Another false argument.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

162. No, really there were a couple of Supreme COurt decisions that said

the pro-rapist sword humping faction wasn't allowed to ban guns.

[Katashi_itto]

167. Snicker...really? Guns arent banned places? Ok, go take your guns aboard a plane and say your

your using your 2nd amendment.

Let us know what happens.

[Katashi_itto]

119. Red herring argument again

[Katashi_itto]

80. More Red Herring BS

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. Do you deny alcohol leads to drunk driving, domestic violence and sexual assault?

Or do those victims not matter to you?

[Katashi_itto]

83. See my 1st post.

At least your consistant.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

88. Your 1st post is as consistent as the rest.

It's not about doing the most good, it's about controlling law-abiding people while allowing criminals free rein.

[Katashi_itto]

89. Yours is still consistant BS.

"...it's about controlling law-abiding people while allowing criminals free rein."

Ahh a gun humper...

Oh and BTW I own several guns, I still think that about you.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. Please, tell us your motive for banning guns.

[Katashi_itto]

91. Who said anything about banning guns?

Although I wouldnt mind a $5.00 tax on each bullet.

Zero tax on home made bullets. Those are people that are serious about their hobby.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

93. So what is your motive for prohibitive taxation?

[Katashi_itto]

96. How is it prohibitive? Your free to bear arms still.

Not my problem if you can't afford the bullets.

Make them, no tax there, I do, not a big deal. Or get a 2nd job.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

97. What is your motive for wanting such laws?

[Katashi_itto]

101. Ask away. Lots of restictions on guns.

This just happens to be a tax.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

102. Why do you want lots of restrictions on guns?

[kentuck]

110. Surely you jest?

You are not serious?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

113. I'm serious. I strongly suspect their motives.

[Katashi_itto]

118. It's your motives that are suspect.

[etherealtruth]

111. Is it really necessary to deflect from the issue?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. I thought the issue was controlling inanimate things to reduce needless deaths.

It seems I was mistaken.

[etherealtruth]

114. the issue is narrow and specific ... controlling gun deaths and gun violence

[Nuclear Unicorn]

123. Thirty thousand gun deaths, half of which are deliberately self-inflicted

In order to stamp out the remaining 15,000 accidental deaths/homicides we're told we have to sign on to an "assault" weapon ban (and other chicanery) even though semi-automatic rifles account for less than 200 deaths annually. How many homicides and accidental shootings involve alcohol?

Meanwhile, the 15,000 deliberately self-inflicted tragedies aren't even a factor in the gun control agenda. Oh, sure, the controllers want the people contemplating suicide disarmed but the underlying mental illness receives no attention. If the underlying illness were treated then the gun wouldn't even be an issue. But gun control advocates need a body count so those 15,000 are sacrificial lambs.

Teen drinking steals 1600 lives annually. That's the equivalent of 1 and a half Sandy Hooks EVERY WEEK.

We have tens of thousands of live shattered by drunk drivers every year despite strict laws, PSA's, check points and a veritable industry surrounding DUI's.

Then there are the hundreds of thousands of sexual assault victims annually. Over 70% of SAs involve alcohol but less than 7% involve guns. A woman who chooses to arm herself has a 93% of having more power at her disposal than her attacker. The other 7% are on equal terms. Women just won the right to join the military and fight for the US but we're supposed to believe they're too dangerous to protect themselves from predators.

Then there are the literally TENS OF MILLIONS of men, women and children who EVERY DAY live in terror of an abusive domestic partner who has succumb to alcohol fueled rages. EVERY DAY they live with being pummeled, kicked, battered and degraded. Many are killed outright, mostly without a gun.

What are the public health care costs of and lost productivity from this violence and carnage? When do those people garner even a scintilla of the faux concern expressed day-after-day? Why are these millions of lives not as important?

A Clinton administration DOJ report said guns are used defensively 1.7 million times a year.

So, let's add all that up and compare.

15,000,000 vs. 15,000? A thousand to 1? 0.1%? This is compassion?

If it was truly about the human cost there are scourges far deadlier than guns. At least guns have multiple legitimate uses; there is no use for alcohol save recreation (No, I'm not a teetotaler). Any argument for gun control can just as easily be made for alcohol control. Yet, they won't because we all know the folly of Prohibition. My only conclusion is: it's not about caring for human life it is about a cynical and presumptive effort to disarm good people. Only an untrustworthy fiend wants to disarm people who are content to live undisturbed as they disturb no one else.

[etherealtruth]

140. I am capable of multi-tasking .... I do not need to ignore one 'evil" because there are other bad th

The proliferation of guns in the US is a national embarrassment.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

154. Multitasking to disarm good people while leaving the violent criminals unchecked.

That's an amazing agenda. You must be proud.

[etherealtruth]

156. Yeah, that's it

No doubt you and your guns have stopped numerous crimes (probably more than you can recall).

You convinced me ...

[sweetapogee]

23. there are those

who are obsessed with guns.

And then there are those who are obsessed with gun control.

Common to both groups...obsession.

[CTyankee]

117. some of us have lost someone dear to them to gun violence.

Let's just say that motivates them to work against it. If that is what you call an "obsession" then I don't think there is anything more I can tell you.

[wild bird]

121. My motivation is my service in Vietnam.

I've seen first hand the destruction to a human body a gun can do, and my wife has experienced just what the damage a shotgun can do to a human body.

I'm fully in support of a gun in the house for self defense, also I'm a hunting rights person as long as it's for consumption, not for trophy.
I also don't mind recreational or competitive shooting, where I do draw the line is this willy nilly carrying of firearms in public.

[Abq_Sarah]

166. Gun nuttery?

Paranoid lunatics? What's next.. are you going to go for the triple crown and call us racists as well?

[TheMastersNemesis]

171. Of Course I Am-

[billh58]

11. The NRA rears

its ugly head again, and enables more gun violence by manipulating the political process with their gun manufacturer's blood soaked bribery money. Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent, along with their supporters and apologists, are no doubt celebrating their "victory" over common sense and decency this morning.

[Eleanors38]

12. Try something different, billh58.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. The NRA was outspent by over 6 to 1.

The recall worked because people in those districts don't want gun control.

[etherealtruth]

143. Exactly

[Savannahmann]

14. Gang, seriously

Guns don't poll anywhere near the top ten important issues. You may think it's important. I may think it's reasonably important. But nobody else does. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/Most-Important-Problem.aspx

Economy comes first. But there we're screwed. We can't fund another Stimulus with the Congress like it is, and President Obama is wasting his Mojo on a fruitless effort to bomb Syria. Look at the poll, Guns show up next to nowhere on the list of issues that voters think is important. So what do we do? We rail about how foolish the people are for not voting for politicians who want Gun Control, call it whatever you want.

Look, in all honesty, I would want to see all guns banned. But I am a friggin Minority in that opinion, and I know it. Even to me, the issue is way down on the list.

If we want to win elections, we have to first find what is important, and second, come up with plans to address that which is important. President Obama "pivots" to the economy now and then, and proposes nothing new. You can't "Pivot" to something, identify it as a problem, and then wonder off having proposed nothing. Worse, you can't "Pivot" to a problem as seen by roughly half the people, and then say that there is no problem, all is well, carry on. Oh and invest in canned food gang.

Politics is about perception. If you are aware of the issue, working towards a solution for the issue, and able to converse intelligently about the issue, you probably will win. If you propose something that sounds a little nutty, but at least you have a plan, you will probably win. But if you have no plan, no idea what can be done, and all you do is ignore the problem, or worse acknowledge the problem and wish everyone well, then you are not likely to win.

The Republicans are reading those polls. They are mentioning the economy a lot. They are talking about the failed policies of President Obama, and pointing to the economy. I saw a news story that the economy had grown by .5% over some 50 months. That is roughly four years. Is that better than contracting? Yes, but to the millions out of work, and the millions stuck in part time jobs struggling to make ends meet patting yourself on the back while you have a full time job and perks of public office is just bad form.

So rail against guns, and how stupid the voters are, and then ask yourself this. If the voters care about an issue, shouldn't we listen to them since they are the ones who, well you know, vote?

[sarisataka]

35. You are making too much sense

I am in favor of reasonable control while respecting rights but take no joy in the results of this election.

Despite the accusations of celebration, pointing out gun control is a loosing issue was simply a statement of fact. Only one side is able to motivate their base. Now CO is faced with increased Repub strength when the legislature moves on to these issues that are more important to the electorate.

Yet rather than face reality, some will rail against the NRA (though their funds were matched by Bloomberg- as if he is better) make wild claims of shenanigans and work to keep alienating a good sized, highly motivated voting block that is already a Republican majority and distrustful of Democrats.

Some will still say this is a 'victory'. I can do without this kind of victory.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. And therein lies the rub.

That's two legislators, friendly to most D planks, gone. Eradicated. Over a BS issue.
We are weaker for it, and the controls they tried to implement fixed nothing.

Sad

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Since this democracy thing isn't panning out for you what does your book tell you to do now?

[sweetapogee]

21. more of the same

no doubt.

[liberal_at_heart]

24. The fact that we couldn't get universal background checks which the majority of Americans support

after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting depreseed the hell out of me. If we couldn't get it then, we will never get it. Very, very sad.

[Jenoch]

70. I think a national UBC law likely would have passed congress

were it not for Diane Feinstein pushing for a new AWB.

[Duckhunter935]

153. correct nt

[Lee-Lee]

175. People support UBC until they find out the details

They will support a catch phrase like "Universal Background Checks".

When you explain what that entails, such as how the Senate bill was written, support wanes.

When you point out that the exemption for loaning a rifle for hunting was so narrowly written it pretty much only applies if both people are out at the hunting ground during the season, people loose support.

For example if you want to loan a hunting buddy, who already had guns, a shotgun to go hunting the day before the season so he would be able to be out the morning of opening day like most hunters, that would be a felony. So in order to loan a hunting buddy a gun you both would have to take the time to go down to the gun store while it was open, fill out paperwork recording the serial # and your names that is kept on file 20 years, and wait for them to call in the background check. Ohh, and pay $25-50 depending on the area. Then when he wants to return the gun, you both go back to a gun dealer during business hours, fill out the forms again, pay $25-50, and you can have your gun back.

When you explain that to people, they suddenly don't think such a simple phrase as "universal background checks" is such a great idea.

Want UBC? Put up a good law that people will support even when they find out what is in it.

[1awake]

25. Or...

most people disagree with you and those who keep trying to restrict guns?

[Fumesucker]

34. The majority of people don't care all that much either way

But there is a crawl-through-broken-glass-to-vote substantial minority that is utterly fixated on getting and keeping guns.

[1awake]

41. I would disagree with that, but not because I'm trying to argue.

I wonder what the break down is according to state, and then according to urban vs rural.

[elleng]

26. Beyond hope, and no peace.

[MicaelS]

27. When Democrats lose in heavily Democratic districts..

That tells a logical person that those Democrats are wrong on the issues. But you don't want to hear that. Instead you want to indulge in paranoid conspiracy fantasies about the evil "other". In fact you come perilously close to engaging in Eliminationist rhetoric.

There are Democrats who support the RKBA. They are not willing to support Democrats who attempt to abridge that right. All Giron and Morse had to do was vote against the gun bills, and they would still be in office. But they chose not to do that and we see the consequences. Furthermore, both her and Morse refuse to accept that it was their own fault. Politicians who lose seldom do.

I have seen very few politicians ever say:

"I was obviously wrong on the issues, and that is why the voters tuned me out of office."

And you can't say that either. You probably never will able to do so. No matter how many elections supporting an issue costs them, people like you and Morse, still feel "that they are in the right."

[liberal_at_heart]

33. that is why I don't belong in the democratic party anymore. The democratic party has gone too far

to the right. It is not my party anymore.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

38. The right to self-defense and the right to CHOOSE whether to own a firearm or not are liberal

issues with a broad-based public support.

The fact that even conservatives support this does not mean that the conservatives own these issues. Until the conservatives seek to mandate that everyone own a firearm, this is still a liberal issue.

[Lizzie Poppet]

109. Precisely.

Sweeping controls with highly dubious factual justification (rather than overwrought, untargeted emotion...) are anything but liberal.

[wild bird]

36. Add to that the way the process was done.

The perception was that the bills were jammed through without much debate or public input, and this really pissed people off, and then add the Bloomberg and MAIG factor and you have the rhetorical perfect storm.

[billh58]

39. And again, you

sound familiar.

[wild bird]

42. You again?

If you don't like what I have to say, even though for the most part I'm on the gun control side, then I suggest you do one of two things.

1. Alert,
or,
2. Ignore.

[billh58]

44. Nah, I'd rather

just watch...

[wild bird]

46. Have fun with that,

but try to do so silently, ok?

[billh58]

50. Nope.

I call them as I see them Bubba.

[wild bird]

53. Whatever.

As I said up thread, have fun with that.

[earthside]

49. Morse was not in a "heavily Democratic district."

And there was intra-party splits and feuding in Giron's district.

The gun nuts and Repuglicans cherry-picked where they made the recall efforts -- that's simple politics.

The magazine limit and background checks are popular among the majority of Colorado citizens.

Morse and Giron were not 'wrong' on these gun laws ... they expected (as they should) that they would be challenged in the next election (except Morse was term limited anyway).

But the gun nuts just cannot accept the regular functioning of representative democracy, they are extreme and reactionary and have to bully their way around. In these two cases they succeeded (they failed in two other legisaltive districts to even get the required number of signatures to force a recall).

But they won't succeed next year. Democrats who support reasonable gun regulations are safe here in Colorado. All the gun radicals have done with these recalls is demonstrate to the rest of us just how reactionary and radical they really are.

And, by the way, nothing has changed here, Democrats still control both chambers of the legislature.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

60. They "cherry-picked" Giron's heavily Dem district?

THOSE SNEAKY BASTARDS!

[earthside]

73. Yup. They did.

Do you know how the Democrats in Pueblo operate?

Here is a mainstream media link that describes in polite terms some of the splits and feuding among Democrats in Giron's district: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23745807/pueblo-sen-angela-giron-proud-her-record-predicts

Hey, it is politics. If I were a gun nut Repuglican, I'd cherry-pick, too.

But it is also a danger in politics to over-read what something like this means.

[wild bird]

86. It's also a danger in politics to under-read what something like this means?

Everyone here, including me, thought that Ms. Giron would easily keep her seat, wasn't too sure about Mr. Morse, but was sure that Ms. Giron was a lock, she lost by a bigger margin that Morse did, and all this while she was outspending the pro recall forces by a margin of 6-1.

Something went wrong somewhere and trying to blame it on money, the NRA, voter suppression, whatever, isn't going to cut it.
We need to learn from this and move forward instead of pointing fingers and lamenting on how this wasn't a fair recall, gun nuttery, etc.

I say let this be a lesson and try to do better at electing local/state/federal candidates.

[freshwest]

189. 'Democrats still control both chambers of the legislature' Thanks for that good news!

I wasn't sure that would be the case now. What a relief.

Nemesis lives in an area that is Libertarian/ Teapublican and his earlier anecdotes detail them as offensive.

[otohara]

62. 426,388 CO Springs Population - 17,845 Votes

and no mail ballots

hardly a referendum on Democrats.

[dionysus]

30. public opinion carried the day.. the result is unfortunate.

[fredamae]

31. Add CO to the list of places

I will NOT visit!

I am surprised-I always believed the majority of folks living in CO were sane.

[denverbill]

52. We have a Dem Governor, state Senate,state House, both US Senators, and majority of Representatives.

There were numerous attempts to get state legislators recalled, and they only got enough signatures for 2 to be attempted.

Of the 2 which were attempted, both of the Republicans who tried to oust the Democrats supported the new law requiring background checks for ALL guns purchases.

So 2 legislators got recalled in the most ultraconservative districts in the state.

Our state passed laws requiring mandatory background checks and lower limits for magazines despite a HUGE outcry from the nuts. Did your state?

[fredamae]

63. Sadly, I must admit

WE have our own problems-HB3200 was introduced and languished in Ways/Means.

Our lawmakers likely shared the same "crazies" threatening, showing up armed at the capitol..etc...and they stalled movement.

Oregon is also a big part of the problem.

I'm confused-I read one report that said the two that are recalled are from very Dem districts.
I'll believe You-since you live there.
Also, I read this is a result of voter suppression? Is that true?

[denverbill]

76. As far as I know, there wasn't any voter suppression involved.

If anything, the lack of a mail-in ballot probably suppressed Democratic turnout though, so in that sense, it was suppression.

Morse only lost by 1% even in a very conservative city. Giron lost by a bit more, but it wasn't like 60-40. More like 53-47. Not exactly landslides given the low voter turnout.

When I moved to Colorado in 1989, we had a Republican governor, both state houses, both Senators, and majority of reps. Now we are exactly the opposite. Republicans are so whiny about it some counties are now trying to secede.

The voters legalized recreational marijuana last year. We voted for Obama twice. Gay marriage is legal here now.

The right wing in Colorado is very vocal and but is becoming more and more marginalized. The further right Republicans go, the less chance they'll have in CO.

I don't think putting CO on your list of places to go because of a couple of mid-term recall failures is quite fair. We aren't exactly Arizona or Oklahoma.

[denverbill]

99. Maybe I was wrong about the voter suppression.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/321567-top-dem-blames-colorado-defeats-on-voter-suppression-pure-and-simple

Having never had a recall in Colorado in our history before this, there was a fair amount of confusion about when/how it was going to be done. Republicans will never miss a chance to corrupt an election, so no doubt they did their best. I don't know how much of this was actual suppression versus just confusion due to never having done this before.

[fredamae]

104. I can see where confusion

could influence the outcome-I don't recall any recall votes I myself have participated in...I'm surprised at the low voter turnout, especially since this is the first recall experience...And no, the GOP never misses any opportunity to cheat.

This is So surprising to me because CO is Very "Blue"....Bluer than Oregon, actually considering how far you've all come with Cannabis, Marriage Equality, your Dem House/Sen/Gov. Electing PBO twice etc
Sorry, I had a Knee-jerk reaction-I was really pulling for the two that were up-I really believed CO would reject their recalls...I'm disappointed for you and No, you guys are most certainly Not like TX/FL/AZ/ID/VA etc..
CO is beautiful, serene and worth a visit!

[Snake Plissken]

32. Guns don't kill people, people kill people

Before we can solve any of our problems we must be honest with ourselves, we are a nation composed primarily of morons.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023366117

[Major Nikon]

43. Factually correct albeit meaningless to substantitive discussion and overused to the point of cliche

Guns are tools that make killing easier and more efficient. Better gun control laws the world over = lower gun homicide rates irrespective of the moron rate.

[billh58]

45. +100!

Bingo...

[judesedit]

47. I wish they would shoot each other and be gone.

[TheMastersNemesis]

57. Ditto

[rockbluff botanist]

61. Most of the accidental gunshot deaths are children of these gun nuts

Whenever I am asked about my thoughts on gun laws, I always give the gun crazies the following explanation: Over 90% of the deaths from guns occur from 1year old to 25; i.e., pre-breeders and breeders. I then explain to them that this is really good for the environment due to the fact it cuts down on the population for generations. I then go on to school them that the great majority of the accidental deaths from gunshots occur in their families and not mine or people like me, and so I really don't care how many guns you crazies have or how easy they are for your children to get. No skin off my nose if a potential gun nut is done in by her/his parents.

This really freaks these people out. I leave them absolutely speechless because however harsh, it is true. Try it. It might make them stop and think about their psychosis.

[TheMastersNemesis]

68. Psychotics Are Not Capable Of Rational Thought.

When you are viciously apposed to sensible gun laws and viciously trash and intimidate the parents and relatives of the victims you have no heart and not soul. Be real, these scum will shoot people who appose them effectively. They are that depraved.

When you take such stand you are on the side of the crazy killer who killed these children. There is nothing reasonable about them.

I am a former combat vet. I believe in relentless counter attack on them and theirs. The only way we will win is to take the fight to them even in their private lives. That is because they do not believe in government for the people and they hate minorities. It is all about taking down government they do not like. They want every citizen carrying a gun openly like the old west.

[rockbluff botanist]

74. Obviosly, sarcasm is beyond you.

What exactly do you mean "take the fight to them in their private lives"? That is what I do when they get in my face about their NRA crap. I tell them to this to rattle their cages. Shake loose a few brain cells. Make them think. Do I feel sorry for the loss of their children .... well, duh! They have never had this statistic so bluntly stated. And, no, I am not against guns. I am womanl raised in the south. I was raised with guns and I have guns. But, owning guns and being an ass kisser to the NRA are worlds apart. The people who I come in daily contact with have the intelligence of dirt and they like it that way. Are they potentially dangerous . . perhaps yes . . it's why I own guns.

And, thank you for your service to the country. My husband, father, brother, father-in-law, sister-in-law, grandfather, uncles etc. are veterans. Bless you. Im glad you made it home.

[TheMastersNemesis]

172. The Problem Is They Want Everyone Armed And NO Background Checks

They also want to even be able to own any weapon available. Some people even have M60 machine guns. There is a video on Youtube of people shooting at RC airplane with every weapon imaginable. Two guys had a mini howitzer artillery piece.

It is legal to own a 50 caliber sniper rifle. And some people have auto weapons with 100 round magazines. Fundamentally the NRA is pushing to make it legal to open carry a gun ANYWHERE you desire to. Iowa even made it legal to issue a carry permit to someone who is legally blind.

All of this crap is beyond insane.

[billh58]

77. +100

I am also a former combat vet, and I totally agree with your assessment of the NRA and its apologists. Those who are saying that the NRA was "outspent" by Bloomberg and Gabby Giffords are willfully distorting the truth.

The NRA has spent millions in both local districts and nationwide in spreading the lie that "the Democrats are coming to take your guns." The amount that they needed to spend in Colorado to reinforce this lie was inconsequential. Those who are celebrating the defeat of honest and honorable Democrats are supporting this lie as well.

The gun culture in the United States is an embarrassment to this country, and a danger not only to our own citizens, but to the rest of the world as well.

[Arugula Latte]

66. Agree. The lack of action after Sandy Hook says all anyone needs to know about this country.

Look at how we react to such tragedies compared with other "civilized" countries. The USA is beyond redemption -- a sick, twisted society where violent, macho creeps have the upper hand and compassion is seen as weakness.

[John_Carter]

75. Reasonable is relative....

I think that the pro-gun side of the argument does a really good job of getting folks to think about the "what if" and slippery slope of laws and regulations.

If they ask X, they the next they will do is Y and what they really want is Z.

Much more so than other areas of the law that seem to creep slowly but surely to one position or another (privacy laws come to mind.)

[etherealtruth]

115. No, the gun nuts do a GREAT job appealing to fear and prejudice

their appeal to the basest human emotions works with segments of the population

[n2doc]

79. see

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/other-races/321567-top-dem-blames-colorado-defeats-on-voter-suppression-pure-and-simple

[hack89]

87. She has her basic facts wrong

there were no lawsuits to stop mail-in ballots. The law suit was to follow the state constitution and give candidates 15 days to gather signatures to get on the ballot. Colorado Democrats and Republicans opposed the lawsuit and asked the judge to allow only 10 days.

The judge said the constitution took precedence and said 15 days. That did not leave enough time to print and mail ballots before the election.

[CTyankee]

146. so basically you support the NRA position (and the NRA sponsorship) on this?

Yes?

[hack89]

148. No - I am saying that she made a statement that can be proven to be wrong.

so unless you mean that being factually accurate is the NRA position, no I do not support the NRA position. As a matter of fact, the NRA has nothing to do with it.

As I have shown you multiple times, there was no law suit to block mail in ballots. More to the point, both the Dems and repukes fought the lawsuit that resulted in there being no mail in ballots.

[CTyankee]

150. No. I asked if you support the NRA on this effort. Yes or No?

[hack89]

155. Of course not - I support Dems regardless of their positions on gun control

I am not a single issue voter. I live in a state with strong gun control laws - everyone of my elected officials supports gun control.

But Wasserman Schultz was has her facts wrong. Which has nothing to do with the NRA.

[CTyankee]

182. sorry, I am too old and have seen too much to believe that the NRA has clean hands on this.

[hack89]

186. You just refuse to accept that "good" Dems would disagree with you on guns

which is fine - having gun control advocates refusing to accept reality and doing same stupid shit over and over again simply is a good thing from my perspective. And I am sure the NRA appreciates your attitude as well.

[CTyankee]

188. I liked it better when as you say "good" Dems would disagree with you on guns" disavowed

the NRA, explaining their defection from its ranks, saying they used to be NRA members but no longer, etc. Now, alluva sudden, they are hot to trot right back into the NRA's warm embrace. It makes my head spin. so I have to wonder what happened...

[hack89]

190. Your fixation on the NRA is distorting your perspective

you want to make it about big national issues and the influence of the NRA. Have you considered that the legislators offended their constituents by how they handled the gun control legislation and were punished for it?

[CTyankee]

191. they offended a segment of their constituents who needed the power of the NRA and the limitation

of the electorate by not having mail in ballots which the majority of their constituents were used to having. They needed those things to win the recall.

This kind of thing is the only way republicans (sorry, I meant "libertarians" another distortion) can win, along with gerrymandering, of course. You see it their way, and IMO that is your fixation.

[hack89]

192. You do know both the Dems and repukes went to court to reinstate mail in ballots?

we have had this conversation before.

Secondly, why do you ignore the millions that poured in from outside the state to fight the recall? The NRA was outspent - you make it sound like they had some unfair advantage.

[CTyankee]

194. I have no illusions about what the NRA's agenda is. This was carefully planned.

If they trusted the full electorate of these districts, why didn't they make a special effort to expand it by having mail in ballots? Wouldn't it bolster your case? What percentage of the full electorate in these districts decided the recalls? Was it a huge majority?

[hack89]

196. The NRA cannot override the Colorado state constitution.

the NRA was not in the courtroom. They were not party to the suits.

The entire issue was that the Libertarian party wanted 15 days to gather ballot signatures per the state constitution and the judge agreed with them.

Are you arguing that state constitutions can be ignored anytime they are inconvenient?

[CTyankee]

199. aw, hack, don't change the subject...I did ask a question about how much support the winners had.

I thought we were discussing the "popular" support for this outcome, which you seem to think is the case. So I merely asked about the actual figure. Did a large majority of the electorate support gun rights in this recall? This question goes right to the heart of your basic argument here. Nobody is disputing the judge's ruling. It was what it was.

[hack89]

201. I suspect that for the majority of the electorate, gun right and gun control are not a high priority

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)

in a general election it would not be a defining issue. The fact that Dem turnout was so low is a good indicator that support for gun control is broad but very shallow - it certainly doesn't seem to excite the voters.

If the Dems do not make elections about gun control then they will do fine. If they do then they will have problems as they motivate single issue voters to turn out to oppose them.

[CTyankee]

202. Yes, Dems do have a number of issues that they care about

so that they are not driven by one single issue. However, the side you are supporting can fairly be described as fanatical on guns. Well aware of this, the NRA planned the campaign around exploiting that fanaticism. This is my side's whole point when you get right down to it! Does it make our democracy stronger when you have such a situation? When campaigns are engineered in this fashion and is a small number of voters who steer the ship of state, has democracy "won"?

[hack89]

203. Would democracy have won if Bloomberg's money had prevailed?

that is a two edged sword you are swinging there.

[CTyankee]

204. well, if the issue is whether we should get all the money out of politics and have

public campaign financing, that is another discussion. As it is, Bloomberg was really responding to the vast pocket of wealth by the RW in this country on an issue he cared strongly about. The difference here is that more people agreed with him than with the fanatics, but they have other issues and are not driven by one narrow ideology. That that was distorted in this instance is a sad thing, and sad for our democracy, IMO.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. Now that makes sense as well

[indepat]

84. Politicians take every step to assure no lunatic's gun rights are ever abridged in the

slightest, all the while they spend hundreds of billions of dollars to violate all Americans' other constitutional rights to best assure no person ever dies on American soil by the hand of a foreign terraist whereas those gunned down on the streets and in schools pile up.

[billh58]

100. So true,

and very much on point. The NRA buys politicians at all levels of government to just "overlook" 30,000 gun deaths every year. The 1% faction of the gun manufacturers support the NRA's political wing and enables them to spread lies and pro-gun propaganda, and to purchase corrupt politicians wherever and whenever they see the opportunity (which is mainly in the right-leaning red states).

[indepat]

106. Those 30,000 gun deaths every year is such a small price to pay to assure unfettered gun rights,

just as is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to eviscerate our other constitutional rights a small price to pay to best assure no one dies on American soil at the hands of a foreign terraist.

[GalaxyHunter]

108. maybe you are the problem?

Sandy Hook was so horrendous that no sane, reasonable, caring or even humane human being would be apposed to sensible legislation.We would be better off as a country if these gun nuts just disappeared some day because they offer no meaningful, or useful solution to the problem. They are the problem and always will be the problem.


That is purely your opinion. I'm sure the gun nuts you say the same thing about you, if you would just disappear then we would be better off. They might even say that you are the problem and will always be the problem.



What in your mind are sensible gun laws?



They won't be satisfied until they can carry their guns anywhere they want and intimidate anyone they want and eventually shoot anyone they don't like.

Who is they? I would like to know how you know this? Has someone told you they would do this or is it your speculation?

[TheMastersNemesis]

173. Bullshit - Bullshit - Bullshit

[GalaxyHunter]

205. thanks for that intelligent answer...

That's what I would expect from a RW troll...

[derby378]

126. The self-righteousness around here is approaching critical mass

Regarding what happened in Colorado last night, is anyone really surprised? A lot of my fellow Democrats are still struggling to learn the lesson taught on Election Day of 1994.

My wife was a strong supporter of gun control. A lot of my friends are as well. If they can have a civil conversation with me about gun laws, I think there's still hope for common ground.

Try to paint me into a corner as being "inhumane" or "unreasonable," however, and you'll get the same result over and over again - we'll butt heads without coming to any consensus, and nothing will ever get done. Is that what you want?

Time to evolve some new ideas...

[krispos42]

128. What do you call laws passed only to wage culture war?

And I think you and I have different definitions of "reasonable".

[Skittles]

131. notice how they can show us graphic videos of Syrian children

but not our own

[ManiacJoe]

133. It would be easier to pass reasonable gun laws

if reasonable ones were being proposed. None of the proposed laws would have met the goals claimed by the "authors". But then the folks that actually wrote the proposals had other goals in mind.

If you want a reasonable law, try the following:

Start with a reasonable goal.
Create a proposal that will meet that goal.
List the side effects and unintended consequences of your new law.
See if other folks think your proposal is reasonable.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

137. Some reasonable proposals that the gun controllers never propose:

1. Promote economic reform so that some people, among other things, are not so desperate as to turn to criminal activities.
2. Separate criminals who use firearms in their criminal activities for longer periods of time by adopting longer minimum prison sentences when they engage in such activities.
3. Adopt universal mental health care, instead of the poor substitute that we got with bait-and-switch, the ACA.

[CTyankee]

147. "controllers"? Interesting use of language...

the mask slips...

[hack89]

149. How about "anti-humpers"

since we are getting picky about what we call each other.

[CTyankee]

151. I have never used the term "humpers" in any respect.

[hack89]

157. But you have no problem with others using it, do you?

What is wrong with the term "controller" anyway? Don't you want more control over who has guns and what kind of guns they have?

[CTyankee]

183. we see this issue differently. Very differently. What I see is a public safety issue.

what I see is a distortion of the 2nd amendment by a RW republican appointed majority on the Supreme Court. I travel abroad a lot and I see other nations who can live peacefully and democratically in a society that is not gun soaked (and blood soaked from gun violence) and I ask, "Why are we so weird?"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

159. Yes, authoritarians are "controllers." Did you ever offer any proposal other than irrational

control, i.e. a gun-type prohibition which the general public will not accept?

Have you ever offered anything other than control

If so, provide a link to where you did so.

If not, it will be an admission that your mask has slipped.

[CTyankee]

185. OK, if that makes Justice Ginsburg a "controller" I stand with her and the other dissenters on the

interpretation of the 2nd A. We were fine under the former interpretation. If you don't think the RW takeover of the SC and control of the House as scary, then you are on the wrong website and you need to rethink what you are doing here...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

193. Your equivalent to "America, Love it or Leave it" is a right-wing meme. You have no factual basis

for claiming to believe that Justice Ginsburg is a "controller." None whatsoever.

You should educate yourself.

[CTyankee]

195. She dissented against the Heller decision, favored by RW republican appointed justices...

I think that qualifies in some gun folks minds as a "controller."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

198. It's a false equavalency to equate a SC Justice who relies upon reason with your

concept of a "controller," whatever that means in your imagination.

[CTyankee]

200. I guess I don't understand your lexicon. What do YOU mean by "controller"?

I never use that term but evidently this is some kind of pro-gun lingo. Sorry, I'm not up to date on the terminology used here, but I am guessing that it is us and not you (according to you).

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. You know when it will start to turn?

When US media stops codling Americans and starts running photos of crime scenes.

Americans have crazy ideas of what crime scenes look like, and trust me, nothing close to the truth. People were horrified when msnbc ran the crime scene photos of the Trayvon Martin murder. Tamron hall apologized I tell ya. That one was mild.

That will be a start and something the gun lobby will do all to prevent, for respect to victims I tell ya.

I was a responding medic at a mass shooting, Mexican media did run photos. Thank The Lord they did not include the strong coppery smell of blood.

[gopiscrap]

152. I agree. We've sold our soul to the fucking NRA and their

like minded gun nut douche bags!

[etherealtruth]

158. I collective soul has been tainted by compromises with the NRA lunatics

They appeal to the fears and prejudices in a certain element of the population ... whip them into frenzies and then .... finance a very right wing agenda (who does the NRA back the greatest percentage of time?)

[Recursion]

164. Is it conceivable to you that some people in good faith disagree about the laws' effectiveness?

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 12:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Or that a lot of people feel about the 2nd Amendment the way many on DU feel about the 4th: that trading liberty for security means you'll end up getting neither?

I do personally think there's a valid tradeoff between liberty and security on guns (and surveillance, for that matter), so I'll leave it to somebody else to defend that. But the first point, about efficacy, is largely my view: most of the gun legislation I see won't, in my opinion, actually do much.

Universal background checks are a good idea but without a national registry or national licensure are basically unenforceable except after the fact (though I'd love to see a national Firearms ID card like in Illinois). But our party keeps charging in with wrong-headed ideas about what types of guns and magazines people can own, completely ignoring the 900-pound-gorilla of the fact that virtually all gun murders (including the majority of mass shootings) are committed using average, ordinary handguns with average, ordinary magazines. (Even the Newtown killer didn't use his extended magazines -- he left them more than half full; the Aurora shooter's extended magazine jammed after 15 shots, as they often do, which probably lowered the death toll because he had to switch weapons.)

That said, just once, I would like to see the discussion on guns moved forward not by a horrific mass shooting but by one of the infinitely more common "ordinary" shootings of one person by another person he or she knows, using a (generally illegally-bought) handgun. If we thought more about that scenario, we might be able to come up with a better policy response.

[Tigress DEM]

174. Gun insurance. Own whatever you want, but be responsible or lose your rights by your own behavior.

Gun owners keep arguing that "responsible gun owners don't do these things" and they are right.

People going off the deep end and murdering others are no longer in that "responsible gun owner" space.

So just like we put people in 2000+ pound weapons and let them loose on the freeways and side streets on a daily basis and make them follow traffic laws, we need to legislate reasonable "use" of weapons and just like you need to demonstrate greater responsibility and driving talent to get a license to drive a semi there should be more required to own an assault rifle or extended clips.

Responsible gun owners could start getting some of their premiums back after every 5 years without incident.

People who don't buy insurance lose their right to own guns. Just like people who own cars but don't buy insurance can lose their right to drive.

WITH privilege comes responsibility THAT is the argument we need to make.

You are a responsible gun owner, pony up the proof.

[Duckhunter935]

178. again with the insurance thing

It would be incredibly cheap since it would not cover illegal acts and the type of weapons people are talking about are not used in crimes. I do not need insurance on a vehicle if I do not use it on the public roads. A vehicle is not a right, but a weapon has been determined to be one.

By the way you do need to have a background check and pay a tax to own an assault rifle as they are fully automatic or burst fire. I will not go into the clips vs magazines bull again. Can not people learn?

[Tigress DEM]

179. My support of gun insurance is that is changes the dialog to demonstrating responsible behavior.

There ARE a lot of responsible gun owners that DON'T abuse their 2nd amendment rights by infringing on others or making rash and stupid decisions.

BUT even worse than the public mass murders which get huge attention and might be difficult to prevent in any case... are all the (preventable) "accidental" shootings that happen when kids get into their parent's guns, which is pretty preventable when people lock their guns up and teach their kids responsible behavior around guns.

I think we could get responsible gun owners to dialog on making others demonstrate that level of competence in order to carry a weapon. Which would be better than having shout at each other conversations at Starbucks with an idiot carrying a loaded weapon in to pick up a double espresso.

[Duckhunter935]

181. why not have a dialog

that will help prevent this and not more things that are feel good measures that will not make a difference.

better background checks, include all data in the checks

possibly an FOID card with the type of weapon trained on.

real proof of safety training requirement and no or little cost

enforce currant laws already on the books

Most gun owners are not the problem but some think any gun owner is a murderer in waiting.

[Tigress DEM]

187. I'd be totally FOR that conversation.

However, these conversations don't go over very well with people who have 2nd amendment fears front and center.

I've found that when I equate responsible driving and responsible gun ownership, it becomes a conversation rather than a defensive posture of "take MY gun away?" "over YOUR dead body".

I also think it would be a way for the NRA to save face and actually become a force for change. Showing that THEIR members are demonstrably more responsible by virtue of education and commitment TO responsible gun ownership ... they could support a lot of safety training and data tracking to get their members a "preferred" status in the insurance pool.

Maybe the NRA is supporting the wrong party.

I respect gun ownership and gun owners. I don't respect irresponsible behavior though or criminal behavior.

Still people who own guns shouldn't automatically be presumed to be whack jobs.

[lynne]

197. Any gun owner with a homeowners policy already has gun insurance -

- there's no exclusion for gun ownership. There is, however, an exclusion for any bodily injury or property damages incurred during the commission of a crime.

http://www.iinc.org/articles/460/1/Homeowner-Insurance-Gun-Liability/Page1.html

[Tigress DEM]

206. But you don't have to prove any firearms competence with homeowners insurance.

And you don't have to have your gun insured to own a gun that you plan to use.

If you are planning on driving your car, you have to have insurance.

People want to take their guns on the road, to Starbucks etc... then they are endangering others IF they don't have some basic common sense. One way to set that bar is with insurance and basic competency requirements like we do with cars.

[lonestarnot]

168. Career politicians have their own kind of hope, hope to represent you another day.

[B Calm]

176. We are a country ran by lobbyists!

[sendero]

177. IMHO..

... this recall is a perfect example of the dynamics surrounding the gun issue.

The people who are AGAINST any new laws are REALLY REALLY against it and they VOTE.

The people who are FOR reasonable reforms are kinda for them and lots of them didn't get out and vote. I'm pretty sure that even in CO and TX, a majority support these reasonable reforms but THEY DIDN'T VOTE.

You can extrapolate this dynamic to many other issues IMHO.

[aikoaiko]

180. I think your last paragraph is untrue and fear mongering of the type that you condemn.

[99Forever]

184. I couldn't agree more...

... gun humpers AND the objects of their fetish are the problem.

Always have been, always will be.