Guns are the mortal enemies of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and if that is not

[Fred Sanders]

true then this man is a fraud and a charlatan:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/27/1302268/-Shooting-victim-s-father-Why-wasn-t-something-done-It-s-outrageous-VIDEO?showAll=yes

Now that is righteous anger. Be afraid, gun lovers, be very afraid, that anger and that righteousness is coming for you.

[shedevil69taz]

1. yes because all public policy

should be made exclusively based on emotion...especially ones concerning an original amendment in the BOR

[Fred Sanders]

2. Silly deflection. Emotion makes us human. Most of us. Play the video, then re-comment.

Public policy should be based on public desire and societal need, so what do the polls show on background checks and ammunition limits, I wonder?

[Hekate]

3. Watch the video, why don't you?

[badtoworse]

6. OK, I watched the video. What gun law would have prevented his son's death?

[shedevil69taz]

8. If there was a law that kept Mr. Rodger from legally obtaining a firearm

That is no guarantee his son would not have been killed, especially if he was one of Rodger's specific targets.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Cause and effect are not a gunlover's strong suits. I blame lead poisoning and the poison

of corporate propaganda.

[IronGate]

24. So, you have nothing more than insults?

The sure sign that one has lost the debate.

[Fred Sanders]

87. I got a whole lot more than that, sir/madame, as you can see from the thread.

I got logic, you got Fox and the NRA idiocy and hate.

[IronGate]

127. Let me clue you in,

I don't watch Fox, not an NRA member and not particularly interested in the whole gun debate.
The only reason I commented is because you, sir/madame, were being rude and insulting, which is usually the sign that one has lost the debate and all that's left is name calling.

[baldguy]

7. So, you agree with Joe the Plumber that our dead kids don't trump your right to play with your toys?

You want logic? How's that for logic?

[badtoworse]

14. So, the misdeeds of a tiny minority should be the basis for denying civil rights to millions...

...of law abiding gun owners. Where is the logic in that?

[Fred Sanders]

18. Yes, so you do agree the tree of liberty needs regular watering....with innocent blood.

It is your right to believe so, it is the right of the vast majority to call your beliefs absurd.

The French Revolution actually took 70 years to play out. For the next 2 centuries an established democracy never has came near to a counter revolution....no established democracy needs guns to defend from democracy. No Western nation with established democracies has come close to tyranny. Having armed militias and a citizenry armed to the teeth in a established democracy that respects it's institutions as fair and incorruptible is all the protection democracy needs.

The reason is obvious. Democracies ARE themselves protection against tyranny. Protect the instructions, tyranny does not stand a chance.

[Hoyt]

27. We are talking about guns, not something most people find

essential to the pursuit of happiness.

[G_j]

48. I'm sorry

but not seeing guns as some divinely created sacrament, I find the idea of bemoaning gun restrictions as an attack on the civil rights of millions, just ridiculously off the rails. Talk about the idea of entitlement, as if guns represent some grand noble thing that is more important than lives. Excuse me, if I don't shed tears because nobody is out to deny anyone their civil rights

[treestar]

55. So you feel relatively safe

The odds are it won't be you. "Misdeed?" That's putting it mildly.

[malaise]

60. how about the fugging right to life? n/t

[badtoworse]

61. What about it?

[Sweet Freedom]

65. No, law-abiding gun owners

could still have their guns. But stricter laws, registration and insurance requirements and ammunition restrictions could deny the rights to unlawful citizens and could help prevent the unnecessary deaths of thousands of law-abiding citizens. That seems to be more logical than aligning oneself with murderers.

[badtoworse]

72. "aligning oneself with murderers" - who's doing that?

No, I'm not willing to accept ever more restrictive laws that take away the right to own forearms as a practical matter. I would, however, be willing to deal on the issue. There are gun control issues I'd be willing to give on, but there are also areas where I would expect the gun control proponents to give. Problem is that when I ask what they'd be willing to concede on, I get an answer like "why should I have to give on anything" or "you can keep your guns" or some other asinine response.

[Sweet Freedom]

93. Why not?

It doesn't hurt you in any way. Why can't you register a gun, pay insurance and not stockpile ammo? You can still have a gun.

And yes, when you side with the arguments that support arming every Tom, Dick and Harry at any-and-all cost including ending innocent people's lives, then you are aligning yourself with murderers.

[badtoworse]

96. My handguns are registered and I don't have more than a few hundred rounds

I don't see the need to insure for what other people might do. Where have I said that every Tom, Dick and Harry should have a gun?

[derby378]

99. And which arguments are those?

If I oppose forcing gun owners to purchase insurance, am I "aligning myself with murderers?" If so, good luck with that.

[hollowdweller]

116. Stockpiling ammo

I'm going to give you a different perspective on the issue.

Now crazy people stockpile ammo for some imagined confrontation.

But when you buy ammo in bulk just like anything you get a quantity discount.

A few years ago I got a huge deal and bought 2000 rounds of ammo for this one gun I shot a lot.

I've used nearly all but a few hundreds of rounds but if I bought the same ammo today I would have had to pay 4x.

So not everybody who has a lot of ammo is a psycho.

I'm sympathetic to the idea of crazies stockpiling ammo, however if we were to restrict the amount of ammo you could buy or own at one time I believe an essential part of any legislation would be price controls so there would be no advantage to buying in bulk.

[Fred Sanders]

121. You can sell the ammo to the tyranny fearing crowd?

[mikeysnot]

84. "law abiding gun owners"

that always cracks me up when I see people parroting that meme....


until another law abiding citizen does it again.

[Fred Sanders]

86. How do you tell BEFORE one is shot who is law abiding?

They never get that one, they never answer, it is a point that destroys their non-point.

[badtoworse]

89. People retain their rights until it's demonstrated they should not have them.

If a person is law abiding and has not been judged mentally incompetent to own a gun, then the onus is on the state to do that.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. That's easy

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-overview

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(1)
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(2)
Is a fugitive from justice

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(3)
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(4)
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(5)
Is Illegally or unlawfully in the United States

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(6)
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(7)
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(8)
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner

18 U.S.C. §922 (g)(9)
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

18 U.S.C. §922 (n)
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

[Fred Sanders]

97. Will citizens then be required to paper thier bodies with signs they are not responsible gun owners?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

101. I doubt it n/t

[unblock]

103. tiny minority? put all the gun-related crimes and accidents together and

i don't think trivializing the problem earns you any credibility.

yes, there are plenty of gun owners who never commit crimes and haven't yet had any accidents. no doubt it's even a majority of gun owners. but that's hardly enough of an argument to against sensible laws and regulations. arguably the vast majority of laws and regulations are aimed at dealing with the problems created by a minority of people.

[badtoworse]

117. What do you consider sensible?

We have thousands of gun laws on the books already. Many of the proposals I've seen here are designed to make owning a firearm so onerous that most would not or could not do it. Those aren't sensible gun laws.

What are your ideas?

[unblock]

128. i didn't make any specific proposals and i don't see how that burden is on me.

you jumped in all dismissive of the reality on the ground as any basis for the formulation of public policy. i'm simply objecting to that.

[badtoworse]

129. Terms like "sensible" gun laws get thrown around all the time on DU and elsewhere.

I'm just curious what's sensible to you. If don't want to suggest anything, that's fine.

[Fred Sanders]

130. You know exactly what they are, and if you do not then you do not belong in this

discussion.

[badtoworse]

131. Seriously? I see a broad spectrum of opinion on what is sensible gun control

For some, it's an outright ban. For others, it's everything but an AWB and gun registration. Some, like me, are willing to deal on the issue.

If you see consensus, then enlighten us.

[treestar]

56. That's pretty cold

So nobody should feel anything about this or Newtown? All of the BOR is not equal. Yes, it is possible to feel that the Second is as obsolete as the Third and that there are too many guns in this county, too easily obtained. I don't know how people can possibly defend this position after Newtown.

[Sassysdad]

4. As opposed to..

the parents doing something..or the local LEO's, or his "friends". The guy was a freakjob

"Be afraid, gun lovers, be very afraid, that anger and that righteousness is coming for you."

Why come after me..my firearms are tools....never harmed anyone. I've fed my family with game taken with my tools..

I don't love my guns, I don't love my other tools either....and your hyperbole doesn't make me afraid.
I feel very sad for the loss this Dad suffered in California. A state that has almost as restrictive laws as my NY.

[flvegan]

5. (facepalm)

So what does that make a person, any person, that has a gun or guns? Is that person also that same mortal enemy?

[Gravitycollapse]

9. That makes perfect sense unless you consider movements like the French Resistance.

Or the American Indian Movement. And so on and so forth.

[Fred Sanders]

100. The French Revolution took 70 years to play out, there WAS a tyranny, not a democratic government...

what possibility is there of a modern Western democracy turning tyrannical and requiring armed citizenry?

Never has happened. Never will. Guns for citizens to protect against government tyranny in a modern democracy is yet another strawman argument without substance or logic.

[Gravitycollapse]

115. I'm going to give you a minute to go research the French Resistance and then get back to me.

[JJChambers]

11. Did the parents file paperwork to involuntarily commit Rodger, Elliot?

Had he been involuntarily committed his ability to purchase firearms would have been stripped.

[Fred Sanders]

12. So being certified insane is the only restriction on purchase? Good to know......

[JJChambers]

13. I don't know what certified insane means

But being involuntarily committed prevents one from passing a federal background check.

[Fred Sanders]

17. You answered your own question and did not answer mine.....

[JJChambers]

21. The answer to your quesiton is No

Involuntary commitment is one of several factors which will prohibit purchase of a firearm. But it is the most applicable here.

[oldhippie]

22. I'll answer your question for you ...

12. So being certified insane is the only restriction on purchase?

No, it is not. Here are some others:

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

Happy?

[stevenleser]

95. He was seeing a mental health professional for counseling. If anyone was going to commit him

it should have been that person as they should have the knowledge to know how to determine if someone is a danger to themselves or others.

[JJChambers]

15. What happens when guns save lives of innocents?

Are they still the enemies of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[Fred Sanders]

16. For real? Now you want to compare actual numbers of dead innocents, the thousands a year as

factually determined, not to mention the army of wounded innocents and traumatized innocents and massive emotional grief, to lives maybe saved by using the same weapon?

Truly a fool's errand.

[hollowdweller]

118. Numbers

Number of households owning guns? Record lows.

Gun homicides record lows.

Mass shootings record highs.


So as far as restricting the supply of guns even with the most liberal gun laws we have ever had there has been no great proliferation of guns in the population.

As far as the sheer number of people killed with guns going down.

So what I see is how do we prevent mass shootings? Obviously both somehow restricting the type of guns favored by mass shooters would be a first step. Also some way to better screen people? Perhaps psychological testing of some sort before a person could buy assault weapons or hi cap pistols?

[Fred Sanders]

120. More guns in America than people, at some point saturation is reached and comparisons

of your apples and oranges statistics and assertions are no longer even remotely plausible.

Guns being bought now are just replacements, upgrades or just arsenal building in case of tyranny by the already captured audience of fearmongers.

[alcibiades_mystery]

19. "Why wasn't something done? It's outrageous" It is, and everytime a gunner shithead says

we can't do anything about it, and what laws would prevent it, I realize I'm dealing with absolute delusional scum.

SCUM.

On this board or otherwise. Fuck them.

They are the worst scum in our country right now.

[Fred Sanders]

20. They are a mixture of not too smart and very gullible.

[Major Nikon]

39. Jury results are in

On Wed May 28, 2014, 12:17 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

"Why wasn't something done? It's outrageous" It is, and everytime a gunner shithead says
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5010010

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Come on, so GD is not only reverting back to gunz, gunz, gunz, but is becoming a meta garbage pit of insults? Again?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed May 28, 2014, 12:24 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree 100% with the poster. the RKBA forum here is a malignant tumor of rightwingers. if they don't like it, there's this great site called discussionist.com where they're genuinely welcome
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: People are rightly upset about these preventable tragedies. If you're sick of gun threads ignore them. DU has great tools with key words for ignoring subjects.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

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

[defacto7]

51. a righteous call. n/t

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Good

Twenty butchered first graders fails to nudge their empathy meter, but - oh Lawdy - the "insults" on a message board! These people need to gain perspective on the double quick, and coddling their oh-so-sensitive need to spew violent nonsenses ain't gonna do it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

82. Let's have a party, everyone! Gunners are perhaps maybe amenable to discussing UBC! Well, maybe.

If we're nice to them, they'll think about maybe Universal Background Checks, because that's being "productive."

You really couldn't write this level of self-parody if you tried.

[badtoworse]

59. What an erudite post.

[alcibiades_mystery]

62. One doesn't need erudition to describe the glaringly obvious

Even when ignorant fools refuse to see it.

[badtoworse]

63. To describe it, no; but to make progress in dealing with the issue, it would help a lot.

Meaningful steps to solve the problem will require buy-in from firearms owners. How much cooperation do you think you'll get with your tone and language?

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. Like racists and other delusional extremists, gun nut shitheads will never give an inch

The time for coddling their delusions is over, and their laughable pleas for rational discussion and "tone" with them is nothing more than their insistence that we accept their demented worldview. I don't give a fuck what a gun nut shithead thinks, period. I tried for too long, and all we get back from them is wait and wait and wait and death. Like racists, the only way to deal with them is to make their worldview unacceptable, to spurn it, to deride it, to show it for the dangerous and stupid and ignorant assholery that it is. It will be a long process, and maybe it will work, and maybe it won't.

But what hasn't worked, what has been a manifest and disastrous failure that no other failure can top is coddling these fucking jerkoffs by treating their insane hobby fetish as a reasonable position to "argue" against according to a tone of cooperation. They never cooperate. They just crow triumphantly as our children are gunned down in the streets. Fuck them, and their plea for tone. I don't want their cooperation, which will never come anyway.

Don't like it? Hit alert again. I don't care to discuss anything with gunners of any stripe.

[badtoworse]

70. As deserving as it was, I didn't alert on your post. I just thought it was infantile.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. It's as if Rush Limbaugh wrote that while his oxys are wearing off

Congratulations, you're just as much a self-righteous bigot as those you rail
against

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

71. It's actually not worth...

...discussing with someone who eschews any common ground and needs to insult members.

As a point of progress a UBC law could be passed if the pro-control side was more interested in dialog than just pointing a finger of blame and saying 'them, it's their fault it didn't pass'. I don't know if UBCs will help a lot but many gun owners would accept them. Some even favor them.

[badtoworse]

73. See Post No. 72. UBC's are an area I'd give on.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

75. Odd that few/none of the pro-control folks...

...have said anything approaching that productive in this discussion.
All they have is DIP; (drama, insults and pointing fingers).

[Puzzledtraveller]

23. What Would Grady Do?

[Llewlladdwr]

25. I'm not understanding how an inanimate object can be the enemy of anything.

Why do so many prohibitionists want to anthropomorphize bits of metal?

[undeterred]

26. BECAUSE THE ONLY PURPOSE OF THAT INANIMATE OBJECT IS TO DESTROY HUMAN LIFE

[The Straight Story]

28. And hunting to feed families, and sport shooting

and less than one percent of gun owners harm others with them.

I don't see it as progressive to broad brush a whole group based on the few. We usually call that bigotry.

[undeterred]

31. I don't see pretending that a gun is nothing more than an inanimate object

is a useful way to approach this discussion. Its called denial.

Very very few people in this gun crazy society hunt to feed their families. And you know what kind of guns are being talked about in this discussion.

[Llewlladdwr]

33. I'm not understanding how pretending a gun has magical evil powers...

...is a useful way to approach the discussion.

A gun has no will. A gun is not animate. A gun feels or knows nothing. It is just an assembly of metal and plastic.

[undeterred]

34. You don't want to understand.

[Llewlladdwr]

36. Perhaps you're not explaining well? nt

[IronGate]

67. You just want to insult and belittle gun owners.

That's painfully obvious.

[The Straight Story]

37. 13.7 million people went hunting in 2011

In 2011, 13.7 million people, 6 percent of the U.S. population 16 years old and older, went hunting. They spent $34.0 billion on trips, equipment, licenses, and other items in 2011, an average of $2,484 per hunter.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/conservationist/2012/08/convservation-update-numbers-hunters-angers-us-rise

Again, judging the many based on the very few is bigotry no matter how you try to word it.

[undeterred]

38. And how many men hunted other people and gunned them down?

That is the issue at hand. Changing the subject is just a means of denial.

[The Straight Story]

40. 13,000 out of 50,000,000+

Less than a percent.

Judging all gun owners based on a few is bigotry.

[undeterred]

42. Am I supposed to feel insulted by your repeated

charge of bigotry? I value human and animal life.

You just aren't willing to look at the inconsistency of your position.

There is nothing progressive about having a gun.

There is nothing progressive about shooting people or animals.

There is nothing progressive about taking life.

There is nothing sporting about taking life.

A gun has one purpose: to take life.




Now its your turn to accuse me of bigotry.

[The Straight Story]

46. There is nothing progressive

about assuming anyone who owns a gun is anything like someone else who owns one.

Unless you take the right's view on things like Islam and believe that because some commit terror they all are potential terrorists and should be watched, ridiculed, etc.

Same technique, either you approve of it or you don't.

[Major Nikon]

41. So guns should be allowed to proliferate unopposed because doing so is bigotry?

Brilliant!

[The Straight Story]

45. Nice try

But the discussion is about gun owners (or lovers as some like to call them. Or gun 'nuts' - surprised we allow calling people here nuts, but it is acceptable when some use it I suppose).

YOU said "So guns should be allowed to proliferate unopposed" not me.

Bigotry is how the discussion is being waged (in a rather uncivil manner). Many people, democrats included, are just fine human beings who own guns but the anger and hatred is directed at them as well as individuals who misuse their guns (for which there are already laws against).

[Major Nikon]

47. incivility =/ bigotry

If I call Rush Limbaugh a festering asshole, that doesn't make me a bigot.

[treestar]

57. If that's true, it is still too much

Newtown was just too much. It's that bad.

[Fred Sanders]

85. The simple folk who love these weapons also think atomic bombs are inaminate and therefore harmless,

everyone should own cuddly inanimate objects.
Other inanimate bits of metals included bombs, tanks, missile, warplanes, warships, etc. Totally harmless....until used. Everyone should have one, maybe airlines should hand them out on planes, these bits of metal.
The intellectual dishonesty is hilarious.

[stone space]

29. Sometimes inatimate objects are designed and engineered for evil. (nt)

[Llewlladdwr]

30. How does one "design" an item for evil?

And how would firearms fall into that category? Firearms are used to procure food, indeed that seems one of their primary purposes. How can obtaining food be considered evil?

[stone space]

32. What evidence did this guy provide to anybody reguarding using these guns for hunting? (nt)

[Llewlladdwr]

35. None of which I'm aware.

So again, how does one design an object for evil?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

78. That's easy

Just make it look like a gun.

[world wide wally]

50. Are you really that stupid or just naive?

[upaloopa]

105. No shopping carts are used to procure food

Guns are for people who think killing animals is sport

[Clayguy61]

49. Food for thought

Second amendment covers the six right..after speech, religion, press, assembly and petition and all these rights have limitations and regulations. The second amendment was to have a militia to put down revolts or rebellions not start them..see Shays Rebellion and Whiskey Rebellion..a well regulated militia... We need regulations like every gun owner needs a license and pass tests, yearly tests etc. every gun owner needs gun insurance to pay for destruction, injuries and every gun owner needs to register their guns.. Simple and easy..would help a lot. Thoughts?

[defacto7]

52. Add limits on open carry

jail time and civil penalties for breakers, and it may be a start for me.

Welcome to DU!

But beware, you have entered a boiling topic on this site!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

76. Exactly which major crimes...

...have been prevented by any form of insurance or registration?

[derby378]

92. Requiring insurance for a Constitutional right is asking for trouble

I'm not big on the idea of replacing this...



with this...



There are better ways to address public safety issues. We should improve the background check system, but gun-control advocates cannot afford to get greedy.

[Dr. Strange]

64. If guns are the mortal enemies of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

then why should cops have them?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

91. Just listen to those crickets... n/t

[Fred Sanders]

98. The thread has plenty of answers to that question, police have always had guns, they are registered

and the owners fully qualified, trained, and necessary. Like the military of all countries who prefer being armed with guns of course, because they are designed to kill, comes in handy for militaries.

Clearly my OP refers to armed citizenry in such copious abundance, but strawmen arguments are familiar to us who fight the gun loving crowd.....strawmen is all a losing debater may have, it is natural.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

102. Clearly...

...your OP has anthropomorphic tones and stands as your opinion of a class of inanimate objects. Clearly law enforcement (in cases where they carry and use firearms) are not wielding the "mortal enemies of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". They are using guns, in most cases for self-defense and on rare occasions in a tactical role.

I sometimes find the messages put out by some pro-gun sources to be embarrassing. I sometimes find the the messages put out by some pro-control sources to be emotional and short on logic. Only the cool heads in both camps will be making progress on this issue.

I've read a number of your posts in this threads and see you as one of the cooler heads. I look forward to hearing more from you.

[derby378]

110. Okay, let's explore that concept a little bit...

Only cops should own and carry firearms because they are fully qualified, trained, and necessary. Like this guy.

A Fort Smith police officer was arrested and placed on administrative leave Tuesday after Sequoyah County deputies said he fired a gun inside his home and held a gun to a five-year-old child’s head.

Officer Naaman Adcock was placed on administrative leave with pay while authorities conduct an internal investigation. Sequoyah County authorities said they took nine guns from Adcock’s possession after he fired off several rounds into a wall inside his home after he got into a drunken dispute with his wife.

Adcock was arrested on suspicion of assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a firearm while intoxicated, reckless conduct with a firearm, felonious pointing a firearm and child endangerment, according to the Sequoyah County Sheriff’s Office.

http://5newsonline.com/2014/05/27/authorities-investigate-shots-fired-in-sequoyah-county/

This was a cop, mind you - fully qualified, trained, yessireeBob, give that boy a gun and a freakin' badge and let him wander the streets of Fort Smith.

On second thought, I'm keeping my Kalashnikov. Sorry if that bothers you.

[Fred Sanders]

111. Why does anyone need a Kalashnikv assault rifle for in America? Not because of

potential "tyranny" I hope. And taking a bad apple out of a bushel to make the point that there are all bad applies is not effective debate, sir.

[derby378]

114. My point exactly

There are a lot of honest, admirable, hardworking cops who deserve our respect.

But just as you've got that misogynistic shooter down in California, he should not be used to judge every single gun owner in America, especially those who might actually agree that the background check system needs to be improved or some other rational legislation that might actually help make our streets safer.

[oneshooter]

119. I don't know of any LE who have registered firearms.

In Texas the vast majority of LE supply their own firearms.

[NCTraveler]

68. If 99.99% of duers want stronger gun regulations...

Why is this such a contentious subject here? I am seeing people called gun nuts and gun lovers who themselves call for greater regulation. I see others talking bigotry and claiming people live in an unreal world when they also want stronger regulations. The range seems to go from an outright ban, to much tougher regulations. That seems to be the scale where an overwhelming majority of duers stand. I would think that like-mindedness alone would foster great conversation on this topic. We all, at a minimum, want additional regulation. Not one single person here wants mass killings.

[NutmegYankee]

108. Some people just can't accept that not everyone is in lockstep with their view

There are regulations that most gun owners support that we believe will reduce violent attacks, and then there are regulations that are just mean spirited attacks on gun owners because anti-gun people have nothing but contempt and hatred for them. Obviously, we oppose the latter. Pushing back against regulations designed not to stop violence but just harm you = gun nuttery.

[Aristus]

69. "But...but...but...mah gun is m'fambly!

Mah lover! It's jes' such a beaut! I love the waffled plastic grip! Feels s'good in m'hand! I love ta stroke it 'n' stroke it 'n' stroke it...

The long...hard...stiff barrel! Oh my! It's the only thang gits me hard. Know whatta mean?

An' ya wants ta take it away from me? Well, ya cain't! I gots a Constitutional right!"

Outraged gun-humper cognitive dissonance in 3...2...1...

[dilby]

74. So lets leave them in the hands who are best at taking those from us.

The Police and Government, they are the only ones who can possibly be trusted with the responsibility of owning things people are so scared of.

[derby378]

77. After all, that worked so well in Mexico - oh, wait... (n/t)

[ZX86]

79. Our casual attitude towards guns and violence.

Guns have become a fetish in the U.S. Glossy magazines, industry marketing and lobbyists, groups of men who play dress up and run around in the woods playing war games, people who insist on bringing semi-automatics into family restaurants etc. Guns have become a public health risk. Not only from criminals and the certifiable insane but also from paranoid so-called law abiding citizens who kill teenagers that play music too loud or wear hoodies or need to be tortured and summarily executed for burglary. Not to mention all the suicides and accidental deaths of children and others.

There are four main arguments of the pro-gun lobby. Constitutionally protected right, sport, self defense, and overthrow the government. There is no constitutional right for just anybody to bear arms. "Well regulated militia" are words that have meaning.
Sporting rifles can be keep in a secure location and checked in and out as needed. Non-lethal weapons such as mace and pepper guns can be used for self defense. Only delusional nut bags fantasize about taking up arms against the government. The entire southern United States tried this and got their ass kicked.

Democratic countries such as Britain, France, Japan, Australia, etc. are not tyranny ridden cesspools of murder and mayhem because they have sensible gun regulations. Our casual attitude towards guns and all the violence that goes with it is unacceptable. Something needs to be done.

[Fred Sanders]

88. For far too many, not all, firearms have become a fetish, the dictionary defintion. And they know it

and do not care, because fetishes are often defended passionately, especially if the fetish is legalized.

[aikoaiko]

80. Anti-RKBA DU members were full of hubris after the Sandy Hook massacre, too.

Anti-RKBA DUers were salivating at the idea of Joe Biden being in charge of rolling back the right to keep and bear arms.

Anti-RKBA DUers were sure they could exploit the pain, grief, and sorrow of dead children to pass laws that would have had no impact on the massacre occurring.

How's that approach working for you?

[friendly_iconoclast]

83. Once again, the masks slip and the true faces are seen

IMO, there are three types of antigun posters at DU:

1) Out-and-out Prohibtionists like the OP

2) Dissembling Prohibitionists. They're easy to spot: When asked what
they propose, they'll use weasel words like 'reasonable', 'commonsense' -or
just flat-out appeal to emotion.

3) The naive. The first two groups love to exploit them
Most of Moms Demand Action can be put in this category

[Fred Sanders]

107. You forgot the fourth type, the type that understand using 300 year old wording that ignores the

"in a well regulated militia" to arm citizens who have no reason to be armed or to be in any type of milita is intellectual dishonesty equal to delusional thought. Militias in a democracy are anti-democratic.

How delusional? Only America is a Western democracy without effective gun control laws. The only one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

122. Too bad for you that *all* of the Supremes think there's an individual right

Let me remind you of the dissents in Heller:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

Stevens, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
On writ of certiorari to the United States Court Of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
[June 26, 2008]

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

Breyer, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER
on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the district of columbia circuit
[June 26, 2008]

Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.


...II

The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

And just for all the self-appointed (and self-righteous) Guardians of Public Safety
who like to bang on about militias- there is one, and you may very well be a
member:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap13-sec311.htm

10 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Do keep us abreast of how your efforts to repeal the Second Amendment and/or
Militia Act are doing

[Fred Sanders]

123. This keyboard warrior seems to draw a lot of flak....and individual rights is a general concept not

unique to guns, the judicial statements are broad strokes, not detailed defence of some special right.

P.S. A description of National Guard categories and definitions of various types of militia means something to you on the issue of gun control, but I am not sure what?

[friendly_iconoclast]

124. It's *not* a "special right", it's part and parcel of the Bill of Rights

You may or may not remember a certain Republican administration getting
regularly thumped around here for repeatedly declaring that certain
other parts of that very same Bill of Rights were no longer "operative" (or
needed to be reinterpreted), and acting accordingly. They were very emphatic that
those that did not see things their way were siding with terrorists and that all they did was for the good of the American people.

[Fred Sanders]

125. My point is that there are a lot of Constitution protected individual rights, the dissents in

Heller confirming gun ownership as an individual right is not a supporting argument against gun control.

Anyway, long internet talks that are one on one debates get lost in the details, unlike a face to face, and this one is wandering...so thanks for the conversation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. They do help draw a bright line on what is or is not permissable

This, for example, is patently not:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/27/deleo-unveils-bill-strengthen-gun-laws-mass/Y7CUFEFhGcOHnY6D5GJTmI/story.html

DeLeo pushes tighter gun law
More police say on ownership; curbs on sales

By Brian MacQuarrie
Globe Staff May 28, 2014

...The new proposal seeks to tighten and clarify state regulations about who can buy guns and how they can be bought. One potentially contentious change would give police the discretion to deny a permit for a rifle or shotgun if an applicant is deemed unsuitable.

Under current law, police can apply a vague standard of unsuitability for licenses to carry a gun. But police do not have that discretion in issuing the Firearms Identification Card, which allows Massachusetts residents who pass a background check to buy a small-capacity rifle or shotgun.

[Fred Sanders]

106. America "exploited" 9/11 using emotional arguements to launch 2 wars, so that type of emotion

and exploitation is just dandy? Responding to tragedy with legislation to prevent further tragedies is not emotional, it is logical and it is justified.

[aikoaiko]

109. That was wrong too. At least the war in Iraq.

Everyone thinks emotional exploitation is justified for their cause. But I'm glad you recognized the parallels between responses to 9.11 and shooting tragedies.

[Fred Sanders]

112. The parallel is that there is no parallel. The emotions clearly exploited by America and the media

in the run up to Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in more deaths, while emotions "exploited" by the regular tragedy of every day citizens and children killed to enact sensible gun laws is averting further deaths.

[aikoaiko]

113. Some laws might lead to reduced violence, but some might not.

For example, there is not evidence that the last Assault Weapons Ban let to fewer deaths.

[stevenleser]

94. We're on the same side on this issue, but I dont think anything will happen in the next 5 yrs or so.

Sadly.

[onenote]

104. Big sweeping statements like that by the OP aren't particularly helpful imo

I'll put my anti-gun credentials up against anyone here (among other things having having provided pro bono legal services to Handgun Control Inc when it was first established and having never permitted a gun in any residence I've ever called home).

But the fact is that most people know that guns were used to help win this country's independence; that guns were used to defeat the Confederacy and secure the abolition of slavery, that guns were used to defeat Hitler. In short, that guns sometimes are the mortal enemies of the mortal enemies of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So broadly declaring that guns (and, implicitly their use) are antithetical to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness simply does not square with the historical reality that most people understand. And thus making such a broad declaration thus is unlikely to get people to listen to the compelling arguments for gun control.