Gun Fanatics Express Their Support For a Mass Murderer’s Second Amendment Rights

[doxydad]

The notorious response from gun fanatics after each mass murder using firearms informs why this country will continue suffering firearm tragedies; “guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people.” The response from the NRA, open-carry advocates, and 2nd Amendment devotees to this country’s predilection to shooting-sprees and mass murders informs that they share a common worldview with the people who go on shooting rampages; “my right to own weapons of mass destruction (guns) trumps your right to live.” As gun zealots are inclined to parrot ad nauseum, guns are not the problem, crazy people are, but there is no difference between crazed mass shooters and gun fanatics.

Gun advocates revealed their solidarity with the Santa Barbara shooter immediately following the tragedy when open-carry advocates in Texas strapped assault rifles across their backs and went into family restaurants terrifying patrons. Without provocation or solicitation, Joe “the plumber” Wurzelbacher penned an angry “open letter” in response to the bereaved man whose 20-year-old son was indiscriminately gunned down to inform him that “your dead child doesn’t trump my Constitutional rights” as if he is the victim in the horrific Santa Barbara mass murders. Of course, the National Rifle Association followed its regular tactic of lying low for a week or two before emerging with a new round of calls to put more guns in the hands of more people for no other purpose than equipping them to kill other people.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/28/gun-fanatics-express-support-mass-murderers-amendment-rights.html

[badtoworse]

1. So what new gun law would have prevented the Santa Barbara shooting?

Your post is just as predictable as the ones you're citing. You blame everyone who values their civil rights with pajoratives such "the right to own weapons of mass destruction", but carefully avoid terms like the right to an effective self defense.

One thing you rarely see in posts like yours is a willingness to work with gun owners to reach solutions that everyone could live with. That would involve some give and take, but all you ever focus on is the take part.

[shenmue]

2. A ban on purchasing thousands of dollars of ammunition at once

Nobody needs that much, unless you're planning to invade Normandy.

[Lee-Lee]

6. Thousand os dollars of ammo? He had 400 rounds of 9mm, about $125-150 worth, and fired far less

And 400 rounds is a typical day at the range for a lot of people.

If you are going to try and claim a new law would have helped here, at least keep your claims in the realm of reality.

[Travis_0004]

7. How the hell are you going to enforce that?

He had 400 rounds of ammo on him. The vast majority of it unspent. There are a lot of shooters who will go through 200 rounds of ammo in a range trip, and a lot of people who will go through more.

By the way, he had less than 100.00 of ammo on him. If you set a limit of 200 rounds a week, it would have taken him 8 days to gather up 400 rounds of ammo.

[Duckhunter935]

9. and how do you do that

I almost went through that much firing several weapons at the range last weekend. I buy in bulk when I see a good price as ammo does not degrade if stored properly.

So what should my limit be?

[Skidmore]

11. After reading your post and the one above about the cost of just shooting for the heck of it,

the one thought that comes to mind for me is what a colossal waste of money. Like blowing cigarette smoke, nothing good to show for the effort or the expenditure. Destructive and wasteful. Don't get it. Never will.

[Lee-Lee]

17. I don't get what a lot of people do for recreation

But I don't seek to ban it or control it because I don't get it.

Like anything that requires skill, practice makes you better. Just ask all the Olympic shooters or others that compete- I am sure you don't get that either.

It's OK, I don't get skiing, so I see where you come from.

[thucythucy]

54. How many people are killed by skiers each year?

Compared to how many people killed by guns?

[upaloopa]

64. Your spending supports the gun lobby and right wing

pro gun groups that prevent us from doing something about gun violence. You are not an innocent bystander

[Lee-Lee]

69. My electricity bill supports a massive polluter

But I haven't decided to live in the dark as a result.

[oldhippie]

136. Me either ...

Like knocking a stupid little ball around with sticks. Or even more crazy, sliding down mountains of snow on a couple of boards. When it's even cold! Running long distances when nobody is chasing you.

Why do any sane people do such crazy-ass things?

Don't get it, never will.

[sofa king]

21. Nobody's been able to buy that much in years.

Rednecks believe that ammunition sales are being restricted, but in truth ammo makers have been running on a wartime footing since President Obama took office. Enough ammunition has been sold to keep Americans firing for hundreds of years to come, which, along with the 100 million guns, over half of which are not tracked, means that it's a practical impossibility to outlaw guns or restrict ammo purchases. (Ammo makers also switched to high-caliber human-killing ammo because it's more profitable and more expensive; that's why nobody can find .22 ammo anymore.)

Almost none of that ammo was bought in large lots, because it simply hasn't been available.

So maybe...

FUCKING JUST MAYBE...

... we should focus on preventing our stupidest citizens from being routinely manipulated with fear. Maybe we ought to work on that.

Because if y'all don't give a shit about the practical impossibilities of gun control and the Second Amendment, why do you give a fuck at all about the First Amendment, which is what is actually killing all of these people?!?

Restrict the ability to frighten stupid people, and we shall achieve a happier populace than if we try and fail for the millionth time to further restrict the guns that can never be eradicated, scaring those stupid people at the same time and ensuring that some of them will come forth and kill... again.

Edit: I know this is going to piss people off, so I'll offer just one example of how we can fix something RIGHT NOW by going after the press instead of the gunmakers: For fifteen years now, psychologists have been pleading with CNN to no longer start their mass-shooting broadcast with police lights and sirens, which apparently is exactly what aspiring spree killers want to see. CNN won't do it.

So, do-gooders, why don't you channel your windmill tilting into something a little more our size, like preventing "news" channels from glorifying mass shootings in such a way that others are encouraged to do it. That would save more lives this year than fighting and failing to restrict guns or ammunition all year long.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

29. One of the stores around here must have plenty of .22 still.

The guys in my phlebotomy class were talking about how once a week, you could buy 'buckets' of .22 for $70 or so. I don't recall how many bullets were in a 'bucket', but I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 to 500.

[sofa king]

41. Maybe they've caught up, now.

But the fact that they're selling ammo by the damned bucket should be telling us all something: this is a direct result of the gun control debate, one of the first and most visible results of that debate, no matter what your opinion is in it.

The result is that the public is being further armed to the teeth, and has been arming itself to the teeth, at a hundred times the rate of expenditure, for five years now.

That's the sad result of the gun control debate so far: more people have more guns and more ammunition which is killing more innocent people.

So again, I implore our readers to acknowledge the fact that the gun control debate as it stands is achieving the exact opposite of our stated goals.

Please, let's address the manipulation by fear part of the problem. It's easier and more important. If Americans are not routinely frightened for profit and political gain, we become more like our Canadian neighbors: also armed to the teeth but not prone to weekly or monthly bouts of mass murder.

[oldhippie]

138. Before Newtown you could buy 500 round "bricks" ...

.... of .22LR for $15-$18. Now, if you can find it, it's about $70 for a brick. There are many shooters with a hundred thousand rounds of .22 in their closet. I wish I was one of them.

[aikoaiko]

50. he didn't have thousands of rounds.

[daleanime]

3. Then why don't you take that brave first step?

What actions will you back? Any?

[badtoworse]

5. I'd put UBC's and a 10 round mag limit on the table.

What would you be willing to give on?

[Duckhunter935]

10. California already had those laws

I have no issues with UBC and open NICS to private sales. I could even live with 20 round magazine limits.

[badtoworse]

14. I was thinking on a national level.

[Lee-Lee]

18. Open NICS to private sellers and they will pass UBC easily

Many, many gun owners support UBC if done like that.

The Toomey-Manchin bill was a mess, and you won't get support for a bill that makes conducting the background check such a pain and an expense- nor will you get compliance if you manage to get it passed.

If you want to get UBC passed and have people actually comply once passed you need to make background checks easy and free for all to do. It is 2014, there is no reason why we still have a 1980's tech background check system that isn't very instant and requires a phone call to a live person. Make it a smartphone app and website open for all to use.

[3catwoman3]

100. "I could even live with 20 round magazine limits."

As would have a lot of the victims of the shooters with the "more than reasonably needed" sized magazines. (Sorry if my terminology is not correct. I am not a gun owner.)

As a hunter, perhaps you could tell me if what I have heard about limits on rounds when huting is correct. I think I remember hearing somewehre (Big Ed's radio show, perhaps/) that when hunting various wild creatures, there are limits n the number of rounds a hunter is allowed, and the limits are pretty small.

If true, shouldn't human beings merit the same concerns and respect.

[Duckhunter935]

148. 20 round or under is

a standard capacity. AR style semi-automatic rifles are designed and shipped with a 20 round magazine. Many handguns are designed and shipped with 7-16 round magazines. I am not a hunter but depending on the state the limits are fro 5 to unlimited depending on the animal.

So I say 20 is a good compromise to get rid of the 21 to 100 and above magazines. There will still be millions 30 round and above out in the public unless you confiscate them and even then you will not get them all.

The California killer used all California compliant "low" capacity magazines.

[daleanime]

104. The belief that...

gun nuts will not work toward a solution.

Personally I like the insurance requirement, a nice 'free-market' step.

Don't really favor a 'ban', if only because of the small group of owners who look like they would lose it.

[badtoworse]

105. Liability insurance would cover an accidental death or injury caused by me and I have that.

What more is needed? Intentional death or damage is not insurable.

[treestar]

4. Guns should be banned

In Australia, it is true only criminals have guns. They use them against each other only. That man deserves to still have his 20 year old son. That's more important than the gun owner's alleged fear of being attacked, attacks which never happen and wouldn't happen if guns were banned.

[Travis_0004]

8. If thats your goal, you need to repeal the second admendment.

Good luck!!!!

[leftyohiolib]

24. ...

scotus gave you the right to carry, the 2nd amendment deals with a militia not your right to own weapons unless youre in a militia. reading helps

[treestar]

96. It can be done

It may take time, but can be done. There's no reason to give up.

[Jenoch]

117. If a UBC cannot be passed,

then how can the 2nd Amendment be repealed? Then after the repeal, more laws restricting guns would need to be passed. (Repealing the 2nd Amendment alone would not do anything to make owning guns illegal.)

[savalez]

158. You can still have a musket if you want.

Since, you know, that was all that existed at the time of its writing.

[blueridge3210]

159. Okay

No radio, television or internet media first amendment protection since they also did not exist at the time the Constitution was ratified.

[derby378]

162. *crickets* (n/t)

[Ballast_Point]

164. Lordy but those are loud crickets...

[blueridge3210]

167. Seems so.

I'm always amazed by that tactic. Clearly the muzzle loaded flintlock was considered "state of the art" in the 18th century; why the right would not translate to current state of the art equipment for today boggles the mind.

[Travis_0004]

172. Don't let them know that high capacity magazines are older than the bill or rights

Their head would explode. First high capacity magazine was created in 1779. Why was George Washington so lazy that he never got around to banning them?

[Travis_0004]

171. Bill of rights was ratified in 1791. First 20 round magazines was made in 1779.

So high capacity magazines were over 10 years old by the time the second amendment was ratified. Yes, the gun was an air rifle, but it was every bit as powerful as a musket, and it didn't take a genius to figure out that technology would evolve.

[Duckhunter935]

13. Guns are not banned in

Australia

A study has found Australians now own as many guns as they did at the time of the Port Arthur shootings in 1996.

More than 1 million guns were destroyed in the aftermath of the massacre, but research shows Australians have restocked over the past 10 years, importing more than 1 million firearms.

"Remember that 90 per cent of gun deaths have nothing to do with mass killings," he said.

"They're actually suicides and domestic violence, and it only takes one bullet in a domestic violence incident.

He says a decrease in gun deaths after the buybacks may have other explanations.

"The figures did drop quite dramatically in that couple of years afterwards, but you have to look at the broader picture - they've been dropping for years before then," he said.

"Suicide by firearm had been dropping for more than 10 years before that period, and it continued to drop immediately afterwards, which counts for the biggest fall in firearms deaths. That corresponds with a massive public campaign about suicide and suicide prevention.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-14/australians-own-as-many-guns-as-in-1996/4463150

[treestar]

97. As far as I know they didn't repeal their gun ban

And they can possess them for hunting.

The increase in the number of people would account for it.

[paleotn]

12. And which well regulated militia do you belong to?

...the fact is, we're tired of the blood of 6 year olds being the price of your perceived civil right. Give and take? Since we're awash in a sea of firearms in this country as a result of irrational fear and a misreading of The Constitution, I think we've given you people quite enough.

[Duckhunter935]

15. not a requirement as

the USSC and the President say it is an individual right. As retired military I can always be recalled, I am on that list.

[baldguy]

23. The constitution says different, but 5 members of the USSC are bought & paid for by the RW

And the President doesn't need the phoney shit storm from gun fanatics that speaking the truth would bring

and finally

[hack89]

30. The Democratic Party platform says it is an individual right. nt

[baldguy]

32. What part of "phoney shit storm from gun fanatics" do you not understand?

[hack89]

37. Or perhaps gun controllers have less influence then they like to believe?

that would be a fair assessment after the post Sandy Hook debacle where gun control was derailed by Democratic Senators. When even Dems don't respect you, why do you think the NRA will? A 20 year losing string is not good for one's credibility.

[baldguy]

38. Are all the dead children worth it for you?

Must be, since you keep advocating for their murderers.

[hack89]

42. Now you are being stupid

I support all proposed gun control legislation with only two exceptions - I do not support registration or an AWB.

UBCs, magazine size limits, gun owner licensing, storage laws - I support them all. I support single payer health care with full mental health coverage. I support a means for identifying possibly violent people and temporarily taking away their guns by creating a place where mental health professionals can go when they have serious concerns.

Surely with all that there is some common ground between us to solve this problem?

[hack89]

48. And you don't care to actually solve the problem

you will not get the laws you want without the support of gun owners. That being the case, do you really think insulting us is going to help matters? You are just another loudmouth cultural warrior unwilling to do the hard work to actually change things. All talk and absolutely no action.

[badtoworse]

58. He's got lot's of company around here.

[upaloopa]

66. There will be more. We don't have to ban guns. Society

is turning on you.

[hack89]

70. "Just you wait" - the motto of gun control for 20 years and counting. nt

[baldguy]

61. Solving the problem begins with gun fanatics casting off their 17th century attitudes about firearms

Because, as recent bloody events have proven beyond any doubt, they don't mesh well with 21st century weapons technology. Solving the problem also begins with gun fanatics realization the the ability to play with their toys is not more important than the lives of innocents.

I don't give a damn about the "support" of gun fanatics, especially when it comes in the form of threats & blackmail. They are the source of the problem.

You want common ground? You've got to grow up and put away childish things first - starting with your guns.

[hack89]

72. I think not.

I like my guns - they have provided hours of recreation for me and my entire family. And in all that time, not a single living thing was killed nor a single crime committed.

Stamp your feet and hold your breath all you want. I don't care.

[AAO]

122. I'll knock on wood for you.

You know that Siegfried & Roy played with Tigers for many, many years with not a single living thing killed. Except their careers after a Tiger ate Roy.
I wish you and your family only good luck - and those that live in your neighborhood!

[hack89]

124. The drive to the range is much more dangerous

life always holds risks. You just need to keep them in perspective.

[AAO]

125. I do, you seem to have none. n/t

[hack89]

127. Are you suggesting I stop driving?

Gun accidents are extremely rare. I can give you a long list of other things that kill more people in accidents than guns. And you know what - I avoid the vast majority of those more dangerous things.

Guns are not magical talismans. They are not imbedded with evil.

[AAO]

130. Yes, they are. The psychological imbedded with evil.

They are created by and bought buy people that are either evil, or afraid of their own shadows. Oh, I forgot your excuse of having a hobby. Well, buy a fucking killing fields video game and stay in your house where you'll be safe. I'm 59 years old and NEVER has ANYONE broken into my many houses, apartments, and condo's I've lived in. I don't let irrational fear run my life.

[hack89]

131. I do not own guns for self defense - I live in a very safe town

I enjoy competitive target shooting - the only thing I have ever shot is a bunch of paper.

[AAO]

132. I rest my case. Enjoy your firearms while you can. EOM

[hack89]

135. My kids will oneday go shooting with my grandkids - of that I have no doubts

especially if weak assed arguments like yours is the best controllers have to offer.

[AAO]

137. Nice chatting!

[hack89]

140. See you around. nt

[badtoworse]

86. "21st century weapons technology"?

Semiautomatic handguns have been around for more than 100 years. The cultural glorification of violence and the lack of respect for human life is the new development. An entire generation has grown up with the media promoting gun violence as the solution to every problem. Look at the most popular video games - what message do they send? The real problem is the mental state of people who commit mass murder in response to problems in their life. The weapons technology has been around for many decades, so why do you think that is happening with greater frequency now?

[AAO]

123. You are in deep denial. I feel sorry for you and those you supposedly love. n/t

[Niceguy1]

85. hack89

Suports something that actually can happen. Your dream of confiscation will never come to be. By calling for an impossibility you are enabling the killing of more children than those who aim for reform that has a chance of passing.

[derby378]

99. Oooh! Oooh! A purity test!

I've been hearing about the concept on DU for some time - sounds like the "no true Scotsman" argument.

[derby378]

102. If you support magazine limits, that's a backdoor AWB (n/t)

[hack89]

103. My AR-15s all came with 15 round mags

so I am not sure that is the case.

[drynberg]

36. YES, but the 2nd Amendment has been greatly distorted by those who make billions

We have to sit down in DC and pound out a "beginning" to limit clips, waiting day requirements, end gun show loophholes, etc. At least do this much NOW. We are being bled dry and childrens blood is a lot of the bleeding. The NRA ain't the majority at all, they just buy Congresspersons and this has to STOP NOW.

[baldguy]

39. +1000

[Duckhunter935]

40. so

Most people will agree that limits on magazines are OK but what limit? California and VA tech already had low capacity magazines. 20 would be a good level for me as that is a standard size. There is no "gun show loophole" but any private intrastate sale does not require a background check no matter where the sale occurs. Open NICS to private sales and require 100% UBC. They already had this in California and the murderer passed the background check and the mandatory waiting period.

[tblue37]

63. What does NICS stand for? nt

[Lee-Lee]

73. National Instant Check System

It is the system run by the FBI that does the background checks for most states.

A smaller number run their own system.

It is a very antiquated system. Only dealers are allowed to use it, and they must call on the telephone and read all the personal info to an operator who will then tell them to go ahead and sell, tell them it's a denial, or delay the sale for up to 3 days while they look more.

A private seller isn't allowed to use NICS, if you want to you have to go get a dealer to do it, and to do it they have to enter the gun into their books just like a sale and charge anywhere from $15-75 for the call, paperwork and subsequent record keeping.

[tblue37]

75. Thanks. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. Unfortunately for you, the other four members agree with them

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).

[heaven05]

19. the gun fanatic

DOES NOT CARE if a 6 year old is shot in the face. A gun fanatic DOES NOT CARE if a person is shot in a theater for texting to a friend. A gun fanatic DOES NOT CARE if the pain that a Mr. Martinez shows is real. A gun fanatic DOES NOT CARE if a person dies if it is going to "trump" his/her constitutional right to kill others indiscriminately without mercy. A gun fanatic DOES NOT CARE if you die for no other reason than someone is pissed off at fellow human being for some real or imagined slight at a stoplight, in a theater or because they cannot get a girlfriend. That is america today and it will continue until realistic gun control is enacted. What that will entail is any ones guess but we have to really try to work on a solution in spite of the insanity of the NRA confusing the issue of the 2nd amendments meaning. Another lie from the NRA to allow people with guns to kill innocent people. The right to being trumps any right to allow someone with a gun to take that life/being for any irrational reason. No excuses gun nut!

[leftyohiolib]

22. that's funny cause it's the gun-fetishists that have been doing all the taking

bullets should 1000 dollars each

[Sancho]

26. This is the way to prevent such shootings....

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[baldguy]

34. You want "responsible gun owners" to act responsibly?

Don't hold your breath.

[Duckhunter935]

43. 99% already do

[baldguy]

45. And yet innocent children keep dying.

[Duckhunter935]

49. a sad fact, but yes

children die in pools, children die from legal drugs, Children die from chocking, Children die from vehicle accidents, Children die from drunk drivers. All very sad.

[Hoyt]

151. No they don't, or gun sales would be declining and gun owners

would be calling for action to stop the problems created by their bad habit.

[Sancho]

47. No...I want reasonable laws that would take time to phase in and prevent random violence.

I'm not aiming at criminals...I'm suggesting that easy access to guns and bullets by unstable people, untrained people, children, and those intending violence can changed.

This will not stop all gun violence. I'm not talking about gun owners per se, but anyone who uses a gun, buys a gun, or lives in a house with access to a gun. I think any one who possesses or uses a gun needs a license to do so. Simple. Just like driving, fishing, or any other activity.

If you want to buy or possess a gun or ammo, you show a license. If you go out shooting or hunting, you should have a license. The licensing process should make it difficult for easy access if you are a person with obvious potential to be dangerous.

Simple and lawful. Also, a mechanism to prevent the inappropriate access to guns.

[badtoworse]

53. Still trying to float this turd? It's gotten old.

[Sancho]

106. I've been around a long time and seen things change...so "old" doesn't mean much to me.

like the 18 year old vote, Brady Bill, getting rid of the draft, the ERA (still not yet rarified), special education, integration, and even mandatory seat belts...I've fought for causes for many years and sometimes won the battle.

You can be insulting if you want, but it just demonstrates your lack of understanding and limited solution to the problem. If you want to propose different legislation, please do do.

Meanwhile, you are wrong if you think it's ok for unstable or dangerous people to have easy access to guns. If that's your position, then say so.

I suspect you resort to stupid posts because you don't have a logical position.

[badtoworse]

109. I read your post before and it's disingenuous at best

Making gun ownership so onerous that no one would or could do it amounts to a ban. It's intellectually dishonest to call it people control.

[Sancho]

110. Not disingenuous at all....

no different than half a dozen licenses and permits I carry in my wallet now:
driving, scuba diving, fishing, etc. You have to have a license or permit for many everyday things in today's world, so responsibly buying guns and ammo is no different. You have insurance on your kid who plays soccer, your auto, and just about everything else in today's world. In order to dock my boat, the marina requires insurance.

This is just a way to be reasonable. Notice that I put no restrictions on what gun you buy (as long as you are qualified, you can possess a machine gun). Notice I don't have a gun registry even though that might be a good idea in some states. All I ask is that you are cleared from being unstable or obviously dangerous before you can possess guns and ammo. Show your license if you want to shoot a gun. Why is that more onerous than anything else. You can't fly or vote without an ID, registration, and safety check. Many jobs require background checks. What's the difference? There is none except it's about guns.

A license is simple and would cost no more than almost any hobby, sport, or common activities most people engage in today.

I just would like to get some control over the easy access to guns by folks who clearly should not have them. Nothing strange or hidden in my message. If you have a better way to restrict the possession of those who are responsible and safe vs. those who are unstable and dangerous other than a licensing process, then let us know what it is...

[badtoworse]

114. None of the things you mentioned are enumerated rights. That makes a big difference

Insurance? I have liability insurance that would cover an accident on my part., but even if I didn't, I'm still liable if I kill or injure someone accidentally. Intentional misdeeds are not insurable. I don't need insurance to exercise my 1st Amendment rights, but I can still be sued for libel. No need for insurance.

Regular license renewal? What is the compelling need for that? Once you've been cleared, why should you have to do it again and again?

Background checks are OK, but the onus is on the state to show that you shouldn't have a gun. Your requirement to be examined prior to be issued a license isn't OK because it's arbitrary and subject to abuse by the state. References? Again, that puts the onus on me to show I'm eligible to exercise my rights. The rights are mine and the onus should be on the state to make a case for denying them.

Locked storage while transporting? Sorry, but that makes a gun useless for self defense.

Lose your license for accidental discharge? No way. Accidents and negligence are very different.

These might seem reasonable to you, but to me, they're over the top.

[Sancho]

116. You still don't have a way to keep unstable people away from guns.

And all your objections are overblown. You can debate all the details like every state does on every license. Start the license process and adjust, but doing nothing in illogical. You can renew annually or whatever. Why do you have mandatory auto insurance?

Instead of objections to being reasonable, what would you do?

[badtoworse]

150. Let's deal with fundamentals first.

With respect to civil rights, those are things that the government does not have the power to just take away. Civil rights are not things that the constitution (or the government) has granted to the citizens and the Bill of Rights is not a document the defines rights that the citizens (and the states) have. Instead it is a document that defines things that the federal government cannot do. It might not seem to make much difference, but the difference is actually profound. It defines who has the responsibility to demonstrate whether civil should be be granted or whether they can be taken away. Your question about keeping unstable people away from guns goes to the heart of that issue. Does the citizen need to prove that they are entitled to exercise their civil right or does the government need to prove that the civil right should be taken away?

Personally, I'm not willing concede anything on this point. It goes beyond the 2nd Amendment and it's too important. If you allow that standard to be diluted for the 2nd Amendment, it makes it easier for the government to make it more difficult to exercise any of our other enumerated rights. As far as the 2nd Amendment goes, that means that the government should have to demonstrate that you are mentally or otherwise not fit to own a firearm based on what is in the public record. It also means that I won't accept having to be examined and deemed competent to own a firearm - that puts the onus on me to demonstrate that I'm entitled to exercise my civil rights. I know that means that people like Rodger can more easily slip through and get a gun, but to me, that is a "cure worse than the disease" scenario. Sorry, but our government has demonstrated time and again that it should not be trusted with that much power.

The preceding is a big deal, but so is your point about insurance. Driving on a public road is not a right; it's a privilege and the standards for privileges are very different. The government has the power to specify what you need to do in order to gain a privilege, such as driving. It can require you to take a road test and have insurance in order to drive on a public road. Not true for rights. That does not mean that you're not responsible if you're negligent with a firearm. You can certainly be sued if you are. In my view, it means the government does not have the power to require insurance before you can exercise your rights.

In the end, I think our differences are about government powers. You seem to be comfortable giving the government powers that it does not currently have, but I am not. We will need to find solutions that work within the currently defined limits on government power. I'm not comfortable with the amount of power the government has accumulated now and I'm unwilling to give it any more.

[Sancho]

154. I'm talking about fundamentals...

First, you need to get your facts right. Read the latest legal history of the 2nd:

The Second Amendment: A Biography Hardcover
by Michael Waldman (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401446996&sr=1-1&keywords=2nd+amendment

Next, this has NOTHING to do with the 2nd!!! It's simply a license...and restricts you no more than carry permits, Brady Bills, or many, many historical laws (including many, many current permits in place now.) Why can't you have a 50 cal machine gun in your back yard now? It's not the 2nd! There are reasonable laws about guns now. If you are a licensed ATF agent, you might have a different weapon. Simple. The government has always had these powers and have them now!

You need to get straight that my rights and yours do not mean putting unreasonably dangerous people on the street with guns!!

If you want to possess a gun on a private island without a license or insurance that's fine with me too (I don't care if you want to debate the details). The minute you buy a gun or take a gun off your property or buy ammo, or any other similar action, you should have a license as a small assurance that you are not obviously a criminal, unstable, or dangerous. If you have children or visitors to your property, you should have guns that are secure. If there is a gun in your car when you drive around, it should be secure. If I own a business, a home, or drive on a public road it is my right to be safe from your unsecured gun.

If you need a gun for protection you should have training and a demonstrated need for having an unsecured weapon (just like they do in many other countries). Remember, I'm a gun owner with decades of experience. I know exactly what I"m saying.

Having a license or insurance requirements might be up to different state regulations, but it is the only logical way to keep unstable people (regardless of why they are dangerous) from possessing guns and ammo easily.

[friendly_iconoclast]

156. "I'm a gun owner with decades of experience. I know exactly what I'm saying."

So why are you busily expounding on Constitutional law? Are you an
attorney as well?

I'd also point out that there are other gun owners with decades of experience that post
here and disagree with you.

[Sancho]

168. If any gun owner has decades of experience, then they know what I'm talking about...

because they know that people sometimes have guns who should not have guns. They've all seen a hunter who was waving a gun around, or watched someone unload incorrectly, or know someone who threatened others inappropriately. Most gun owners know of an accidental discharge, or know of someone who owns an illegal weapon. Most gun owners think that "Guns don't kill, people do". That's why the person should be licensed to possess or use a gun.

I'm NOT expounding on the Constitution. I gave you an expert and current reference if that is your interest. If you want to debate the topics in that book or some similar scholarship, I'll be glad to do so, but it's clear from the history of the 2nd amendment that gun restrictions have been and are legal if duly passed by the various acts of government.

I'm saying that some PEOPLE should not have guns, and the way to screen people away from guns when they shouldn't have them is a license to possess the gun. I have outlined what that license may look like.

Simple. Lawful. Doing nothing is unacceptable to me.

If you have a different way to keep the undesirable people away from guns other than a license, then please let me know.

I put NO restrictions on the type of guns, number of guns, or amount to ammunition you possess as long as you license says you are qualified for that type of gun use.

[friendly_iconoclast]

170. Prior restraint on an enumerated civil right won't fly

If an authoritarian apologist like Alan Dershowitz thinks it's a bad idea,
it would behoove you and others to listen to what he says:

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”

[Sancho]

173. You are wrong about my license suggestion.

I don't take guns of any kind away from anyone - except those who are clearly should not have a gun. The 2nd is not violated.

We have many, many gun laws now….you can't shoot a gun in an urban area (lawfully) in most cities and states. You have to have a license or permit to carry a gun, hunt, or be a gun dealer. You aren't allowed (legally) to own a 50 cal. machine gun.

My license doesn't register guns or track guns. I'm suggesting a way to keep guns from unsafe people. Any responsible gun user would agree that's a good idea. If you have a better way than a common license then let's hear it.

This has nothing to do with arguing the history of the 2nd. It's a right with restrictions, like all rights have restrictions. That's obvious.

I'm saying that it is shortsighted to say it's ok for unstable people, children, untrained people, and criminals to have easy access to guns and bullets. Simple.

[friendly_iconoclast]

174. It's still prior restraint, therefore un-Constitutional without due process of law

Also, if you've ever driven in Miami and environs, I doubt you'd be so sanguine
about the efficiacy of mandatory licensure in preventing improper equipment use...

[Sancho]

175. Haha...I spend lots of time in Miami....

So are you saying that all carry permits, rules, and regulations about guns and weapons, and background checks are "prior restraint"? Is it ok to hand out guns in kindergarten?

If someone who is clearly criminal, unstable, or 7 years old walking into a gun store you would sell them a machine gun???

Other than a license that is issued to accountable people, how would you set the limits? A license would not stop all gun violence, but it would help a lot.

Again, if you want to argue Constitutional law, read The Second Amendment: A Biography Hardcover
by Michael Waldman or some similar scholarly review and start a thread on the topic.

I don't put ANY restraints on guns. I just don't think that some people should have easy access to guns. That includes the emotionally and mentally unstable, children, untrained people, and criminals. Which one of the above (including our friends in Miami) would you prefer to arm?

What is your answer other than a license or permit? Would you prefer gun registration? Banning guns? Changing the Constitution? A license is legal and practical.

[friendly_iconoclast]

176. Dunning-Kruger detected. A fisking is in order

So are you saying that all carry permits, rules, and regulations about guns and weapons, and background checks are "prior restraint"?

Did you have to get a 'political opinion license' to post here? Of course not.
You are free to post what you want, unless and until you threaten someone
with violence, post child pornography or state secrets, or pirate copyrighted
material outside fair use. Then, and only then will the law be free to take after you.

Is it ok to hand out guns in kindergarten?

Where did you pick up this particular strawman argument?

If someone who is clearly criminal, unstable, or 7 years old walking into a gun store you would sell them a machine gun???

It would be a great help if you actually knew what laws apply to gun dealers
You seem unaware aware that one of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_4473

is required to be filled out, as well as the buyer getting checked out by the
FBI via:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

Educate yourself and come back. Your heart seems to be in the right place,
but as Mark Twain said:

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

[Sancho]

177. We've seen all the same arguments before...you are not answering the question!

How would YOU keep emotionally and mentally unstable people from access to guns?

Except for a license/permit, what is your answer???

We all know the current laws about guns. Tell me now or state that you don't have an answer!! What is it?

Sooner or later, I predict some kind of license or permit will be the answer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

178. Start prosecuting straw buyers. Improve the mental health reporting system...

...as Senator Richard Blumenthal proposes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014811332

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/blumenthal-gun-control-mental-health

Open up the background check system to individuals- and make them mandatory

[Sancho]

180. Those are steps in the right direction...

but it's the same thing!! If you have a background check and mental health check you get a license to possess guns!

All the license does is provide the mechanism to accomplish what you are suggesting!

Great, I'm glad we agree.

An electronic system to check "buyers" and their ID's whould be available to law enforcement, mental health professionals, gun sellers, etc.

I'm saying you PRE-PASS the checks, and then have a card in your pocket to possess the gun.

You are saying that every time you purchase a gun, are stopped by the polices, enter a hunting club, have a domestic dispute, or get a call from a parent then someone can look online and see your history! Gee, that's a lot less intrusive than what I'm recommending.

Are you really sure the system you propose is what you want? Fine with me, but I'm surprised you would go for big brother following you around like that...

[friendly_iconoclast]

181. You misunderstand me. I meant "Mandatory *for gun buyers and sellers*"

And no, we do not agree...

[Sancho]

182. Haha..

You can't track straw buyers unless you track every sale and register guns. You can't access mental health records unless you have a database of medical records and prescriptions!

We don't agree! You propose much more intrusive regulations than my plan. In my world, you get cleared for a license to possess and use a gun and you can buy, sell, or shoot. Just show the license.

That's what happens if you think about it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

183. Straw buyers can be tracked by finding the last registered owner

That's what the form 4473 is for. That's how Dawn Nguyen was found:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/19/nguyen-ny-firefighter-ambush-sentenced/9296141/

ROCHESTER, N.Y. — The New York woman who bought weapons that a gunman used to kill two firefighters in 2012, was sentenced Monday to 16 months to four years in state prison.

Dawn Nguyen was convicted last month for lying on a firearms transaction form in 2010 when she bought a shotgun and a semiautomatic rifle — weapons that prosecutors allege were bought for a man who used them to kill two West Webster, N.Y., firefighters in a deadly attack on Christmas Eve 2012.

You can't access mental health records unless you have a database of medical records and prescriptions!

It's already the law. Where have you been? Most states require that courts
that place people under involuntary commitment notify the Feds.

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 922

d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—
(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

[Sancho]

184. You can continue arguing if you want, but you are creating a monster.

..the end game of tracking is tracking! Paper trails is tracking.

What you mean is that we allow unstable people to have guns and kill followed by a system that invades all our purchases and health care.

Instead I think we should issue a license so there is no need for the obviously ineffective tracking and you could have your gun, but the unstable people and criminals would find it harder and harder to possess a gun, buy ammo, or stay unnoticed.

Most gun possessors would be happy and free. Lives would be saved (maybe yours)!

You choose which is better!

[doxydad]

28. Regulate guns like cars.

There's your answer!

https://www.freespeech.org/video/guns-should-be-regulated-cars

AND...no more guns...or...Chris Rock has the answer, charge $5,000 per bullet and you can keep, sleep with,hug...whatever. your guns. here's what baffles me...how in the hell did I make it 63 years without ever owning agun, yet I feel safe, and secure.

[Duckhunter935]

44. So I do not

need to register and insure if only used on private property. Can modify by removing or adding parts, even to make it faster. Can put the biggest magazine that will fit like a gas tank. Can sell across state lines without having to use an FFL for transfer, do not have to do that with cars. Any car is legal to own in all 50 states, OK same with guns.

[groundloop]

52. Typical gun nut smarmy answer that answers nothing

[friendly_iconoclast]

111. The false consensus effect is strong amongst you lot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect

The false-consensus effect is not necessarily restricted to cases where people believe that their values are shared by the majority. The false-consensus effect is also evidenced when people overestimate the extent to which their particular belief is correlated with the belief of others. Thus, fundamentalists do not necessarily believe that the majority of people share their views, but their estimates of the number of people who share their point of view will tend to exceed the actual number.

This bias is especially prevalent in group settings where one thinks the collective opinion of their own group matches that of the larger population. Since the members of a group reach a consensus and rarely encounter those who dispute it, they tend to believe that everybody thinks the same way.

Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way...

...The false-consensus effect, as defined by Ross, Greene, and House in 1977, came to be the culmination of the many related theories that preceded it. In their well-known series of four studies, Ross and associates hypothesized and then demonstrated that people tend to overestimate the popularity of their own beliefs and preferences.[8] In each of the studies, subjects or "raters" were asked to choose one of a few mutually-exclusive responses. They would then predict the popularity of each of their choices among other participants, referred to as "actors". To take this a step further, Ross and associates also proposed and tested a related bias in social inferences: they found that raters in an experiment estimated their own response to be not only common, but also not very revealing of the actors' "distinguishing personal dispositions".[9] On the other hand, alternative or opposite responses were perceived as much more revealing of the actors as people. In general, the raters made more "extreme predictions" about the personalities of the actors that did not share the raters' own preference. In fact, the raters may have even thought that there was something wrong with the people expressing the alternative response.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2007/11/why-we-all-stink-as-intuitive.php

[hack89]

80. The NRA would love to have guns regulated like cars.

think about it:

1. Simple test that 95% of the population can pass
2. No criminal background check to get a license
3. No wait to get a license
4. License is good in every state
5. You can get a license at 16 and a half years old.

As for registration, cars are only registered if they are driven on public roads - you do not have to register cars if they do not leave your property. That would mean guns would only have to be registered if they are carried in public - a concealed carry license should cover that requirement.

[doxydad]

139. Then why doesn't the NRA stepup and agree to ANY positive change?

Because they are a lobbying group for gun and ammo manufacturers, not citizenry. That's why. Wayne Smallpeter is a smug ass hat.

[blueridge3210]

141. And right on schedule

the requisite "genitilia" reference.

[hack89]

142. I think Dems have to take certain things off the table first

the problem is that every new gun control law is always labeled "a good start". Which makes one wonder what the desired "good ending" is. Why would you expect the NRA to participate in an open ended process?

What would you say to the NRA if they said we will participate in the drafting of legislation if we can have a promise that Diane Feinstein won't attempt to get her AWB passed?

The power of the NRA is that they bring voters to the table. That is their power, so it is wrong to say that they do not represent gun owners. Those gun owners provide the NRA $75 million a year in annual dues. They don't have to go to a 1% republican billionaire to fund their agenda

[upaloopa]

59. Willing to work with gun owners what a crock!

We're fucking sick of gun owners read the OP again.

[badtoworse]

67. You're a great example of why nothing happens

You can't accept the fact that there isn't enough political support to pass gun legislation. Instead, you post insulting crap about making pariahs out of gun owners and then whine about not being able to pass "sensible" gun laws. I can't think of a more ineffective way to approach a problem.

I've had to negotiate a number of deals in my career, but I was never successful when I opened the dialogue with insults. If you're really interested in addressing the problem, you should change your approach.

[polmaven]

65. How about background checks

including treatment for mental illness, not just hospitalization for it. This shooter had psychiatric treatment via office visits only, and, apparently that was not enough to keep him from buying the guns.

No...that would not have prevented the stabbings. Nothing I can imagine would stop that behavior, but it would stop many of the past and future mass killing by AR guns.

[badtoworse]

76. There are pros and cons with that approach.

The downside is that it would be a deterrent for people who need help to seek it. Mental state is certainly an important factor that should be considered in whether a person can legally obtain a firearm. You don't want to create a situation where people who are potentially the most dangerous avoid treatment out of fear of losing a civil right. It's a difficult problem and I don't have a good answer.

[Katashi_itto]

74. Put a Ten dollar tax on EACH round purchased.

[blueridge3210]

78. Such a tax would be ruled unconstitutional as it would effective prevent

exercise of a constitutional right. I can't recall the court case by a municipality attempted to impose an onerous tax on printer's ink to attempt the same thing and the tax was ruled unconstitutional.

[Katashi_itto]

79. Not if the FDA rule bullets were a health hazard like cigarettes

Where is the onerous complaints about cigarettes?

[blueridge3210]

83. Where is the constitutional right to smoke cigarettes?

Sorry, but the courts have ruled possession of a firearm is a constitutional right unrelated to service in a militia; in order to effectively exercise that right one has to be able to purchase ammunition without punitive taxes being applied. Any FDA ruling to that effect would not likely survive judicial scrutiny.

[Katashi_itto]

90. "keep and bear arms" Nothing about bullets.

Bear all the weapons you like.

[badtoworse]

91. No doubt said with a straight face.

[Katashi_itto]

92. Yep.

[blueridge3210]

94. Freedom of the Press.

Nothing about ink or paper. Have all the printing presses you want; we'll just deny the means to produce a newspaper. The analogy is the same; restriction on the items necessary to exercise the right is the same as a direct denial of the right.

[badtoworse]

89. Look up poll tax and get back to us.

Taxing a constitutional right in order to prevent its exercise would be clearly unconstitutional. The poll tax was designed to prevent poor black people from voting and was rightfully struck down by the courts. You idea would fail for the same reason.

[Katashi_itto]

93. Apples to Oranges. I think I struck a nerve with the Ammosexuals.

[badtoworse]

95. I would guess that you are not a constitutional lawyer.

Their is legal precedent that applies to your argument. It involved putting a high tax on printers ink to discourage a certain newspaper from publishing. The court struck that down stating that access to the things necessary to exercise the right is also protected. Ammunition is obviously a necessary component of arms. I'm not a lawyer either and don't remember the name of the case. Perhaps another poster can add some color.

ETA: Ammosexuals - that's a new one on me. Very creative.

ETA: See http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/11/minneapolis-star-tribune-co-v-minnesota.html

[Lurks Often]

101. Or not

As is typical of a gun control extremist you resort to name calling when the discussion doesn't go your way.

I really doubt you struck a nerve with any of us, most of us are probably laughing at your naive idea and recognize that it will never happen.

[blueridge3210]

107. *snort*...*giggle*...*guffaw*....

Nope, no laughing here.

[noiretextatique]

119. maybe

But we will never know because our politicians are cowards.

[maindawg]

16. The article is not an invitation to debate the second amendment

But several posters here have steered the conversation to deflect the intention of the article.Most likely,they did not bother to read it. The point here is, the cruel audacity that displayed by ignorant syncopates is overwhelming. That idiot plumber's rights do not trump anything. He is an idiot. Anyone who uses a tragedy to declare their love of or right to a gun is an idiot.
Eventually, there will be a future ban on handguns,mag clips, assault weapons etc.
In about 20 years.

[mikeysnot]

31. IN a well regulated militia....

don't forget that part.

[mikeysnot]

87. bought and paid for by the military

industrial complex, gun manufactures and wrong wing zealots... does that make you feel safe at night?

[mikeysnot]

115. Typical...

Enjoy your stay...

[mikeysnot]

155. Wow, it didn't last long???

What post did they get banned for...

[Kablooie]

27. A murderes right to kill trumps a parents right to protect their children.

[etherealtruth]

51. You may want to edit your post, it looks like you mis-typed ... ?

It sounds as if you are defending the 'Joe the plumber' statements (and its ilk) and calling those that criticize them (the idiotic statements) out as the insulting ones. You probably want to edit, because the mis-typing doesn't cast you in a very intelligent or flattering light

[etherealtruth]

60. Oh, you actually meant to defend the statements of "joe the plumber" (and his ilk)

How very special.

I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, i couldn't imagine anyone here aligning themselves with "Joe" an his statements.

Have a wonderful life

[etherealtruth]

84. Again I have to assume you mis-typed .... ?????

Did you read the OP of the thread? Joe (by name) and his ilk are exactly what the OP and the thread is about.

The post I made I response to you was in a sub-thread directly discussing "Joe' ....

If you are having trouble tracking just go back and re-read .... ????

Reread, perhaps you can see that "Joe" and his ilk is the common theme ... ?

No need to respond , I don't have time to walk folk through this

[badtoworse]

56. Seriously? I guess you don't spend much time reading gun threads on DU.

[etherealtruth]

62. Actually, I do spend "some" time

While I disagree strongly with their position on a guns there are some thoughtful posters that I can't fathom thinking anything positive about "Joe" and his statements

[badtoworse]

77. Joe's statement was crass and lacked empathy, but factually, he's correct.

Civil rights can be abused with unfortunate, even tragic results, but that doesn't change the fact that the government lacks the power to take them away.

[etherealtruth]

82. 'Joe's" staements are only correct if one views our enumerated "rights" as absolute

However, we all know that our enumerated rights are far from absolute. Limits and restrictions are put on "our" rights to promote the public good ... and they are placed on almost all of our enumerated rights


Additionally, our rights are "our rights" as interpreted by the courts ... they are ever evolving. Speech is an obvious example (and easily used to exemplify the limits) ... our right to free speech is actually quite limited to protect the common good.

I like the fact that "Joe" spewed his enormous idiocy ... I can observe a slow sea change in the public's response ... folk that have been apolitical or have not developed opinions have been swayed by "Joe" (and his ilk) ... not in the way intended. I am glad Joe did not come out and say something akin to : in the wake of tragedy we must come to a consensus on how to stem gun violence and the slaughter of innocents while doing our best to protect second amendment rights. I am grateful for 'Joe' in the same way I am grateful for the "open carry idiots'" .... they are causing people, that never have thought about it before, to think about guns (and their negative impacts).

[badtoworse]

88. Rights are subject to subject to limits and restrictions, that is different than taking them away.

Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

The calls for gun bans are just as much of a problem in reaching sensible solutions as the Joe's of the world. The NRA celebrates such calls - it keeps the checks coming in.

[intaglio]

153. OK let's give you a little challenge

Can you name one situation in the past 150 years where privately owned guns have stopped a tyrannical politician without making the tyranny worse?

[upaloopa]

68. It isn't an insult. It is reality you just can't see the truth

[friendly_iconoclast]

113. You lot aren't very good at slacktivism, much less real-world politics

I'll use DU itself as an example. This is from 20 minutes ago or so:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1167

Category: Justice & Public Safety

Posts: 30 days

Gun Control & RKBA 2,133

Gun Control Reform Activism 213


It's no surprise your crowd accomplishes little, between the chronic laziness and the raging pandemic of false consensus effect...

[AAO]

126. They only sound like insults to you.

If you were sane, like us, they would sound pragmatic, and wise.

[aikoaiko]

57. Disingenuous article title.

As loathsome as some of their language and public displays are, they are supporting everyone's lawful expression of their 2nd Amendment rights. No one has said that the 2nd Amendment protected his unlawful, murderous actions.

[noiretextatique]

120. your dead kids don't trump my second amendment rights

Said the idiot Joe the plumber, asshole. I've been posting on Facebook and other sites, and I can't tell you how many vile, disgusting comments I've seen. These people are fanatics...the lunatic fringe of gun owners. They don't represent normal gun owners...or rational human beings, for that matter.

[AAO]

121. Guns don't kill people - people with guns kill people!

Well, that's painting yourself into a corner if I ever saw it. There are only 2 answers to this dilemma - both should work equally. I wonder which solution the NRA would prefer:

1) Get rid of all guns
2) Get rid of all people with guns

Either one works for me!

[villager]

129. Of course they do -- just as their pathetic, blood-soaked apologetics were instantly available

...right here at the "Underground"

[billh58]

133. +100

Disgusting isn't it?

[villager]

134. But so absolutely, routinely, predicatable.

At least they're not wasting any pixels on empathy for the victims, eh?

[Maedhros]

143. If the RKBA folks had even a miniscule shred of integrity, they would wholeheartedly support efforts

to prevent mass shootings. They would work with, rather than against, gun control advocates to reach a reasonable consensus rather than cling to their absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (which has only been with us since 1960):

http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf

English common law had long acknowledged the importance of effective arms
control, and the meaning of the Second Amendment seemed clear to the framers and their
contemporaries: that the people have a right to possess arms when serving in the militia.
Over the years, this “collective rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment was
upheld in three Supreme Court decisions, in 1876, 1886, and most recently, in 1939
(Bogus 2000). The meaning of the Second Amendment remained uncontroversial until
1960, when a law review article using sources like American Rifleman asserted an
additional, individual, right to bear arms for the purposes of self-defense (Hays 1960).
Since that time, a growing bloc of constitutional scholars and historians has asserted that
only the individual rights interpretation of the right to bear arms is correct, even calling
this new reading the “standard model,” as if the original, collective rights interpretation
hadn’t prevailed for more than a century (Bogus 2000b). And the majority of Americans
now believe that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to tote a gun.

Over the past twenty years, the individual rights model has been used to block
passage of gun control laws, or to undercut them – for example, the assault weapons ban
of 1994 was allowed to expire ten years later because of pressure from gun-rights organizations.

[blueridge3210]

144. What efforts would those be?

California had an "assault weapons" ban, mandatory registration, magazine capacity limits and discretionary "may issue". The perpetrator killed three with a knife, two with a handgun. What laws would you like to see passed that would have an effect?

[Maedhros]

146. Effective ones, arrived after extensive study and discussion by knowlegeable participants.

Probably not a law proposed off the top of one's head on an Internet forum.

[blueridge3210]

147. So, if I understand your position

RKBA advocates are suppose to support efforts to prevent mass shootings; but no one will say what those efforts are. Sorry, not buying a pig in a poke; you want support you'll have to state what you propose in good faith and accept meaningful criticism of the same as well as serious questions regarding what positive effect the proposal is supposed to have.

[Maedhros]

149. I'm just saying that the responsible thing to do is to recognize the need for changes

in our gun laws and to work with others in the community to craft reasonable ones.

Especially after tragedies like Columbine or Sandy Hook or Isla Vista. Instead we're treated to open-carry demonstrations and blog posts defending Rodger's RKBA rights. Not helpful to anyone's cause.

[Lee-Lee]

157. Perhaps because when they do recommend things

It gets dismissed?

One perfect example is stricter encroachment of current laws- that should be something everybody agrees with, so easy to do.

But instead of trying it, all the anti-gun folks dismiss it or mock it. Then move to the position that we need more new laws while ignoring the ones we have now.

I will give you a great example- background checks.

Every years tens of thousands of people get denied by the background check system. This means they went to a gun dealer, picked out a gun, filled out paperwork stating they were legally able to own a gun, swearing that under penalty or perjury, and only then did the dealer call in the background check.

So if they got denied, unless the denial was a mistake they committed a crime just attempting to buy a gun. Unless they somehow didn't know they were ineligible- but it's kind of hard to not know you are a felon or under a protective order or anything else disqualifying.

So we have a person who is not legally able to own a gun. They are actively seeking to get a gun. They committed a crime when they falsified the paperwork to try and buy one, the evidence of that is retained at the dealer.

We have all that- and in 99% of cases there is ZERO follow up. The person just walks out of the gun store and nobody ever makes any attempt to do anything about the prohibited person we know is trying to get a gun and committed a crime trying to get one.

How many crimes and deaths could be prevented by following up with these people instead of letting them walk out and just steal a gun, get someone to straw purchase, or buy one on the black market?

[EX500rider]

145. What makes anybody think crazy people without guns won't kill anybody?

Frankly a car can kill more people then any single gun ever will, crank it up to 100+mph, jump the curb into a large crowd and you could easily have 50-100 dead. Heck that many have died by accident in a single high speed car crash.

The 1955 Le Mans disaster occurred during the 1955 24 Hours of Le Mans motor race, when a crash caused large fragments of racing car debris to fly into the crowd. 83 spectators and driver Pierre Levegh perished at the scene with 120 more injured in the most catastrophic accident in motorsport history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_Le_Mans_disaster

[Hoyt]

152. A 10 or 20% reduction would be worth it. Jeeez.

Without guns a lot of mass shootings would not occur. Zimmerman would have remained in his car. Dunn would have enjoyed the music. Reeves wouldn't have shot the guy with a cell phone. . . . . . .

[EX500rider]

160. "Without guns a lot of mass shootings would not occur."

That is true. But if they switch to IED's or using their car as a weapon the death toll will go UP not down. If somebody wants to kill lots of other people for no reason they don't have to use a gun. Car is just as easy.

[Hoyt]

161. OH, so we'll let em shoot people so we don't have a Boston bombing.

We had bombing long ago, or have you forgotten all the church bombings. They are actually easier to stop, especially if gunners can't buy a lot of explosives. They watch fertilizer and such closely.

[EX500rider]

163. I see you skipping right over the whole cars as weapons part?

How would you stop that? Crazy people gonna do crazy thing and if they can't get a gun I don't think they will just give up...since they are crazy and all...

[Hoyt]

165. You just want/need to keep access to guns. The rest doesn't matter.

[EX500rider]

166. Such a mind reader!! Must be cool to have magic powers!

So still avoiding my point like a hot potato i see...

If crazy person can't get a gun and uses their car (or rented Uhaul truck) as a battering ram weapon, do you think their will be more or less dead people per event?

[Hoyt]

169. Less dead people. But it is obvious guns are easier to use or you'd see more

battering rams. Without guns people won't necessarily go to battering rams, bombs, etc. Some might, but not all. So we are net good. And the 3 year old kid ain't gonna rent a car to kill his brother.

[geomon666]

179. .