General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI see nothing on this man's face that would tell me if he was safe carrying a gun or not.
That's the picture of the latest ammosexual to go batshit crazy with his guns. (Las Vegas shooter)
He looks like a normal person. I think I have a neighbor down the street that kinda looks like him. I even have coworkers who have similar builds. Looking at his face there is nothing that screams out to me 'I'M A WHACK JOB AMMOSEXUAL WHO WANTS TO GO BATSHIT CRAZY WITH GUNS'.
So tell me, why I should trust ANYONE who walks into a public place openly carrying a gun, especially one that is not wearing a uniform like a police officer or soldier.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)tclambert
(11,087 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)maryellen99
(3,789 posts)The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,630 posts)but this was the first time I saw a photo of the guy. I've no doubt he worshiped him like a deity.
unblock
(52,319 posts)she does not seem at all at ease in that photo.
Orrex
(63,224 posts)I haven't taken a good picture in my entire adult life, but I'm not going to go on a shooting rampage about it.
unblock
(52,319 posts)her unease could be due to him being an ammosexual, him being an abuser, her just not comfortable in front of cameras, or bad sushi.
but i figured others had the ted nugent angle covered, so i thought I'd go a different route
I was simply defending the habitually-non-photogenic demographic.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)She might have thought him not ammosexual enough.
kiva
(4,373 posts)She's not a victim. If you want to apply a label, call her an ammosexual too.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)unblock
(52,319 posts)not me, but lots of people.
especially if it's posed, these days, it's all digital, you can take 50 snaps for the price of one and just pick the best one.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)she looks smack dab mid-west average to me.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)or felt ill-at-ease with her husband in her life.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)But we need to repeal these laws that essentially legalize human hunting.
The 2nd Amendment was written way before we had automatic weapons and ammo magazines that could hold 100 rounds. People could only kill other people as fast as they could reload their muskets.
I'm not saying that guns should be repealed. To be honest most of the gun owners I know (and I know plenty) are very safe gun owners. They enjoy the sport of hunting, they like knowing they have a gun to protect their home but they keep their guns safely stored and aren't interested in owning high powered weapons.
I need a license to drive a car. I need a license to practice medicine or even to run a beauty salon where I cut someone's hair. I see nothing wrong with requiring people to own licenses and show that those who own the guns know how to properly use then and store them when not in use. I think guns should have child safety locks. I think those with a criminal history or history of mental instability should not own guns. I think any crime committed with a gun (loaded or unloaded) should require extra sentencing and bar that person from ever owning a gun again even after they have served their time. I think automatic weapons should be banned along with magazines that hold a high number of ammo. And I think the Gun manufacturers should be held accountable for all making these massive gun violence shootings even worse just the way the Tobacco Industry has done so.
A gun is not capable of killing another person or living being. It's an inanimate object that just lies there and does nothing when not being held. It is people who kill using guns and there is nothing wrong with our country saying we want to make sure that those people who own guns will do so in a safe manner as to not be trouble with others.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)It would open the door for common sense gun laws.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Our Founding Fathers had no idea what to expect one day when it came to guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)short of an outright ban on handguns, guns can be regulated. Even Scalia thinks so.
The problem is lack of public support, not the 2A.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It's that opponents of gun control consider it the only issue.
So pro-gun control people will vote for a candidate based on several factors. Anti-gun control people vote on the candidate's gun control record and that's it.
As a result, a small minority of the public is able to dominate on this issue.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it is a political fight, not a legal one.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The political issue is because that small group will go to the polls, and will vote based on that one issue.
The public wants gun control. They can't get it because the public doesn't bother to show up at the polls.
hack89
(39,171 posts)and the public in some places want more gun control than people in other places.
That is where the Dems screwed the pooch after Sandy Hook. Instead of identifying what proposals had widespread national support and concentrating on just them, they allowed every law maker to dust off their favorite gun control legislation and tried to pass them all. "All or nothing" quickly became nothing.
Jerry442
(1,265 posts)...collectively have enough clout to have gotten us into the mess we are in today. I think there are various powerful people who like a society where deadly violence, threatened or actual, is a daily reality. I think they believe it will helpful to their agenda and they are using their money and influence to bring it about.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)If just spending money got results, Romney would be President. Brown would have lost in CA. And so on.
Money obviously helps, but you still have to get people to show up and vote.
Rhiannon12866
(206,016 posts)The vast majority of Americans support stricter gun control laws, but their representatives consistently oppose them.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)1. The vast majority of Americans are unaware of what current laws exist and how to most effectively act for change.
2. Some legislators do not understand basic facts about firearms and their operation.
Problem #2 causes many pro-RKBA folks to distrust ANYTHING those folks say or work for.
Problem #1 causes counterproductive efforts at all levels of government.
It's hard to take seriously anyone that wants new restrictions when that person doesn't understand the current state of things.
billh58
(6,635 posts)for no apparent reason should not be trusted.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)So is wearing a sheet and hood.
billh58
(6,635 posts)but that doesn't mean that I trust racists, bigots, and Tea Baggers. Same goes for gun nuts...
liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)And the NRA will tell you that every time we have a gun nut go nuts.
billh58
(6,635 posts)I've seen that same claim on DU...
liberal N proud
(60,344 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I know the odds of something bad actually happening are very low but I still move away, especially if my family is with me.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)And she killed him, and then herself. He reminds me more of Barney Fife.
Michigander_Life
(549 posts)That's why he got kicked off the bundy ranch
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)The REALITY is this: there over a hundred million gun owners in this county, owning between them possibly close to a half-Billion firearms. Some micro-fraction are maniacs, the rest are not. You are FAR more likely to be killed by a family member than any stranger with a gun.
And note: the cutesy "Ammosexual" thing, used as an insult, is offensive to our LGBT friends.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)offensive too? LGBT did not create the word homosexual, the word -sexual has been commonly added to the end of anything that shows a preference of love towards a certain thing. These people seem to love guns more than anything else so I think that's pretty darn appropriate.
And you're right - the chances of me getting hit by a gun are pretty slim pickings. But the number of these shootings are on the rise and no state is immune to them. We've had shootings like that here in Delaware (one was at the Courthouse where I work nearby). So you know, I'd rather just not take my chances around ANYONE because in the end you never know.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)are not related to homosexuality.
If I said something offensive using the word gay or the F* word then I would agree.
But I'm using a word that is commonly used in medical terms to define what people love/prefer.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Or any other _____sexual.
And damn right it's used as a slur, rightly so!
I think it's hilarious: Ammosexual. Does that bother you?
Or do you need a new fake thing to be upset about?
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)than to be able to save themselves or a family member with one.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And one more reason why there will never be effective gun control legislation passed. The two sides are dug in at polar extremes... not a chance in hell of anything getting done.
progressivebydesign
(19,458 posts)Don't care if it's hunting season or whatever... But I'm aware of my surroundings, and if they walked into a restaurant, I would have been headed for the door after alerting the police if they're nearby. I've also walked out of stores when someone walks in with a gun, and is clearly not law enforcement. I'm in an open carry State, apparently. I've seen some real winners walking around with their guns on their waist, with their children close by, and ALWAYS wearing some sort of "look at me, I'm so tough" t-shirt, 2 sizes too small. I avoid them, as they walk around spoiling for a fight.
Maybe I'm overly cautious, but you can clearly tell the difference between a soldier (who we have around here a lot,) and a whack job.
Not to mention these people TOLD their neighbors they wanted to kill lots of cops, and NOT ONE OF THEM called the authorities.
msongs
(67,441 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)weapon is bat shit crazy.
hlthe2b
(102,360 posts)And if those confronted with such a person choose to call 911, use pepper spray against the opponent, or all gang up to subdue with physical force someone carrying a gun without obvious purpose (law enforcement, heading directly to a gun shop/repair shop, etc.), then I'd say they are fully justified.
Time for the tables to turn and the unarmed abused get a chance to defend themselves against bullying gunners.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)And we all know THOSE people can't be trusted!
Or something
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)It's funny but let's be honest here.
These open carry nuts are primarily white. And they think that out there roaming the streets are either a gang of minority thugs or a cell of foreign Muslim terrorists and these Open Carry people think they can protect the country from them. They see dark skin and they don't trust them.
Honestly, I find a group of white folks carrying large weapons the most frighting group of gun owners out there. They think they know how to use their guns and they can be the judge of 'who is safe and who is out to kill you'. They frightening me 1000000% more than any minority or foreigner combined. That doesn't mean I'd be worried if minorities or foreigners showed up in a store carrying large weapons however it doesn't seem like they are the ones responsible for most of these mass shootings.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)White guys flaunting gunz in public scare the crap outta me. Middle Easterners, meh. They aren't trigger happy loons like our home grown rednecks, just hoping for a reason to shoot. I would run for the hills had I saw those two open carry on the street.
The only time I felt comfortable listening to a second amendment defense was this guy - the guy who helped disarm Jared Loughner even though he himself was carrying - and he was just 24 at the time. Remarkable judgment on his part (and in all of that confusion no less). Most of the time, 2a defenders are frothing at the mouth in interviews and one just wonders if they have to hit a range to get it out of their system.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)if they run into another gun nut trying to be a hero. "Oh look, I'm a good guy with a gun and that guy looks like a bad guy with a gun! I'd better stop him!"
You know it's going to happen one of these days.
QED
(2,749 posts)That's perfect.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I found 19 words in the dictionary that end in -sexual and many of them not related to homosexuality yet somehow I'm offending the gays.
I've yet to see the rallying cry at DU about the use of Metrosexuals.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)I think if these assholes could marry their guns, they would. Of course, with the ways things are going in this world, I have more things to be concerned about than whether or not Ammosexual is offensive to gay folk.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I've seen a few words out there that are offensive to the LGBT community (not here at DU but used over at Huffington Post and other political forums).
But honestly in the end the best thing to call these people are racist bat-shit crazy assholes.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)quite sensitive on this forum. Sometimes with reason, sometimes not. This seems to be a not.
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)And this past decade I've seen it expanded to other things meaning 'great love for something' like Metrosexual - which are straight men who love to be well groomed.
world wide wally
(21,754 posts)billh58
(6,635 posts)the term Ammosexual is taken by gun nuts who are offended by ANY derogatory remark about gun nuts.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)LOOK SEEE ....political gain, political bullshit policy driven crap.
The two dead officers will only be remembered as "those dead guys" involved in my gun related shooting masterpiece.........bravo
The murderers become famous, as they wanted and as always is the case. The dead guys .... meh who cares, no value in the story.
Ammosexual ....... even a clever pet name,...well done, ....really bravo.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I like it. Words that end in -sexual define who/how you love. These people love guns - they love them more than anything else out there in the world. They vote against people who would help them get better jobs, better pay, better healthcare because in the end those things mean nothing compared to their love of guns.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)"These people",..... less than 1% of the firearm enthusiast population commits horrific crimes, and "these people", "Those gunnutters" etc etc. You will have to keep coming up with more and more extreme ways to describe "Those people". That's why "ammosexual" is attractive to you, there will be more once this one fades out, meanwhile the 90 million of "us people" who have never committed any crimes in any way point and laugh at the relentless, ...... pointlessness of the name calling self righteous. Ammo is very expensive that is your victory against the "ammosexual", but in reality it has created a HUGE bonus for "us people" much like prohibition, "us people" are selling reloading services for what can be considered my new vacation/retirement fund.
And you know, deep in your heart, it will only make you feel better. It will not help pass responsible legislation, it will not help anything. It only makes you feel like you are helping, and further alienates "those people" from paying any attention to what you are saying.
Adding "sexual" makes you feel better, ......... it proves, describes, helps nothing.
Cheers.
NM_Birder
(1,591 posts)Response to LynneSin (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
billh58
(6,635 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)You are the paranoid one who has to carry a gun! We just want guns out of our lives. Gunners are a threat to our rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Your fetish does trump that. Also we have first amendment rights to say what is on our minds. Rights belong to all of us!
rocktivity
(44,577 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 9, 2014, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)
It does not simply say that "all citizens have the right to keep and bear arms." That right is restricted by the interest of regulating a militia.
rocktivity
hack89
(39,171 posts)It is purely a political issue.
you're going to have to try a lot harder than that.
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)individuals around with the cop's hands on his own piece just in case the perceived "open carry" guy is a want-a-be mass killer? How are cops/we supposed to know they mean no harm and are just taking their assault weapon for a walk, because they tell us they are not killers? This is what makes the open carry crowd such a bad joke!
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)Their families and neighbors might have been suspicious. Everyone knows terrorists don't look like the Millers, or Timothy Mcveigh, or Eric Rudolph, or Ted Kacsynzki, or Elliot Rodger.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)I'm going to keep on advocating for a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. This couple would have never been issued a license in my view:
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 70s, 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 werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its 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 its 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 learners 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 drivers 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.
Chalco
(1,308 posts)and I'm scared plus I have a gun, can I kill him to protect myself?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)If you believe you have reason to fear for your life, you can and must shoot!
I think it's essential that all gun carriers shoot at each other, and only each other, until only the Good Guy is left.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)68. Yes, of course, stand your ground.
View profile
If you believe you have reason to fear for your life, you can and must shoot!
I think it's essential that all gun carriers shoot at each other, and only each other, until only the Good Guy is left.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The armed and all who justify and glorify arms are definitely the problem part of humanity. And I mean all who think the gun is essential: soldiers, cops, militias, mafias, self-defenders, etc.
Right now the hysteria caused by the gun nuts is drowning out the latest militarization of the police:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html
It's sad that you might consider the self-justifications the world's gunmen advance to be more humane than my ironic take on it.
Open carry and stand your ground are abominations, and self-evidently contradictory to each other.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)for an imaginary utopian gun free society you wish death on millions, as long as it is the 'right' people dying. As you are stating it, there is no difference among the five who died; since they all had guns, they all were evil.
News flash, people were violent long before guns came along. So even if all soldiers, cops, militias, mafias, self-defenders, etc. manage to kill each other off and destroy their guns in the process there still will be violent people who will commit murder.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Actually, there are "imaginary gun free societies," with minimal violence problems by comparison to the United States, that actually exist today, or have existed within living memory. Places where even the coppers often don't carry guns. So perhaps you need to expand your limited American perspective and get beyond your atavistic view of what "people" are and must be.
As for taking my comments to mean I desire "the death of millions," whatever. I'm not the one doing the shooting, or living in some delusion about how if I had a gun, I'd be safe. Fact is, if millions ever do die, and whenever millions have died, it was because of morons with guns, and not because of people like me who had bad thoughts about morons with guns.
So go ahead, if that's what you need to reassure yourself about the rightness of literally millions of morons with guns, all of whom claim they're exceedingly well-trained and responsible and totally within their rights of self defense and competent exemplars of the Clint Eastwood School (in which only the good guys are left standing at the end).
Guns prevent something like zero shootings a year, even as most of the killing by gun happens in sudden rages, accidents, and suicides, and therefore wouldn't be happening if literally millions of morons didn't have these guns.
But it's okay, I don't imagine they will ever be deprived of their rights to be morons with guns. It's way too far gone for that.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)That my knowledge of the world comes from watching movies
I have been to these gun free places you speak of. Some are very nice and in a perfect world there a a couple I would choose to live in.
Others have a pretty, shiny surface with a dirty underside that has higher crime rates then the US, albeit little gun crime.
A few places that are gun free are so peaceful the coppers carry SMGs... so maybe they aren't quite so peaceful.
As for the rest- not worth replying to. If you cannot see any difference between a police officer and a terrorist I am not likely to change your mind. The world is not black and white but many shades of grey.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)ecstatic
(32,731 posts)Another tragedy. I think the desire to open carry signals some form of mental illness. Not only is it rude, it's also stupid because active shooters will target the open carriers first.
athenasatanjesus
(859 posts)I bet if you hung out with him for a few minutes you would pick up on something.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)More than likely I would never hang out with someone like this. I don't like being around someone who thinks they need to keep an arsenal of weapons in their home (I have no issues with people who own a few guns that are tucked away safely in the house - my family is like that).
But if I'm standing in line at a coffee shop or hanging out at a library or bar - I have no clue who this person is with the gun and I won't have that few minutes of chat with them to ask things like 'You know what you are doing with it' or 'Have you taken all your medications today' or 'Did your girlfriend recently dump you'.
angrychair
(8,733 posts)If you feel the need, in your normal day-to-day life, to walk around with a gun, CC or on your hip or over your shoulder, you are a FUCKING IDIOT and need to grow the fuck up and give up this wild west-james bond fantasy bullshit. I've lived for decades and have lived or hung out in some of the best and worst cities the US and Europe has to offer and NOT ONCE have I ever needed a weapon. Amazing how the vast majority of people manage to live without the need for a gun.
So tired of pulling punches and playing nice with gun nuts. I dont give a shit if you hunt or target shoot but when you walk into fast food joint with a fucking AK-47 you are a fucking bad guy with a gun, every time.
AAO
(3,300 posts)And I'm still freaking alive!!
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)AAO
(3,300 posts)onethatcares
(16,185 posts)jeez, one can never presume to know what people are thinking, under Dr. Suess hats or otherwise.