I'm back for more abuse from the gun nuts

[SHRED]

Here's some ideas...

Extreme vetting of purchases, strict laws against unregistered firearms, and a review of what weapons are acceptable in a civilised society.

[pintobean]

1. Who are the gun nuts?

[hack89]

4. Anyone that disagrees with him. Nt

[SHRED]

12. If the shoe fits...

[hack89]

16. I bet you and I agree on many things

The only measures I really oppose are AWBs and registration.

[Demsrule86]

53. 30 kids dead in CT...60 dead in Las Vegas....60 or so dead in Orlando, 26 dead in Texas shooting...

tip of the iceberg...gun madness will end...and the choice is between reasonable gun laws and confiscation. Act now or you won't have choice.

[hack89]

54. Many here say confiscation is reasonable

I take it you disagree?

[Ukapau]

69. Do you think confiscation of the guns of some people or organizations is never ever reasonable?

[hack89]

75. No

I have no problem disarming felons and violent people. As long as there is due process.

[forgotmylogin]

80. How about disarming military-grade weapons from civilians?

Keep your pistols, your shotguns, your hunting rifles.

Anything that holds over 6 rounds at a time is a weapon of mass destruction and is only authorized for military personnel.

[hack89]

81. No. I like my rifles

And see no need to give them up.

[Orrex]

86. Your fondness for them doesn't ultimately mean anything

If I'm fond of stockpiles of chemical weapons and nuclear warheads, do I get to keep them? What if I see no reason to forfeit such arms?

[hack89]

93. Sure. A law could be passed and I could loose them

I just don't see it happening in my lifetime. Not something I worry about in the slightest. If gun control gets back to where they were in 1990 then I might start paying attention but that is a tremendous amount of lost ground to make up.

[Orrex]

99. I appreciate that answer.

It differs markedly from the "over my dead body" mantras that I hear on social media constantly and see on bumper stickers several dozen times a week.

Honestly, the next time that gun legislation comes up, the two groups that should have no say in it IMO are the NRA and people fundamentally opposed to restrictions. Those two groups have had more or less free rein to dictate legislation for decades, so it would be nice to give the opposing view a crack at it for once.

[Straw Man]

127. Interesting.

Honestly, the next time that gun legislation comes up, the two groups that should have no say in it IMO are the NRA and people fundamentally opposed to restrictions. Those two groups have had more or less free rein to dictate legislation for decades, so it would be nice to give the opposing view a crack at it for once.

You think that views opposed to yours should have no representation in the decision-making process. How do you propose to achieve that in our free and open society?

[Orrex]

128. Look at it from the other side

You think that views opposed to yours should have no representation in the decision-making process. How do you propose to achieve that in our free and open society?

You should pose that question to the NRA and to people fundamentally opposed to restrictions. They have silenced all legislative opposition for decades.

Do you equally scold them for shutting down views that oppose theirs?

[Straw Man]

131. Eh?

You should pose that question to the NRA and to people fundamentally opposed to restrictions. They have silenced all legislative opposition for decades.

How have they "silenced all legislative opposition"? I hear the gun-control point of view expressed almost daily, from pundits in the media and from our elected representatives. There is no "silencing."

[Orrex]

137. Really? REALLY?

I hear the gun-control point of view expressed almost daily, from pundits in the media and from our elected representatives.

That is, of course, irrelevant, because they can say whatever the hell they want.

We should instead concern ourselves with the actual laws, specifically the ones over which the NRA has essentially held veto power for the past half-century or so.


Please identify all legislation in the past 50 years that was proposed and drafted by anti-gun groups and which actually came up for a vote without massive revision by the NRA and its puppets. That list is probably about 0 laws long.

In stark and undeniable contrast, let us consider all of the gun-related legislation that is aggressively opposed, neutered and/or rewritten into uselessness by the NRA and its puppets. That list includes all gun-related legislation in the past 50 years.

[Straw Man]

139. Yes, really.

You talk about "silencing" but what you really mean is legislative losses. You still haven't explained how you hope to "silence" certain viewpoints without compromising the principle of free speech.

[Orrex]

143. Step One: correctly identify the NRA as a terrorist group

Step Two: having identified them as a terrorist group, permanently ban all members of congress from accepting financial or material support from the NRA, its members, its representatives, its surrogates, and its lackeys.

Step Three: censure members of congress who continue to accept NRA support, in the same way that we would censure members who accept support from ISIS.

Step Four: untainted by the corrupt self-interests of the NRA, have an honest discussion of the subject in congress and work toward sensible legislation (see below).


In my lifetime and yours, we have seen just about zero laws passed. Gun advocates are happy to echo the NRA's opinion on this, predictably dismissing such laws as "toothless" and "feel-good legislation." Of course, this has in large measure been due to the unceasing propaganda campaign by the terrorist NRA.

Laws about "improved background checks" and "increased access to mental healthcare" are obviously meaningless, just as they're intended to be.

[Straw Man]

178. Your agenda is doomed from the outset.

Step One: correctly identify the NRA as a terrorist group

A political advocacy group that doesn't engage in any illegal activity can hardly be characterized as a "terrorist group." Not in a free and democratic society.

[Orrex]

180. Spare me the sermons

Whole nations and all of their citizens have been declared terrorists for reasons no more compelling than raw racism.

I think that an organization that profits from and capitalizes upon terrorism (e.g., the NRA) could similarly be held to account.

Of course, since the NRA owns so many legislators and has so many eager voluntary mouthpieces, I recognize that this is not a practical expectation.

[Straw Man]

182. Sermons?

Whole nations and all of their citizens have been declared terrorists for reasons no more compelling than raw racism.

Right -- that's Trumpist bigotry, and it's despicable. And that's your defense of your proposal? I think you could profit from a little sermonizing on the nature of free societies.

[Orrex]

183. Nothing is as charming as a self-righteous gun advocate

Last edited Tue Nov 7, 2017, 04:36 PM - Edit history (1)

And your screen name is aptly chosen, given how you deliberately misrepresent my position. What a fucking surprise that a gun advocate would offer a dishonest argument in order to protect their precious guns.

The NRA directly benefits (in terms of endlessly growing legislative clout) and profits (in terms of endlessly growing gun sales) from terrorists' use of guns. This is a fact repeatedly demonstrated.

They catapult false propaganda about guns and gun safety in hope of protecting their profits and influence; they suppress actual science intended to study the medical and social impact of guns; and they exert direct influence over legislators and the media in order to enact their will. These are facts.

These facts are very different from an idiot racist fuckhead declaring whole nations to be terrorists.

My point, which you seem unwilling or unable to grasp, is that the NRA undertakes actions directly intended to benefit terrorists, and we are therefore justified in recognizing them as a terrorist organization.

You seem to imagine that such a thing is impossible. My example demonstrated that such designations are entirely possible


Arguing with a gun advocate is like drowning oneself in a tub of liquefied manure, so I'm done wasting my time with you and with all the rest.

The predictable eagerness with which gun advocates leap to protect their guns in the wake of each weekly mass shooting never fails to disgust me, yet for some stupid reason I engage again and again in hope that someday gun advocates might actually be able to look past their precious, precious guns and see the larger reality.

That day is not today.

[Straw Man]

187. You're missing several pertinent facts.

The NRA directly benefits (in terms of endlessly growing legislative clout) and profits (in terms of endlessly growing gun sales) from terrorists' use of guns. This is a fact repeatedly demonstrated.

The NRA is a non-profit. They don't sell guns.

They catapult false propaganda about guns and gun safety in hope of protecting their profits and influence; they suppress actual science intended to study the medical and social impact of guns; and they exert direct influence over legislators and the media in order to enact their will. These are facts.

That may be, but none of that meets any definition of "terrorism."

My point, which you seem unwilling or unable to grasp, is that the NRA undertakes actions directly intended to benefit terrorists, and we are therefore justified in recognizing them as a terrorist organization.

Directly intended to benefit terrorists? Hardly. Some of their actions and policies may indirectly benefit terrorists, but the same is true of the ACLU. Rhetorical tip: accusing someone who disagrees with you of failing to understand you is a very weak gambit.

Arguing with a gun advocate is like drowning oneself in a tub of liquefied manure, so I'm done wasting my time with you and with all the rest.

Now that's what I call reasoned discourse ...

[Marengo]

211. Wheres that inventory I asked for? What are you afraid of?

[HopeAgain]

113. And you sound happy about it.

Just sayin

[hack89]

121. ok. nt

[forgotmylogin]

90. I said you could keep a rifle.

I assume you mean a hunting rifle that you need to load, not something that can fire 60 times per second.

[hack89]

94. No. I mean AR-15s. Nt

[forgotmylogin]

96. Why do you need that gun? I'm serious.

What civilian situation do you foresee will present itself where you need to mow down a crowd of people?

[hack89]

98. Competitive target shooting

AR-15s are the standard. I don't own guns for self defense. I live in a safe ares.

[forgotmylogin]

102. Competitive target shooting, as in you shoot at each other?

[hack89]

118. Glad to see you have maintained your sense of humor. Nt

[forgotmylogin]

144. So the competition is who can mow down the most people/targets? n/t

[hack89]

150. No.

Timed accuracy. Takes a lot of skill.

[forgotmylogin]

153. So when do you need those types of guns off the firing range?

?

[hack89]

158. Off the range they are locked up in a safe. Nt

[forgotmylogin]

162. So you may as well not even own them.

You could rent them at a range temporarily instead of owning them.

[hack89]

164. No need.

The status quo works just fine.

[forgotmylogin]

105. Could you possibly compete with guns

that are not also capable of killing 50 people in two minutes?

[HopeAgain]

116. Not and feel macho at the same time...

[forgotmylogin]

148. I do envision that every "competetive target practice" participant

in their mind is shirtless, muscley, oiled-up with a bandana around their head screaming like Rambo as they save the world from a continuous onslaught of faceless terrorists.

[HopeAgain]

156. I used to do target shooting as a kid

We used .22 caliber (very small bore) rifles and shot at paper targets that were circles, not shaped like human bodies. Since we weren't trying (or imagining) that we were killing anything, a bigger caliber wouldn't have made sense to us.

There is no question testosterone is heavily involved in shooting these weapons that were invented to kill human beings.

[hack89]

120. Don't see the need

It is not like competitive shooters are a violent crowd.

[HopeAgain]

125. It only takes one...

to kill 58 and wound almost 500

[hack89]

126. Ok nt

[StrictlyRockers]

155. Seems like he's just fine with the random mass slaughter of innocents. It's ok with him.

He sees no problem here. Everything is fine.

[kcr]

186. Yep. Post number 126 shows exactly how much they care, doesn't it?

Who cares if there are mass shootings? They need convenient access to a hobby! That's what's important. They live in safe areas. Fuck everyone else.

[forgotmylogin]

147. But the toys you compete with nonviolently

are capable of a massacre.

[SonofDonald]

185. Got to break in right here

Your prior posts talk all about how dangerous a gun is and it's obvious you are opposed against any civilian gun ownership.

But then you call them "Toys"

Drop kicked yourself right out of this argument.....

[forgotmylogin]

197. I called them "toys" when they were being spoken of

as solely for target practice as if they were a fun toy to play a game with.

They are not.

You can drop kick somewhere else, kindly.

[Marengo]

190. In a self defense situation Id rather have 30 rounds before reloading than 6

[Skittles]

198. insecurity

[ClarendonDem]

83. Civilians dont own military grade weapons

Or at least the vast majority don’t. I would oppose a ban on magazines that hold more than 6 rounds. I wouldn’t support but could live with a 10 round limit.

[forgotmylogin]

92. So, question, Gun People...

What sort of standard, average civilian situation can you hypothesize where you believe you'll need a firearm that can shoot more than six times (and kill six people) at once without reloading?

Why all the firepower?

[jmg257]

129. Not sure if need is the issue. But if you like M1s, their capacity is eight.

So let's go with that!

[forgotmylogin]

152. Again, I ask...

Under what circumstance are you armed and facing more than six enemies at once in a self-defense circumstance?

How often does that happen?

[jmg257]

154. Not sure - maybe you need more then 1 round per enemy? Figure a double-tap per, at least..

That gets you to 12.

Let's go with 12!

[forgotmylogin]

167. So...the phrase "double tap" comes from a zombie movie.

You want guns for the impending zombie apocalypse.

That makes so much ... sense.

[jmg257]

168. No, it doesn't. And Mozambique drill is three rounds per, so just call it 18...

Which you might as well round up to 20!

[forgotmylogin]

169. So, you personally need the ability to kill 20 people without reloading.

[jmg257]

172. Personally? No.

To me all life is precious.

And such stuff as 20 round mags & reloads starts getting heavy after a while.

[forgotmylogin]

95. And specifically, ClarendonDem...

Why the arbitrary difference between "six" and "ten"?

You could "live with" firing only ten times but not six?

[C Moon]

109. :)

[forgotmylogin]

110. You've got eight friends you want to kill?

And a 6-round magazine won't do it?

[C Moon]

117. Me? No. I was smiling because I liked the way you handled that situation.

[ClarendonDem]

138. Because 6 is too few in my mind for self-defense purposes

But 10 is somewhat more reasonable. I agree that magazine limits are arbitrary and am not a fan

[forgotmylogin]

145. So you're planning for a mob home invasion

where you get to roll on the ground and say pithy one-liners before you dispatch your enemies one-by-one?

[ClarendonDem]

170. You obviously dont keep up with the news

People use firearms on a daily basis to defend their family. But continue to ignore facts. That’s a common failing on the part of gun-grabbers, and one of the reasons there hasn’t been meaningful gun control since Clinton.

[forgotmylogin]

171. What people?

Do you live in contested Mogadishu?

Do you have daily stampedes of wild buffalo to stave off with warning shots?

How many days out of the year do you defend your family with a gun?

[ClarendonDem]

175. So I only get guns if I use them?

Didn’t see that part in the 2d Amendment.

I actually live in a fairly safe neighborhood, but not sure why that is relevant.

Defensive firearm use happens all the time. A few examples from the last week:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2017/11/05/green-lake-county-homeowner-fires-gunshots-intruder-police-say/833767001/

http://katu.com/news/local/hillsboro-homeowner-shoots-at-intruder-stolen-car-found-hours-later

You prefer those folks couldn’t defend their home?

[forgotmylogin]

177. Did any of them defend their home with an AR-15?

I have no problem with pistols, shotguns, single-action rifles.

I don't want to take away ALL your guns. You have the right to defend your home by displaying your gun and firing warning shots and if necessary directly at intruders.

What I don't agree with is that you need the ability to shoot at them 100 times inside of a minute to do so.

[ClarendonDem]

179. Assault weapons ban is a different animal

I really don’t think it would make any difference but could support an AWB.

[forgotmylogin]

181. Thank you.

That's all I'm saying.

We probably won't ever *end* gun violence, but keeping assault weapons out of people's hands as much as possible could reduce the casualty count in these types massacres.

If the church shooter had to reload or carry multiple pistols into that church, there's a much lesser chance he would have hit ~50 people and killed 26.

If the Vegas shooter didn't have an assault weapon, he probably wouldn't have done so much damage at such a distance.

[Straw Man]

212. Well ...

If the church shooter had to reload or carry multiple pistols into that church, there's a much lesser chance he would have hit ~50 people and killed 26.

Cho killed 32 at Virginia Tech with two pistols.

[forgotmylogin]

213. Well, in the face of logic like that...

I guess there's nothing we can do to stop or reduce gun massacres.

The NRA wins.

[Straw Man]

216. Never let facts ...

... interfere with the mission, right?

[forgotmylogin]

217. Okay, give me some facts.

How would you reduce gun violence or at least the casualty count in these types of circumstances?

"I live in a safe place where it doesn't happen so I don't care" is not a valid answer.

[Straw Man]

218. I gave you a fact.

You opined that the Texas church shooter wouldn't have been able to kill as many if he had only had a couple of handguns. I cited a case where a person armed with only two handguns killed more people than in the Texas massacre.

I pointed out your factual error. It's not up to me to make your case for you. I personally believe that disarming the American public is a task so huge and so fraught with political consequences that it is virtually guaranteed to fail.

I believe that diligent enforcement of existing law, with the possible addition of expanded background checks, would do much to reduce the occurrence of these tragedies. Any long-term solution would necessarily involve the nature of contemporary American culture itself -- the political currents, the economic disparities, the racial tensions, the whole ugly ball of wax and the hatred and frustration that it breeds. Pursuing an aggressive gun-control agenda just adds fuel to the fire. That's just my opinion.

[George II]

88. The problem is that we don't know they're violent or even felons until AFTER they have a gun.

[Demsrule86]

123. I didn't really answer your question about confiscation...I have mixed feelings.

My family (not me) enjoys hunting. They won't kill anyone, lock up their guns and are very responsible...hell my Grandpa would have smacked amy of us who pointed a gun at anyone or an animal like a dog or cat...we weren't aloud to point sticks at each other and pretend they were guns...but some who have guns now are not rational...and we absolutely have to get the guns out of their hands. Personally I don't think an individual is a militia...bad court ruling...but we have to live with it for now...so lets try to save as many lives as we can by having reasonable gun laws and take the automatic weapons out of the hands of would be killers by out and out banning them and high capacity magazines. Every gun needs to be registered...just like a car.

[Demsrule86]

115. I think we start with automatic weapons and high capacity magazines...also no

Teflon coated bullets or silencers...and a permit process for concealed and open carry...also insurance...we change the laws so people who are injured by accidental shootings, and who are injured when someone's kids grabs a gun and shoots up a school or the gun is stolen and used to kill folks...Careless gun owners need to be held accountable. We need gun registration for every new gun...so it is clear where the gun came from...some sort of retroactive registration for those guns already out there...and anyone who has an unregistered gun faces criminal prosecution. Gun dealers should account for every gun they sell...which right now they don't...no doubt some are arming gangs and criminals or people who can't pass the limited checks in place...online needs to screen buyers too and register every gun they sell. Also, gun shows need to have a process of gun registration...so the new owner is now shown as the register owner of said gun.

[aikoaiko]

142. LOL. "Act now or you won't have choice"

I remember DU folk saying the same thing in 2013.

[Skittles]

196. Columbine isn't even in the Top 10 anymore

this is one fucked up, gun humping nation

[uponit7771]

5. People who think the avg Joe should own WMD firearms

[Demsrule86]

32. I have no interest in labeling anyone...but I will say this...I have a right to live my life without

having to put up with folks of questionable intelligence walking around with guns in the God damned grocery store...thinking they are John Wayne waiting for the gunfight at the OK corral...by God I want gun laws that are enforced...tough laws. SCOTUS already said that was permissible. I believe the Supremes got this wrong...individuals are not a militia... but in the meantime. Ban automatic weapons, bump stocks and institute a ban on high capacity magazines...there are some in California who will go to jail as...california has done this. They think it is a joke...I say lock them up. I have had enough. Let me tell you maybe this election or the next, people who want gun laws will start voting this issue and then the NRA and their sycophants are screwed...may that day arrive soon!

[pangaia]

55. amen I would go even farther.. if I could...

I still think the 2nd A has been totally misunderstood and/or intentionally misrepresented.. but hell, I'm just a drummer, What could I possibly know?

[Merlot]

64. Intentionally misrepresented.

[panader0]

74. A drummer eh? That explains it.

Signed, a guitar player. lol.

[ProfessorGAC]

132. How Do You Get A Guitar Player To Stop Playing A Lead?

Put sheet music in front of him!

BTW: Guitar and piano here.

[IronLionZion]

101. The US didn't have a standing army back then

Normal people would get called up to serve as needed. It made sense back then because they would need to defend against foreign invasion. Things have changed considerably since then. Normal people with guns now don't stand a chance against modern military forces.

[pangaia]

159. eggsactly

[Demsrule86]

119. I agree with you...but given the courts, there is little we can do...may be if this sort of shit

continues, we may be able to change or repeal the 2nd amendment.

[pangaia]

160. I don't know a viable answer either.

I seriously doubt it will ever happen,., but.. who knows...

[ClarendonDem]

176. The 2 Amendment

Only prevents states from banning guns altogether. Just about anything else you want is constitutional. There’s just no political will to pass gun control, at least among Republicans. I thought a bump stock bam would be something easy to pass but even that is stalled.

[Demsrule86]

189. Good point...even Scalia agreed.

So...I doubt that has changed.

[smirkymonkey]

56. +1000

[Cattledog]

77. +1000

[Towlie]

106. Gun nuts are those who claim regulation is prohibited by a law that states regulation is necessary.

[IronLionZion]

130. They think gun control means hitting their target

and yes, a well regulated militia is the most ignored part of the 2nd amendment right after the fact that it is literally an amendment, so it can be changed.

[hack89]

2. All you have to do is get the public behind you

Good luck.

[pintobean]

7. That's about what I was saying up-thread.

[SHRED]

8. Check this out

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/

[hack89]

13. There has always been strong support for UBCs

Not so much for the rest of your agenda.

And I won't classify UBCs as extreme vetting.

[SHRED]

24. In this day and age

I consider UBC and tighter regs on private sales to be extreme vetting.

[hack89]

27. My state has UBCs

I highly recommend them.

[Demsrule86]

35. The public is behind this...poll after poll has show this...it is not yet a hot button voting issue,

but with every gun tragedy, that day gets closer and closer.

[hack89]

38. Not really

Strong support for UBCs - little to no support for bans and registration.

[lunasun]

61. Do you respect Pew Research ?. Most do

This poll at the end of today's article is from spring 2017 68% AWB And high capacity
I can't image it's gone down since spring
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/11/06/readers-mass-shootings-mental-health-plays-part-but-guns-do-most-damage/836443001/

[hack89]

65. Those numbers oscillate

In a fairly narrow band - the Gallup polls that go back decades show that.

I would be interested to see a graph versus time for Pew.

[Adrahil]

57. Yeah, that's the issue. Despsite support for regulation, people do not vote that way. NT

[LanternWaste]

51. Many people thing the only good ideas are the popular ideas

Many people thing the only good ideas are the popular ideas, hence the success of Pet Rocks and Prom Kings.

[hunter]

58. Trump is president. He didn't get the most votes.

Gun fetishists are in a similar position.

Most people don't want guns around.

[hack89]

62. Polls would disagree with you

The country is pretty evenly split on most gun control measures and have been for decades.

[world wide wally]

66. Okay. Right there.

"The country is pretty evenly split". But the NRA gets 100% of what they want.

[hack89]

67. How that support is distributed is important

Because it directly impacts how many elected officials on each side of the issue there are.

[world wide wally]

68. The word for that is gerrymandering

[hack89]

72. No

Support for gun control is not evenly distributed. Blue vs red, urban vs rural.

Do you think for a second that support for guns in the south and other red states needs gerrymandering yo be effective?

[hunter]

161. In my community guns are associated with gangs and trigger happy cops.

Opinions are not anywhere close to "evenly split." Even Wal-Mart quit selling guns because that's where gangsters were buying them. (Of course the gangsters didn't stop stealing them from "responsible" gun owners, including cops.)

I think this is an issue like gay marriage. When the nation starts to lean against guns, as it began to lean toward the acceptance of gay marriage, the process will accelerate. Yes, I do view much stricter gun control laws as progress.

Personally, I'm suspicious of anyone who carries a gun for "self-defense," even cops. I see them as a potential danger to themselves and others.

I've witnessed and experienced gun violence firsthand, but there are only a few stories I'll share here on DU.

Some people, including this last church shooter, obviously shouldn't have guns.

If you're worried that someone like me is going to take away your guns, you probably should be.

If you've got a gun for hunting, or shooting the random rabid or plague infected animal on your ranch, then I've got no problem with that. If you occasionally shoot a few cans to keep in practice, I've got no problems with that either. (But please don't use lead ammunition, it's bad for the condors and other wildlife. It's bad for people too.)

My family is Wild West. There's zero tolerance for fools with guns. As a kid, I watched my mom take a loaded gun from a young man, unload it, and break it. The guy instantly transformed from a tough guy to a kid whining loudly he was going to sue her. He never did. My mom took away my grandma's guns when my grandma started to get paranoid. My brother beat the crap out of a guy brought a gun into his bar, a bit preemptively, but the cops agreed the guy was there to rob the place.

All the hand-me-down guns my parents ended up with have been destroyed, possibly including some "collectibles." (Collecting guns seems a morbid hobby to me.) One of my brother's has our grandfather's deer rifle, since my grandma gave it to him. My brother doesn't hunt. My siblings and I have been hunting, but it's not a tradition we've passed on to our own kids.

I think anyone who dresses up in cammo to shoot paper targets of bad guys is a fool. Anybody who lets imaginary bad guys, the sort they'd care to shoot, live in their head is a potentially dangerous fool.

I don't respect gun fetishes or the second ammendment as it is currently interpreted.

NRA members, most especially the gun manufacturers who whip up the fears and feelings of inadequacy of so many gun buyers, can go fuck themselves with a cholla cactus.

Don't tell me attitudes like mine make people vote Republican. If that's all it takes to make a person vote for someone like Trump, they're already an asshole.

I'm not running any Democratic campaigns, I'm especially not running for office, so there's no need for me to guard my opinions.

[lark]

84. Public totally agrees with no private ownership of assault weapons, not selling to terrorists

and supports background checks for all, including for mental illness and including gun shows. Polls shows 70% approval of these
restrictions. It's congress that wont bend because they are paid not to. That is the total tragedy of this.

[uponit7771]

3. Don't sell WMD firearms to crazy people, I think they can agree with that

[shanny]

22. stop stigmatizing "crazy people"

I had a brother who most would classify as a "crazy person" and he wouldn't hurt a butterfly. otoh there are plenty of not-crazy people who apparently think it's OK to put up their fists or pick up a gun because they can't deal with their lives and need to take it out on somebody else. which makes it easy to call them "crazy" because that is crazy, right?

it is also a dodge since apparently the only way to know if someone is sufficiently crazy to be denied access to WMDs is...past behavior. oopsie, too late! shoulda seen that coming! sorry for the inconvenience!

SMH

clearly what we are doing and not doing is not working...how 'bout some science-based, evidence-based, shit even common-sense based proposals/solutions instead of BS about crazy people and mental health issues?

[Demsrule86]

26. People with mental illness including depression should not have guns. That being said, blaming

mental illness for mass shooting gun death is wrong...the guy who shot up the church wanted to get back at his wife and mother in law...maybe the pastor too...don't know. But he wasn't mentally ill...he had a reason. People don't understand that just because a person kills does not mean he/she is mentally ill. Domestic abusers are not mentally ill...just violent...no different than gangs.

[shanny]

166. "people with mental illness" are no more violent than the general population. eom

[lagomorph777]

37. How about no WMDs to anybody?

If you want one, it's proof enough that you're crazy.

[uponit7771]

46. +1

[IronLionZion]

135. Who is to say who is crazy?

Crazy people don't know they're crazy.
I think most of the people who want semi-automatics with high capacity magazines are crazy and shouldn't have them.
Most Trump supporters are crazy.

[Orrex]

10. Yes, you've suggested it before, and it's still a terrible idea

[mopinko]

21. suicide is illegal?

and gun humpers would care that it is illegal?

and you are advocating people off themselves?
and you have said this before?

[Iliyah]

9. Gun regulations works.

For my young girls to grow up in a country that needs constant security at every corner of America while citizens are able to openly carry any type of guns is insane and could not be normalized.

[NCTraveler]

11. K&R nt

[underpants]

14. Restricted possession rights for certain offenses

DUI
Domestic Abuse
Anything violent

No need for actual confiscation but if they are found later to have a gun (there could be a set time limit) then they get slammed.

[mopinko]

18. by request to a judge from family members.

mental illness is not workable, except those found so by the court.
plus it's the one not getting treatment, or even a dx, that are the real problems.

cali passed a law allowing family to petition the court to pull a foid card.
i am wondering how that is going.

[genxlib]

15. I will stand with you

Bring it on.

Let them tell us how we just don't understand...

There is an old saying, "Where there is a will, there is a way"

We can find the "way" if we can muster the "will".

It is the "will" that is sorely lacking. If a bunch of dead children don't motivate this nation to do something, then we might just be too far gone.

But I won't stop arguing for gun control. I don't care how much they think it is; impractical, unnecessary, unconstitutional, ineffective, etc.

I would rather be ineffective on the correct side of the issue than complicit with the attitude that we just have to accept it.

[HAB911]

17. EVENTUALLY

"gun nuts" need to control their guns/ammo/clips or SOMEONE ELSE will

[SHRED]

20. I've seen so many excuses

Including elaborate technical diagrams of bullets and such.

All designed to distract in my opinion.

[hack89]

19. I love performance art! Nt

[Demsrule86]

23. I agree 100% and these folks better opt for some common sense rules now because people want gun

control...all polls show this, and if they don't do something when the time comes, and it will...going to be much worse for those who are willing to sacrifice kids to their sacred God ...the gun. I believe they will be hammered..rightfully. Why should You and I have to live in fear so they can walk around all macho with their gun and most likely small dicks.

[hack89]

25. Not really

There is wide support for some gun control measures like UBCs but not for more draconian measures like gun bans.

Haven't you been paying attention to past 20 years - there has been a steady liberalization of gun laws across the nation. There is no indication that things are changing.

[mikeysnot]

29. NO

the gun manufacturer's and gun massacre profiteers have been spending millions in lobbying assholes to loosen restrictions. The people did not champion this, just some people.

And idiots use our non existing "draconian" laws in Chicago as a wiping boy argument, like resident asshole just did yesterday.

[hack89]

31. I have no doubt you can show the polls

That support your opinion? Gallup and other major polling firms have data that go back decades.

[mikeysnot]

215. Polls? Fuck polls.

How about some data...

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=Q13&year=2013

That is a lot of cash, in 2013 alone...

[smirkymonkey]

60. This!

[Demsrule86]

39. Wrong and wrong. I have seen the polls...now I own a gun...in fact some years ago a gun

saved my life, but I want the God damned loopholes closed...I don't want armor piecing bullets are silencers...you better support common sense gun solutions or in time you will lose the whole shebang...mark my words. I don't carry my gun to the grocery store, nor do I leave it around so others can find it...I don't need high capacity magazines ...their only purpose is to kill people. I am sick of worrying about my kids in movie theaters and school...now church...better support reasonable fixes or what you end up with will by much worse (for your anyway...but for others...it will save lives).

[hack89]

41. Then post them.

Because I don't believe you.

[forgotmylogin]

107. I still want to know...

Why does any civilian need an assault rifle capable of killing 50 people in a short time ever?

"Competetive target shooting" is not an answer. You can compete with a single-action rifle or a pistol. You can compete with paintball guns. You don't need to compete to see who can mow down a crowd of people the fastest.

[hack89]

122. ok. nt

[forgotmylogin]

149. So, you've no answer.

Except "I like muh guns."

[hack89]

151. No. Just tired of you.

I don't really care what you think of me not do I feel any need to explain myself to you.

[forgotmylogin]

157. You've spent a lot of time defending in this thread so far.

Usually "tired of you" means "I don't have an answer."

I accept your official resignation.

Have a great day!

[hack89]

163. That's nice

What did your victory gain you? From what I can see my defeat has cost me nothing.

[forgotmylogin]

165. I have learned that we will never be safe from people with guns.

You earn 26 more deaths in Texas that your habit enables.

[hack89]

173. You have my sympathy

Living in fear is never easy. Fortunately I live in a safe area with hardly any violent crime. Drugs and alcohol are the real dangers to my family.

[forgotmylogin]

214. You enjoy that.

Your logic has defeated me. There is no way to reduce or prevent gun massacres cuz everyone needs their machine guns.

The NRA wins.

[Demsrule86]

108. Give it time...the more shootings...the more people will be OK with 'draconian' measures.

And we can stop automatic weapons and high capacity magazines now.

[LonePirate]

28. We should accept nothing short of new amendments that repeal the 2A, ban and confiscate all guns.

[liquid diamond]

30. Good luck

[hack89]

33. Don't you think solutions grounded in reality might work better? Nt

[LonePirate]

43. Do you want solutions that will work or do you want to continue imposing unhelpful solutions?

[hack89]

48. I would prefer solutions that enjoy wide public support

Those are the only ones that will work.

[sarisataka]

34. Isn't gun confiscation

An nra lie to drum up fear and sell more guns?

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

36. You do realize that would start civil unrest

If not outright civil war.

[LonePirate]

45. We are already living in a time of civil unrest and civil war with 1+ mass shootings every day.

Open your eyes!

[Watchfoxheadexplodes]

82. Alex Jones would be proud of you

Smh

[LonePirate]

100. You prefer people ignoring and playing down the epidemic of gun violence in this country?

[Demsrule86]

42. I own a gun...rifle...my grandpa used to hunt...works great. It saved my life years ago...I lived

in a rural area with no police really...but I would gladly hand over that gun to save one person from dying in any sort of shooting. I have come to believe that guns should be banned. If we can't do that now...then let's go after high capacity magazines...and fight fucking congress who wants to add armor piercing bullets and silencers to the mix.

[Marengo]

50. Why dont you hand it over now?

[Demsrule86]

52. It has sentimental value...but the firing pin is removed...I have kids and don't want them shooting

themselves...why don't you value human life instead of so called gun rights?

[Marengo]

73. Have you considered it may be stolen by someone who knows how to reactivate it? Why dont...

You value human life over sentimentality? If gun rights are “so called”, how is it you have one in the first place?

[Lachrymologist]

40. How would we fight Trump if...

What if the Trump administration decided that it needed to round up immigrants, homosexuals and POC and toss them in camps?*

I'm only asking because this is the central question (IMHO) when doing a, "review of what weapons are acceptable in a civilized society."

*I doubt that will be happening this term (or next) but it is a valid fear shared by a lot of people so please don't simply dismiss it.

[Demsrule86]

44. If you think civilian type guns would stop a governmen with drones...I have to laugh... you couldn't

stop it....but you can stop the senseless murder of innocents by banning guns or at least automatic weapons (this would include AR 15), high capacity magazines, teflon bullets and silencers...also...no one has the right to walk around with a gun...should be permitted and carefully vetted for conceal carry or open carry...that invades the public space...and violates my rights.

[Lachrymologist]

97. But how would you answer the question?

I believe the hypothetical situation I'm asking about could lead to the senseless murder of millions if our worst fears about the President are ever realized.

The idea that a population with hunting rifles could do much damage at all to a government with the arsenal similar to that of the US Federal Government is laughable, yes, which is why this question is so important to consider.

And maybe a tyrannical government can't be, "stopped," but that wouldn't keep me from fighting it anyway.

So if we had to protect millions from the gas chambers (as many feared we would have to), would automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, Teflon bullets and silencers help or hinder that fight?

History is full of examples where Governments hit their populace with a Jackboot so it is hard to exclude it as a possibility.

[democratisphere]

47. Most gun owners are responsible gun owners that observe the proper

safety, registration, background checks and storage procedures for owning guns. These responsible gun owners have the right to own guns and should not be compared to those that are insane and have mental health issues. The background check system needs to be updated and made certain that it works properly. The system is only as good as the information going into it.

[sellitman]

49. The NRA long ago stopped being a responsible gun owners organization

It's a menace to our society and needs to be treated as such.

It has enabled this mass murder to the point where it now is commonplace.

FUCK THE NRA, they are now terrorists.

[moda253]

59. NO GUNS FOR SPOUSAL ABUSERS!!!!!

Let's start there.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. It's already the law.

1. Force the Military and States to report, rather than the carrot/no carrot 'voluntary' reporting system.
2. Registration so the police know WHO to seize WHAT guns from when they are under restraining order, or misdemeanor/felony DV conviction.

Those are the two holes to plug.

[azureblue]

63. let them have all the guns they want

But no ammunition. Make unauthorized possession of ammo a felony. Tightly regulate its sales and licensing. For instance, You want to hunt? Then you go buy exactly the number of shells you will need. You want a 1000 capacity magazine. Great, it's all yours/ You just don't get to have the rounds to put in it. Best part about this is, there is no mention of regulation of ammo in the 2nd amendment. The NRA never says a word about ammo restrictions - just gun sales. Gun lovers get to have all the guns they want. And a gun with no ammo is about as deadly as a brick.

Or, if you ask me, return to the days of muzzle loaders, black powder, hand molded bullets, and smooth bore weapons..

[jmg257]

70. Ammo is covered under arms...as in the people had to supply their own ammo, accoutrements too.

Without ammo, arms are useless, which would defeat the intent of the 2nd amendment.

Any restriction meant to inhibit the exercise of a fundamental right as its sole purpose is Unconstitutional.

[BootinUp]

71. Trump is out of his fucking mind

[Scruffy1]

76. I would go farther than that.

No one should have a firearm unless they can demonstrate a need for it. I don't hunt anymore, but I am not anti hunting. Semi automatic long guns should be banned. I hunted a lot when I was young and there is no need for them. Your odds of recivering from recoil and obtaining the target again are practically nil. A single shot is plenty. Bump stock bans won't be effective. Anyone can jury rig a semi auto to be a bump fire weapon with items laying around the house. Handguns should be illegal unless you have a very valid reason.
When a hunter buys a rifle or shotgun it's usually associated with beatiful fall days spent with friens. When someone buys an assault rifle it's only associated with killing. They are sick people.

[lark]

79. I'm with you SHRED.

I've had more heated arguments over guns than drumpf, though most of the gun nuts, except maybe on this board, are also drumpf voters. They want free and unfettered access to any and all types of guns, period the end, and just refuse to see that this is what is killing thousands of people every year. They'd rather thousands die than they be inconvenienced every one tiny bit, so shameful.

What is up with this killing instinct in America? Just blows my mind.

[sarisataka]

85. 2 out of 3 ain't bad

[Fresh_Start]

87. I think we should hit them on the mental health issue

you can have and retain your weapons however everyone in your household needs to be evaluated for mental health on a periodic basis. Any violent tendency requires mental health treatment or removal of the firearms.

[spanone]

91. K&R...👍🏼

[aeromanKC]

103. Repeal the 2nd and 3rd amendments

Both are antiquated.

Though all of your ideas are also good. I would add limit clip capacity to 7 if you can't hit Bambi in 7 shots get a new hobby.

[Marengo]

140. Whats the issue with the 3rd?

[aeromanKC]

146. Antiquated

Had its purpose in 1789, but not so much today. Though I am sure the Black Helicopter tin foil hatters would disagree.

[Marengo]

174. I think anything which restricts the states right and ability to infiltrate a citizens home,...

With it’s agents is a good thing. Obviously, it was enough of a problem at one time to justify its inclusion, no reason why it couldn’t become so again if the amendment was removed. Think of quartering as a means of control and intimidation.

[ClarendonDem]

203. Why 7?

Why not 5, or 11?

[GulfCoast66]

104. Universal Background Check,

Loss of firearms for domestic abuses and other violent events even if not a felony and limited magazine size.

All doable and all effective.

[bucolic_frolic]

111. It's complex

and the Founders didn't clarify a lot. A well armed militia meant minutemen to grab their flintlocks and defend the country.

Yet they couldn't have been blind to criminals owning firearms, or that people might carry them in public

In my view firearms in public make the jobs of law enforcement more difficult

In the 60s you went to a rifle range to shoot

Guns in transport were locked in the trunk, unloaded

I don't know if that was a good idea, but we didn't have monthly massacres

[wildeyed]

112. Gotta find some common ground first.

Been out trying to win some hearts and minds of some of my conservative, pro-gun friends with whom I share mutual respect. All two of them.... Anyway, we could agree that both sides were appalled by the loss of life and that better enforcement of existing laws and better education are an acceptable starting place for both sides.

They really, really feel that guns make them safer and that they have a god given right to own them. They really do not trust the government. We will not change those feelings with facts. The key, IMO, is to get the decent ones to focus on the immorality of such pointless loss of life and to persuade them to start holding their brethren accountable for irresponsible and erratic behavior around firearms. Just like people began holding friends accountable for drunk driving. We have all taken the keys away from a friend who was getting ready to make a bad decision, right?

I also chatted a bit with a ex-police officer. He said he had, in fact, charged adults who allowed a child access to unsecured firearms when the child injured or killed themselves or others, but the DAs generally didn't prosecute the crime. So that might be a place to start too. Enforce laws we actually have on the books. It's a start.

[NCTraveler]

114. They are unhinged.

It's amazing that it takes no more than this to easily out them. And they don't even know it.

[librechik]

124. Here's an idea--how about all gun purchases require liability insurance, like a car

If an accident or injury occurs,the gun is covered. Make the deductible very high, at least equal to the value of the gun.

I like your ideas, too,SHRED

[Hoyt]

133. Let em abuse you. Most here get it. I agree totally with your recommendations.

Gunners will obfuscate, but it's their sick habit and the way we have allowed it to get our of control that is causing this reaction.

Let em whine.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

134. K & R

[Blue_true]

136. The only users of anything more than six shots.

Should be military, police and licensed gun ranges. No one else should have them and anyone caught with one should face automatic prison terms and fines. Anyone convicted of a violent crime should be denied any gun, period.

[aikoaiko]

141. Not much in your suggestions to stop or reduce massacres.

OK then.

[SonofDonald]

184. Good luck with that, better get out there and get started

Because asking a question or suggesting a course of action without actually doing anything whatsoever is just laughable.

Don't start a post

Start a movement.

[Squinch]

188. So in this whole huge thread, there are only three gun humpers, the same three that always

crawl out of the woodwork to defend their precious and say, "My hobby is more important than all these lives" every time there is a mass shooting.

Really, I think they're on some payroll.

I think the first thing we all need to do is put those three posters on ignore and not let them hijack the conversation with the same bullshit they always spew. Then we could have an actual conversation about this.

[SonofDonald]

192. The problems is the OP went fishing

For people to argue with or just make mad, this solves absolutely nothing, I have read nearly all of his prior posts and I like the guy and his attitude.

Except for this thread, I'm a gun owner but not a gun nut, you'll never reach any agreement or find any common ground to talk about gun control when you go looking for a fight right off the bat.

Then you point fingers at each other and blame each other for not being able to have an intelligent discourse on guns and reasonable responsible ownership.

I don't have to be convinced that there's a clear and present danger to people by those who have huge gun collections, I feel that the fact that a person has a huge gun collection is a contributing factor to the thought process that MAY end with those weapons being used to hurt others.

Not in every circumstance of course but a good amount of the nutjobs who do go off and kill others have an arsenal with them.

I dont have the answer to this, but ridicule right off the bat solves nothing.

Just my two cents.

[Skittles]

200. it is AMAZING what offends gun humpers and what does not

children slaughtered in school? People mowed down at a concert? People gunned down in church? AW that's too bad.....but don't go FISHING FOR PEOPLE TO ARGUE WITH!!!

[MyNameGoesHere]

191. I have learned it is better

Not to say anything that brings the enablers, educators and deniers out of the cave. It's a pointless exercise.

[SHRED]

193. I think you are correct

I'll rrefrain.

I'm just so pissed that this country has so many people that love guns more than they do people.

[Skittles]

199. FUCK THAT SHYTE

POKE A STICK AT THOSE COWARDS

FUCK THEM

[ClarendonDem]

201. Very well reasoned argument

You’ve convinced me. I’m sure Congress will pass gun control tomorrow.

[Skittles]

205. .....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9812043

[ClarendonDem]

206. Keep up the good work

The NRA thanks you for proving their point about gun grabbers. You undermine any effort to pass reasonable gun control laws.

[Skittles]

208. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

and YOU prove MY fucking point

OVER AND OUT because I DETEST wasting my time talking to GUN HUMPERS

[SHRED]

202. LOL

Nice

[Stinky The Clown]

194. Ha! And the gun nuts are out in force

Just like after every massacre. Telling why guns are not the root of the gun problems

[SHRED]

204. They love their guns

[Skittles]

210. FUCKING COWARDS

[ellie]

207. I am with you

It is way past time to ban guns.

[Dem2]

209. Sounds good

Why would anybody object to making sure people who own guns aren't likely to go on a shooting spree (and obviously aren't a criminal or otherwise disqualified from owning guns.)