i'm not exactly new just hardly post but I have questions about guns

[RayTy]

how come when i would post negative comments about guns and say we need to ban the dam things people here would say negative things? yet here we are w/ so many dead children and maybe now some these idiots will get it that we need to end this madness!!!! i'm sick to my stomach i cant deal w/ it. i truely hope obama has w/e it takes to get something really really meaningful done.

[Kennah]

1. A ban on ALL guns? How do you propose to make that happen?

The President is going to have a tough time getting an AW ban passed, which ban cosmetic features on certain semiautomatics, and I'd say the odds are heavily against the passage of said law.

Background checks on all gun sales, and really it's best to drop the "gunshow loophole" language. It should cover all private sales. That is something that stands a real chance.

[RayTy]

28. here's a start

why is it legal for someone to carry a gun into a public place in many states now? they're actually permitting that kind of bs!! i don't feel safe and when you get that kind of insanity we get madness like what we're having now. shootings are up everywhere and now we have a classroom full of dead kids.

[chicoguy]

35. Because...

it is a fundamental right. Just like I can't tell you that you cannot be Christian because I don't feel safe with Christians running around.

I am sorry that you do not feel safe, maybe you should seek therapy. I feel perfectly safe going out. I also know that I can be killed in any number of ways as I go about my business, but it is not something I fear.

I get that we have a gun violence problem in this country. I don't get how preventing responsible adults from owning a particular type of firearm, that no one seems to want to define, fixes that problem.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. CCW permit holders are far safer with guns than the general public.

The danger to you is from those that carry illegally. Too bad that you can't understand the difference between legal and illegal carry.

[Kennah]

53. I'm much more afraid of plunderers like the Kochs

[Berserker]

55. Well

Getting a conceal carry license you have to pass a background check. These people that have a CCW are not the ones you need to worry about. Also shootings are not up everywhere they are down.
Just because the media covers everything that involves a gun scarring the public makes you think it's going nuts everywhere.

If on your local news they reported on every car accident, every drowning, every electrocution, every gang drive by in every state in the union every night you would think the world went nuts. But they do report on every gun incident even if it's a domestic in the parking lot at a tech school like tonight on the news. Now that's bullshit.

[elleng]

2. That's what happens when you post such a point of view here, in this GROUP;

for more acceptance, post in General Discussion.
Welcome.

[RayTy]

29. i was going to do that

but the top of the page said if its about guns to post here.

[chicoguy]

40. I am sorry that you feel that way

I know exactly what you mean. I am disheartened by the amount of personal attacks I see here. There are things on this topic that deserve discussion, but just going around calling people gun nuts, or gun grabbers really does not get us to a fruitful discussion.

[Deep13]

3. So, nothing new to add then. nt

[jmg257]

4. Because they don't agree with you. Likely often due to fear and selfishness.

And an unwillingness to compromise their perceived needs and/or wants.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. For instance...

...the need for rights to be respected by the government.

[pkdu]

6. The organized militia right? Nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. Please explain your question.

[RayTy]

27. ok

previously before this latest act of insanity i would insist on a ban on guns on a few post and got knocked down for it from almost all posters. now maybe some people will see the light i hope but i'm fearing that the gun nut lobby seems to want us to live in agony and fear.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. To address your concerns

But first, let me explain that my request "Please explain your question." was pointed at pkdu's fragment "The organized militia right?" which was to my statement indicating the need for government to respect individual rights.

However to reply to your issue "... i would insist on a ban on guns on a few post and got knocked down for it..." please elaborate on the scope of the ban you propose. Without an idea of what you're suggesting, I don't have much chance of saying anything intelligent about it.

Welcome.

[RayTy]

45. thanks

i wouldn't mind allowing some to own a gun for hunting at a registered club like some nations provide that way you get to hunt. but letting them in private hands unregulated is how we get to where we are i believe. the ammo needs to definitely be restricted to make control a reality.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

46. We'll have to...

...agree to disagree. There are firearm rights beyond supervised hunting.

[NewMoonTherian]

47. But guns and ammunition are already heavily regulated.

Hunting isn't the only concern for many gun rights advocates. Self-defense and resistance to government abuse are also very important to many people, and those things require possession of guns at home and on the person.

[benEzra]

59. Fewer than 1 in 5 gun owners is a hunter.

Most of us own guns for defensive purposes and recreational target shooting.

I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it.

[pkdu]

48. Please point me to latest/best argument that framers language on " organized militia" applies

Today.

And, if that them extends to right to oppose duels elected government by force.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

49. re: "...applies today."

The Bill of Rights isn't marked "Good until XX/XX/XXXX"




re: "...if that them extends to right to oppose duels elected government by force."

I'm going to need more details on what you mean here.

[pkdu]

50. First question was really getting to the definition of " organized militia " at this time, what is

Todays organized militia ?...wasnt really implying BoR had an expiration date.

As to second , unchecked Apple autocorrect. My apologies . Will fix shortly.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

52. I'll answer both but I'm a bit under the weather.

It may take until morning. Lousy sinus infection.

eta: BTW, whereabouts are you in the Great White North?

[pkdu]

56. Outskirts of Toronto during the week for work....home on the weekends. Not sure what feels worse..

..time difference or temp change.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

58. The militia

First let me apologize for my explanation that is a bit long winded and some parts are less direct.

I believe that the government's first job is the protection of individual rights. I believe that our Founders recognized this and drew on the lots of European wisdom (mostly English and French) in their formulation of the Bill of Rights. The idea, as stated in the Declaration,

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

While nowhere in the Constitution is a standing army prohibited, the Founders were strongly against it. A position to which I would, today, favor moving to comport with more closely. They favored the idea of militias being organized from within the States. As to the nature and composition of the militia I highlight this section of Federalist #46:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

This number ("...near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands...&quot is about the number of all white males who were neither children nor too old actually take up arms. In short, Madison, the author of #46 and principle author of the Bill of Rights, thought everyone should be armed.

The reason for this is the next passage of the the Declaration:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The authors (Founders) were being very clear here. They accepted that their recent 8 year exercise in abolishing British rule and founding this country was what may be required in the future, should the US government go astray of the ideals and rights of its people. The entire government is a careful construction of balanced power among the branches of government and with the participation and consent of the people. The militia is the final balance, the final check.

[Berserker]

23. Yes gun grabbers

Think that way. All you can do is hope someday they will start thinking that maybe it's not just the guns that are the problem.

[jmg257]

24. Sure fear has something to do with. But a little fear is a good

thing, keeps us from doing all kinds of stupid shit, and causes us to do lots of smart shit, like passing laws to help keep us safer.

I think most realize guns are not THE problem, but guns sure help make the results of the problems more deadly.

[Loudly]

8. Because of a pro gun pandering of some pragmatic Democratics.

They think we need to slow roll the guns thing like we needed to slow roll the negroes things.

Fast forward fifty years!

[KT2000]

9. don't know but

so many of the responses have been surprising.
I call it the tyranny of the gun now.
How can we say we live in a civil society if it is one that is armed with the most hideous weapons.
We are supposed to trust that all gun owners have the intelligence (emotional and intellectual), skill, and judgment to handle guns.
If we are honest with ourselves we would realize that knowing people are armed has changed the way we live - and not in a good way.

[gejohnston]

10. but they have always been there

and they are perfectly legal for civilian ownership in many European countries and Canada. I grew up where most people have guns, and I lived in places were not even the cops had guns, and it did not change the way I live and interact with those around me. That happens to be in a civilized manner, respect for the local culture and people.

[KT2000]

12. not in the numbers

they are now. The NRA has built the ownership of guns into a statement of manhood and power. After the economic mess of 2008 so many more people realize how powerless they really are. In their minds, guns could restore their power.
Now we have crazy RW media such a FOX, Beck et. al. who are ther ginning up anger every day.
I think we both know there are people threatening the life of the president - 30 a day; people who believe the government is going to take all their guns; people who believe FEMA camps are being built to put them into.

Name the crazy idea and there is a RW effort to keep it going.

Lucky for you - but I live in a neighborhood where there are old guys who listen to RW media all day and spend their life in anger. They have guns and who knows what else. One old guy was in severe dementia, piled all his weapons on the dryer and the police could do nothing. They told his wife to leave the house.
A 50 y/o guy up the street has alcohol issues and mental health issues. When he gets angry with people he informs then he keeps guns. Police can't do anything.

[gejohnston]

14. humm

they are now. The NRA has built the ownership of guns into a statement of manhood and power. After the economic mess of 2008 so many more people realize how powerless they really are. In their minds, guns could restore their power.

is gun ownership dropping or rising? I really don't care about Brady pop psychology. Quite frankly, it is related to a propaganda technique called "name calling"

Now we have crazy RW media such a FOX, Beck et. al. who are ther ginning up anger every day.
I think we both know there are people threatening the life of the president - 30 a day; people who believe the government is going to take all their guns; people who believe FEMA camps are being built to put them into.

Actually, I don't know any of those people.

Lucky for you - but I live in a neighborhood where there are old guys who listen to RW media all day and spend their life in anger. They have guns and who knows what else. One old guy was in severe dementia, piled all his weapons on the dryer and the police could do nothing. They told his wife to leave the house.
A 50 y/o guy up the street has alcohol issues and mental health issues. When he gets angry with people he informs then he keeps guns. Police can't do anything.

So you are judging about a third of the country and 25 percent of the Democratic party on these guys?

Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce. This method calls for a conclusion without examining the evidence. Name Calling is used as a substitute for arguing the merits of an idea, belief, or proposal. It is often employed using sarcasm and ridicule in political cartoons and writing. When confronted with this technique the Institute for Propaganda Analysis suggests we ask ourselves the following questions: What does the name mean? Is there a real connection between the idea and the name being used? What are the merits of the idea if I leave the name out of consideration? When examining this technique try to separate your feelings about the name and the actual idea or proposal (Propaganda Critic: Common Techniques 1).

http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm
http://mason.gmu.edu/~amcdonal/Propaganda%20Techniques.html

[jimmy the one]

17. gun owners on the decline

johnston: is gun ownership dropping or rising? I really don't care about Brady pop psychology. Quite frankly, it is related to a propaganda technique called "name calling"

Don't really know what you're driving at, but personal gun ownership has been declining:

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found -- {to about 30%}.

The 32% figure for households with guns appears low balling, imo, since in other reports it's higher, up to mid 40's. But the presence of guns are increasing (national gunstock) since there's money to be made in them that hills of guns. But they're being bought mainly by existing gun owners, evidently building stairways to gun heaven.

A decreasing number of American gun owners own two-thirds of the nation's guns and as many as one-third of the guns on the planet -- even though they account for less than 1% of the world's population, according to a CNN analysis of gun ownership data.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

Never realized it that way, some fraction of american gun owners, comprising less than one percent of the world's population, own about 33% of the world's guns. How many of you reading, have chests bursting with pride?
What is equally surprising is that I had previously thought extreme rabid gun fanaticism was limited to the extreme rabid rightwing fanatical fringe. Seems it hits some of my democrat colleagues as well (not really talking about you johnston, you seem moderate, half a bravo for you)

[holdencaufield]

11. "armed with the most hideous weapons"

None of my weapons are hideous. On the contrary -- they are in great shape, clean, pretty and well-oiled. How many things do you own about which the same can be said?

[KT2000]

13. how silly n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Put another way, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[robinkc]

19. In shape,,

Sounds like an exgirlfriend I once had.

[jmg257]

20. Other then the oily & 'things you own' part, you just described how

many men feel about their wives/girlfriends/partners...

Uh Oh....NOW I get it!!!

None of my weapons are hideous. On the contrary -- they are in great shape, clean, pretty and well-oiled...

[holdencaufield]

44. Finally!

Took you guys long enough

[alabama_for_obama]

15. You should look at the numbers...

Most kids (by a huge margin) who are murdered are not murdered with guns, but rather beaten to death. And most of the time, again by a huge margin, are murdered by a family member or other person they were very familiar with.

All this talk about gun control isn't going to save the children. Taking guns away from ordinary people just serves to embolden the rich, who will always have access to violence, whether economic or physical.

[jmg257]

21. What is weird about that? I don't need to worry AT ALL about my kids

being beaten to death by a family member.

But it is very obvious I do have to worry about them being murdered by some ass with a gun.


Skip the 'embolden the rich' SQUIRREL! argument; maybe we won't save all the children, but we can certainly help try to save a bunch, maybe whole classrooms of them.

Sorry - you just can't poo poo the gun-related body count away anymore.

[DanTex]

22. Another false NRA talking point.

How come none of the NRA bots can seem to make it through a paragraph without parroting some false statistics?

For age groups above 5, firearms are the most common form of homicide. It's only for infants that other causes of homicide are more common. For example, here is CDC data for ages 5-9, where in 2010 58 out of 118 violent deaths were by gun. For older children, the fraction of gun homicides is even higher.

All Violence-Related Injury Deaths 118 100.0%
Homicide Firearm 58 49.2%
Homicide Unspecified 13 11.0%
Homicide Other Spec., classifiable 10 8.5%
Homicide Cut/pierce 9 7.6%
Homicide Suffocation 9 7.6%
Suicide Suffocation 6 5.1%
Homicide Fire/burn 3 2.5%
Homicide Other Spec., NECN 3 2.5%
Homicide Drowning 2 1.7%
Homicide Poisoning 2 1.7%
All Others 3 2.5%

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html

[ileus]

16. can you link some examples? you only have one post in RKBA.

So that only leaves 12 other examples for us to evaluate somewhere on DU.

[iiibbb]

18. I have a 3 yr old and a 2 more old, and these events make me feel ill.

So I share your feelings. The only thing I don't share is the feeling that prohibition would solve the problem.

I could have a long thoughtful discussion with you about it. I wouldn't be the least bit negative toward you as a person.

It is hard not to sound or become negative while discussing this on the Internet because of the plethora of taunting or accusatory or angry or obtuse posts by people more interested in making a statement or counting coup against gun owners as a group. Less so here, but there are some gun owners that are embarrassing and perhaps have other abhorrent values.

It is sort of a shame that rabble roussers come here to taunt people (calling them right wing or NRA plants) who actually probably share many other values, just not about guns because of specific life experiences.

So, it can be tense, and it is quite easy for an honest person to turn the wrong phrase. If you don't know much about guns, gun owners are quite sensitive about imprecise terms, or mechanical details. No matter how angry you are at gun owners "military style weapons" doesn't technically mean anything.

So... controversial issue with social costs, causes an intense debate atmosphere like abortion debates... again, easy to say something that will get taken the wrong way.

Hope this helps explain.

[RayTy]

31. hello yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215542#post2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117240177#post1

now these are my personal experiences but i've noticed that there's more on here when they speak up. and i never answered those post unfortunately but i have ideas. 1. why don't we not allow people to carry them? i mean states are making it legal for people to carry these death machines on their hip. have you seen some of these nuts? they're the same ones w/ their don't tread on me puke flag screaming about communism or w/e. clearly they're a danger to everyone. if anyone wants one they should have to keep it at home in a safe only for hunting. punish anyone caught w/ one severely. add a massive tax to ammo too thats they key to gun control taking away the ammo not the guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Only Tea Partiers carry guns???

There are several DUers who have CCWs and carry daily, including myself.

[iiibbb]

42. Well, I at risk of being repetatitive

I carry a gun for a pretty specific reason. I don't carry 98% of the time. I don't carry at other times because I live in a safe area now, but also I respect the laws that apply to my workplace, which prohibit guns. However, when I hunt I carry a semi-auto 9mm with a 15 round magazine because there are feral dogs in the areas that I hunt. I am miles from anywhere when I'm out there. My rifle is a single-shot and probably not much use against dogs. I can't make my pistol dematerialize at times I don't have it.

I also have a concealed carry permit; because I don't want there to be any question should I encounter a game warden and they find subjective fault with the fact I may have decided to put the handgun in my backpack or in a coat pocket.

I also have a CCW permit because in my state there are differences from one municipality to the next about how you have gun in your possession. So one can easily break the law without realizing it. The laws governing CCW permits trump local laws; so I now only have one set of rules to follow. Since I carry so rarely, having one set of rules is good for me.

---

I bought my first gun after a Katrina-like event where the local, state, and federal government really didn't have a very good handle on things. If you called 911 there was some question if/when you would see somebody come to your aid. I didn't live in the best area of the city at the time. Things were known to happen that involved violence. I bought a gun.

---

After I bought my first gun, for the sake of training myself in safe handling, I got into competitive shooting. It turns out I had a knack for it. I enjoy it.

[RayTy]

33. thanks

yes i would like to know why people feel like theres nothing that can be done? i would start with very high ammo taxes and regulation and making it illegal to carry one anywhere. if you're caught w/ a gun on you you should get at least a year in jail.

the secret is banning the ammo though and everything else will fall in line. we almost celebrate these killing machines in movies video games and gun shows. why did we allow ourselves to spread such madness like its cool?

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Ammo is also covered under 2A as being part of a gun. N/T

[benEzra]

60. Yes.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you cannot make an end run around a constitutionally protected right by banning the supplies need to exercise the right. Precedent is Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 1983, in which a heavy tax on printer's ink was held to violate the First Amendment.

[rrneck]

39. Do you think it's right

to lock somebody up for what you think they might do?

[iiibbb]

43. I feel there should be a mechanistic connection between gun control and lowering crime

Ammo taxes do not accomplish this.

I don't agree with prohibition on guns. In spite of the fact that they are used in horrible acts, I have personal friends who were able to use guns to save their lives (and they did it without shooting anyone). One was a female friend with an abusive husband who decided he was going to kill her. She used her pistol to stand him off until he left the house and she could call the police. She is convinced her husband meant to kill her, and I have no reason to doubt her.

Another friend was accosted by 3 people with knives on the side of a highway when he had car trouble. Again, the gun was used to stand them off until they left.

Guns have a use in the world. Unfortunately there are bad people who do bad things with them. Normal gun owners can't fix that.

[rrneck]

25. Because you don't always get what you want.

The issue isn't as simple as many would have you believe. There is an important factor that all too often gets overlooked in the debate, especially around here. It's called the real world.

[Eleanors38]

30. RayT. Please review the lovely remarks used by controllers to describe fellow Democrats. Check back.

[RayTy]

32. i know

both sides make me sick when they start w/ the bullying. i've seen people praising the death of a gun owner. i've seen the gun nuts hammer away at someone who disagrees. i thought we're better than this. maybe too many people are just gone. we've lost it as a nation when i see this.

[Eleanors38]

41. I see your point. I've summed up the last month of Democratic politics this way:

We used to have leaders who fought for civil rights, anti-war measures, Medicare, Medicaid, the environment, better education, more jobs in depressed areas.

Now all I get is this goddam gun-control t-shirt.

[Warpy]

51. Some folks need guns

I live in the wild west where it's bear and cougar country starting on the edge of town. The wildlife will usually run at a warning shot, but one in a million will charge, so firecrackers aren't the answer to chase them away from the livestock or trash cans. People need those guns out here.

Others are hunters. Whether or not you join them, you have to admit it's a great way to get a lot of expensive venison into the freezer at once.

Some guns are just inappropriate in civilian hands and those are the main ones involved in the carnage, the semi auto pistols and long guns with large magazines. Those are the ones that need to have all sales banned and programs started to get them off the street.

[appleannie1]

54. RayTy, people in the country need guns. It is basically the only protection they have.

I don't think there is a need for 30/50 bullet clips. If you can't hit a target as big as a human in one shot, you need to practice, not have more bullets. But there is a use for rifles and shotguns. There also is absolutely no reason why we do not require background checks on ALL gun sales and other common sense laws.

[Francis Marion]

57. Ban "the dam things" and they will go away.

And so will violence, ill feelings, problems.

Society is in a mess because of guns. Not because of any defect in human nature.

Once we ban guns, there will be no need for locks on front doors.

Rainbows will burst forth and flying unicorns will hand everybody almond roca.

Society is in a mess now because we have too much Freedom. Therefore we need to ban Freedom right now.

Banning guns DOES help children. What does it help them do? It helps them die in massive numbers, at the hands of heavily armed police state tyrants.

Russian mass graveyards testify to this. The same thing in China. Cambodia. Well over 100,000 million people- kids included- disarmed by law- were mass murdered in the twentieth century.

Can't happen here?

Wrong. We BUILT, and filled, concentration camps. (Do you suppose that concentration camp inmates were allowed to have guns, or were those banned?) It DID happen here, well within living memory. Not to mention the experiences of Native Americans and blacks who, after being disarmed, suffered countless unaswerable affronts to life and dignity. By the way, gun bans are not new ideas- they were key underpinnings of slave codes in the United States, and their purpose was to disarm a victim class- black slaves- so that society could do whatsoever it pleased to them. Why would any person ask for slave code treatment for themselves and their friends?

Why ask to be disarmed and enslaved?

All the policies, structures, and players existed for atrocities right here- the government simply chose to provide adequate food and health care for concentration camp inmates. Very unlike most 20th century concentration camp inmates' experience.

If you care about a child, teach them to shoot a rifle effectively.

[benEzra]

61. Because a lot of Dems and indies lawfully and responsibly own them

and we choose to keep them.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx