2,405 Shot Dead Since Tucson

[damntexdem]

Interesting opinion piece on how gun control could re-emerge as viable:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/5287-2405-shot-dead-since-tucson

. . .
Despite its conservative leanings, the Supreme Court has also been paving the way for a new kind of gun politics. For years, the NRA has invoked the Second Amendment to oppose even the most limited gun-safety measures. First of all, they say, the Constitution guarantees individuals "the right to bear arms," so any restrictions on that right are inherently unconstitutional. And second, once bureaucrats start infringing on a fundamental freedom, what's to stop them from outlawing guns altogether? These arguments may have made some legal sense in the past, but not anymore. In 2008 the court ruled that while the Constitution does establish an individual right to bear arms, it does not rule out "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places ... or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." For the first time, the court placed some constitutional parameters on the gun debate. Can the government regulate firearms? Yes. But can it outlaw them altogether? Absolutely not - no matter what the NRA says. "The decision undermined two of the NRA's big arguments," Helmke explains. "One, that you can't have any restrictions on guns, and two, that 'gun control' is code for 'gun ban.'"

It's counterintuitive, but the current political climate might favor gun control as well. No coalition suffered bigger losses in the 2010 midterms than the conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who tend to court NRA support. Meanwhile, only three of the 106 Democrats who backed legislation to close the gun-show loophole lost their seats. The results represent up-to-the-minute proof, says Helmke, that the "NRA can neither save you nor sink you" - an argument that could swing a few Democratic votes in the months ahead. The public, meanwhile, endorses the current proposals, according to the NEWSWEEK–DAILY BEAST Poll: 51 percent want to outlaw high-capacity magazines; 67 percent back prohibiting the sale of firearms or explosives to individuals on terrorist watch lists; 83 percent support fully funding the national background-check database; and 86 percent favor instant computerized background checks for every gun buyer. After tacking right on taxes and spending to appease the newly empowered GOP, Obama will need to throw his base a bone in the run-up to 2012. Gun control is a natural fit: "liberal" enough to please core Democratic constituencies and cheap enough not to bust the budget.

[apocalypsehow]

1. There you go again, blaming the poor, innocent guns for those 2,405 shooting deaths. For shame.

:sarcasm:

[Callisto32]

96. I, as an innocent gun owner SHOULD be blamed, you suggest?

I have harmed no-one and should bear guilt/blame?

Fuck that noise, and the horse it rode in on.

[Starboard Tack]

127. Who would blame you? Nobody, unless you were responsible for 1

of the 2405 deaths. Why are you being defensive? It's not your fault.

[slackmaster]

2. I wonder how many of those 67% supporters of the "terrorist watch list" would curtail voting rights

For people who are on the list, and for what other situations they'd be in favor of denying due process.

Auto-unrec for waiving bloody shirts in an effort to restrict honest peoples' choices.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheWraith]

31. What's horrifying is the number of hypocrites on the left who run to embrace Bush's terror list.

Suddenly an illegal, unconstitutional, unaccountable list that was the height of Orwellian terror-mongering bullshit when it was directed at people's ability to fly on a plane is immediately okay when it's applied to something you don't like?

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. The remind me of certain whites during the civil rights era.

They would never join the Klan, but would happily support people like George Wallace and Lester Maddox.

[spin]

132. Well gun control does have racist roots. (n/t)

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. I've also asked more than one of them if they thought the list was OK all along...

..or they just changed their mind about them when guns became involved- And I've never gotten an answer.


Which makes me think that more than a few alleged 'progressives' think that secret blacklists are just dandy.

[Starboard Tack]

128. Seems like you deflect rather than reflect

[TheWraith]

131. Seems like you don't have a point there. nt

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

6. Rights aren't absolute

The courts are always defining limits of free speech, exercising one's religion, freedom of assembly, search and seizure etc.

[slackmaster]

54. Yes, and we already have a pretty comprehensive set of gun control laws that limit 2A rights.

You should read up on the subject.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

83. I wasn't suggesting that

there aren't gun control laws. I'm sorry if that is what you thought I meant.
I was just pointing out that our rights are not absolute.
:shrug:

[rl6214]

42. How many of those on the "terrorist watch list" have

purchased guns and used them in any attack, Hassan being the exception. He wouldn't have been on the terrorist watch list anyway as a Maj in the army.

Could it happen, yes but anything COULD happen.

The fact remains, there have been no terror attacks using guns purchased legally or illegally in the US.

[TheWraith]

3. Gun control is dead and buried. It's got the viability of the pro-life movement.

A relative handful of fanatics trying to pass "feel good" laws that are unconstitutional. Helmke's comments are pure and total spin--they lost the Heller and MacDonald cases hugely, and their claims to the contrary are nothing more than lying on your back claiming "we've got them right where we want them."

Most Americans don't favor strong new gun control laws. And the proposals to do so strongly motivate voters against the proponents. It is a completely dead issue.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jacquelope]

7. I'm no NRA member but

I am a liberal who owns guns.

SPECIFICALLY because I live near Tea Partiers who used to crowd the gun ranges talking about what they're going to do about Obama, the illegals and the welfare state.

When these bastards cut loose I have zero intention of seeing them gun down me and my wife and kids because of our Obama stickers and our support for the Caliph Mullah In Chief (as they like to call him).

I know that other liberals don't like guns but I have my survival in mind here. Being liked by the anti-gun crowd won't save me when these TPers explode in their inevitable blood rage and they put a target on some random victim's forehead. Being armed makes me and my family less of a target.

[damntexdem]

9. Good for you. Many people do own guns -- e.g., Michael Moore.

That is not the issue here -- it's responsible gun control laws. Right now we have irresponsible lack of gun control in much of the nation.

[jacquelope]

23. I am not sure how to approach gun control.

How do we control the nutcases without leaving the innocent vulnerable?

[TheWraith]

26. And what do you consider "responsible gun control," exactly?

Because the bottom line is that most "gun control" laws have the end result of making it harder for average people to own guns. Not criminals--they have them regardless. So when laws to make guns harder to get or own are pushed by people who admit that they don't like guns, don't like people who own guns, and would like to get rid of guns, what conclusions can one draw other than that it's punitive toward gun owners?

[friendly_iconoclast]

33. It's more "We can fight drunk driving by putting more restrictions on the sober"

And they think the sober haven't figured it out...

[hack89]

51. How do you explain historically low violent crime rates

in the light of increasing gun ownership? If gun deaths are declining while the number of guns skyrockets I don't understand what problem you are trying to fix. You have never been safer - that irresponsible lack of gun control seems to be working just fine.

[oneshooter]

59. Please tell us of your ideas of "responsible gun control laws."

We would all like a chance to read and contemplate them.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[oneshooter]

115. Still no reply? Seems like the cat got your tongue this time. n/t

[defendandprotect]

17. So you now have guns because you fear OTHER PEOPLE WITH GUNS?

[Upton]

20. Self defense is a fundamental right..

lets hope you are never seriously confronted...because spouting Brady bunch talking points isn't going to do a hell of a lot of good.

[defendandprotect]

28. Self-defense is ... right to a gun not necessarily - except according to rw Supremes ...

[Upton]

32. I'll have President Obama respond:

"Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land"

http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

[defendandprotect]

49. The courts settled it long ago -- the right wing has undone our laws as they've undone

so much else --

Right wing are the destroyers as I'm sure you know --

ahem ... except of course re the 2nd amendment lie --


And you're relying on Obama to convince people here of something?

Wow -- !!

:rofl:






in the Democratic Party, but in the Republican Party as well --

one of their most successful efforts to move the parties to the right !!





The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, please pass it on -- !!

:)

[rl6214]

47. RW supremes are still supremes

They shape the law and how it's applied. You can't undo what has been done as far as the supreme appointments.

I for one agree with their stand on this matter.

[defendandprotect]

52. You liked the RW decision in 2000? Our SC is an embarrassment in the world ...

nothing like having the pervert Clarence Thomas on your side!!

[rl6214]

71. My point is there is nothing we can do about it

until someone dies or retires. I do not want them replaced with someone that is anti 2a. Until that happens we just deal with the cards we're dealt.

[jacquelope]

22. Some RW asshole comes up on my family with a gun. What do I do?

Shoot back or pray that they don't kill me? Which am I supposed to choose?

Rest assured that day is coming for many of us. These RWers are getting more rabid by the day.

[defendandprotect]

30. I've no doubt Koch Bros. is trying to move us all to more political aggression ..

make every political discussion one of anger and hatred and little truth --

send more and more people to political meetings with rifles over their shoulders --

We've been through all of this before -- Wild West America -- Dodge City --

the decisions were made -- we're all safer when we have gun control.

Again -- you've gotten a gun because other people have guns --

that's all that happened.






The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, please pass it on -- !!

:)

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. Gun control laws have *never* stopped those willing to use terror and violence..

The cartels of Mexico or the Provisional IRA and it's offshoots are only the most recent and obvious examples.

[defendandprotect]

38. You don't see the Drug War as a right wing move to create new violence -- ???

And to control the public?

Again -- it is the right wing which pushes violence and all avenues to create a

violent America --

It's been going on since the 1970's -- take a look at your TV!!

Same patterns they always follow --

but again, with the radicalization of the GOPs/NRA you've lost much politically --

NRA was used by the right wing to target not only moderates and liberals in the

Democratic Party, but in the Republican Party as well --

GOPS/NRA was a huge part of the house of cards allegedly moving nation to the right!

[rl6214]

50. So even while we have had Democratic presidents,

the house and senate controlled by democrats, you are saying the Drug War is a right wing move to create new violence?

The democrats can do nothing to change this while they are in power?

On May 13, 2009, Gil Kerlikowske, the current Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, signaled that although it did not plan to significantly alter drug enforcement policy, the Obama administration would not use the term "War on Drugs," as he claims it is "counter-productive".

[defendandprotect]

62. I'm saying the Drug War is a right wing concept to control the public and create a

prison industrial complex -- which is now being privatized --

I'm saying when Demcorats have controlled the House and Senate that the

Congress was turned over to the GOP --

Specificially that was true when George Mitchell was majority leader and

he gave the Senate to Bob Dole -- but collaboration between Democrats and

Republicans for benefit of elites -- and they are often, themselves, elites --

is nothing new.



And, much as we've seen under Obama's presidency with kowtowing to GOP and

making Lieberman a Superman of the Senate.

Of course, the fact that the Drug War rolls on in its permanence points only

to corruption of our higher ups, our elected officials, our police

enforcement -- and again, the opportunity to sell guns/weapons.

Who really is profiting from the drug war? Do you really think that elites

would permit that huge transfer of wealth/power to others?

If you had a House/Senate full of Kucinich's, Feingold's, Bernie Sanders's and

Alan Grayson's you probably could change things.

The democrats can do nothing to change this while they are in power?

You might recall that Obama ran on "CHANGE" --

How much change have you seen other than Obama moving his positions to the right?

Let me know when Obama ends the drug war -- or even permits the testing of

marijuana as a medicine --


Maybe you need to give this some real thought ... ?


The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

[rl6214]

74. I am trying to see this, really I am but all I see in your post

is basically a conspiracy theory with no data to back it up. Bill Clinton held the whitehouse for 8 years, part of that time with control of congress yet the war on drugs remained in place. Barack Obama had the same thing with no change. I don't see anywhere, where the democratic base wants to make a change in the WOD, if they truly wanted to, they could just as they got the health bill through. Either of our democratic presidents could have issued a presidential order, again they did not. Are they part of the power elite that are benefitting from the WOD? That's a pretty far reaching conspiracy.

Is your real idea that drugs should be legalized? Think of the money that would be available for other programs (health care) if there was no war on drugs.

[X_Digger]

81. That's okay, she also doesn't think we landed on the moon. woo to the woo'th power. n/t

[pipoman]

93. Or that humans ate meat prior to 5,000 years ago...

:eyes:

[Katya Mullethov]

101. Attempting to spin a War on Guns out of the War on Drugs

Should fit right in with the rest of all that . A bit more neatly than the rest in fact .

[jacquelope]

55. Die or defend myself?

When one of these bastards is at my door, what do I do?
Die, or defend myself?

[defendandprotect]

63. How many of "these bastards" has been at your door so far?

Maybe take a tranquilizer?

[cleanhippie]

79. Exactly.

Something ain't right here with this poster.

[jacquelope]

92. You're right

because crime never happens.

Shawna Forde never happened, either.

[cleanhippie]

102. You are allowing your paranoia to overcome your rational thought process.

Get help. Seriously.

[jacquelope]

116. Okay then take the locks off your doors.

Show us you're not paranoid.

[cleanhippie]

120. False equivalency. Try again when you know your logical fallacies.

[jacquelope]

122. Not a false equivalency. You just don't want to follow your own reasoning.

If you are arguing that I'm paranoid then you must conclude there really aren't any criminals that might invade someone's house.

You're being called out to act on that conclusion. Remove the locks on your doors or your argument does not hold water.

[cleanhippie]

123. Yeah, its me, not you.

but only in your bizarro world.

[jacquelope]

124. Yes and on your planet criminals don't exist.

Your reality is full of lies and balderdash, sir,

not to mention denial

and I am happy not to have any part of it.

[DWC]

143. I will never shoot-to-kill

I will shoot-to-stay-alive without hesitation. That is my personal choice and decision.

You have your own personal choices and decisions to make.

Every "Personal Right" has an equal and off-setting "Personal Responsibility".

Semper Fi,

[rl6214]

73. Do you have any proof, anything to cite that the koch bros

are steering the debate on gun control, I would like to see it.

[rl6214]

72. Ya know there is just as much chance of a left wing

asshole coming up to you with a gun. Criminals don't have boundaries when it comes to political affiliations. A criminal is a criminal is a criminal.

[ehrnst]

136. "RW asshole?" You sure have that "lefty" lingo down, don't you...

You think that all us lefties think that all the criminals are "RW."


How quaint.

[GreenStormCloud]

98. Also fear criminals with knives, clubs, big muscles, etc.

My gun trumps them.

[Starboard Tack]

134. Doesn't seem very fair

Like the 2nd trumping the Ist

[X_Digger]

135. Who the fuck says you have to be fair against a criminal? You?

If someone has convinced me that they're willing to kill or seriously harm me, I'm taking them at their word.

There is no such thing as a fair fight, and I'm not obligated to provide one.

[Starboard Tack]

140. I didn't realize it was a crime to have big muscles

You see it's people with your mindset that concerns the rest of us. Got a problem? Hey, see that guy stealing a pizza or slashing my tires with a KNIFE. Watch this - BOOOM!
I think weapons training should be accompanied by some serious anger management.
Peace

[X_Digger]

141. "willing to kill or seriously harm me" -- the means does not matter.

Nice how you elided past that.

Are you going to take a beating just to be 'fair' to a criminal if he's unarmed?

[Starboard Tack]

154. I was responding to GreenStormClouds reference to knives and big muscles

Don't be fallin' asleep at the trigger now

[X_Digger]

155. CRIMINALS with knives, clubs, big muscles, etc.

Did you fall asleep there for a second?

[PavePusher]

147. Now you're inventing shitto accuse us of. WTF? n/t

[PavePusher]

146. There is no First Amendment Right to commit criminal acts.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[spin]

133. I don't fear other people with guns but I appreciate their ability to injure or kill me ...

with their weapons.

If attacked by an armed individual who means to harm me, my best chance of avoiding injury or death is to also be armed.

I trained for a period of time under a martial arts instructor who was a 8th degree black belt in judo and also held black belts in Karate and Jujitsu. This instructor personally trained his students in how to disarm a person who has a knife, a club or a gun. Still, although it can be done, it's extremely difficult to disarm a man with a gun at 15 feet.

My instructor once said, " A man with a loaded .45 auto is a 9th degree black belt."

A man armed with a firearm deserves respect and if you ever are forced to fight him and hope to have a even chance, it's wise for you to also be armed and very proficient with your weapon.

[AtheistCrusader]

142. And bats. And knives. And fists and feet.

After all, you can be killed by any of them.

Not sure I would use the word 'fear' though. More of a calculated risk assessment.

[cleanhippie]

78. Something smells fishy here.

[rl6214]

86. Agreed

+1

[TheWraith]

24. You reinforce my point: you believe you have to "save America" from the immoral people.

Because you know the "right" way, no matter what other people choose for themselves. Remarkably like how the pro-lifers believe that they alone can save America from a torrent of "murder" in the form of abortion, and how it's a terrible social ill that needs to be corrected.

The fact is, there is absolutely zero evidence, none at all, that gun control reduces violence. Chicago, one of the most violent cities in the country, had until recently laws forbidding the ownership of handguns, period. Didn't stop the violence. England, when they banned guns, saw their murder rate stay exactly the same. People like to cherry pick statistics showing that the US has a lot of deaths by firearm, without noting that almost two thirds of those are suicides. And even so, our suicide rate is lower than many other countries.

I suggest that you look up some of the books by Gary Kleck. He's a criminologist at Florida State University--also a lifelong liberal Democrat, ACLU member, and former believer in gun control. When he started doing research on the subject, he learned that his own data contradicted his assumptions about what he'd find, and he ended up concluding that there is no case to be made for restrictive gun control laws.

[defendandprotect]

37. Nonsense -- no one on the left uses VIOLENCE or MURDER to push gun control -- !!

Whatever Chicago had in place was irrelevant as long as guns can be brought in from

other states illegally.

Certainly we had nothing like these woundings and deaths from guns up to the time of

the radicalization of the NRA and the rise of the right --

People could have guns for protection -- and did have them -- so did hunters.


It serves only the right wing to push a violent society --

and the GOP/NRA push was intended to move liberals and moderates out of Congress --

not only in the Republican Party but in the Democratic Party, as well!



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, please pass it on -- !!

:)

[rl6214]

53. "no one on the left uses VIOLENCE or MURDER to push gun control"

You SERIOUSLY believe this. Violence is ALL the gun control advocates use in trying to push for more gun control legislation. It started right after the Arizona shooting and it pops up every time there is a call to ban anything gun related.

[defendandprotect]

64. Where? Who have the gun control advocates KILLED or MURDERED? ....

You did compare them to the GOPs/"Pro-Life" murderers, didn't you?

Also keep in mind, they used to go to methadone clinics to hire people to

protest at the clinics!!

[rl6214]

75. I think we are both thinking of different things when

talking about violence. My point is the gun control advocates use the violence that occurs daily by criminals to try to smash down the rights of gun owners, not that they use violence themselves to enact gun control. After every/any event of violence using a gun, the gun control groups use that event to try to enact more control.

[defendandprotect]

111. You're upset because gun control advocates point to violence caused by guns????

How unfair of them!!! Gosh & Golly !!!

:rofl:



This is the second of your posts I've read where you are applying less than critical

thinking -- nothing personal, you understand.

Meanwhile, YOU compared them to the GOP/"Pro-Lifers" who do actually kill doctors and bomb

women's clinics!!

[TheWraith]

85. And you can always move the goalposts just a little bit farther.

Chicago's gun ban doesn't work because criminals will illegally bring weapons in from other states. Except you miss the important lesson there, which is that criminals will always choose to disregard the law. Nowhere is there a state or country where it's legal to produce cocaine and heroin, but that doesn't make those things rare in the countries where they're illegal. If every state in the US had a ban on guns, they would be manufactured illegally, or smuggled in from another country. And you'd just keep moving the goalposts.

Meanwhile, there is STILL absolutely no evidence that gun control works. Quite the opposite, since as you admit, gun control laws are easily circumvented IF someone is willing to commit a crime.

[defendandprotect]

112. Drug war runs only because of right wing corruption of government, police enforcement ...

which ensures that the Drug War does not succeed --

Rather, you are missing the lesson of government taking guns in the end when it suits them.

And it's the same with guns -- NRA right wing politics -- and weapons industry profit from

a violent America.

Gun control has always worked -- until our laws were overturned by the right wing.

[hack89]

41. Save America from what? nt

[jpak]

10. Nonsense - it will always be a vialble issue

yup

[defendandprotect]

19. Exactly ... American citizens support gun control -- so do our Police Departments --

Only money keeps this right wing injustice going -- whether we're talking about

GOPs/NRA or GOPs/"Pro-life" murderers -- or the GOPs/Christian Coalition or the

GOPs/Koch-T-BAGGERS -- it's all faked --




The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, please pass it on -- !!

:)

[hack89]

43. And we know just how much police repect civil rights. nt

[defendandprotect]

65. They respect their own lives and understand where the danger comes from -- GUNS -- !!

[hack89]

66. And they will not hesitate to strip you of every civil right you have

in the name of "safety". Police states are called police states and not civil rights states for a reason.

Besides, doesn't the threat come from criminals? How does disarming me make a cop any safer?

[defendandprotect]

68. Police do what their commanders and officials tell them to do --

it's as political as anything else --

When they killed JFK, 50% of the Dallas police force was KKK --

When they killed RFK in LA, 50% of the police force were John Birchers --

When right wing controls government we see a rise in police brutality --

especially in limiting free access and free speech -- freedom assembly.

But, again, when it comes to the dangers of guns, they also recognize they

are vulnerable at any police stop.

[hack89]

69. So I should give up my civil rights to Birchers and Klansmen?

are the cops good or bad based purely on if you agree with them?

[defendandprotect]

109. When the right wing rises everything is corrupted -- NRA, Police Enforcement, Civil Rights --

Women's Rights -- Peaceful society --

NRA was radicalized by the right wing to target liberals and moderates -- not only

in the Democratic Party but in the Republican Party, as well -- to move political

control of issues to the right.

John Birchers and KKK are on the right --

And too were the right wing/Bush Judges who gave us the 2000 W decision --

and later a new gang of them these gun decisions.

We all know that to begin with these reversals of prior rulings have only come because

the right wing has put their own judges in place --

We all also know that government will in the end decide whether you have a gun or not --

right now it suits the right wing that everyone in America have a gun -- makes for a

more violent society. More violent thinking. It proves their point that you need to

be afraid of your neighbor. And, certainly, not join with others in Solidarity!

[hack89]

118. So the right wing has failed spectacularly?

"right now it suits the right wing that everyone in America have a gun -- makes for a more violent society."

Yet violent crime is at all time lows and continues to go lower. You have never been safer in your entire life - fortunately for all of us the RW doesn't understand the basic goodness of American society. It will take a lot more then increased access to more guns to make us start fearing and killing each other.

[rl6214]

77. When they killed JFK, 50% of the Dallas police force was KKK

who did we have in the white house-a democrat. Who was his vp-a democrat FROM TEXAS who then became president. You just keep on coming up with conspiracy after conspiracy to fit your arguement.

Sorry but that's how I see it with only statements of fact from you and nothing to cite as evidence.

Nothing personal I hope you know.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

110. If you have views or ideas ....

on the JFK assassination, why not air them in the 9/11 forum?

Perhaps there are things you should know about LBJ -- just hit your library --

And perhaps there are things about the assassination you don't know -- try the forum.

But what you are saying is unclear and confused --

Nothing personal -- I hope you know that!





The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along!

:)

[rl6214]

76. They respect their own lives and understand where the danger comes from-CRIMINALS

Fixed it for you.

[RSillsbee]

46. Damn dude I thought you left us NT

[cleanhippie]

103. We are not so lucky.

[RSillsbee]

106. Oh come on he makes a fun chew toy NT

[cleanhippie]

107. No way, it tastes like shit!

[RSillsbee]

121. Figuratively speaking grasshopper NT

[defendandprotect]

16. Rather, the "fanatics" are those 5 on our Supreme Court ... similar to 2000 decisions ...and other

destructive decisions by the right wing --

It is $$ which has bought these decisions - all of them!

[TheWraith]

21. All 9 SCOTUS justices unanimously agreed that there is an individual right to firearms. nt

[defendandprotect]

44. "... did not rule out regulation of handguns" --

Daley: City will revise gun law after Supreme Court ruling

While today's ruling extends the reach of the 2nd Amendment, the justices said it does not rule out regulation of handguns.

and

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court struck down a hand gun ban in Washington, D.C. and said the 2nd Amendment protects a right to have a hand gun for self defense. But, since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge municipal ordinances or state laws.

http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/06/united-states-supreme-court-scotus-gun-control-rifle-ban-chicago-police-mayor-richard-daley-nra-second-2nd-amendment.html

Meanwhile, there will always be a higher right of government, communities and states to

regulate guns --

You have to ignore a great to not see that --

[TheWraith]

84. Yes, and Roe vs. Wade didn't rule out regulation of abortion.

But to go around pretending like it's not what it was is dishonest and nuts.

[defendandprotect]

113. Abortion has always been regulated -- especially in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters ...

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HEALTH AND LIFE OF THE FEMALE --

to ensure that the abortions were conducted under safe conditions

and that the decisions of doctors were correct.


True -- when we have right wing rising and corrupt government women's reproductive

freedom can be endangered --

but the OPPOSITE is true of guns -- when the right wing is rising and government and

our courts are being corrupted, gun manufacturers profit -- GOP/NRA stock rises!

And guns proliferate -- all courtesy of our right wing Supremes!

Who none the less, still hold that their decision does not preclude government regulation

of guns --

Iow, if it at some point becomes inconvenient for the right wing to let you have guns --

and see KATRINA on that one -- then you'll no longer have them!



:rofl:

[TheWraith]

114. Okay, you've now reached the level of babbling incoherently.

At which point it's no longer profitable to respond to you, even to convince the bystanders.

[defendandprotect]

119. Looks more like you're out of debate -- personal insults aren't debate -- !!

[pipoman]

91. I envision it this way:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AepshExxZBg/TE40wdx9hjI/AAAAAAAAADY/vFQjbH1agH4/s1600/black+knight+defeated.jpg

[aikoaiko]

8. These opinion piece writers got undermined by Pres. Obama two days earlier...

...with his statement in the AZ Daily Star. Their two "modest" gun control laws aren't even on President Obama's radar.

http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html

Instead, the President is focusing on preventing the wrong people from acquiring guns via more diligent NICS checks.

[damntexdem]

11. Well, a lot of our hopes have been shot down by Pres. Obama.

As with so much else, we need to move without him and hope to move him enough that he at least wouldn't veto federal gun control laws.

[TheWraith]

27. You'd never be able to pass a federal gun control law. Even if the Reps didn't control the house.

In 1994, Bill Clinton was approached by the Democratic Speaker of the House, and told that the "Assault Weapons Ban" was a bad vote and that if Clinton pushed it through, it was going to cost a lot of the Dems. Clinton didn't listen, and the resulting backlash helped put Newt Gingrich in power. Clinton later admitted that it was one of the biggest mistakes going into the '94 election.

Gun control is political suicide for Democrats outside of big cities.

[oneshooter]

60. We are still waiting to hear your "reasonable gun laws". n/t

[oneshooter]

117. If we don't know what your "reasonable gun laws" are, then how will we love them? n/t

[rrneck]

61. LOL! You'll move without him all right.

If you get your way he'll be unemployed in 2013.

[walldude]

15. Well, maybe the wind will change directions:

Feb 2009- Obama to reinstate assault weapons ban http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

April 2009- Obama Won't reinstate assault weapons ban http://www.politicususa.com/en/Obama-Assault-Weapons-Ban

Feb 2010 Obama seeks to Ban assault weapons http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/obama-seeks-us-ban-of-assault-weapons-for-benefit-of-mexico_02272010

MAr 2011- Obama avoids assault weapons ban. http://www.the-alternative-conservative.com/2011/03/obama-avoids-assault-weapons-ban.html

Maybe tomorrow the wind will blow back in the right direction.

[aikoaiko]

18. althought Pres. Obama's campaign pledge to reinstate the AWB is alarming...

... the truth is that he has dropped it like a hot potato ever since in he was elected. It was Holder and Clinton (and a few obsessed legislators) who keep bringing up the AWB and the media attribute it to Pres. Obama.

If I didn't know President Obama's history on gun control laws, I would say gun control proponents got bamboozled with a bait and switch. But instead of being filled with the spirit of John Moses Browning, I think President Obama simply realizes it will cost him the election to continue pushing for gun bans or accessory bans.

[PavePusher]

125. "assault weapon"?

Can you explain which of the below is an "assault weapon", detail what makes it unsuitable for civilian ownership under the aegis of the Second Amendment, and under what portion of the Constitution the government may regulate and/or ban them?

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/bolt-action-model-700.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/bolt-action-model-700.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx

http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

[walldude]

129. No I can't and I don't give a flying fuck.

What the fuck does that have to do with Obama being wishy washy?

You fucking gun people need to get a fucking life.

[PavePusher]

130. Well, you seemed to think something should be banned.

I wanted to know what and why.

Or maybe I misinterpreted your statements.

[walldude]

138. You did. I was talking about Obama being wishy washy.

I could care less what guns are banned and what aren't. It's a fools fight. I own one weapon for emergencies. That's all I need and all I care about. The gun culture in this country has gotten to a point where it looks like a joke to most sane people.

Look, your second amendment rights are not going to save you if your government turns on you. If you think an assault weapon is going to protect you from the billions of dollars in weapons and weapon research your government is funding, you are sadly mistaken.

The United States is really great at one thing. Killing. We spend more money and time on it than we do on anything else. We are developing microwave and energy based weapons. Pretty soon your "bullets" are going to be useless if they aren't already. If the government wants you and your guns they will get them. Otherwise enjoy what you have while you can if that is your thing.

[PavePusher]

139. "gun culture"... I'm not sure what you mean by that.

As for the Government, they are not as all-powerful as you seem to assume. Comes time for the Revolution, I hope you have studied your history....

[right2bfree]

145. They known that new guns laws are in the works, so they are scared...

...they will lose thier deadly "security blankets."

[X_Digger]

150. Keep dreaming. *snore* n/t

[right2bfree]

144. They are still banned in Ney York State and California, thankfully.

In fact, I have heard that Obama's team is using the CA model in the new Assault Weapons ban.

Say "goodbye" to all those public massacure weapons that you own.....for now! :bounce:

[friendly_iconoclast]

149. So, you don't mind spree killings if the shooter must reload?

The Luby's and Viriginia Tech shooters used the 'less dangerous' 10-round magazines- and killed more people than Loughner did.

I guess those victims in Texas and Virginia are somehow aren't quite as dead to people like you.

[right2bfree]

152. This is why we are calling for a six bullet ammo capacity, since ten are to too many..

Six bullets are all anyone needs, assuming that you are qualified to own a gun, at all.

Once the mental health status and other information of many gun buyers and owners is made clear, I
doubt that we will need to put even more limits on the bullets held by a weapon of mass murder.

[friendly_iconoclast]

153. So you can guarantee crazies won't use 5-round magazines, or New York reloads?

That's the trouble with you lot - You're always trying to fight drunk driving by restricting the sober.

And then you get angry when we point out your methods don't work....

[right2bfree]

156. Prove they dont work!! Lots of people are STOPPED each year from buying a gun. nt

[RSillsbee]

157. No, they're just stopped from buying one retail.

As another poster pointed out, if you want a practical lesson on how easy it is to get a gun ask your dope man if he can get you one.

[X_Digger]

151. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.. Here are 3 *legal* california guns..

Stupid shit, that CA law..

[Atypical Liberal]

99. Also restricting private sales.

Instead, the President is focusing on preventing the wrong people from acquiring guns via more diligent NICS checks.

He also left the door open for restricting private sales.

[RegieRocker]

12. If you don't think there is gun control buy one and

go around waving in the air out in public.

[TheWraith]

29. I think people who don't know guns think that anyone can pick one up, no questions asked.

They have an image sold to them by Hollywood and by people like Paul Helmke, that all you do is walk in to a gun shop with $20, looking like a drooling maniac, and they hand you a machine gun.

In reality, firearms are one of the most controlled items that you can still buy in the United States, second only to explosives. We have laws mandating background checks, limitations on the types of weapons that can be bought, where they can be bought, massive controls on production, on distribution, laws limiting who can buy weapons, on what you can do with them, how to store them, where they can be kept, etcetera, etcetera.

There are, by best estimate, some 22,000 laws in the US that control the production, sale, distribution, and use of firearms.

Which is all why most criminals don't get their guns legally--they steal them. If you want to reduce the flow of guns to criminals, put those lobbying dollars into handing out free gun safes to people.

[defendandprotect]

45. That's peculiar ... didn't we see a T-BAGGER with a rifle over his shoulder at a Dem Town Hall Mtg?

[Katya Mullethov]

57. The guy with no head and no Hands ?

I remember that guy !

Naturally , he was wearing a WHITE shirt too . He was kind of a celebrity there for a little while .

[defendandprotect]

67. Friend of yours?

[RSillsbee]

80. Why do you suppose the media kept blocking his head and hands? NT

[rl6214]

87. Was that the picture of the African American guy?

But I thought all tea partiers were white, right?

[RSillsbee]

94. Yup, they buy guns because of fear of a black President

I read it right here on DU

[rl6214]

95. You know I read that same thing

With a little research I could probably find who said that.

[RSillsbee]

105. Msongs,onehandle and jpak are the usual suspects NT

[Katya Mullethov]

89. Because it's easy

And all they've got to work with is shit anyway .

[PavePusher]

100. Which has absolutely nothing to do with "waving it around in the air".

But your intended disingenuousness is noted... and dismissed as a poor effort.

[aikoaiko]

104. Big difference between a holstered/slung firearm and waiving it around

Maybe not a a fear mongering anti-gun rights advocate, though.

[kctim]

13. Wow, just like the far-left

Democrats get a little momentum with all the labor happenings and now the far-left wants to kill all that momentum by bringing up getting rid of a Constitutional right.

Blue Dogs lost to REPUBLICANS because of progressive policy. Attacking our 2nd Amendment right will have the same effect forcing the HCR bill did: more seats lost.

[marmar]

25. "Blue Dogs lost to REPUBLICANS because of progressive policy"

Huh? Exactly what progressive policy was that?

[defendandprotect]

48. GOP radicalized the NRA and used it to target Congressional members of

the Democratic Party, but the Republican Party as well --

one of their most successful efforts to move the parties to the right !!





The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414


If you knew about this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, please pass it on -- !!

:)

[rl6214]

88. I read your links

that's some pretty far reaching conspiracy stuff going on there. Pretty imaginative.

[fascisthunter]

35. "far left"?

maybe you are just too far to the right.

[Upton]

14. Helmke is a Republican..

an authoritarian looking to restrict the civil liberties of law abiding Americans. How fucking pathetic.

Gun control is a loser and President Obama knows it..

[rrneck]

39. More cloud politics. nt

[RSillsbee]

40. Helmke explains.

That's all I needed to read

[GreenStormCloud]

56. He is like a washing machine on the SPIN cycle.

The Blue Dogs that lost were replaced by even stronger pro-gun Republicans. The NRA gained much ground in the 2010 elections. Half of the Senate and over have of the House have an NRA rating of "A" or better. The NRA can't save you from an opponent with an equal or better NRA rating, but it can help much against an opponent with a lower NRA rating.

"Gun control" still means "gun ban" in practice if not absolutely. They plan to set the regulation bar so high and difficult that it will be a ban in all but name. One need only look at Chicago's current gun laws and DC's current gun laws to see that.

The polls that he refers to are well known to be push polls and are not reliable.

Any bone that Obama tries to toss to the gun-controllers will be blocked in the Congress and will be used against him in 2012. He already has, based on his previous record, the well earned reputation of being a gun-banner. He needs to show that he has in fact backed away for it and is willing to consider greater national gun liberties. A good place to start would be a National CCW license system. A Federal license that would have to be honored by ALL states and territories that allows the owner to carry anywhere with no restrictions, concealed or open.

[X_Digger]

58. "gun safety" -- the new pink.

Love how even the word 'control' is verbotten, and the prohi's have to get all mealy-mouthed.

Taking a page from Frank Luntz's playbook? LOL!

Ain't gonna happen, keep dreaming.

Crime keeps dropping, gun laws keep relaxing.

[lawodevolution]

90. Garbage stats and fake polls, yup

[Callisto32]

97. Typical authoritarian bullshit.

It's funny. Not funny haha...but...anyway. I got up this morning and for no apparent reason started bitching to my wife about that list, and how the same people that thought it was the most terrible thing in the world when Bush was prez now think its a jim-dandy way of restricting guns.

What do I come on here to find at the top of the guns forum thread list? THIS crap. I've got no energy to wast pointing out the disgusting inconsistency, anymore. See my sig line if you want to know how I feel about blacklists.

[Kennah]

108. Four times as many people killed in motor vehicle accidents, and almost no one gives a crap

[Starboard Tack]

126. And don't forget the tsunami and AIDS and WW2

[VoteProgressive]

158. I am pro-gun (read my posts) but those arguments do not work......

Cars primary use is not to kill people or threaten people. They are needed for day to day life. Guns primary use are to threaten or harm someone. So I wish people would stop that comparison.

And people do "give a crap", thus speed limits, seat belts, etc.

[Glassunion]

137. 67% percent of people back prohibiting the sale of firearms to people on the watch lists...

I feel that this is one of the most uninformed opinions.

Homework questions to a more informed viewpoint...
1. Why do we have terror watch lists?
2. How accurate is the information in these lists?
3. How many innocent American people are effected by these lists?

[Euromutt]

148. Is that worse than in previous years?

Since the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, the number of Americans killed by guns has not let up.

That claim would be a lot more credible if the article provided some statistics for the purpose of a comparison, e.g. numbers of firearm deaths in the two months prior to the Tucson shooting, or stats from the same period last year. Given that we know that violent crime rates--including homicide--have, over the past few years, dropped to levels not seen since the mid-1960s, it's quite plausible (not necessarily true, but plausible) that "the number of Americans killed by with guns" is in fact letting up, albeit slowly.

This article is riddled with omissions that undermine its credibility, incidentally.

Of the dozens of private sellers Goddard and his colleagues encountered at gun shows, not one ran a background check before selling them firearms, Goddard says.

As regular readers of this forum know, private sellers can not run background checks, because the system is closed to them. It is not a matter of their choosing not to. Predictably, Goddard fails to mention this, as does the author.

"The <Heller> decision undermined two of the NRA's big arguments," Helmke explains. "One, that you can't have any restrictions on guns, and two, that 'gun control' is code for 'gun ban.'"

Well, it would have done, if those weren't a pair of straw men.
The NRA has stated ad nauseam that it supports prohibiting convicted felons and those adjudicated "mentally" defective from possessing firearms, and that it supports instant background checks on sales by Federal Firearms Licensees (i.e. licensed gun dealers) as a means to that end. So it's simply untrue that the NRA argues, or has ever argued, that you can't have any restrictions on guns.
Seconnd, no-one's ever argued that "gun control" was code for "gun ban"; at least, de jure gun ban. The gun control lobby has long accepted, albeit tacitly, that it could never manage an outright gun ban, because in truth, its members understood that such restrictions would not survive a legal challenge. That's why it's tactic has consistently been to push for licensing requirements under which it was theoretically possible to keep and bear arms, and thus did not constitute de jure gun bans, but which in practice made such licenses next to impossible to acquire, thereby making them de facto gun bans. When it comes to outfits like the Brady Campaign and its sympathizers, "gun control" has most assuredly meant de facto gun ban, and the fact that it's very rarely meant de jure gun ban doesn't alter that.