I just watched the HBO documentary "Gun Fight"....

[Logical]

I just watched 'Gun Fight' and have to say I thought it was very fair. There may be some spoilers below so do not read if you are going to watch it.

Now, to be fair, I am leaning left of most of the pro-gun crowd here. I hate the NRA and do not think I need a gun to stop a government takeover. I think people should have the right to Carry Concealed only because there are so many guns available for the bad guys. I filed paperwork for my CCW license a month ago. I also think some gun laws are reasonable.

The movie did make it look like guns are a problem and no doubt they are. We have a very high murder rate (which is dropping) in this country and we have a very high percentage of murders caused by guns. Guns are a very easy way to kill people and if they are available why not use one.

The movie did show some very nutty gun people and I have seen them myself at gun shows. The "pry from my cold dead hands" stuff. They actually showed Charleston Heston saying that at a NRA meeting and the NRA people went crazy.

They showed another extreme gun owner talking about his friends "Smith and Wesson" which is nutty also. One guy talked about how Jesus was pro self defense which I thought was funny. Guns and God.

A lot of good stuff about how the NRA needs to keep people thinking that the government is the enemy and wants to take ALL your rights and not just the Gun rights. Many of the pro-gun crowd are anti-Government and they pointed out how most are older conservative white guys.

They showed Palin and Beck giving their speech at the 2010 NRA National meeting and the people of course were going crazy. This is proof most there are GOP supporters. I cannot see a liberal cheering for Beck, even if they were pro-gun.

The NRA is really a very successful organization and part of it is making sure that their members think there are major problems even when there are not many. That is what keeps the donations coming.

They covered gun shows a lot and covered how many sales are not background checked. I for one think that there needs to be some method to background check every gun sale but not sure how that would easily translate to private sales without causing some free commerce issues. But anyone can easily get a gun now and I can understand the need to address that.

My experience with anti-gun people is that they are not nutty/crazy, I have not seen a nutty/crazy one. They are mostly worried or concerned. The majority of pro-gun people I have talked to are not nutty/crazy either but I have met many that are. The gun show crowd are at times wacko. Government overthrow stuff. Racist stuff. A small minority but they are there. I don't see that on the anti-gun side.

The Brady group were in the movie a lot and came across mostly sincere and they have a good motive. I think their fight is a lost cause at this point for banning guns or stopping CCW but maybe they can do something about all gun sales being background checked. But I think the NRA is too powerful to really pass anything.

I would suggest anyone here watch the movie if you can. I think the DU pro-gun people here will dislike it more than the non-gun people. Overall, I didn't see anything that I thought was unfair or portrayed incorrectly. Maybe they showed too many nutty gun people, which might not be fair.

Unless you can get all the guns out of the hands of bad guys then I think honest people should have the ability to own them and carry them concealed also. The anti-gun battle I think is almost over at this point. I don't think this movie will make much difference.

[rl6214]

1. "My experience with anti-gun people is that they are not nutty/crazy"

"I have not seen a nutty/crazy one."

You haven't been around here long enough. All you have to do is look at the ones that have the same shtick running all the time. The ones that make up senarios in their mind of how THEY think every concealed carry holder will react to a crime in progress or a stressfull situation, with no evidence to back up their assertion. Just 'it will happen, just wait'. Take a look, you'll see it. There are only just a few but they are there.

On the other side I don't think you will find any posts here on the pro gun side advocating guns for everyone as some like to claim. Or someone rushing into a crime scene or shooting and becoming a "cowboy" as you see some claim here also. What you will find is people advocating for the right to defend themselves.

[Logical]

2. I don't think the non-gun people they are nutty, just wrong....

First off, I think most all the pro-gun people here are they good ones.

But I have seen gun show nuts with racist shirts and cornering me for 30 minutes about how the government is secretly buying up ammo companies and shuttering them. They are NUTS and wacko. They are paranoid. And I have more and more stories about them. They give people like me and others pro-gun people bad images immediately. 95% of the people at gun shows are fine. 5% are right wing idiots.

I don't find any of the non-gun crowd that way.

[spin]

68. To be honest I have only been to one gun show ...

and I was looking at knives. I collect knives as well as firearms.

This was a small gun show across the street from where I worked before I retired. However, I know plenty of people who haunt gun shows, none are nutty.

It might be possible that a gun show is like a motorcycle event. If you attend one of those you would might get the impression that bikers are a wild and crazy bunch of guys and girls, but if you seen the same people on Monday morning, many in suits and ties, you would realize that you first impression at the gathering or festival was totally wrong.








Now I am not a biker, but I know a bunch as my daughter and son in law are. Many of the local cops I know are bikers and you would never believe that they proudly wear a police uniform if you seen them on their bikes displaying their tattoos. It is quite possible that when gun enthusiasts go to a gun show they enjoy acting a part.

edited to remove a jpeg with an illegal code

[sharesunited]

3. Here's a local story from yesterday which I find particularly outrageous.

First outrage: The killer stopped off on the way to his gun crime to buy a gun and ammo.

Second outrage: The killer was a resident of Canada who had to wait until he crossed the border into the good ole USA before he could make his purchase.

Third outrage: The (Republican) prosecutor blames our state's repeal of the death penalty for the crime and NOT on the killer's access to a gun and ammo by means of a retail counter transaction.

Dear Prosecutor Berlin, please wake up and start directing your ire where it belongs, namely at the ease of obtaining a gun and ammunition in this country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/15/killer-saw-illinois-death_n_849706.html

[David West]

7. This guy drove several thousand miles and shot the woman 11 times.

AND he made sure there was no death penalty before doing it. Looks to me like he was both extremely motivated and terribly concerned about getting caught. What makes you so sure he wouldn't have just used a knife or a baseball bat if a gun wasn't available?

You're also completely disregarding the fact that this happened in one of the most anti-gun areas in the country with a gun he brought from more than 2000 miles away. If anything, this is just evidence that no matter what lengths you go to, Criminals will always be able to get guns while restrictions hurt law abiding citizens. Perhaps if Illinois and Chicago actually allowed people to acquire proper tools for self defense, this wouldn't have happened.

[sharesunited]

16. Your second paragraph is the most compelling to respond to.

What your 2000-mile observation really gives us is that guns and ammo need to be made scarce and unavailable from sea to shining sea. If they can be picked up in Washington for an intended gun crime in Illinois, then Illinois needs to do what it can do to shut Washington down in its sale of guns and ammo.

As to your first paragraph, the ease and convenience of the gun itself, namely to render non-existent a target, is its own convincing argument against the absurd proposition that the killer could have easily used something else. That just seems like a hackneyed insult to the intelligence of any conscious person with a conscience. He did not stop off for a bow and arrow.

I will gladly throw in your paper target and your skeet shots to justify your destructive hobby.

And a knife and/or baseball bat is just not the same thing those instruments are intended for.

[one-eyed fat man]

78. You gotta be kidding!

"...And a knife and/or baseball bat is just not the same thing those instruments are intended for."

That is absolutely the most baseless statement you have ever made! Flint knives have been used for murder since the Stone Age. Clubs go back millenia before that. Allegorically, at least, a club was murder weapon one. "...it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."

You surprise me with that given your penchant for breathless adulation of killers who put sweat equity into butchering their victims and stuffing them into hollow trees.

[Logical]

10. This person could have killed her without a gun and I assume he would....

have based on his intent.

[Big Al Mac]

42. Would you tell me

where in that article it says that he bought the gun and ammo from a retail gun store?

It's possible that he bought the ammo from a store legally but there's no report, yet, that he bought the gun from an FFL holder.

[sharesunited]

81. If he was able to buy it at the sporting goods department of Wal-Mart

that would just count as a further outrage.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. do not think I need a gun to stop a government takeover....

hmmmmm....interesting comment.

[Logical]

9. So you agree or disagree? n-t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. I find it odd that you

said it at all.

to me the whole discussion is about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the 2nd amendment.

[Logical]

23. So you find it odd I said it? I said it because I hear people talk about it so...

much and that there are people really worried about it. I find it totally ridiculous.

I am not worried at all that I will have to defend myself at some point against the federal government. I think anyone who does is paranoid.

And I favor the 2nd amendment. But it has limits just like the 1st amendment does. Thus the discussion.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. yes, sorry. I re-read your postr for context. so then, do you favor

more limits on 1A?

[Logical]

25. No, there are plenty in place already. Free speech zones, etc.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. but, you do think we need more to 2A? or no?

[Logical]

28. Well, 2A is not as finalized yet as 1A is....

But I would disagree with most pro-gun here on what the finals 2A should be.

And crickets after 24 minutes? LOL.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

30. NOT FINALIZED....!!!! omg and yes, crickets...as you were online and

had replied rather quickly to my other posts.

NOT FINALIZED :rofl:

[Logical]

31. The laughing icon adds what? It is not finalized as far as the court...

rulings on it. Open Carry, CC, etc. Read about the legal term "Settled Law" and then get back to me.

I am trying to be as honest as I can and you seem to want a fight. Sorry, not going there.

Here are some icons to entertain you. :woohoo: :applause: :hide: :popcorn: :spray: :yoiks:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. no problem, no "fight" here. as for your honesty and intent

here is an icon for you :puffpiece:

[Logical]

36. Not sure if the icon is an insult or not but ok. n-t

[Upton]

33. What in the heck does " 2A is not as finalized yet" mean?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

35. post #31 explains all.

did for me anyway.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. speaking of **crickets**

.................

[spin]

70. Study history ...

Nobody anticipated tyrants like Hitler, Stalin or Mao.

Mao Ze-Dong killed 49-78,000,000 people, Stalin 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine), Hitler 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII). source: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

"That could never happen here" is what you are thinking.

You're right. Our citizens are armed. The First and Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights in our Constitution have played a large part in the fact that we have the longest lasting written constitution in the modern world.

The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times and stands today as the longest-lasting written constitution in the world.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_6.html

***

What did Mao say about firearms?
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/mao_tse-tung/2.html

What did Hitler say about firearms?
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non <"something essential" lit. "without which not"> for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police.’’
http://ron.dotson.net/guns/gunquotes.htm

What did Stalin say about guns?
"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_stalin.html#ixzz1JifLF9N8

***

What did George Mason, who was the co-author of the Second Amendment say about guns?
""I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

What did Samuel Adams say about guns?
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

What did Patrick Henry say about firearms?
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

What did Thomas Jefferson say about guns?
"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

[bluerum]

5. Have not seen the movie but agree with your post. Thanks for taking the time.

[Upton]

6. What are you rambling on about?

If you're trying to convince me that HBO's anti gun rights show is worth watching...you're wasting your time. Same thing with your continued insistence that you're "pro gun"..when everything you post says the opposite.

[Logical]

8. Interesting, at least you have the guts to say it outright....

unlike others.

What post have I made that is not pro-gun? I guess your logic is that either I am with your points of view or 100% against you?

This should be interesting.....

Which point of view do I have that bother you? Let's see if you actually answer.....

1. Hate the NRA?
2. Pro-CCW? Many posts about that.
3. Anti Open Carry? I hate it and it is showing off.
4. Waiting on my CCW license?
5. Am not rude to non-gun posters?
6. My post about how the Dems have lost the gun battle? And it is costing us votes.
7. I think some pro-gun people are right wing idiots and crazy? (added)

I look forward to your thoughtful analysis.

[Katya Mullethov]

11. Ohh ! Do you hunt too ?

That would be super !

[Logical]

12. Used to hunt pheasants/rabbits. Not anymore. Shoot clay sometimes.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. I'll wager some of your best friends are gun owners, as well.... n/t

[David West]

14. Saying that Open Carry is all about showing off is a mighty big assumption.

As someone with strong convictions about being prepared to protect the people around me, I feel that carrying a gun and being competent in it's use is very important. For the 3 years between my 18th and 21st birthdays, Open Carry was my only legal option and in many situations is still much more comfortable and practical than concealed carry is. Do you really think that I'm just trying to show off?

[Logical]

15. If it is your only option no.......

But I think CC is better.

Open Carry causes more anti-guns feelings than it helps.

Especially those idiots carrying at political events just to make a point.

[Upton]

32. Your own words speak volumes....

"I just watched 'Gun Fight' and have to say I thought it was very fair"

"The movie did make it look like guns are a problem and no doubt they are"

"The movie did show some very nutty gun people and I have seen them myself at gun shows."

"My experience with anti-gun people is that they are not nutty/crazy, I have not seen a nutty/crazy one."

"The Brady group were in the movie a lot and came across mostly sincere and they have a good motive."

[Logical]

37. Wow, I waited 12 hours for that? Ok....

Me saying it was fair means I am anti-gun. Wow, brilliant.

Guns are a problem, they murder people when used by crooks. Thus the need to reduce that if possible. Why is the USA murder rate so high and why are most murders done with guns? Please provide me with your intelligent answer.

So you think there are NO nutty gun owners. Because even my right wing friends who love guns admit there are crazy gun owners. I cannot even believe you think there are none. Looking forward to your answer.

Please provide me with a nutty anti-gun person. How would the expose themselves? Maybe saying the NRA is is plotting to overthrow non-gun owners?

The Brady group does not think guns are good for society. How is that crazy? They are wrong but do not seem irrational. Please provide me with information about anti-gun wackos.

Wow Upton, I'll add you to the "100% with me or 100% against me" list.

I so look forward to our further intelligent back and forth.

[Upton]

41. You're funny..

"Guns are a problem, they murder people when used by crooks."

Yes, they can..so why would you fawn over a group like the Brady Bunch and their proposals which would restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners to defend themselves against those crooks?

"So you think there are NO nutty gun owners"

I never said that. You can find extremes in any group. My purpose in posting that quote was to contrast it with this other comment of yours.."My experience with anti-gun people is that they are "not nutty/crazy"...

So lets briefly summarize..

The Brady group is "sincere" and has a "good motive"..

Many gun owners are "nutty"

Antis are definitely "not nutty/crazy"


Oh, and you can put me on any list you feel like, but it's pretty obvious where you're coming from.

[Logical]

44. Well....done with you. Funny how you embrace the stuff you don't like and ignore...

the pro gun stuff I post.

Pick and choose. You really help the cause when you are 100% biased.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

50. seems to me, that you want people to be 100% with you....

Not the other way around.

Talk about picking and choosing, you are doing quite a bit of it yourself.

and somehow it appears to be OK for you to do it but, not so much with others.

:shrug:

[Logical]

51. Who did I accuse of doing that? And when did I say anyone had to agree with me....

you honestly don't seem to read much, just react.

He was the one who accused me of being anti-gun and pretending to be pro-gun.

Please do more reading before getting inserted into a thread.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

52. actually, I tend to agree with him, especially after reading this remark

and talk about reacting ....

[Logical]

53. No problem with me. Believe what you want. Matter not to me. good luck n-t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. yes, I know it doesn't matter to you...

it is getting fairly obvious that you are NOT here to win friends and influence people. I could be wrong, just what I believe. I am studying about your comment on 2A and it NOT being finalized. I will structure a comment on it when I am through with my research. It may take me 12 hours to get back to you on that.....

[Logical]

56. Are you here to win friends? Or debate the topics? I have made the pro-gun and non-gun people....

mad so I guess I would be in the middle of both.

I will post pro-gun when I think it is valid and non-pro when I disagree.

What else would you suggest I do?

If this is a pro-gun only forum let me know.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. I have to admit that I like having friends. I also like to debate the topics.

as for any suggestions, I think you are doing just fine...really, I do.

[Logical]

62. I am not sure I believe you. You seem to disagree with about everything. n-t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. everything...? really? you want to qualify that or do I really

disagree with everything?

pretty broad brush you have there.

also, this is my understanding of "settled law"

"settled law" is a political argument, and not a fact. The Supreme Court routinely change their minds about this and that.

The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were all enacted at the same time. And they have been, and will continue to
be, interpreted and reinterpreted. So, in that sense, nothing is "settled"; it is always arguable.

So, you see due to my understanding of "settled law" I found your comment to be humorous.

[Logical]

66. The supreme court votes 5-4 on many items so of course nothing is setteled...

But then why did you act like me saying the 2nd has not been decided yet was out of line? That seemed to upset you.

I said the 1st amendment is not debated as hotly as the 2nd so I would assume the 1st is more decided.

That was all I meant.

The reason this forum exists is because it is not settled.

The debate on the 2nd is much more decisive than the debate on the 1st.

[Logical]

59. Also.....

do you only read and comment on posts that are anti-gun or do you read pro gun posts.....

Would you consider these pro-gun posts? If so why would I post them if I was 100% anti-gun?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=402504&mesg_id=402504

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x402502

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. look, I never said you were 100% anti-gun ...

I am just trying to understand your reasoning is all.

[Logical]

65. OK. Valid. I hope we get to talk more. I am a little odd on this topic I will admit. n-t

[RSillsbee]

76. There is a reason RW trolls don't last long on DU

I'm not talking about the type that comes in an starts flaming and makes it obviously clear what they are. I'm talking about the type that pretends to be progressive.


The reason they are exposed so quickly is because at their core they are what they are and it comes out. They espouse what they believe are progressive ideals while attacking the same ideals but it just doesn't ring true. Then they start defending positions no progressive would ever defend and then their cover is blown.

Similarly , we get the occasional prohi troll running around the gungeon as noted in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=361725

They tend to use the "empathy" tactic Empathy: “I’m a gun owner and I support this common sense gun law.” KKK and Neo-NAZIs own guns and would support a ban on guns in the inner city so that minorities couldn’t own guns. The Brady’s themselves own guns, yet are willing to ban others from owning guns. This is another deceptive method to get you to support their Agenda. They want you to feel they are on your side, so you can either back off or aid them.

But at their core they are prohis and sooner or later it comes out

[Logical]

13. Crickets!

[beevul]

17. Wow. Just wow.

"The Brady group were in the movie a lot and came across mostly sincere and they have a good motive."


This group - the brady bunch - is a dishonest lieing untrustworthy group.

And thats putting it NICELY.

And thier leader is one of their biggest culprits.


There is no "good motive" for that.


And yeah, if you want an example - and you'd be most likely alone in needing one - I'd be thrilled to provide one.


Just out of curiosity, how many examples would it take you change your mind?

[Logical]

20. So someone who wants to ban guns is as crazy as the....

guy who is sure any day the government is going to go door to door and take his guns? And he is ready to kill them if they do?

Wanting to rid the USA of guns to stop gun violence is not insane, just impossible, and a waste of time and resources.

Owning 50 guns because you think the government is your enemy, and could attack any minute is insane.

It is so funny that this forum is as bad as some GOP points of view. Either I am with you or against you. No middle ground allowed.

[TPaine7]

38. Yes the Bradys are crazy, extreme, evil and depraved; they supported this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170607

The Brady campaign filed a brief supporting DC's right to maintain the status quo--to keep things exactly as they were.

[Logical]

39. Not wanting guns is not insane. Nor more than wanting guns is insane.....

but thinking you need guns because any day now the government will overthrow us IS insane. See the difference?

[TPaine7]

40. Did you even read what the Bradys supported. Not wanting people to have the means of self defense is

insane.

I bet if someone had told you that police (officers of the state) would murder US citizens trying to escape New Orleans flooding, you would have said they were paranoid too.

Governments are not my main reason for supporting the right to keep and bear arms. But the founders were not paranoid and insane for wanting to keep them in check. The widespreadidea that "it can't happen here" is one of the strongest enablers.

Wanting to protect the ability of DC to maintain its system is insane--opposition to self defense with a gun is a species of insanity--but it's worse than garden variety insanity. It's morally depraved as well.

[Logical]

45. I know of very few anti-gun people who think no one should be able to own long....

guns for self defense. Most are worried about handguns and sales going to felons.

I know many pro-gun people that think there should be NO LIMITS, RULES or REGULATIONS.

See the difference?

[TPaine7]

77. Yes, I see a difference...

I claim that some gun control supporters are insane and evil; the Brady Campaign is a case in point, as is the leadership in Washington DC. Let's look at my evidence:

Law in DC (pre-Heller) as defended by Brady Campaign as "common sense" "reasonable" "sensible" gun control and supported by a legal brief to the Supreme Court of the United States of America:

• You were allowed to have long guns (rifles and shotguns) in your home if they were always unloaded and and locked or disassembled
  
• You could not load your long gun if someone broke into your house
  
• You could not load your long gun if the person who broke in your house was armed
  
• You could not load your long gun if the person who broke in your house showed or declared an intent to kill you
  
• You could not load your long gun if the person who broke in your house was in the act of shooting at you
  
• You could not load your long gun if the person who broke in your house was in the act of killing your family member or loved one
  
• You could not load your long gun if the person who broke in your house was in the act of raping your family member or loved one
  
• You could not load your long gun if the person who broke in your house was in the act of kidnapping your family member or loved one
  
• You could not even have a handgun that wasn't registered before September 1976
  
• If you did have such a handgun, you couldn't load it in your home either--no matter what was happening to you or your family.
  

The message was clear: guns are OK, at least long guns. Self-defense with a gun is not OK, at least in the home. (Ironically, you could load a gun in your place of business--money trumped lives!)

That is insane. It is morally reprehensible. It is depraved. It is inexcusable.

And the quality of my evidence is impeccable. This was actual law. It was passed by a legislature. It was supported by mayors. It was challenged in court on the self-defense issue--whether you could load a legally possessed gun in the event of an actual attack--and was upheld (McIntosh v. Washington). This was not a wild-eyed extremist position held by outliers; it was settled law.

This settled law was supported by the best and brightest of the gun control community. The nation's foremost gun control organization--the Brady Campaign--wrote a legal brief supporting the ability of localities to have such laws. Other legal briefs were written by law professors and professional groups--luminaries, not lunatics.

I presented a position supported by the best and the brightest of gun control, enacted into law, upheld in court and supported by briefs to the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Now let's look at your evidence:

I know many pro-gun people that think there should be NO LIMITS, RULES or REGULATIONS.

I will be as polite and respectful as I can. I really, really don't think that you know one person who thinks that "there should be NO LIMITS, RULES or REGULATIONS." But let's say, for the sake of argument, that you know "many pro-gun people" who believe that

• Guns that will explode when shot and shoot when dropped should be perfectly legal to produce and sell
  
• Target practice in a studio apartment in a dense city is appropriate and should be constitutionally protected
  
• It should be legal to hunt squirrels in Central Park
  
• No law should forbid shooting into the air during New Year's celebrations in highly populated areas
  
• People should be able to wave pistols around in the mall, "painting" everyone in the vicinity with their barrels
  
• Toddlers should be allowed guns
  
• It is OK for intoxicated people to handle guns in crowds
  
• The criminally insane are legally entitled to any weapons they can afford--even while in the mental hospital
  
• Captured and imprisoned terrorists are entitled to machine guns while incarcerated
  

The people you know--the ones who believe all that--are to be pitied. They are not law professors. The are not sitting judges. They are not mayors. They are certainly not in the foremost defender of gun rights in America--the NRA.

In spite of all the bold claims--from President Obama on down--that someone, somewhere wants "NO LIMITS, RULES or REGULATIONS", I have never seen anyone attempt to support that stance with an example. Ever. Will you be the first?

In sum, yes I see a difference in our claims. My claim has something to do with "serious" people in the real world. My claim has not a trace of hyperbole or exaggeration. Your claim, IMHO, should be promptly withdrawn as an overstatement. Even if I am wrong and you actually know people who hold such views, they are not "serious" people. They have no political power. Their positions have never, and in all likelihood will never, be law anywhere in the US.

Yes, I see a difference.

[beevul]

79. Otherwise known as...

Checkmate.


Game.Set.Match.


And for good measure:

Glock handguns are "not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=3&hp

"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans" - Helmke - 2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html

Now, lets see if our interlocutor still thinks the brady bunch has a "good motive".


Me, I don't think we'll be seeing any comments to this.

What does that say about our interlocutor?

He asks to be provided with a "nutty anti-gun person" LOL. He was, in the movie. His name is paul helmke.

And there are others that may qualify:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x402531#402581

Says they do not seem irrational. LOL.

Plenty of evidence has been provided for him, lets see if he continues to ignore the reality of it or not.

[TPaine7]

82. I'm afraid you're right. I expect *crickets*

Or, if there is any response, I expect vitriol, name calling and hostility.

I don't expect any response to the substance--the insanity of the law, the high positions of the people who legislated, enforced, and upheld it in a legal ruling, or the lack of any insane counterparts in similar positions on the pro-gun side.

People who make the inane claim about "no regulations whatsoever"--usually attributed by liars to the NRA--NEVER back it up. When challenged, they usually slink away. If anyone ever tries to support it, it will either be with profanity, insults, or lies.

But telling a citizen that they can't load a rifle if a family member is being killed, raped, kidnapped or tortured right in front of them? That is insane. I can hardly conceive of a more insane law.

Tell me, is it "Logical" to believe that the Brady Campaign's support of the District's legal status quo was "well intentioned?" Is it "Logical" to refuse to admit that your point has been refuted (especially when it is done with restraint and respect)? I have had my opinions corrected many times. At such times, I have faced a choice; accept the truth and adjust my thinking, or be a fool for life.

I hope "Logical" chokes down that pride and makes a logical choice. Unfortunately, experience has shown me that logic is rare.

[beevul]

73. Except thats not the parallel here.

"Not wanting guns is not insane. Nor more than wanting guns is insane"

Not wanting guns for yourself is fine. Wanting guns for yourself is fine.


Not wanting anyone to have guns, would be as insane as wanting to FORCE everyone to have one.


See the difference?


Now, which "viewpoint" exists in large numbers, hmm?

[beevul]

71. Nice dodge.

As in way to not respond to what I actually said.

"So someone who wants to ban guns is as crazy as the guy who is sure any day the government is going to go door to door and take his guns?"

The direct opposite of someone wanting to ban guns, is someone wanting to FORCE EVERYONE TO OWN ONE.

Of which I very much doubt you'd find an equal number of examples, and of which they showed none.

"Wanting to rid the USA of guns to stop gun violence is not insane, just impossible, and a waste of time and resources."


I guess thats where we part company. You see, you BELIEVE that to be their intent. I don't.

I'll leave you with this to chew on, and you can let us know how it tastes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x361131


Now, would you care to actually discuss what I wrote in the post you replied to at this time?

[Union Scribe]

18. What you describe doesn't sound fair AT ALL

Sounds like a political version of Leno's jaywalking, where he just edits together the dumbest people he can find, only here it's used to smear gun owners instead of getting a laugh.

[Logical]

21. Not all of them were bad/dumb gun owners....

but I think they showed too many of the extreme ones.

I think they also needed to show more of the pro-ccw cases where it saved people's life's.

Now, I think some pro-gun people here might not think they were extreme but they seemed extreme to me.

[one-eyed fat man]

47. Explain to me please

If the film maker edited the movie and made sure to show as many "wacko" gun owners as they could while making sure all the Brady folks appeared reasonable, would not that be a lot like how Brietbart edited film to make it look like ACORN supported pimping child prostitutes?

Before you tell me, "That's different," answer me this:

Is it because you agree with one that you think it's good journalism while you dismiss the other as a cut and paste hit piece?

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Or Colin Goddards' videos, for that matter. n/t

[Logical]

57. I said they showed maybe too much of the nutty gun people.....

I am not sure what a nutty anti-gun person looks like so maybe they could not fund one.

[beevul]

19. Did they show...

"My experience with anti-gun people is that they are not nutty/crazy, I have not seen a nutty/crazy one. They are mostly worried or concerned. The majority of pro-gun people I have talked to are not nutty/crazy either but I have met many that are. The gun show crowd are at times wacko. Government overthrow stuff. Racist stuff. A small minority but they are there. I don't see that on the anti-gun side."




Did they show or quote any people outright pushing for complete or partial gun bans?

You know, the extreme on the other side?

I haven't seen it but I'd wager not.


My guess, is its a slanted "piece" that you may not be educated/experienced enough to identify as such, yourself.

[Logical]

29. LOL...I love the "educated" slam. Common quasi non-insult. Nice try. n-t

[PavePusher]

49. I'm pretty sure he meant "educated" in relation to your knowledge on this specific subject.

Not "educated" as in "left school before finishing 8th grade".

[beevul]

69. Exactly. N/T

[beevul]

72. A non answer.

Well, did they give equal time to the extremists on the other side or didn't they?


Its a simple question.


How about answering it.

[YllwFvr]

46. Any anti who relies on

Pure emotion rather than fact I would call "nutty". But not insane. There are a few of those here. Look at Cease Fire, they speak a lot of lies and disinformation. Wouldn't you say that's a bit crazy?

[Logical]

54. Yes, but I am not scared of them. Some pro-gun nuts worry me. n-t

[YllwFvr]

58. Is it because

The pro gun nuts have guns and the ones against dont?

[Logical]

61. A nutty anti-gunner could still hurt me.

[Katya Mullethov]

74. Based on the amount of projection I've seen .

I would say there's a good chance they would do it with a firearm .

[one-eyed fat man]

80. like these nutty anti-gunners?

After helping to organize the Million Mom March, and even speaking at the event, Barbara Graham was convicted of shooting an innocent man. Now he is paralyzed for life. When police searched her home, they found three handguns and a Tec-9 "assault weapon." She received a life sentence on nine charges, including illegal possession of a firearm (guns are, for all intents and purposes, illegal to own in D.C.).

Annette Stevens president of Springfield, Illinois chapter of the Million Mom March was arrested for possession of an illegal gun that had its serial number ground off, and drugs. She plead guilty on the drug charges in exchange for dropping the gun charges.

In case you missed it, HECTOR MARROQUIN, the founder of a gang intervention program called NO GUNS, was arrested last year for being in possession of a firearm. As a convicted felon, he isn't allowed to have a gun. And even if he was allowed to own a gun, as head of an organization that calls itself NO GUNS, it would have looked hypocritical anyway.

Hector Marroquin Sr., 49, of Downey was taken into custody when police raided his home looking for his son, Hector Marroquin Jr., a reputed gang member nicknamed "Little Weasel," Hawthorne police Lt. Tom Jester said.

Marroquin Jr., 31, was wanted as a suspect in a home-invasion robbery that terrorized a Hawthorne woman and her infant in December, Jester said.

Josh Sugermann of the VPC holds a Federal Firearms license in Washington, DC. The VPC lobbied to have "kitchen table" gun dealers (dealers who didn't have store fronts open to the public) forced out of business back in the 90's. His license is current, but he is not open to the public.
And my all time favorite, Carl Rowen, the Washington Post columnist who said, "Anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail- period!" When he was arrested for shooting, with an illegally possessed and unregistered handgun, a kid skinny dipping in his Washington DC swimming pool he howled long and hard. Throughout his arrest and trial on assault and weapons charges, he vehemently and adamantly insisted he was a victim of racial discrimination. He was a black man who had shot a white teenager and that's why he was being persecuted for "defending himself." How did he claim a naked kid reached for a hidden weapon with a straight face?

Oh, wait, maybe you have a point, especially when the looney anti-gunners use guns to murder, maim, kill and threaten those who disagree with them. Somebody was sure damn careful not to mention these ant-gun stalwarts in their carefully edited puff piece.

[spin]

67. I watched it last night and I have some criticism and some positive comments ...

Never once do I remember an interview with a person who used a firearm for legitimate self defense.

The incident at the New Life Church in Colorado in which a volunteer security guard who had a concealed weapons permit was able to stop a mass murderer was never mentioned.

There were a number of "nutty" gun owners shown and very few rational ones. Both types exist. I suspect the emphasis was put on the less rational ones in order to enforce the stereotype that all gun owners are "nutty". Obviously this tactic did not work well with you as you mentioned "My experience with anti-gun people is that they are not nutty/crazy, I have not seen a nutty/crazy one." It probably was effective with others who know few gun owners.

I did agree with much of the criticism of the NRA and how they generate contributions by generating fear of the government. I am an NRA member but I deposit all of their contribution literature in file 13 unless I feel there is a true attack on gun rights.

No mention was made of the fact that the NRA is not just a political organization but trains many of the nations police officers and offers firearms and hunter safety courses to civilians. The impression that many would get from the program is that the NRA is a conservative political group somewhat to the right of the Tea Party. The fact is that they do far more than merely advocate for the right to keep and bear arms. Their prime emphasis is on shooting and if you abhor firearms you will not like their programs and if you enjoy the sport of shooting including hunting, chances are you will. You can review their programs at: http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx

I personally am in favor of finding a method of opening the NICS background check system to all sellers and possibly requiring a background check on all private sales as long as the serial number of the firearm and the name of the buyer did not make it into a registration system. I don't believe that the program mentioned that in some states private sales at gun shows ARE regulated.

Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.<14><15>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States

The Brady Campaign came across as sincere and was portrayed as a bunch of heroes working tirelessly to fight the omnipotent NRA. No mention was made of their tactics which have been irresponsible and misleading in the past and continue to be so. For example when the were Handgun Control Inc. they counted 19 year old gang bangers as children in order to inflate the number of children killed by guns. They also have consistently claimed that passing laws such as "shall issue" concealed carry would cause the death rate by firearms to skyrocket, despite the statistics that show that doesn't happen.

Writer Richard Lowry said that the term "assault weapon", used in the 1994 crime bill that followed the 1993 Brady Bill is a "manufactured term".<25> This term is used by the Brady Campaign to refer to semi-automatic or self-loading rifles.<26> Critics maintain this is done in order to conflate them in the public imagination with assault rifles,<27><28> and the Brady Campaign has, on occasion, used the terms interchangeably.<29><30> The Brady Campaign says that self-loading and select-fire weapons are virtually identical, since a semi-automatic rifle may be fired rapidly.<31><32>

The Brady Campaign refers to both teflon-coated<33> and hollow-point handgun ammunition as "cop-killers".

Additionally, the Campaign has in the past called for a ban of "plastic guns", after becoming concerned about the emergence of polymer-framed handguns by Austrian weapons manufacturer Glock Ges.m.b.H..<34><35> Critics pointed out that those handguns still contain many vital components made of metal (such as the slide, barrel and ammunition), and can be detected by conventional screening technologies. There are no fully functional guns consisting only of polymer parts.<36><37><38> (It should, however, be noted that The Terrorist Firearms Detection Act in question only outlawed guns with less than 3.2 oz of metal in them, making the law largely symbolic for both sides; Glocks contain over a pound of metal.)<38>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign#Criticism

Nor was it mentioned that the Brady Campaign failed to meet the Better Business Bureau standards for Charity Accountability.

Read the report at: http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/law-and-public-interest/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136

You are correct that those who favor gun ownership will find the documentary biased. This is unfortunate as it did have a few good points but the prejudice against gun owners and the favorable view that glorified the Brady Campaign poisoned the good that the program could have accomplished in furthering understanding of the issue of gun control in this country.

[PavePusher]

75. "Never once do I remember an interview with a person who used a firearm for legitimate self defense"

Remember the recent 20/20 show on guns, that has mysteriously disappeared from the 'net?

I bet they use the same excuse Diane Sawyer did:"We couldn't find any verifiable incidents."

Yeah, 'cause you didn't look, you stupid, lying cow.