Skip to main content

View Diary: Some thoughts on the coming gun debate (639 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well regulated militia is the watch word! (11+ / 0-)

    I've heard all sorts of arguments about why this does not imply a National Guard, but even if that were true, "well regulated" is, or should be, a guiding principle.

    Although I don't hunt myself (and I don't at present even own a gun) I know many hunters, some of whom prefer bow hunting or muzzleloaders because of the challenge that they require. It implies good marksmanship and woodcraft to them.
    A true sportsman does not require a multi-shot weapon to bag game.  At the same time we are past the point where most people need to hunt to put food on the table.

    Why is it that they can talk sense in Australia, but not here?  Australia is as much a frontier country as we think we are.

    Thanks KOS for putting a sane view out there.  We need lots of these.  I've signed the petition!

    •  Follow up shots aren't about bad aim when (6+ / 0-)

      you're hunting large game.

      They're about mercy.

      And, yes, that's got nothing to do with 30 round magazines.

      This place needs a PVP server.

      by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:22:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I can see this. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, Sandino, Laconic Lib

        But clips should be no more than ten rounds.  If you can't  finish the job by then you have no business hunting!

      •  You can't own a one shot mercy pistol? (0+ / 0-)

        Seems to me follow up shots about "mercy" don't have to involve shots from the same gun. One shot to wound, then a single shot pistol kept around for that mercy shot.

        Nearly every time I hear a hunter comment about what they need in order to hunt, I'm reminded of just how lazy most hunters have become. It's like they'd still want more-than-one-shot magazines for a deer tied to a stake.

        •  Do you really prefer that (0+ / 0-)

          someone cover 150 yards through heavy brush before dispatching a wounded animal?

          What did Elk ever do to you?

          Obviously, even having to load another round into a rifle would beat a "mercy pistol", when a clear shot from range still exists.

          You do realize that Australia, the country pro and anti gun fetishists in the US are both convinced "banned guns", doesn't really have any problem with people who actually hunt having bolt action center fire rifles with internal magazines?

          That's because hunters do in fact have a legitimate need for them.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:56:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm still stuck on this. How could possibly (0+ / 0-)

          think

          "Yeah, a bunch of guys with glorified zip guns in their pockets, that's totally safer than hunting rifles that hold more than one bullet"?

          The other day, I was telling someone he didn't need any special knowledge to advocate for good gun laws.  

          For a minute, you just made me really question that claim.

          Then I realized - this isn't about gun laws.

          You're looking for excuses to insult a group of people you dislike for purely cultural reasons.

          This place needs a PVP server.

          by JesseCW on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:58:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Could DKos form a militia? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LeftyAce, mightymouse, ssgbryan

      If we promise to march in straight lines and in cadence would we be considered well regulated?
      I always wonder about this because most of the time, the government gets more than a bit nervous about groups of heavily armed civilians. They tend to call them "gangs".

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:47:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Myself, I think that "Well-regulated" does imply.. (4+ / 0-)

        a state-run National Guard.  Loose cannon militias are not what the founding fathers envisioned as far as I can see.  I was emphasizing "well-regulated" because I think that does imply some sort of at least state-level group run by responsible authority, not some self-described "patriot" who's agenda may be certainly suspect!

        •  So that blows the whole theory (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Desert Scientist, Sandino

          about individual gun ownership as a hedge against a tyrannical government, if the government regulates the militia, no? Wouldn't the National Guard BE the well regulated militia in that case?

          If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

          by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:14:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  True, but the individual state has some say ... (0+ / 0-)

            in National Guard activities.

            One of our former governors was totally unaware of the National Guard in this state and ruffled a few feathers by visiting a private militia and praising them as the first line of defense for the state.

            I really don't want a system of Somali-style war lords, thank you!  I haven't yet got to that level of paranoia.

            •  Somali-style war lords (0+ / 0-)

              I agree of course and am not advocating for starting a militia, just really wonder about the legality and the way that clause is, sort of, finessed.

              If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

              by CwV on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:25:04 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Myself I think that "well-regulated" implies ..... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ssgbryan, Arenosa

        a state National Guard, but in any case should be under state authority, not run by a self-described "patriot" group who may well have their own anti-social agenda.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site