Skip to main content

View Diary: The picture posted on FB by an NRA friend that set me off (316 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What I posted on FB on Friday (4+ / 0-)

    I have gunloving friends who are nice people and are my friends - but these tragedies bring out the persecution complex in them.  I am not anti-gun, but I have no plans to own one, since I do not see a use for one.  Anyway, Friday night, they got on my last nerve and I posted the following:

    To my gunloving friends, at least have the courage of your convictions to admit to yourselves that guns are weapons. If you can't do that, than we cannot even have a conversation. The killer today did not use a knife, he used a gun. He didn't pretend the gun was a toy, he knew it was a weapon and used it as such. If he owns a car, he did not use it to kill anyone (not precise enough), he use a fucking gun. He didn't use a knife, and frankly, why should he consider a knife when guns and their ammo are so available?

    Stop pretending this isn't a problem.

    I don't have an answer, and don't pretend to. But I get really angry when people I know to be intelligent and capable of abstract thought just disregard all the evidence in front of us and say that there isn't a problem that we need to address.

    There is a problem, and we need to address it.

    Do you just assume that all the future victims won't be one of your friends or family member? So it's all OK, because the victims will always be someone else's family?

    What would you think if any of the gun victims in the last year, (and there have been a lot in the last year) was a friend or family member? They were shopping at the mall, attending school, or watching a movie?

    Before commenting here, step back from the computer, and think how you would feel. Give it a few minutes. Stop trying to be cute. No-one is going to take away your guns (this is America). Just step away for a moment, and put yourself in the place of the families that lost family member today, and last week, and well - I would have to google to find all the times in the last year someone used a gun to kill a lot of people that they didn't know. Just please, stop and put yourself in the survivors' position. No-one is taking your guns away. That will not happen. So please calm down, before you go too far.

    To my knowledge, no-one unfriended me, and I got one apology (I had "yelled" at him earlier - CAPS-).
    •  Violence and Murder is not related (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happy camper, DarthMeow504

      to the Right To Keep and Bear Arms.
      In the same way that terrorism is not related to Warrantless Wiretapping.
      I didn't support Warrantless Wiretapping, Gitmo or Torture because I rejected the premise of sacrificing Liberty for perceived security.
      I don't support changing the current gun laws for the same reason.

      "no one is going to take away your guns"
      Look at this very diary. Look at many of the diaries on here. Limiting the 2nd amendment rights, in varying forms, is exactly what is being espoused.

      This reminds me of when the GOP pushed for warrantless wiretaps saying "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to fear"
      I rejected that notion of infringing on the 4th Amenment in the same way and for the same reasons I reject the current notion of infringing on the 2nd.

      Your friends and hundreds of millions of Americans did nothing wrong. They do not deserve to have their Liberties taken away, not now and not then.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:31:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There comes a time (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        devis1, athenap, Yamara

        when the rights of different individuals collide.  This is the time.  You lose because babies have the right to live more than you have the right to own a gun that can kill 20 of them in a few minutes.  

        Everyone! Arms akimbo!

        by tobendaro on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:29:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "babies have the right to live more than..." (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DarthMeow504

          More than you have the Right to not be subject to a warrantless wiretap?
          More than the Right to not be tortured?
          More than the Right to not be jailed without charge?
          Because this idea of infringing on Liberty for perceived security is the exact argument the right-wing gave for those infringements.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 06:34:37 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with your opinion about TSA overreach. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sethtriggs, tobendaro

            I disagree about the gun availability.  I've argued the second amendment as one of the checks and balances as a philosophical design of our government.

            There are times when that philosophical argument buts up against the consequences of unregulated guns in reality.

            Gun owners aren't going to get rid of government overreach of the TSA with semiautomatic weapons.

            Electing representatives who respect individual liberties will.  Political activism is the purpose of this website.

            The problem with second amendment solutions is that people mention them to justify being lazy about the other solutions.

            "Jersey_Boy" was taken.

            by New Jersey Boy on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 07:30:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I never claimed that TSA overreach would be solved (0+ / 0-)

              semi-auto weapons. Quite frankly, I  have no clue where you got that idea.
              I stated that I reject the premise of sacrificing Constitutional liberties for percieved saftey for both the 4th & the 2nd amendment....
              And I assure you I plan on voting for those that do 'respect individual liberties', and I absolutly refuse to vote for those that do not.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 09:22:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  We are not talking (0+ / 0-)

            about any of those rights.  They have no impact on what went on in Newtown.  Guns do.  They need to be heavily regulated so that the right for innocents to live is maximized.  You getting your jollies off owning a killing machine does not trump their lives.  You are using the typical nra obfuscation and derailment to cloud and confuse the issue.  We will not be dissuaded anymore.  Time to act now and regulate guns and gun ownership.

            Everyone! Arms akimbo!

            by tobendaro on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 05:27:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Straw Man Argument (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          Any gun I might own (I do not currently own a firearm, but I have considered owning a shotgun for home defense) has absolutely nothing to do with any dead babies here or anywhere else. There is no magical field emitted by legal guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens that builds up and randomly attacks some children every now and then. One has absolutely zero to do with the other.

          In this case, a determined criminal with a plan of attack carried out a massacre with stolen guns. What in the name of fuck does that have to do with legal firearms owned by law-abiding individuals? Do you really think that if he hadn't stolen them himself he wouldn't have found stolen or illegal guns on the black market to use? This was a criminal conspirator with the intention of getting firearms any way he had to to carry out his plan.

          Aside from the impossible proposition of wiping out a 200 year old technology from the face of the earth in spite of demand for it, there's not a damned thing you can do to prevent a determined criminal from accessing illegal weapons. That is the unfortunate reality and attacking legal guns won't affect that at all.

          "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

          by DarthMeow504 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:48:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Except he only had to use his mom's guns (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tobendaro

            Who knows how things would have panned out if he had to steal the guns.  From what I've read, that may have been too far a reach for the guy.

            His mother owned semi-automatic weapons and taught her problem son how to use them.  

            He didn't have to steal anything.  He used his mother's guns.

            Maybe if there had been proper laws regarding semi-automatic weapons (I don't know what they would be, since I usually have zero interest in guns), his mother would have owned hunting rifles and hand-guns?  The tragedy would possibly have still taken place, but maybe less adults and children would have been killed.

            No-one killed would be best, but this is a country that has refused to handle mental illness.

            This is an issue that involves guns, but also involves mental illness.  Both issues have to be addressed.

            •  He did steal the guns. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DarthMeow504

              He stole them from his mother.

              On 9/11, the murderers only had to have utility knives to kill 3000.
              The right wing mentioned numerous infringements on Constitutional Rights in order to combat 'another 9/11....did you agree with them infringing on the Constitutional Rights of law-abiding citizens for a 'who knows' scenario?
              If not, why are you willing to attack the Constitutional Rights of Americans in this case?

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:45:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Ignorance of guns (0+ / 0-)

              I've seen a lot of this. "Semi-automatic" sounds really scary, especially when people drop the "semi-" part as they often do. But it's not a practical difference like the difference between fully automatic and not.

              A semi-automatic weapon is one that is fed from a magazine and self-cocks, in other words it chambers the next round at the end of the firing cycle. That means it fires once per trigger pull without any other action in between. This type of action is found in handguns and long guns of varying styles and calibers.

              The primary alternative in handguns is the double-action revolver, which holds ammunition in a cylindrical holder that rotates each successive round into the chamber mechanically. A pull of the trigger pulls back and drops the hammer, thus it fires the round in the chamber and then rotates the cylinder to bring the next round into position. It is only marginally slower than a semi-automatic pistol though it's total round capacity is lower.

              Almost all police departments and military are issued semi-automatic handguns in 9mm ammo size as the standard sidearm. Revolvers are mostly relegated now to small holdout pistols, target pistols, and large, high powered calibers like the famous .44 magnum.

              In rifles, many if not most modern hunting rifles are semi-automatic, though pump action and bolt action still exist. Most shotguns are pump-action, though some high end specialty models are semi-automatic.

              The Sandy Hook shooter used two 9mm semi-automatic handguns, which are a relatively light caliber but have a typically high magazine capacity. Reloading any clip-fed weapon is pretty damned quick, but "speedloaders" for revolvers exist that make it almost as fast.

              As to the rifle, it was a .223 semi-automatic in the AR-15 style, which is designed to look similar to the military M16 series. This resemblance is what makes them popular, for the most part.

              The .223, also known as 5.56mm, is a pretty light cartridge as rifles go. The most common smaller cartridge I can think of is the .22LR, which is pretty damned tiny and is mostly a small game and varmint shooting round, as well as a target shooting round. Most hunting rifles used for large game like deer and such are the .30-06 which is vastly more powerful with incredible range and power. It blows the meager .223 out of the water, like comparing a .44 magnum to the old style police .38 caliber. No comparison in raw power.

              The AR-15 style rifle LOOKS badass though, styled as it is after the standard US military assault rifle. In function, it's no faster than a comparable deer rifle and way less powerful.

              That's why "assault weapons" bans are nonsense proposed as feelgood legislation by people who know nothing about firearms. "Assault weapons" is a scary sounding name for scary looking weapons that are no functionally different or more dangerous than the hunting rifles the same people say are A-OK.

              If I had to, I'd rather be shot with a .223 than a .30-06 or 12ga shotgun. That's because I understand the actual capabilities of the various weapons rather than being influenced by scary names and styling. The styling of the weapon doesn't affect how it hurts me, the size and type of ammunition it fires does.

              TL:DR? Deer rifle or pump action shotgun is WAY worse to be shot by than an "assault rifle" like was used by the Sandy Hook shooter. And that's the unbiased fact.

              "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

              by DarthMeow504 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:51:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oops (0+ / 0-)

                I slightly misdescribed the function of the double-action revolver. During the trigger pull, the hammer is pulled back and the cylinder rotated one position to the right, and at the end of the pull the hammer falls on the chamber firing the round in it (if any, a chamber can be empty). Pull the trigger again, the same thing will happen again. Hammer comes back, cylinder advances, hammer falls.

                It's still only marginally slower than a semi-automatic pistol, with the main difference being in ammo capacity, as I said.

                "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

                by DarthMeow504 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 11:57:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  The NRA is the most powerful lobby in the U.S. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        athenap

        Gun owner's interests, or more accurately, gun manufacturers' interests are represented by the most powerful lobby in the United States - the NRA.

        Stop the persecution complex.  It doesn't' become you.

        And by the way, how are your guns assisting you in keeping your social security and your medicare?

        •  I will not vote for anybody that infringes on my (0+ / 0-)

          Constitutional Rights.
          I have voted strait Dem ticket (except for Nader in 2000) ever since I could vote. I am as Progressive and as Left-wing as....well...as someone who voted for Nader.
          Elizabeth Warren in 2016 is something I am excited for, the first President I have been exicted for pre-Primary (let alone, 4 yrs before the election)....but I will not, will not, will NOT vote for anybody that infringes on our Constitutional Rights.
          I was furious with the GOP when they decided that 9/11 was reason to curtail the 4th Amendment with warrantless wiretapping, and will be with any Democrat that votes to curtail 2nd Amendment Rights with expanded gun control.
          I'm not the only one.
          We will lose Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, if this infringement on Constitutional Rights goes forward.
          I will not, will not, WILL NOT vote for anybody that decides to infringe on my Liberties.
          My Liberties are not negotiable.
          I am not the only one, that feels this way.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 09:59:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Regulating guns does not infringe on your (0+ / 0-)

            constitutional rights.  I have always supported the second amendment, but there is no issue with regulating the purchase and ownership of firearms.  

            It is not anyone's Constitutional Right to go to the 7-11 and pick up a Hauser.  Making it harder for people to purchase weapons by instituting background checks, training, licensing, and limiting the sale of specific weapons still doesn't infringe on your or my constitutional rights.

            I grew up with guns.  Owned guns.  Heck I sorta like guns, but something needs to change.

            "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

            by Sychotic1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:12:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If "limiting the sale" doesn't infringe on the 2nd (0+ / 0-)

              Then "limiting warrants needed for search" doesn't infringe on the 4th.

              I reject that notion in both cases.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:03:10 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  It says "well regulated" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                athenap

                and limiting the type of guns sold is a regulation.

                So is training, so is registration, so is insurance.

                I find your selective reading of the amendment to be only slightly amusing.

                "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

                by Sychotic1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:14:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It says "well regulated militia" (0+ / 0-)

                  It also says "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed"
                  You will notice it says nothing about needing to be a member of a militia, nor "regulating" arms.

                  That said, arms ARE currently regulated (no full-auto, background check if buying from an FFL dealer, etc.).

                  I simply reject any infringments of Constitutional Rights beyond what we currently have. And I feel this way about ALL of our Constitutional Rights

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:25:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is all in the same sentence (0+ / 0-)

                    and there is a logical argument for removing guns from anyone who isn't in a well regulated militia.

                    You and I will never see face to face on this because you believe your right to have a variety of fast acting guns in unlimited amounts trumps societies' right to ensure minimal safety.

                    "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

                    by Sychotic1 on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 01:37:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It is the same sentance. (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't understand why you think that is relevant.
                      "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
                      ie Because a militia is necessary, therefor the Right of the people to keep arms, shall not be infringed.
                      You will notice that 'well-regulated' isn't mentioned with the Right of the People.
                      You will also notice that 'shall not be infringed' is mentioned with the Right to keep & bear arms.
                      You should also notice that being a member of a militia is not a prerequisite of the Right to Keep & bear arms.

                      "you believe your Right"
                      I believe in all of the American People's Rights. Including the 2nd.
                      I believe in not infringing on our Rights enough that I will NOT vote for anyone who does.

                      "societies' right"
                      You want to infringe on "societies' right" for the perception of safety. The word "Right" has a meaning, you cannot hijack it because you are uncomfortable with it in this context.
                      All free societies have to decide where/when to sacrifice Liberty for Safety.
                      The right-wing was willing to sacrifice the 4th, you are willing to sacrifice the 2nd.
                      I disagree with both you and the right-wing. I am not willing to sacrifice any of the Liberties we as Americans enjoy today for the perception of safety.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 03:47:19 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site