Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: Compliance (978 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That's just what she said LOL n/t (20+ / 0-)

    There is no such thing as an off year election. Every election effects each other. We need to work as hard in 2014 as we did in 2012.

    by pollbuster on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:27:44 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, it isn't. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rockhound, gerrilea, ancblu

      There's always someone who won't obey the laws. With speeding, with marijuana, whatever. There's still some positive swing to those laws.

      The AWB? Not so much.

      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

      by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:29:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes it is, (9+ / 0-)

        you can obfuscate as much as you like, but yes it is.

        There is no such thing as an off year election. Every election effects each other. We need to work as hard in 2014 as we did in 2012.

        by pollbuster on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 02:45:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why this distinction? (13+ / 0-)

        It seems to me as if the comparison to speeding is a good one.  After all, a lot of people will speed no matter what, so why not give up on regulating speed at all?

        •  Because most people (and I mean a high %) (4+ / 0-)

          will abide by the speed limit or within 5-10mph of it.

          I think that'd be the exact opposite with this type of firearm law. What you'd see is a small % who'd actually listen and the rest would go underground.

          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

          by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:00:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  And gun owners are intrinsically less able to (16+ / 0-)

            follow laws?  Frightening much?

            Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

            by Smoh on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:08:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If they would cease to be gun owners, why (5+ / 0-)

              would they care about being law abiding when it comes to gun owning? It's called civil disobedience.

              It's not like they're going to start raping and pillaging and killing.

              Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

              by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:11:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "It's not like they're going to start raping and (12+ / 0-)

                pillaging and killing."

                Very unfortunate choice of argument.

                I think we see people with guns doing these things quite frequently -- including those who obtained the guns legally.

                •  Not what I said. (5+ / 0-)

                  Let's say, for example, they ban my uncle's .22 rifle (which is currently in my gun safe) and I say FU, I'm not turning it in.

                  No one knows I have it.
                  There's no registration.
                  I'm not abiding by that law anymore, but I'm not going to turn into a rapist or killer because I have a *gasp* banned firearm.

                  Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                  by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:18:19 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Any future gun bans (3+ / 0-)

                    such as the proposed assault weapons ban, would focus on guns that already are frequently used by killers and rapists.

                    •  the AWB doesn't focus on those guns most (7+ / 0-)

                      used by criminals.

                      Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                      by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:38:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What non-criminal uses are there (4+ / 0-)

                        for assault weapons like an AR-15?

                        •  Well, I owned 6 at one point. (5+ / 0-)

                          And I didn't use them criminally once.

                          1. Hunting
                          2. Self defense
                          3. Competition
                          4. Plinking

                          Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                          by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:56:38 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Unalienable rights do not need to be justified (8+ / 0-)

                          That framing IS the problem that we cannot get people to understand.

                          I do not need an explanation/justification as to why I may exercise a religion, protest or write in a free press.

                          When you utilize the institutional force of the State to make me explain the exercise of said, then the right is instantaneously transformed into a privilege arbitrarily granted.

                          As Americans we are born with these unalienable rights that pre-exist "that damn piece of paper".

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:44:10 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Were you a supreme court judge, gerrilea, we might (5+ / 0-)

                            be able to take what you say seriously. But you aren't and the court made clear that regulation is legal.

                            Again, which regs we don't exactly know until they come before the court. But you simply cannot realistically argue that gun control isn't legal and a violation of rights.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:47:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cany, regulation that is not intended on (6+ / 0-)

                            obstructing or banning said right.  Let's be clear here.

                            Taxing ammo at $10 a shell is a defacto ban.

                            Each new regulation would most likely be challenged and we'd be no further ahead, the status quo wins again.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:26:15 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are probably right there. I would agree. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, Kevskos

                            But realize a lot of the regs people are supporting may complicate the acquisition of a weapon in terms of the time it takes (CA has a ten day cooling off period, for example) and other states have different regs.

                            There are those, however, that oppose any and all additional regs or oppose what many may believe to be common sense regs; check before all private sales, for instance, given weapons move 40% of the time that way. And clearly, we HAVE to deal with straw sales, etc.

                            If gun owners don't want to deal with sensible things, I think most people believe they will just be left in the dust. I have no idea what will or will not be done both at the state and federal level. I do know my state is proposing some changes.

                            But many, and KV is often on this end of things, rarely agrees with any regs. He has a perfect right to do this. And others have a perfect right to believe and support what they will.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:46:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the good news, cany, is you're no USSC (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Robobagpiper

                            justice either, so you don't get to decide the limits to anybody's rights except how you exercise your very own.

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:54:05 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So true. But I do NOT pretend I know what the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            old possum

                            court will accept and I say so while your side constantly yammers about any regulation being unconstitutional which is flat out bullshit per Heller.

                            So instead of slamming me, why not take your own folks to task and try to urge them back into reality so that a useful conversation can be had. Because until that happens, your sides standing on "no and none" as the only reasonable regulation and even you know that won't fly.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 02:45:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so, keep your right (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            old possum

                            and keep the guns of the era where those rights were granted.

                            keep your right.
                            i'll define your arms.

                            "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                            by kj in missouri on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:50:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, you won't. (6+ / 0-)

                            Or else I'd define your religion to be just the church of the flying spaghetti monster.

                            I'm prefer to define everybody's as atheist since theism causes more damage than guns, but I can't. You know, that whole constitution thing.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:29:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  religion is an abstract. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            old possum

                            so, good luck with that.

                            i will define what constitutes the "arms" the Second Amendment defined.  because CV, that's a concrete.  

                            "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                            by kj in missouri on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:40:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This isn't an esoteric debate, rights exercised (6+ / 0-)

                            is not an abstraction.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:27:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  granted, (0+ / 0-)

                            but trying to define my religion is an abstract.
                            me trying to define what constitutes 'arms' is not.

                            "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                            by kj in missouri on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:31:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? Understand that each of us has our (5+ / 0-)

                            own perspective here.  The "spiritualism" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was clearly defined by actions.  The freedom to your religion, however you made describe it is separate from exercising it.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:46:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and would you agree that the freedom to exercise (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            old possum, Kevskos

                            the second is similarly encumbered? If not, why not?

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:49:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "encumbered"??? (6+ / 0-)

                            All of our rights are, aren't they?

                            If you protest on my property I can have you arrested for trespassing.

                            If you practice virgin sacrifices, you can be arrested for murder.

                            If you shoot someone you can be arrested for it.

                            Back to my original point, your rights end where mine begin.  When we violate each others rights, the State has been granted limited authorities to be the neutral arbiter in our dispute, that's "civil society", is it not?

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:56:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well then, what is the PROBLEM with regulating (5+ / 0-)

                            guns? That is the question. It always HAS been the question.

                            People keep saying they can't... it's a right. Well, yes gun ownership is a right, but they DO regulate.

                            I am just not understanding the disconnect between rights, regulations, what they do now, and what can be done in the future in the face of absolute, hate em, no regs!, and it's my right!

                            While the second is a right, it's non an unregulated right, though second supporters seek, often, to diminish or completely free this right from any and all regs. WHY?

                            What is SO special about this right that isn't so special about the first?

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 10:19:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The excuse put forth for stronger regulations (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Robobagpiper, KVoimakas, FrankRose

                            is always couched in "to save lives", a moral position.  My objections were enumerated in my diary we spoke in previously.

                            The very clear line has been drawn, regulations in and of them self are not unconstitutional unless they are an attempt to create a defacto ban.  Dissuading our fellow citizens from exercising their rights is an illegitimate use of governmental powers.  Our gov't was created to protect those individual rights.

                            Psychological testing is a dangerous precedent, imo.  So is means testing, ie paying $300, $400 or $1000 to get a "permit" to exercise said right.  It disenfranchises the poor.

                            The danger here that I've repeated forever is that when these things become law and eventually accepted by the general population they will have been conditioned into believing it's okay because "it's a gun".  All of our rights then can be restricted on the same basis.

                            I personally want GW arrested and psychologically tested after he joked about WMD's.  His political free speech lead us into an unjustified and unfunded war that has killed millions.  These are crimes far worse than my neighbor killing me with their gun.

                            It is a valid slippery slope that history teaches us occurs time and again.  The reason we had a Republic and not a Democracy is to keep us free.  Naomi Wolf speaks on these dangerous precedents that have been ongoing now for over 10 yrs.

                            http://www.snagfilms.com/...

                            I take her warnings and questions very seriously.  "How do you shutdown a free society?" We've been slowly converted into a democracy and every democracy in history has devolved into tyranny.

                            The current "internal threat" is gun owners.  You may not agree with this but I see it plain as day.  Manufactured consent.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:08:31 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've been reading state case law on the ability (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kevskos

                            of states to regulate and that is quite telling.

                            You really should read the NY case (plaintiffs lost).

                            And something your side might be interested to know is that "emotions" (read terrorizing citizens) were considered a just reason for regulation. Just had to share that since it comes up so frequently.

                            I don't know if they will file with the Supremes, haven't yet done so.

                            Case is here.

                            Are you an attorney, G?

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 05:26:02 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  States have always had the authority to do as (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            they wished.  This is the foundation of the Republic we once had.

                            And the reason was always the same, direct control by the citizens was paramount to ensure freedom.  If my State Legislature passed a law I didn't agree with, they'd be booted out of office and replaced with someone whom would do our bidding.  If we couldn't get them out of office, armed rebellion was always an option.

                            Battle of Athens (1946)

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:49:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Instead of proffering your philosophy to (0+ / 0-)

                            no end, why not read the case.

                            I'm really not interested in what you think of the world or how paranoid you think everyone is. It's all bullshit.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:51:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And BTW, you and others may not realize that (0+ / 0-)

                            some states had gun regulations BEFORE the constitution was adopted and in some cases, had banned outright handguns later. The history of gun regulation is long and very diverse and it most certainly "isn't" a new thing.

                            And also, while you see something wrong with wanting to "save lives" (regardless whether a moral issue or not), legislators have been using THIS VERY reason to regulate guns for well over a hundred years. And not just in New York. Other states, as well.

                            So I don't think you have history on your side when you make those claims, G. In the west, we had Tombstone where, also, they could not bring guns into town for "safety" reasons.

                            You may not like it, but it is recognized by the courts as a legitimate reason for legislation and that has been true for a very, very long time.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 02:32:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You'd need to provide me with these historical (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            records for review on this point:

                            some states had gun regulations BEFORE the constitution was adopted and in some cases, had banned outright handguns later. The history of gun regulation is long and very diverse and it most certainly "isn't" a new thing.
                            Gun control historically was a means to oppress those members of society that were not in the majority or in control.  

                            Modern GC was a movement started in 1918 or there abouts when the British royalty feared the spreading of the populist movements such as socialism and communism.  They saw what happened to the royals in Russia & they didn't want to end up like them.

                            There was always GC in the South to keep Blacks enslaved.

                            The British Rights of Man from 1689 made clear if you were a Protestant, you were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, Catholic, forget it!

                            GC is a tool of oppression no matter how it's disguised today in the meme, "It's for the children" Or "it's for society's sake".  Pure Orwellian doublespeak.

                            As for fear being the basis of law, THAT is the problem, I am not controlled by fear, the masses are another story.

                            They are convinced by the Fear Porn For Profit© Industries that manufacture their belief system.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 04:44:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  NY, where you are, had hand gun control in 1911 (0+ / 0-)

                            If you read the Circuit Court Case I referenced in another post, you will find the history interesting.

                            The major point is, though, that gun control is nothing new. It's just that history has been rewritten, apparently, by the NRA.

                            Freedom! Tyranny!  Gun control!

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:48:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That NYC gun "control" had nothing to do.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            with "safety" and everything to do with racism and classism and bigotry.  You can actually look this up if you want, since you brough it up.

                          •  See, I see you as fearful. Interesting, isn't it? (0+ / 0-)

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:49:08 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sadly, I see your motives for gc as fear driven (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            Fear that has been manufactured for you.

                            As for the GC in NY in 1911, that was NYC.  And no history has been re-written here.  The world is controlled by force.  He who has the most force wins.  Hence our Imperialism going into full swing since 1945.

                            This is simply reality.  A piece of paper will not stop a bullet to your head.  Whether it's the constitution or a court order of protection.  

                            I make no pretense here, the unarmed masses have been plowed into the ground as fertilizer. 279 million worldwide since 1900 killed by their governments.   Isn't that coincidental to your claims that GC has been around for a very long time, ie since 1911?

                            Death By Government

                            Read Rummels book, when you can guarantee for me safety and security from the tyranny of the State, then I'll support GC.  History shows us what happens to the unarmed masses.  


                            ~Those whom forget history are doomed to repeat it.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 02:01:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  In the issue of domestic gun control, G, I don't (0+ / 0-)

                            care about Imperialism. These are different problems and they result in different things. But I realize you don't agree.

                            I see you continual blending of these issues as a nice way to escape having to deal with domestic violence head on.

                            Ad for your claims about government, in the whole of the domestic gun violence problem, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. It wasn't death by government that killed those 26 people.

                            And your governmental paranoia is noted.

                            We are never going to agree, so there's little point in discussion any further.

                            Have a great 2013.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 09:35:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do not trust our government. That isn't paranoia (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            it's founded on facts.  Secret renditions, secret courts, secret court orders, secret evidence, secret legal interpretations, secret spying, targeting and killing American citizens without charges, judge or jury. The Federally Coordinated crackdown on OWS.

                            The Patriot Act
                            The Animal Enterprises Act
                            The John Warner Defense Authorization Act
                            The NDAA

                            The treatment of Bradley Manning.

                            Read Obama The Conservative.

                            Read JPMassar's diaries.

                            Read any of Jesselyn Radack's diaries.

                            Domestic violence is actually down...the red herring is the framing "gun violence".  

                            And I guess you are right, we'll never agree because we see different "problems" that we want fixed.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:16:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i can be forced to kneel to the FSM, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            i can be forced to tithe to the FSM, but that doesn't make the FSM my religion.  because the 'right' to think my own thoughts can not be either granted, legislated, controlled or defined.   by anyone.

                            "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                            by kj in missouri on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:07:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, you can't be forced not in this nation. n/t (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            high uintas, ancblu, KVoimakas

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:19:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  in any nation. /nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            "From single strands of light we build our webs." ~kj

                            by kj in missouri on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 09:40:17 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  so you coming to take an arbalest, kjinmo?? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KenBee, gerrilea, FrankRose

                            or a bow, or an obsidian flake, or a tomahawk, or the .45-caliber nail gun the framer down the street was using to fix a set of walls to a slab????

                            you want the slingshot and all the marbles too?

                            LBJ, Lady Bird, Anne Richards, Barbara Jordan, Sully Sullenberger, Ike, Drew Brees, Molly Ivins --Texas is no Bush league! -7.50,-5.59

                            by BlackSheep1 on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:56:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, KV, that is already being done to one (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kevskos

                            extent or another. We realize you don't like it, but it's being done.

                            And at some point, the court will chime in and start pointing fingers.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:47:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Any right has limits. (5+ / 0-)

                            We have all heard of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.

                            And whatever my religion, I am not allowed to practice human sacrifice.

                            Why, of all our constitutional rights, should only the right to bear arms be absolute and immune to any limits?

                          •  It isn't (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            old possum, kj in missouri, poco

                            They just keep saying that it is, which does not make it true.

                            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                            by twigg on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:23:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not absolute and it currently has limits.nt (8+ / 0-)

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:29:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you would support a ban on high-capacity (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kj in missouri, poco, Kevskos

                            magazines, for instance?

                          •  Nope. nt (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, ancblu, Robobagpiper, rockhound

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 07:52:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If at this point (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kevskos

                            you don't see the total lack of logic behind your intransigence, then I guess you never will.

                            I might as well try to argue with someone insisting that 2 plus 2 equals 5.

                          •  There are certain gun control laws (5+ / 0-)

                            I would support.

                            That is not one of them.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:07:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What would you support then? nt (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Tightening of NICS when it comes to (4+ / 0-)

                            reporting.

                            Shall issue concealed carry law at the federal level.

                            Repeal of Hughes amendment.

                            Laws like Project Exile on a national level.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:15:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  These seem very beside the point. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, Kevskos

                            #3 is a loosening of gun laws.  It is Orwellian to call it "gun control."

                            The first two proposals seem like minor tinkerings with existing laws, which I suppose is fine -- but from your point of view, why are registries so much worse than background checks?

                            Project Exile seems like a nice idea, if it works, I don't know that it does.  How would such a policy -- or ANY of the proposals you suggest here -- help to prevent massacres like Newtown, etc?  

                          •  absolutely. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kevskos

                            Shall carry is also a loosening.

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:51:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I mean shall issue. Sorry. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kevskos

                            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

                            by cany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 08:51:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can't prevent massacres. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            Mass shootings, in a nation of this many millions of people, are going to occur.

                            Period.

                            Gun bans won't remove the guns (hence the diary) and there will always be some lunatic out there wanting to harm people.

                            Project Exile did work. It worked well.

                            Registration leads to confiscation and that's not something I will support.

                            As to national shall issue: it provides a basic standard for carry throughout the nation. No exceptions. I'd call that gun control.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 06:28:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Bringing callousness to a new level of dumb. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, Kevskos
                            Mass shootings, in a nation of this many millions of people, are going to occur.

                            Period.

                            So that's why there are more mass shootings in China and India than there are here, I suppose?  

                            Are you not aware that we have by far the most shooting deaths of any industrialized country -- as well as the most guns?  To find a mass shooting in the UK, you have to go back to the Dunblane massacre in 1996.  We've had half a dozen just this year.

                            Why shouldn't we want to REDUCE mass shootings?  Or if just one of them occurs, does that mean it's not worth saving anyone?
                            One could just as easily say, "Heart attacks, in a country of this many millions of people, are going to occur," so we shouldn't have hopsitals, doctors, or Aspirin.
                            Or "Deaths by tornado, in a country of this many millions of people, are going to occur," so we shouldn't have a national weather service or storm shelters.
                            Or that "Robberies, in a country of this many millions of people, are going to occur," so we should have no police or security cameras.

                          •  Not the same thing. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, FrankRose

                            Heart attacks, fairly common. Robberies, not as common as they once were, but still more common than mass shootings. Mass shootings are extremely rare. Robo has better numbers than I do on this. Hold on a sec and let me see if he can give you the answer you're looking for.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:12:22 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So at what point is it a problem? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, Kevskos
                            As of today, there have been 70 mass shootings in the United States between 1982 and 2012, leaving 543 people dead (assuming the reports of 27 fatalities from today's shootings are correct.) Seven of those 70 shootings occurred this year. Sixty-eight of those 543 victims were killed this year.
                            For comparison, the total numberof tornado deathss in 2009 and 2010 were 21 and 45, respectively.  Outside of the exceptionally deadly year of 2011, there are generally fewer than 50 tornado deaths a year.

                            So tornado deaths are so rare, we might as well not even prepare for them right?  Why waste government money launching weather satellites, right?  I mean, it's wasteful even having NOAA collecting and publishing these data, isn't it?  Obviously, it's not effective anyway!  And the tornadoes are never going to comply!

                            Or really, the question is this:  how many people have to die before you think that mass killings are a problem?  Or does it have to be someone in your own family before you give a crap?

                          •  Weather satellites...other uses than tornados? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound, FrankRose

                            Whereas an AWB is targeted at just firearm related violence. And poorly at that.

                            Mass killings are a problem. They just aren't one we're going to solve with gun control.

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:36:03 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You've switched your justification again. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, Kevskos

                            So now we've heard that gun control:

                            1.  Violates your rights (except it doesn't, because the 2nd-amendment right is not absolute)

                            2.  Addresses a non-problem (but now you just admitted it is a problem)

                            And now we're back to:
                            3.  It's not effective (but that was addressed earlier in the comparison to speeding).

                            All of these counter-arguments you put forth keep failing, so you keep dodging by cycling around between them.  And notice how none of these three are logically related -- and in fact #2 and #3 are even contradictory (it's not effective enough at solving a non-existent problem?).  

                            At some point, you have to make up your mind what your actual objection is.

                            If, at root, you believe the gun control we've attempted before was ineffective, then you should be the FIRST ONE trying to find ways to make more effective gun control.  Yet you're not.  In fact you're worse than indifferent.

                            But I know that if I really take the time to demolish your "ineffective" argument, then you'll just hop over to another, unrelated one.

                            Because this isn't ultimately about keeping people safe, or rights, or anything rational like that.  It's about your attitude towards guns -- you want them, and lots of them, and who cares what happens to everyone else.

                          •  I don't believe I've ever said mass killings (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            rockhound

                            aren't a problem. I said they're extremely rare, which actually ties in to why it an AWB wouldn't work.

                            The second amendment isn't absolute. I completely agree. Considering it's original intent, an AWB does violate the second and until it's repealed or amended (you know, the correct way to change the Constitution). Hell, I know the Hughes amendment does and the NFA of 34 does as well (though I'd be happy just repealing the Hughes amendment).

                            Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                            by KVoimakas on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:59:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So now we're back to #1 and #2. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kj in missouri, poco, Kevskos

                            You're continuing to dodge around.

                            they're extremely rare
                            That's so relative it's not even worth debating.  I think 543 dead Americans (more than three Oklahoma City's) are a very bad thing.  I guess you don't agree.
                            an AWB does violate the second
                            How so? -- if we and the Supreme Court have already agreed that this right is not absolute?  What case would you present to the Court that any regulation of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, etc., is unconstitutional?  And how convinced would they be?
                          •  You keep putting words in his mouth. (0+ / 0-)

                            Good luck with that crap tactic.

                            Or not....

                        •  Stunning comment really. n/t (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          kj in missouri, Debby, rockhound

                          You eat a lot of acid, Miller, back in the hippie days?

                          by oldpunk on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 06:47:44 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas, rockhound, ErikO

                          gun crimes.

                          Only about 0.8% of homicides involve a bullet in calibers used in a military rifle - (7.62x39, .223, .308, etc.), and not all of those will have been from "assault weapons", as many of those calibers are fairly popular in rifles outside that category.

                          Apparently only 4% of mass shootings involve assault weapons.

                          Source.

                          The fact is, criminals don't seem to find assault weapons useful at all. Well, except in TV and movies.

                          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                          by Robobagpiper on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 07:28:35 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

          •  That's funny. I have a friend who was ticketed (6+ / 0-)

            for three miles per hour over the 55 limit on a state highway.

            Maybe she should call you to be her attorney cuz, gee, apparently only violating the speed limit by 5-10 miles/hour isn't violating the law.

            202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

            by cany on Sun Dec 30, 2012 at 03:49:15 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site