Skip to main content

View Diary: You NEED to watch this clip of Jon Stewart talk about gun control (406 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ah, so basically (5+ / 0-)

    You just don't want rights infringed if you, personally, utilize them.

    47% of US household have a gun.
    But where could marginalizing & insulting 47% of Americans go wrong, amirite?

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:05:30 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Wow, your logic is.....something. (18+ / 0-)

      You must get tired from leaping to so many conclusions.  

      Exactly how is my saying that things don't have to be "all or nothing" insulting to all gun owners?  lol.  

      Plenty of gun owners support a ban on some weapons and/or high capacity magazines.  Including my husband and myself.  

      http://www.ljpimages.smugmug.com

      by abbysomething on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:25:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Plenty of gun owners support a ban" (3+ / 0-)

        And plenty of gun owners and non-gun owners support liberty.

        Next election we will find out whose viewpoint has more.

        I will not vote for anyone that supports taking any liberty away from innocent Americans.
        I am not alone.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 08:56:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No no is taking away your "liberty". (24+ / 0-)

          You also have a right to consume alcohol. But we limit the age of onset, amount, location and behavior that is legally acceptable for its use. Now if you would care to join the military and put your hobby to use in a perfectly legal manner, feel free.

          I can think of no other "hobby" in which the participant have fought to put legislation in place to prevent even the study of the behavior to determine if it is detrimental to society. The behavior of the gun lobby puts the tobacco and alcohol industry to shame. At least we can legally determine the detrimental effects of EtOh and tobacco on individual users and society.

          It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

          by smartdemmg on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:05:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm afraid you are going to have to take it up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fuzzyguy

            with the American Heritage Dictionary
            "Liberty NOUN:
               1) The condition of being free from restriction or control.
               2) Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
               3) A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. "

            "join the military"
            As interesting as your 'Starship Troopers' idea of 'Rights' is, I think I will stick with the actual definition of Rights:
            "1) plural of right, which is the collection of entitlements which a person may have and which are protected by the government and the courts or under an agreement (contract)."

            "hobby"
            It's not a 'hobby'. It is a right.
            There is another right Americans still have.
            It's called 'voting'.
            You may want to keep that in mind.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:17:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Non-gun owners also have rights. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blueness, poco

              We have the right to the pursuit of life and liberty as well, emphasis on life. There is no right that exists in this country that does not come with legal limits and restrictions. Why gun owners believe themselves to be exempt from the rules that apply to every other right embodied by the Bill of Rights and common sense, I have no idea. You do not an absolute right to freedom of speech but you believe that gun acquisition and ownership should be unrestricted?

              How about my right (and my family) to live a long and prosperous life without risk of being killed by your rights?

              As for the right to vote, many non-gun owners will be exercising our right to do exactly that in 2014. Some of you gun advocates may want to keep that in mind.

              It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

              by smartdemmg on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:28:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  There is no right to freedom from risk. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, fuzzyguy

                Seriously?

                My rights end at the tip of your nose. If I harm you, I'll be punished, which is how it should be (unless you're a criminal and I defend myself).

                As for the right to vote, many non-gun owners will be exercising our right to do exactly that in 2014. Some of you gun advocates may want to keep that in mind.
                And many gun owners will be going out to vote as well. Which is why I keep proposing that the Democratic party doesn't support an AWB, confiscation, registration or any high capacity ban.

                It won't pass Congress. It'll cost us votes.

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

                by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:55:43 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  "Non-gun owners also have tights"--True. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                fuzzyguy

                "We have the right to life"-- No one denies this. Nor is this contrary to the right to keep and bear arms.
                "no right that exists without restrictions" Neither does the Right to keep & bear arms. (Can't own full auto, FFL etc)
                "Right to live without risk" There is no 'right against risk'.

                "Non-gun owners will be exercising our right to vote"
                And many of them don't believe in infringing on Constitutional rights.
                But please, enlighten me....where are the dems going to gain votes from? Especially in the swing states like Virginia, Ohio, Penn, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Wisconsin?
                Gun Control will cost the Dems votes. Where will they make them up?
                Are GOPers going to abstain to support gun control? Are independents clamoring to get on the 'fuck our liberties bandwagon'?
                Suprisingly, taking liberties from innocent people doesn't cause them to vote for the people that took them.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:25:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Your comment assumes all gun owners (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  poco

                  are against gun control. Many gun owners (including my own family members in PA who grew up hunting) are in favor of gun restrictions. Most of my family served in the military (dad in Viet Nam) and did not feel the need to keep guns in our home.

                  As former Gov. Ed Rendell has pointed out on numerous occaissions, the NRA ran against him in PA and he won all three times by ever increasing margins. This notion that you either support unlimited access to guns or lose your job as a politician is over rated in my opinion. But I tell you what, those of us who want restrictions are starting to get that we have to be as  single-minded as the gun lobbyists and I will gladly fight this fight tooth and nail. I will put my money where my mouth is and have donated to the new lobbying organization created by Gabby Giffords and her husband.

                  See you in 2014.

                  It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

                  by smartdemmg on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:47:58 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No that isn't what my comment assumes. (0+ / 0-)

                    My comment assumes that Gun Control will cost more voters than it will gain.
                    Limiting the rights of innocent Americans will cost the dems voters.
                    Where will the dems make up these loses? Who will jump over to the Dem side in support of gun control? What possible demographic does this gain?

                    "Those of us who want restrictions have to be as single-minded as the gun lobbyists"
                    They always have been. Then the consequences of their masterpiece, the AWB resulted in--by Bill Clinton's estimate--the loss of 20 House seats & the Republican Revolution of 1994. Somehow infringing on the rights of innocent Americans didn't go over with....ya know....innocent Americans.

                    "See you in 2014"
                    I will likely abstain. But don't worry, there will be plenty of other innocent Americans there.
                    Be sure to remind them how much you distrust them, and how much you loathe their liberties.

                    After the election, I will try to remember to ask you if you thought it was worth it.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:11:50 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Are you this single-minded that you can't get past (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poco

                      your own presumptions?

                      Limiting the rights of innocent Americans will cost the dems voters. Where will the dems make up these loses? Who will jump over to the Dem side in support of gun control? What possible demographic does this gain?
                      Hmm...let me see. In 2008, moderate republicans and independents voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama and the GOP has shifted so far to the right that they have almost left the planet but please continue to try to convince yourself that your opinion is representative of the American populace. Although, you may want to take a look at recent polling and see where the public really falls on gun control. Last I checked, the likes of Joe Scarborough and Gen. McCrystal were calling for gun control. I'm guessing if these two are willing to speak publicly on this issue, there are plenty of moderate to conservative gun owners and non-gun owners who will gladly support candidates who feel the same.

                      By the way if this were actually true

                      Limiting the rights of innocent Americans will cost the dems voters.
                      They would have lost those voters long ago when pushing for issues like smoking bans and clean air regulations. Sorry but threats from gun advocates and lobbyists don't hold nearly the weight the once did. We are willing to call your bluff because the person who doesn't respect my right to live in a society with fewer guns will run the risk of losing my vote in exchange for yours.

                      And please stop with this nonsense about innocent Americans having their rights taken away. It sounds like wing nut talk. Gun control advocates are innocent Americans as well and we'd like our rights respected.

                      It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

                      by smartdemmg on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:45:11 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  In 2008 the Dems weren't pushing for gun control (0+ / 0-)

                        You have to go back to 1994 for the last time the Dems tried gun control...and it was largely responsible for the Republican Revolution.

                        "take a look at recent polling"
                        Polling shows that in 1994 the public supported gun control far more than today.
                        In 1994 polls showed support for gun control at 70% vs 24%.
                        By 2011, as a result of a long-term trend supporting 2nd Amendment rights, the public was split 44% to 43%.
                        Even now, with the one of the worst school shootings in US history, the split is less than it was in 1994 by over 20 points (58%-34%).

                        "Last I checked, the likes of Joe Scarborough"
                        Thus the famous saying "as Joe Scarborough goes, so goes the nation".

                        "Gun control advocates are innocent Americans as well and we'd like our rights respected."
                        They are. No one is pushing to take the rights you utilize.
                        Don't be the aggressor & then try to play the victim. You are, knowingly, insisting on infringing on the rights of innocent Americans for your perceived security.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:32:58 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm going to wrap this up. (0+ / 0-)

                          You are being intentionally obtuse.
                          1. More people support gun control than don't. Period. To suggest that what 34% of America wants outweighs the other 58% is to operate like the Tea Party where the rights of the fringe outweigh everyone else and they threaten to destroy the American economy if they don't get their way. Sound familiar.

                          2. Utter nonsense about Scarborough and you know it. You cannot possibly be this dense that you miss the obvious point that the nation does not follow Scarborough. He is an extremist on most issues in my opinion but has made a clarion call for gun control following the murder of elementary school children in CT.

                          3. I have zero interest in victim roles. I reflected back to you your utterances about "innocent Americans" and this appears to bother you. This legislation offers no more infringement on gun owners than rules restricting alcohol consumption or tobacco consumption infringes on people who smoke or drink. No one has taken away our freedom to smoke or drink but there are legal limitations on both.

                          It's the Central Limit Theorem, Stupid!

                          by smartdemmg on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:34:20 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

        •  Geezuz H. Christ (24+ / 0-)

          Liberty?  Give me a fucking break.  

          I will happily give up one of my toys to save the lives of children.  Your fucking guns are not a necessity of life, in case you can't seem to remember priorities.  They are a toy, a dangerous one.

          And don't you worry - nobody wants all your toys, just a couple.  But like any other selfish child, you want them all.

          Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

          by Miss Blue on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:47:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Frank (8+ / 0-)

          I think you may have mistaken DailyKos for an NRA support blog. It's not.

          -5.38, -2.97
          The NRA doesn't represent the interests of gun owners. So why are you still a member?

          by ChuckInReno on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:07:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Oh so you're threatening (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vote4Obamain2012, TheHalfrican

          to vote for republicans on a site that is dedicated to electing democrats. Thank you for being so up front about it. It is definitely refreshing to hear it, on this site, from a gun possessor.

          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 Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:47:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never said I would vote for republicans. (0+ / 0-)

            I said I would not vote for anyone whom supports infringing on any American right.

            Nor is it 'threatening'.
            It is inevitable.
            Your insistence on infringing on the rights of innocent Americans will have consequences. What do you think they will be?
            What do you think this will do in the swing states of Ohio, Penn, Florida, NM, NC, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado?
            I guarantee the Democratic party is going to lose voters because of this idiocy. Where do you think they will make them up at? Do you think GOPers will abstain from voting in support of infringing on American rights? Do you think Independents are going to want to get on the 'Fuck our liberty bandwagon'?

            With this in mind, I wonder if you will have found the consequences of infringing on American rights worth it after the election.
            I will try to remember to ask.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 09:52:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  yeah, fuck that noise. Seriously. If guns (0+ / 0-)

            are that important to you that would even consider supporting THE REPTILIAN FASCIST party in any election.....Dkos ain't for you.

            "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

            by TheHalfrican on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:09:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If electing democrats is important to you (0+ / 0-)

              then you shouldn't even consider gun control.
              This idiocy is going cause far worse damage for the Democrats than any REPTILAN FASCIST could manage.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:22:48 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  You own guns? Uh-oh. n/t (0+ / 0-)

        "See? I'm not a racist! I have a black friend!"

        by TheHalfrican on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:04:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You do NOT have a right to an assault weapon, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cspivey, abbysomething, blueness

      in fact a rational reading of the second amendment is that you only have a right to a weapon as part of an organized militia, and for most of the 200+ years of America's existence that was the common sense understanding of the second amendment. And no - I don't give a fig what the Supreme Court has ruled - I'm talking the kind of common sense most Americans are capable of mustering.

      If - on the other hand - you pretend that this is a right to bear "arms", then nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are all "arms". Where exactly do you draw the line, and on what basis?

      Final point - the moment you step off your personal property, your rights are circumscribed by everyone else's rights - it's what living in a society is all about. It's why we have come to accept that people don't have the right to blow carcinogenic smoke in someone's face, or dump mercury in a local river. And noone should have to worry if another parent at their daycare having a "bad monday" and packing a "legal" concealed weapon.

      •  "rational reading" (0+ / 0-)

        Well, then lets read it together:
        "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."

        You will notice that 'well-regulated' refers to a 'militia'.
        You will notice that 'shall not be infringed' refers to 'the right to keep and bear arms'
        You will also notice that being a member of a militia is not a prerequisite to have the Right to keep and bear arms.

        "assault weapon"
        Define 'assault weapon'.

        "arms"
        I understand the point you are trying to make here, however the distinction has been understood for the past 2 centuries.
        Nukes, chemical & biological are all 'ordinance'.
        'Arms' is small enough to be carried by a single soldier & has a degree of precision (i.e. not a general explosion like a grenade).

        "common sense"
        Let me pose a question to your common sense--The last time the dems tried gun control, the public was far more in favor of gun control.
        Bill Clinton said the AWB cost the Dems 20 seats during the election of 1994--also called the 'Republican Revolution'.
        Fast forward to today.
        47% of all US households have a gun. 40% of Democratic-leaning households have a gun.
        What do you think the electoral effects of infringing on the rights of innocent Americans will be at the ballot box? Especially in the swing states of Ohio, Penn, Florida, Iowa, Virginia, NC, Nevada, Wisconsin, Colorado?
        I guarantee you this idiocy will lose voters. Where will the Dems make them up at? Do you think GOPers will abstain from voting in order to support gun control? Do you think Independents are clamoring to get on the 'Fuck our liberties bandwagon'? Do you think that taking liberties is going to fire up the base? Especially the 40% that have a firearm?

        I hope you really believe in this pointless idiocy.
        Because it is going to cost the Democratic party dearly.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:47:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is untrue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness
      47% of US household have a gun.
      The current figure, according to the General Social Survey, is 32%:
      Nevertheless, these statistics obscure a trend that has gone largely unnoticed: fewer and fewer Americans own guns. Data from the General Social Survey show that rates of gun ownership have been decreasing steadily for three decades. In 1977, 54 percent of American adults lived in a household that contained a gun. By 2010, that figure had declined a full 22 percentage points to 32 percent.
      The Declining Role of Guns in American Society

      I am a warrior for peace. And not a gentle man... Steve Mason, 1940-2005

      by Wayward Wind on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:28:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site