Skip to main content

View Diary: This guy right here ... (753 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The crazy people (60+ / 0-)

    are coming out of the woodwork.  First Alex Jones, now this wacko.  They apparently don't realize their arguments are proving the case for gun control, do they?  So they're not just crazy;  they're stupid, too.

    -5.13,-5.64; If you gave [Jerry Falwell] an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox. -- Christopher Hitchens

    by gizmo59 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:48:05 PM PST

    •  What I've learned is that there are two groups (57+ / 0-)

      of gun owners:

      1.  Those who like to hunt and feel they need to protect their homes.  I have no problem with these people.

      2.  The other group is the Timothy McVeigh UN black helicoptors group and these are the one who feel threatened by an assault weapon ban.  In fact they feel threatened by everything and are too dangerous to be a part of our society.

      We need to divide these groups.

      •  I feel threatened by an AWB. (6+ / 0-)

        Because if semiautomatic rifles can be banned, so can semiautomatic pistols. I do not own the former, but I rely upon the latter for protection.

        •  Are you a law enforcement officer or military (9+ / 0-)

          person or security person?

          If not, I doubt that a pistol is any more effective for you than the well-known sound of a pump action shotgun having a round chambered when it comes to "personal protection."

          •  I'm a former Marine. (7+ / 0-)

            Just left active duty in 2011. I have carried concealed overseas on one deployment that required plainclothes, and have fired thousands of rounds over the course of hundreds of hours of training.

            You never know until you've actually been shot at, but I'm better prepared than most.

            •  Your status as a former marine is irrelevant. (18+ / 0-)

              Unless you're currently involved in military, police, or security actions where you need the range, reload, and targeting capabilities of semiautomatic weapons to actually carry out your job duties it is extremely unlikely that having a semiautomatic weapon--including a pistol--is going to be of any use to you that a non-automatic weapon wouldn't work for.

              I have a pump-action shotgun for personal defense (not that I need it now that I no longer live in, shall we say, unsavory, parts of town--and I probably will sell it soon). I've always considered it far more useful than a pistol if push came to shove, because the sound of that pump action more likely will scare off would-be assailants and prevent gun violence from breaking out in the first place.

              And if gun violence were to break out I doubt I would react the way I'd think (or hope). And I doubt you would, either, former marine status or not, so you aren't really "more prepared than most" necessarily--or at least I won't take your word for it.

              •  If semiautomatics are good enough for police, (7+ / 0-)

                then they are good enough for me. I have proven myself capable and responsible in the use of my firearms. You don't need to worry about what weapon I choose to protect myself with.

                •  Bullshit, No They Are Not (26+ / 0-)

                  Police need them to fight the criminals who have them. You don't need them.

                  If you were a marine, you should have no problem taking down a scumbag with six shots.

                  You ain't fighting zombie hordes, you have no need for a semi with a 20 round clip.

                  None.

                  This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                  by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:44:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Why should I willingly hamper myself (5+ / 0-)

                    by not carrying the most effective weapon available?

                    •  Because My Kids Lives Are Not Worth You Having (35+ / 0-)

                      a very dangerous, mass killing security blanket that you can use to slaughter my kids at your whim. For all I know, you're the next one to snap. Why SHOULD you be allowed to have it when a pistol is fine for your needs.

                      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                      by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:55:17 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Because a [revolver] isn't fine for my needs. (4+ / 0-)

                        I have explained why in great detail. A semiautomatic is superior in many ways.

                      •  Not for you to decide what a law-abiding citizen's (5+ / 0-)

                        ...needs are. That is beyond arrogant presumption.

                        •  Society Decides, And We Will (15+ / 0-)

                          Society decided I don't need a race car that goes 300 MPH.  Even if I think I need one.

                          So if I decide I need Anthrax for my protection, that's ok with you?

                          Currently, 2A is interpreted to give us the right to individually own a firearm. It doesn't specify what type. Society will draw the line and WE will decide for you, because obviously YOU are not responsible enough to make that decison if you are buying semi automatic weapons with 30 round magazines that you think make you safer.

                          You don't need that. Too fucking bad for you. You're right to own that type of weapons ENDS when it endangers the life of me and my family.

                          This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                          by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:27:03 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Tyranny of the majority? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happy camper, FrankRose, Sarenth

                            That's why we have a Constitution.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:32:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, Common Sense Regulation Of Dangerous Weapons (11+ / 0-)

                            No one is taking all the guns. We're restricting what types you can have.

                            Deal with it.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:34:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I love common sense. (0+ / 0-)

                            I haven't seen much besides Gillibrands diary from the other day (spelling of name?)

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:05:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Rule of Law (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PsychoSavannah, Beetwasher, wonmug

                            That is what democracies do. Society, by way of discussion and debate, determines for us the limits of individual action.

                            Majority Rule WITH Minority Consent. The majority feels that assault weapons are government prerogative. The minority feels that the Second Amendment protects their right to have home defense and hunting rifles. Excellent. The majority rules and the minority consents.

                            This is the way this will go. Best wrap your mind around it now.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:32:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I do not consent, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annieli

                            because the magazines my pistol, which I keep for defense, is designed to accept hold 20 rounds. "The majority" thinks I should not have these. What then?

                          •  Rule of Law. (5+ / 0-)

                            Majority rules, minority consents. That is called democracy.
                            The majority is also smart enough to know that the majority can be enlarged with reasonable policies, which many of the minority have already consented to. One of these reasonable policies is a 6-10 round magazine limit. There is no doubt that most hunters and sportsmen will consent to that, and that peels away a significant part of your minority into the majority. You are left with a minority position within a minority position. Sorry.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:35:13 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you would favor confiscation, then, if (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            "the majority" so decided?

                          •  Confiscation is not reasonable (6+ / 0-)

                            and no majority can be had, or envisioned, to enact such a policy. It would imply an intrusion into the homes and lives of people which would in fact violate other Amendments to a significant degree.

                            However, should some people with extended magazines or semi-automatic battlefield weapons violently resist turning in their illegal equipment, it is possible that warrants would be issued to search for them. Constitutional protections would apply. Absent an open threat of violence, the weapons possessed in the home might be kept, either legally or illegally, it matters not, because over time, they will decrease in number, which is the intent of the law. If a person chooses to keep an illegal munition, purchased before the new law goes into effect,  no one will be the wiser if there is no open threat to the government, neighbors or relatives. The vast majority of law-abiding people would conform to the law, as always, knowing that they would keep their handguns, shotguns and hunting rifles. I would support this.

                            There is no majority which would favor forcible confiscation of weapons used for self-defense or hunting. There is a majority which favors the declaration that semi-automatic weapons for battlefield use belong in the hands of a well-regulated authority, and should be surrendered to avoid them being stolen or used by relatives of law-abiding gun owners with nefarious intent.  

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:20:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then You Decide If You Want To Be An Outlaw (0+ / 0-)

                            Good luck with that!

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:45:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  For one, no one has determined that we have a (0+ / 0-)

                            situation in which there is a minority of gun owners in this country.

                             As a matter of fact, but current data it is an almost 50/50 split with 40% of gun owners answering that they are Democrats.  These are gun owners who answered that they were indeed a gun owners.  We can guess the number is much higher.

                          •  The point? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splintersawry

                            The raw numbers are fairly immaterial. If there is a 50-50 split between gun owning and non-gun onwing citizens, fine. I doubt it. Most statistics show about 80 percent non-gun owning and 20 percent owning. Whatever. I accept your 50-50 split. Or 40-60. Or 30-70.

                            The point is that a majority of Americans, both gun owning and non-gun owning, say that battlefield weapons do not belong in the hands of unregulated citizens or citizen-militias or whatever you want to call them, while a majority say people should be able to keep handguns for self defense and shotguns and rifles for hunting.

                            I frankly do not see what the contention is about. Are these "citizen" militia people willing to self-immolate over a Constitutional provision to regulate military weapons that did not even exist until 1940? Or 1980? Are they that in love with their arms that they are willing to go to jail or begin a Civil War for them?

                            If so, the majority of Americans are now willing to accomodate them, while striving to the last breath to get them to change their minds to support reasonable policies under the Constitution. Even their own patron Saint Anton Scalia says its Constitutional to do so.

                            You are so far out on a limb that your support is a minority of a minority, and any thoughts your side have about forcefully resisting are insane rantings.  Best get your mind around that and come to the light side.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:18:33 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am ok with the assault weapons ban as during the (0+ / 0-)

                            Clinton years. Not thrilled about it but ok with it.  I am ok with enforcement of existing laws so I am Ok with background checks.  Ok with mentally ill and felons barred from legally owning a weapon.  

                             Not ok with :

                            a national registry

                             bullet auditors

                             yearly weapons inspections

                             making fines and fees, ammo and insurance so expensive that only the rich can have their 2A right

                            semi automatics bans

                            making it illegal to own, possess or buy a very limited amount of ammo

                            limiting how many legal guns I can own

                            complete weapons ban and buy back

                            Etc etc etc....or any number of other ideas that have been floating around here for days.

                            See, none of us have any idea what is going to be really proposed yet, and yet all of the ideas listed above have been floating around here for days...so way more than likely the same type of ideas are also floating around the heads of Congressmen.  

                            So until they make known what it is they intend to do, people who value our rights under the 2A are a little apprehensive waiting on that decision.   Again, it is the second part of the Bill of Rights.  It is a very valued right to many, many, many people...left, right, men and women, and people of all races and cultures.

                          •  You have bought the error of the NRA (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Yoshimi

                            that the first part of the Second Amendment does not exist. You are wrong, the NRA is wrong, Anton Scalia is wrong, and we are about ready to fix it. You should join us.

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:54:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No to which part.. (0+ / 0-)

                            No to "Half of the Second Amendment does not exist," or no to joining the cause defending the entire Second Amendment?

                            Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                            by OregonOak on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:15:38 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, when it doesn't happen, what will you do? (0+ / 0-)

                            Seriously though, an AWB won't pass Congress.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:06:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  /snort (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness, vcmvo2, Bisbonian, Beetwasher

                            KVoimakas is now Rosa Parks via Ted Nugent.

                            http://www.dailykos.com/...

                            It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

                            by poco on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:51:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  no, it isn't (0+ / 0-)

                            we have a constitution because the previous system didn't work at all.

                            for one, it was difficult to put down rebellions.

                            An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                            by mightymouse on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:38:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You can own a car capable of 300mph (3+ / 0-)

                            You can't drive it on public roads at 300 mph, and you have to have it pass inspection, you have to be licensed, etc.  As a gun owner, I'm fine with good regulations to prevent accidental deaths and crimes with guns, by the way.  Americans have a right to be armed, but with responsibilities to ensure the safety of ourselves and others too.

                          •  He is not endangering your life or your children. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            That is your own irrational fears.

                          •  Tell It To Sandy Hook (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            newpioneer, The Nose

                            For all I know he's the next Fucker to snap, and he's got easy access to weapons of mass slaughter. Too easy.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:02:38 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and you believe the new laws will stop those who (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            really be the next mass murderers from possessing a gun?  You think they are going to line up to turn them in?  Do you think they won't be able to buy them right off the street just like they do now?

                            Remember Columbine happened during the last assault weapons ban.  Those killers bought their illegally.

                          •  Yes, If It Saves One Lice Its Worth It (0+ / 0-)

                            If it keeps one gun from one lunatic its worth it.  Only a selfish person wouldn't even want to try.

                            Status quo is just oke dokey with you, huh?

                            Wonder why that would be.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:19:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Enforce existing laws. Make them stronger if you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            must but only after proper discussion and debate and IF the will of the majority is to make the stronger THEN make them stronger....with all proper procedures followed through Congress.

                            This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution....it is a right of the people and thus should have every bit of public debate as possible.  

                          •  Isnt That Whats Happening, Debate? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Nose, splintersawry

                            Are you not making your voice heard?  Did someone muzzle you?  WTF are you talking about?  Is someone censoring you or something?

                            Since no one is saying ban all guns its not 2a, its common sense regulation.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:35:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Uhhh there are a lot of people making reference to (3+ / 0-)

                            gun bans...from "assault weapons" bans to semi automatic weapons bans to complete firearm bans.

                            Every other diary on guns for days.... eventually, if not from the very start, leads right down the path to talking about wanting a complete ban and buy back program.

                            I have seen no public debate yet on this....other than people calling anyone who wants to keep their gun "a gun nut" or "gun worshiper" who you are scared to have your children around.   By the way, I'm a teacher....scary, huh?

                              All I have seen thus far, is heads of power speaking to each other behind closed doors and apparently will make a decision on something as important as this in less time than it usually takes them to go on vacation.  It is even being talked about that executive decisions will be made.  

                          •  Wake Me When Its being Considered in Legislation (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Nose, splintersawry

                            And we can talk about yr rights being trampled.

                            Regulation of guns is perfectly constitutional, even according to that RW shitbag Scalia.  Go try to by a fully automatic machine gun.  Banning those fuckers worked.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:58:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You mean the ban from the 1930's that had no (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            where near the 310 million weapons involved, as does now?  Private possession of those weapons, even before the ban was near 2 percent.....not 1 in 2 households such as firearms are today.  

                            Go to sleep now...as it won't be long before I'll have to wake you.

                          •  Did you ever stop to think (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Beetwasher, The Nose, splintersawry

                            that it is the FUTURE that we must be mindful of? 310 today, and how many tomorrow? We can at least try to put some restraints on that. Attempt to control the proliferation. Thus, creating a future that will have fewer than 310 million. No doubt it sounds like an unfathomable task to you, but it is not. It is absolutely doable and do it we must. Bigger tasks have been undertaken and successful.

                            There is nothing more exciting than the truth. - Richard P. Feynman

                            by pastol on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:25:04 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sucks For You, But Regulation Is 100% (0+ / 0-)

                            Consititutional.

                            Now go hug your gun, weirdo.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:14:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Since you have reduced yourself and your (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            discussion to name calling, in a conversation in which I was being respectful and courteous, I will let you have it as I suppose you have nothing more to add of consequence.

                            Regulation is indeed constitutional as long as it doesn't trump rights under the 2A, hence the reason for such regulations that are already law and enforceable.  I have no problem with that enforcement nor a problem strengthening them, should we find need to after serious debate and dialogue and congressional processes and if it's the will of the people.  Again, as long as we always consider, during the same debate and dialogue, that the people have a right that must not be infringed upon, we can work together to try to go after those who would kill and continue to honor the rights of a law abiding gun owner.

                          •  Regulation Is NOT Infringement. Period. (0+ / 0-)

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:00:22 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well let's talk about that for a second. So you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            think regulation is NEVER infringement....ever, period....right?

                            Hmmmmm

                            Well then, what's you opinion about the following:

                            Voter ID laws?

                            Protest Zones and Permits?

                            No Protest Zones?

                            Throwing people out of a state building because they have a sign?

                            Areas that are declared off limits to the press and others with cameras?

                            The TSA body scanning your Grammie before she can fly to see you on Thanksgiving?

                            Capital punishment?

                            Are you ok with those regulations of your rights?

                          •  I can still buy full auto. nt (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Meteor Blades

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:09:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, That Gives Me Comfort (0+ / 0-)

                            Where are all the machine guns? Seems banning them worked out and there's no massive black market or demand for them, huh?

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:15:16 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you have the money and can pass a... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            ...thorough background check, you can buy fully automatic rifles now. The law did not ban them.

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:14:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, They Are VERY Tightly Regulated? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splintersawry

                            Good! Let's do that with all weapons. It's perfectly constitutional.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:16:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

                            Well, why don't we just strip away 4th and 5th amendment protections then?

                            If it saves ONE LIFE, it's worth it.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:08:24 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Strawman Bullshit, Regulation Is NOT Stripping (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splintersawry

                            Rights and you know it. You can still own your precious gun, it will just be better regulated and you may not be able to purchase or own certain types and/or accessories.

                            Better get used to it.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:20:23 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dude (or dudette) (0+ / 0-)

                            let me just say this.

                            Gun control legislation will not pass. Not in the AWB sense or high capacity magazine ban sense anyway.

                            So here's a tip.

                            Better get used to it.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:28:41 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Keep Living In Your Paranoid Bubble (0+ / 0-)

                            And keep believing that, Chester!

                            You'll be as surprised as Romney voters!

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:59:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Whatever you say man. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive

                            Have a nice day.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:05:51 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  But it is the Supreme Court's. And they have (4+ / 0-)

                          decided that a handgun or hunting rifle is enough for you and everything else can be regulated under fedearl law. So you may have a right to carry a gun you do not have a right to carry a semiautomatic gun. Or assualt rifle. Read Helller and McDonald decisions both written for the majority by Scalia.

                      •  His choice of firearms has no bearing on your kids (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        slothlax, theboz, Not A Bot, KVoimakas

                        lives.

                        This is the same bullshit argument the right-wing used to justify torture, Gitmo & Warrantless Wiretaps.

                        Didn't buy it out of the right-wing.
                        Don't buy it from you.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:36:17 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Tell It To Sandy Hook (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Miggles, The Nose

                          I dare you to say that to a parent.

                          Bullfucking shit his choice has no bearing. For all I know he's the next fucker to snap and take out a classroom.  Or maybe its you.

                          This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                          by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:49:05 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Tell it to a 9/11 victim.... (3+ / 0-)

                            At least that is what the right-wing told me about warrantless wiretaps, torture and Gitmo.

                            Trying to exploit a tragedy for political purposes is not only extremely tasteless, but also ineffective, since your focus is on people who have done no wrong.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:24:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dont Change The Subject, Semi Auto weapons (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Miggles

                            Are directly responsible for the MASS deaths at sandy hook.  Deal with it, weirdo, theory gonna be regulated.  But you keep living in yr bubble and denying it.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:28:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not changing the subject. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sarenth, KVoimakas

                            The subject is infringements on Constitutional rights for perceived security.
                            Both you and the right-wing pushed to do this.
                            Both you and the right-wing used a tragedy to justify it.
                            Both you and the right-wing decided that infringing on the liberties of innocent people was a rational response.

                            They did it to the 4th Amendment.
                            You're doing it to the 2nd Amendment.

                            I disagree with both of you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:42:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What Right Is being Infringed, einstein? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Miggles

                            Were talking gun REGULATION not a ban of all weapons.

                            Your precious right to own a gun remains.  Scalia himself signed the USSC decision agreeing gun REGULATION is perfectly acceptable.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:47:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Calling it regulation doesn't change anything. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            People have certain liberties now (buying a semi-auto, magazine size etc), that you want to strip away.

                            If the Supreme Court deemed it acceptable & the right-wing called it 'regulated warrantless wiretaps', then I assume you would find warrantless wiretaps to be 'perfectly acceptable'.

                            For the record, I wouldn't.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:56:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dont Change The Subject, Gun Regulation is (0+ / 0-)

                            Perfectly constitutional.  Even that shitbag Scalia agrees.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:01:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not 'changing the subject' (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            I have used the words 'liberty' and 'rights'. I have used these words appropriately. The fact that infringing on liberties makes you uncomfortable doesn't change the meaning of the word.

                            I don't know if you noticed or not, but warrantless wiretaps isn't 'unconstitutional' either.

                            'Constitutional' or not, we, as Americans lost liberties with warrantless wiretaps.
                            'Constitutional' or not, we, as Americans will lose liberties with the current proposals for gun control.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:10:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We're Talking GUN REGULATION, Stay On Topic (0+ / 0-)

                            Gun regulation is perfectly constitutional. And access to poorly regulated weapons of mass slaughter are directly responsible for the mass deaths at Sandy Hook. Period.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:17:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Gun regulation is perfectly constitutional" (0+ / 0-)

                            So is warrantless wiretaps.
                            But I assume that you supported that as well.
                            After all, it is constitutional and limits liberties for perceived security.

                            I didn't.
                            I support American liberty.
                            The American people will decide which they prefer. Distrusting Americans & loathing American liberties, like you.
                            Or supporting American liberties, like me.

                            I look forward to hearing their answer.
                            After the elections, I look forward to hearing from you whether or not losing Democratic seats for your perceived security was worth it

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:55:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  An assault weapons ban may be possible... (3+ / 0-)

                            ...as may a high-capacity magazine ban. But you will never ban semi-automatic weapons. Most handguns sold today are semi-automatic, and a large percentage of hunting rifles and shotguns are also semi-automatic. It is not the action of the weapon that is the issue.

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:17:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That May Or May Not Be True, Doesn't Mean It (0+ / 0-)

                            Shouldn't be attemtped. If it saves one life it's worth it.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:18:56 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you attempt to ban all semi-automatic.... (3+ / 0-)

                            ...weapons, you will wreck the attempt to enact controls that actually make a difference by turning people who otherwise would have been our allies in ending gun violence into foes.

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 07:58:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Maybe, Maybe Not, At The Very Least There Needs (0+ / 0-)

                            to be MUCH stricter regulation of them. MUCH more stringent.

                            This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                            by Beetwasher on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 08:58:26 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't disagree with that. Restrictions ARE... (0+ / 0-)

                            ...too relaxed by far. The key to all this debate is how do we spur enough citizens to spur enough congresspersons and senators to create and pass legislation that the president will sign that will actually accomplish something to reduce the amount of gun violence in the United States. That is not a total ban on semiautomatic weapons of all kinds. But there are numerous other restrictions and requirements that can pass if people learn to stop talking past each other.

                            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                            by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:43:54 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  exploiting (0+ / 0-)

                            is exactly what Bush did at 9/11 and you know it. Bush ignored the warnings, and had an invasion plan ready to go before 9/11happened, then he used it to take away your rights. but did you say anything then? Did you?

                            "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

                            by azureblue on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:50:59 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. I was/am completely against it. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Sarenth, KVoimakas

                            I was completely against his infringement on the 4th amendment.

                            For the same reason I am against this current push to infringe on the 2nd.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:01:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  What about the criminals that have them? You are (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas

                        so worried about law abiding citizens having guns to protect themselves, and the possibility of one of them "snapping"....people like John the math teacher who happens to be a gun owner, or Jane the postlady who happens to be a gun owner, or the sweet old lady in your Sunday school class who happens to be a gun owner.....and you would disarm them out of your own fears...all the while the real criminals will still be out there with more and bigger weapons and no one will be able to protect themselves....including yourself.

                    •  Because (0+ / 0-)

                      and it is appalling that you ignore this as a soldier : You are responsible for every bullet that leaves the barrel of your weapon. Including the ones that miss your target. My God - you want to use a weapon that will put bullets through walls and car doors, bullets than can travel of a quarter mile, possibly killing innocent people, to defend your self in a spray of lead?

                      "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

                      by azureblue on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:47:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  hate to break it to you (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theboz, Bailey2001

                    but most 6 shot revolvers are semiautomatic.  

                    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

                    by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:52:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There's only one semiautomatic revolver I'm aware (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vote4Obamain2012, mightymouse

                      of and they only produced about 5,000 of them.  

                      That was 100 years ago.

                      Double action isn't semiautomatic.  Saying it is is just as innacurate as calling a semiautomatic carbine a "fully automatic assault rifle"

                      "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                      by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:58:03 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Double action is semiautomatic (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        happy camper, Bailey2001

                        Most pistols, both revolvers and magazine fed, are either double action or double action/single action.  Almost every revolver and magazine fed pistol is semiautomatic. A single action pistol has to be cocked first(think old time cowboy guns), while the double actions don't. The trigger pulls the hammer back(1st action) then comes forward to strike the firing pin(2nd action). Semiautomatic is about trigger pull; One pull, one shot without having to cock it or manually chamber a round.

                        "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

                        by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:16:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Semiautomatic means self loading. A double action (0+ / 0-)

                          revolver is still manually operated, although the operation  is powered by pulling the trigger rather than by operating a bolt or lever.

                          The term does not mean "one shot per trigger pull".  It means that after the first round is fired no human effort is needed to load (and typically, to eject) additional rounds.

                          Webley did in fact make a recoil operated automatic revolver.  

                          That's it, though.

                          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                          by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:31:30 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Automatics are self loading too (0+ / 0-)

                            The difference is the trigger pull.  

                            As for double action vs single action....here's a link.

                            link

                            "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

                            by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:55:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm very familiar with the difference between (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annieli, Sarenth

                            single and double action revolvers.

                            A semi-automatic pistol is a type of handgun which uses a single chamber and barrel, with a mechanism powered by the previous shot to load a fresh cartridge into the chamber. One round is fired each time the trigger of a semi-automatic pistol is pulled.
                            A revolver, which uses multiple chambers and a single barrel, and a derringer, which uses multiple chambers and multiple barrels, also fire one round for trigger pull, but achieve this in different ways and as such are not classified as being semi-automatic.
                            http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                            If it's not self-loading, it's not a semiautomatic.

                            This is very, very basic stuff.  

                            The fact that one round is fired with each trigger pull is not the sole qualification that makes a pistol a semiautomatic.  By definition, the loading operation (after the first shot) must be powered by the energy of the previous shot.

                            I understand you'd like to redefine the word, but it has a generally agreed meaning in the English language.

                            "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

                            by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:16:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Semiautomatic is about cartridge loading. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          JesseCW, mightymouse

                          If the next cartridge after a shot is released is pushed into the chamber by some means other than hand action. such as a gas-charged piston, the effect is multiples of times more efficient than any manual mechanism such as in a double action pistol. It is true that many experienced people using a double action pistol can get off a shot a second, but after a dozen shots, the best can get fatigue. With a semiautomatic gas charged, the firing can go on forever as long as the guy can pull the trigger. His or her hand strength contributes nothing to the mechanism which puts the next round into the chamber.

                          It is well within legal definition of semi-automatic to include gas-charged cartridge advances. Double action pistols could be excluded from semi-automatic easily, although I would argue against it.

                          Figures don't lie, but liars do figure-Mark Twain

                          by OregonOak on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:40:43 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Also Cocking The Hammer, Which Is Separate. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annieli, JesseCW

                            A semiautomatic uses recoil or gas to:
                            1) Chamber a fresh round (generally from a separate box magazine).
                            2) Cock the firing pin spring, which is the released using the trigger.

                            A revolver does not "chamber" a round at all, except why you put it in the cylinder with your fingers, and neither single or double actions cock using energy from the bullet.

                            There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

                            by bernardpliers on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:29:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Then out of the goodness of our hearts (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      vcmvo2, Miggles

                      You can still own those.  Happy?

                      Arguments about what is or what is not a semi-automatic are a distraction, and I think you damned well know that.

                      •  It's an important distinction (0+ / 0-)

                        IF you're talking about limiting certain arms, there has to be some kind of line drawn.  

                        "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

                        by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:14:45 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Common tactic. Change the subject from gun control (7+ / 0-)

                        to gun trivia. We liberals suck at gun trivia because we do not spend our time learning about guns and how shiny and cold they feel in our hands. No we are to busy trying to get policies that help people.

                        •  Yet (3+ / 0-)

                          you want to legislate guns?

                          I'm sorry I would have to laugh at you if it wasn't so damned serious.  

                          Your policies will help no one if you are ignorant of guns, how they work, what the classifications are, etc.  You want effective policies, you need to be informed.

                          Uninformed, ineffective policies are poor ones at best, and disasters at worst.  

                          Then you set up a clear divide between liberals saying that "True Liberals" are not gun owners?  You are neither helping your cause nor saving lives.

                          "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

                          by Sarenth on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:01:34 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  This is the very same argument I've been (0+ / 0-)

                            making since this entire topic started up here some weeks ago; unless Progressives and other Democrats start dialogue with gun owners on the same side in a way that is respectful and informed, what policies can be made and what progress can be had?

                            I feel like there is all too much sound and fury. All talk, no action, and a lot of disrespect and basic pissing off those with enough knowledge to make judgements about what will help. To me, many talking are doing so in a way that is thus quite disrespectful to the victims of Sandy Hook and of all gun violence: offering pat, armchair quarterback solutions to problems they don't and can't fully understand.

                            When abortion is discussed, we talk with women.

                            When immigration is discussed, we talk with immigrants.

                            When health care reform is discussed, we talk with patients and health care workers.

                            So why, when gun ownership is discussed, are people who don't own guns and have outright disdain for them doing most of the speaking? And why do they want gun owners to not be included in the conversation?

                            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                            by mahakali overdrive on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:02:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We don't want them not included (0+ / 0-)

                            But have you seen any good, workable solutions offered here by those most likely to be affected by them, the active gun owners?  It seems during these gun policy discussions, there's a group of people who are determined to shut that discussion down using any tactics necessary to do so.

                            Do we need to define what a semi-automatic is for the sake of the actual law? Of course.  But note that those eagerly picking apart suggestions for being too general or too specific don't seem to come up with language that would actually ban AR-15s and large magazines in a way that would stop them being available.

                            Truth is, very few of us here are writing the actual language of the law.  We're hashing out ideas.  By the time the policy is mostly worked out, then the definitions go into the law.

                          •  The resistance may come (0+ / 0-)

                            because the wrong things at their root are being suggested.  Handgun crimes are, by far, the biggest killer in America.  The AR-15 is less of an overall statistical threat to American lives than the average 9mm.  This is precisely the problem that was had with the last time we had this go-around.  

                            We need to address the problem at its roots, and part and parcel of that is the proliferation of guns, to be sure, but also how handguns are a huge part of the problem.  I do not have all the answers, but before we start pressuring for this ban or that, we need to look at what policies actually need fixing and where the most good can be done.

                            "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

                            by Sarenth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:15:57 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh good, then you're in favor of (0+ / 0-)

                            removing all those roadblocks to actual research on what the problems are, yes?

                  •  Unless the scumbag has a friend with him (0+ / 0-)
                •  no sir (16+ / 0-)

                  police and military have access to higher level equipment.

                  why do you exactly need a semi-auto pistol now that you've returned to civilian life?

                  An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                  by mightymouse on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:15:51 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  But we do need to worry about what you will do (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sethtriggs, newpioneer

                  with them. Is not your Marine self defense and close combat skills enough for you or do you have to drop a dangerous target from a distance in order to feel safe?

            •  Thanks for your service nt (6+ / 0-)

              48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam, help the hungry.

              by randallt on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:40:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  protection from ..... (7+ / 0-)

          who or what?  and what environment do you live in...

          do tell.

          way to discourage all tourism to chez vous....

        •  No hate, just a question. (7+ / 0-)

          Why a semi?  Revolvers don't jam.  Does one really need a Glock 18 with extended magazine for self protection?  

          •  Because 20 rounds is much better than 5 or 6. (6+ / 0-)

            I carry a load that has relatively low knockdown power (5.7) compared to a more common carry load like a .45 ACP. The trade off is that it's light, accurate and has very low recoil.

            While I don't doubt that a revolver is reliable, the capacity is an issue when you start to consider things like shot placement (which can be poor when you're startled.)

            •  No, You Don't Need 20 Rounds, If You Can't Do It (11+ / 0-)

              with six you stink with a gun.

              This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

              by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:41:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Or... (7+ / 0-)

                I could just be faced by more than one attacker. Or I could have chosen to fire one or more warning shots. Or I may have simply missed, even twice! Or I could have hit my attacker, but not in any way that disabled him.

                Start talking about a combination of any of the above and six rounds start to look very meager. Understanding that these things may happen isn't an admission that I "stink" with a gun, it's a mature acceptance that I'm not an action hero- that I am prone to missing out of panic, shooting multiple warning shots out of reluctance to kill a man...

                •  Exactly, You're Not An Action Hero, So Stop (21+ / 0-)

                  Pretending you are and that you need 20 round clips to fight off zombie hordes.

                  You don't need 20 round clips. Period. And you don't need a semi automatic weapon. Period.

                  It's your irrational fear talking, not reality. You love the comfort of your semi automatic gun.  It makes you feel secure. But that's not my problem, it's yours and while currently the 2A is interpreted to mean you have an individual right to own a weapon, it doesn't mean it can be a semi automatic one with a 20 round clip.

                  You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than being attacked by a hoard of meth heads that necessitate you having a semi auto with 20 rounds.

                  This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                  by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 01:52:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  20 rounds allows a lot more room for error (4+ / 0-)

                    than 6. I understand that I am human, and prone to error, so I carry a weapon that allows me room for it.

                    And yes, having a large capacity pistol does make me feel more secure, largely because it makes me much more effective in a much wider array of situations in which I might need to defend myself.

                    •  Too Bad for You, Because Society May Deem (14+ / 0-)

                      You don't need that amount of security or that much room for "error".  I also agree, you don't need it.

                      Better be prepared to deal with that outcome.

                      Your SENSE of security is not worth your snapping with your mass killing device and taking out a bunch of people.

                      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: [http://www.myspace.com/beetwasher]

                      by Beetwasher on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:03:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Just what we all need because we never (20+ / 0-)

                      know when little six year olds may cross our paths in a threatening manner.

                      Jeezus - I  can't believe some of the crap I'm reading.    

                    •  And it's OK with you if that "error" you're (12+ / 0-)

                      prone to manifests itself in the death of several innocent bystanders due to the fusillade of lead emanating from your weapon in the Hollywood-like shootout you're imagining?

                      "Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from the rich. If he'd stolen from the poor he'd have a cabinet position." -OPOL

                      by blue in NC on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:52:22 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Some of us would rather not be in range of (10+ / 0-)

                      your errors.

                      When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

                      by Bisbonian on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:28:10 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Where did that error bullet go? (15+ / 0-)

                      I am a veteran as well and have always considered myself a pro second amendment supporter.  However, there is no need for more than six shots in any reality based, self defense, scenerio.  I have been in some very rough areas and never had a gun with me in any of them.  I have had many altrications but have only had one gun, as an adult, pulled on me and if I would have had a gun, either he or I would not be here today to tell about it.  One of us would be dead and the other would probably be in prison.  If he or I would have fired a weapon and missed, there is probably a fifty/fifty chance that someone else, someone innocent, would have been hit.  I am glad I didn't have a weapon and I am glad he didn't shoot.  Most of the time, people who have a gun don't say draw, they come up behind you and shoot you in the back of the head.  Now you are dead and the killer has another weapon.

                      If you need a weapon, in a reality based scenerio, you would never need more than six bullets.  If you need more than six, you probably would have stood a better chance running away than fighting.

                      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:47:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  A longer engagement definitely (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annieli

                        suggests opportunity to disengage and flee, at least in a public, open place. When I'm alone.

                        What if this occurs indoors? Or in my home? What if I have to consider the danger posed to my family, making fleeing unreasonable or unwise? A clean escape is often not going to be possible.

                        If a sustained engagement must occur, I would much rather be armed to properly participate.

                        •  Thing is (6+ / 0-)

                          We make laws for the benefit of society, not to allow you the most leeway to deal with any particular scenario you can imagine.

                          There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                          by slothlax on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:45:36 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  No one has yet shown... (4+ / 0-)

                            how my being armed with a pistol holding 20 rounds conflicts with the benefit of society.

                          •  Well, its not all about you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            wonmug

                            Look, I'm not an absolutist.  I just want measures that will bring down the levels of gun violence and it seems reasonable to me, for many of the reasons you use to justify wanting a 20 round magazine, to not want that kind of capability freely available to criminals and madmen.

                            If someone can show me a that limit on magazines is ineffective in bringing down levels of gun violence, then I'll support other ideas.  And reciting how proficient you, personally, are with weapons is pretty much irrelevant.

                            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                            by slothlax on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:04:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Freely Available." (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Not A Bot, KVoimakas

                            There are ways to control access to an item without banning it outright. And banning it outright will not necessarily control access to it. In fact, it certainly won't.

                            So I would be restricted in a way that affects my day to day life in an appreciable way, so that... what? What evidence do you have that this will bring down gun violence levels?

                          •  The same evidence you have that it won't (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splintersawry

                            In what appreciable way would such a change effect your day to day life?

                            I am not an expert, I don't have studies at my fingertips.  But if people who look into such things believe it will make it more difficult to use guns to kill as many people is possible now, then its an idea worth adopting.

                            And the idea that banning things is not effective is laughable.  How many of the currently banned firearms or munitions are used in gun violence?

                            There is truth on all sides. The question is how much.

                            by slothlax on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:15:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Banning drugs certainly worked out well, eh? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            eom

                          •  Well, Jared Loughner did. (0+ / 0-)

                            When banjos are outlawed, only outlaws will have banjos.

                            by Bisbonian on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:30:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  You are not at war anymore, hon. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Vetwife

                          Go talk to someone.  Get it out of your head that you are still at war.

                          David Koch is Longshanks, and Occupy is the real Braveheart.

                          by PsychoSavannah on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:31:28 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That is completely disrespectful. (0+ / 0-)

                            How dare you?  

                            "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

                            by Sarenth on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 12:09:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Disrespectful or not... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            indie17, madhaus

                            It is very common for people to develop defense mechanisms that are perfectly rational in one setting and irrational in another.  Just because someone is a veteran and we honor their service with gratitude does not mean that we have to completely ignore the fact that military preparations for war and the militant surrounding environment necessitates certain cautions and a level of preparedness not suited for civilian life.  

                            I am not worried that this person will be a danger to society but if this fear of not having enough capacity to fight off an attack goes unchallenged, it could develop in to a danger to himself in more ways than just gun violence.  Perceiving the environment to be more dangerous than it really is can lead to isolationism, social anxieties and other troubling issues.  I spent a lot of time dealing with PTSD and listened to how it wrecked peoples lives (not to mention a big piece of my own).  The diarist was quick to point out that they did not see combat but that does not mean they didn't experience traumatic events.  my friends son committed suicide after he returned because of survivor's guilt.

                            Worrying that you need more than six rounds of ammunition in this country under any but the most drastic occupations is cause for concern.  I am not trying to be condescending but I worry about our troops and the utter lack of support they get when they leave the service.  Often, guys who did not see action disount the need for any treatment or attention because their bravado tells them, "those other guys are the real heroes, they are the ones who really put themselves in harms way.  The are the ones who deserve praise."  And we reinforce that with policies that elevate certain jobs and discount others.  "Oh, you were just in Germany?  Oh, you didn't see any real action?  Oh, you're not a real veteran?"  

                            People do not realize that these things too can be traumatic.  I honor and respect this fellow kossack but condescending or not, I am a little worried about him.

                            "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                            by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:20:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That I can respect (0+ / 0-)

                            insofar as you are both worried about him and glad for his service.  Speculating about peoples' mental health over the Internet, unless they are describing or displaying or somehow 'talking' about deeply erratic behavior (and even then...) is at the least, to me, rude.  At the most I can see it is potentially damaging.

                            Considering some of the places I have lived, having to have the radio up to cover over the gunshots as a kid and having anxiety as a kid about getting sliced up by my neighbors, his thoughts regarding stopping power and what-ifs resonate with me in a certain way.  

                            He also makes several of, what I feel (with my admittedly poor knowledge of guns and lack of gun expertise noted here) valid points.  

                            Regardless, the 'voice' of the poster above came off to me as flip and condescending.

                            "You have to let it all go, Neo. Fear, doubt, and disbelief. Free your mind." -Morpheus, The Matrix

                            by Sarenth on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 01:11:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  I am really happy (10+ / 0-)

                      that you don't live anywhere near me. That paranoid and that armed is something I do not want to be around.

                    •  Or is it something else? Maybe a confidence (0+ / 0-)

                      problem if you know what I mean...

                  •  You're not a dictator. Quit pretending that your (0+ / 0-)

                    opinion is binding.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:40:57 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Or just as likely a magic fairy will give a wish (0+ / 0-)

                  and you will be magically transported to a special planet where you can indulge your Rambo fantasis well away from us. Why don't you gun owners all get together. You can have your own country and do all the shootin and hoolerin ya all wanna do. Yee Haw. And leave the rest of us to live productive peaceful lives. Pick a side of the country and do what ever you damn well want to do. But leave us out. I wish to be free of your 2nd amendment rights. Go blow yourselves up if you like. But leave the kids out of it.

                  •  I do lead... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    a productive and peaceful life. I just choose to carry a weapon for my own protection, because not everyone chooses to be peaceful.

                    Those of us who carry weapons, legally, for protection are not the enemy, and you really need to understand that.

                •  Or a 747 could fly into your home while (0+ / 0-)

                  you were sleeping.  Jeesh !

                  We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

                  by Vetwife on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:50:06 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Good point... (0+ / 0-)

              Beetwasher, for an untrained or semi trained shooter, who hasn't been through hundreds of hours of quick response training, I can see where shot placement of a light load (or really any load) might require more shots if startled.  OTOH, assume there was a revolver that carried ten rounds (does it exist? i dont know) Would that suffice?  Or is the preference because of the recoil absorption of the slide vs. no recoil absorption of a revolver?

            •  Is that because 20 rounds will kill 20 children (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli

              and any less dead childresn isn't acceptable to you.

              •  That's offensive, drmah. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Smoh, Neo Control, theboz

                I've no interest in West Virginia, but the idea of multiple meth heads is scary.

                **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

                by glorificus on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:44:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  glorificus

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

                  by Smoh on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:02:29 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  actually the meth heads.... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mamamedusa, wonmug

                  are scary as drivers (and so are the pill heads).  Walking at night around here can be very risky from cars.

                  Interesting Gallup has a poll about where in the country about wellbeing asked about most depressed and afraid at night as factors in wellness.  The 3rd congressional district in WV and eastern KY 5th districts were the most unhappy with their lives (WV 3rd tied with FL 23rd.)
                  http://www.nytimes.com/...

                  And nationally, 37% of people are afraid to walk at night within a mile of their homes.  http://www.gallup.com/...  More people are afraid to walk at night in WV 3rd than in Washington DC, where the murder rate is a little bit higher.

                  The sad thing is that this is escalation of the fear.  Now I need to be afraid when I walk at night in WV of armed marines who fear that they have poor aim and I might be a meth head.  Plus the bad drivers.

                  In WV there are lots of people with firearms and other weapons for self defense.  This fear issue is variable from state to state, region to region.  It would be interesting to overlay the fear map with the gun owner map.  I admit, I am more fearfuul here than I was when I lived in Madison Wisconsin.  But as a scentist, I look at statistical likelihood of a weapon helping me and the data doesn't support that.  I don't know much about Neo Control's family and neighbors- the folks most likely to murder him.  I can't judge if the weapon is required for his self defense in that respect, but strangers are not holding people up on dark rural roads here  according to news reports.  Pedestrian accidents- that is very common

                  You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

                  by murrayewv on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:19:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You and every other gun owner must live with the (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2, Miss Blue, Miggles

                  deaths of those 20 kids and your failure to honor them by making sure it never happens again. The whole gun culture in this country is immature and irrational and living in a dream world. A world where it is OK to fight an illegal war against a weak opponent with overwhelming firepower and cheer the military might of this aggressor nation and then think that they could overthrow the government with their personnel firearm stockpile.

                  •  If we disagree with you (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    theboz, annieli, Sarenth, KVoimakas

                    that your proposed solutions wil actually work, then choosing not to implement them is "failing to honor them by making sure it never happens again", exactly how?

                    It's not about "doing something." It's about doing something that will work. If it won't work, then doing it isn't really "doing something", now is it?

                    --Shannon

                    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                    by Leftie Gunner on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:34:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Just a thought.... (0+ / 0-)

                      Don't you think that's a defeatist attitude?  Where something like 1% of all murders are caused by rifles, semi or bolt action, legislation against those weapons would not impact death rates that much.  You can't reliably tell that someone is going to snap and slaughter hundreds of innocents until they snap, therefore before they snap their purchases are legal.  You would not give up your hypothetical 30rd mag in a ban to prevent a loon from getting a 30rd mag?  After all, the common response is "just use three 10 rd mags" well fine, so you can use 3x10 too! (mind you the use of the term "you" does not mean Leftie Gunner in particular, its a generalization).  In the case of the Gifford shooting, it was when the semi pistol had to be reloaded that the attacker was tackled and disarmed.  Animals are not shooting back at you, its not necessary for hunting.  Defending your store from the rooftop can be accomplished by handguns or shotguns or blot action rifles, but if you insist on an AR15 they are still on the ROOF and can reload.  

                      Further, I believe 90% of all deaths by gun are done with handguns (although i can't break that down by semi vs revolver).  Should they be banned? Nope.  But we have to prevent them being sold through straw sellers, people picking up 10-20 Glocks in GA and driving them to Chicago or NY and selling them on the street.  That requires a national DB to track sales so we can identify the straw sellers.

                      I've digressed slightly.  My point, I guess, is the whole defeatist attitude that "what you say wont work, we need something that does work" does not contribute one iota to providing something that will work.  The original AWB was insufficient in many ways, from basing weapons on cosmetics, to grandfathering in existing 30-100rd mags.  Registering weapons to track ownership, and requiring background checks on ammo and accessory purchases will bring down the availablilty of weapons to the black market.  You can keep your AR15s as far as I care really, hell I've thought about buying one myself.  But the mags, and the ability to straw sell, and that criminals can walk into a gun shop and buy the ammo used to kill or the grandfathered mags to kill even more efficiently without being caught, well, thats just got to go.

                      •  I never said that nothing would work. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas

                        I said that some specific ideas won't work. And I base that on the fact that I live in a state where all of these proposals are already law, and they haven't worked.

                        The single most effective thing that the federal government could do to reduce the murder rate in the whole country would be to end the war on drugs. I'd expect a 50+% drop, almost immediately.

                        --Shannon

                        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                        by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:25:21 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Possibly... (0+ / 0-)

                          Ending the war on drugs might do the trick, but you have more than just the NRA and weapons manufacturers to contend with.  There's the police union, the jailers union, the incarceration management complex,  state and local government revenue from inmates, the NRA, AND the weapons manufacturers to contend with.  The easier war would be against two opponents, not six.  

                          As to you living in a state where these proposals are already law, is it safe to assume you're in Cali?  Anyway, wherever you live, unless you put up a fence and inspect every vehicle coming in you cant prevent SKS "sportsters" and 30rd mags and unregistered guns from coming into the state from less restrictive states.  Thats why it needs to be federal.  Uniformity of application.  

            •  I like breathing and I don't want your ass (6+ / 0-)

              spraying and praying like a New York City cop.

              It gets bystanders killed.

              "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

              by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:59:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I can only pray (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                annieli, KVoimakas

                that my aim under pressure is much, much better than a NYC Cops. They poke holes in all the wrong people.

                •  right, that fills us with confidence (0+ / 0-)

                  An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

                  by mightymouse on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:42:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Who are the right people and who are the wrong (0+ / 0-)

                  people who deserve holes poked in them?   If you are a veteran who saw combat up close, then you KNOW, killing has consequences.  Living with that knowledge.  If you are insecure about NOT having that kind of weapon and are a veteran, I urge you to speak to someone regarding that fear.  If you are not a vet....I urge you to speak to a vet who suffers from survival guilt or war trauma.   It might be worth some money on ammo, a sense of calm, lessen of fear, and a good start to solving the problems that come from ownership of these kind of weapons.  I say this in earnest and only to help you realize most of your fear is unfounded for the majority of society.

                  We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

                  by Vetwife on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 05:03:24 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Are you fearful that armies are coming (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              madhaus

              to your home?  Seriously, the only need for that kind of weapon is in the military.   This is not the old west.   This is not about who can kill the most efficiently.   This is about MY right and fellow citizens rights to feel safe to walk in a movie theatre or send children to school.

              If you feel the need for arsenals of weapons, there is a problem and it isn't with the ones who feel the need to regulate these kind of killing devices.  Turn off Fox.  Quit litening to Alex Jones and koin the army..again if necessary.   These so called right to bear assault arms is getting in my way of peaceful existence,  Your screen names speaks volumes.  Just MY humble opinion.

              We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

              by Vetwife on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 04:49:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've said above, but I'll say it again, (0+ / 0-)

                there are situations in which more than 6, or even 10, rounds would be necessary to defend yourself.

                Mistakes happen. You may fire a warning shot, you might miss or you might hit your attacker in a way that doesn't disable him.

                And I do not possess an "arsenal," only two pistols. One for carry and one for home defense. That I choose to protect myself, in a legal and responsible way, does not make me an follower of Alex Jones.

        •  What real world scenario do you expect to (6+ / 0-)

          find yourself in where six rounds won't be enough?

          "Furthermore, if you think this would be the very very last cut ever if we let it happen, you are a very confused little rabbit." cai

          by JesseCW on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:52:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, (0+ / 0-)

          semiautomatic pistols can be banned. It doesn't mean that they will be.

          But I'm curious. Do you carry a spare clip? Suppose semiautomatic pistols were banned.  How likely do you think it would be that you'd be in a situation where a revolver wouldn't do the job? Or a revolver with a speedloader?

          Now take that differential of practical self-defense utility you get from going from a semiautomatic pistol to a revolver. Does that in your mind outweigh improving the survival rate in mass shootings by giving victims a few more seconds to escape or to overwhelm the shooter?  Would you even consider whether that is reasonable?

          Personally, I don't favor a semiautomatic pistol ban. Nor do I favor an assault weapons ban, because I think we're not too far from the technology to 3D print working automatic rifle receivers in the privacy of our own homes. Making it impossible for gun enthusiasts to have semi-automatic weapons would lead to a situation rather like where people are cultivating marijuana in their garages and in woodland patches. Everyone in the gun community would know someone, or know someone who knows someone, who has a 3D printer.  If an adequate 3D printer for the purpose could be purchased for ten or twenty thousand dollars, there'd be plenty of people who'd chip in with their friends to buy one, or to run a pirate gunsmithing business.

          We should be careful of passing laws that strike a large part of the population as onerous and unreasonable. As Lord Macaulay said in his speech to Parliament against copyright extensions, "Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers."  For that matter prohibitions on abortion are repealed by back alley abortionists. Once prohibitions on assault weapons might have worked, but soon an affordable means to "repeal" an assault weapon ban will be in the hands of gun enthusiasts. We should beware of driving them that way.

          So I think the sweet spot in the near future is to crack down on illegal gun sales and encourage responsible practices for owners of powerful weapons (properly locking up the guns used at Newtown might have prevented the event).  This is something that has a reasonable chance of having an effect, and once gun enthusiasts get used to the slight inconveniences posed it won't drive them to adopt desktop manufacturing.

          I've lost my faith in nihilism

          by grumpynerd on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:47:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  How? Do we stop spying on Occupy and turn our (0+ / 0-)

        attention to people with violent intents? Then who will keep us safe from Occupy. Gun control will happen if and only if Wall Street decides it wants gun control. I thought Bush dropped all limits on spying on Americans because terrorism. If regular mass murders are not terrorism then what is? Yet law enforcement pays little to no attention to people stockpiling weapons. The numbers of gun owners owning multiple weapons is increasing while the number of people who own guns is decreasing.

      •  two other groups of gun owners (0+ / 0-)

        those that know the power of what they own, know the responsibilities of owning a gun, know gun safety and importantly, can actually aim the thing and hit their target, with one shot.
        The last point divides this group from those who own guns as symbols of power and are forever looking for more power or bigger guns or guns that shoot more bullets in a shorter span of time. The "Spray and kill, because they can't hit the broad side of a barn" bunch. And this group cannot give a valid reason why they need auto or semi auto weapons..

        Remember, our forefathers could shoot down a turkey in flight with a black powder musket. This should be the qualification for owning a gun - you pass the written and the back ground, then you are given a single bullet and a stationary (to make it easy) target at 50 yards. You load your gun and hit the target and you get your permit. You miss- well, pilgrim, try another time...

        "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

        by azureblue on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:42:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site