Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Ok Then! They WILL Be PRIED From Your Cold Dead (8+ / 0-)

    Hand.

    Bank on it, you dumb mutherfucker.

    This douchbag really thinks he can take on the FBI and/or ATF?

    Bring it you dumb mutherfucker.  I will have no problem when the feds pry your guns from your cold, dead hands. Go for it, douche.

    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 01:38:20 PM PST

    •  Really (9+ / 0-)

      like taking on the FBI and/or ATF worked out so well at Waco and Ruby Ridge.

      You'd think they'd at least learn. Holing up with a bunch of guns, breaking laws, and pissing off your neighbors isn't the best way to live a long and prosperous life.

      That doesn't matter if you live in the boonies or a city. If you want to live outside the mainstream, don't piss people off doing it.

      You know, if those yahoos had been rational people, with a rational number of weapons and behaved civilly to their neighbors and the townspeople, they would most likely be alive today.

      That type of siege mentality never works out well. Great way to commit suicide, and usually take a bunch of others with you.  

    •  I think if he's going to fight against (0+ / 0-)

      the government, he's not going to wait until they're knocking on his door.

      Nope.

      Long range rifle with a decent scope and a high power round? Sniper.

      IEDs anyone? Sabotage?

      Organized? I sincerely doubt it. But it only takes on guy with a gun to make a difference in the course of history. Look at all of the assassinations we've had.

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

      by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:28:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The End Result Will Be The Same, It Will Be Pried (10+ / 0-)

        from his cold dead hands.

        Let him make his stand.  That's some cowardly shit right there; sniper? IED? Fucking cowards.

        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 02:38:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  One man's coward is another man's guerrilla. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, 43north

          Let me point out that I am not condoning that course of action. I am, however, pointing out the possibility of something like that happening.

          And come on, do you honestly think it'd be people with rifles attacking tanks, drones, airplanes? No. It'll be people with rifles assassinating key figures in the government AND in the military. It'll be people sabotaging the supply chain (because our supply chain is internal here, unlike Iraq or Afghanistan).

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

          by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 02:49:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  LOL! Yeah, Sure, You're Not CondoningThe Cowards (5+ / 0-)

            Sure you're not.

            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 02:56:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              annieli, OMwordTHRUdaFOG, 43north

              Do you honestly think I want to see a civil war of any sorts? Seriously?

              I don't. But laughing off this shit isn't going to make it go away and it most likely will make things worse. Or have you not seen someone do something specifically because they were told they would never do it?

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

              by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:00:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I Think You Love Your Guns More Than The Lives (10+ / 0-)

                that can be saved by banning them. You're not as subtle as you think you are.

                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 03:01:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  *sigh* (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose, annieli, 43north

                  I see this conversation won't go anywhere.

                  Bans don't work. Didn't work for Prohibition. Didn't work for the 94 AWB. Doesn't work for the War on Drugs.

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

                  by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:10:15 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No One Is Prohibiting Guns Jeenyus, We're limiting (6+ / 0-)

                    Your access to TYPES of guns.

                    So you admit you're a gun addict? You're addicted? Like crack? That's why the war on drugs doesn't work. And prohibition.

                    Admit you have a problem. It's the first step.

                    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 03:12:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Sure I have problems. They're called anti-gun (8+ / 0-)

                      Democrats. But I don't think all my problems can be solved with a gun so I don't threaten violence.

                      I'd like to grow the party. Do you have any idea how many single issue voters we could capture if we applied our stance on civil rights to the second amendment as well? A Democratic study done in the early 2000s showed some ridiculous % like 21% (it's in the RKBA video but I don't have it memorized).

                      I'd settle for 5%.

                      5% votes for Democrats ACROSS THE BOARD. How do you think that'll help shape the country?

                      Last time I checked, prohibiting a type of gun is also called a ban. Hell, check the 94 terminology: Assault Weapons BAN.

                      I am a firearm enthusiast.

                      The war on drugs doesn't work because prohibition doesn't work.

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

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

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I agree prohibition doesn't work (7+ / 0-)

                        Forget the extremists here for a sec.  While prohibition doesn't work, regulation can.  What kinds of regulations do you think would be effective?  And I'm talking about gun regulation, not mental health blah blah blah

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

                        by slothlax on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:31:45 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Prohibition of DRUGS Doesn't Work Because Drugs (8+ / 0-)

                        are addictive.

                        Are guns addictive?

                        And who exactly is calling for prohibition of ALL guns?

                        No one.

                        Try again.

                        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 03:33:20 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It's about supply and demand, not addictiveness (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          FrankRose, KVoimakas, theboz, annieli, 43north

                          People want drugs because they may or may not be addictive. People also want guns. As long as there is a strong demand for anything, there will be a market to supply it, legally or illegally.  

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

                          by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:04:46 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You Couldnt Be More Wrong (3+ / 0-)

                            The demand is from ADDICTS.

                            People will have access to guns still, just NOT certain types or accessories.  The analogy is total bullshit unless you believe gun lovers are equitable to crack addicts.

                            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 04:22:29 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Pot is non-addictive. (5+ / 0-)

                            There still seems to be plenty of demand for it.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:23:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Habit Forming/Dependence (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, PsychoSavannah, bhut jolokia

                            Guns like that?  Really? No wonder its described as fetishism.

                            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 06:08:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It is only described as fetishism (0+ / 0-)

                            by Kos, and his various parakeets.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:10:19 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Aww, Poor you, That One Stings, Huh? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            newpioneer

                            Bless yr little heart.

                            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 06:23:55 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

                            Pretend words are always so hurtful.

                            Do continue.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:34:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You Mean Like A Pretend Ban on Guns? (0+ / 0-)

                            Pretend like that?  Who is saying we should ban all guns?  It's about regulating effectively.  YOU pretend someone's trying to ban all guns.

                            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 06:54:50 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "YOU pretend someone's trying to ban all guns" (0+ / 0-)

                            When did I say this? Quote me.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:04:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then Whats Your Point Inserting Yourself Into (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            newpioneer

                            This thread?  I suggest you read it, its about an erroneous claim that banning guns would be as effective as banning drugs.  Since no one is suggesting a ban of guns, its moot.  But its also stupid.  But you jumped in to defend the.stupid, moot analogy.  That's your problem if you don't have a clue about what yr discussing.

                            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 07:14:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And Oh, Weed Should Be Legal, Like Guns (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PsychoSavannah, rocksout

                            But tightly controlled and regulated.  As guns should be tightly controlled and regulated. They're not.

                            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 06:12:21 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Would prohibition of beef work? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            Is beef addictive?

                            High enough demand, addictive or not, leads to a supply, legal or not.

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

                            by Texas Lefty on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:10:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Even Beef Is More Regulated Than Guns Though (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            vcmvo2, poco, sethtriggs

                            N/t

                            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 06:13:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dude. What? Really? (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you really think it's the individual pot smoker, crack smoker, cocaine snorter, heroin shooter that's driving the market?

                            It's ALL about the money.  When it's not about the money, but it's about the addiction?  It's about the money.
                            Doubt that?  Research tobacco industry lawsuits.

                            Did the tobacco industry spend R&D money on making a more addictive product because, addicts required it?  Demanded it?  Hell no.

                            It was all about demand.
                            Increasing demand, increasing revenue.

                            Back to drugs:  Who profits on addiction, and trafficking drugs?
                            1) Growers
                            2) Sellers
                            3) Transportation middlemen
                            4) Government
                            5) Employees/Contractors of Government

                            missing from this, as we've stripped the money away from them:

                            6) Substance Abuse Programs
                            7) Therapy Professionals

                            But it's not about the money.
                            It's all about addiction.

                      •  people who are 1 issue voters have long been (6+ / 0-)

                        convinced that President Obama was going to confiscate legally owned firearms. He is not. Limiting the number of people that can be killed with a single clip without reloading seems reasonable. It appears hard to understand why more than 6 rounds would be needed for self-defense or hunting in a single clip. An assault weapons ban like DiFi's makes sense.
                        It has been argued that the ban did help. No one law or regulation is going to completely solve the problem. However, there is a problem and regulating guns will and must be part of any rational attempt to solve the problem.

                        Mental health issues ? yes.
                        Will any new gun law or regulation completely solve the problem ? Of course not, but if it helps some then it should be implemented.

                                                                                                                       

                      •  Have you not been paying attention? (9+ / 0-)

                        In case you haven't noticed, the public is in favor of reasonable gun regulations. It is you that are on the fringe here. Your claim that Democrat's supporting gun regulation will cause us to lose elections. And that claim is bullshit and become moreso every passing day.

                        The public is sick of the carnage caused by firearms and want steps taken to curb that violence. Supporting reasonable gun regulations will help us win elections.

                        Enjoy your life on the fringe.

                        Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                        by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:06:32 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  In 1994 the public was far more in favor of (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          KVoimakas

                          gun control than today.

                          It didn't work out so well.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:25:16 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  This is not 1994... (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Vote4Obamain2012, poco, vcmvo2, jaywillie

                            and even the title of the Gallup poll states

                            "Support For Gun Control Surging Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Oppose Bans"
                            No one is talking about banning all guns, but they want some commonsense regulations put in place.

                            You can read about those in this poll. And most of those proposed regulations are supported by wide margins.

                            Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                            by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:46:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The title is irrelevent. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            The long-term trend that favors gun rights and the fact that gun control vs gun rights is still 20 points more in favor of gun rights than it was in 1994 is relevant.

                            The last time the Democratic party tried gun control, the public was far more in favor of it & had been in favor of it for a far longer amount of time....yet, the AWB led to 20 seats swinging GOP and ushered in the Republican Revolution.

                            Gun Control is going to have consequences. I hope this is something you feel strongly about, because it is going to cost the Democratic Party dearly.

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

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:06:12 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The title is irrelevent... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco, blueness

                            and I suppose facts are too. Did you bother to read the other poll? I suppose those polll results are irrelevent too,  because... because... because you said so! Check with me after the election.

                            Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                            by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:17:39 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The facts are relevent. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            That is why I pointed them out.
                            The poll results you posted are relevant, but only if you have a comparison to what they were in 1994.
                            1994 is the baseline for the consequences of gun control at the federal level.

                            Gun Control is similar to being pro-choice. It is an issue that causes many people to be single-issue voters. People are willing to vote on this issue alone.
                            Gun Control will lose voters for the Democratic Party.
                            Where will they make up these losses at? What possible demographic will Gun Control court?
                            With polls showing 20 points more in favor of Gun Control in 1994 the Dems lost the House for the first time in 40 years.
                            What makes you think it will be different this time?

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:33:40 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What is different this time... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            poco

                            is that people are sick and tired of watching the consequences of mass shootings every week on the televisions screens. 1994 and a comparison to the AWB has little relevance today. We're talking about commonsense regulations that have a potential to actually change things and get some guns out of the hands of some of the people who shouldn't have them.

                            And the people support that! What makes you think all those people are going to suddenly change their minds if Democrats actually follow through on what the publica says it wants?

                            The RKBA claim that gun control will cost elections is bunk! It mayh have been that way in the past, but the times are changing!

                            Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                            by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 06:38:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Over 20 points less 'sick and tired' than in 1994 (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            slothlax, Sarenth, KVoimakas

                            "commonsense regulations"
                            Like the 'commonsense warrantless wiretaps'? Like 'commonsense enhanced interrogation'? Like Gitmo was 'just commonsense'?
                            Saying something is 'commonsense' is not carte blanche to infringe on others liberties without consequence.

                            "all those people are going to suddenly..."
                            1) It only matters if they are willing to vote on it.
                            2) It's not going to take 'all those people'...it's only going to take enough to change the election percentages by less than 5% in the swing states of Penn, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada etc.
                            3) Yes. Numbers change. In 1991 gun control vs gun rights was 78% to 17%.
                            In 1994 70% to 24%
                            In 2006 57% to 35%
                            In 2011 43% to 44%
                            Today    58% to 34%
                            The long-term trend is unmistakeable. Even in the immediate aftermath of one of the most heinous shootings in US history, the numbers are still 24 points less in favor of gun control, than when the AWB cost the Dems the House.

                            "Dems actually follow through on what the public says it wants"
                            The 'public said' it wanted gun control far more strongly in 1994. Come election time, they said something else.

                            "It may have been that way in the past"
                            That's called 'evidence'. Generally making a conclusion while ignoring evidence isn't a good idea.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:03:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice straw man argument! (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, rocksout

                            Funny, I never remember warentless wiretaps, Gitmo and enhanced interrogation as being "commonsense", but whatever!

                            You keep referring to this Gallup poll as if it's some sort of final say. Gallup has been a very flawed polling organization for some years now and is widely criticised here. After all they did have Romney beating Obama by 3 or 4 points.

                            If you would look at the other poll I posted and there are others out there with the same type of findings you'd find that:

                            92% support requiring a criminal background check before any purchase of a gun.

                            63% support requiring a mental health examination before any purchase of a gun.

                            63% support banning assault weapons.

                            69% support banning the sale of guns and bullets over the Internet.

                            76% support closing the so-called ‘gun-show loophole,’ which allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows without performing criminal background checks.

                            94% support prohibiting felons convicted of violent crimes from purchasing guns.

                            64% support banning high-capacity magazines on guns – magazines capable of holding more than ten bullets.

                            You may not ageee with these, but I'd say most of those could be classified as commonsense. You can be on the terrorist watch list and still legally buy a gun in this country. Nothing commonsense about that!

                            Going back and comparing attitudes of people 19 years ago to what they are saying now and somehow coming to the conclusion that what they said in 1994 is what will happen now makes absolutely no sense. 1994 is evidence... Of what happened in 1994!

                            It makes as much sense as saying since we lost Congress in 2010, we will lose Congress forever.

                            Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                            by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 07:46:41 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "I don't remember warrantless wiretaps as (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas

                            being commonsense"
                            Exactly. I didn't either. Nor do I find your attempted infringements on the liberties of innocent Americans to be 'commonsense'.

                            "If you looked at the other poll"
                            I did. However, without being able to compare those numbers to what the numbers were in 1994 they are useless for ascertaining what the political consequences of gun control will be. As stated numerous times we know that gun control was over 20 points more popular in 1994 than they are today.
                            Yet, Gun Control was an unmitigated disaster in 1994. How can we ascertain the political use/electoral consequences of numbers today if we have no baseline to compare them to?

                            "1994 is evidence....Of what happened in 1994"
                            sigh You have convinced me. Forget using historical fact, experience, and lessons learned.
                            Like the old saying goes "Those that forget the past are.....fuck it, it'll TOTALLY work this time!"

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:35:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Let's see... (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PsychoSavannah, mikejay611

                            those who were first eligible to vote in 2012, hadn't even been born in 1994. And whole lot of who were around to participate in the poll in 1994 are no longer alive.

                            And because you have one instance in history of ever trying to implement gun control where it didn't turn out, you're saying we should just never try again.

                            Seems back in that same time frame a certain person who was recently elected, I think his name was Clinton, was pushing for health care reform, and that failed miserably and ushered in the republican take over of Congress.

                            It's a damn good thing we didn't ever try to pass health care reform again. We would have surely lost the election in 2012. Oh wait...

                            Sigh!!! Those that live in the past limit their future!

                            Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                            by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:14:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  So we're just supposed to live with the... (6+ / 0-)

                the status quo because some crazy asshole with a gun might do something? I for one, am not the least bit worried about that. Let one of them try. I can't wait to watch the video.

                Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:26:18 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't want the status quo. (4+ / 0-)

                  The items I've suggested fix the major issues underlying all violent crime, not just firearm related ones (and they help with suicides).

                  But hey, it's not gun control, so even though they're part of the progressive platform, they should be pushed aside for legislation that won't pass and won't fix the issue.

                  Great idea.

                  My suggestions

                  Jobs
                  Single payer (mental health care)
                  Jobs
                  Education
                  Jobs
                  Marijuana legalization
                  Jobs
                  Better social safety nets
                  Jobs

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

                  by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:34:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I see!!! (14+ / 0-)

                    We'll take care of the firearm crimes by ignoring firearms! Impeccable logic there!!

                    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                    by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:05:02 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  this does not make sense. (7+ / 0-)

                    What you have listed above are worthy goals. However, better laws regarding education, marijuana legalization and a better social safety net are not going to pass the GOP controlled House. Even if they were implemented, the relationship between these items and gun deaths is indirect. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that a significant reduction in gun deaths would result from legislation that could pass regarding these items.

                    Creating more jobs is a laudable goal. The GOP House is not going to pass another stimulus. Absent another stimulus, job creation is going to continue to be anemic at best for another couple of years, especially given our debt ceiling / sequestration problem. Therefore, an approach that tries to significantly reduce gun deaths by creating more jobs is no likely to be successful.

                    Guns are always involved in gun deaths. The social safety net is not always a primary factor in gun deaths. The job situation is not always a primary factor in gun deaths. The legality of marijuana is not always a primary factor in gund deaths. Guns are the means used to accomplish the ends of killing efficiently. It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that guns are a primary factor in gun deaths. Hypothetical assumptions that the deaths would still occur involve (1) fatalism (2) unrealistic assumptions since guns are so much more efficient and (3) do not deal with what really happened.

                    Since the relationship between guns and actual gun deaths is direct and the relationship between gun deaths and the other possible factors is indirect, it does not make sense to rule out regulation of firearms and only focus on the indirect factors.

                    The only reason that one would do this is if one is not willing to rationalize try to solve the problem. The mental gymnastics required to justify this list and rule out gun regulations in order to reduce gun related crime and gun deaths are so extreme as to demonstrate you are not willing to be a "good faith" partner in this discussion.

                    Gun regulation will take place. If you refuse to embrace common-sense approaches to gun regulation, then that will only leave gun opponents to draft the legislation.

                    The worst part of this is that you are the founder of RKBA.
                    This means to me that your group has nothing to contribute to the discussion regarding reducing gun related crime and gun deaths on Daily Kos.  In society as a whole, by refusing to modify your approach, you leave yourselves in a position with no influence in which gun regulations get passed.

          •  So that's what you think will happen? (4+ / 0-)

            Bring it on! After one of these gun loving nutjobs is taken out on live on television, the rest of you will start to realize your not going to win.

            Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

            by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:23:10 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "The rest of you" (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              slothlax, FrankRose, annieli, Sarenth

              Go fuck yourself for that reference. I'm not raising a firearm against this government.

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

              by KVoimakas on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 03:34:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Classy!! n/t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2, Bisbonian

                Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                by reflectionsv37 on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 04:01:44 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, because you calling me a gun loving (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aitchdee

                  nutjob makes you so much better.

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

                  by KVoimakas on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 06:33:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If the shoe fits... n/t (0+ / 0-)

                    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

                    by reflectionsv37 on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:01:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You're right. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    You (the collective you--the RKBA group and its allies) have been spoken to disrespectfully here and there by some of us on the anti side in the course of this discussion post-Sandy Hook. By and large though, I think it's safe to say you give as good as you get. Talks have remained on, and that's always a good thing.

                    Today, however, you were disrespectfully spoken of--I'm referring specifically to the pedophile-equivalence charge leveled at you in a comment in another diary which got some half dozen recs--and I thought that was especially unfortunate, as it's probably harder to shrug off (in the name of keeping the dialogue open) than anything your side has thus far leveled at mine. And so I want to apologize to you and to say that no, I do not think gun enthusiasts are sick, damned and damaged monsters, all of you awaiting the next godforsaken basket bound for hell. I believe that most of you are good, ordinary folks with (to me) an alien interest in firearms, and that, in the aftermath of several mass shootings in this country last year, certain gun-related laws will have to be modified. It won't please you but, I think as we shall see, we will all of us have to bend a little. Both sides need to reckon with this reality.

                    As for talks here on the blog, I hope that the rhetoric of demonization does not persist at this level; otherwise, should you wind up telling all of us antis to sod off, well, who could blame you, really? And sod off not so much out of offended feelings (because there is no such equivalence and so the charge is absurd) as concluding we are unserious debaters, not worth your time. Here's hoping it was a one-off, and that you can ignore it, and carry on with the discussion. Cheers.

                    God bless our tinfoil hearts.

                    by aitchdee on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 01:45:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  that comment is close to meriting an hr. you (5+ / 0-)

            are better than this.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site