Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

                •  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 ]

                •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site