Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Feinstein's assault weapons ban will face stiff resistance from some elected Democrats (308 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  in other words (6+ / 0-)

    it's not worth saving even 0.6% of the people killed by guns?

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:11:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Because those violent offenders who used one of (9+ / 0-)

      these weapons would have been stymied by the absence of an "assault weapon", and wouldn't think to grab, oh, say, a pistol instead, like the overwhelming majority of violent offenders do.

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

      by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:24:41 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and if they did (7+ / 0-)

        the mass killers would not be able to kill the number of people they do. or are you trying to make the case for a handgun ban, too?

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:27:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A DOJ report on the expired ban certainly (13+ / 0-)

          found no evidence to support your claim, either for the weapons or the magazines.

          http://www.sas.upenn.edu/...

          Most of the magazines used in VT and by Harris in Columbine appear to have been of the 10-round capacity.

          So your assertion has little beyond assumptions and emotions to support it.

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

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:34:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  um (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus, crankypatriot, Laconic Lib

            you do realize that this ban will address holes in the previous ban, right? and "most of"? and the other magazines? and the rest of the mass killings? like, you know, the recent ones?

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:39:21 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  When a guy carries a backpack full of 19 10-round (12+ / 0-)

              magazines, and uses 17 of them in a shooting, as Cho appears to have done, is he really limited by the capacity of the individual magazines?

              I'll tell you who's limited by 10 rounds - the guy who isn't planning for a fight, but has to grab a weapon in haste when one starts.

              Certainly not the psychos who bring backpacks full of magazines.

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

              by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:43:08 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  try to focus (6+ / 0-)

                not on your cherry-picked examples, but on the broad swath of examples. because in other cases, lives would have been saved. and cho would have been stopped if there had been limits on how much can be bought over a period of time. but again- there have been other mass killings, where this ban would have stopped or limited the carnage. some of us think it's worth limiting such carnage.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:52:11 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Mass shootings *are* cherry-picked examples (10+ / 0-)

                  by their very nature. They're incredibly rare (0.006 per 100,000 population, down ~30% in the last 30 years). The big public ones even more so. Every single one will be contingent on specifics of the event.

                  Your claim that "lives would have been saved" simply is not borne out by any reliable facts. It's a bare assertion, disputed by the report for the DoJ cited above.

                  Hell, I even know which shootings you're going to cite (Aurora & the attack on Giffords), and those don't even help your case - those appear to be instances of magazines that were so large they failed to feed into the chamber properly (typical for 100 round drums) or jammed in the magazine well in loading (not uncommon in ~30-round pistol magazines that are longer than the magazine well of the gun; I've experienced it myself at the range). There's no reason to believe that standard capacity magazines (15 for full-frame pistol, 30 for semi-auto rifle) would have experienced either failure mode those shooters suffered, nor would obligate 10-rounders that had comparable form factors.

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

                  by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:42:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  While it's quite true that mass shootings at... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    tytalus

                    ...a tiny fraction of the total, they are NOT down 30% in the past 30 years. Based on four or more victims per incident, the graph charts incidents catalogued by the FBI since 1980:

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

                    by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:17:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You are misreading me. I did not say the total (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      OMwordTHRUdaFOG

                      number of mass shooting incidents was down 30% in the last 3 decades. I said the rate per 100,000 population is down 30%. I'm quite familiar with that particular chart.

                      Total incidents have hovered steady at ~20 per year. In that time, the US population has increased 35% (from 232 million in 1982 to 314 million in 2012). This translates into a decline in per 100,000 population incidents of about 28%.

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

                      by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:29:16 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  There will not be an absence of assault weapons (5+ / 0-)

        on the streets.  Do you really believe that once this passes, they will just turn them in?

        •  Some will, if they can get enough cash (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sukeyna

          for them.

          You forget - most criminals don't care about anything but getting money. If they could get enough, they'd sell their Mom, their kid, their dog (and some have, especially the kids and dogs). They wouldn't have any hesitation about turning in their gun.

          Hell, they'd likely steal some just to turn them in for more money.

        •  It was a gedanken experiment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OMwordTHRUdaFOG

          If all assault weapons disappeared magically today, how many fewer homicides would we have tomorrow?

          There's no reason whatsoever to believe that the number will differ in any statistically insignificant way from "zero".

          Hell, a detailed study on shootings in Jersey City over 5 years (referenced in my cite above) found that only 2.5%-3%  of all shootings involved 11+ shots fired, and of those it's not clear that any of that small number would have been affected by a magazine capacity limit.

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

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:03:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not in this way...there are other ways that would (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VectorScalar, fuzzyguy, Bon Temps, ancblu

      be better and be more focused on weeding out the criminals that commit the murders and not law abiding gun owners.

      Remember the only ones effected by any new gun ban will be those who care about a new law, and that's the law abiding gun owners.

      This will never eliminate the millions of weapons on the streets and the criminals will always still be able to buy them on the streets....just as they do now. They don't give a crap about the laws now, why would you think they will care any other law that comes along, hence the reason the first AWB was such failure.

      Want to get the criminals?  Background checks across the board.  Incredibly stiff, mandatory sentences for felons caught with a gun.  Crimes committed with a gun also have incredibly stiff, mandatory, long prison sentences.

      Go after the bad guys who commit crimes....leave my rights and my gun alone.  

      •  how many (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus

        of the recent mass killings were committed by people with criminal records? thanks.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:07:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And this bill being proposed would stop them how?? (5+ / 0-)

          The guns they had access to, would just disappear on the day of signing?  Or would the people who owned them  just walk over to the nearest police department and turn them in?

          They wouldn't have been able to buy them off the streets, or a friend or whomever?  Use another gun? Use a bomb? Whatever.

          You WILL NOT prevent mass murders in this way.  It won't happen.  If someone is set on committing this type of crime of this magnitude, your silly ban will never stop them.  Columbine happened during the last AWB....they got theirs illegally.

          All this will do is make guns illegal for law abiding gun owners, and yet will not remove the ones that exist off of the streets.   Thousands of exemptions, and no way to enforce it...until another crime is committed.

          Oh yeah...thanks.

          •  i see (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lyvwyr101

            so because it wouldn't work on day one, let's just not bother. too bad australia didn't think of that!

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:29:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It won't work, period. Australia is a completely (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fuzzyguy, ancblu

              different situation than ours.

              Number one...they never had a Constitutional right to own firearms, like our country, so the people never felt such a sentimental ownership value as they do here...and the anger that will be felt here if the 2A is touched in any real way will be much stronger.

              Number two....Australia had very strict gun laws prior to any ban, so the ban wasn't such a shock nor where there any where near the amount of weapons on the streets. ...nor did they have any where near the amount of gun  owners as we have.  This country has 120 TIMES the amount of weapons within our borders as they did at the time of the ban.

              Number three...the buy back program they initiated did not cost a fraction of the amount of money we would have to have to even get a small amount of guns off of our streets.  We have 120 times more weapons, we have a population who 1/2 owns at least one gun (that we know of...probably much higher) and who value that right and thus will make guns and illegal purchasing a valuable commodity on the streets.  It would take an astronomical amount of money to do that...not even considering the political battle and public uproar that would ensue the moment it was considered.

              •  yes (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                snowwoman, sukeyna, lyvwyr101

                because it will be difficult and imperfect, we may as well not try.

                The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:41:06 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Right...exactly. Do something real like stiffer (5+ / 0-)

                  penalties from gun crimes, background checks across the board, mental health funding, and leave law abiding gun owners with their Constitutional rights.

                  •  yes (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    snowwoman, sukeyna

                    none of which would have stopped newtown and clackamas. and please try to keep in mind that some of us don't agree with decisions made by this wingnut supreme court. and that the court rulings did not rule out regulation.

                    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                    by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:49:09 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You cannot stop Newtown anyway (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Bailey2001, dewley notid, ancblu

                      You don't seem to be listening.

                      The Newtown killer had a semi-automatic pistol with lots of clips and all were legal even under a new ban.  He could have just as easily killed the same number of people with just a few clips.

                      Insane people don't care about bans.

                      If you really cared about gun deaths, you would follow the advice in comments above.  Give gun crimes mandatory stiff sentences - did you know the gun crimes are often plea bargained down - sometimes to misdemeanors?

                      Make background checks universal on any gun sale.

                      Or.. you can go ahead and push for this inane worthless assault gun ban that will likely cost some Dem Senators and a number of Dem Congressmen their seats in 2014.

                      •  once again (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        tytalus, snowwoman, sukeyna

                        you're making the case for stiffer gun bans. but clackamas would not have happened if ar-15s were banned. and did you know that almost none of these mass shooters had criminal records? so how would stiffer sentences have stopped them?

                        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:02:38 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It wouldn't. That's the point! (4+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Bailey2001, VClib, dewley notid, ancblu

                          You will not stop the very rare mass killings.  Never. Ever.

                          So expend your political capital preventing tens of thousands of gun deaths rather than wasting time trying to prevent a handful of unpreventable deaths.

                          •  Ever....correct. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ancblu
                          •  Indeed... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Bon Temps

                            ...perhaps the most onerous part of the proposed ban is the 10 round mag limit.

                            This will not stop mass killings, although I will acknowledge it might prevent or delay a few of them -- them being a tiny number in the first place and the few that are delayed or stopped being an even tinier number.

                            But, if passed, it will cost Democrats dearly in two and four years. Many solid Democrats have >10 round magazines for their handguns (perhaps just a standard magazine that came with their Glock handgun). When they realize that the new AWB made it impossible to get (at least at a reasonable price) a replacement and that the AWB was supported by their Senator or Representative, they will either pick a more conservative candidate in the primaries or vote for the Republican, or just not vote, in the general election.

                            This is not a path to get more Progressives into office - it's a way to get Republicans into office. And, all for no benefit except to make those who fear firearms in law abiding hands feel a false sense of security.

                            Anyway, this has no chance of getting through both the Senate and the House, so it's mostly a waste of time posturing. I suppose it benefits Diane Feinstein by keeping her in the media -- but I doubt she would be doing this if she really thought it would pass because it's doubtful she wants to be in the minority party in the Senate.

                        •  It won't stop them anymore than this ban will but (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ancblu

                          it will punish those who abuse their rights without taking away mine.

                    •  It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the 2A, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ancblu

                      I do, thus, it's my right that can't be taken away, until such time as it is repealed with 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the states.  

                      When cities burned down to the ground because of protests and people died because of the same....would you have been just as content with "trying" a ban on protests, just to see if it might work in hopes of preventing more deaths?  

                      Would you have been just as content with a ban on the 1A even though it was a right you valued?

                      •  actually (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        tytalus, snowwoman

                        what matters is the law. for now, thanks to an extremist right wing court, the law is on your side. unfortunately for you, we will not always have extremist right wing courts. and to repeat: even this court did not close the door on regulation.

                        and you do realize that there are restraints on 1a, right? try yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, and then try to explain how you were just expressing your liberties.

                        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:11:17 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Yep, you yell "fire" and you go to jail prompty! (0+ / 0-)

                          However, protests are never banned because fools yelled "fire" or used a bomb or burnt down a city.

                          •  and no one will ever ban (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            lyvwyr101

                            well-regulated militias.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:37:36 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Nor the right of the people to keep and bear arms. (0+ / 0-)

                            Just to dismiss the premise you are alluding to:

                            Jefferson wrote and debated publicly many, many times on the 2A and every thing he said or suggested not just implied but directly explained that the citizens should be armed....period.  

                            IF the 2A was meant to only arm those in the militias....then why didn't that law/rule apply from the day it was created.  The founding fathers didn't fall over dead the day it was written and leave it all up to third interpretation from that moment on....and yet through out our entire history, guns have not been banned from  the free populace unless one was in a militia.  

                            No one posted signs around the towns of America, after the creation of the Bill of Rights that read, "Bill of Rights was created last night...don't leave your guns with your wives or sons...it is now illegal unless you are in the militia!"  

                            During the Oregon Train, a family was not allowed to sign up to enter a group of travelers unless they had arms and 6 months of ammo....single women had to join a family and provide their own gun.  No one was prosecuted for advertising an illegal activity by requiring non-militia people to own and carry a weapon.

                            During the Civil War, women and young children protected their farms from invaders and continues to harvest animals with guns to feed their families.  No one rounded them up because they had illegal guns in their home.

                            If they only meant the militia...don't you think we would have had one single arrest (of free persons, I can add) from the day the Bill of Rights was created on to suggest that a week later, a month later, a year later, a decade later or a century later that only the militia were supposed to have gun.   Yet, no such arrest exists.....no militia storehouses exist....no sign ups for militia volunteerism and gun handouts....not then and not now.  Why? because it was not illegal to own guns then and they never meant only the militia.

                            At the time of the Bill of Rights, almost every home, that had a free family living in it,  had a gun....for mere survival, if for nothing else.   Every free man owned one.  Even my ancestors, who weren't free, had guns...but they were just hidden in barns and hay lofts or under mattresses so we weren't murdered for having them.

                            Again, not one arrest  from the time of the Bill of Rights being created related to this "new Law" our founding fathers made that day about guns being only for the militia.  Not a day later, a year later and so on.  Matter of fact, try to find a law from the latter 1700's or 1800's in Anytown, USA that states, "No individual can own or possess a weapon unless they are actively enlisted in the state militia"  Any law....anywhere.

                             Why?  They never meant only the militia, and if you think about it....could you imagine the chaos the day after creating the Bill of Rights and the newly formed government running around collecting guns from farmers and ranchers and men who traveled on horseback etc.  Do you think for a second the people at that time, who used guns in everyday life just to eat, would have allowed that? No way.  They never meant just the militia....it was not a matter of third party interpretation then as it is now...and Jefferson and others were extremely vocal in protecting the rights of the people to be armed.  

                            Now that my people are free and are able to enjoy the same rights as others have had since the Bill of Rights was created, I intend to keep that right.  

                          •  jefferson wanted to avoid having a standing army (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            snowwoman, tytalus

                            he also was a raging bigot. the founders lived in just a slightly different world.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:53:47 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not the point....the 2A is not about keeping guns (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annecros

                            away from the citizens as you implied.  It never was.

                            This is fact not interpretation....history proves that.

                          •  actually (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            snowwoman, tytalus, lyvwyr101

                            the individual right interpretation is very new, and in legal terms was very fringe until scalia and friends. that's actual history. and however you want to interpret it, the second is as bizarre and anomalous as some other sections of the constitution, which were chucked as the nation, and human beings, evolved.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:05:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The "new interpretation" are on the premise that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annecros

                            the meaning implied by the founding fathers was that guns were only for those persons in a active militia.  History proves this to be false...in multiple, multiple ways.   I could write 10 pages of facts and quotes to prove this.

                            Morally, if you disagree with gun ownership etc, you have a case.  Speak your case, defend your case, bring light to your case...just don't try to rewrite history and say that the founding father meant something that we know they didn't.  It makes your case faulty from the onset when you do this.

                          •  heller (0+ / 0-)

                            was unique in judicial history. otherwise, it wouldn't have been needed.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:28:31 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It was needed because of attempted "new (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            annecros

                            interpretations".  

                            Again, prove me wrong.  Show me some precedence from the time of the Bill of Rights that proves the founding fathers meant only the militia.  Show me new laws created at the time, that took guns away from those who were not in the militia.  Show me quotes in which they "clarified" they meant only the militia...instead of the actual quotes where they defended citizen ownership over and over again. Show me a time in our history in which free persons couldn't own guns on any real large scale except if they were actively in a militia.

                          •  i suggest you read stevens (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            you know, one of the court liberals, as opposed to the right wing extremists who made you so happy.

                            "a strained and unpersuasive reading"

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:39:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Prove me wrong with real history, not anyone's (0+ / 0-)

                            interpretation of it.

                          •  um (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            i'll just stick with stevens. you stick with scalia. i think most democrats, liberals, progressives, and thinking people can figure out the rest.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:00:02 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  thank you (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            tytalus

                            for proving my point.

                            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                            by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:06:42 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I have read it and prepared lessons on it. (0+ / 0-)
                          •  I can't wait---either-- (0+ / 0-)

                            until this current looney tunes high court takes the friggin' fabled hike into retirement.

                            The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

                            by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 07:06:27 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Actually it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Bailey2001

                        ...an amendment. It takes 2/3 of the Congress to propose it. (That's a slight simplification though).

                  •  Or how about actually enforcing the laws (5+ / 0-)

                    on the books now?

                    In 2011, 71,000+ reported 'straw purchases' were accepted by the FBI for review.  77 resulted in any charges being levied.  Every one of the 71,00+ were FELONIES.

                    But yeah, making it so that any firearms that I own that are on her list either get registered by me to me and get destroyed when I die or else make me a criminal if I do not.  

                    Since I am an able-bodied man under the age of 45, I am a member of the VERY regulated Irregular Militia (Dick Act 1903) I should be able to ignore the illegal order to register my 'assault weapons' as there is no designation of such firearms aside from what Josh Sugarmann might think.

                    Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
                    Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
                    Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

                    by ErikO on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:56:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Inaccurate regarding the prosecutions... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      tytalus

                      ...the FBI reported in 2009, not 2011, that 71,000 people had lied on their background checks when they tried to buy guns, but only 77 were prosecuted. Not the same as people who tried to engage in straw purchases.

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

                      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:31:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh, so that would be the same timeframe (0+ / 0-)

                        as when firearms were illegally sent across the boarder in the failed attempt of a single-sided Lineback-ertype operation called Fast and Furious?

                        Sorry I had the details wrong, glad I had the number correct.  Lying on a 4473 is a felony, only 77 were pursued.  Still a huge black eye for the agency that is responsible for going after felonies committed as part of filing federal forms.

                        Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
                        Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
                        Interim Chairman - Democratic Gun Owners' Caucus of Missouri

                        by ErikO on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:22:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  I would guess (0+ / 0-)

              the opposing strategy is to discourage---hoping we'll all give up-----and head for the next fabled shiny object.

              I'm wondering if nationwide protests similar to the anti-war protests of the 1960's would prove a point?

              The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

              by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:58:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  You keep presuming the outcome ... (0+ / 0-)

      of "saving" the number of people killed by tactical carbines ... but without any supporting data or consideration that alternatives are and would be available.  EXhibit A -- Virginia Tech.

      And, you also persist in ignoring any political consequence that will undoubtedly undermine Democratic electoral efforts in red, purple and even some blue states.  Yes ... even the staunchest of liberals, Al Franken, being more careful and insightful than you are on this point.

    •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

      why  do I think we are being discouraged from doing anything?

      That's a real shame because that won't be happening.

      I've been looking over all the old protest strategies the anti-war movement used during the 1960's when they helped to shut down the Vietnam war.

      Provides quite the template.

      Nothing succeed like success.

      The Onion says----scholars have discovered---the Mayan word for "Apocalypse" in fact---translates more accurately as: "Time of pale obese gun monsters."

      by lyvwyr101 on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 06:50:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site