Skip to main content

View Diary: There is nothing more that can be said (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes: The Gun Advocates should have to: (38+ / 0-)

    Gun Advocates should have to confront the stories and pictures of these children as unique and cherished family members.  "Some" rabid gun advocates may feel a twang of shared pain and fear that it could easily be their child, grandchild. . . next time (God Forbid)

    I almost hate to mention a substantive point to her post but I want to emphasize the point she made about the militarized power of weapons not even contemplated a generation ago (nevermind the founding fathers) as being protected under the broad umbrella of "arms".

    IF one is going to say that these weapons of war (as opposed to sporting guns or moderate handguns for qualified individuals) are constitutionally protected - then why not an RPG?  Or just a regular grenade?  If the right to bear arms is premised upon the need of citizens to oppose possible government tyranny - then doesn't it necessarily follow that all "arms" available are protected.

    I know that that is absurd on its face.  I state it in an attempt to show how absurd the Gunner's position is.

    Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

    by 4CasandChlo on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 10:41:36 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, this comes up all the time... (15+ / 0-)

      ...there are good, valid reasons why RPGs, grenades, (and tanks, and nukes, etc etc etc) aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment (although some people do, in fact, want things like RPGs and belt-fed machineguns) for a myriad of reasons, none of which you are truly interested in sitting through, I'm guessing...

      Instead what I'll ask is this: Please know that there are many of us who own guns who are, in fact, in favor of passing some new laws, and feel that there is nothing incompatible with owning a gun and "being human". Many of us are not seeking the most extreme positions-- remember that, at best, the NRA represents less than 10% of gun owners. It is a safe bet that all the other gun owners know about the NRA and are actively choosing not to join it, which (I think) says something.

      I want stronger laws, and actual enforcement of existing laws, precisely because I have human compassion and don't want to see more dead kids. Most gun owners are actually on board with this idea, the hard-core ones are out there, and they are certainly damn loud, but don't buy into the idea that they represent all their is in this debate.

      •  The vast majority of NRA members support (14+ / 0-)

        passing new laws and more than a few of those members are leaving the NRA because of its leaderships extremist positions.

        I think we've just begun taking a good hard look at ourselves as a society and as gun owners.

        It's a conversation we desperately need to have. My hope is that the extremes on either side of the debate don't drown out the vast majority in the middle. If they do, we won't be able to come together and solve the problem that is killing our children.

        "Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." Hubert H. Humphrey

        by Onomastic on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 05:48:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You and I are in absolute agreement: (11+ / 0-)

        When I say "gunners" I am using a lazy template for people with an almost "crazed" obsession with guns, a hatred and suspicion of the federal government's role in regulating guns with responsible laws, the people that share the view of the NRA management.

        And, I am not denigrating "gun owners" generally.  In part b/c I am one.  I own a 20 guage Baretta over/under shotgun for sporting clays and grouse.  I also own a Remington 270 rifle that I previously used to hunt deer for meat (which I genuinely love the taste of venison and it's health benefits) - - alas I just cannot bring myself to shoot deer anymore, which is an uncomfortable position for me b/c I still eat meat - - it's like I rely on someone else to do the harvesting of an animal even though I am happy to benefit from it.  Sometimes I genuinely believe that people that eat meat should have to harvest their own a few times in their life in order to gain some respect for the animal and be less wasteful and more appreciative of one's place in nature.

        Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

        by 4CasandChlo on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 05:53:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And yet there are those who do not belong to the (9+ / 0-)

        NRA, or so they say, who do have those extremist views.  We see them daily here at DKos.  I'm very happy to discuss real useful gun control with you or anyone like you.  I'm sure you have very useful input for the conversation.

        When someone says, yes, I'll agree to limiting clip/drum size, but I want 50 state carry laws in return.  I just have to stare at the screen with my jaw hanging open.  This isn't bargaining.  This is real exploration of of laws that would be effective in keeping more of our people alive.

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

        by Smoh on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 06:09:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is because you assumed that the game would be (0+ / 0-)

          stating ludicrous gun restriction demands, to which the gun rights people would offer something that they are willing to give up.  This isn't happening, nor is it going to happen.  That is not how compromise works.  What you are seeing instead is, if you want some new restrictions then in exchange we are going to eliminate restrictions.

      •  And there are gun rights supporters like me (11+ / 0-)

        I have lost family and friends to gun violence and gun suicide (and also to a death by bludgeoning and suicides by hanging and intentional drug overdose), and stopped a family member and two friends from gun suicide; and have seen the damage my bullets have done to the animals I have killed for food or because they were rabid or otherwise immediately dangerous. And I continue to support the right to gun ownership.

        While rights are metaphysically absolute, their exercise in the physical world cannot be, and we always have the opportunity to test and adjust the boundaries and impingements (whether wisely or not). It is long past time to adjust some of the boundaries on gun ownership IMO (and long past time for ardent opponents to stop yelling from the bleachers and get serious about repealing 2A).

        Watching the patient, dangerous vitiation of the Fourth Amendment over the past few decades; the same carefully planned and executed carving away of abortion rights; witnessing the President I ardently supported in '08 and '12, and his Drone Squadron, take breathtaking liberties with due process and equal protection; and now being caught up in the tides of terrible rage and grief, thoughtful concern, and outright hatred that have arisen out of the Newtown massacre; I am not moved to do something for the sake of doing something.

        I am looking for restrictions that are as conservative as possible -- that is, as respectful of constitutional rights as possible -- and specifically targeted to produce results that can be AND BY LAW WILL BE measured and evaluated by government agencies based on diligent data collection that is also available to the public. The ones that bear fruit may lead us to other or better conservative but targeted restrictions. The ones that prove superfluous should be removed.

        I am also seeking a concerted investment in mental healthcare and in explorations of the benefits and considerable hazards of expanded civil commitment laws.

        It is an unpopular notion in some quarters that liberty entails risk. Many Europeans are horrified that we allow hate speech that, in their countries and because of their histories, are criminal offenses. Untold thousands of rape victims have been raped by assailants explicitly using pornographic images or movies as posing/scripting guides, and yet pornography has fairly broad protection under the First Amendment. Voting rights have allowed citizens to put in office -- and knowingly return to office -- people who have lied to get us into wars; abetted the decimation of first nation people, the theft of their land and children; abetted wartime torture; turned a blind eye to the excesses of our police forces; turned a blind eye to generation after generation of lynchings; instituted ubiquitous, warrantless domestic surveillance; turned a blind eye to widespread rape in our armed forces; have no intention of honoring separation of church and state; on and on and on. Abortion opponents who ardently and not unreasonably believe fetuses are human and should have rights, however much I may disagree with them, view the 50 million abortions that have taken place in the U.S. since Roe v. Wade as an unconscionable slaughter that makes the depredations of rampage killers seem modest by comparison.

        It will not, and should not, be easy. But if we are serious about expanding limitations on gun ownership and regulations on particular gun hardware, it is time to stop the invective that makes compromise all but impossible, settle on a realistic middle ground, press hard, and get it done this year, before the next election cycle kicks into full gear.


        by raincrow on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:15:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site