Skip to main content

View Diary: Universal background check could be as dead as assault weapons ban (614 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I was astonished to note that someone in (18+ / 0-)

    the thread expressed the confiscation concern. No doubt, MB's diary will be a magnet for those who entertain such notions. Boy, are we in trouble.

    •  On the one hand (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul1a, 714day, Joy of Fishes, jeff in nyc

      Gun registration is pretty much "show us your papers" when it comes to guns and could be abused in the same way that being able to demand someone "show us your papers" to prove legal residence can be abused.

      But, on the other hand, so what?  A part of me just doesn't care.

      •  well you could make the same argument about (7+ / 0-)

        voter reg.  The Supreme Court case involving the Arizona law makes that clear.

        But I'd still argue that in general voter registration is a net positive not a net negative.

        Anything has the potential to be abused.

        •  I strongly believe (15+ / 0-)

          That government can't do good things unless you give it power that has the potential to be abused.  I believe gun registration is a big government solution and I am often in favor of big government solutions.  Though I don't believe in confiscating guns, I think gun registration is part of the increase in data collecting power that is necessary for more effective and efficient law enforcement.

          •  Let me help you with phrasing (11+ / 0-)

            I think the 2nd Amendment folk would prefer that you say

            " ... gun registration is part of the increase in data collecting power that is necessary for a well regulated militia."
            I think quoting the 2nd Amendment is always helpful in reminding people the founding fathers did not say the ultimate goal was people having guns, but rather the goal was to have a well regulated militia and the way to do that was to allow people to keep and bear arms.  Many, especially on the right, have selective amnesia on that point.
            •  And when they want to rely on Heller (10+ / 0-)

              it's good to remind them that 2A does not include a right to be a menace to oneself or others.

              People who have not proven safe gun handling, accurate shooting skill, and knowledge of firearms law are too often a menace to themselves and others.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:30:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No constitutional right... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kentucky Kid

                ...including, speech (and religion), allows anyone to pose a menace to another person.

                But, we don't require government pre-approval or government databases of all who want to speak in order to insure that we preempt child pornographers or releasing of classified national security information.

                People often misinterpret the scope of "free speech" and get belligerent and demand it in arenas where they don't, in fact, have any such rights (private property for example or where the volume or hours of speech are limited by content neutral rules). So, obviously, we should make sure that speakers are well trained before speaking.

                Statistically, the overwhelming majority of gun owners don't pose a menace to others.

                (I'm personally not against requiring passing a test in firearms safety in order to purchase/own a firearm, as long as the test is easily available, is free, and is easily passed by most people -- just as I'm not against testing showing an understanding of compound interest or supply/demand curves in order to vote.)

                •  100,000 shootings every year (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Avila

                  A statistically significant fraction of which were in the hands of someone who was a menace to themselves or others.

                  You're example of porn is perhaps a good one.

                  If someone used their own children to make porn videos and their own recording equipment and never releases any copies of the porn out of their private property there is little the state can do to detect or protect the children who are harmed by the presence of porn in the home or being used to create porn.

                  BUT the moment that porn does into the public sphere it is totally sanctionable.

                  The right to self defense is a universal human right. It doesn't reside in the constitution. The US 2A right to use a gun for self defense depends upon firearm competence.

                  In contracts, anyone who is incompetent to sign (because they cannot understand the terms of a contract) cannot be bound by the contract when they sign unawares.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:53:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Point to numbers of shootings or even gun deaths (0+ / 0-)

                    without context is meaningless.  Attributing these statistics to proverbial straw "gun owners" as is typically done and tacitly implied in your post is obviously manipulative.  You may be verbose and vociferous, but you lack validity.

            •  I'm ok with an individual gun ownership right (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim, LilithGardener, The Marti

              I'm not seeking to get rid of that.  I would, however, prefer to phrase it in a way that makes it clear that I do not like anti-government libertarians who fear law enforcement.

              •  My main concern is those who put their right (7+ / 0-)

                to own a gun above my right to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I accept limits on my rights when they impinge negatively on others, yet many in the gun fetish camp (which is a subset of the RKBA group) feel they have the right to a gun no matter how much they endanger themselves (not really my concern) or others (a major concern).

                •  Nobody can endanger someone with a gun.... (0+ / 0-)

                  or any other object.

                  Hence the crime of assault, murder etc.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:03:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That doesn't even make sense (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FogCityJohn

                    Or are you ignoring the meaning of "endanger"?  That's like saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people", which is laughable, since thousands of people are killed every year by guns who would not be killed in any other fashion.

                    There are lots of accidents, lots of threats made with guns, lots of people who are threatened by people who they know have guns (e.g. wives who get protection orders from ex-husbands who they know have guns and are dangerous).

                    •  "doesn't make sense" (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      noway2

                      Is that why we charge the gun, knife etc with the crime of murder?

                      I am surrounded by guns. It is a very low crime area. I can assure you, it isn't the gun that is the problem.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 09:25:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  No one can endanger someone with a gun? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ColoTim, LilithGardener

                    Hmmm?  If no one can endanger someone with a gun, then the whole self-defense justification for gun ownership pretty much goes out the window.  After all, people who buy guns because they say they need them for self-defense very much want to endanger other human beings whom they perceive to be a threat.

                    But then logic doesn't appear to be your strong point.

                    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                    by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:03:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The comment pretty clearly referred to crimes. (0+ / 0-)

                      But then literacy doesn't appear to be your strong point.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:36:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  So what if it refers to crimes? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ColoTim, LilithGardener

                        Your statement is nonsensical on its face.  "No one can endanger someone with a gun"?  Really?  If no one can endanger someone with a gun, how is it that people are killed and wounded when they're shot?

                        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                        by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:54:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No. Not legally. Which was the point of the thread (0+ / 0-)

                          Again, 'literacy'--you should work on it.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:58:37 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, legally. (0+ / 0-)

                            See, e.g., State v. Ghiloni, 398 A.2d 1204, 1205-06 (Ct. App. 1978):

                            A person is guilty of reckless endangerment in the second degree “when he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a risk of physical injury to another person.” General Statutes s 53a-64. “(A) person acts ‘recklessly’ with respect to a result . . . when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur . . . . The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregarding it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.” General Statutes s 53a-3(13). The statute applies an objective yardstick to measure the nature and degree of the risk. If this yardstick is used here, there was [1206] ample evidence from which the trier could have concluded that when the defendant fired his gun at the ground in the general vicinity of the assailants, the risk of injury was substantial. The statute applies a subjective yardstick to measure the defendant's awareness of the risk. Subjective realization of a risk may be inferred from a person's words and conduct when viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances. LaFave and Scott, Criminal Law (2d Ed.) s 30. The defendant had been familiar with firearms for twenty-five years. He acknowledged to the police that he should have fired his shot into the air and that it was stupid to have fired at the ground. He did not know where *574 the bullet hit. The assailants on the street below were dressed in baker-type white uniforms and were within close range of his line of fire. Those factors, taken in the light of the surrounding circumstances, were sufficient to permit the court to conclude not only that the defendant was aware of the nature of the risk involved in his conduct but that he consciously chose to disregard it in a misguided belief that by doing so he was helping to apprehend the perpetrators of a vicious assault.

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:21:07 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You just replied "Yes, legally" and 'proved it' (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi

                            by posting the description of an illegal act.

                            Mind. Blown.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:01:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You do understand . . . (0+ / 0-)

                            that the defendant's conviction for reckless endangerment is being affirmed because he endangered someone with a gun, right?  The very thing that you said was legally impossible, right?

                            Oh, wait, maybe you don't . . .

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:13:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't understand how a description (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi

                            of an illegal act,'proves' something is 'legal'?

                            You are right.....I don't.
                            Neither does the English language.
                            Both myself and the English language has been pwnt.
                            Great Job.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:27:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you really don't understand. Ok. nt (0+ / 0-)

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 12:06:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And for your further reading enjoyment: (0+ / 0-)

                            People v. Shoonmaker, 479 N.Y.S.2d 765, 766-67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1984):

                            On this appeal, defendant argues that his conviction of reckless endangerment in the first degree cannot stand since no person was in the immediate vicinity of the path of his bullet. That fact was merely**767 fortuitous and cannot inure to the benefit of this defendant, who knew the house was occupied and who did not know the location of the occupants when he fired into the outside wall of the kitchen (see Matter of Mario Y., 75 A.D.2d 954, 956, 428 N.Y.S.2d 71).

                            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                            by FogCityJohn on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:29:28 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  If you're stopped on the road, they don't say (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, The Marti

        "Show us your papers?"  I bet all of us show them your license to drive and your insurance card.  I don't think it's the same as the AZ law that stops you for no reason other than your physical appearance or language.

    •  There are more than a few RKBA kossacks who (14+ / 0-)

      have repeatedly expressed concerns about confiscation.

      I'm not sure who they represent. The majority of gun owners I know and former gun owners, such as myself, favor registration and background checks, but would give up registration in order to get universal background checks.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:09:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They represent noise and little else (7+ / 0-)

        Their opinions are demonstrably selfish, IMHO.  I've learned from these debates that, push comes to shove, many of the RKBA members are extreme libertarians when it comes to gun ownership.

        I've learned to no longer care much about their paranoid concerns in the larger scheme of wanting to see enforcement of liabilities for gun ownership as a motivation to keep the damn weapons locked up and out of reach from innocents - although that may do little to dissuade their constant presence in heated family "accidents", I realize.

        "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

        by wader on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:59:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You got it - extreme libertarians (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wader, coquiero, Avila, WakeUpNeo

          extreme libertarians when it comes to gun ownership. I also suspect there is a lot of boasting and bragging, and worse. No one who is actually afraid of confiscation would be talking openly on a blog about which firearms they have, or openly declaring they will lie when asked about firearms.  

          When I push back against their claims, it's an attempt to showcase, for others, who are still making up their mind, how wrong some of the rhetoric is.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:38:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  "demonstrably selfish" (0+ / 0-)

          Says someone that wants to infringe on the liberties of innocent Americans for his perceived security.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:04:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Lots of them don't even vote Democratic. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, wader

          For them, the only issue is guns.  So they don't care what happens on climate change, income inequality, civil rights, or anything else as long as they get to have an unlimited number of deadly weapons.  

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:06:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Apparently, you really believe there are but a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          handful of us who stand on your side on every other single issue but are also gun owners and value 2A rights.  You really ought to go and view the statistical data and poll numbers for the amount of people who are current Democrats, who vote on your side and walk the streets with you for your candidates, and yet own a gun and value their rights to do the same under the Constitution.

          This is not a right/left issue when gun owners exist on both sides so heavily.  It is not wise to dismiss us so easily, when we do walk beside you during every election cycle.

          •  I was talking about the RKBA group at DKos (0+ / 0-)

            and what I've read from their posts, where - when you get them against the wall on making a decision to support more comprehensive supply-chain through ownership tracking, liabilities for unsafe usage, etc. most I've read here are demonstrably libertarian concerning their "right" to own and manage guns as they see fit.  As if owning a killing machine is a not a public safety issue, but really one that should be left almost entirely to their best judgement.

            Reminds me of financial investment institutions demanding to police only themselves, and how successful that happens to be.

            Second Amendment "rights" as laid out by the extremist Supreme Court under Heller is an abomination of history and law, so hiding behind the notion of "rights" for some of the desires I've read here is not a strong argument to make when claiming this isn't about being left/right.

            "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

            by wader on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:16:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you not believe it is a right? Do you not see (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              that to people who value this right under the Constitution, it is as important as voting or having the right to a fair trial or free speech?  I value it just as much and just as equally. If it were ever on the table that I could no longer own a gun and have that freedom, I would consider it as serious as someone telling me I could no longer vote or speak my mind in this forum.  

              I think this thought process it is sometimes lost by some with regard to how important it is to those of us who value the 2A.....especially those who do not own a gun nor consider it a right, that is indeed, as valuable as the other rights under the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

    •  indeed, the RKBA posse will show up and once again (8+ / 0-)

      we get to play NRA bingo.

      (snicker)

      •  It's getting under their skin when we play back (6+ / 0-)

        Hope you'll participate whenever the next round begins.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:09:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  as Saul Alinsky says, laughing at them is the most (6+ / 0-)

          potent weapon.

          I laugh at them the same way I laugh at tinfoil-hat Birchers, and for much the same reasons.

        •  Absolutely not. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2, KVoimakas

          Watching your side have no answer other than hysterically typing "Bingo" is the greatest symbal of how this debate is going.

          I love it. In fact, where is the promised 49 reasons to support gun rights bingo card?
          I have been waiting with bated breath....after all, we had such fun with the first one!

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:08:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So it's all a game to you? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2
          It's getting under their skin when we play back
          I'm not a member of any group here, let alone a "posse" as lenny proposes.

          I do find it somewhat sad though that people like you find this all fun & amusing, perhaps like a game....

          Hope you'll participate whenever the next round begins
          Why is that? Can you not at the very least have some respect for the many people that believe in 2A that probably agree with at least 90% of your views except this one?
          •  yeah, I keep forgetting that the posse is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            more liberal than the NRA.  On everything but guns.

            (snicker)

            Want to stop being associated with the Birchers and the tinfoil-hatters?  Then stop sounding just like them.

            Dogs, beds, fleas, and all that.

          •  It's certainly not a game to me - (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kentucky Kid, Avila, WakeUpNeo

            I'm new here. As I understand it, BINGO is an attempt to neutralize disruptive behavior when someone who is unawares is trying in good faith to have a discussion and don't recognize they are being led down the same path that others have been led before.

            A brief history of BINGO. A small sample of members from a certain group come into diaries to divert, distract, derail, confuse, and irritate, and they all keep repeating the same RW or NRA memes, over and over and over again. Two  weeks ago someone made a joke about it and decided to start a list, and that led to a BINGO card as a shorthand way to cut the diversion attempts short and alert others to not waste their time with that poster's attempts to distract and derail.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:20:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lilith, I have no clue what you're talking about (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              LilithGardener, KVoimakas

              as far as "bingo" - that's a new one on me. From your description it sounds like it's an diversion from actually discussing or debating the issue at hand.

              Me personally, whether I agree or disagree 100%, or somewhere in between with what someone posts, I'll simply state my thoughts/facts and continue on, not play this "game", or whatever it is....but that's just me

              •  No skin off my back that you don't understand (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Avila

                what has been happening or what BINGO means.

                I attempted to explain.

                YMMV

                "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:57:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I strongly support the right to keep and (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Avila, WakeUpNeo

            bear arms and have have been attacked from the other extreme when I stand up for an individual right to self defense and under Heller, an individual right to use a gun for self defense and defense of one's property.

            If you're not sure please peruse my diaries and comments.

            I was taught to shoot straight at the age of 10, and although I don't currently own a gun, I might want to in some future chapter of my life.

            The tragedy of gun violence is not a game at all.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:24:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What I will no longer abide are extreme (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            WakeUpNeo

            libertarians claiming legitimacy in our diaries when they spout lies, repeat the NRA talking points, express vehemence against liberal states that do have gun regulations, and openly celebrate "victory" along side the likes of Ted Cruz.

            I welcome ideas and facts to help figure out what reforms can reduce gun trafficking, can reduce transfer of guns into the hands of people who are already prohibited from having them, and how to make ownership less of a menace to everyone around the gun, especially the children.

            The right to self defense is a universal human right. It does not reside in the US constitution. The US 2A right to use a firearm for self defense does not include any right to create a menace to oneself or others.

            If you agree that 100,000 shootings a year constitute a public health problem then we're in the same large frame.

            The BINGO game began from a need to push back against people who deny there is a problem.

            "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

            by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:32:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  PS - there is a concerted and sustained effort (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WakeUpNeo

              by a small number of Kossacks to discourage people from taking any action, at all. They lie, they distort by cherry picking numbers, and they bully people out of the discussion.

              Some of them joined very recently and only have one issue.

              The BINGO rebuttal is not personal, it's a counter attack against a trolling strategy.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:02:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site