Skip to main content

View Diary: IQ Test For Gun Owners (152 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Like this: (9+ / 0-)

     photo ar-15_zpsf370dbde.jpg

    And before you challenge me, there are a few things that you should know:

    My father was a sharpshooting and marksmanship instructor for the USAR.

    He had a NYC carry permit. That fact was once mentioned in a pop culture magazine.

    He owned over 400 guns. There were guns in my closet and under my mattress. EVERY one had a trigger lock.

    He may have been on the board of the NRA. I don't remember, and he died in August 2009. He was a lifetime member. And a VERY responsible gun owner. We were taught to respect guns, and to handle them SAFELY.

    I learned to shoot at 12. We had a 50' pistol range in the basement.

    This diary is not an attack on the "liberties" of the "innocent gun owner." The POINT is that too many irresponsible IDIOTS own guns. If Daddy were alive, this diary would not piss him off. He'd laugh.

    I have fired two different versions of the AR-15. Powerful gun. Overkill for home defense. More of a penis extension, IMO.

    I do not own a gun because my husband fears them. I am fine with that. If I DID, you can be damn sure the children wouldn't know that i did. It would be trigger-locked and in a safe. Under the bed. And it wouldn't be an AR-15, either.

    "...Males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.” —Newt Gingrich in 1995

    by BadKitties on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:19:34 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So an assault weapon only covers an AR-15? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas, gerrilea, Tom Seaview, ER Doc

      This doesn't define 'assault weapon' at all.

      "Powerful weapon"
      A .223 is 'too powerful'?!?
      I guess deer hunters in the northern half of the country, elk hunters, moose hunters, bear hunters (not to mention probably over half of all rifle owners) are all out of luck.

      "This diary is not an attack on the "liberties" of the "innocent gun owner.""
      So you are against the AWB?

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:31:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Zzzz. This is getting boring. (5+ / 0-)

        No, I thought it was clear that I am FOR the AWB. Duh. I think that only military and law enforcement should have them. That should have been obvious, but I guess that it wasn't. Oh well.

        "...Males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.” —Newt Gingrich in 1995

        by BadKitties on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:35:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you are for the AWB then you are trying (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, PavePusher

          to infringe on the liberties of innocent Americans.

          Perhaps we need to review the definition of the word 'liberty'.
          "lib·er·ty noun--
          1. a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
          b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
          2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
          3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

          A ban is, by definition, an infringement of liberty.
          Currently a person has the liberty to buy a particular (yet still undefined by you) rifle.
          You want to take that liberty away from innocent people.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:42:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you a libertarian? Nt (5+ / 0-)

            "...Males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes.” —Newt Gingrich in 1995

            by BadKitties on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:49:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Firearms are banned in airports. (5+ / 0-)

            You will be arrested if you attempt to carry one there. Is that "by definition, an infringement of liberty"?

            And, yes. I VERY MUCH want to take away your "constitutional right" to carry a loaded AR-15 aboard a Boeing 747. In fact, I bloody well insist upon it.

            Now, would you like to discuss the issue sanely?

            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

            by Tim DeLaney on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:58:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No one has the "constitutional right" to have an (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              AR-15 aboard a Boeing 747"

              As someone whom is such a rabid supporter of literacy, you may want to check the word 'currently' in my statement.

              I don't support taking any current liberty away from any innocent person.

              "Now, would you like to discuss the issue sanely?"
              Already am.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:05:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OK, we're making progress. (6+ / 0-)
                No one has the "constitutional right" to have an
                AR-15 aboard a Boeing 747.
                Do you have the right to carry a loaded handgun in a Boeing 747?

                Do you have the right to carry a loaded handgun in a supermarket?

                Does the government have the right to ban weapons in certain public places?

                Does the government have the right to ban weapons in whatever public places that it deems necessary to public safety?

                Just what limitations do you think are reasonable in the interest of public safety?

                How would you view a total ban on the carrying of loaded firearms in public places? ("Public places" being suitable spelled out)  

                Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                by Tim DeLaney on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:17:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I thought you wanted a 'sane' conversation. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  Let us stick to the issue at hand.

                  Namely the AWB.

                  Why should innocent people lose their liberty for the crimes of a murderer?

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:20:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I asked six specific questions designed to (5+ / 0-)

                    get your opinion on the general boundaries of the issue at hand. OK, if you want to limit the discussion to assault weapons:

                    Do you have the right to carry a loaded assault weapon in a Boeing 747?

                    Do you have the right to carry a loaded assault weapon in a supermarket?

                    Does the government have the right to ban assault weapons in certain public places?

                    Does the government have the right to ban assault weapons in whatever public places that it deems necessary to public safety?

                    Just what limitations on assault weapons do you think are reasonable in the interest of public safety?

                    How would you view a total ban on the carrying of loaded assault weapons in public places? ("Public places" being suitably spelled out.)

                    All of the above would depend on "assault weapons" being specifically enumerated by manufacturer and model number.

                    Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                    by Tim DeLaney on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:35:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  If you want a conversation, fine. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher, buddabelly

                      If you want to play 20 questions, I'm not interested.

                      Suffice to say I do not support infringing on any of the current liberties innocent people have. That statement should be enough for you to ascertain my opinion on gun control, warrantless wiretaps, or any other issue.

                      Now, shall we return to the issue at hand?

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:40:37 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Let me see if I have this straight. (4+ / 2-)

                        You are unwilling to answer ANY question I might have on your views.

                        Just how am I supposed to conduct a meaningful dialog with you? If you refuse to tell me what is on your mind, how can we discuss anything?

                        Up until now, I have refrained from characterizing your arguments in insulting terms. I didn't even ask if assault weapons should be banned in elementary schools.

                        OK, let me be a little more blunt. I believe your arguments are the irrational ravings of a whackjob loony tunes gun nut.

                        If you have a rational response, I'd be willing to discuss it. Otherwise, you're in the wrong place saying the wrong things.

                         

                        Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                        by Tim DeLaney on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:56:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I am unwilling to play 20 questions with you. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PavePusher

                          The issue is the AWB. Not any of the pointless questions you presented.

                          "I believe your arguments are the irrational ravings of a whackjob loony tunes gun nut."
                          I believe I couldn't give less of a shit about your opinion of me.

                          "rational response"
                          Like porn & 747s?
                          You got me there.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 07:02:11 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  He's very good at always answering the question (4+ / 0-)

                          he wants asked, even if it's irrelevant.  

                          •  The AWB is 'irrelevant' to this conversation? (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher, Tom Seaview

                            Good thing you have managed to avoid such irrelevancies as 'gun control' in a 'gun control' diary, and managed to stick to the relevant.......which is--apparently--me.

                            You never cease to impress.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:50:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  DoC...tsk tsk...you apologize then uprate this? (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Tom Seaview, FrankRose, gerrilea

                          TR for pure insult with no redeeming value.

                          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                          Emiliano Zapata

                          by buddabelly on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:17:10 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  buddabelly: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            You HR'd me after I made a concerted effort to engage FR in a meaningful dialog. The record of this thread is quite clear.

                            In case you haven't noticed, this is quite frankly a progressive Democratic blog. This is stated right up front. I, for one, am willing to discuss policy issues even with those who disagree with me, and with the views of fellow Democratic progressives. But you should take notice that if a poster takes a stance generally associated with the Right Wing of the Republican party, then that poster should be willing to defend his views.

                            FR has refused to do that. I believe he has forfeited the right to civil treatment by that refusal. In street language, FR is a troll, and deserves to be treated as such.

                            I call on you to withdraw your HR. Otherwise, I will henceforth regard you as a fellow troll.

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 01:24:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  First off, I really could not care less what you (4+ / 0-)

                            regard me as.  I am who and what I am,  and my record here since Hurricane Katrina speaks for itself.

                            Secondly, you asked a series of  "when did you stop beating your wife"  questions,  do you really expect anyone to even bother with half of those?   Do you really think those are a legitimate set of questions asked as a whole?

                            Third, There are about 40% of your fellow Democratic party members who own guns, many Democrats also carry both open and concealed whether you want to admit it or not.  Even more Independents and in many states they outnumber both Dems and repubs....

                            Fourth, this is not a progressive blog, it is a Democratic blog with the specific mission of electing "More and Better Democrats" over and over it has been repeated, the site is Democratic, not a  "progressive"  website. In my and many other people's opinions, further gun control will only cost us votes,  not win us votes.  Even Clinton blamed the AWB for the 94 Debacle and the Gingrich/DeLay reign of happy butterflies........

                            Personally I'm a happy left libertarian with heavy liberal tendencies but anti-authoritarian, maybe leaning Anarcho/Syndicalist  that has worked for and voted for Democrats at every level as long as I could vote and will unless a truly viable alternative emerges.........I don't see any such thing happening.

                            He stated way up where you started asking the ridiculous questions

                            I don't support taking any current liberty away from any innocent person.
                            That answers 5 of your questions in the Double Ridiculous version where you ask if he thinks it's cool to carry an assault weapon whatever the hell that is.....  in a airliner and other calm and reasonable questions...

                            In the somewhat less virulent version where it's merely a handgun and not an AR-15 or an "Assault Weapon" whatever the hell that is..... it still answers three of your questions.

                            Right before you jumped to the insult he again stated

                            Suffice to say I do not support infringing on any of the current liberties innocent people have. That statement should be enough for you to ascertain my opinion on gun control, warrantless wiretaps, or any other issue.
                            Again answering some of your questions. Exactly what you accused him of not doing when you lashed out at him.

                            Frank might win more friends by being a little nicer about it as he does come off as a smartass often but I have seen many times when he was correcting a point of fact.

                            Doesn't give you the right to call him a mouth breathing knuckle dragging Tea Party twit who's a secret Bachmann fan, or the functional equivalent thereof....

                            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                            Emiliano Zapata

                            by buddabelly on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 05:43:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, you penned a long response. (0+ / 0-)

                            But you quite failed to indicate how we could engage in a substantive discussion of the issues.

                            For example, you did not address the issue of assault style weapons and what the response of society ought to be. It is a historical fact that a legally obtained weapon was used on 12-14 to murder 20 first graders and six educators. We cannot have a meaningful dialog if we just dismiss this as an unfortunate random incident. Most of us regard this massacre as unacceptable.

                            I think that something ought to be done to prevent such massacres. Twenty first graders are too high a price. What is your response? What should we do if we regard 20 first graders as too high a price?

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 08:35:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  legally obtained weapon? (3+ / 0-)

                            His murdered his mother then took her AR-15 on the rampage.

                            How in your opinion is killing somebody and taking their weapon "legally obtaining" a weapon?  You know that the rifle was registered to her, right?  right?  So much for gun registration when you can simply murder the owner it's registered to and take their weapon...

                            Are you not aware that both murder and robbery are illegal?

                          •  His Mother obtained the gun legally. (0+ / 0-)

                            I think you know what I meant.

                            Pretending that you don't understand me is a useful rhetorical ploy, but it sheds little light on the question I posed.

                            Adam Lanza had instant access to a weapon that was legally purchased by his mother. The fact that he had access to that weapon led directly to the massacre of 12-14.

                            Had that weapon been illegal -- as I believe it should have been -- Adam Lanza would not have been able to kill those 26 innocent people, because his mother would not have been able to purchase it.

                            Now I'd like to ask you this: Is it, in your opinion, sound public policy to allow people to buy weapons like the AR-15?

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:39:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You didn't ask me, but I'd like to answer: (3+ / 0-)

                            yes.

                            You know how I'd have instant access to a full auto (or select fire) version of the M4/16? Use a shotgun, kill a police officer, take his rifle. Or a handgun.

                            I, of course, am not advocating the killing of LEOs.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:43:18 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're scary. (0+ / 0-)
                            You know how I'd have instant access to a full auto (or select fire) version of the M4/16? Use a shotgun, kill a police officer, take his rifle. Or a handgun.
                            What on earth is this all about?

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:28:02 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's the same type of situation. (2+ / 0-)

                            The LEO obtained his firearm legally through his department. Just like Lanza's mother did. Shooting a LEO and taking his firearm is just as illegal as Lanza shooting his mom and taking her firearm.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:31:14 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, your stance is that (0+ / 0-)

                            we shouldn't ban assault weapons because they are easy to obtain simply by killing police and stealing theirs? Are you actually serious, or is this snark?

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:40:17 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, that wasn't the point there at all. (3+ / 0-)

                            "Assault weapons" shouldn't be banned because of what Frank mentions in another comment: rifle homicides are less than 'personal weapon' homicides.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:46:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You are not being coherent. (0+ / 0-)

                            "what Frank mentions" is not an argument.

                            Maybe rifle homicides are less frequent because fewer people carry rifles than handguns, don't you think?

                            Let me ask this: Can you point to anything good that ever came from owning an assault weapon? I can point to some bad stuff.

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:59:45 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Can you point to anything good about (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            KVoimakas, gerrilea, andalusi

                            being able to talk on the phone without being wiretapped without a warrant? I can point to some bad stuff. (9/11)

                            Can you point to anything good about freedom of the press? I can point to some bad stuff. (Spanish-American War)

                            Can you point to anything good about freedom of religion? I can point to some bad stuff. (Westboro Baptist Church)

                            Rights are not subject to your arbitrary ideas of what is 'good'.
                            Your point is laughably asinine.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:18:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure. (4+ / 0-)

                            Competition
                            Hunting
                            Self defense

                            My point was that there are literally millions of people who own 'assault weapons' and they do nothing wrong. The % of people who do is miniscule. You're not going to control the outlier events (like mass shootings) with a ban.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:20:36 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You fail to understand the whole point being (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            FrankRose

                            made:

                            Criminals don't follow the law.  If they want something it matters not if it's legal or illegal, they will get what they want by whatever means they can.

                            Lanza killed his mother then stole her guns, allegedly. (And I say "allegedly" in light of Snowden's releases, anything our government says is and forevermore suspect, period)

                            Now, he could have as easily waited until recess and stole a Monster truck and drove it into the school yard and ran the children over.

                            Or he could have started a fire in multiple places within the school, went back outside and sat in a tree and picked off the children as they were escorted out of the school by their teachers.

                            Banning objects will not fix or address the human behind the act.  See the UK's failed attempts at banning things, violence at an all time high and knife attacks ever increasing, so much so, now they're talking about banning knives for Christ-sake!

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:26:49 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  All rifles combined murder less than half as many (4+ / 0-)

                            people as bare hands do.
                            (AW's are only a fraction of all rifles)

                            Columbine happened during AWB1.

                            The Happy Land Fire killed 87.

                            It is the murderer, not the object.
                            But if you are convinced that banning objects is the way to prevent murders, bare hands murder twice as many people, knives kill six times as many & clubs murder slightly more people than all rifles combined do.......
                            It would appear you have a lot of banning to do.
                            Best get started.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 07:39:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How many first graders could Adam Lanza (0+ / 0-)

                            have killed with his bare hands? Or with clubs? Or with knives?

                            Or, don't first graders count?

                            What good ever came out of the muzzle of an AR-15 in the hands of a civilian?

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:12:58 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  But you want to ban 'assault weapons' right? (3+ / 0-)

                            First, what is an assault weapon?
                            Second, pretty sure he'd have killed as many or more with a hunting rifle and lots of reduced capacity magazines.
                            Third, I answered your 'what good?' question above.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:21:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh, please (0+ / 0-)

                            First, you know very well what an assault weapon is. You cannot plead ignorance here.

                            Second, you're quite wrong here and you know it. The very point of an AR-15 as opposed to a hunting rifle is that it has greater firepower -- i.e. ability to kill in larger numbers. Why else would it exist?

                            Third, your pathetic points:

                            Competition?
                            Hunting?
                            Self defense?

                            The AR-15 is not designed for any of the above. You might as well claim that it's useful as a paperweight. It is designed exclusively for killing humans in large numbers. That's what it was invented for. You know it; I know it.

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 08:45:19 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Actually, I don't believe 'assault weapons' (4+ / 0-)

                            exist outside of the imaginations of people who would like to ban them.

                            How are you defining firepower? The Mini-14 shoots the same cartridge and can take 30 round magazines. Yet it would not be considered an assault weapon by the AWB of 1994. This is one of my major problems with 'assault weapons' and the supposed definition of them.

                            I love how you take good things that happen with an AR15 in civilian hands and completely dismiss them because they don't fit what you want. Needless to say, NONE of the ARs I owned did any damage to anything but paper targets. I had seven at one point.

                            My pocket knife isn't designed to kill someone, yet it could be pressed into that duty. My 1911 isn't designed for distance shooting, yet I'm pretty good at 100 yards with it. Well, somewhat good anyway. The AR15 wasn't designed to kill people in large numbers. If it was, it wouldn't use 5.56/.223 and you'd be talking about the original design (that was full auto/select fire) of the M16/M4.

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:01:26 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If you maintain that the AR-15 (0+ / 0-)

                            was not designed to kill people, then you are deluded or dishonest.

                            There are very few firearms that were designed for other purposes. Shotguns come to mind, of course, and no doubt there are some specialized guns designed primarily for target shooting.

                            But the majority of guns were specifically designed for use against people. Now that's a historical fact, not merely an opinion. The AR-15 falls squarely into that category.

                            I don't for a moment dispute your personal attitude towards firearms. No doubt, if everybody was as responsible as you are, we would not experience these massacres every few months.

                            But we do. Why is it that you believe your ability to perforate paper targets without any restriction is more important to the nation than the lives of first graders?

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:50:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The AR15 as currently purchased by civilians (3+ / 0-)

                            everywhere was not designed to kill large amounts of people.

                            I like how you switched it up there.

                            There are restrictions now. Hell, there are others I'd support. Your framing is bullshit.

                            And, and a question: if AR15s are designed to kill large amounts of people, why do so many LEOs have them?

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

                            by KVoimakas on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 11:01:29 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sir, I was trained in karate, as a self-defense (0+ / 0-)

                            tactic.  What I learned over the 10+ yrs of training could have allowed me to kill as many people I wanted until I got bored or tired of it.  The only thing that could have stopped me, a person with a gun.  I'm not faster than a bullet.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:29:44 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I am impressed. (0+ / 0-)

                            But as far as I know, the country does not have a problem with karate experts going nuts and killing innocent people.

                            It took you ten years of hard work, dedication, and training to acquire your skills. If you are that motivated, I doubt that you would become a mass murderer.

                            In ten minutes or so, any disturbed individual could buy a gun and become even more potentially lethal than you are. Do you see what I'm getting at?

                            Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                            by Tim DeLaney on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:06:13 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Point taken, the shooter in Norway hurt 209 (5+ / 0-)

                            and killed 85 people.  He planned for over two years for his attack.  He was "dedicated" to goal, sadly.

                            Insanity comes in a variety of ways and is not always violent.  The stats on mass murder has been stable for over 40 yrs....

                            We shouldn't pass laws based on "possibilities", anything is possible.  I do not subscribe to the Fear Porn For Profit(tm) model that has been used to define these issues for us and used as a justification to strip Americans of their preexisting rights.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 10:24:27 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm calling for your banning for this: (0+ / 0-)
                            I believe your arguments are the irrational ravings of a whackjob loony tunes gun nut.

                            If you have a rational response, I'd be willing to discuss it. Otherwise, you're in the wrong place saying the wrong things.

                            You've, in this thread, implied, threatened, falsely accused  and now crossed a line that IS bannable.

                            There has been nothing respectable about your one-sided conversation, it hurts us all and DK as a whole.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:17:24 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "Meaningful dialog" isn't asking questions that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea

                            have nothing to do with the issues at hand.
                            If you have a statement to make; have the guts to simply make it.
                            Then; if I disagree I will retort. That is how debates work outside of AM radio.
                            I'm not going to play 20 questions with your pointless inquiries.

                            There is a debate going on. Feel free to join it.

                            "progressive Democratic blog"
                            I am a progressive Democrat. I don't believe in taking away liberties from innocent people for the crimes of murderers.

                            "I will henceforth regard you as a fellow troll."
                            And not a shit was given.
                            You are neither a teacher nor an arbitrator.
                            Neither your questions nor your judgements mean anything to anybody.

                            Educate yourself on how 'debating' works.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 06:17:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  Unless it's my 747. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose, Tom Seaview, gerrilea

                Private property, owners' rules.

                Your hate-mail will be graded.

                by PavePusher on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 12:25:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wrong, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Glen The Plumber

                  Even if the owner of the 747 fully consents to it, passengers will not be allowed carry loaded weapons aboard it. In fact, if they try, they will be arrested.

                  Maybe if you built your own private airport, and opened it only to people that you invited privately, they could carry heat on your private 747's. But if it's open to the public you have to obey the law.

                  Sorry if that offends your sense of liberty.

                  Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                  by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:36:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As fun as these theoreticals are, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    gerrilea

                    the real world debate is about infringements upon current liberties.

                    What liberties that innocent Americans have currently, do you want to strip?

                    And please, don't make me have to quote Mirriam-Webster again.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 02:59:28 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'll give you another chance. (0+ / 0-)

                      And I'll answer your question in exactly the way you framed it.

                      I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to to take down an airliner with several hundred people aboard.

                      I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to murder as many first graders that they can get within range of their semi-automatic rifles with thirty round magazines.

                      I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to threaten the lives of other innocent Americans that happen to be within range of their lethal weapons.

                      I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to intimidate and terrorize other Americans using loaded weapons designed to kill people.

                      OK, have at it. Can you defend these liberties?

                      Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                      by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 03:55:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Bwaaaahahahahahahaha!!! (4+ / 0-)

                        1.

                        I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to to take down an airliner with several hundred people aboard.
                        Please, cite to this "liberty" in law, and then explain how someone would go about accomplishing this with civilian-legal firearms.  I caution you that I'm fairly knowledgeable of both firearms and aviation, so you'll have to be pretty factual and convincing.

                        2.

                        I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to murder as many first graders that they can get within range of their semi-automatic rifles with thirty round magazines.
                        There is no such "liberty".  Your Strawman(tm) sucks.

                        3.

                        I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to threaten the lives of other innocent Americans that happen to be within range of their lethal weapons.
                        See item 2.

                        4.

                        I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to intimidate and terrorize other Americans using loaded weapons designed to kill people.
                        Also see item 2.

                        No "defense" required for something that does not exist.

                        I would advise you to be aware that this is purportedly "a reality based community" website.

                        Your hate-mail will be graded.

                        by PavePusher on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:13:42 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Nice answer: Denial and more denial. (0+ / 0-)

                          Let's address #2, which is the most current concern in many circles.

                          I want to strip from innocent Americans their current liberty to murder as many first graders that they can get within range of their semi-automatic rifles with thirty round magazines.
                          There is no such "liberty".  Your Strawman(tm) sucks.
                          The NRA opposes any limit on the kinds of firearms that may be owned, or any limit on the firepower of those weapons. In terms of practical effect, both you and the NRA fully support the legal right of any American to arm themselves with the capability of murdering first graders by the dozens.

                          Out of one side of your mouth, we don't have the liberty of murdering first graders. But out of the other side, every person must be guaranteed that capability.

                          I must tell you that I value the lives of six-year-olds much more than I value the "right" of psychopaths gun owners to possess the means to kill them by the dozens.

                          I cannot imagine that the founders meant to put the recreational rights of mass murderers of children above the rights of those children to live and grow up. Sorry, but that just doesn't compute for me.

                          Let's get down to reasonable gun laws that protect the lives of innocent people. Are you willing to discuss laws like this?

                          Note to Boehner and McConnell: "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." --Bob Dylan-- (-7.25, -6.21)

                          by Tim DeLaney on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:52:19 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Nice counter-denial and deflection. (4+ / 0-)

                            1.  You haven't cited to any support for your previous claims.

                            2.

                            The NRA opposes any limit on the kinds of firearms that may be owned, or any limit on the firepower of those weapons.
                            Citation to this, please.  I think you'll find it's not actually true, it's just that their limits do not coincide with your desired limits, and you use this as an excuse to demonize them.

                            3.  

                            In terms of practical effect, both you and the NRA fully support the legal right of any American to arm themselves with the capability of murdering first graders by the dozens.
                            So what?  Capability does not equal intent.  And even if you could vanish all guns, that capability would still exist.  See here.

                            4.

                            I cannot imagine that the founders meant to put the recreational rights of mass murderers of children above the rights of those children to live and grow up. Sorry, but that just doesn't compute for me.
                            I'm sure they didn't, and I certainly don't see any such intent or effect in any of our founding documents or current law.  When you spout such drivel as "the recreational rights of mass murderers", don't be surprised when you aren't taken seriously.

                            5.

                            Let's get down to reasonable gun laws that protect the lives of innocent people. Are you willing to discuss laws like this?
                            Just waiting for you to start.

                            Your hate-mail will be graded.

                            by PavePusher on Thu Jun 27, 2013 at 09:23:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  Wow. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gerrilea, PavePusher

                        1) What. The. Fuck?!?!

                        2) What. The. Fuck?!?!

                        3) What. The. Fuck?!?!

                        4) What. The. Fuck?!?!

                        I can only assume that you support warrrantless wiretaps, because
                        "You want to strip terrorists from flying planes into buildings."

                        Strange interpretation of "sane" conversation.
                        Do continue. Oh Sweet Mary Jane....do continue.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 04:36:38 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Ummm... no, they aren't. (4+ / 0-)

              I can openly carry in many airports.

              I can not go past the security check-point into the secured areas, unless I am on-duty law enforcement authorized for that location.

              Fine point, but a large distinction.

              And yes, it's an infringement.  It's also a discussion that's been had here on DKos many times.  Guns on airplanes aren't much of a problem.

              (I have 22+ years of military aviation maintenance experience.)

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:04:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  not here they aren't, at least on this side of the (4+ / 0-)

              security ck...hell you can open carry and no one cares....

              Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
              I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
              Emiliano Zapata

              by buddabelly on Wed Jun 26, 2013 at 11:15:11 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (115)
  • Community (49)
  • Environment (33)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Memorial Day (30)
  • 2016 (30)
  • Culture (30)
  • Bernie Sanders (24)
  • Elections (23)
  • Media (22)
  • Spam (21)
  • GOP (20)
  • Climate Change (20)
  • Education (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Civil Rights (19)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Science (16)
  • Law (16)
  • Economy (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site