Skip to main content

View Diary: "I Wanted My Guns Back. I Just Wanted Them Back So Bad." Update. (306 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I need to think some more about this. (10+ / 0-)

    I'm not disputing what you say, but there is something very odd going on here.

    You may, or may not know that I am about as anti-gun ownership as anyone you are ever likely to meet, yet I have met Kyle. We had lunch a few months ago and he is a genuinely nice guy. Also younger than I thought :)

    I have other friends who are sane, rational and decent, and their attitude to guns is at complete variance to their attitudes to most everything else.

    There is a disconnect going on between progressive thinking on virtually all issues except this one, and I haven't worked out quite what it is. With the Right, it's generally quite easy, but liberals and guns is a tougher nut to crack.

    Personally I lean towards the idea that if we could remove the firearms from most of those we identify as "Right", then most gun owners on the Left probably wouldn't feel the need for them anymore.

    Meanwhile ... I wish they would get out of the damned way on gun safety laws because at worst all they would do is cause a little inconvenience, and that's a small price to pay imo.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:19:46 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The "very odd" thing is that there is disagreement (4+ / 0-)

      among genuine liberals on the question of whether the "gun safety laws" are a good idea. It's a lot easier to think about things if you can assume that all right-thinking people agree with you about everything, and anyone who disagrees about one point is probably wrong about everything, (or is a "paid shill," which is the other thing KVoimakas is regularly accused of.)
           Gun control is actually only one point that "genuine liberals" have serious disagreements on. The current debate on surveillance and whether Snowden is a traitor or a hero comes to mind. And obviously the I-P debate goes on. It's very unfortunate that we have to have this constant doubt over whether real, genuine liberals with all good intentions can hold contrary views about gun laws.

      -7.25, -6.26

      We are men of action; lies do not become us.

      by ER Doc on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:41:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They are on the side of the RW; arm everyone & (5+ / 0-)

      Assume everyone is armed. Makes society more dangerous, not less IMO. The libs with guns are not on our side unless they have suffered a loss like Congresswoman Giffords. Guns are more important than people.

      There seems to be a lack of understanding that the public is at risk. But who cares about humans. All it does is make the arms dealers and the NRA richer.

      Like, GZ put the public at risk and can again.

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:44:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not just opinion, either. We have the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Joy of Fishes, FogCityJohn

        history which backs up the claim that lowering the number of weapons reduces gun deaths.

        The first thing any newly appointment town marshal or sheriff did to clean up towns in the old west was to require weapons to be turned in.  Town after town, that's how they stopped the killing.

        We know from our own history what to do. The claim that having gunslingers all over town as a means to reducing death and violence is pretty laughable.

        "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

        by YucatanMan on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:31:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We have a lot of armchair constitutional scholars (13+ / 0-)

      when it comes to RKBA. One of the claims put forth is that licensing fees are unconstitutional because they are similar to a poll tax.

      New York requires a license to possess a handgun in your home. In most of the state the fee is $3-10, but in NYC it is $340, and in Nassau County it is $200. Last week handgun license fees in New York state and New York City were upheld as constitutional by 2nd Circuit Ct. of Appeals. It's all consistent with Heller and McDonald.

      The opinion is basically that public safety is a legitimate state function and counties should have wide latitude in setting fees that defray the cost of regulating handguns. It is not a tax, and is limited to the cost of administering the licensing scheme.

      They court said it is similar to other legitimate infringements on civil rights that are part of protecting public order; a bridge toll is a legitimate infringement on the "right to travel" and a parade permit fee is legitimate infringement on the "right of expression."

      "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 Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 05:57:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The disconnect has to do with experience... (5+ / 0-)

      The problem as I see it is that there is a contingent of progressives whose cumulative experience with guns is what they see in the media.  Heinous murders, self-defense whackos, idiots doing stupid things... gun nuts.  Then there is the contingent who actually have a significant experience with guns.  Even within the latter group there is disagreement, but at least we are talking the same language.

      It bothers some here that anyone would need multiple guns.  Well, I have several... all locked up in a safe.  Why?  Because three of us in the family hunt, and not just one type of hunting.  Am I worried about home invasions?  No.  Self defense?  No.  A tyrannical government? No.  I just want to go out and hunt... like the vast majority of gun owners that you never read or hear a thing about.  We hunt, target shoot, whatever.  We never kill anyone, we never do anything stupid with a gun, we don't join the NRA, we just mind our own business.  And it pisses us off when we are lumped into the same bunch that includes people who kill 13 year old kids for stealing stuff.  Yes, I understand that there is a subset of progressives who find some of the above activities abhorrent.  I respect that, but it does not change the discussion.  There are many gun owners who do nothing more than competitive target shooting.

      Gun safety laws?  Have at it.  It's not like these things haven't been addressed.  A person does not get a hunting license here without taking a course.  Criminal background checks, mental competence checks... fine.  Just understand that there isn't one monolithic RKBA contingent that is steeled against any reasonable measures.

      •  Agree. (9+ / 0-)

        I hunted growing up. Pheasant and rabbit, mostly, with my dad. When he quit hunting, I quit hunting.

        The folks who puzzle me are those who feel the need to always have a weapon on them (excluding, of course, those with a demonstrated need such as security, police or perhaps dealing with a stalker issue).

        They are the radical ones, in my experience. All of this macho bluster about "being ready if the SHTF!" (Shit Hits The Fan)

        Most of them are out-of-shape white guys who would be lucky if they could run 200 yards without being gassed. But they have their guns! At all times! And they typically fight every reasonable effort to make guns just a little more difficult to get in this country.

        Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

        by Bob Johnson on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:41:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't disagree... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bob Johnson, Joy of Fishes

          But you must recognize that within the dKos community there are individuals who do not see these distinctions.  Gun=bad.  Gun owner=Nut job.

          •  Yes, true. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joy of Fishes, shaharazade

            I think the big change came when the gun makers (and their mouthpiece, the NRA) switched their emphasis from guns as sport (hunting, target practice) into guns for self-defense.

            That happened when hunting declined and gun makers were desperate for new markets in which to push their wares. The shift in advertising was dramatic. There was still advertising for hunting guns, but they really started pushing items like the semi-autos (handguns and weapons like the AR-15) as "self-defense" weapons.

            When I was a kid, a lot of other kids I knew hunted with their dads. I imagine a lot of that is gone now, especially as people moved from rural to urban environments over the last 50-60 years.

            We now know that the gun makers (and the NRA) don't give a rat's ass who gets a gun, as long as a gun is sold. That's why this country is flooded with handguns, and the concealed and open carry crowds fight any sort of sane restrictions on sales, tooth-and-nail.

            Calling other DKos members "weenies" is a personal insult and therefore against site rules.

            by Bob Johnson on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:03:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  For the most part (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, YucatanMan

        I exclude rifles and shotguns from my argument.

        I think that if we dealt with handguns as a separate category we would make substantial inroads into the issue. So much so that the rest would become clear.

        I have no desire to see hunters deprived of their food, although "hunting for sport" is something I find distasteful.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:18:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I know lots of nice republicans and conservatives, (6+ / 0-)

      but I don't support their bullshit ideas.

      Here's some other people who were nice.

      According to his neighbors, Columbine killer Eric Harris was "a nice guy. Shy person, didn't say much" and "a very nice, polite, clean-cut kid." Furrow's neighbors called him, "a very pleasant individual." Barton's neighbors saw him as "a typical American family man," "a nice guy" who "kept to himself."
      I am not saying that KV is a psycho, but being nice has nothing to do with the fact that he supports crazy shit that gets people like Trayvon Martin killed, while the killer goes scott free.

      "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

      by ranger995 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 08:24:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well I agree (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ranger995, jpmassar, YucatanMan

        but it's a one issue thing.

        Conflating liberal gun owners with the Right is unhelpful.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:20:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I am not conflating them with the right. I am (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade

          just making a point that someone's niceness should have nothing to do with whether you support an issue or not. You said you don't know how you feel about it because he was nice. Everyone wanted to have a beer with George W. Bush, doesn't have anything to do with the issues he supported.

          I don't think KV is a conservative, I am just saying that his being nice does not make him right, and I don't think it is useful to conflate those two things.

          "If you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing!" (on a sign at a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans)

          by ranger995 on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 09:23:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think it is a deeply seated fear of others in (8+ / 0-)

      society, of feeling so separated from civilization that the only recourse is to defend yourself with your magic equalizer.  And I'm 100% serious in saying that.

      Actual crime rates, particularly violent crimes, were three times higher 30-40 years ago, yet people today are much more fearful.

      I think most of it comes down to two very different things:

      1)  24 hour news cycle.  One violent episode is repeated ad naseum by every available outlet. The airwaves are saturated with reports of violence from around the nation, whereas 40 years ago, if there were no shootings in your city or county, you'd never hear about the rest unless it were a notorious case. And then, you'd read about it in the dispassionate forum of a paper newspaper, not video looped endlessly through your brain, triggering primate fear response.

      2)  Lack of social networks.  Not too awful long ago, it was common for people to belong to social groups and clubs of all types.  It was common to meet with your neighbors and coworkers at the corner bar.  There were Elks, Lions, Masons, Optimists, Toastmasters, whatnot. Their lack of popularity and membership are an illustration of how foreign these groups seem to us today. There were many vibrant social groups getting together and doing good in their communities.  And, as a side-effect, they were knitting people together.  (Yes, these organizations still exist, but far too many people have zero social group connections.)

      Today, everyone drives home, shuts the car in the garage, flips on the TV and absorbs the fear from around the world.  

      Today's social outlets might include watching your kids in school sports and casually chatting with other parents, but that isn't the same as regularly joining together for community betterment and getting to know people across the community.

      And last, I'd throw in some hate radio just as an afterthought. There is so much hostility generated today for zero reason. It infects all of us. None of us can avoid it because none of us can avoid running into the listeners somewhere, sometime.

      Well, those are some of my thoughts on the matter. Many people have a genuine - basically unfounded - fear.

      "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

      by YucatanMan on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:22:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I find it curious ... (6+ / 0-)

        It is reasonable to suppose that among our numbers here we have some of the most responsible gun owners in America. In part I think that is why they react so badly to many calls for restraint.

        However, few if any have ever really needed to use their weapons to save their lives, or the lives of others.

        Even in the rare instance where that does happen, we have no way of knowing whether or not the situation could have only been resolved with a gun. What is clear is that some of those situations could easily be resolved without a gun, especially if you don't have one.

        A gun-free society is a civilised society. A gun-culture society is one dominated by fear, and ever aggressive responses to that fear. That is made clear on a daily basis.

        What surprises me is that the gun owners buy into the fear that something might happen, even though it has never happened to them or anyone they know, yet they accept the far higher risk of the accidents that happen daily.

        We cannot help those people live free from fear until we start to remove, especially handguns, from society. We cannot do that until we know where they are, and who is supposed to have them.

        I would accept that people could have guns in the home, that is a matter for them and I would not support efforts to remove them. Outside the home is another matter entirely, because then it becomes a risk for me, my family and everyone else. Gun owners do not have the right to jeopardize my safety, and I have no good reason to implicitly trust them not to.

        I don't really care that they are scared to leave home without a gun. Stay home then.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 10:57:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jpmassar, twigg, FogCityJohn
          What surprises me is that the gun owners buy into the fear that something might happen, even though it has never happened to them or anyone they know, yet they accept the far higher risk of the accidents that happen daily.
          Our society in general is fear-driven and fear-manipulated.  Look at the threat to our liberties that en masse government surveillance creates versus the miniscule probability of "terrorists" ever hurting or killing any given individual.

          The judgement of fear vs actual danger is irrational and unsupported by facts, yet it is widespread and encouraged by our politicians and media outlets.

          I would accept that people could have guns in the home, that is a matter for them and I would not support efforts to remove them. Outside the home is another matter entirely, because then it becomes a risk for me, my family and everyone else. Gun owners do not have the right to jeopardize my safety, and I have no good reason to implicitly trust them not to.
          No one should be placed in the position of having to "trust" a gun owner not to be a fool and a bumbling idiot in public. Dropping a purse, fumbling with a wallet, reaching for something in a pocket, all are examples of instances where someone has discharged a gun, injuring themselves or others in public.  In many cases, people have been killed.  A man places a pistol on his truck seat, something happens and his child is dead.  A dog bumps a gun and the owner is dead. Could easily have been a bystander, every time.

          It is simply insane that those dangers should be permitted in public.

          "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

          by YucatanMan on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:10:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And that is why (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            YucatanMan, tytalus

            the 2nd Amendment argument to preserve those "freedoms" fails every time.

            It is simply insane that those dangers should be permitted in public.
            Public safety is a well-established reason for the SCOTUS to uphold Federal or State laws.

            I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
            but I fear we will remain Democrats.

            Who is twigg?

            by twigg on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 11:20:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  24/7 365 newscoverage (0+ / 0-)

        I have pointed the evils of this for years, since the unrelenting coverage of the Bobby Kennedy killing. How often did we need to see him bleeding on the floor in that kitchen?

        The constant need to fill airtime leads to shallow repetitive coverage going for sensationalism and coverage of some of the most vapid people in the world.

        Do no editing except to placate your corporate owners.

        Do little, if any fact checking.

        Unrelenting coverage of violent or sensational crimes, preferably if the victim is a photogenic white woman/girl with totally pure background or the "perp" (suspect) is dark complected (My Russian grandfather was listed as that on his naturalization papers and would have made a GREAT suspect for all news TV what with that, his thick accent, loud voice and tactless ways).

        Certainly no going after big corporations since that is way too complex a story ... stick to simple things like what ninny of a celeb is expecting/sulking/tweeting/rehabbing.

        “We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson

        by astrogeology girl on Fri Jul 19, 2013 at 01:02:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site