Skip to main content

View Diary: What We have Here is a Gun FAILure to Communicate (71 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I have to respond to the myth of those of us who (11+ / 0-)

    against too many guns are unfamiliar with guns and afraid of them or that we do not understand gun families/culture. I grew up in a gun family and shot a gun for the first time at about the age of four. I nearly shot my brother at one point and witnessed my mother threatening to shoot herself more than once. It is exactly my experiences growing up in gun culture that has made me turn against them. I know and understand guns and that is why I hate the idea of any person wandering around near me with a loaded weapon. The responsible gun owners are very few and very far between and yes I do believe that many of those who carry all the time out of fear of crime (or to pretend to be a badass like GZ) are pathological. I have seen and lived the pathology of gun culture.

    That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

    by stevie avebury on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 04:54:13 PM PDT

    •  So, if I put my seatbelt on every time I get into (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ER Doc, Shamash, oldpunk, PavePusher

      my car, I'm pathological?  I know you said that those whom carry out of fear are....

      I fear dying in a car crash, mind you not ever time I get into the car, but I put the seatbelt on "just in case", every time.  That habit of doing so actually saved my life a little over 10 yrs ago when I hit black ice and rolled my car down a hill, rolling over two and a half times.  I ended upside down at the bottom of a hill, took my seatbelt off and fell to the roof of my Volvo 240 DL, opened the door, crawled out, stood up and started towards the hill I just went down and fell up to my knees into water...THAT's when I realized I was on a freaking pond....;)  Looked back at my car and thought, "Dammit, it's going to go under the water!"  I really loved that car, I always felt safe in it.

      With my side-story complete, is anyone whom may ritualistically seatbelt themselves, "pathological"?

      How many people whom do wear seatbelts do so because of fear or for other reasons, like life experience or because it's the law?

      When is fear a bad thing?  (Besides when used to enrich the American Police State)??????

      Your life experiences gives you a perspective that obviously frightened and formed you...should I stand in judgment of your for it? Or should I respect that you wish not to exercise that right?

      I too had a life-changing experience with a firearm when I was 13 yrs old.  I opened my eyes to my reality that if necessary, I would "pull the trigger" without thought or hesitation or....regrets.  At that moment I was ready, willing and able to kill at least 7 people breaking into our family home...they were informed of such and fled.

      As time went on after the incident during my meditation exercises, I realized that I didn't want to become a killer.  Because of that event, I've never owned a firearm.

      I guess the difference here is that I not only respect those whom chose to exercise that right, I support and defend it.

      That gun saved the lives of my sister, my father, his 3rd wife and ultimately, myself....and not one bullet was fired.  They are a tool, a very powerful tool that should be respected and treated as such.

      -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 Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 09:19:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wear a seatbelt every time out of...yes...fear (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WakeUpNeo, MRA NY, Miss Blue

        Because I don't want to go into a coma and come out of it brain-damaged like my cousin did.

        And I hate guns b/c -- yes! -- I live in a city where life is cheap and guns are rampant.

        MORE GUNS is the problem, NOT the solution.

        Sorry to burst your bubble.

        Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

        by Youffraita on Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 10:23:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you "steve avebury"??? The poster I asked (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpunk, PavePusher

          the questions of?

          Hey, I don't mind you chirping in here, just odd that you believe I have some "bubble" that must be burst...ROFL.

          My family has had their share of violence, much of it self-inflicted and many times not.  I've had a cousin killed in a car accident, I've also had a cousin die from the bullets coming from a hunter's gun while she stood on her back porch trying to get them to stop hunting so close to her newborn twins.

          Life really sucks sometimes.

          Your issues are clearly of your own making...."I hate guns"...

          Life is never cheap, our materialistic drug induced society has degraded it, NOT THE GUN.   It's just a symptom of our retrograde values, mentality and decay.

          Your one-dimensional value system seems to box you into only one perspective...."it's not my fault"...Well, let me burst your bubble...it's all of our faults.  

          We allowed the Republicans to control the levers of our government for well over 35 yrs and yes that includes the alleged "Democratic Presidencies" of Bill Clinton and the current occupant of the White House, President Obama...

          Your "precious" gun control led us to losing control of the House for the first time in 40 yrs.  It led to the "deregulation" of Media Outlets and the consolidation of power and wealth never before seen on this planet. It lead to policies of unfunded resource wars and fictitious wars on poverty and drugs...ALL the while destroying the very fabric of the American Dream.  Where the only good jobs these days come from working for the government or if you decide to go it on your own as a drug dealer.

          The "free trade pacts", supported by our one ruling party, said they would bring jobs, restore our wealth and lead to everlasting prosperity.  

          I don't buy into "bubbles" baby, not anymore.  

          The gun didn't cause these problems, we did...AND here I thought we were a reality based community.

          -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 Mon Jul 22, 2013 at 11:37:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  And yet your risk of a car accident.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          is rather higher than being shot.

          But you worry more about the lower-probability event.

          Why?

          Your hate-mail will be graded.

          by PavePusher on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 02:47:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe Youffraita wants to keep it that way? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Youffraita

            Someone seeing too many people victimized by guns already is not exactly going to be eager to see more guns brought into the situation. Is that really so hard to understand?

            Maybe there's less fear of a car accident because a seatbelt is something a person can use to be safer in a car? (And please don't say carrying a gun would make her safer from other people with guns. Guns don't make you bulletproof. Guns don't protect you automatically the way seatbelts and airbags do in a crash. Seatbelts are not dangerous to other people.)

            And a ROFL response to personal trauma might explain something that puzzles Shamash:

            ...the impression I get here is that Kos RKBA people are as interested in anyone else in safety and they desire that anyone who chooses to own and especially carry a gun does so with a full awareness of the risk and responsibility that entails. And they get nothing but grief for it.
            I suspect there's no mystery here.

            "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

            by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:30:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "more guns brought into the situation"...are you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              kidding?  Guns sales have gone through the roof the last 6 yrs out of the fear created by us democrats coming for them.  A meme that has now been established as historical fact.  See NYS' SAFE ACT.

              The mystery I cannot seem to solve is what makes you believe that the 300+ million guns now in circulation in the US that haven't been used in the commission of a crime will somehow miraculously do so???

              Pshaw! Your bigotry is slowing down your abilities to think clearly.

              -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 Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 10:43:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  On the subject of thinking... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Youffraita

                If you're going to argue that the 300+ million guns now in circulation (roughly one for each American?) haven't been used in the commission of a crime, you're actually making a case that
                A) there's so little danger from guns, no one really needs one to defend themself and
                B) we already seem to have plenty of guns, so why do we need more?

                "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                by xaxnar on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:55:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Nope, false analysis. (0+ / 0-)

                  Less than 3% of all firearms owned in the US are used in the commission of a crime, period.

                  Whether or not we more are need is immaterial, rights are not based on need.

                  And people own firearms for a variety of reasons, defense being number 1 does not negate any other reason(s).

                  You're being too one-dimensional.

                  -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 Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:57:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What is the percentage of guns (0+ / 0-)

                    in the U.S. that are used for

                    (a) suicides or

                    (b) children killing other children?

                    I don't know. Do you?

                    Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

                    by Youffraita on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 02:49:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You're overthinking this and changing the subject (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm just trying to point out your argument about numbers can work both ways. And what I see is you do not respond to that directly but switch to saying numbers are irrelevant when you're (now) talking about rights.

                    Plus your contention that gun sales are going through the roof because of fear of democrats coming for them is more than a little one dimensional too. Don't forget the deliberate demagoguery and racism also fueling that paranoia. Don't forget that started right after election night, before Obama was even sworn in.

                    It's right up there with the fear that democrats will tax the country to death, regulate business into the ground, be soft on terrorism, etc. etc. Nothing we do or do not do will convince people who believe that otherwise. Fear makes people crazy and stupid, regardless of how justified that fear may or may not be.

                    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                    by xaxnar on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 03:25:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Not in the slightest, really. (0+ / 0-)

                      I'm not changing the subject.  My whole point was that with 300+ million guns here, the streets aren't running with blood.  It's not happening, in fact, crimes have gone down over the last 40 yrs, including gun crimes.

                      Your arbitrary argument that since we have so many, we don't need any more is misdirection.  Again, rights aren't based on need. And when we talk about rights, the number of times one exercises them IS immaterial.  Should we put limits on how many times you may go to your place of worship? Or how many papers you can buy or how many pens you have? No.

                      Gun sales started going up when people realized President Obama was going to win, that is true, but to claim it's racism fueling the purchases cannot be proven, study after study, survey after survey shows people are buying them because they think the government, under Democratic control, will ban them.

                      As for the rest, I agree that it matters not what reality is versus their fear.   Sadly, I have firsthand experience with what businesses are doing to defeat the new regulations that have been passed, ie ACA.  The company I work for right now, cut everyone's hours to part time and hired 23 more people, to avoid paying for everyone's health insurance.  Only the handful of full time employees, myself included, get that benefit.  They made every other department into part time positions.

                      The elite corporations got "exempt" from it, how's that help the majority of Americans?  It hurts us all.  Correction it hurts those of us that are now paying 30% more for Health Insurance and no ability to actually get a PCP, as in my case.  I've been working and paying for Aetna Health Insurance, I pay half, my company pays half.  Aetna cannot find me a PCP in my area...it's useless to me.

                      Those "regulations" cost me personally $1600 a year (out of my paycheck) at my $9 an hour job and I have nothing to show for it.  But I digress.

                      Have a good night.

                      -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 Jul 25, 2013 at 10:55:17 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks, xaxnar. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              xaxnar

              You nailed it.

              Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

              by Youffraita on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:54:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, at least you brought your own Strawmen.... (0+ / 0-)

              to the debate, even if they appear to be rather well-worn....

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 06:40:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Didn't need to bring any (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Youffraita

                There's already quite a few that have been dragged in and propped up as serious talking points. It's not my fault if they can be so easily repurposed.

                Then again, sometimes a strawman is all that's needed in the absence of an effective counter.

                "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                by xaxnar on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 01:58:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  There's this about putting on a seatbelt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mad cat, Miss Blue

        It only affects you* - not the person next to you, not the person in another car. Not an innocent bystander who might be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And not somebody doing something criminal with another vehicle.

        *although if it keeps you from losing control of the car in an accident if you're driving, then it can be important to other people. Especially if it keeps you from needing expensive healthcare, with the ripple effects on everyone.

        "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

        by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:51:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Driving is a privlege not a right. (0+ / 0-)

          Your comparisons fail after that moment, maybe you mistook my story of doing something out of reasonable fear and life experience to being equal to the right to keep and bear arms...an unalienable right.

          The whole point being missed is that fear is many times a good survival instinct, not a pathological affliction, nor one that should be attributed to those whom decide to exercise a right you don't agree with.

          -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 Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 12:14:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ah yes, the old unalienable right argument (0+ / 0-)

            Written in stone forever, just like the part about only
            men getting to vote, or slaves being counted as just 3/5 of a person. Or that bit banning alcohol.  Not to mention that interpretation of the law based on that constitution which tells us corporations are citizens.

            I can't for the life of me understand why the founding fathers didn't put something about driving in there somewhere.

            Sorry. It's late and I couldn't resist the snark. Get back to me when you can tell me what well regulated militia you belong to, and what kind of muzzle loading flintlock you prefer.

            "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

            by xaxnar on Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 07:44:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe you should brush up on some history. (0+ / 0-)

              Slavery ended with the Civil War, the Constitution (your stone theory) was amended.

              The false history of corporate personhood is detailed by Thom Hartman, in his book "Unequal Protection", look it up.

              The Articles Of Confederation had the unalienable right to travel included in it.  We can only surmise that in the re-write that resulted in our current constitution the idea of one traveling was so basic, they didn't feel it necessary to be explicitly enumerated.

              It's one of those assumptions that if I'm going to vote, I must also be able to travel to the voting location.  If I'm barred from traveling, then I can't vote, period.

              As for your query, and current US Code:

              http://uscode.house.gov/...

              -HEAD-
                  Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

              -STATUTE-
                    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
                  313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
                    (b) The classes of the militia are -
                      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
                      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

              Since I'm not defined in the statute above, our government has no authority over my right to keep and bear arms.

              There's a false history surrounding the 2nd A as well, that somehow it created the right AND that it was only meant for members of the militia...HOW absolutely hilarious, really.

              That would mean that Americans fought for their freedom, men, women and children included, only to be told by their creation, the rights you thought you had never existed.

              ROFL.

              You see, the right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, and is not created nor defined by it, never was.  The limited authorities we granted our creation was to control the arms of the militia, not you or I, as lay people, pretty simple, isn't it???

              -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 Tue Jul 23, 2013 at 10:33:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ah yes, alternate history time (0+ / 0-)

                There's also a contention that the reason for the inclusion of militias in the same passage about RKBA is the insistence of certain states that they needed to be able to organize their citizens into militias to control their non-citizens (aka slaves), and they insisted on that right not being infringed so those militias couldn't be commandeered by the federal government and used against them or prevent their use in putting down slave rebellions.

                The ending of slavery would seem to suggest the Second Amendment is due for revision if that is the case. And you've already agreed that the constitution can be changed.

                However, since you maintain that:

                You see, the right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, and is not created nor defined by it, never was.  The limited authorities we granted our creation was to control the arms of the militia, not you or I, as lay people, pretty simple, isn't it???
                it appears you are aware of a version of history that is not general knowledge. It would appear to imply that there is no legal basis under our system of laws for any regulation of firearms that are the private and personal property of individuals.

                "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                by xaxnar on Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 02:13:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ah, the "new created version".... (0+ / 0-)
                  they needed to be able to organize their citizens into militias to control their non-citizens (aka slaves)
                  I know it's hard to grasp actual history once you've been poisoned by lies.  The 2nd A was never about slavery or keeping slaves in check.  The Gun Control Advocates of yesteryear passed "Black Codes" to keep them from being armed because the 14th A made it very clear they were citizens like anybody else.  With the unalienable rights we are born with as Americans, including the right to keep and bear arms.

                  Don't take my word for anything, this very old diary of mine has tons of evidence AND links galore for you to read the ACTUAL historical documents yourself.

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  Then see this:

                  http://www.youtube.com/...

                  And this:

                  http://www.youtube.com/...

                  See this:

                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                   3. Scott v. Sandford (1856)

                      The Dred Scott majority opinion listed the unacceptable consequences of black citizenship: black citizens would have the right to enter any state, to stay there as long as they pleased, and within that state they could go where they wanted at any hour of the day or night, unless they committed some act for which a white person could be punished. Further, black citizens would have "the right to . . . full liberty of speech in public and private upon all subjects which [a state's] own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

                  Special Note:  The Dred Scott case is changed by the 14th Amendment which gave Blacks citizenship. It does not negate the legal position that keeping and bearing arms is still an individual right.

                  And hon, there is historical Supreme Court rulings that have never been erased away, ever.
                  http://www.dailykos.com/...

                  2. United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

                      6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

                  THIS decision is still the law of the land, it was reaffirmed by the Heller Decision.  The States are almost free to do whatever they want with regards to "keeping and bearing arms", as long as it's not a defacto ban.

                  If that won't settle this for you maybe this will:

                  State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date

                  -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 Wed Jul 24, 2013 at 10:53:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I congratulate you (0+ / 0-)

                    On the depth of your scholarship, the legal precedents you cite, and the historical research you cite. The ratification documents you link to are interesting and add a dimension to the debate that usually doesn't come up.

                    That being said, I find Thom Hartmann's work on this to be more convincing.  His interpretation of the historical record appears to me at least to be a more accurate explanation of the motives and actions of the founding fathers and the law.

                    I'm sorry if this distresses you, but I believe the unalienable right you've interpreted as being separate from and predating the constitution, as indeed a thing unto itself is simply not tenable.

                    I do however admire the resolve with which you defend your embrace of RKBA even though you personally have made the decision to go gun free. I hope there are issues on which we will be able to agree, if not this one.

                    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

                    by xaxnar on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 04:15:18 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Thom Hartman is mistaken and intentionally so. (0+ / 0-)

                      The concept or idea that because there were racist founding fathers and the only reason they inserted the 2nd A into the Bill of Rights was all about keeping slaves in check is truly a red herring and an attempt to re-write history.  

                      If history were anything other than what I've shown you, I'd be the first to admit it, honestly.  

                      You have to understand that We The People decided that the re-write was not complete and We The People demanded that the Bill of Rights be added.  It's meaningless what the individual founders thought or believed, really.  We improved upon their draft, as we demanded.

                      New York, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Rhode Island all demanded that these "protections be added in.  When the 1st Congress didn't act quickly enough (after a year of being impaneled) New York, Virginia AND Pennsylvania moved to amend the Constitution themselves.  Something that a majority of State Legislatures can still do to this day.  It was at that moment the new Congress understood that they would lose any and all control over the new government and finally acted and passed 10 out of the 12 "guarantees".

                      I know you find this hard to accept but the Supreme Court made it clear that the 2nd A was not a privilege granted but a pre-exiting right.

                      This isn't debatable, sadly.

                      -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 Jul 25, 2013 at 10:36:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site