Skip to main content

View Diary: Frank Rich "State-Sponsored Terrorism!" (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  right on! (33+ / 0-)

    And we all could start by shutting down the anti-any-gun-control fanatics here at Dkos. They're anti-Democratic Party platform, anti-progressive and anti-common sense.

    This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

    by Karl Rover on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 06:43:15 PM PDT

    •  I don't know much about DKos gun nuts (23+ / 0-)

      I've just ignored it. What, they want to join in with the blame switchers and then a reality based argument will sway them?

      But I'm thinking the argument that politicians are soft on domestic terror could make a difference. Or maybe that won't even work.

    •  As long as the Democratic party platform (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      campionrules, FrankRose

      contains planks that infringe upon my civil right to keep and bear arms AND costs us votes in purple states, yeah, I'll be against that plank. Why wouldn't I be?

      Glad to see you define progressive and common sense now. You want to define me by my one stance on firearms and not the rabidly pro-choice stance or the pro-union stance or the pro-progressive taxation stance or the pro-single payer stance or...well, why would you want to do that anyway?

      •  because it's unpopular (26+ / 0-)

        and, frankly, wrong to be anti-reasonable gun control.

        Your opinions should make you persona non grata on any Democratic website.

        This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

        by Karl Rover on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:30:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not anti-reasonable gun control. (5+ / 0-)

          In fact, I've suggested some firearm related controls and other ways to cut down on violent crime. But that's not enough since it isn't restrictive enough.

          Yes, let's grow the party by throwing out those with disagree with us on one issue! Great job there Karl. More and better Democrats?

          •  KV - you have blind faith that the senators were (22+ / 0-)

            recalled ONLY for the gun vote. I don't think you understand Colorado politics well enough - there's a lot more to it than that.

            •  And quite a few people on here (from comments (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              and diaries I've read) think that the gun vote had nothing to do with it. I'm not saying it's the only reason, just the most prevalent one.

              •  Well, they are wrong, too. You have to wonder (11+ / 0-)

                though, if gun safety polls strong in a district where the legislator who voted for gun safety is recalled - why was she recalled? Gun safety got the recall going but it wasn't the only reason for the senators being recalled and mail in voting could have trumped any issue as a reason for a senator being recalled.

                In previous elections, as much as 70 percent of Colorado voters cast ballots by mail. Under a new state law, the recall initially was to be entirely decided by mail. That plan changed after clerks in El Paso and Pueblo counties said they didn’t have enough time to send mail-in ballots to voters because of an Aug. 12 court ruling giving potential replacement candidates until Aug. 26 to submit signatures to appear on the ballot.
                http://www.bloomberg.com/...

                The recall could entirely be a fluke because of mail in voting.

                •  Giron lost by twelve points. Mail-in voting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  KVoimakas

                  wouldn't have helped her.

                  In any case when you are talking about two Senators being recalled in a state that had never had so much as a successful recall petition in its entire history, where both were in Democratic precincts, both of which voted for Obama (by 19 points in one case) & outspent their opponents 6-to-1 it is weak sauce to make excuses.
                   

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:57:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not an excuse - it's a fact, Colorado has a huge (5+ / 0-)

                    % who vote by mail.

                    The so-called recalls were actually a good example of the pathetic shape of the pro-gun lobby:

                    1. Signature gatherers were paid - where were the supposed legions of disgruntalled pro gun folks who were going to come out of the wood work to kick the gun grabbers out? They had to be PAID to do this?

                    2. Dead people showed up as supporters of the recall on the sig lists, as did people out of district, ineligible, etc. In other words - the recallers STRUGGLED to get the support they needed.

                    3. Mail in voting was pulled about a month before the election causing confusion, etc., and without a doubt cut into Dems vote totals. With mail in voting, John Morse is still state senate president and the recall would have favored Dems and the pro gun safety side - 4-to-1. Instead, the gun lobby could only recall 2 out of 19 who voted for gun safety and of the 4 cherry picked districts they wanted to recall the most - only two of those succeeded, and one of those by only 300 votes.

                    4. The gun lobby poured much more money into this than can be publicly reported - you can be sure of that.

                    Wow, Frank. That's some powerful gun lobby you got there.

                    Can't wait for the real elections when people are actually paying attention and they can vote by mail.

                    •  That's not 'fact', that's speculation & conspiracy (0+ / 0-)

                      theory.
                      Even Morse conceded the validity of the signatures & 20%-30% of Democrats voted for the recall.

                      Giron got curb-stomped by 12 points. Not even in the rosiest case would mail-in votes make a difference.

                      But I'm glad you've managed to concede that voters aren't inspired to come & vote for someone that promises to punish them for the crimes of murderers.
                      Whodathunk?

                      "gun lobby"
                      You are correct. The gun lobby isn't powerful.
                      But the voters are.

                      You just keep those excuses warmed-up.
                      You're going to need them.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:33:15 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Good read for you ... (23+ / 0-)
                Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse” is a fine study of why societies persist in obviously irrational, sometimes suicidal, behavior, even when the reality of just how suicidal it is stares them in the face. Why do they continue to deforest in the face of floods, refuse to eat fish even at the price of starvation? Most of the time, he points out, the simple sunk cost of the irrationality helps it persist: we have always believed this, and to un-believe it is to lose our faith in ourselves.

                Yet sometimes things change. Diamond cites the success story of the Tikopia chiefs who presided over the decision to eliminate pigs from their tiny island, despite an ancient chieftain’s attachment to the destructive animals, and to turn instead to eating shellfish. Passionately held irrational values, even when they are hugely destructive, deserve empathy from all of us, since we all have values that are just as irrational, and just as passionately held. But it’s our job as grownups, not to mention as citizens, to learn the price of our pet irrationality and, like the Tikopians, to undo the animal forces, on our island and in our head, before they finish undoing us.

                http://www.newyorker.com/...
                •  Ancient chieftan's argument: (8+ / 0-)
                  The best way to stop a pig from destroying our island is more pigs.
                  Now, that's not fair to the old codger, I know; Pacific Islanders aren't idiots.  What he probably said that is directly analogous to the NRA's stance is
                  Pigs have been given to us by the ancestors as a way for our tribe to survive.  If we spurn their gift, or even tamper with it, we will fail as a culture.  
                  That's the crux of their argument. Also, I'm guessing that, like the NRA, the old chief's family had a major pig concession.

                  "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

                  by nailbender on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:53:31 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  What. The. Fuck? (0+ / 0-)

                  "Gun Control otherwise our society will collapse because 'pig'........ or something."

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:01:38 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thought that might go over your head, Frank. (6+ / 0-)
                    •  Something like that. (0+ / 0-)

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:16:26 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That's all you got? Wow, Frank, has the gun debate (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Karl Rover, JVolvo

                        gotten you down? Where's the typical broken record stuff you like to post?

                        Those who deserve neither, sacrifice liberty and security.

                        •  I was thinking about quoting a passage from (0+ / 0-)

                          a book that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.......preferably something about pigs and the collapse of society, but I figured I'd let you handle such brilliant observations.

                          Boy, don't I feel silly.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 03:40:02 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  There you go, that's the spirit. The pigs and (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo

                            collapse of society was an analogy for pro gun folk who can't see that guns kill people, regardless of the data, science, ie reasoning, that shows that to be true. So, in the analogy, the society that can't see that pigs are destroying its society, double down on pigs and breed and raise more and more and more - get it? I'll spell it out - pigs = guns and collapse of society = gun deaths.

                            Those who deserve neither, sacrifice peanut butter and chocolate.

                          •  I am surrounded by people that own guns. (0+ / 0-)

                            It really isn't scary.

                            ........but then again, I'm also surrounded by pigs.
                            Apparently, I'm totally fucked.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:48:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, that's true, but the point about the pigs (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            JVolvo

                            is that in that particular society, pigs were undermining its very existence. Here in modern American, we also have a lot of pigs, but they aren't threatening out existence - unless of course you consider their contribution to climate change, though I think cattle probably produce more methane than pigs because we as a country eat more beef that swine.

                            Guns on the other hand ...

                            According to the Centers for Disease Control Prevention, Division of Vital Statistics, there were 32,163 gun deaths in the U.S. in 2011 with an additional 73,883 non-fatal gun related injuries. That's just below the number of deaths in 2011 from breast cancer (39,9701), and significantly more than deaths from leukemia (21,7802). Would anyone argue that breast cancer and leukemia aren't public health issues? Of course not! So why are public policy makers denying that gun violence and gun deaths are?
                            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

                            And I don't think its so much about being scared as it is about being dead.

                          •  Yes, I've read it. (0+ / 0-)

                            "And I don't think its so much about being scared as it is about being dead."
                            I'm surrounded by people that own guns. Again, it really isn't that scary.

                            Over half those cited deaths are due to suicide.
                            If you think that owning a gun would lead to you, unwantingly, committing suicide, then don't own one.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:54:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How about those who don't own one but still (0+ / 0-)

                            manage to use one to kill themselves?

                            Again, not about being scare - more about going to the movies, mall, classroom, restaurant, church, etc., minding your own business and the a bullet ends you life. Also about the costs associated with all the gun deaths and shootings.

                            Those who would sacrifice other's lives to compensate for their insecurities deserve to defeated.

                          •  You claim that you 'aren't scared' (0+ / 0-)

                            then you obsess over the highly unlikely chance of being shot & use that irrational fear to justify taking liberties away from innocent Americans.

                            That is every bit as unreasonable as insisting on warrantless wiretaps because of terrorists.

                            I am not scared. I will not infringe on the liberties of innocent people.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:10:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm tired of watching and don't want to live in (0+ / 0-)

                            a country that accepts slaughter, after slaughter, after slaughter after slaughter and doesn't take the very obvious steps that need to be taken to reduce the occurrence of those slaughters. When I walk outside the house each day I am not scared I'm going to get shot but I know for a fact that 80 people in the United States will be shot each and everyday and mass shootings are happening every week.

                            So then you're going to support the Colorado Springs and Pueblo, Colorado state senate elections to remove the GOPers who are now in those seats who will try to pass legislation that will infringe on the liberties of innocent Americans? BTW, nice to see you're favorite line back in the shuffle - "I will not infringe on the liberties of innocent people." Love that one!

                            So, are you saying that your are so concerned that liberties will be taken away that you simply don't vote? I mean you must be incredibly conflicted on who to vote for and support - the GOPers how infringe on the right to reproductive freedom, the right to a living wage, the right to healthcare, the right to love and marry whomever your want and the Dems, who want you to go through a background check before you buy a gun.

                            You're a fraud Mr. Rose.

                          •  So you aren't scared AND you want to take (0+ / 0-)

                            liberties away from innocent people.
                            How authoritarian of you.

                            " I mean you must be incredibly conflicted on who to vote for and support"
                            Not at all. I will not support anyone that tries to take liberties away from innocent Americans. Non-negotiable.
                            Thus, if a Democrat in my district comes out strongly against AWB & magazine bans, then I will vote for him/her.
                            Otherwise, I will take the wife out for a lovely politics-free Tuesday evening.
                            I'm certain that the proceeding Wednesday I won't have to worry about this particular conundrum for at least another twenty years & I can get to work to fix the debacle your viewpoints caused.
                            You wanted it.
                            You got it.
                            You get to own it.
                            It's all yours.

                            "background check"
                            If the President hadn't have decided to propose his plan for a background check alongside a gun ban, I think that bill would have passed with a minimum of political fallout: However, it is understandably difficult to say that gun controllers don't want to ban guns when they push for a gun ban.

                            "You're a fraud"
                            I am a voter.
                            You may have forgotten that, but the party will not.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:42:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  "I will not support anyone that tries to take (0+ / 0-)

                            liberties away from innocent Americans."

                            Show me some politicians you support and I'll show you some politicians who take people's liberties away.

                            You live in a delusional world - you're overstating the gun issue.

                            Of course, anyone can see if they post back and forth with you long enough, you're so called position isn't really a position at all. It's more of a confused guttural scream, like a kid having a toy taken away.

                            Those who would sacrifice pizza for calzone deserve neither.

                          •  It isn't? (0+ / 0-)

                            Huh. I've said gun and magazine bans are wrong because it takes liberties away from innocent people om response to the crimes of murderers.
                            Same reason I don't support warrantless wiretaps.

                            I've said gun & magazine bans cost the Democratic party voters & hence-elections.

                            "overstating the gun issue"
                            Tell that to Morse & Giron.

                            "delusional world"
                            A delusional world is one where you take liberties away from innocent Americans because you fear being murdered?

                            "like a kid having a toy taken away"
                            A condescending comment from someone that finds a Jared Diamond book to be sophisticated?
                            Adorable.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:39:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Dodge - who are some of the politicians you (0+ / 0-)

                            support?

                          •  Where is this libertarian utopia you speak (0+ / 0-)

                            of where politicians don't take liberties away from anyone.

                            Sounds wonderful.

                      •  Hey claim CT again, declare "victory" and walk off (0+ / 0-)

                        We'd appreciate it.

                        As of 9pm 8/30/13: RETIRED Pie Warrior. Substance over Sh*t Flinging (as best as I am able) ~ JV

                        by JVolvo on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:18:49 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I haven't walked off. (0+ / 0-)

                          I'm more than happy to have the conversation.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:46:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Great, I'll jump in since you haven't answered (0+ / 0-)

                            my post, either - who are some of the politicians you support?

                            You haven't given an answer to that question after being asekd several times, and I can understand why - it will shatter your so-called position on "innocent Americans" and "their liberties being taken."

                            Or, it'll just pull back the curtain your your nonsense.

                          •  I voted and contributed to Obama. (0+ / 0-)

                            I've also voted for Kerry.
                            I've also voted for Nader.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:31:44 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What do you make of Reason Magazine's (0+ / 0-)

                            opinion that John Kerry's record on civil liberties sucks?

                            John Kerry's Monstrous Record on Civil Liberties
                            The Man from Beacon Hill's "New War" on the Constitution

                            http://reason.com/...

                            Kerry breaks your tagline's cardinal rule - sacrifice liberty! And you voted for this traitor?

                            Those who would sacrifice toasters for toaster ovens deserve neither.

                          •  You convinced me. (0+ / 0-)

                            I won't vote for him again.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:58:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So, how do you explain your contridiction? (0+ / 0-)

                            it's OK for you to decide which liberties are OK to sacrifice and those that are not?

                            Give me liberty ... I think ... or give me a bad hangover

                          •  Sorry to burst your bubble Frank - see how (0+ / 0-)

                            sticky an issue of "taking liberties" can be - you are guilty. Why don't you drop that crap and get real.

                          •  I am. (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't support taking liberties away from innocent people.

                            You, of course, revel in it.

                            We shall see in whose direction the Party takes after 2014.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:38:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I see - just ignore the facts and think no one (0+ / 0-)

                            is going to call you on it or remember.

                            You vote for politicians who take civil liberties away from "innocent Americans" - that's you're entire point and you contradict it.

                            You're a joke.

                            What you should be saying is "I won't support politicians who try to stop gun violence by requiring universal background checks and limit gun firing capacity so that madmen can't fire off 30 to 40 rounds at a time without having to reload, nor those politicans who act to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, nor those who require people to acquire a concealed carry license in person rather than the internet, but, BUT, I do support politicians who snoop on innocent American's private communications."

                            Those who would integrity liberty for a cheap tagline deserve neither.

                          •  "You vote for politicians" (0+ / 0-)

                            No I don't.
                            I'm proving it this year.

                            "What you should be saying is.....BUT, I do support politicians who snoop on innocent American's private communications."
                            No. I don't. But you should. Stay consistent in your distrust of your fellow citizens.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:51:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Frank, Frank, Frank - caught in a lie and your (0+ / 0-)

                            defense is "I know you are but what am I?"

                            Pathetic, but not surprising.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

                          •  Obama's civil lib record sucks too - that's (0+ / 0-)

                            being hypocritical of you, isn't it?

                            Obama’s dismal civil liberties record
                            Despite vows to increase transparency, the president has made the government ever more authoritarian and intrusive
                            http://www.salon.com/...

                            Those who would sacrifice integrity for a cheap blog tagline deserve neither.

            •  It wasn't? (0+ / 0-)

              I guess you better tell Kos & the constituents that successfully recalled them.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:52:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Frank, please, by all means, continue to delude (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cybersaur, coquiero, Karl Rover, JVolvo

                yourself and your fellow gun folk that the gun lobby flexed its "considerable" muscle and showed people whose in charge.

                Tell me, what exactly has the gun lobby gained? The laws are still on the books, and after the lawsuit against Gov Hickenlooper fails, those laws will be set in stone for centuries.

                I can tell you what they lost - respect. The gun lobby comes off as extremist - you are correct, it is the ONLY recall in Colorado history for a reason, a group of extremists put a gun to the head of the electorate.  

                Talk to me next year when Bernie Halprin and George Rivera are defeated in a real election, you know, where Coloradoans can vote the way they are most accustomed - by mail - and people are actually paying attention.

        •  Wow, there's a hole with no bottom... (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, KVoimakas, grollen, Smoh

          Single-issue litmus tests are not healthy.

          I can walk beside you without marching in lockstep.

          The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

          by wesmorgan1 on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:02:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Glad to see that you are pushing for (0+ / 0-)

          less Democrats.

          It's no wonder that the party made your viewpoints persona non grata for twenty years after the last debacle you orchestrated.

          I hope you enjoyed those years because that's exactly where you're going to return.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:28:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  heh (0+ / 0-)

            you really are paranoid, Frank. You're frothing and blaming me for things I couldn't possobly have anything to do with.

            Go clean your guns, or something.

            This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

            by Karl Rover on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 05:58:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh. So two unprecidented recalls in Colorado (0+ / 0-)

              didn't happen?
              1994 & the Republican revolution didn't happen?

              Good to hear.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:52:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Unprecendented because the NRA put a gun to (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber, Karl Rover

                the head of the electorate. That's how extremists operate - blow the place up if they don't get what they want.

                Hey Frank, who are some of the politicians you support - you know, the ones who don't "take liberties away from innocent Americans."

                Would that be Rand Paul?

                •  "put a gun to the head"? (0+ / 0-)

                  It's strange (yet unsurprising) that is how you see free elections.

                  The electorate--in a Democratic district, that voted for Obama by 19 points, where 20%-30% of Democrats voted for the recall, in spite of a 7-1 spending advantage, spoke loud and clear.

                  If you didn't hear it then, don't worry.
                  They will speak again in 2014.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 08:04:04 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  why aren't you banned yet? (0+ / 0-)

                Kos pisses on you every diary he writes about gun nuts.

                This Rover crossed over.. Willie Nelson, written by Dorothy Fields

                by Karl Rover on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 07:41:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Most people don't feel that freedom of speech is (0+ / 0-)

                  being 'pissed on'.

                  But I can see why you prefer an echo chamber......things don't seem to work out so well for your viewpoint outside of it.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 07:59:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  You're gun stance got state senators recalled in (9+ / 0-)

        Colorado that allowed anti-choice, anti-union, GOPers in office.

        Soften you gun stance.

        •  Their gun control stance got them recalled. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          Guess they should soften their gun control stance.

          •  the laws are still on the books (31+ / 0-)

            the democrats still control the state senate. it was worth it.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:40:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Their gun votes got universal background checks (27+ / 0-)

            and magazine limits - that's what their support of gun safety yielded. And they and I would do it again.

            And a fluke of a recall from a group of deranged loons who think the recall process is a way to settle policy differences is the response they got.

            The gun lobby could only get two of the 19 who voted for gun safety legislation. TWO and one of them was recalled by less by 300 votes. Turnout for the vote was about 10%.

            What a pathetic showing by the so-called big bad gun lobby.

            I thought there was supposed to be a wave of fear and the gun supporters were going to crash like a mighty wave over the country side and sweep the Constitutional trampling scum out of office.

            Honestly, I expected more from the raging gun supporters.

            What happened?

            The pro gun folks read far too much into those recall elections.  

            •  So you didn't support Walker's recall? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, Norm in Chicago

              I know I did.

              If it's an overestimation, it looks like it's not just the pro-gun folks who are doing it. Gun control at the federal level and in states that aren't Cali/NY style looks DOA.

            •  "group of deranged loons" otherwise known as (0+ / 0-)

              "voters".

              Shocking you cost the Democratic Party so much of those.

              But yeah.....the first & second recalls in a state that has never had so much as a single successful recall petition in its 137 year history;
              Managing to lose Democratic incumbents in Democratic precincts in an election in a non-election year.....with a 6-1 spending advantage.
              Big deal, amirite?

              "What happened?"
              You.
              Glad to see you are proud of losing elections. In 2014 you will be positively beaming.
              Fortunately, the party will be somewhat less impressed with your 'big winner' of an issue.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:14:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What happen? Universal background checks (0+ / 0-)

                happened - that's how politics works, Frank. And we've already establisehd you're an utter hypocrite - you're claim that you don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans is a crock - you vote for politicians (Kerry, Obama and I;m sure others) who take innocent Americans liberties away. So, you think you can decide for everyone what liberties are important and which are not.

                Grow up and leave the delusion libertarian utopia that only exists inside your own head.

                Those who would sacrifice integrity for a cheap tagline deserve neither.

                •  Magazine ban happened & then recalls (0+ / 0-)

                  happened - that's how politics works, WeShallOvercome.

                  "you're [sic] claim that you don't want to take liberties away from innocent Americans is a crock"
                  No, it isn't. But you are right to be ashamed that you do.

                  "leave the delusion [sic] libertarian utopia"
                  Oh sure. If there is anybody libertarians admire its FDR.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:36:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sure, just blow past the BS that is your (0+ / 0-)

                    "position"

                    If you can't square your hypocritical contradiction about "taking innocent American liberties away" you can't really have a serious opinion on gun safety. I'm sure that won't stop you though in your confused FDR/libertarian/Rand Paul universe that bears no resemblance to reality. Rand Paul is a big pro gun supporter, remember. You can Rand seem to be like two peas in pod.

                    •  I can & I do. (0+ / 0-)

                      Further there is nothing hypocritical nor contradictory about my position.

                      "confused FDR/libertarian/Rand Paul universe"
                      Somebody is confused. Very confused.
                      Do tell how you just juxtaposed FDR & libertarians.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:45:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Right on cue, move on to denial .... (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not a hypocrite - you are. Great argument.

                        You say you support politicians who don't take liberties away, and then you vote for politicians who take liberties away.

                        You can't pick and choose what liberties are important and what liberties are not.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty (ie, FrankRose) for security deserve neither.

                        •  I never called you a 'hypocrite'. (0+ / 0-)

                          Way to start off on the right foot, big-guy.

                          "You say you support politicians who don't take liberties away"
                          I don't.

                          "then you vote for politicians who take liberties away."
                          I won't.

                          "You can't pick and choose what liberties are important and what liberties are not."
                          But you can?

                          Brilliant post.
                          Really.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:57:53 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not the one harping on taking away people's (0+ / 0-)

                            liberties - EVERY politician takes away liberties, jeez, Frank, grow up and join the real world.

                            Yeah, you do say you won't support politicians who take liberties away - I can understand the selective memory now that you see the contradiction of your ways.

                            So, you're just not going to vote anymore then, because ALL politicians take away liberties. Grow up.

                            You suck, Frank.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

                          •  "I'm not harping on taking people's liberties" (0+ / 0-)

                            You are simply insisting on doing so.

                            "You suck, Frank"
                            You have made your opinion of, not only me, but of all your fellow citizens very clear.
                            Which explains why 20%-30% of Democrats voted for the recall.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 10:16:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Frank, you make no sense - you say you will (0+ / 0-)

                            only support politicians who do not take "innocent American's liberties away" - but you vote for politicians who do exactly that.

                            I on the other hand, understand the real world isn't a libertarian fantasy land.

                            Could you tell us which liberties are OK to trample on and which are not?

                            Based on your voting record you are a big proponent of taking away people's right to privacy. In fact, you seem insistent on taking innocent American's right to privacy away.

                            Those who would sacrifice the right to privacy for security (ie, FrankRose) deserve neither.

          •  So if Republican legislators (7+ / 0-)

            lose their seats for their intractable positions on gun control (definitely possible in the wake of Sandy Hook and the Navy Yard), what conclusion will you draw?

            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

            by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 07:48:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "If" (0+ / 0-)

              Gun Control is such a loser Democratic incumbents in Democratic districts are losing elections in non-election years.

              The converse of your hypothetical question is already happening in the real world.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:18:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you're referring (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber, Smoh, coquiero

                to the two recalls in Colorado, that's a lot less than it seems to be.

                That said, that was what KVoimakas was referring to, which is why I asked him the converse question.

                "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:20:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It seemed to be two utterly humiliating loses (0+ / 0-)

                  where two Democratic Senators, with a 6-1 spending advantage, in a state that had never had so much as a single successful recall petition managed to lose in districts that were Democratic & voted for Obama by 19 points, where somewhere between 20%-30% of Democrats that voted for the recall.

                  It seems that way primarily because it was.

                  Honestly, if it was GOPers that lost 2 unprecedented elections in a GOP district, that voted for Mitt, had a 6-1 spending advantage and 20%-30% of Republican voters voted for their recall because they voted against a background check what would your conclusion be?

                  What would be your opinion of RedStaters that claimed that voting against B/Cs was an electoral winner, in the aftermath of such a vote?

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:36:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Noting you're dodging a direct response to my (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Smoh, Glen The Plumber, coquiero, JVolvo

                    question, here's some facts:

                    The NRA very, very strategically selected the two most vulnerable Democrats in the Colorado Senate for their campaign, out of the 20 they could have chosen to target. They gauged based on the margin of their victory, the activity of the NRA's voting base, and the relative likelihood of their supporters turning out for a mid-year recall election.

                    And they have some powerful number crunchers working for them, to make sure that they were going to have their best shots at victory, spending margins notwithstanding.

                    In a regular election cycle, it's very likely that neither of these candidates would have been threatened, and it's very likely that at least one of these two seats will flip back to the D column in the next cycle.

                    The NRA is playing a game of 'hit the weak points and make people think we can inflict the same damage anywhere.' They showed they have some strength, but are pretending they have far, far more.

                    "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                    by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 09:39:41 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I didn't 'dodge' anything: (0+ / 0-)

                      However you have. If this exact same situation happened with GOPers becoming the first recalled legislators in state history despite being in friendly districts & having a 6-1 spending advantage with 20%-30% of Republicans voting for their recall because of their vote for background checks, what would be your conclusion?

                      "The NRA...."
                      Did they mastermind this devious plan in a hollowed-out-Vol-ca-no lair?
                      Because the NRA only gave $985 to the recall petition.

                      "In a regular election cycle..."
                      Excuses are for losers.
                      Results are for winners.

                      "flip back to the D column"
                      Exactly. A pro-gun-rights Democrat.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:03:29 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  That's no hypothetical, you realize. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                        We've already lived that scenario, only over union rights instead of background checks, in Wisconsin.

                        So we don't need to pretend. We saw the results, and what happened in the next election cycle. And what I described is pretty much an identical scenario with the issue changed and the parties reversed.

                        And yes, you're still dodging my question because it continues to go unanswered.

                        "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                        by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:49:29 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  1) No you didn't answer. I wonder why....;) (0+ / 0-)

                          2) If gun control actually managed to not humiliate the party with unprecedented electoral losses then the party would continue to pursue it.......
                          Of course, the contrary is true.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 11:54:50 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Uh, (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                            I just DID answer it. With the real-world scenario where it happened.

                            You also seem to have tried to answer my question but answered a significantly different one.

                            Methinks you're not listening. But KVoimakas answered my question quite directly, and so I'm cool with that. Have a nice day.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:03:19 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That wasn't my question. (0+ / 0-)

                            Which is fine. Both of us know exactly why you won't;)

                            "Answered my question directly"
                            As did I.
                            The only one who didn't answer a question directly is you.

                            Glad you've managed to stay consistent in your inconsistency.
                            Irony.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:14:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It's funny. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                            I conclude you're not paying close attention to the thread, you conclude deceptive motives. Think that says something.

                            But here, take another potshot if you like. I'm done.

                            End of line.

                            "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

                            by raptavio on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:31:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  That their areas want more gun control. (0+ / 0-)

              I don't expect to see that happen, but good for the goose...

        •  If "our position" on guns was any softer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          it'd be the  Flying Spaghetti Monster's overcooked "wobbly bits".

          All that was proposed was extending the "Background Check" that applies to in-store sales to "casual sales" -- and a"sales of assault weapon ban. "

          We lived with that piece of foolishness for years before .... in which time the AR-15 design became the most popular single  American firearm -- and then the ban expired.   (So now you can buy Soldier Gun look-alike with factory-installed  bayonet mount, folding stock and flash suppressor, instead of buying the accessories from a catalog and fitting them yourself.)

          So what you mean is "drop this gun safety bullshit -- it's a bigger vote-loser than Negro Equality was in 1964"

          ( LBJ  predicated that the Voting Rights Act would "lose the South  for a generation"  -- and it DID.  (Well,  more like "two generations and still counting")

          Is that how you see it?

          Or is it more a matter of  guns don't harm enough (of the right sort of) people to matter.  Registering the weapons and licensing the owners won't help -- half the dead are Suicides, anyway.

          •  I have no problem with UBCs as long as there (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            isn't a registry.

            I do have a problem banning firearms based on how scary they look, which is what the AWB is.

            So, drop the gun control bullshit, since if you were interested in safety and fixing violence in our society, firearms would not be the first place you look.

            •  I'd agree with the "ugly gun" meme (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero, Eddie C

              If the ONLY thing "wrong" with Modern Sporting Rifles is that they look so much like military equipment.

              But that's not exactly true, is it ?

              The features that make the AR-15 design so desirable to so many are the features that also make it an easily concealable, rapid fire, high capacity killing machine.

              Granted, I don't think it matters a hoot in hell if there's a bayonet mount AND a bipod AND a flash suppressor AND a muzzle brake on a hobby gun.  Why not ?

              It's the "tactical"stock, pistol grip, and   70 round magazine that make the AR the tool of choice if one wants  to depopulate an elementary school.

              But I think we can agree that Mass Killings are "just the price we bay for Freedom" ... more Americans die of bubonic plague than are killed in "mass killings" -- so who cares?  Right?

              But the opposition to Registry and research that I have believing is entirely in good faith.

              Now, it is generally believed by law enforcers that it is the probability of apprehension, rather than the severity of punishment that dominates people's decisions whether or not to break laws.  In NY, running a red light is, thanks to robot cameras, is almost certain to result in a summons.  Getting caught smuggling a hand gun from Virginia into NY City -- not so much.

              It's the "registry" that allows local law enforcement to
              to trace the weapon found at the crime scene back to the lawbreaker that sold the gun to the criminal.  Sometimes that's a straw-buyer in a licensed shop ... a "casual buyer" at a garage sale or swap meet ... sometimes a burglar who stole the weapon from a "responsible law abiding owner" who didn't bother to report the theft.

              Now ... why would anybody NOT an illegal gun trafficker object to THAT?

              •  Registration leads to confiscation. No thanks. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FrankRose

                Tactical stock and pistol grip? Are you serious? So yeah, let's put a thumbhole stock on an AR15 and it'll be ok then.

                The problem with AWBs is that they're based on COSMETICS.

                •  "Registration leads to confiscation." (5+ / 0-)

                  Eek!  Just look at all those confiscated automobiles, houses, pets, and newborn children.  All of those things (and many more) are registered with the state, but I don't think we've seen a rash of confiscations, have we?

                  At some point, you need to address the irrationality of your fears.

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

                  by FogCityJohn on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:46:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  It's a start: a 7-round clip, and a rigid stock (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo

                  Because  we both know these aren't "cosmetics" ... they're  features that allow the AR-type to be concealed under a mid-length raincoat and fired one-handed -- 70 times without reloading.

                  Get rid of them, and all you've got is a military-looking "varmint rifle " ... which I think we can all live with.

                  BTW:  Did we ever get into how easily the Bushmaster brand AR can be converted to full-auto operation by any apprentice gunsmith with a milling machine and a set of (downloadable) specifications?  And how much THAT, and the availability of the street-legal-as-hell "Bump Fire Stock" (that sort-of  simulates full-auto fire on the range, anyway) have to do with the popularity of this design.

                  "It makes the Laddies feel brave,"   like bagpipes.

                •  Oh ... the Great Australian Confiscation ? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JVolvo

                  Actually, that was a voluntary buy back program ...

                  The people who really LIKED their rifles , or actually had NEED for rifles registered and KEPT their weapons.

                  Or are we talking about how Adolph Hitler is supposed to have disarmed the German citizenry ?

      •  I want to respect your gun rights but... (23+ / 0-)

        I want you to respect my right to not be randomly shot while I am simply going about my own business.

        I want to approach your position with an open mind and for you to approach my position the same way.  I want your input to help us find a way to reduce gun violence without infringing on your gun rights.

        We all need to be able to find a compromise that we can both accept.

        This is not a black and white problem.  There is no simple solution to solve this complex problem.

        I want you to help carve that plank that you oppose into a reasonable form we can both support.  We cannot stake out absolute positions.

        I hope we can have a dialog as Democrats to find that solution.

        The republicons moan, the republicons bitch. Our rich are too poor and our poor are too rich. Ferguson Foont

        by Josiah Bartlett on Wed Sep 18, 2013 at 07:45:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I wrote a diary that does just that. (3+ / 0-)

          And it doesn't impact my right to keep and bear arms in a negative sense at all. link

          I'm willing to not oppose UBCs, as long as there isn't a firearm registry. Also willing to hold parents or guardians responsible for the damage a child does with the firearm they left unsecured. There's even more. But bans on magazine capacity or certain types of firearms because they're scary looking are a no for me.

          •  How do you have a UBC without a registry? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SoCalSal, Kevskos, coquiero

            One requires the other, does it not?

            •  UBC says who is allowed to own a gun (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose, KVoimakas

              It isn't necessary to track whether a person actually owns a gun to know if they are allowed to own a gun or not.

              A driver's license says a person is allowed to drive a car, but it doesn't track how many cars that person owns.

              •  Revocation? (5+ / 0-)

                A nut gets his permit/license/whatever taken away for whatever reason.  If you aren't keeping tabs on his guns, how do you take them away?  My driver's license is tied to my car registration, after all.

                •  That's a valid point (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  orlbucfan

                  But the purpose of a background check isn't to make it possible to take guns away.  It's to verify if a person is allowed to buy new guns.

                  For your scenario of a person being arrested and having his guns taken away, in that case his home and other property can be searched, and that person can be charged with other felonies and given longer jail time if he refuses to surrender all his weapons.  That's all done through due process in court.

                  But the government doesn't get to keep tabs on all the guns, I don't want them to.  When I inherit my grandfather's guns, no one is going to know about it.  I don't want some future fascist government knowing where all the guns are, and sending SWAT teams out after them.  When that has happened in the past in other countries, it ended very badly for the people who had their guns taken away.

                  •  Not simply arrested (0+ / 0-)

                    There may be administrative reasons for revoking a license and requiring citizens to surrender or at least declare their guns.  They may include erders of protection, findings of mental incompetence, or simply lapsed documentation.  How can you verify that prohibited people have indeed surrendered legally acquired guns if you don't register them?

                •  My cars (7+ / 0-)

                  are registered with the same government agency that issues my drivers license.  I have to notify them when I sell a car, I have to have the sells transaction verified by a notary, I have to provide them with proof of insurance, and my insurance company notifies that same state agency if I drop coverage.

                  Sure, I could ignore all those regulations but if I get caught for even a very minor motor vehicle infraction they will throw the book at me.  Guns should also be registered, tied to the license which needs to be mandatory to be able to own a gun and each and every gun needs to be insured.

                  "In short, I was a racketeer for Capitalism" Marine Corp Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler

                  by Kevskos on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 08:43:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No ... but each state has a searchable data base (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo

                of registered vehicles so the Goddamned Government KNOWS who owns what kind of cars and where to go to confiscate them -- because that's what Goddamned Government always does !

                Personally, I think a  "shooters license" ... with "points" for every violation of  fish and game laws, and criminal statutes, is probably "a bridge too far."

                But if the trade off was the ability to buy firearms from a licensed seller, with NO background check and NO waiting period ...

                Maybe that would be worth it.

                •  Has there been a call to confiscate vehicles (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  FrankRose

                  like there have been politicians calling for banning firearms?

                  •  Well, no ... but, "same as guns" -- they COULD !! (0+ / 0-)

                    If they wanted to .  It. Could. Happen.  The British did in Ireland during the Troubles ... confiscate motor vehicles, that is --  as well as non-sporting firearms.

                    But here and now there aren't any politicians actually CALLING for confiscation of arms already in the hands of citizens ...  Not that I know of.  Can you name one who IS ?

                    What IS being called for ... fecklessly, in my opinion ... is treating the Modern Sporting Rifle   (aka Ugly Gun) much as we already treat automatic weapons,  weapons with explosive or incendiary ammunition  or weapons with greater that .50 projectiles.

                    And let's be serious:  if there WAS  Gubberment plot  to Grab De Gunz ...  the starting place would the sporting goods shops and hunt clubs.

                    •  Feinstein has said if she could gather the votes, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      FrankRose

                      she'd ban ALL of them.

                      •  The B-tch ! (0+ / 0-)

                        Considering the source, I think I'd like to see the exact quotation ... maybe a link to the full text.

                        Because it really IS pretty obvious ... the outright "banning" of guns ... outlawing their possession ... as opposed to regulating their manufacture and sale of them ... WOULD require a Constitutional Amendment.

                        And based on the experience of the Equal Rights Amendment (not to mention the "Money Isn't Speech, Corporations Aren't People" Amendment) -- doesn't "Let's Amend the Constitution"  translate as "Let's Pound Sand and Spin Wheels ?"

                    •  Yes there is. The same Senator that introduced (0+ / 0-)

                      the Assault Weapons BAN to the Senate for a vote as a matter if fact:

                      "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it"--Dianne Feinstein

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:14:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Thank you. You're right. She did, didn't she ? (0+ / 0-)

                        And that was an exceptionally stupid thing for her to say ... especially if "em" was supposed to mean  "ALL firearms."

                        As we know, 51  votes in the Senate won't even pass a law ...  (filibuster, and all that).

                         What would be needed would have been a 2/3 vote in both the House and the  Senate and 3/4's of the State Legislatures concurring.

                        Could Sen Feinstein have forgotten her High School Civics so completely ?

                        Or was she just letting her feelings about mass murder put her mouth into motor mode ?

                        •  Pure speculation: (0+ / 0-)

                          I think Dianne Feinstein is simply an authoritarian with an authoritarian mindset.
                          After all, she had a CCW permit & concealed firearm in the late seventies.
                          She seems to have a very "some are more equal than others" mindset.

                          Although it is correct that confiscating all firearms isn't going to pass (nor be constitutional), it is the end game for many gun controllers. In fact, here on DKOS there is a group called "Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment".
                          If they are willing to ban a firearm that is used in murders less than half as often than even bare hands are used (and six times less than knives), they would be willing to ban even more.....as Feinstein articulated.

                          It's a difficult sell to try and argue that they don't want to ban guns during a time when a gun ban is proposed.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 04:46:10 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  What this all tells me is: Dialog (0+ / 0-)

                            with Gunners is next-to-impossible --

                            Compromise and Concession are pretty pointless ... all it does is weaken your position -- and there will be no reciprocal accommodation.

                            I guess that's why President Obama WILL try to negotiate with Vladimir Putin and not with House Republicans. He knows the difference between "unlikely" and "hopeless."

                            Similarly: Gunners ...  you can't negotiate with the "One Way, My Way" kind of guy.

                            But, just remember:  Anton Scalia can't live forever.

                            As of now there  IS an near-absolute and individual right to keep and bear arms  (local government permitting). However, there is NO equivalent constitutional right to manufacture or SELL firearms.

                            And THAT's why eventually, ...  and for much the same reasons ...  we'll get the same sort of de facto ban on ugly guns and large magazines that we now have on switchblade knives.  (Local law permitting you can manufacture or own them all you like ... "introducing  (them)  "into interstate commerce" is a whole other kettle of fish.

                            There's no reason you  can't hunt deer and bear with bows, knives and bare hands -- like the First Americans did.

                             

                          •  There's also no reason why one can't hunt with a (0+ / 0-)

                            gun.

                            Despite........whatever that post is, guns are a Right & hunting with firearms is legal.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Sep 20, 2013 at 09:36:00 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  No. There have been some suggestions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FrankRose

              put forth that would mean no registry.

        •  You will solve this problem (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, Norm in Chicago, orlbucfan

          once you persuade Americans - Democrats, local and Federal governments included - that violence such as the death penalty, constant wars, militarized police - in fact police with guns - do not work.

          Good luck.

        •  What of all the other ways you can randomly die? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          I agree with not wanting to be randomly shot.  But what about being randomly mugged and stabbed?  Randomly hit by a car?  Randomly falling off a bicycle and dying, as happened to my college roommate?  Randomly falling off a ladder?  Randomly drowning in a lake?

          First, admit that you accept the risk of random death each and every day, and you don't respond by demanding that everything under the sun be banned.  Bad things happen.  Some are accidents, some are criminal actions.  If instead of being randomly shot you're randomly run over by a drunk driver, we don't respond to that criminal act by banning alcohol or cars.  That also doesn't mean that car ownership overrides your Right to Life.

          You ask for a compromise, and that compromise is for you to not own a gun.  Statistically speaking, as the Gun Fail diaries attest, a person is more likely to be shot by the gun inside the home than by a random shooting outside the home.  If you don't own a gun, your risk of being shot is much lower.

          So don't own a gun, and don't associate with people who own guns.  Statistically, you will then be more likely to die in a car crash than from a shooting.  Accept that risk as you do the others, and move on.

          •  No ... that compromise is ... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, JVolvo

            Treat firearms pretty much the way we treat boats, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and purebred dogs
            ...  

            Register
            License
            Insure

            (Did you know that Documented Yachts can  be commandeered by the Department of Defense in time of emergency -- yet people still voluntarily  document their Big Boats so as to avoid the State sales tax?)

            I don't want to "grab your gun" -- not unless you buy me drinks first and ask nicely.

            It's not so much the "killing" ... particularly the statistically insignificant "Mass Shootings " ...  it's the robbery, extortion, and the way sort-of-organized criminal gangs dominate certain neighborhoods.

            What I don't much care for is "entrepreneurs" smuggling handguns from lax-regulation states into strict-regulation states to provide the career criminals of the strict states with their tools-of-trade.

    •  That way lies madness (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, a2nite

      The cure for bad speech remains good speech, here and elsewhere.

      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 06:26:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site