Skip to main content

View Diary: I have been a gun owner for more than 30 years…and 365 days (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  In the past year I've tried to broach those... (9+ / 0-)

    coffee-shop conversations with friends and acquaintances. Some are receptive. Others simply tune out at the mere mention of improving regulation. If you push it they get hostile as almost a conditioned response. It's tough but we need to keep trying.

    Peace, Love, and Canoes!!!

    by OldJackPine on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 09:28:03 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't that (5+ / 0-)
      they get hostile as almost a conditioned response
      exactly what outlets like Fox are designed to do?  

      Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

      by Mark Mywurtz on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 09:42:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or it's because people aren't willing to give up (0+ / 0-)

        their liberties for your fears.

        Quick hint: Those influenced by propaganda aren't the ones clamoring to surrender their liberties.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 10:28:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fears????? (3+ / 0-)

          Those little closed caskets are 100% real, Frank.  

          Much unlike your fantastic fears that the proposed solutions most of us are looking for would have any significant effect on your ability to own and use firearms.  Or the fantastic fears that drive your apparent need for the right to an unhindered arsenal.

          Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

          by Mark Mywurtz on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 10:41:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fears???? (0+ / 0-)

            Those 3000 closed caskets from 9/11 are 100% real, Mark.

            Much unlike your fantastic fears that the proposed solution of warrantless wiretaps, the right wing was looking for would have any significant effect on your ability to own and use a phone. Or the fantastic fears that drive your apparent need for the right of terrorists to have a trial.

            Taking liberties away from innocent Americans isn't the answer in either case.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 10:46:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fears??????????????????????? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              Your suggestion that we should give up the good of having our children not gunned down in school in return for the fully imaginary "good" where you prevented 9/11 by not having to have gone through a background check when you bought all your guns, is utterly ridiculous. Or maybe you're suggesting that because you own several assault rifles and a hundred-round drum magazine, 9/11 was prevented? Your presumably extensive collection of guns has never done a single thing to protect us from the 9/11 terrorists or any other terrorist. They have comforted you in your fear, but it takes excellent police work to stop terrorists before they strike. Or, we could try the current solution, which seems to be to kill everyone who might conceivably one day commit a terrorist act against Americans. The only problem is, eventually you've taken every single person in the world and either killed them or turned them into someone who hates America with a passion because we killed their loved one-- and then you die and go to hell.

              •  I never claimed 9/11 was prevented. (0+ / 0-)

                I simply stated that I didn't agree with using 9/11 as justification for warrentless wiretaps & the erosion of 4th amendment liberties.
                For the exact same reasons, I disagree with using the acts of Adam Lanza as justification for AWB & other gun bans.

                I don't agree with using the acts of murderers to infringe on the liberties of innocent Americans.
                Apparently, you disagree.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 12:29:56 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't read carefully enough! (0+ / 0-)

                  Now that your reply made me take a second look, I totally get that your comment was a mirror image of the comment above it, and that I misunderstood your argument. Sorry!

                  But you still haven't really addressed the issue of reasonable gun controls. We don't want the NSA spying on everyone. But no one in this camp is arguing that they shouldn't be able to show a court reasonable cause to suspect that someone is actually a terrorist, and get a warrant to tap that person's phone. We believe that everyone who is imprisoned should either get a trial, or be a prisoner of war treated according to the Geneva conventions for the duration of a war which has an end. But we want that because we believe that good police work is the most effective way to stop terrorism, and that requiring reasonable grounds for suspicion, and investigations that can lead to a successfully prosecuted trial, actually improve police work by cutting down on the amount of time wasted on investigating innocent people. We don't call for it because we think it will help the terrorists.

                  Similarly, we are asking for gun control measures that are carefully targeted and will preserve second amendment rights for the majority of Americans. They will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, people with a history of violence, people with a mental illness that might cause them to have a psychotic episode and kill people, and minors who lack the judgement required to use guns safely. A couple of these groups are not what I would call "innocent Americans." A couple of these groups are "innocent," but we don't allow people below a certain age, or people with an uncontrolled seizure disorder, to drive, no matter how "innocent" they may be. I don't believe that you fall into any of those four groups, Frank, so why are you so frightened that we want to take away your guns?

            •  Push Hard And Resistance Increases! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              My subject line is one of the laws of physics, and could also describe a gun owner dilemma:

              [I have] a deep antipathy for those who assert that their rights to free and easy weapons trumps the right of the rest of us to a safe and civil society. We gun users have the most ground to give. I am fed up with the belligerence.
              I am, as well, and it sure speaks to both a flawed egocentrism and, perhaps, a fear that leads to reason shutting down, that leads certain gun owners to push aside the reasonableness of the majority wanting a safe and civil society.

              Failure to sense irony alert: Belligerent gun owners scare people. Scared-of-guns people lead to more restrictive gun laws as they increase their majority.

              Right now, there are less gun owners and more guns in the US, an increasing trend. . This is a democracy, where votes matter. What could go for absolutist gun owners here?

              "I beg the Lord to grant us more politicians who are genuinely disturbed by the state of society, the people, the lives of the poor." ~ Pope Francis

              by paz3 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 01:06:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is a place where votes matter.... (0+ / 0-)

                There are three former State Senators in Colorado that are currently pondering that fact.

                Speaking of 'trends'--support for gun rights have grown for the past 20 years & support for gun control has consistently decreased for the past 20 years.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 01:12:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I Was Referring To Votes (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  And soon, maybe not in my lifetime, but still soon, the ability of the NRA to target legislators like in the election you reference will become a thing of the past in many states. And, it's highly likely that the Republicans that won in the very low turnout recall you may be counting on to intimidate citizens going forward will be history, in 2016, if not 2014.

                  I repeat myself: Belligerent gun owners scare people. (Including me!) Scared-of-guns people lead to more restrictive gun laws as they increase their majority.

                  You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

                  by paz3 on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:36:18 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  More registered Dems than Repubs showed up (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MertvayaRuka

                    in Colorado.

                    20-30% of those Dems voted for the recall.

                    Giron's district voted for Obama by 19 points.
                    It's not intimidation. It's not the NRA.
                    It is the voters; they don't react positively to being told that they have to surrender their liberties because of the crimes of murderers.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:49:51 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Colorado recalls and diffrent strokes (0+ / 0-)

                      Colorado also shares with Washington the status of being one of the only two states to legalize recreational marijuana. I'm sure there are many states where most Democrats think that would be a terrible idea. Colorado is somewhat unusual in being a state where (like Montana and other western states, I suppose) many Democrats have a stand on guns that is more usually associated with Republicans.

                      I get that the Federal Constitution is supposed to insure a minimum level of rights for everyone no matter what state they live in. But I also think the idea of the states as laboratories for democracy is a good one, and that people in different states may have different values and different ideas of what the right to bear arms, or the right to privacy as regards recreational drug use, really means. I understand that African Americans or gay people are not ok with having their right to vote or marry denied because "the culture of our state doesn't hold that as a value." But I think there's something to be said for taking a state-by-state approach to realizing a progressive agenda.

                      So maybe in Colorado they want pretty unrestricted, widespread gun ownership, and are comfortable with lots of people carrying guns in public. But maybe those gun enthusiasts in Colorado could also show a little more understanding for communities like Chicago, where the desires of the majority concerning guns are quite different.

            •  I see (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              what you thought you did there.  

              Why should your opinion of wiretaps matter to me?

              Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

              by Mark Mywurtz on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:13:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Take away the Second Amendment and the (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          "liberties" you're afraid of losing don't even exist. They're an atrifical construct.

          You know how "freedom of reproductive choice" was found even though it exists no place explicitly. That result would never happen with guns.

          There are more free people in countries that heavily regulate firearms than there are people in the U.S. population. Scream about that one for awhile if it'll make you feel better.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:34:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Take away a Right, and 'liberties' don't exist" (0+ / 0-)

            Profound thought.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 02:42:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  See, you're using that definition of "if I'm not (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              allowed to do anything I want to, whereever and whenever I feel like, then life is not fair". There's far more substance to this subject than you, seemingly, have ever been introduced to.

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:19:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not at all. (0+ / 0-)

                I am simply repeating the nonsense you stated.

                You want to take liberties away from innocent Americans.
                Your wants aren't relevant when it come to their rights.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:19:37 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You don't have a clue about "liberties" or (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  "rights".

                  I hope you finally grow up to the point of not being so simplistic.

                  There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                  by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:51:10 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Then it is a good thing that both are written down (0+ / 0-)

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

                    Rights are even simpler.
                    They even made a convenient list of a few of them.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 08:59:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Hey, I just remembered a place where you can start (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              your education. Look up the legal concept of "Least Restrictive Alternative". Obviously that would only be a begining.

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Dec 14, 2013 at 03:21:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site