Skip to main content

View Diary: Eliminationists leave daughters without fathers (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  wrong frame (8+ / 0-)

    Obama isn't coming for anyone's guns.

    And if he were, that would justify murder?

    the Democrats have long since moved on.

    And if we haven't - and many of us haven't abandoned the fight for reasonable gun control that protects both individual liberties and public safety - then that would justify slaughter?

    This is the wrong frame. The argument shouldn't be, "please don't kill us, we don't want to take your guns".

    Wrong fucking argument.

    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

    by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 07:33:41 PM PDT

    •  I for one have not moved on. (6+ / 0-)

      today and yesterday are perfect examples of why I haven't.

      •  Precisely, this just feeds gun control arguments (4+ / 0-)

        The purpose of regulation - the only purpose of regulation - is to protect the common good while preserving individual liberty.

        This is not about banning guns - it is about protecting our individual rights to life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - none of which are possible when one is murdered, or in constant fear of being murdered.

        According to Gallup (all polls conducted in 2008):

        88% of Americans support ""Preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns"

        86% support "Requiring people who purchase a gun to wait a certain number of days before they receive that gun"

        79% support "Requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government"

        Going even further: according to a Pew poll, also conducted in 2008, 58% of Americans believe it is "more important  to control gun ownership" than "to protect the right of Americans to own guns" vs. 37% who favor the latter.

        Polls by Gallup,Pew  and CNN show only between 8% and 11% of Americans believe gun control laws should be weakened - and half believe they should be stricter.

        The numbers are consistent.

        An overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control. This is NOT a losing issue for the Democrats.

        I call Bullshit on all these libertarian trolls.

        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

        by RandomActsOfReason on Sat Apr 04, 2009 at 08:22:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Strange... (0+ / 0-)

          88% of Americans support ""Preventing certain people, such as convicted felons or people with mental health problems, from owning guns"

          It's already against Federal law for either type of person to possess a firearm.

          An overwhelming majority of Americans support gun control. This is NOT a losing issue for the Democrats.

          Sure.
          Just ask President Gore about how his literal embrace of Sarah Brady won him Tennessee and West Virginia.

          Sarcasm aside, if Gore had carried either state, Florida would have been a historical footnote and he would have been President.

          You want to lose 'blue dog' states such as my own (Indiana) and recent Democratic converts such as myself, just keep on working for gun bans.

          I may not be able to bring myself to vote Republican again, but I certainly can sit out an election and not donate to Obama like I did this time around.

          •  False on all counts. (0+ / 0-)

            Already debunked here:

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

            9 out of 10 Americans support gun control.
            7 out of 10 support MORE gun control.
            9 out of 10 support a ban on assault weapons.

            Also, it is NOT against federal law for either convicted felons or people with mental health problems to own guns. Those are both matters that fall under state and local jurisdiction, not federal. Some states allow the reinstatement of gun rights to felons, and federal law defers to the state. There is no federal law regarding mental illness and gun ownership.

            One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:39:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You're so full of s**t, your eyes are brown... (0+ / 0-)

              First off, have you ever read a Federal Form 4473?

              You will notice that the questions include ones about mental state and convicted felon status.
              Per the Gun Control Act of 1968, it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm under Federal law as it is for someone who has been 'adjudicated mentally defective' to possess one.

              Secondly, Federal law does not defer to state law when it comes to firearms.
              If it did, there would be several states where the 1934 NFA would be simply ignored and machine guns, supressors, and sawed off shotguns would be cheaply and legally available.

              Finally, you might want to consider that prior to 1968, one could quite legally purchase firearms via freaking mail order.

              Given the difference in the crime rates of 1959 and 2009, I'd suggest that the underlying causes of violence lie somewhere else than the simple availability of firearms.

              •  Actually, the law contradicts you (0+ / 0-)

                There are exceptions to this rule in some instances. Federal law contains an explicit statutory exclusion which provides that the federal criminal offense of firearms possession is inapplicable to persons who has had their civil rights restored on the predicate state felony conviction,,.
                There are exceptions to this rule in some instances. Federal law contains an explicit statutory exclusion which provides that the federal criminal offense of firearms possession is inapplicable to persons who has had their civil rights restored on the predicate state felony conviction..
                Is there any other way to regain the right to own a gun? In theory, one can submit an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, (ATF) under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) requesting restoration of your gun rights. The application is supposedly granted if it is established . . . that the circumstances . . . and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.

                As for mental illness (the original claim), the prohibition is only on people who meet a strict designation of serious mental "defectiveness" which includes being institutionalized or being deemed mentally incapable of managing one's own affairs.

                HOWEVER, in 1995 the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot be required to release data about mental "defectives" to the federal government, and, currently, 18 states refuse to release any such data, so the federal government cannot enforce that statute.

                I note that you conveniently avoid addressing the other, fallacious claim that the stats somehow don't support my assertion that 9 out of 10 Americans support gun control.

                Ah well, it's always easier to spew personal insults when one has no facts to support one's position.

                One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 01:30:56 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So you claim that a pardon shoudn't be sufficient (0+ / 0-)

                  ..to grant one back a recognized civil right?
                  Keep in mind that SCOTUS has recognized that the second amendment is an individual right.

                  I hope you don't hold that same view WRT restoration of voting rights when it comes to pardoned felons.

                  As for the rest of it, sure I agree that there are areas in the law that need to be clarified concerning mental illness, gun rights, and background checks.

                  I suspect that the difference between us lies in the fact that I expect the government to prove that I shouldn't own a firearm instead of having to prove to them that I should be allowed to own one.

                  •  The difference is facts vs ranting (0+ / 0-)

                    I haven't expressed an opinion about pardoned felons. You make assumptions and erect straw men rather than addressing substance. You seek to score points, and when you are refuted, you ignore it and seek new hit points. That is not a reasonable way to debate.

                    The difference between us is that I view individual membership in society as involving responsibilities as well as rights, and you seem to seek only rights.

                    I seek reasonable balance between individual freedom and public safety, and you care only for individual freedom (yours, even if it infringes on my freedom to be safe and enjoy the benefits of belonging to a society).

                    As a progressive civil libertarian, I affirm the positive regulatory role my government plays in providing for the common good on my behalf, while you seem to preach a libertarian view of the government as an inherent evil.

                    You talk about agreeing to clarifications in the law, yet I don't see you supporting any laws that restrict a gun owner's rights for any reason.

                    Can you enumerate gun control measures of which you approve?

                    The difference is that I believe that whatever policies we decide upon, they must be determined by a review of the facts - not by starting with blind ideology and cherry picking facts to suit, and ignoring those that don't.

                    The difference is that you spew personal insults, while I try to get us to stick to the facts.

                    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:00:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Perhaps its simply rhetoric and.. (0+ / 0-)

                      ..the approach we take separating us.

                      I believe the way I do because I honestly believe the second amendment is an individual right.
                      That said, I also do not believe that the 2A also confers a right to carry a firearm concealed.

                      IMHO, that debate is best left to the individual states.
                      My state's supreme court has ruled that our state constitution protects RKBA because it is both a liberty right and a property right inherent in our state constitution.

                      I can accept reasonable restrictions on RKBA, just as I accept reasonable restrictions WRT free speech.

                      If the restrictions on either become unreasonable, let's just say that you'll pry my cold dead hands from around the hot smoking barrel.

                      •  Name "reasonable" restrictions you support. (0+ / 0-)

                        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:30:45 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Reasonable restrictions on ownership... (0+ / 0-)

                          include prohibiting access to those who have been adjudicated as mentally deficient, those convicted of federal or state felonies who haven't been pardoned of such by either POTUS or their state's Governor.

                          There may be others that I haven't thought of right now, but I am open to reasonable discussion.

                          Reasonable CCW (as opposed to simple ownership)  restrictions include meeting objective criteria WRT marksmanship, safe gun handling, and legal knowledge of when it is appropriate to use a firearm in self defense.

                          My problem with jurisdictions that use 'subjective' criteria in issuing licenses is that all too often the only people who 'meet the standard' are the rich, famous, and politically well connected.

                  •  Despite the spin in your reply... (0+ / 0-)

                    I've already proven this statement of yours is simply bullshit.

                    Also, it is NOT against federal law for either convicted felons or people with mental health problems to own guns.

                    We can argue what 'is' means all day long, but the simple truth is that it's already against Federal law for convicted felons to own guns unless the felon has been legally granted relief from the prohibition.

                    Granted, the 'mental health problems' rules are more complex and have competing rights at issue.

                    My personal inclination is to deny firearm rights to anyone who has demonstrated cause to do so after a hearing from a magistrate.

                •  Heh.. (0+ / 0-)

                  I note that you conveniently avoid addressing the other, fallacious claim that the stats somehow don't support my assertion that 9 out of 10 Americans support gun control.

                  Please define 'gun control'.
                  I suspect that the average Hoosier or Tennessean has a different definition of reasonable gun control than you do.

                  I base that on the fact that Indiana and Tennessee state law make it perfectly legal for citizens who have met an objective criteria to legally carry concealed weapons.

                  Compare that to the Brady 'A rated' states that permit CCW using subjective criteria.

                  Frankly it's almost unheard of for a major party presidential candidate to lose his home state.
                  Al Gore managed to pull it off nonetheless, and I've seen a lot of surveys that indicate gun control was a major contributor to that loss.

                  If gun control is such a sure fire winner, why did Pelosi and Reid both piss on the idea of new gun laws?

                  •  "I won't accept stats that contradict me" (0+ / 0-)

                    "while freely citing those that I think support my position".

                    In other words, your beliefs override your reality. Presented with study after study, you "know" that people think different than all those polls show.

                    There is no point in further discussion. You are presenting a faith-based argument, to which my rational argument can make no effective response.

                    Fortunately for the issue at hand, you are in the 10% minority, no matter what you insist. Reality does not bend for belief, no matter how avid the belief.

                    One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                    by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:08:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wow.... (0+ / 0-)

                      You're ignoring the larger scope and intent of the laws I brought up while citing the minor exceptions to them and accusing me of mental blindness??

                      Talk about 'pot, kettle, black'.

                      •  I see (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm "so full of shit" my "eyes are brown".

                        You are merely guilty of "minor exceptions" while really meaning the "larger scope an intent of the laws".

                        This is not about the laws. This is about manifestly false assertions made about public opinion on these issues, as demonstrated with cited poll after cited poll.

                        You are wrong. There is overwhelming support for gun control in this country, and very strong support for stricter control.

                        That is simple empirical fact. You can spin it all you want, but, until you are willing to accept the data, there is no point in trying to have what would be a legitimate debate about the conclusions one should draw from the data.

                        The data refutes your premise. It is a common premise, held by many, but it is empirically false. If you can't move on from there, there is no where to go.

                        One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                        by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 02:29:51 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  If support is so strong for gun control.. (0+ / 0-)

                          ..then why did Pelosi and Reid recoil from it like a vampire from a cross when Holder mentioned a new AWB?

                          In the end, gun control support is 'a mile long and an inch deep'.
                          IOW, a majority may vaguely support gun control, but that support isn't very firm and depends upon just how the questioner defines the word.

                          •  So now you are judging value (0+ / 0-)

                            based on Pelosi and Reid's decisions?

                            I'm not going to bother reviewing your history on this site, but I'd be surprised if you have never joined the rest of us in wondering what the fuck Reid is doing - and, as for Pelosi, while I respect her leadership greatly, I differ with her on many issues, from gun control to her theocratic intolerance of atheism. YMMV.

                            Look, let's be honest - your objection to Democrats embracing gun control has nothing to do with your concern about the electoral consequences, and everything to do with your opposition to gun control.

                            That being the case, arguing about electoral consequences is just a red herring, as shown by the rapidity with which you abandoned your previous claims that the public doesn't support it. Now, you claim the support is "shallow" (yet provide absolutely no data to support that assertion).

                            This is a dishonest discussion, full of personal insults and moving goalposts. I'm out of patience arguing with someone who is not being honest about the issues, so let's just agree to disagree. No evidence I present will have any influence on your beliefs.

                            One day posterity will remember, this strange era, these strange times, when ordinary common honesty was called courage. -- Yevgeny Yevtushenko

                            by RandomActsOfReason on Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 12:14:06 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Extending 'Brady checks' to private sales is... (0+ / 0-)

              ..something I could support if the fee charged for doing so is a nominal one.
              IOW, a $15 fee for instant checks for private party 'Brady checks' is something I could support.

              A 'open' fee structure where there's no limit on the amount charged is one I cannot support simply because gun prohibitionists have conclusively proven that when given an inch, they'll take a mile and impose $100+ 'transfer fees' simply to make gun ownership impossible for those of limited financial means.

              Fuck that and fuck them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site