Daily Kos

Stupidity, thy name is NRA

Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:04:10 PM PDT

This is utterly whacked:

VA State senators voted to defeat a bill that would have required everyone undergo a background check when they purchase a firearm at a gun show. The legislation, backed by families of the Virginia Tech shooting victims, was to close a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at gun shows without a background check.

Can't say for sure, but maybe those State Senators felt a bit of pressure from all the folks I saw in the lobby of the General Assembly building wearing these ridiculous red stickers reading: "Guns Save Lives"

This bit of pathetic theater was most interesting, coming right on the heels of their old slogan "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Do they save, or don't they kill? And what about the boatloads of evidence that suggests these slogans are so many vapid lies? Like some of these snippets:

Guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.

(Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67)

In 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States.

The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.

(Kellermann AL. "Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home." Journal of Trauma, 1998; 45(2):263-67.)

The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.

(Kellermann, AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the home in relation to gun ownership." New England Journal of Medicine. 1992; 327: 467-472.)

From 1999 to 2004, firearms were responsible for 18% of injury deaths for Caucasian teens ages 13-19 in the United States, 51% of deaths for African-American teens, 31% of Hispanic teens, 18% of Native American/Alaska Native teens, and 19% of Asian/Pacific Islander teens.

(WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports; WISQARS, Nonfatal Injury Reports.
WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.)

In fact, most pro-gun organizations are skilled at the gun control-crime control debate. But it is very difficult for the N.R.A. or anyone else to muster a cogent argument against the scientific study of data on gun injuries, or against attempts to protect children from being harmed by guns, or against a serious effort to reduce the number of spouses who are killed because an argument spiraled out of control. In short, there are no good arguments to be made. Guns don't make you safer statistically, they make you dead.

Just on it's own merits, let's see if we can work through the NRA's logic. Guns are inanimate objects triggered by people, therefore, they don't kill anyone by themselves. They require a 'human' trigger finger. Okay. But doesn't the same hold true if your Gun is going to save someone? Does it just pull a trigger on its own? Throw the guy a life line or what? Nope, that trigger still needs a person's finger, doesn't it? I mean, by their own logic, if guns don't kill people, they don't save people either, right?

But why worry? These are just slogans from one of the most powerful lobbying organizations on earth. That they are utterly disconnected from reality and irrational plus internally inconsistent doesn't matter, does it? Do all the dead at Virginia Tech matter? How about all the murders from handguns on our city streets, accidental and otherwise?

Maybe that's why individuals in the NRA seem so hard pressed to prevent purely sensible controls on guns that anyone in their right minds would want. Look, even if I'm packing twenty Glocks I don't want to meet a mentally deficient, emotionally whacked individual armed to the teeth as well. It's just nuts to think we can't pass these kind of lowest common denominator laws that prevent criminals and the mentally ill from arming themselves to the hilt.

But we can't. Because the NRA says we can't. Because a pack of NRA supporting morons wear idiotic stickers that intimitate state legislators into overriding common sense.

I'll say it again: this is whacked.

If you support the NRA, go back to your caves and your gun shows. I don't even want to talk with you. YOU are the problem. When someone puts a bullet in your  noggin, or your sons' or daughters' noggin, I'll be more than happy to pry that weapon of choice from your cold, dead fingers. Then I'll bury the goddamned thing. In this way we'll rid the world of two great harms: dangerous weapons and the fools that blindly support their use.

Tags: NRA, Gun Control, Virginia, Virginia Tech shooting (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 50 comments

  •  Bang, bang, shoot, shoot (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ChuckInReno, fatbyjhnsn, luckylizard

    You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

    by DelicateMonster on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:05:43 PM PDT

  •  But what can you use then as a prop (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DelicateMonster

    when you have a heated discussion with your spouse?

    Geez...keep loaded guns easily accessible in EVERY household...just in case you need to prove a point.

    /snark

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:10:19 PM PDT

  •  This rule.... (4+ / 0-)

    ...wouldn't have prevented the Virginia Tech shooting.  He was never committed and never considered to be a threat to himself or others, and as such had no record to find in the first place.  I'd suggest dropping the inflammatory language, (there are a lot of progressives and liberals who support gun rights and gun ownership) and toning things down a bit.

    That having been said, while I support gun rights, the NRA is the group who elected a 90-something year old religious fanatic with longstanding ties to racist groups, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's to be the face of responsible gun ownership in the United States.  They're nuts.

    •  Mostly correct... (4+ / 0-)

      He was designated as a threat to himself and others. It  was only because he was never hospitalized (committed) that his name wasn't entered into the proper database.

      From the Washington Post:

      A Virginia state court found Cho to be dangerously mentally ill in 2005 and ordered him to receive outpatient treatment. But because Cho was not ordered into hospital treatment, the court's order was never provided to the FBI and incorporated in its database. Two gun dealers checked the list before selling Cho the 9mm Glock 19 and the Walther .22-caliber pistol he used in the shootings.

      But you're right that this particular law wouldn't have stopped that particular incident. It nonetheless seems like a reasonable requirement, don't you think?

      On the whole, I wish there were more Dems out there who could articulate what you just did - that it's possible and even consistent to support gun rights and despise the NRA - which, after all, is really there to represent manufacturers and dealers, not owners.

      Help Russ Feingold help progressive candidates - support the Progressive Patriots Fund.

      by scardanelli on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:53:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  As I've said.... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Rex Manning, Ziggystardust125

        ...the NRA is nuts.  Unfortunately, so are the more, shall we say gun-phobic elements that tend to just assume that Democrats/Progressives automatically agree with their phobia.  I've expressed in other places, (primarily in discussions about living in other countries) that I have no problem with control, reasonable restrictions and background checks.... but I don't trust a government that feels the need to completely disarm its citizens.

        •  I agree with you. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Corwin Weber

          So did Gandhi.

          Help Russ Feingold help progressive candidates - support the Progressive Patriots Fund.

          by scardanelli on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:02:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  If this is the case (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          DelicateMonster, kefauver

          but I don't trust a government that feels the need to completely disarm its citizens.

          Then you've got nothing to worry about, since at no time in the history of the nation, has the US ever felt "the need to completely disarm its citizens".

          I only the other hand, don't share your distrust.  I don't see anything wrong with a government doing that, or nearly doing that, as many, very reasonable and far more democratically-leaning governments than ours have seen fit to restrict the distribution of guns (also not exactly the same thing as "disarming", but even if it were), and the interests, welfare and even their political liberties are still in relatively good shape.  

          I've always found it sad that a culture feels the need to define its "freedom" via the ownership of guns.  Its not so much that I distrust such a culture, as I worry for it.

          Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

          by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:41:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But what is the down side... (4+ / 0-)

      to requiring background checks for those who purchase guns at gun shows. It seems like common sense to me. I would like to think that I support gun rights as well, but I do not see how a background check infringes upon the second amendment in the slightest.

      Barack Obama - Experience the Change.

      by Ziggystardust125 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:03:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not an NRA fan, but (6+ / 0-)

    The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms.  If you don't believe that was the founding fathers' intent when they wrote the Second Amendment to mean that, then by the same token you don't believe that they intended us to have freedom of speech or religion under the First Amendment, or the right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.

    I am a gun owner, and I intend to purchase a new handgun within a few days.  This is my Constitution given right as an American citizen.

    Obama Precinct Captain. YES, WE CAN!

    by El Yoss on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:14:47 PM PDT

    •  Second Amendment and Background Checks (4+ / 0-)

      The Second Amendment doesn't prohibit background checks.  The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee felons and the insane the right to own a gun.  

      http://query.nytimes.com/...

      If background checks at federally-licensed gun stores are constitutional, then what is unconstitutional anout background checks at gun shows and private sales.

      There are actually felons suing to get the Supreme Court to overturn that decision though.  That would be great news because giving felons the right to own firearms is the quickest way of convincing normal people that the Second Amendment needs to be repealed.

      •  I did not attack Background Checks (5+ / 0-)

        What I am opposed to is the diarist's slashing attacks on the Second Amendment itself, our Constitution given right to bear arms.

        The handgun that I will soon by is as much a part of American idealism as is your freedom to choose the religion that you do or do not practice

        Obama Precinct Captain. YES, WE CAN!

        by El Yoss on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:37:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Semi-auto or revolver? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          kestrel9000, harrylimelives
        •  Um, let's keep this simple. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          ortcutt

          You're just wrong.

          There was not 'slashing attack on the second amendment' in this diary...if there was, you wouldn't see the trail of stupidity leading up to your inane comment.

          What there was in the diary was a slash against the NRA and it's slippery slope theory of fighting everything--including incredibly worthwhile and sane attempts to limit the spread of handguns to people that shouldn't own them.

          Would you give a blind person a driver's license? Would you let them fly an airplane? Why the fuck would you allow an emotionally unstable or mentally unstable individual to own a handgun?

          You want to call up our founding fathers and see if that was their intent? After they finished cursing your stupidity to hell, they'd shake their heads at what a pathetic pack of morons their country had become populated by.

          In short, this has nothing to do with the second amendment and everything to do with a lobbying organization that is utterly out of sync with America, circa 2008.

          The NRA is the problem as I've said. If you still support these assholes, so are you.

          You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

          by DelicateMonster on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:28:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Christians sue and are sued..... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Rex Manning

        ...over Establishment violations as well.

        Satanists asking for equal time in public schools could encourage the repeal of the First Amendment as well, at least the establishment clause.  Would this be a good thing?

        I'm thinkin' no, myself.

      •  Please go back and read (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        DelicateMonster

        the second amendment carefully.
        A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        Are you using your gun(s) in a "well regulated militia"?

        How shall we interpret the word "REGULATED"?

        Please don't get literal, with scraps and phrases. It demeans the conversation. The constitution is, and always has been, must be, subject to interpretation in the context of contemporary society, or else it will become a useless scrap of paper.

        You want a gun? Fine. Keep it locked up, in the armory, where you and your militia can get to it, when threatened.

        •  I don't know who you are replying to (n/t) (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Rex Manning
        •  Sorry, strawman, but (3+ / 0-)

          You are the one who is getting literal here.

          The founders obviously intended and desired that citizens would own their own firearms.  Nobody intended citizens to give up their firearms and place them in any sort of central armory in time of need.

          Defending one's country against one's government is probably the most important application of the Second Amendment, especially as it relates to modern society.  We must preserve our right to bear firearms for this reason alone.

          Tell me, if Blackwater mercs attacked you in the dead of night because you said something Dick Cheney didn't like, would you like to go to the armory to get your gun?  Nah...

          Obama Precinct Captain. YES, WE CAN!

          by El Yoss on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:08:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's neither obvious (0+ / 0-)

            not accurate to suggest that it is...

            What is obvious is your sweeping statement that "Defending one's country against one's government is probably the most important application of the Second Amendment, especially as it relates to modern society."

            Is something the founding fathers would have found especially scary. You might recall Shay's rebellion or the Whiskey Rebellion and how both were put down--by state militia. You've conflated individual desires with 'militias', as seems to be the desire with most gun obsessives. They are two distinct things as the founding fathers understood quite well, because they had to use one in opposition to the other.

            Learn your history. You'll find your position much more tenuous then you now presume.

             

            You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

            by DelicateMonster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:06:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh? Really? (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          kestrel9000, harrylimelives

          Let's take a look at what the actual Founding Fathers and leading American patriots said about the subject of gun ownership, the militia and firearms in general:

          "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
          -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

          "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
          -- George Washington

          "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
          -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

          A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
          --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

          [The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
          ---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

          Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
                  ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

          [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
          ---George Mason

          "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
          ---Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

          "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
          ---John Adams:(A defense of the Constitution of the US)

          "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."
          ---Thomas Paine

          "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
          ---Richard Henry Lee(Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

  •  I Own Two Guns and I Enjoy Firing Them (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Ziggystardust125

    Down at the range every now and then. I'm a firm believer in background checks. I really don't see the problem. Even if the law would have had no effect in the Va. Tech shootings, that doesn't matter, still needs to be applied to gun shows. It's sad commentary on our country when it's harder to rent a car than it is to buy a gun. And I think the Second Amendment language is a little antiquated. We have a professional military now, better than a well-trained militia.

    Beltway Wisdom is an Oxymoron.

    by kefauver on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:49:21 PM PDT

    •  Thing is... (3+ / 0-)

      ...Federal law already requires background checks at gun shows.

      What it doesn't require is a background check for a transfer from one non-FFL licensed private party to another.

      Where do we draw the line here? If I leave my 1800s percussion revolver to my grandson, does that require a NICS check? How about if I leave my AR-15 to them? How about if I loan them my AR-15 at the range? How about if I sell them my AR-15, which I purchased legally from an FFL years ago?

      •  I think you're reaching quite a bit (0+ / 0-)

        Leaving firearms to heirs in a will would not require a background check.  Plus, I don't think local authorities are worried about your son holding up a bank with an antique pistol.  ;)

        Beltway Wisdom is an Oxymoron.

        by kefauver on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I don't like a loophole... (3+ / 0-)

    ...that allows someone to buy a firearm without going through the same procedure that I do when I buy a firearm at a gun store.

    That said, the so called "evidence" you site against gun ownership is bunk.

    From Guncite.com:

    The Kellerman findings defy scientific reason:

    Is My Own Gun More Likely to be Used Against Me or My Family?

    As for justifiable homicides, the key factor that is left out is that many more people deter attack just by brandishing a firearm than by actually shooting and killing an attacker. I notice they leave out incidents where attackers were wounded but not killed too.

    Please consult the following, also from Guncite:

    Is a Gun an Effective Means of Self-Defense?

    If defensive gun use is common then many criminals should certainly have encountered armed resistance. Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms

    I'm not in favor of everyone being armed nor do I advocate that anyone who can have gun should have one but firearms, in the hands of someone competent, can be effective as self defense weapons.

  •  Speaking of which .... (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ben masel, kestrel9000, Rex Manning

    Guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.

    This argument is completely disingenuous, and completely misses the point of self-defense. Your goal in drawing your weapon is not to kill the bad guy. Your goal is to stop the attack and use whatever it takes to do so. If that requires zero shots, or fifteen, the net effect, as far as the defense of your life and health is concerned, is the same.

    The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.

    Take it from someone who's been there: the gun might be the agent of the suicide, but it doesn't cause the suicide. It makes ideation easier, but the actual cause is something else. 99% of the time, it's depression. Treat the depression, and the suicidal impulses go away. OTOH, if you don't treat the cause, but simply take away the gun, eventually that person will figure out another way to kill themselves.

    •  Yeah, good thing we don't legalize overdosing (0+ / 0-)

      on sleeping pills or else everyone would be oding on sleeping pills because it's so much easier...oh, wait.

      You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

      by DelicateMonster on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:31:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I reckon... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      kestrel9000, harrylimelives

      ...economic desperation resulting from a corrupt and failing economy leads to an increase in suicide.

      Do we fix that by banning firearms?

    •  Read the diary again... (0+ / 0-)

      it's not an 'argument' it's an associative fact. If you want to make up excuses for why households with guns are five times more likely to harbor suicides than not, that's your perogative, but it's got fuck all to do with the diary.

      Disingenious, of course, is suggesting that it does.

      What the diary does suggest is the otherside to this, if you don't have a handgun in your home, perhaps you're five times less likely to off yourself.

      But then, there are some on this thread who might be so miserable without the comfort of a warm gun for their defense that they'd kill themselves out of spite.

      Oh, and just to really expand those brain cells, let me throw out this proposition, which was the way the Second Amendment was actually understood well into the 20th century. If you're not part of a 'standing militia' --by which most justices meant a National Guard, you've got zero 'right' to own a gun.

      It's since changed, but the precedent of that opinion has been set and has considerable history. Someday, after the 10,000th slaughter of innocents at some college or highschool, a million moms or more are going to turn the NRA yahoos out for a good spanking.

      And they'll never own that little warm hand gun again...

      Now let me give you a clue. If you support the NRA in it's current insanely over the top configuration, you're just rushing that day along. So keep up the great work.

      You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

      by DelicateMonster on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:55:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You sound angrier and less rational (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        harrylimelives

        than those who are challenging you.

        current insanely over the top configuration

        could be used to describe the vein that I picture throbbing in your forehead as I read your posts.

        Someone upthread said, "Take my gun, lose my vote."
        Add me to that list.
        And the "Guns save lives" stickers, aren't red, they're blue. At least mine is. And they are not put out by the NRA, but by the VCDL, of which I am a supporter.
        Mostly.

        Cobalt6 And I'd have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.

        by kestrel9000 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:39:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's insanely over the top (0+ / 0-)

          to request that mentally deficient individuals to go through a standard background check? And to insist that the lobbying firm directly responsbile for defeating that requirement is actually self defeating and a disaster for BOTH gun owners and gun control advocates. Since when?

          You might want to address some definitions in your comment like 'insane' and 'over the top'...

          As to the VCDL, any organization that writes bullshit like this: "anti-gun legislators are rushing to introduce legislation to curtail your rights!" because of that same request is, intellectually, legally and morally not worth rubbing off the bottom of my boot soles.

          You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

          by DelicateMonster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:33:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fact check (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            kestrel9000
            The NRA advocated for the latest NICS bill, which included provisions to include more mental health history in NICS checks. In fact, they've taken significant heat for that, since the perception is that this means someone who's seeing a therapist for anxiety would be stripped of their right to self-defense.
            •  their 'need' for self defense (0+ / 1-)

              Hidden by:
              maxomai

              how about our 'need' to keep emotional disabled or mentally deficient fuckwits from holding weapons?

              How about 'we' instead 'me'

              That rather seems to be the crux of the problem doesn't it? And like a good slavering foolish Republican or Libertarian ditto head you've decided to opt for the most disastrous 'individual' solution rather than allowing society any say in the matter at all.

              Nice work you're doing for the progressive cause there, maxomai. Help yourself to another dose of Limbaugh ditto head bullshit, 'cause your position is nowhere close to progressive and has all the hall marks of a classic Republican argument. Like I said upstream, you ought to be ashamed.

              You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

              by DelicateMonster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:39:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You prove my point (0+ / 0-)

              maxomai, rather than offer a defense of your rightwing views (yes, newsbrief, at core gun advocates that want a 'me' world over a 'we' world are effectively the walking talking embodiments of right wing principles) you've decided to troll rate.

              You're apparently an intellectual coward, in addition to having all the argumentive skills of a classic ditto head.

              You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

              by DelicateMonster on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 05:58:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Clueless (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        harrylimelives

        Oh, and just to really expand those brain cells, let me throw out this proposition, which was the way the Second Amendment was actually understood well into the 20th century. If you're not part of a 'standing militia' --by which most justices meant a National Guard, you've got zero 'right' to own a gun.

        So there was a National Guard in 1789, when the Constitution was written?

        That's some interesting history you're reading. "Interesting" meaning "completely wrong" in this case.

        The word "regulated" did not mean, as it does today, that something is run by strict and strictly enforced rules. It does mean, however, that something is well equipped. As in, "because we need well equipped militias, we need to protect the right of every person to own a firearm."

        •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

          I never said there was a National Guard in 1789. What I said was there were Justices who interpreted  law in that way. More specifically they regarded the law to pertain to 'state militia'.

          Another major point of contention is whether it [2nd Amendment] protects against infringement of an individual right to personal firearms or a collective State militia right. Most circuit court precedences favor the "collective" interpretation, but the "individual" interpretations are supported by recent court cases such as United States v. Emerson and Parker v. District of Columbia. There is also a "modified collective" view that says the right is protected for individuals to bear arms based on their needs while serving in a militia.

          So first, learn to read. Second, learn to read with nuance that doesn't resort to distortion. Your etymological revisitation of the term 'regulated' not withstanding, there's about 150 years of legal precedent that says you are full of shit--no matter what some fuckwit rightwing nut case thinks our founding father's  might have meant.

          In short, I'm not an originalist, and find them, generally, as compelling as most lizard skinned Republicans or libertarian, warts and all. Why do you sound just like one?

          Chew on that bone for awhile and get back to me. If you haven't been shot yet. :-)

          You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

          by DelicateMonster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:58:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  76% of Wisconsin voters (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000, harrylimelives

    approved a State Constitution amendment clarifying Keep and Bear as an individual right. Why do you want the Republicans to keep control of our State Assembly?

    Democratic Candidate for US Senate, WI (2012)
    Masel4senate

    by ben masel on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:48:38 AM PDT

    •  Hey ben, (0+ / 1-)

      Hidden by:
      maxomai

      if Democrats support disastrous and cruel ideas that should belong to Republicans, but the Democrats have decided to partner in, what the fuck is the difference?

      'Gun rights' is a shibboleth for 'states rights' and individualists rights over societal rights. You guys are cocking your Glocks and playing a stupid right wing frame.

      But actually, my emotionally center doesn't even reside near your disastrous political strategy. It's what I see in the emergency room night after night.

      Advocacy for 'gun rights' has a direct impact on thousands of lives you guys don't even hear about.

      They are the dead, dying and wounded of trauma units all across this country. They deserve something more than the bullshit on offer here.

      As I said upstream, and I'll say one more time, you ought to be ashamed.

      You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

      by DelicateMonster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:16:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No law's gonna change that. (0+ / 0-)

        Genie's out of the bottle. The most drfaconian laws, enforced with the vigor with which Reagan wsent after weed, would cause no more than a 50% price increase in cheap firearms, perhaps more for collectables, so what you're proposing is, in effect, really only a political stunt, no matter how genuine the motivation.

        Democratic Candidate for US Senate, WI (2012)
        Masel4senate

        by ben masel on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm a liberal gun owner (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    kestrel9000

    Take my gun. Lose my vote. Period.

    This new gun law wouldn't have prevented Cho from purchasing his firearms, because his name wasn't entered into the database.

    Also, as a former criminologist, I find it highly amusing that you're using the work of Dr. Arthur Kellerman to substantiate your claims, when his statistical methods are so dubious at best. He actually counted fellow gang members as family members, to create the statistic that family members are 22 times more likely to kill each other if there is a gun in the house.

    Gang members, I mean really.

    He also never included statistics for the defensive uses of firearms in which the assailants were merely injured or scared away, thus skewering his results even more. Kellerman truncated his data to author a political and agenda based narrative.

    Simply, the banning of all firearms.

    Kellerman is not impartial, and his studies have a purpose. He's an outspoken advocate for the banning of hand guns, actually leading the movement. It's a little like quoting Exxon, when trying to argue that electric cars are bad.

    He also claimed in the same report you're quoting, that actually having the gun in the house increased the risk of suicide - as though a depressed person wouldn't find a different way to kill himself.

    In reality, 2 percent of firearms bought at gun shows are used during the commission of a crime, and a great majority of those people also passed background checks.

    In the end, Cho was an abnormality, because he was totally insane. If there was a break down, it was with the medical health community for not committing him, and entering his name into the database.

    Make no mistake, he would have killed a lot of people. If not with a gun, than with a knife. Or a fire. Or chemicals. Or god forbid, maybe a fertalizer bomb.

    But, don't let pesky facts get in the way of your agenda though, not when you can exploit the suffering of others to advance your own personal agenda of restricting our constitutional rights.

    I just voted for the next President of the United States, Barack Obama

    by harrylimelives on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:36:30 AM PDT

    •  This diary has nothing to do (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      kefauver

      with taking anyone's precious gun away. It's about requiring a background check on individual to individuals sales of guns.

      Tech parents said private sales make it possible for troubled people such as Seung-Hui Cho to acquire guns. Cho, a Tech student with a history of psychological problems, killed 32 classmates and faculty members in April and wounded 17 before committing suicide.

      "Please don’t say these innocent lives were lost," said Lori Haas of Richmond, whose daughter Emily survived two shots in her head, speaking to the committee. "They weren’t lost; they were killed by a sick person who should not have had that gun. Every one of you sitting here today can prevent someone else from suffering this anguish."

      I feel ashamed when supposed Democrats make a response like "take my gun, take my vote" to a simple request for background checks. It's not 'taking your gun' it's making sure you're not a problem for society before society let's you buy a gun.

      I feel ashamed because the hyperbole and the distortion of the debate is something that Rush Limbaugh would surely admire.

      Nice work.

      You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

      by DelicateMonster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:42:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I feel ashamed (0+ / 0-)

        When supposed Democrats don't respect all the amendments of the constitution. They're not there to be cherry picked, because someone finds firearms "yucky". Background checks are done at Gun Shows by dealers, not by private individuals.

        And I will repeat myself. A background check WAS performed on Cho, and it showed nothing. We would have known that Cho was a problem, but the medical health care professionals did NOT enter his name into the database. The background check would have flagged him, had they done their job correctly.

        Perhaps you should be more concerned with them, than punishing responsible gun owners for something they didn't do. And considering that less than 2% of firearms acquired through private transactions are actually used during the commission of a crime, then there is another agenda at foot.

        What Gun Control advocates are actually calling for in this action, is the restriction of law abiding citizens to pass on fire arms to other law abiding citizens; IE, fathers to sons and neighbor to neighbor, the majority of all private transactions.

        And the minute you compare me to Rush Limbaugh, your argument is already toast. The second amendment is as important as the first, as the fourteenth, and every one of them in between.

        Luckily, gun control advocates are a fringe group these days, and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are any making attempts to curtail the second amendment.

        I just voted for the next President of the United States, Barack Obama

        by harrylimelives on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:59:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  'punishing' (0+ / 1-)

          Hidden by:
          maxomai

          Waiting for a background check is 'punishment'?

          Really?

          What kind of hardship is that, really?

          Is it like, you know, waiting for an airplane ticket? Or, a doctors appointment?

          The reason you get compared to Rush Limbaugh is because you say things that he would say.  Things that are exaggerations, distortions, or outright lies.

          This comment earns you exactly zero on the credibility scale. But keeping speaking up for your 'right' to own a weapon. With advocates like yourself we'll be able to pass rational background checks soon enough.

          You can lead a conservative to facts--but you can't make him think.

          by DelicateMonster on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 05:26:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Permalink | 50 comments