Daily Kos

NRA has milkshake, shall we drink?

Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:27:05 AM PDT

 I saw this little tidbit this morning - a $15M National Rifle Association ad blitz against Obama, and I've had my fill.

 There are in excess of two hundred million guns in this country and they're pretty evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. Why does the NRA think it speaks for all gun owners? It doesn't, but voices on our side of the aisle are muted and disorganized. We can change that.

 I'm a Democratic voter. A Progressive. Three of those two hundred million plus guns are in my possession and I used to have a few more before lack of health care wiped me out financially.

 Gun violence has struck close to home for me. A college room mate was murdered. Do I advocate gun control? Nope, he was shot over a rare gun at an isolated firing range. He'd gun to shoot, run dry, and was easy prey. He was out of state when it happened but I took the lesson - I lived in an urban area and would shoot outdoors at a popular gravel pit ten miles outside the city. I always had a magazine full of Golden Sabers left on my way out after this ...

 I've drawn a gun defensively one time in thirty two years of firearms ownership; a neighbor with a drug/drinking problem came by and wanted to have a vigorous discussion on the front lawn over some imagined slight. I remained inside the screen door with a big grin on my face and a nice little composite pistol in my hand. He suddenly recalled he'd left something going on the stove; another situation defused by the ability to respond which would have gone to injuries for one or both parties and criminal charges thereafter.

 The Supreme Court has recently provided a proper, individual rights interpretation of the second amendment, forever silencing the foolish canard that the National Guard are a complete expression of what our founding fathers intended by a well regulated militia. Oh, and the world validates this: Do you want to face Blackwater thugs loose on your street armed with nothing more but high minded principles? It should be obvious that our collective firearms ownership is keeping the Bush administration in line in some ways domestically.

 I'll be more clear: firearms can be used for sporting and self defense requirements but citizens controlling the government is the third and most important reason this right exists.

 What sort of policies would be backed by a "progressive rifle association" intent on stripping voters and support from the increasingly wing nutty National Rifle Association? I'd suggest something like the following:

    The right to self defense is an inalienable human right that shall not be denied to any adult with a sound mind and a criminal record free of violence. Expanding upon this concept a society, being that which forms for the benefit of its members, must have the ability to control and remove by force should it become necessary the government which it has formed to restrain human wickedness.

    Anyone wishing to own and operate a firearm must do so safely and to this end all children upon reaching twelve years of age should be schooled in gun safety. (Unfrantic your urban self - this is the norm in rural Iowa and we don't have many shooting accidents there). This training should be repeated each year through high school.

    A liberal national concealed weapons carry policy must be created. Some states are more conservative than others in terms of permit issuance and this is a state's rights issue, but a well understood national minimum should be in place allowing those who are properly permitted to travel without having to study the laws of each state visited.

    Fully automatic weapons, silencers, and other items currently covered by class 3 FFL permits should remain as such. Citizens should otherwise have access to the calibers, magazine capacities, and ammunition they prefer.

  This needs a whole lot of work, obviously, but I'd love to see a more coherent expression of this fundamental human right happening within the Progressive branch of the Democratic party; much as the evangelicals are coming unzipped from the neocons the same thing is happening to gun owners ... and they have a lot of concerns over what is a small and shrinking anti-gun segment of the Democratic party.

   If you want the rest of those red states to turn blue and stay that way this is a huge step towards getting the job done.

   

Tags: RKBA, second amendment, NRA, National Rifle Association (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 56 comments

  •  Access to the calibers they prefer? (3+ / 0-)

    I can has a Paladin?

    I NEED a 115 mm howitzer to protect my home!

    (Not that I disagree with the general premise of your diary.  I just thought "freedom of caliber" is a little too much -- the current .50 limit, with exceptions for shotguns, seems about right to me.)

    WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Senator McCain's).

    by Anarchofascist on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:36:46 AM PDT

    •  keeping camel's nose from beneath tent (4+ / 0-)

      One of the anti-gun lobby's strategies is divide and conquer. We saw endless silliness over "cop killer bullets", specifically the Black Talon. Winchester turned 'em a dull coppery color, improved their performance, and renamed them the Ranger SXT (super expanding talon). We all had a good laugh at the gun control dorks over this one.

      The high capacity magazine ban is another bit of foolishness. If I'm a responsible gun owner and I want a double stack magazine for my Glock, or even better an extended air crew magazine, that is nobody's business but mine.

       Mexico, a shining beacon of liberty, keeps the groundlings from owning military calibers. I think the U.S. ought to provide a 100% tax credit for the purchase of guns that are ammo and magazine compatible with the current soldier's issue. I don't care for the big, chunky Beretta or the dainty, fussy 5.56x45mm things they're passing out, but I'd take one of each at that price.

      •  Is there a country in the world (0+ / 0-)

        that DOESN'T keep "groundlings from owning military calibers"?

        And you'll note I wasn't discussing specific brands of ammunition nor was I discussing mag capacity.  I was specifically addressing caliber.

        WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Senator McCain's).

        by Anarchofascist on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:59:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  don't be silly (0+ / 0-)

          I bet I have some 5.56x45mm in the trunk of my car - that would be the stuff that fits in the current assault rifle issued by the U.S. military. I've owed several pistols chambered for 9x19mm, the NATO pistol and submachine caliber. I've owed several guns chambered for the 7.62x39mm Soviet block assault rifles and I prefer these to the 7.62x51mm NATO rifles as they're lighter and more pleasant to shoot. If I wanted a 7.62x51mm rifle I'd pick a Fabrique Nationale FAL, which are readily available here in the United States.

           

          •  I typically wear BDUs to classes (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Stranded Wind

            and the top pockets are cut at a strange angle.  You stuff extra ammo in them to stay on the line as much as possible (you paid a lot for it).  Ammo frequently falls out of full pockets.  I am constantly suprised at what loose ammo I find rolling around on the floor of the car.  In California?  Not a trivial matter.  Everywhere else I've lived?  100% lawful.  Which makes more sense?  

        •  visual evidence (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          ManhattanMan, YoyogiBear

          Not only can civilians own military calibers, but my son has taken a curious turn and developed a taste for the civvie version of the U.S. M4 assault rifle, quite contrary to my preference for the Russian equivalent of this weapon.


          •  ergonomics, my friend (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Stranded Wind

            Not only can civilians own military calibers, but my son has taken a curious turn and developed a taste for the civvie version of the U.S. M4 assault rifle, quite contrary to my preference for the Russian equivalent of this weapon.

            Is not the safety on the AK difficult to engage and disengage with small hands?

            On the AR, if you can reach the trigger, your thumb is big enough to easily work the safety-selector.  

        •  Military calibers (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          dewley notid

          5.56 is just the .223 varmint round.  7.62 is the .303 deer round.

          Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38

          by Grannus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:37:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually (5+ / 0-)

        that "SXT" is said to stand for "Same eXact Thing." :)

      •  But you never had to hump (0+ / 0-)

        the dainty, fussy 5.56x45mm things they're passing out

        You can carry a lot more of those dainty things than the elephant gun 7.62.

        Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38

        by Grannus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:35:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Black Talon -- a massive failure in marketing (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Stranded Wind

        commonsense.  

        Ammo makers are like car manufacturers -- they must constantly innovate.  The start of the art is light years beyond twenty years ago, partially because the FBI blamed a botched gunfight on poor bullet performance when the botching was due to (no disrespect for the agents) poor planning and tactics.  So the makers keep improving the design, and they keep marketing those designs with new names.  That’s it.  FBI’s HRT carries only Remington Golden Sabre.  And there’s a host of other scary names.  They mean nothing except the possibility of catching the eye of a procurement office.  

        Let's repeat a mantra, people: there ARE NO COP KILLER BULLETS.  Hollow point bullets are designed to expand and stay in the body.  Having a bullet exit the body just means it keeps flying somewhere else, and that's a bad thing.  Hollow point bullets penetrate body armor very poorly (and body armor has never been designed to be "bullet-proof," only "bullet-resistant".)  

        As for military calibers, well, that's the way it's always been.  The number of serious pistol chambering in the US that haven't been used by the military is perhaps one or two.  Economies of scale permit us to engage in levels of practice essential to maintain perishable skills.  That's it.  And some of those chambering were used by civilians BEFORE adoption by the military.

        But let’s take the quintessential – the .45 Colt Automatic Pistol (.45 ACP).  This round was originally designed in 1905.  Do you think that a low-tech, low-pressure round is so dangerous that public access is a serious concern?  Read about John Moses Browning, designer of the Colt 1911.  Every elite element of the United States armed forces is either issues or is permitted to carry this weapon.  Low tech?  Fucking A.  Why do they carry it?  Because it goes "bang" every time you pull the trigger.  

    •  slippery slope from 12 gauge to 115mm (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Stranded Wind

      I NEED a 115 mm howitzer to protect my home!

      (Not that I disagree with the general premise of your diary.  I just thought "freedom of caliber" is a little too much -- the current .50 limit, with exceptions for shotguns, seems about right to me.)

      Anarchofascist:

      Your concerns are well placed, but are dominated by a slippery slope argument.  Where the slope gains traction I don't know, but .50 BMGs are man-portable small arms, and they dominate 1000 yard competition.

      Would .499 be acceptable?  Would it be a "loophole" that you'd want to close, or would it be compliance with law?  

      There are various .475s already in existence.

      In response to California's ban on .50 BMG, Barrett, maker of the .50 rifles used by SOCOM in Afghanistan, did two things: (1) stopped selling to any law enforcement agency in a jurisdiction that banned civilian ownership; and (2) made a .416 Barrett round out of the .50 BMG case that is ballistically superior.  Is it okay to own one of those?

      Lastly, we're not talking self-defense; we're talking about exercise of a right.  Again, there may be a slippery slope problem for which I don't have any easy solution.

      Really, do you NEED to blog on DailyKos.com?  Can't you steal a milk crate from 7-11, stand on a street corner and yell your views to passers by?  Both are exercises of your rights to free speech.  Is one less sacred because it technologically superior?  Is one inferior because it seems silly?  

      Think of the Second as you do the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth.  And please, try to divest emotional content from your analysis.  I think you'll real conclusions more consistent with the other Amendments.  

  •  I'm a gun owner, too. These assholes don't speak (8+ / 0-)

    for me either. I wouldn't worry too much about this ad blitz. People who are inclined to drink the NRA koolaid weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.

    I'm a white working class male, over 30 military veteran, small town gun owner, former Bush supporter, and I'm voting for Barack Obama.

    by InfiniteNether on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:38:17 AM PDT

  •  $700,000 on anti-Obama ads is a drop (6+ / 0-)

    in a bucket.  You can't get much air time for that amount of money.  And I agree, those NRA members who will buy the anti-message weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.  

    While I have always had weapons in our house, it makes more sense now as an insurance policy against the mercenaries, who will someday, have to come home.

    "Man's life's a vapor Full of woe. He cuts a caper, Down he goes. Down de down de down he goes.

    by JFinNe on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 04:51:58 AM PDT

  •  A local minister was shot at a firing range.... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SnowCountry

    for his gun.  By two Army Ranger deserters.  With his own gun.  Isolated firing range.  This man loved hunting and guns-seemed very genuinely nice and decent,.  Wonder how often this happens though.  

    As for the NRA-  John McCain speaks their gospel.  If this is your issue, vote McCain and get off the boards say I.  This is the pumped up issue that brought us Bush II and rapid expansion of gun rights in states letting people bring their guns onto your property.  Lets see how that goes.

    You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

    by murrayewv on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:16:48 AM PDT

    •  why don't you get off (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Grannus, dewley notid, drache

      Why don't you and your splinter view get out? As a former Republican voter I'm mostly delighted with the Progressives, 'cept for this hoplophobia which I intend to marginalize through organizing fellow activists.

       Or ... you can just adapt to being in the big tent now ...

      •  because the majority favor gun control.... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        SnowCountry

        and I favor gun control.  If you want a guns only world, McCain is for you.  I voted for Obama over Clinton since he was less proguns than she was.  I am not surprised you are a former Republican and want me to be all happy you are here now, considering to vote for Obama and wanting to give up a deeply held principal of mine.  I don't want the big tent if it is filled with people who want to silence alternative opinions.

        You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

        by murrayewv on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:45:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're a goofball (4+ / 0-)

           I think you want to go back to the mood and issues of the ineffective Democratic party of not so long ago, while hanging on to the money, power, and attitude of the newly invigorated party. Can't have it both ways - the choice is to be marginal whiners, or the party of the people ... and the people in many cases happen to be gun owners.

          This is a personal, emotional issue for you, and you're not able to engage in realpolitik. Perhaps you should distance yourself?

        •  Gun Control murrayewv (0+ / 0-)

          is using both hands, and squeeze not jerk the trigger.

          "As individual fingers we can easily be broken, but all together, we make a mighty fist" Watanka Tatanka (Sitting Bull)

          by Tinfoil Hat on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:11:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  breath, relax, aim, squeeze (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Tinfoil Hat

             The Democratic party used to be this oddball collection of gun grabbers, environMENTALists, gay rights activists, and in general the military adjective "grabasstic" would have cleanly applied to everyone except the depressed and shrinking union membership base.

             One of the benefits of the expanding tent is that the party now has a no nonsense middle, just like it did for my dad back in the 1950s and 1960s. What I see a lot of here is people who soldiered through the hard times on gay rights and other stuff who believe that this sudden new interest means people are interested in and ready to do everything to support their issues. We're not, we're here for our own purposes.

             I'll knock this whole gun control business into the weeds, if I can, and there are a lot more like me showing up every day. Oh, and let's get a poll done, as we like polls here - how many union members are in favor of gun control?

             *crickets chirping*

            •  Platform of the Democratic Party..... (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              SnowCountry

              http://www.democrats.org/...

              Lengthy pdf document.

              Crime and violence. While terrorism poses an especially menacing threat to our nation, a strong America must remain vigilant against the scourge of homegrown crime as well. We are proud that Democrats led the fight to put more than 100,000 cops on the beat through the COPS program, and we will continue our steadfast support for COPS and community policing. To keep our streets safe for
              our families, we support tough punishment of violent crime and smart efforts to reintegrate former prisoners into our communities as productive citizens. We will crack down on the gang violence and drug crime that devastate so many communities, and we will increase drug treatment, including
              mandatory drug courts and mandatory drug testing for parolees and probationers, so fewer crimes are
              committed in the first place. We support the rights of victims to be respected, to be heard, and to be
              compensated. We will help break the cycle of domestic violence by punishing offenders and standing with victims. We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

              So far, they have failed to deliver on assault weapons ban and they are conceding this ground to the Republicans based on Supreme Court ruling.  As a political issue, gun control is dead until the crime rate and the attrocities in our country over gun violence run another cycle.  Keep beating this horse along with the NRA.  

              There are many on this blog who agree with you 100%.  If you only want to hear from them and can brook no controversy, fine.  It is what I expect from the Obamacons.  I have noted that and will not reply to you in any future diaries.  No loss for you I am sure.  

              I am not a Bush voter.  I am a lifelong Democratic voter.  Don't expect me to roll over and be excited that you now want to change the Democratic Party to support NRA positions.  

              BTW, they caught the two young man who gunned down our local minister.  They are extraditing them from Ohio.  I am sorry your friend was murdered at the gun range.  I do understand there are many sportspersons who love their guns and use them properly- but I am not convinced gun registration will result in jack-booted thugs coming and taking away your weapons.  That was the NRA campaign that got Bush WV and resulted in ultimately, our current war in Iraq.  NRA hated Al Gore and worked feverishly against him.  They won't like Obama either, but it is pretty hard to argue with the mess the Republicans have made in this country.

              You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad. Aldous Huxley

              by murrayewv on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 06:45:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  my condolences to the minister (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Stranded Wind

                We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole

                Murray:

                Again, with respect to your opinion, the DNC platform goes beyond hypocrisy.  In one clause it pays lip service to the 2A, another clause and it promises to reauthorize the AWB, and last clause promises close the "gun show loophole."

                1.  Run some searches herein.  "Assault weapon" is a made up (or co-opted term) by Josh Sugarman of HCI, VPC etc. to play on the public's ignorance of fully vs. semi-automatic and basically defines them as "scary weapons."  There's no technical difference between the Benelli Super Eagle that President Clinton used to hunt duck and the Benelli M1 Super 90 he banned.  Except one has wood stocks and one black plastic.  

                My definition is that an assault weapon is what you take if you absolutely, positively cannot avoid a gunfight.  It is a better weapon.  That's it.  

                1.  "Gun show loophole?"  What is a loophole?  We're talking about compliance with law.  If you want to refer a requirement of having an NICS check for FTF sales at fun shows, say so.  Don't load it with scary language like "loophole."  

                The jack-booted thugs of whom you speak have worked for ATF.  They're worked for DEA.  They've worked for DHS.  They've worked for CAMP.  Idiotic and over-zealous law enforcement results in the death of the innocent.  It's stupid and should be rejected in all forms.  

                Again, with all respect, I think part of your own concern (and fear) regarding firearms is due to lack of exposure.  A two-day class and you won't fear them, in any form -- you'll see them as tools.  Stranded Wind could bash in your skull with a hammer, but he won't.  And the hammer itself has no inherent danger.  

        •  "majority" is always a question of who's poll (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Stranded Wind

          Constitutional rights in very, very broad strokes can only be abrogated by the supermajority necessary to amend the Constitution.  

          Murray:

          I don't disagree with your concern; it's valid.  But for every study you can show, I can show one contrary.  Opinions are simply not relevant, unless it is the opinion of 5 over 4.  

  •  I got a call from the NRA yesterday. (8+ / 0-)

    They had me listen to LaPierre expounding on how terrible the Democrats were to want to confiscate my weapons.  After the spiel, the operator came back on and asked me what I thought.  Boy did he make a mistake.  I chewed him out for the blatant partisan and bullshit arguments that were made and told him that he better wise up to the fact that Republicans weren't the saviors of the world.  After about 10 seconds of silence, he thanked me and hung up.  It was hilarious.

    Don't confuse this confusion with disorganization, because we're not that organized yet. -5.13/-3.38

    by Grannus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 05:31:58 AM PDT

  •  Have there been any moves.... (4+ / 0-)

    ...to elect progressives to the NRA's Board of Directors?

  •  Striking Back--not Whining! (4+ / 0-)

    The NRA is owned by the arms dealers. It's time for the normal hunter or fan of the constitution to fight back.

    The normal member has no sense how much of the NRA's money is made selling mailing lists to right wing crazy groups.

    Obama should attack from the basis of the constitution; That's what these folks want to hear.

    •  pardon? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Stranded Wind

      Just a guess, and I welcome clarification, but both the NRA and the NRA-ILA are funded via memberships.  The industry contributes little since its more profitable endeavors don't involve civilian sales.  

      Again, I could be wrong, but this is my recollection.  

  •  Public discussions about gun control (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    murrayewv

    and right to bear arms don't usually go past the same recycled sound-bite statistics, from both sides.  So I don't know much about it.  I suspect, though, that the biggest problem may be with black market sales.  And I haven't heard much about trying to stop that.  Follow the money trail.

    •  black market sales canard (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Tinfoil Hat, cynndara, dewley notid

      This "black market sales" thing is a ... I cringe to use it ... "gun grabber's canard". If a citizen wants to sell a gun to another citizen they're mostly free to do so. Many of the guns I own were bought without benefit of a form 4473 and it isn't some big, sneaky deal. A lot of guns go to gun shows with a pistol in holster they intend to trade - stop 'em outside, offer a better deal than a gun dealer would, and walk away with a nice piece. Where I grew up it is perfectly normal to find firearms for sale in the paper ... very black market, that ...

  •  Do you have a solid reference for this: (0+ / 0-)

    There are in excess of two hundred million guns in this country and they're pretty evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

    If true, so be it, but that would really surprise me.  Southern Democrats maybe, but as a whole Republicans have many more guns in my experience.

  •  There seems to be a disconnect (3+ / 0-)

    It never ceases to amaze me that people adamant
    about supporting the constitution act as if the
    second ammendmant doesn't even exist. I am glad
    that the Supreme court finally made a definitive
    statement on that issue. For years, the NRA claimed that "THEY"
    were the only organization defending
    the second ammendment. It was an issue that they
    owned. I think that the Supreme court decision now makes them irrelevant.

    •  recent decision = Roe v Wade (0+ / 0-)

      Why you think I'm out here talking this stuff??? :-) The recent decision just took that plaything away from the NRA - now anyone can be out there doing advocacy for responsible gun ownership and we don't have to kiss up to the far right NRA contingent.

       Oh, and while they aren't in charge, a large portion of that body are hardcore libertarian minded folk. Gay marriage? It says "life, liberty, and property" right here in this book, and I think that one falls under "life" ... and "liberty", too. When you see a bad tempered, gun toting Progressive with a high UID number he or she(hi, Angry Mouse!) just might be one of those folks.

  •  My Frantic Urban Self (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    drache

    Pro-Gun people really need to recognize that there are big differnces between cities and rural areas.  You guys will never have any credibility with big city liberals (there are millions of us) until this gets addressed.

    I respect the fact that responsible gun ownership can keep crime down in Iowa.  But you've got to understand that gun ownership in NYC is the exact opposite.

    You and your neighbor had a disagreement on your front lawn.  Luckily you had a gun to protect youself.  But in NYC, we don't have lawns...we have city streets.  

    Your altercation would not have been one-on-one. There might have been dozens of people looking out of windows, watching the drama.  Hundreds would have been within earshot of your neighbor's shouting. Thousands would have heard if (God forbid) a shot had been fired.  

    All of these people would have their own take on the situation, their own motives, their own "issues". If they all had their own guns, it could have been a real mess.

    Yes, Officer, I saw the whole thing! That wicked Stranded Wind guy pulled his gun on his innocent neighbor! Luckily, me, my acting coach, the latte delivery guy, my significant other, and my therapist all were STRAPPED and shot him first!

    Now the Supreme Court has said that individuals can own guns. Fine.  But we need to have some leeway for local situations.  Each community should have the ability to make those laws more or less strict depending on "local conditions".

    •  armed in Manhattan (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Tinfoil Hat, dewley notid

      I spend a good bit of time in Manhattan, generally roaming the city at odd hours, and I've never felt the slightest need for a weapon - you can't swing a cat there without hitting a police officer. There are other cities in the U.S. I've visited, most prominently Memphis, where I was quite glad that I packed my favorite handgun along when I went to visit.

    •  I have to agree here (0+ / 0-)

      I've grown up with guns myself, even did some hunting.

      But concealed carry laws in a major city are really just a bad idea.

      I'll never forget going to Phoenix about 10 years ago and being warned not to engage in 'side walk sex' (which is bascially "fuck you" "no fuck you" and  so on) because Phoenix had just recently passed a concealed carry law.

      Guns are nice, but I don't trust peoples' temper or restraint in a big city.

      There's alot of inconsiderate people and well it's too risky.

      •  scariest day ever (0+ / 0-)

        Cities have their downsides, but my scariest "unarmed and wishing for a gun" came about two years ago in the middle of nowhere - highway 34 in south central Iowa.

        I was on a two lane road and another driver roared up behind me. I was already in the slow/climb lane so I figured he'd get over and pass, but he kept racing his engine and getting right up on my bumper. I got over in the other lane then applied the brakes so he'd get out in front of me. The road goosenecked down to one lane and he slammed his brakes, got out of the truck, and started walking back towards me. I hit the gas,went out and around him, got moving right along, and figured that was the end of it.

        Two minutes later he is right on my tail again, almost ramming me a couple of times.

         I'd already called 911 but in a deeply rural area at 9:00 on a weeknight an officer could be A.) twenty miles away B.) already engaged and C.) the only one on duty.

         I think the guy finally figured out I was more interested in getting him arrested than in fighting - he suddenly remembered something he had to do down some side road and his lights went out less than a mile south of the highway ... sneaking away in the dark, quite obviously.

        Had he run me off the road what would have happened next? A tire iron from behind the seat maybe? I was very much wishing for the S&W .357 that rode in my car's console for many years ...

  •  What's wrong with this picture? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Peacerunner

    "A liberal national concealed weapons carry policy must be created."

    Really, now. When I look around me at work or at the grocery store, I have serious doubts about the capacity of people around me to operate a motor vehicle, let alone a handgun.

    One of the constant realities of life is this: there are lots of genuinely batty and incompetent people out there. I'm sure you've met a few. A "liberal national concealed weapons carry policy" will guarantee that a sizeable percentage of such people will be stumbling through life armed.

    Remember the dramatic drop in violent urban crime that followed aggressive police interventions in the 1990's? The single most effective intervention was the 'spitting on the sidewalk' tactic, whereby potential miscreants were repeatedly patted down for concealed weapons, and promptly arrested and incarcerated if they were packing heat. Gang members and criminals stopped carrying guns because of the risk of a long incarceration...and murder rates promptly plummeted, simply because disputes no longer escalated to gunfire at the speed of light. Now, if we push through a "liberal national concealed weapons carry policy", guess what happens? Every goofball and short-tempered troglodyte out there may be carrying a gun. As Tom Tolles would say, "What could possibly go wrong?"

    Years ago my wife said it best. "Anyone who is incredibly eager to have a gun...probably shouldn't be permitted to have one."

    Or as Homer Simpson said, "A 24 hour waiting period? But I'm angry now!"

    •  comical (0+ / 0-)

      I prefer the Florida stats - overnight 22% drop in violent crime after concealed carry laws were passed. Your ability to visually determine who is and is not capable of handling a gun properly is a lot less interesting to me than that of someone qualified to do it ...

      http://www.ipsc.org/...

      •  Lots of different interpretations for that. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        YoyogiBear

        I trust the statistics from disinterested medical sources like the CDC a lot more than the artfully sliced 'n diced "data" from NRA fronts when it comes to guns and violence.

        My favorite recent factoid: 55% of handgun deaths in 2005 (the most recent year with complete statistics) were suicides. 40% were murders, 3% accidents, and only 2% "justifiable" shootings, i.e. law enforcement or homeowners defending them 'n theirs. So a handy firearm is (correct me if my math is wrong here) roughly 27 times more likely to be used to kill yerself than the mythical invading thug.

        Yeah. Let's arm everyone.

        •  lying with statistics (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          YoyogiBear

          And for every justifiable shooting there are many, many events where simply being armed defuses situations. I've managed that one myself once, as described above :-)

        •  I firmly support (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          YoyogiBear, Stranded Wind

          the right of any individual to end his or her own life by choice.  There are a lot of situations in this world where there is realistically no way out, and only pain and suffering to follow.

          That said, firearms are really not the easiest way out, and they leave an awful mess behind you.

          •  No fooling. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Stranded Wind

            After more than two decades working in emergency and family medicine, I can't begin to tell you how dreadful self-inflicted gunshot wounds are for all concerned. First there's the reality that a shocking number of folks mess up and don't inflict a fatal wound, coming into the ER in agony and bleeding out. Then there's the trauma inflicted on family and first responders who are forced to deal with the gruesome scene of a firearm suicide.

            My wife pointed out she could never do that, because she'd feel so bad for the "clean-up crew".

    •  I believe (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      YoyogiBear

      that's why Stranded also addressed the issue of teaching responsible firearms safety and handling to the young, in public schools.  BTW, state-sponsored basic training in appropriate weapons is the hallmark of a "militia" state that depends on its citizenry for defense, a custom that goes back at least to classical times.

      Training in handling firearms usually includes some graphic demonstrations of what happens to you if you screw up, as well as "rules of the road" that become ingrained habit and a part of social discourse.  Not only do people who have been responsibly raised with firearms not go around pointing them at other people in "play"; they don't tolerate other people who do, and make it Quite Clear that irresponsibility is a quick route to social ostracism.  By such social controls even the majority of twits, jerks, and idiots are restrained.  I would even suggest that one reason that urban populations are currently so much more dangerous with guns than rural ones, is that there is widespread diversity in training and experience -- nobody is playing from the same book, let alone the same page.  Inculcate a universal set of rules in kindergarten, and a lot of that will resolve itself.  Especially when those who violate the rules, tend to get shot.

    •  right on, ralphdog (0+ / 0-)

      you make sense. thanks for a bit of sanity here

  •  Standed Wind -- you're not suffiicently armed? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Stranded Wind

    Three of those two hundred million plus guns are in my possession and I used to have a few more before lack of health care wiped me out financially.

    I'm disgusted that private health care left you out to dry.  If you're in need of any upgrades or additions, and in light of what I've come to see as your exceptional level of morality and pacifism, I have quite a few extra for sale and I think by this point you qualify for the friends and family discount.  Let me know and we'll figure a way to contact offline.  

Permalink | 56 comments